I want to clone a small (80GB) disk on my CentOS server to a large (1.5TB) disk, as smart has been giving me warnings of unreadable sectors.
Both disks are Western Digital, and WD has a WD version of Acronis True Image. I'm not sure whether to use this or Clonezilla.
My worry with Acronis is that I want to keep the original disk, and I'm not sure from the documentation if True Image allows this.
Any opinions on the better of the two?
On 9/27/2010 4:27 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I want to clone a small (80GB) disk on my CentOS server to a large (1.5TB) disk, as smart has been giving me warnings of unreadable sectors.
Both disks are Western Digital, and WD has a WD version of Acronis True Image. I'm not sure whether to use this or Clonezilla.
My worry with Acronis is that I want to keep the original disk, and I'm not sure from the documentation if True Image allows this.
Any opinions on the better of the two?
Don't know much about Acronis but clonezilla should do the job as long as it is able to read the used blocks on the source and you don't mind the copy having the same partition sizes initially (you can resize or add the unused space as a new mounted partition afterward).
On 09/27/10 2:27 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I want to clone a small (80GB) disk on my CentOS server to a large (1.5TB) disk, as smart has been giving me warnings of unreadable sectors.
Both disks are Western Digital, and WD has a WD version of Acronis True Image. I'm not sure whether to use this or Clonezilla.
My worry with Acronis is that I want to keep the original disk, and I'm not sure from the documentation if True Image allows this.
Any opinions on the better of the two?
is this ext3fs ? use dump ... | restore ...
On 9/27/2010 4:45 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 09/27/10 2:27 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I want to clone a small (80GB) disk on my CentOS server to a large (1.5TB) disk, as smart has been giving me warnings of unreadable sectors.
Both disks are Western Digital, and WD has a WD version of Acronis True Image. I'm not sure whether to use this or Clonezilla.
My worry with Acronis is that I want to keep the original disk, and I'm not sure from the documentation if True Image allows this.
Any opinions on the better of the two?
is this ext3fs ? use dump ... | restore ...
If it is bootable, then he has to go through some contortions to install grub (besides the extra effort of making the partitions and filesystems that the imaging toolsets do for you).
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 04:52:58PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 9/27/2010 4:45 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 09/27/10 2:27 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I want to clone a small (80GB) disk on my CentOS server to a large (1.5TB) disk, as smart has been giving me warnings of unreadable sectors.
Both disks are Western Digital, and WD has a WD version of Acronis True Image. I'm not sure whether to use this or Clonezilla.
My worry with Acronis is that I want to keep the original disk, and I'm not sure from the documentation if True Image allows this.
Any opinions on the better of the two?
is this ext3fs ? use dump ... | restore ...
If it is bootable, then he has to go through some contortions to install grub (besides the extra effort of making the partitions and filesystems that the imaging toolsets do for you).
Those are not difficult and allow for a proper use of the larger space.
////jerry
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:27:00PM +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I want to clone a small (80GB) disk on my CentOS server to a large (1.5TB) disk, as smart has been giving me warnings of unreadable sectors.
Both disks are Western Digital, and WD has a WD version of Acronis True Image. I'm not sure whether to use this or Clonezilla.
My worry with Acronis is that I want to keep the original disk, and I'm not sure from the documentation if True Image allows this.
Any opinions on the better of the two?
I would be inclined to suggest regular UNIX dump/restore. The size change is covered in normal UNIX fashion and all links, ownership, permissions and flags are preserved properly.
////jerry
-- Timothy Murphy e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Jerry McAllister wrote:
I want to clone a small (80GB) disk on my CentOS server to a large (1.5TB) disk, as smart has been giving me warnings of unreadable sectors.
Both disks are Western Digital, and WD has a WD version of Acronis True Image. I'm not sure whether to use this or Clonezilla.
My worry with Acronis is that I want to keep the original disk, and I'm not sure from the documentation if True Image allows this.
Any opinions on the better of the two?
I would be inclined to suggest regular UNIX dump/restore. The size change is covered in normal UNIX fashion and all links, ownership, permissions and flags are preserved properly.
I should have admitted that there is a Windows partition on the old disk. It came with the machine, but I never use it. However, I would like to save it if possible, as there seem to be some operations on this computer (HP ProLiant M110), eg updating the BIOS, which seem to require Windows to be running.
On 9/28/2010 10:27 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Jerry McAllister wrote:
I want to clone a small (80GB) disk on my CentOS server to a large (1.5TB) disk, as smart has been giving me warnings of unreadable sectors.
Both disks are Western Digital, and WD has a WD version of Acronis True Image. I'm not sure whether to use this or Clonezilla.
My worry with Acronis is that I want to keep the original disk, and I'm not sure from the documentation if True Image allows this.
Any opinions on the better of the two?
I would be inclined to suggest regular UNIX dump/restore. The size change is covered in normal UNIX fashion and all links, ownership, permissions and flags are preserved properly.
I should have admitted that there is a Windows partition on the old disk. It came with the machine, but I never use it. However, I would like to save it if possible, as there seem to be some operations on this computer (HP ProLiant M110), eg updating the BIOS, which seem to require Windows to be running.
If you know how to reinstall the multi-boot setup, you should be able to use clonezilla-live to clone specific partitions and either reinstall others or use a file oriented copy technique. And if you have another machine or disk to hold the image you can make a compressed image file copy as a backup in case your drive dies before you decide how you want to set up the replacement.
Les Mikesell wrote:
If you know how to reinstall the multi-boot setup, you should be able to use clonezilla-live to clone specific partitions and either reinstall others or use a file oriented copy technique. And if you have another machine or disk to hold the image you can make a compressed image file copy as a backup in case your drive dies before you decide how you want to set up the replacement.
Yes, thanks for all your help.
I have decided to use clonezilla, as I discovered on further reading about Acronis WD version that "clone" for them means "clone a whole disk"; and I couldn't find any firm statement that this operation actually left anything on the source disk. (They use the term "transfer" throughout.)
I found the Acronis documentation hard to follow; but to be fair Clonezilla documentation is fairly obscure too.
on 9-28-2010 8:27 AM Timothy Murphy spake the following:
Jerry McAllister wrote:
I want to clone a small (80GB) disk on my CentOS server to a large (1.5TB) disk, as smart has been giving me warnings of unreadable sectors.
Both disks are Western Digital, and WD has a WD version of Acronis True Image. I'm not sure whether to use this or Clonezilla.
My worry with Acronis is that I want to keep the original disk, and I'm not sure from the documentation if True Image allows this.
Any opinions on the better of the two?
I would be inclined to suggest regular UNIX dump/restore. The size change is covered in normal UNIX fashion and all links, ownership, permissions and flags are preserved properly.
I should have admitted that there is a Windows partition on the old disk. It came with the machine, but I never use it. However, I would like to save it if possible, as there seem to be some operations on this computer (HP ProLiant M110), eg updating the BIOS, which seem to require Windows to be running.
All the HP servers I have are fully update able from linux... I don't have a M110, but I have several ML350's
Scott Silva wrote:
I should have admitted that there is a Windows partition on the old disk. It came with the machine, but I never use it. However, I would like to save it if possible, as there seem to be some operations on this computer (HP ProLiant M110), eg updating the BIOS, which seem to require Windows to be running.
All the HP servers I have are fully update able from linux... I don't have a M110, but I have several ML350's
Sorry, I was talking nonsense. I have two servers (in different locations), both running CentOS-5.5. One is an HP ProLiant, but the one with the bad disk is actually a Dell PowerEdge T105. The information that came with this explicitly warns against using Linux to update the BIOS. (The machine actually came with a curious mixture of Windows and Linux, in the form of a partial RedHat Enterprise system.) Also the Western Digital disk software all seems to assume the the machine is running under Windows. (Admittedly it didn't tell me anything more than smart under CentOS.)
on 9-28-2010 5:53 PM Timothy Murphy spake the following:
Scott Silva wrote:
I should have admitted that there is a Windows partition on the old disk. It came with the machine, but I never use it. However, I would like to save it if possible, as there seem to be some operations on this computer (HP ProLiant M110), eg updating the BIOS, which seem to require Windows to be running.
All the HP servers I have are fully update able from linux... I don't have a M110, but I have several ML350's
Sorry, I was talking nonsense. I have two servers (in different locations), both running CentOS-5.5. One is an HP ProLiant, but the one with the bad disk is actually a Dell PowerEdge T105. The information that came with this explicitly warns against using Linux to update the BIOS. (The machine actually came with a curious mixture of Windows and Linux, in the form of a partial RedHat Enterprise system.) Also the Western Digital disk software all seems to assume the the machine is running under Windows. (Admittedly it didn't tell me anything more than smart under CentOS.)
If you really NEED windows for systems like this there is a tool out there to make a complete windows environment that boots from a CD or USB key... ubcd4win.com That way you can have the server clean and still use the tools
-
Jerry McAllister -
John R Pierce -
Les Mikesell -
Scott Silva -
Timothy Murphy