Page 1 of 1

Image Format

Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:24 pm
by csyperski
I am the lead developer for the FOG cloning solution and I would like to use fsarchiver as an option for cloning, we use partimage (still) by default because it is very stable. We would like to support linux cloning better, but don't want to add fsarchiver if the file format is going to change. We want to make sure that if a user pulls an image, they will be able to restore it, even in future releases when we sync up with the upstreams. I saw in a post that you are doing a rewrite with the 0.7.x branch, does that effect the file format, etc? Overall is fsarchiver production ready? If not, how far off are we from being production ready?

Chuck Syperski

Re: Image Format

Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:20 pm
by admin
I consider fsarchiver-0.6.10 as stable for native linux filesystems and I use it for all my backups with no problem. There are still things to do on ntfs unfortunately. Other than that, it's a sort of fsarchiver-1.0 version. All future 0.6.x version will provide fixes only and the file format won't change. So it should be a good option for all linux filesystems for the coming months / years.

I have started working on a brand new design, that we can call fsarchiver-2.0, but it's in an early stage at the moment. There is just a prototype with the key things in it, and the idea is to address most problems we have in fsarchiver-0.6 and to provide new features. The future of this version depends on the ability to make a good design, time availability, ... It will require a lot of effort before it's ready so it's a better to just focus on fsarchiver-0.6 at the moment.

Re: Image Format

Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:00 pm
by csyperski
Thanks for the reply!

That sounds good, here is my only question. Lets say we integrate version 0.6.X into FOG and users create images for a few years using that format, then lets say in 2-3 years you release version 2.0 and stop putting out bugs fixes, etc for the 0.6.x branch. At this point we would probably sync up with you guys and add version 2.0 to FOG Project. My problem is, does that mean the all the images created on 0.6.x will not work with the new code base 2.0, or are you planning on adding legacy support for the older image format into 2.0?

I am just asking because I don't want to paint myself into a corner and I want to make sure I do right by our users.

Thanks for all your help, I believe this would be a great addition to FOG as our Linux support now it pretty terrible :)


Re: Image Format

Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:45 am
by admin
I don't plan to add support for old archives in fsarchiver-2.0, so it will be necessary to have the old version.