Guest morckx Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 (edited) That isnt added by me, it's part of the source. It means that if the external SD is missing/not dectected, it will use internal instead. No, I don't think that's true. It is a provision for sd cards where the file system is directly on the unpartitioned device (/dev/block/mmcblk1) instead of on the first partition (/dev/block/mmcblk1p1) as it is the case with my sd card. I also expressed myself unclearly, the line in /etc/recovery.fstab: /sdcard vfat /dev/block/mmcblk1p1 /dev/block/mmcblk1 comes from Paul's 4.0.0.5. The corresponding one in 4.0.1.4 R2 (ext) is: /sdcard vfat /dev/block/mmcblk1p1 NULL I guess that's why I need to mount my sd card manually in 4.0.1.4 R2 (ext) (with mount /dev/block/mmcblk1 /sdcard), while it's automatically mounted in Pauls 4.0.0.5 Anyway, thanks for your answer and the easiest and best thing to do is probably to repartition my sdcard :-) M. Edited August 2, 2011 by morckx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rusty! Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Ah I see what you're saying, although until now I have never seen an SD card set up in such a way. I would repartition it too, just to fit in with the norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wfd Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Something strange happening when I'am trying to backup CM7 via CWM 4.0.1.5 or 4.0.1.4r3 external. CWM writes data into data.img until available free space on sd card. Free space on sdcard 1.4GB, data volume 318.4M df -h output: Filesystem Size Used Available Use% Mounted on tmpfs 186.5M 32.0K 186.5M 0% /dev tmpfs 186.5M 0 186.5M 0% /mnt/asec tmpfs 186.5M 0 186.5M 0% /mnt/obb tmpfs 186.5M 0 186.5M 0% /mnt/asec tmpfs 186.5M 0 186.5M 0% /mnt/extasec /dev/block/mmcblk0p1 338.9M 154.3M 167.2M 48% /system /dev/block/mmcblk0p8 1.5G 318.4M 1.1G 21% /data /dev/block/mmcblk0p2 62.0M 4.0M 54.7M 7% /cache /dev/block/mmcblk0p6 2.4M 2.0M 410.0K 83% /lgdrm backup directory content during backup: /sdcard/clockworkmod/backup/2011-08-23.10.17.27 # ls -l&&du -h -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8388608 Aug 23 10:17 boot.img -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1309986816 Aug 23 10:23 data.img -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20971520 Aug 23 10:17 recovery.img -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 159572160 Aug 23 10:17 system.img 1.4G . df -h from CWM during backup: Filesystem Size Used Available Use% Mounted on tmpfs 186.5M 32.0K 186.5M 0% /dev /dev/block/mmcblk0p2 62.0M 4.0M 54.7M 7% /cache /dev/block/mmcblk1p1 7.6G 7.6G 0 100% /sdcard /dev/block/mmcblk0p8 1.5G 318.7M 1.1G 21% /data Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rusty! Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Well that's odd, mine backs up /data (600MB-ish) no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wfd Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 I found the problem. There was some broken crap in /data/lost+found directory. Backup /data stuff and format data volume has solved this problem. It is posiible to exclude lost+found during backup? And format /data in Mounts and Storage menu does'nt realy formatting storage, its only delete all stored stuff. I formatted and converted storage by hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rusty! Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Finally updated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wfd Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) Finally updated! Great! Thank you! Its compatible with 4.0.1.5 backups? Edited September 23, 2011 by wfd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rusty! Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 I believe so, but not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rusty! Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 Update as new CWM supports backup/restore from internal storage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Щачло карпа Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 (edited) The download link to v5.0.2.7 is broken. Could you please fix it? Thanks. Edited November 2, 2011 by Щачло карпа Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rusty! Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 Yeah, all sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Щачло карпа Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Thanks rusty! One Question: I've been using cwm 4.0.0.9 before. I noticed, that my 5.0.2.7 backups are much smaller, e.g. the data.ext3.tar compared to the old data.img is 30mb smaller. Is this a normal behavior? Thanks for clarification in advance!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rusty! Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 .tar = compressed ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Щачло карпа Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) .tar = compressed ;) I've to disagree. Tar itself does not compress anything (see http://en.wikipedia....8file_format%29). I'll extract both backups and try to find the difference. Edit: On my phone in /system/bin are symlinks, e.g. cat points to toolbox. Backup with 4.0.0.9: Identically to phone: /system/bin/cat => toolbox Backup with 5.0.2.7: No symlink, the regular file is saved instead of just the symlink. Conclusion: in 5.0.2.7 all symlinks in /system/bin are replaced by their regular files. Further more, in 5.0.2.7 symlinks in /system/xbin are completely ignored. Edited November 4, 2011 by Щачло карпа Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rusty! Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 You're right, I was talking about .tar.gz when the backups are just .tar :huh: Not sure about the symlinks being ignored though, last time I extracted one of my system.ext4.tar files, WinRAR threw a shitfit about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Щачло карпа Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 I've used WinRAR 4.01. Works like a charm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rusty! Posted November 11, 2011 Report Share Posted November 11, 2011 Updated to fix advanced restore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now