[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Ballard) writes: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:48:07AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote: > > For ntfs partitions, i prefer the more mature ntfs support of the > > ntfsprogs and the added benefit of loop mounting an NTFS image file. > > You can't mount an image that has been saved with --save-image. > Yes, if you use the --save-image parameter. But if you restore such an image to a file instead to a partition, you can use loop mount that file.
> I tried ntfsclone and it works about as fast as partimage, and it's > definitely less > cumbersome that partimage; however the resulting gzipped image file from a > 20GB > partition with 2GB of actual data was about 60MB larger: 840mb versus 780mb. > The > partimage image was also gzipped. > But can you restore a partimage image to a file and loop mount the result? > I'm also going to file a bug against ntfsprogs that ntfsclone should be > packaged > separately from the rest of ntfsprogs. > I love package fragmentation... :-/ > ntfsclone is actually useful; the rest of those > programs are either unnecessary or flat dangerous. The only thing they have > in common > is they involve NTFS. > ntfsresize and ntfsfix are some other nice components of the ntfsprogs package. I've benefited from both various times. > The fact that ntfsclone is packaged with a tool called "fixntfs" or somethign > who's man > page says "always run this after running any of the other utilities in this > package > before booting or your NTFS partition will be completely destroyed" makes me > feel > squeamish about ntfsclone, > :-)))))) Don't worry. The ntfsprogs should be safer than the ntfs support of partimage. > although as I said it's a different animal and people report > it as stable. > ntfsfix helped me quite a few times to fix a ntfs partition which the native WinXP chkdsk couldn't repair anymore... ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]