Linux

48287 readers

638 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

103

Is Clonezilla still a solid choice for complete backup and restoration of partition(s) / drive(s) nowadays? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by nameisnotimportant@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

My dear lemmings,

I discovered Clonezilla a while ago and it still is my main tool to backup and restore the partitions I care about on my computers.

I cannot help but wonder if there are now better, more efficient alternatives or is it still a solid choice? There's nothing wrong with it, I'm just curious about others' practices and habits — and if there was newer tools or solutions available.

Thank you for your feedback, and keep your drives safe!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Penguincoder@beehaw.org 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Clonezilla has its place, but not as a main backup and restoration tool. I personally don't see it as a backup tool, especially that it operates at partition level for such. What you want is you base install system and file level backups for your data (/home/) etc. For the file level backups, use something like restic. Backup what you need to go from a fresh install to a system with your data back on it. Packages can be reinstalled.

Restic is my primary backup for all my devices. If I need something more than fresh iso -> my data system, I use packer.

[–] yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I noticed for file level backups you mentioned something other than rsync. Any particular reason why you landed on restic instead?

[–] Penguincoder@beehaw.org 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Because that serve different purposes. rsync is for moving data around, synchronization of such. It has no concept of point in time restoration, or snapshots (etc) that really define a backup solution. I use restic because its the proper tool for the job.

[–] yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

point in time restoration, or snapshots

Do you mean like not just having another copy of a file, but being able to restore a specific version of a file?

[–] Penguincoder@beehaw.org 2 points 8 months ago

There's a lot more going on with restic aside from just that, but yes. So with an rsync of your home dir (for example), it's reliant on the FS to do compression and deduplication (ZFS,btrs), and/or it will still take up a lot of wasted space. Say you got ransom-wared. It's okay you have that rsync backup, but oh crap it got ransom-wared to. No more backups to try? Restic gives you snapshots for whatever increment you set and just handles it simply. You can then restore one file from any of the snaphots (history) or every single file. Restoreing 250kb vs 400TB is quite a difference. The benefits of this, are huge even beyond the fire and forget capability.

I mean, rsync handling everything via mirroring and pushed to a ZFS FS, would be sort of the same thing.