Difference between partimage and partclone?
I’ve used Fog for a while, and I recently updated to the new version.
I am not that good or familiar with linux, I only know the basics.
So what is the difference between partimage and partclone in this new fog?
And please try to explain newbie-friendly
Just to update you, I have just tested updating the image in fog 1.1.2 which uses part clone to capture and the progress bar is now working.
Thanks for the help, appreciated.
We attempted, our best, to make things as user friendly coming from 0.32 or earlier to FOG 1.x.x. In an upgrade, any image that was in the database is labeled as legacy. Yes, reuploading the image will force it into partclone format. Word of caution, if you set the image type to partimage and it’s supposed to be partclone your systems will not image. Same in reverse, if you try to use partimage on the download task when the image is partclone, the image will not happen. Partclone and Partimage use different methods to capture the image and are not cross-compatible.
How I take an image using part clone as opposed to part image? Is it just a matter, now that I am running fog 1.1.2, to capture the image again using upload and now that fog is using part clone it will be captured in this way? Are there any other settings under image management that need changed?
The image I am currently using was taking using fog 0.3.x - is this the reason it has part image as the deploy method ?
[quote=“WourN, post: 29993, member: 17318”]Okay, but why does partclone images take so long to upload then?
It takes like 5 times more time to upload a partclone image vs partimage[/quote]
What are you using to upload images? I haven’t noticed a “5 times more time to upload” when I need to upload images. There is one slight difference though. In 1.x.x the default compression rating is set to max which can cause VM’s to upload much slower than normal. This is just the nature of VM’s. They don’t have the “RAW” processing power of your typical systems. If you add CPU’s to the VM this increases the speed. Or if you adjust the value to less compression ( 3 was the default in 0.32 and earlier where 9 is the default in 1.x.x ) it should help speed the image upload process up for you.
Okay, but why does partclone images take so long to upload then?
It takes like 5 times more time to upload a partclone image vs partimage
We added partclone because partimage, from all looks, is not under active development. It still lists support for NTFS as beta/experimental. It also did not have support for other types of filesystems such as ext4, xfs, btrfs where Partclone does.
Yeah, well I was hoping not to read walls of text.
As I understand, 0.32 (which I had before 1.1) was using partimage right?
But 1.1 also provides partclone. Why did you add this?
What differs partclone from partimage?
The best I can give you are the Documentation links for either program: