• Is There Something Better Than TimeShift?

    From Dr. Noah Bodie@noah@bodie.not to alt.os.linux.ubuntu,alt.os.linux.mint on Sun Aug 18 14:09:18 2024
    From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    I'm finding that TS does NOT do 100% restorations of the system files. Recently I did an update that broke the OS (I lost my internet
    connection, I lost several apps, etc.) so I used TS to restore an
    earlier working OS.

    The problem was some of the changes that the update made were not
    reversed by the restoration.

    This is the second time that TS has failed to do a 100%-return-to-previous-condition,
    so I'm wondering if there is something more reliable than TS.

    Something that WILL return the system 100% to the way that it was.
    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
  • From Big Al@alan@invalid.com to alt.os.linux.ubuntu,alt.os.linux.mint on Sun Aug 18 14:33:49 2024
    From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On 8/18/24 01:09 PM, Dr. Noah Bodie wrote:
    I'm finding that TS does NOT do 100% restorations of the system files. Recently I did an update that
    broke the OS (I lost my internet connection, I lost several apps, etc.) so I used TS to restore an
    earlier working OS.

    The problem was some of the changes that the update made were not reversed by the restoration.

    This is the second time that TS has failed to do a 100%-return-to-previous-condition,
    so I'm wondering if there is something more reliable than TS.

    Something that WILL return the system 100% to the way that it was.
    This isn't for everyone, but I use Acronis backup in Windows. v2020. It will backup ext4
    filesystems and EFI etc. I've used it a few times to restore either my EFI or the whole Linux
    partition. I've also just pulled individual files from the backup. The only downside might be, and
    I haven't tested it, but I don't think it will handle Linux linked files/folders.

    Obvious downside is it's run from Windows. And I only do it weekly, OR just before attempting
    something very very very iffy in Linux.
    --
    Linux Mint 21.3, Cinnamon 6.0.4, Kernel 5.15.0-118-generic
    Al

    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
  • From Bobbie Sellers@blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com to alt.os.linux.ubuntu on Sun Aug 18 12:07:05 2024
    From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On 8/18/24 10:09, Dr. Noah Bodie wrote:
    I'm finding that TS does NOT do 100% restorations of the system files. Recently I did an update that broke the OS (I lost my internet
    connection, I lost several apps, etc.) so I used TS to restore an
    earlier working OS.

    The problem was some of the changes that the update made were not
    reversed by the restoration.

    This is the second time that TS has failed to do a 100%-return-to-previous-condition,
    so I'm wondering if there is something more reliable than TS.

    Something that WILL return the system 100% to the way that it was.

    Probably the connection data is maintained in the dot slash
    directories in the /home/user/ partition.
    There are great tools for backing up but you might have
    to go to the terminal to use them.

    bliss
    --
    b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com
    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
  • From Monsieur@Monsieur@notreal.invalid to alt.os.linux.ubuntu,alt.os.linux.mint on Sun Aug 18 21:15:36 2024
    From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    Dr. Noah Bodie wrote:
    I'm finding that TS does NOT do 100% restorations of the system files. Recently I did an update that broke the OS (I lost my internet
    connection, I lost several apps, etc.) so I used TS to restore an
    earlier working OS.

    The problem was some of the changes that the update made were not
    reversed by the restoration.

    This is the second time that TS has failed to do a 100%-return-to-previous-condition,
    so I'm wondering if there is something more reliable than TS.

    Something that WILL return the system 100% to the way that it was.

    Well, you could always backup your whole partition with the standard
    program "disks". But that's of course a bit more cumbersome than having
    TS doing a daily backup in the background. But of course that will also overwrite your home folder, pictures, downloads etc.

    So maybe not a good idea after all.

    TS has failed me once too, so I'm interested in a better solution as well.




    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
  • From Monsieur@Monsieur@notreal.invalid to alt.os.linux.ubuntu,alt.os.linux.mint on Sun Aug 18 21:18:41 2024
    From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    Big Al wrote:
    On 8/18/24 01:09 PM, Dr. Noah Bodie wrote:
    I'm finding that TS does NOT do 100% restorations of the system files.
    Recently I did an update that broke the OS (I lost my internet
    connection, I lost several apps, etc.) so I used TS to restore an
    earlier working OS.

    The problem was some of the changes that the update made were not
    reversed by the restoration.

    This is the second time that TS has failed to do a
    100%-return-to-previous-condition,
    so I'm wondering if there is something more reliable than TS.

    Something that WILL return the system 100% to the way that it was.
    This isn't for everyone, but I use Acronis backup in Windows.

    Why not create an image with disks? That one is installed by default in
    Mint and it can definitely handle Linux partitions.

    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
  • From jjb@jjb@invalid.invalid to alt.os.linux.ubuntu,alt.os.linux.mint on Sun Aug 18 22:16:00 2024
    From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On 18-08-2024 21:15, Monsieur wrote:
    Dr. Noah Bodie wrote:
    I'm finding that TS does NOT do 100% restorations of the system files.
    Recently I did an update that broke the OS (I lost my internet
    connection, I lost several apps, etc.) so I used TS to restore an
    earlier working OS.

    The problem was some of the changes that the update made were not
    reversed by the restoration.

    This is the second time that TS has failed to do a
    100%-return-to-previous-condition,
    so I'm wondering if there is something more reliable than TS.

    Something that WILL return the system 100% to the way that it was.

    Well, you could always backup your whole partition with the standard
    program "disks". But that's of course a bit more cumbersome than having
    TS doing a daily backup in the background. But of course that will also overwrite your home folder, pictures, downloads etc.

    So maybe not a good idea after all.

    TS has failed me once too, so I'm interested in a better solution as well.




    Hi,

    I put the system I use on https://www.staalenberk.nl/Backup_files/Backup%20script.html.
    It consists of a perl script that uses rsync to make backups. On my
    system I do it daily. It is fully capable to restore the system to a previous, working state.
    Feel free to modify (you should to adapt it to your requirements).
    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
  • From Killadebug@killadebug@mouse-potato.com to alt.os.linux.ubuntu,alt.os.linux.mint on Sun Aug 18 20:39:51 2024
    From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 14:09:18 -0300, Dr. Noah Bodie wrote:

    I'm finding that TS does NOT do 100% restorations of the system files. Recently I did an update that broke the OS (I lost my internet
    connection, I lost several apps, etc.) so I used TS to restore an
    earlier working OS.

    The problem was some of the changes that the update made were not
    reversed by the restoration.

    This is the second time that TS has failed to do a 100%-return-to-previous-condition,
    so I'm wondering if there is something more reliable than TS.

    Something that WILL return the system 100% to the way that it was.

    Been using Timeshift for years, my system uses btrfs so snapshots are made
    in an instant. I keep 1 weekly, 1 daily, and 3 hourly. Never had an issue.
    my btrfs subvolumes are @ which = root and @home which = home,
    bulletproof. Not a backup system....I do that weekly using clonezilla.....
    --
    Pull my finger
    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
  • From Paul@nospam@needed.invalid to alt.os.linux.ubuntu,alt.os.linux.mint on Sun Aug 18 19:50:44 2024
    From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On Sun, 8/18/2024 3:18 PM, Monsieur wrote:
    Big Al wrote:
    On 8/18/24 01:09 PM, Dr. Noah Bodie wrote:
    I'm finding that TS does NOT do 100% restorations of the system files. Recently I did an update that broke the OS (I lost my internet connection, I lost several apps, etc.) so I used TS to restore an earlier working OS.

    The problem was some of the changes that the update made were not reversed by the restoration.

    This is the second time that TS has failed to do a 100%-return-to-previous-condition,
    so I'm wondering if there is something more reliable than TS.

    Something that WILL return the system 100% to the way that it was.
    This isn't for everyone, but I use Acronis backup in Windows.

    Why not create an image with disks? That one is installed by default in Mint and it can definitely handle Linux partitions.


    Gnome-disks -- Isn't that just an instance of "dd if=/dev/sda" or "dd if=/dev/sda1" ?

    The hamburger menu has the whole disk image interface.

    If you click a partition and use the Gear Wheel, you are offered a partition image interface.

    But the way it is behaving, it looks to me
    like it might be "dd" instead of "partclone.ext4" or similar.

    Partclone would only back up the inodes with user data, and white space would not
    be copied. Partclone is what Clonezilla might use.

    I use a Macrium Reflect USB stick ("rescue CD") for both backup and restore.
    It makes compact copies of FAT32 and NTFS (does not record white space unless you ask it to), but it also makes compact copies of EXT partitions. They're probably not quite as efficient as partclone. If you had 20GB of data on a
    1TB partition, Reflect makes a 30GB backup out of that, partclone would be closer to 20GB in size. And then your choice of compression utility, can
    make the thing smaller when you put it on your backup drive. While Macrium
    has a built-in compressor, it's a lightweight one (gzip 3 or maybe a lighter weight one than that), and I have better compressors for reducing backup size.

    If Gnome-disks did a partition image of a 1TB partition, it would be 1TB in size. This is inefficient, and slow. There are ways to improve the situation ("zerofree"),
    but those aren't suited to SSD drives. Even dd isn't a clever choice for SSDs, it's better suited to rotating hard drives (where writes don't cost you anything).
    SSDs have limited write life. dd does large writes, not good for an SSD drive.

    There are other recipes possible using rsync.

    *******

    And this is something that should be a relatively high priority on
    your to-do list for your Daily Driver OS.

    It helps to have two good-sized spare disks, for testing backup schemes.
    You need room to work. If you want backups, you can't be cheap about it.

    when I "calibrated" my first backup scheme, I used "dd" to back up the
    source drive. That was in case the software-under-test, could not manage
    to finish a restore. "dd" *is* useful. It is useful during calibration.
    But once a more efficient utility is proven to work, then the "dd" image
    can be tossed out.

    Paul
    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
  • From Monsieur@Monsieur@notreal.invalid to alt.os.linux.ubuntu,alt.os.linux.mint on Mon Aug 19 15:45:14 2024
    From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    Paul wrote:

    If you click a partition and use the Gear Wheel, you are offered a partition image interface.

    But the way it is behaving, it looks to me
    like it might be "dd" instead of "partclone.ext4" or similar.

    Partclone would only back up the inodes with user data, and white space would not
    be copied. Partclone is what Clonezilla might use.

    I use a Macrium Reflect USB stick ("rescue CD") for both backup and restore.

    Yes, but then you have to have Windows on your pc, which I don't have.
    Also I don't trust Windows programs to handle EXT partitions.

    A few weeks ago, I tried to run Hiren's Boot cd just because I had read
    some good things about it. It's a live Windows session, and Windows
    typically wants to put its mark on every disk it finds in a system at
    least once. You know when you insert a brand new usb-stick Windows
    always says "Oh no, there may be something wrong with this brand new
    disk, please let me scan it!", followed by "Scan complete. No errors
    found". Or something like that.

    Anyway, long story short, when I booted back into Linux, my LUKS
    encrypted partition was no longer accessible. Rebooted a few times, but
    still got a serious error (I forgot which) when I tried to access the partition. Fortunately a cryptsetup repair command fixed the problem.
    Never again will I let Windows or a Windows program touch a disk with
    EXT partitions on, encrypted or not.



    It makes compact copies of FAT32 and NTFS (does not record white space unless you ask it to), but it also makes compact copies of EXT partitions. They're probably not quite as efficient as partclone. If you had 20GB of data on a 1TB partition, Reflect makes a 30GB backup out of that, partclone would be closer to 20GB in size. And then your choice of compression utility, can
    make the thing smaller when you put it on your backup drive. While Macrium has a built-in compressor, it's a lightweight one (gzip 3 or maybe a lighter weight one than that), and I have better compressors for reducing backup size.

    If Gnome-disks did a partition image of a 1TB partition, it would be 1TB in size. This is inefficient, and slow. There are ways to improve the situation ("zerofree"),
    but those aren't suited to SSD drives. Even dd isn't a clever choice for SSDs,
    it's better suited to rotating hard drives (where writes don't cost you anything).
    SSDs have limited write life. dd does large writes, not good for an SSD drive.

    Interesting, I did not know that. I better start backing up my backups
    then, because all my disks are cheap ssd's.



    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
  • From Paul@nospam@needed.invalid to alt.os.linux.ubuntu,alt.os.linux.mint on Mon Aug 19 18:05:44 2024
    From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On Mon, 8/19/2024 9:45 AM, Monsieur wrote:


    Interesting, I did not know that. I better start backing up my backups then, because all my disks are cheap ssd's.

    If you clone a 1TB SSD to another 1TB SSD, and write the output device
    from end to end, that uses one cycle on the flash cells. The flash cells
    are rated for about 600 cycles. You could clone 600 times, before the
    SSD would be worn out.

    Hard drives on the other hand, you can sit around all day,
    doing one dd transfer after another. On the better hard drives,
    they're 550TBW, which means you get the same ability to use
    the disk, but you get that much runtime per year. I have one
    hard drive, with 55000 hours on it, but it's not a 550TBW drive.

    The poorest quality hard drive, is 110 TBW (WD Blue perhaps), the highest quality
    hard drive is 550 TBW. High capacity drives (perhaps 8TB capacity),
    are filled with helium gas and sealed, unlike the other drives
    which "breath air" through a breather hole which is equipped
    with a hepafilter. The 24TB helium filled drive, should never experience effects from room humidity, but then, the helium filled drive
    can fail when the helium escapes. Some helium drives, the theory is
    that they have pressure gauges. But decoding the indicator,
    I don't think anyone has figured out for sure what the
    values mean.

    They're quite different kinds of devices. The HDD, you can use it
    any way you wish. You are more likely to be exhausted while
    using it, than the drive would be. SSDs last a long long time,
    doing small file writes, but if you made a habit of blasting
    large images, over and over onto an SSD, that's not really
    all that good for it.

    Someone did a "life test" on a small selection of SSDs. In terms
    of calendar time, it took quite a while to wear them out. The
    end-of-life policy is different on each brand. You must be
    especially careful with Intel branded SSDs. If the device has
    a rating of 600 writes per NAND flash cell, as soon as the
    Intel drive hits 600, it "bricks". It will neither allow
    reads nor writes. This is particularly bad as a policy, as it
    does not allow simply cloning over to another Intel drive.
    Instead, the user must have a clone copy they made *before*
    end-of-life. This means, owners of Intel SSD drives, must
    check with smartmontools or similar, what the recorded write
    life is so far.

    The most liberal brands of SSD, they whiz right past 600 and
    continue to both read and write. You might get a substantially
    longer life. Or, you might have a catastrophic failure (black
    screen some morning, no boot for you). Such a device though,
    if you were paying attention, you might still successfully
    clone it, if some system utility were to warn you about
    the dire situation (risk taking). I treat these drives as
    the more desirable kind, because as long as you can monitor
    them for remaining life, there should not be any data loss,
    and not an obsessive need to do backups all the time.

    My backup frequency on SSDs here (lazy) is a full backup
    every three months. Images go to an 18TB hard drive. I only
    own one Helium drive so far :-) The Helium is "guaranteed"
    to stay inside the drive for five years. The gas seals
    are done with an adhesive! While the housing has welds,
    the welds are not for gas, they're for mechanical protection
    of the inner seal plate. This means data recovery on my
    18TB drive (if I wanted to pay for such), is fraught.
    As a joke, a data recovery company made a video of them
    using an NC machine to mill the welded plate off the
    top of the drive. It ... almost worked (you have metal shavings
    everywhere too). With ordinary (air-filled) drives, you just
    open them in a portable glove box with hepafilter. Helium drives,
    are an entirely different animal. Again, the user is challenged
    by their technology choice. But I decided to buy *1* of them for test.

    An air-filled hard drive, has on the label "do not block this hole".
    That is the breather hole. On a Helium drive, there is no hole
    like that in the top cover, and there is not a warning of that
    sort to be seen.

    Helium drives, the altitude spec for them is the same as
    the air-breathing drives. But it's possible they do in fact
    operate at higher altitude than the old drives could.

    Air breathing drives always work at room pressure. As the barometric
    pressure changes, room air enters or exits the housing, through
    the hepafilter. If you unscrew the lid on an air breathing drive,
    there is no popping sound, no vacuum evident, no pressure evident.
    We don't know what the pressure level is in the Helium drive.
    They would fill it to sufficient level, so the flying heads work properly.

    Paul


    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114