Boot in Timeshift. (Solved)

[AndyMH]

No point asking me, don't use btrfs. If you want it, suggest you raise an issue, I only have a faint glimmering of how btrfs works, ext4 is good enough for me. Suspect btrfs will be lower down in the pecking order as far a quick fix is concerned, much smaller user base (which can be reasonably expected to be more knowledgeable and thus less likely to fall into this newbie trap).

[pbear]

I have a 500GB HDD so i keep 2 snapshots 1 daily and 1 weekly and i have never run out of space. My system monitor says i have 77 GB free and my disk says i have 102 GB free dont know which one is correct or why the conflicting discrepancy.

That's pretty full, imho. Ironically, moving Timeshift to another drive won't help much. If you're using default settings, system probably is less than 20 GB (including swapfile) and Timeshift snapshots about the same (but excluding swapfile).

In any event, there's almost never a good reason for going thin on snapshots. Better to use a flash drive and do snapshots manually.

[Cosmo.]

I see the real problem with a partition, which is too small for (additional) snapshots on another point. What if you see, that the partition is too small and you decide to switch to another partition? This switch is a matter of a few clicks and a few seconds. But that does not move the existing snapshots to the new place. Because of the hard links you cannot simply copy them to the new partition, the hard links would break.

The user could say: Well I forget the old snapshots. But in this case he could also simply delete the old snapshots and would have room again for the coming snapshots. But this is not a satisfying solution. I can already today virtually read post by users who say, that they had an old snapshot (which they now need), but they switched the snapshot partition and so the old snapshot is no longer available. Tony George, the original developer had at some time published a rather complicated command to move the snapshots, but he did this without recommending it (to speak carefully).

The named fix had been published yesterday, as to be sen in my link. So this is very new. As far as I can see at now it will not cover the question, how to change the snapshot place without loosing the old snapshots.

[pbear]

But this is not a satisfying solution.

I agree, but it's only a transition issue. In most cases, the user can start using the new location, then delete the old snapshots when the new ones are deep enough the old ones are no longer needed. If the user's boat is already floundering, save snapshots to flash drive for a while, then transition again.

My broader point, and I believe you agree, is that new users should be coached on how to use Timeshift correctly, not told to be afraid of it, save as few snapshots as possible, etc.

[Cosmo.]

My broader point, and I believe you agree, is that new users should be coached on how to use Timeshift correctly, not told to be afraid of it, save as few snapshots as possible, etc.

I absolutely agree. LM 21 could be a chance to enhance the situation. E.g. (just a quick idea) system report could notify the user every week, fortnight, months (or so), if there do no snapshots exist or if the last snapshot is older than the given time. I know, that there will be users who complain about nagging, but it is a consideration between a (harmless) nag and a not recoverable system. Perhaps there are better ideas. My fear is, that LM 21 might not bring an enhancement in this regard.

We, the regular helper, have the chance to enhance the situation a bit. The more often we tell users, who should but cannot restore a TS snapshot, the more often the readers of the forum learn, that they have the rescue of a possibly broken system in their own hand.

The situation, that Tony George gave up on maintaining TS and Mint did not only include it as a core element, but even made it a x-app, is also a possible advantage for Mint. Mint has now the advantage against other distributions, that a system rescue possibility is build in, whereas users of other distributions must at first find a possibility to get it. Mint is no ppas, the teejee ppa will be after some time outdated. Perhaps Ubuntu and others jump after some time on the train.

I agree, but it's only a transition issue. In most cases, the user can start using the new location, then delete the old snapshots when the new ones are deep enough the old ones are no longer needed. If the user's boat is already floundering, save snapshots to flash drive for a while, then transition again.

The ideal solution would be a possibility to move the existing snapshots to the new location, at best GUI guided. IMO transitional solutions are just that, not more and also not less. But only thinking about (more or less) ideal solutions leads (hopefully) to a satisfying solution.

[Cosmo.]

One hour ago it has been announced in the blog, that TS will skip a snapshot, if after the snapshot the remaining place on the partition would be less than 1 GB. Even on a 100 GB partition (this is until LM 20.3 the recommended value) this would be 1 percent; considering, that Linux reserves 5 percent for its own this is too little. - Another point is, that there has nothing be said, if the user gets a notification about the skipped snapshot. If not, this would consequently mean, that TS might possibly stop to work forever, because out of the nothing the free space will not increase again.

[AndyMH]

We are getting way off topic on this thread now. Suggest we wait until the update is pushed out, test it, and then start a new topic to see if we can reach some consensus on what timeshift should do when there is insufficient space for a snapshot.

Ahhh... just read the blog, looks like we will not see the updated timeshift until LM21.

[Cosmo.]

Cosmo do peoples HDD's really fill up with snapshots then crash the computer? How does that happen ive been using timeshift for 5 years and my old snapshots must get overwritten because that never happens to me thanks goodness.

Without doubt the problem, that the partitions get overfilled, does exist. Without this problem the latest announced addition for TS would not come. The problem are too small partitions, where the snapshot get stored, as I and others already said.

The problem are not 5 years old snapshot. Somethings like this could only happen, if you would set to preserve 60 monthly snapshots. Who does such a setting? Nobody.

The problem is this: Assume, you have set to do daily snapshots. Now the partitions gets full and you switch to another partition, perhaps making some more snapshots in the next days. The snapshots on the older partition do not get touched and so not deleted; they are still available. Now let us further assume there happens something like the bug with update manager 5.8.3. You read the latest blog, which came 11 days after the bug (far, far too late ). You read there, that you shall apply a snapshot, which is 11 days old and is now in the old partition. I assume, that for doing this you can switch inside TS to the old partition and apply the old snapshot. But I have never tested this; I cannot be sure, if this really works. I hope, that it does not sound arrogant if I assume, that many users are overwhelmed with this approach. Things would get easy, if there would come a possibility to safely move the old snapshots to the new partition, as I already wrote.

[AndyMH]

It happens too frequently, newbies trying out mint and allocating say 20GB* for mint or newbies setting up a separate home partition (you don't need a large / partition, mine was 30GiB for years**) and not realising where timeshift with its default settings saves its snapshots. I would guess that 80% of our "It won't boot" posts are due to timeshift.


* because that's what the min requirements say, something else that needs to be changed.
** now 40GiB, changed my system drive, 256GB SSD to 512GB SSD

[Cosmo.]

I would guess that 80% of our "It won't boot" posts are due to timeshift.

I understand what you want to say, but to bring it really to the point I have to contradict. "Due" is not Timeshift, but a too small system partition and that again is due to the too small requirement values (in this part I strongly agree to your first footnote). It appears, that when the system requirements have been written, the fact, that TS by default stores its snapshot exactly there, has not been taken into account. Mint requests the user on 2 places - the welcome screen and the system report - to use TS, but because this is a fact the system requirement have to consider the needed place for the snapshots. Or the user should get informed during installation, if (s)he uses the something else method, that (s)he should also create a snapshot (and backup) partition.
Saying, you need at least 20 GB and afterwards requesting the user to use timeshift (without saying, that at best an additional partition or an external drive should get used) is not honest, at least misleading.

Saying TS is the culprit would be, as if the user wants to use virtualization, but the partition, where the machines get stored, is too small. Is VirtualBox & Co. the culprit? No, the chosen partition scheme. But in case of virtualization there is nowhere a request by the system to the user, to use it, as it is the case with TS.