Hello, Thank you for double-checking. -Michael > On 27 Dec 2021, at 10:32, Matthias Fischer wrote: > > Hi, > > On 26.12.2021 21:48, Michael Tremer wrote: >> Hello, >> >>> On 25 Dec 2021, at 20:53, Matthias Fischer wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I wondered for some time - since Friday 21.5.2021 ( ;-) ) - that the IPF >>> files of the ISO backups turned out much larger than before. >> >> Yes, they were indeed not compressed at all: >> >> https://bugzilla.ipfire.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12737 > > Seems I was really busy in the last weeks, otherwise I would have seen > that this problem was already reported. D'oh! > >> So this should be resolved in c163. Can you test and confirm? > > I first applied the changes from "[2/3] backup: Create tarball in one > pass" and can confirm. > > The IPF file of the *ISO backup* is now identical to the one created > *without logs* and correctly compressed as reported by Larsen in > https://bugzilla.ipfire.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12737#c2 (see attachment). > > In a second run I also applied "[1/3] backup: Use filename as specified > on console" and "[3/3] backup: Fork ISO job into the background in CGI > script" from https://patchwork.ipfire.org/project/ipfire/list/?series=2450 > > Looking good. > > Best, > Matthias > >> -Michael >> >>> Today I tested: when I make a backup *without* logs, the resulting IPF >>> is about *26MB* in size. >>> >>> The same file is about *108MB* in size when I make an *ISO backup*. >>> >>> So I ran ' /var/ipfire/backup/bin/backup.pl iso' from console and >>> watched the output. >>> >>> After some time, 'gzip' told me: >>> >>> ... >>> gzip: /var/ipfire/backup/2021-12-25-20:34.ipf already has .ipf suffix -- >>> unchanged >>> ... >>> >>> For results, please see attached screenshot (and yes: I use tables... ;-) ). >>> >>> The first IPF was created using 'Generate ISO', the second using >>> 'Exclude logfiles'. >>> >>> Can anyone confirm? >>> >>> Best, >>> Matthias >> > <01_ipf_iso_and_without_logs.png><02_ipf_iso_and_without_logs.png>