The future of partclone and therefore FOG as it is

[Wayne Workman]

Didn’t read all the responses, has anyone volunteered to build a tool to convert old images to the new format?

[Junkhacker]

@Wayne-Workman there really isn’t a need to do that

[Wayne Workman]

@Junkhacker just going off of the below quote. Are you suggesting a conversion tool would have no utility?

@Sebastian-Roth said in The future of partclone and therefore FOG as it is:

What that essentially means is that if we also move forward and add Partclone 0.3.x to FOG that would break all existing images I reckon (not tested yet).

[Sebastian Roth]

@Wayne-Workman said in The future of partclone and therefore FOG as it is:

I reckon (not tested yet).

Need to emphasize this! @Junkhacker Has obviously worked on this and tested way more than I have.

[george1421]

@Junkhacker said in The future of partclone and therefore FOG as it is:

@Wayne-Workman there really isn’t a need to do that

Do know what I need to change in the fog back end to allow partclone .0.3.12 to function with FOG and legacy captured images? I already have to create a custom init.xz to include the updated partcone application, I could tweak the bash scripts in this environment if I knew what needed tweaking.

[Junkhacker]

@george1421 if your goal is only to “make it work” all you have to do is remove the --ignore_crc flag

however, there’s a couple things i think we should set as the new defaults for the new version of partclone when capturing

[george1421]

@Junkhacker said in The future of partclone and therefore FOG as it is:

all you have to do is remove the --ignore_crc flag

OK then I have to ask the silliest question possible, why was it there in the first place? One might think you would want crc checks in place.

[george1421]

@Junkhacker said in The future of partclone and therefore FOG as it is:

there’s a couple things i think we should set as the new defaults for the new version of partclone when capturing

Well I’ll then defer to your expertise here. What should we change?

If clonezilla is using 0.3.10+ is there any information we can glean from their project?

[Junkhacker]

@george1421 it’s kinda always been there, but i would assume it’s because we could squeeze a little more performance out of fog by not calculating checksums. also, since the image wouldn’t decompress properly anyway if there was corruption the checksum would only catch anything that went wrong between parclone capturing and it being piped into the compressor. which isn’t likely to have any problems, and if there is there’s a lot more going on than a checksum is going to help with.

[Junkhacker]

@george1421 well, like i alluded to with my last comment, adding checksums doesn’t make sense since we pipe it right into a compressor that will add it’s own checksums.
… actually, you can defer to my post here https://forums.fogproject.org/topic/12750/file-format-and-compression-option-request/ for my arguments for change, but the short of it is:

disable checksums with the flag -a0

the rest of my changes actually have to do with the settings we use for compression, come to think of it.

[Junkhacker]

since you’re updating partclone, you guys plan on updating zstd too, right?

[george1421]

@Junkhacker I have to look into what buildroot is pulling for zstd. But in general what ever buildroot is configured to pull (which is usually the latest) is what gets bundled into FOS.

[Sebastian Roth]

@Junkhacker So far we had version 1.3.3 and going to go to 1.3.5. As George said, just using the versions bundled with Buildroot.

[Junkhacker]

@george1421 awesome. if the changes i want to be made make it in to the final builds, it will allow my university to save terabytes with deduplication.

[george1421]

@Junkhacker I just confirmed that 1.3.5 is what is being built by buildroot.

[Junkhacker]

@george1421 a new feature i want to utilize was added in 1.3.8. 1.4.0 is out now.

[Sebastian Roth]

@Junkhacker said:

if the changes i want to be made make it in to the final builds,

Can you please post more details on which changes you’d like to have. I read about option -a0 and in the other topic it’s -aX0 and --rsyncable. Where do I find information about these options?

[Sebastian Roth]

@Junkhacker said in The future of partclone and therefore FOG as it is:

a new feature i want to utilize was added in 1.3.8.

We can patch Buildroot to use the newer version. That shouldn’t be much trouble I suppose.

[george1421]

@Junkhacker As long as its stable <grin> we can manually update the version in build root to pull a later or earlier release. We’ll just need to watch if any build requirements have changed during compiling. (Hint: its not a big deal to change). <as spoken as a non-developer but someone who has worked with buidroot quite a bit lately>

[Junkhacker]

@Sebastian-Roth you’re right. it’s -aX0, that was a typo

the --rsyncable is for zstd which should also be given the option -B128 to specify the window block size that’s just about ideal for deduplication.
another option for zstd, which is functionally incompatible with --rsyncable is --long which allows you to dedicate more memory to the window of compared data in zstd, this can substantially improve the compression. the --long option however will also require the --long option to be specified during decompression.