Hot Backup for Frugal Pups Updated 2011-10-1

Miscellaneous tools
Message
Author
Jasper

#61 Post by Jasper »

Hi Sylvander et al,

I shall be most interested to read what others say, as it seems, to me, that it might be asking for major trouble to restore a particular backup save file (say, of Lupu 5.2.8) to the running version of that same Puppy (Lupu 5.2.8).

My regards

User avatar
8-bit
Posts: 3406
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2007, 03:37
Location: Oregon

#62 Post by 8-bit »

Jasper,

I have to agree with you as I had written a restore utility for hot backup files.
I also stated as part of restoring that one should boot with pfix=ram so as not to have any pupsave file loaded.
There is no magic solution to doing a restore of a pupsave to a puppy running with a pupsave file loaded.
I tried to do a hot restore and I do not even want to talk about the results.
So either boot to another version of puppy or boot with pfix=ram to delete the pupsave you are replacing with a backup.

The other way would be to copy the backup over with a different name and on reboot, you will be given the option of which pupsave file to load.
Load the backup you copied and delete the original if you do not want it.
You actually can have as many pupsave files as you want in a frugal install directory and choose between them when you boot.

Sylvander
Posts: 4416
Joined: Mon 15 Dec 2008, 11:06
Location: West Lothian, Scotland, UK

#63 Post by Sylvander »

1. See this post.
I normally use Lupu booted from a live CD, with a lupusave on an internal HDD, but with that lupusave treated as though it's on a Flash Drive.
So then the other changes are made so the session is NEVER auto-saved DURING THE SESSION...
And I'm asked "Save the session = Yes/No?" at shut-down/reboot, so I can choose to not save then also.

2. Hence, although the lupusave can be read to have things loaded into RAM...
It would NOT be written to during any replacement by a RESTORED lupusave.

3. Would any subsequent write-back need to be made to the very same file as that which was read?
Or could the write-back be made to a replacement copy.

2byte
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon 09 Oct 2006, 18:10

#64 Post by 2byte »

Sylvander,

A hot restore option has been kicking around in the back of my head for a long time and I think it is possible, safe, and perhaps even easy to do. Time will tell.

Stay tuned.


Jasper

#65 Post by Jasper »

Hi 2byte et al,

If it is possible to make a working "hot" save file restore package for a frugal Puppy installation; then does this mean that a user can, as of now, safely delete and replace (or overwrite) the current live save file with an older backup copy?

My regards

PS I always do a "cold" restore (delete then copy and paste) using a different Puppy (others may reboot and choose an alternative save file), but if a "hot" restore is safe it would save me a few minutes (even without any new automated restore facility).

Sylvander
Posts: 4416
Joined: Mon 15 Dec 2008, 11:06
Location: West Lothian, Scotland, UK

#66 Post by Sylvander »

1. "Stay tuned."
Woooohooo! :D 8)

This is the kind of reason Puppy is so exciting. :D

2byte
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon 09 Oct 2006, 18:10

#67 Post by 2byte »

Perhaps 'hot' restore is a bit misleading. Deleting or replacing files/libs that are in use is a sure fire recipe for disaster. The method I am using unloads the current save file from the union file system, does it's work, then reboots the system with the save file restored from a backup. That is the only safe way to accomplish it and is no more risky than choosing 'Reboot' from the menu.

The current stage of development. is wrapping it up into a GUI. Testing it on the various Pups will be next.


Jasper

#68 Post by Jasper »

Hi 2byte,

Thanks for your helpful response. However, would you not agree that your term "hot" restore is "totally false" as opposed to "a bit misleading"?

Even so, I am sure Sylvander and others are looking forward to, and would greatky appreciate, a successful outcome to your restore project.

My regards

2byte
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon 09 Oct 2006, 18:10

#69 Post by 2byte »

Well I'm really not sure what the absolute definition of 'hot' would be in this instance. Does having to reboot the system disqualify its use? Really, I would like to know.

I haven't made any claims that it is a hot restore to begin with BTW. Only that the idea has been in my mind for a while.


User avatar
Bert
Posts: 1103
Joined: Fri 30 Jun 2006, 20:09

#70 Post by Bert »

This is becoming an important topic, in my opinion, as recent puppys seem to become more vulnerable to save file corruption. (Or maybe I'm becoming more daring, installing and uninstalling things I can not even pronounce properly :lol: )

Reading through this thread an idea popped up:

While everyone is constantly reminding each other about the importance of making regular backups, reality is most of us simply forget to do it. I suspect real life and making backups are not really compatible..

What if the 'Hot Backup' would be a fully automated process? Save files are normally small files, so wouldn't it be ideal a backup-copy is saved somewhere after each session? Puppy can then just keep, say, the 3 most recent ones and delete anything older at shutdown..

It's not that modern HDD or even the cheapest usb keys lack space to do this...

If this is technically possible, it would add a new dimension to Puppy's reliability. No longer would a corrupted save file mean starting all over, because in just a few mouse-clicks Puppy would be running again with all the settings from, say, last night's save file.

(( A great example of what I propose is Xmarks. After years of struggling to keep my bookmarks alive between browsers and multiple OS's, here comes a service that takes all the hard work out of it. It simply keeps track of my changing bookmarks, so the moment I destroy my browser or my puppy, it is simply a matter of installing the addon and I'm up and running again. ))

What do you think?
[url=http://pupsearch.weebly.com/][img]http://pupsearch.weebly.com/uploads/7/4/6/4/7464374/125791.gif[/img][/url]
[url=https://startpage.com/do/search?q=host%3Awww.murga-linux.com%2F][img]http://i.imgur.com/XJ9Tqc7.png[/img][/url]

2byte
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon 09 Oct 2006, 18:10

#71 Post by 2byte »

Automating a backup at shutdown would be easy. It would be more difficult to implement it in a manner that would not draw the ire of Puppians. :)


Jasper

#72 Post by Jasper »

Hi,

But what about an option to backup on rebooting or shutdown. Also what about an option to automatically reload all running programs on a reboot?

Personally, I don't need either; but if either could be easily implemented then some users would.

My regards

User avatar
Bert
Posts: 1103
Joined: Fri 30 Jun 2006, 20:09

#73 Post by Bert »

Thanks for the replies!

As jasper says, it could be an option.. this 'automated hot backup' would be a pet for those who like it.

I can only imagine one reason for the puppians ire: if this pet adds an unacceptable amount of time to the shutdown process. That is something I have no clue about. When the save file is on a HD, or a usb key told to behave like a HD, the session is already saved at shutdown. It would have to be copied to another location. This could be happening in real time as well I suppose?

Jasper's idea to provide the option to backup at shutdown is in fact really clever..It would be the ideal reminder to backup and it would be the easiest thinkable way.

Thanks again!
[url=http://pupsearch.weebly.com/][img]http://pupsearch.weebly.com/uploads/7/4/6/4/7464374/125791.gif[/img][/url]
[url=https://startpage.com/do/search?q=host%3Awww.murga-linux.com%2F][img]http://i.imgur.com/XJ9Tqc7.png[/img][/url]

2byte
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon 09 Oct 2006, 18:10

#74 Post by 2byte »

For sure an option would be the way to go. It would be too much like Windows to do it by default. But how best to implement it? As a prompt at every shutdown? Personally I would prefer it to be a 'set it and forget it' option like loading sfs files at boot.

Reloading the running programs? Since Puppy doesn't support sessions that would be something else that would add some extra polish to Puppy.


Sylvander
Posts: 4416
Joined: Mon 15 Dec 2008, 11:06
Location: West Lothian, Scotland, UK

#75 Post by Sylvander »

1. Personally, I'd like to be in control of whether/when a backup/restore is to be made.

e.g.
2. At the moment...
When I shut down or reboot...
I'm offered the opportunity "to save or not to save" the session.

3. It would be possible perhaps, to then have a couple of options displayed at that point, or after the session has been saved.
(a) The 1st to be taken to a means to specify a location and frequency for an automatic backup, which arrangements then stay in force until altered.
This might be as an alternative to a manual hot backup made during the session.
Hence, the user could choose which method to use.

(b) The 2nd to implement or discontinue the implementation of the 1st.

3. Hence, not only would the session be saved [or not as the user likes]...
But also a backup would be made after that [or not as the user likes]...
Or alternatively, manually during the session after saving manually.

dogle
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu 11 Oct 2007, 12:41

#76 Post by dogle »

For me, living out in the bundu, momentary power interruptions causing loss of RAM contents are a great vexation (BTW my UPS cuts in too slowly to overcome this).

I've taken to running in multisession (i.e. no pupsave), and also keeping a manual backup on HD of selected important files, like bookmarks. Trouble is, one does not wish to shutdown multisession too often and fill up the disk ..... and Sod's Law generally ensures that the next power blip happens just before I was about to do one or the other saving process.

Although this thread started specifically about frugals=pupsaves, I can't help thinking that a means of keeping a backup (other than pupsave?) on HD would be very useful, and would not need to be 'hot=continuous' if the user could, say, hit a button now and then or request periodic automatic backups. I can't however see how this could be made to play nicely in PUPMODE=77, multisession, which has that great advantage of insurance value against the HD self-destruct event ... but it sure would be nice if it could.

Sylvander
Posts: 4416
Joined: Mon 15 Dec 2008, 11:06
Location: West Lothian, Scotland, UK

#77 Post by Sylvander »

Something STRANGE! :?

1. I just now restored a hot backup of Lupu-528.002 that was an update of Lupu-526.

2. When I then booted using the Lupu-528 live CD...
It reported that the lupusave file had previously been a 526 lupusave, and did I want to update it.
I hit enter, it updated, and all is as I'd expect after this update.

3. So how come?
I definitely made of hot backup of a lupusave that had already been updated from version 526 to 528.

Jasper

#78 Post by Jasper »

Hi Sylvander,

(a) I have not tried this "hot" backup program, but I have the impression, perhaps wrongly, that a backup would need to be renamed (and possibly moved) before use.

(b) It seems that you frequently choose not to save; so is your "strange" event possibly a combination of not saving since 10th November and (a) above?

Your use of "nosave" options is probably somewhat unusual - so that may make it harder for others to comment.

My regards

Sylvander
Posts: 4416
Joined: Mon 15 Dec 2008, 11:06
Location: West Lothian, Scotland, UK

#79 Post by Sylvander »

1. "a backup would need to be renamed (and possibly moved) before use"
Agreed.
(a) I save the backup on a USB2 connected external HDD.
(b) The pupsave+SFS filepair are held on my 2nd internal HDD.
(c) To restore, I boot to a 2nd Puppy that doesn't use the pupsave to be replaced by the backup.
(d) Then I use Xfe to display [side-by-side in its twin file panes]...
The pupsave to be deleted [and I delete that]...
And...
The pupsave which is to replace it...
(I copy that into place, and rename it by removing the date & time extension, so as to leave the name as lupusave.3fs)

2. "is your "strange" event possibly a combination of not saving since 10th November"
(a) Not possible; having updated the lupu-526 version of the pupsave to make it a 528 version..
I MUST have saved as soon as I got to the desktop...
So that the changes to the pupsave would be saved back to the pupsave.
Not just completed in RAM, and then discarded.
Only then would the pupsave be a 528 version.
Don't know for sure if I'm right in thinking that, but I would act upon that belief.
(b) And anyway, there would almost certainly have been good reasons to save the session since then.

3. "Your use of "nosave" options is probably somewhat unusual - so that may make it harder for others to comment"
I think in practice, the difference is that there would be no instant auto-saves every time the smallest change is made...
But there would indeed be saves...
Done manually now and then during the session.
I normally fetch my emails using smm...
View each notification in turn, of posts at the Puppy-forums...
Copy the numbers into the address, and view each post.
Then I would probably save that latest arrangement of Firefox windows....
With that sequence of viewed posts following one-after-the-other in a single window, that could be viewed by using the back/forward arrows.
Hence, I probably save at least once in a session.
Depends whether they're important or interesting posts.
I'll save this. :wink:

Jasper

#80 Post by Jasper »

Hi Sylvander,

Doubtless you are sure that your restore was not of a pre-528-update backup - so I have no other thoughts about your interesting puzzle, but at least all appears to be normal again.

My regards

Post Reply