[rear-users] Destination disk partitioning

Jeroen Hoekx jeroen.hoekx at hamok.be
Mon Jul 23 11:11:03 CEST 2012


On 23 July 2012 10:24, Cal Sawyer <cal-s at blue-bolt.com> wrote:

>> We resize pretty much all partitions except /boot and bios_grub (GPT).
>> There's a feature request to *not* resize swap partitions (
>> https://github.com/rear/rear/issues/71 ).
> Ah, auto_resize_disks.sh, right? Must have a trawl through that.
> disklayout.conf appears to have been altered when restoring to a smaller
> device - at least it's consistent with the new partitions. Can't find a
> layout for the original disk partitions - what's it called if it still
> exists?

disklayout.conf.$DATE I think. It's restored if you abort your ReaR run.

>
> My vote would be to make swap resizing (or retention) optional, then,
> via a commandline switch to rear - you can never have too many switches
> :)  This seriously affects the ability to restore to smaller volumes
> than the source.

This is what I'd like to avoid.

>>
>> One thing that's also on my todo list is to allow other units than
>> bytes in disklayout.conf. That shouldn't be too hard to implement and
>> would bring us a long way.
>>
>> If you don't edit disklayout.conf, but edit the restore script, you
>> can use whatever unit your parted version understands. That's how I
>> usually influence the process right now.
>>
>
> Please identify which script you're referring to?  rescue.conf contains
> no disk definitions - at least mine never do.

It's /var/lib/rear/layout/diskrestore.sh . It's only created during recovery.

See https://github.com/rear/rear/blob/master/doc/user-guide/06-layout-configuration.txt
for a complete example. It's a bit outdated in the details, but it
should get you started.

>>> Feature request, then: interactive restore partititioning?
>> I've been thinking about this, but have always decided to not do it.
>> It was one thing that always lead to problems when I used it in Mondo.
>> I personally like editing one config file better. If someone wrote a
>> good implementation of it, I guess we'd take it, but I won't be the
>> one to write it.
>
> What's Mondo in this context?

MondoRescue.

> Personally, i think the success of ReaR hinges on ease of use and
> anything that makes the process of fitting machineA into machineB would
> be a major win.  Alternatviely, a method of breaking out of the
> disklayout script into parted would help.  As a side note, the
> disk-partitioning routine is a bit opaque and re-presents itself
> multiple times during rescue with no indication of why it's doing so.

How to break out into parted is described in the document I linked above.

What do you mean by 'disk-partitioning routine'? If it's the disk
mapping, we have a ticket and plans to improve it. But time...

Greetings,

Jeroen


More information about the rear-users mailing list