Help!

clone vs backup?

 
Goto page 1, 2
Post new topic   General Reply to Topic (not reply to a specific post)    Forums Home -> Problem Solvers RSS
Next:  Some games not running at my monitors native reso..  
Author Message
pasquanel



Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 517

Location: Maine

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:39 am    Post subject: clone vs backup?

Ok I am having great difficulty understanding why I can clone or image my C: drive to another drive so very much faster than I can back it up to another drive? I just formated one drive and cloned my entire OS in other words C: to in this instance to E: both are bootable yet for me to do a backup of the same drive is almost 2hrs!!
I don't understand how a complete image takes much less time than a backup! And assuming I am correct (all bets off here) why would I ever want to do an incremental backup?
I am using Acronis 10 and have successfully used it to install a new HD a couple of times I suppose what I am asking is why the huge time differential between the two operations? Question Question
Back to top
Werebo



Joined: Aug 09, 2003
Posts: 4078

Location: SE London, UK...

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:09 am    Post subject:

Well, cloning a partition is straightforward hi-speed copying all the files from a-b, whereas backing up lets you select particular files/folders and needs processing, usually compressing the files to save space, rather like creating a .zip file.

Making a daily/weekly incremental backup after making a full backup compares all the files selected to what's in the backup and only backs up the new or modified files. If there's only a few altered or new files, the incremental backing up is usually finished before you can finish hand-writing the label with the updated info for future reference.
Back to top




User: inactive
Posts:



PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:24 am    Post subject: Re: clone vs backup? [Login to view extended thread Info.]

Pas....

Not knowing exactly what program you're using or just how you're applying it, answering your question is quite impossible.

I've been using Ghost since 1997 with total satisfaction. I can back up my C: drive to an Image file with light compression in under five minutes.

Hearing all the hoopla about Acronis, I got me a trial copy and made a similar backup image of C:. It took almost a half hour.
Also, I could not put Acronis on a boot disk and use it on any computer I came upon. I must have a program that will do this, as a working technician.
So for me and my needs, Acronis "wet the bed", so to speak. Twisted Evil Laughing Laughing

Just two nights ago I finally did something I've been cogitating in my mind for over a month.

I married Ghost 2005, (8.3), and NTFS4DOS all into one composite disk. It's all set up on a 512 meg Flash Drive which can easily be burned to a bootable CD with Nero.

I'm still working out some little details, but the bulk of the work is done and the resulting CD boots and works like a champ.

The point is, I can boot up in DOS, run NTFS4DOS and then clean up an NTFS hard drive removing things like the huge Pagefile and all the old Restore Points, temp and history files, from my DOS Cleanup batch files, saving a tremendous amount of space in the final Ghost Backup Image File. Over three gigs of space savings, on my own PC. (WOW! )

Using similar techniques, I'm able to get my own C: drive, backed up to a Six Gig Flash Drive with Ghost, using High Compression. And it's all done in less than 15 minutes.

This new disk, using NTFS4DOS, will allow me to do the same type of thing on an NTFS hard drive. Mine are all FAT-32. Wink

Because Ghost's Image files can be compressed either slightly or greatly, many Ghost Images over time can be stored on a single HD of sufficient size. On my 200 gig SATA2 backup drive, I can store about fifty Ghost backups of my C: drive. Using the Ghost Explorer program, I can open any of my older Ghost Images and restore any file I like, that may have subsequently been deleted off of my hard drive.

I still have the Ghost Image File I made the day I upgraded to XP-Pro from Windows 98, many years ago.
With Ghost Image Files, "In The Can" as they say in Hollywood, old files become almost Immortal. Wink Laughing Laughing

Does that help or inspire you any? God, I hope so!!!!

Cheers mate!
Shadow Cool


Last edited by on Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
pasquanel



Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 517

Location: Maine

PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:49 pm    Post subject: Re: clone vs backup? [Login to view extended thread Info.]

I'm using Acronis 10 and have used it to clone my C: drive to a spare disk as a backup. I then using Acronis 10 used it to create an "Acronis Secure Zone" on a third hard drive. This is an incremental back up,
Shadow I do not possess your knowledge of DOS and while I'm sure Ghost 2003 works wonderfully for you I have no idea how to use it so I have to rely on "new software" to get by! While it's my desire to know as much as I can there appears to be a limited amount of space in this old cranium and if I don't have to learn DOS I don't want to! I do appreciate your help and opinion it's just I'm a couple of light years behind you. I want to click and point and when that fails I need an "old timer" to bail me out!! Laughing Thanks in advance!! (I don't even mind the crusty part!)..LOL Wink
Back to top




User: inactive
Posts:



PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:35 am    Post subject: Re: clone vs backup? [Login to view extended thread Info.]

Pas,
I'm lost.....are you complaining about ATI not doing what you want and need it to do, or just because it's taking so long?

Ghost is a dos program but you don't need to know DOS to run it.
You just have to know the configuration of your system so you can tell Ghost what drive you want to be the Source and what drive you want to be the target. NO rocket science or anything like that. Simple as ONE, TWO, THREE. I could teach a monkey to use Ghost in just a few easy lessons.

I don't want to embarrass anyone by naming the guys on this very forum that are using Ghost today, with a little help and urging from the old Shadow and they now understand it and LOVE it.
I supply acquisition information and even a tutorial for those who have faith enough in me to try Ghost for themselves.

I'm one of the laziest persons you'll ever want to meet. Years ago my boss at NCR told me that he'd always call on the laziest guy in the shop for the most difficult job, because he knew that guy would find the quickest and easiest way to get the job done. That was ME! Wink Laughing Laughing Laughing

I've been called a "Developmental Engineer" because I develop better and easier ways of doing things. I've found ways of doing things with Ghost 2003 and 2005 that I'm sure the original writers never even thought of.

Who would'a ever thought you could use Ghost for a Defrag program?
Not just A defrag program, but the best one in the world. Wink Laughing Laughing I do it every week.

And who would'a ever thought that you could boot up a PC and run Ghost or any backup software, from a SD Flash Memory Card? The same card used in digital cameras. I do!

I'm having a ball, sitting here playing with my 'puter and every day finding new uses for old programs. I've done it, over and over again.

I now have NTFS4DOS, and my Ghost program on a single, Bootable, flash drive. All run from a simple DOS Ansi-Color menu.

I can boot up in DOS, run NTFS4DOS to access an NTFS drive, remove all the files on that drive that I don't want to back up, like the Pagefile and old restore points, temp files, etc, (all from simple DOS batch files) and then run Ghost on that drive to back it up to another drive or even to a DVD, minus all the crapola files.

On my own C: drive, I save about 3 gigabytes in my backup file by deleting all the junk files from C: before doing the Ghost backup.
Then I back up C: in less than five minutes.
Acronis can't do that.

Oh well, it's been a long day. I had to tune up a Dell laptop with only 256 megs of ram in it. I'm pooped!

Y'all have a great day now, Y'hear?

Shadow Cool


Last edited by on Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
BudDurland



Joined: Dec 05, 2002
Posts: 527



PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:45 am    Post subject: Re: clone vs backup? [Login to view extended thread Info.]

TheShadow wrote:

I've been using Ghost since 1997 with total satisfaction. I can back up my C: drive to an Image file with light compression in under five minutes.


Is your C: drive your data drive as well? How many GB are you backing up in 5 min? I started using Ghost about the same time you did. I still use it occasionally.

TheShadow wrote:
Hearing all the hoopla about Acronis, I got me a trial copy and made a similar backup image of C:. It took almost a half hour.
Also, I could not put Acronis on a boot disk and use it on any computer I came upon.


The speed difference is no surprise; Ghost is running in a dedicated, single task OS environment. You ran Acronis from within Windows, so it has to share resources. This isn't a poke at Ghost; simply a clarification for folks reading this that are new to the backup / imaging game.

I have yet to find a machine that won't boot the CD of my purchased version of Acronis True Image 10. I tried the trial version of ATI before I purchased, and found a couple limitations that struck me as reasonable for trial software.

When I was a regular ghost user (c. Ghost 2003), I had a lot of trouble getting ghost.exe to recognize USB connected hard disks, and back in those days DVD burners were expensive. I suspect most of the trouble was BIOS support; if the BIOS didn't present it as a drive to Ghost, Ghost couldn't talk to it. I'm sure that has been corrected in most modern hardware.

TheShadow wrote:
I married Ghost 2005, (8.3), my Windows ME Utilities and NTFS4DOS all into one composite disk. It's all set up on a 512 meg Flash Drive which can easily be burned to a bootable CD with Nero.

I'm still working out some little details, but the bulk of the work is done and the resulting CD boots and works like a champ.


I think your system is a great tool for a traveling technician that needs to make backups of a client's PC prior to doing any surgery. Or for a moderately tech savvy home user -- one who understand what a partition is, knows that "disk 0" is probably the one that is usually called "C:", knows enough to restore the incremental backups in the right order.

Some folks are simply more comfortable with responding to a software wizard's prompts.

The other day, I restored my Vista system using ATI. About 45GB total, using the ATI boot CD and a backup set (1 "full", 3 "incrementals") on a USB 1.1 external disk. The restore took 5 mouse clicks and about 45 minutes, and the system was back to the exact same state as when I shut it down to re-install XP.

TheShadow wrote:
Who would'a ever thought you could use Ghost for a Defrag program?


Well, that's not really new -- just about any complete file-by-file system restore to a blank or freshly partitioned disk has a defrag effect.

TheShadow wrote:
I now have NTFS4DOS, my Ghost program and all my Windows ME Utilities on a single, Bootable, flash drive. All run from a simple DOS Ansi-Color menu.


Does NTFS4DOS preserve security info? Just curious, I've heard of it but never used it.

TheShadow wrote:
On my own C: drive, I save about 3 gigabytes in my backup file by deleting all the junk files from C: before doing the Ghost backup.
Then I back up C: in less than five minutes.
Acronis can't do that.


How much data to you backup in 5 minutes? If one wanted to split hairs, it could be claimed that Ghost can't do it either; the cleanup task isn't part of Ghost's abilities. Although to me, how long an incremental backup takes isn't a big deal; Acronis let's me schedule the backup for 2:00 in the morning. I don't even have to be logged in.

Of course, this discussion is in the context of home users. For most businesses, the needs are quite different.

Regards;
Back to top
Baby_Tux



Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Posts: 1244



PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:38 am    Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

Quote:
Does NTFS4DOS preserve security info? Just curious, I've heard of it but never used it.


This is a good question & I too, am curious as to the answer.
If you were to do a regular copy of an NTFS file to a DOS partition the security is lost because DOS doesn't support it. But GHOST is supposed to be making a "snapshot" image of that file thus I'd THINK it wouldn't matter WHERE it was put as it is supposed to be a bit stream.

Someone want to take the challenge & find out? PLEASE? - I would, if I had the time, & more HD's to try it. (assuming the answer isn't already known)
Back to top




User: inactive
Posts:



PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:39 pm    Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

If I may....

Ghost and probably other imaging programs as well, makes an Image of the C: partition, taking the boot sector info, the format (NTFS or FAT-32) and everything else and puts it into one large, compressed Image file.
(I don't mean to imply that I know how it does it. It just does! )

Where that file is stored has no effect on the data within the Image.
It won't change one iota because it's stored on a DVD or even a flash drive, in FAT (something) format.

The comment about restoring a Ghost image to a new HD and effecting a Defrag, is out of phase with what I was saying.
I was not talking about a new HD.
I was talking about my own C: drive, formatted FAT-32.

When a Ghost Image is restored, it rewrites the entire C: drive in exactly the way the files were entered into the Ghost Image. (folder by folder, file by file)
There will be NO spaces between the files and of course, NO fragmentation.

We used a similar technique on mainframes years ago, since we had NO Defrag program to use on those big computers. We'd backup a disk, re-format it and restore the backup. Everything was then in perfect order, with no spaces between files and no fragmentation.
Doing that greatly increased the efficiency of those old (SLOOOOOW ) hard drives.

I hope this clears up any misconceptions. Confused

Cheers mates!
The Shadow Cool
Back to top
pasquanel



Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 517

Location: Maine

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:20 pm    Post subject: Re: clone vs backup? [Login to view extended thread Info.]

My initial inquiry was why ATI was able to clone an image to another drive so much faster than it could do a backup of the same drive.
I have just realized that ATI was creating a backup that could be amended incrementally and also booted at startup. Once ATI had created the initial
backup an incremental backup only takes minutes versus the hour forty five minutes it took the first time.

Thank you all for all the info and your patience with a "newbie" Very Happy
Back to top
Baby_Tux



Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Posts: 1244



PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:35 pm    Post subject: Re: clone vs backup? [Login to view extended thread Info.]

Sometimes it TAKES that one little spark to make things click - even for us "old timers" in this stuff. & I've found that the more feedback/info one can gather, the better chance of that happening.

Glad to hear you got it.
Back to top
zlim



Joined: Mar 11, 2005
Posts: 2747



PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:46 am    Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

pasquanel, you aren't a newbie. Newbies don't ever bother trying to figure out how to image, clone or make backups. When things go wrong, they format and re-install - the true sign of a newbie. (When tech support, if you bother to write/call/chat tells you to reinstall, run away and go to a support forum where you'll get better solutions.)
Back to top




User: inactive
Posts:



PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:17 pm    Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

Apologies, for getting long-winded and sometimes straying off course.

Realize, that I'm not only responding to the originator of the thread, but the hundreds or thousands of other folks, worldwide who will stop by and read it and go on.

Getting back to the original topic of "Clone vs Backup"....

During the cloning process, the program only copies files from point A to point B. That's a fairly simple process and "should" take the least amount of time.

Making a 'backup' Image File, the program has to read a file, compress that file and add it to the Image, just like building a huge ZIP file.
I can easily see where that process would take longer than just making a clone.

I'm always glad when someone comes back and says, "I got it!".

Y'all have a Happy Thanksgiving now, Y'hear?

The Shadow Cool
Back to top
pasquanel



Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 517

Location: Maine

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:38 pm    Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

No apologies needed I'm always ready to learn that's why I visit most every day and when those of you who respond interact together I learn even more!
Shadow, Baby Tux, Zlim, BudDurland, Werebo. Thanks for sharing and have a great Thanksgiving.
Back to top
JimTheMuso



Joined: Aug 24, 2004
Posts: 220



PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:22 am    Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

If I may jump in here with some personal observations. I am, at the moment, experimenting with Ghost (thanks to the great help from a very good man Wink ) but my observations are this: I purchased ATI and find that I can make a full pc image in about 45 minutes. (It often shows corrupt on validation but that's being investigated by their "technical" chaps and it takes that amount of time whether it validates correctly or not). That is with no compression. The purchased disk can be used to boot the machine and I can make a full image then which always validates OK - but it takes about 4 hours to do it. This seems to be at odds with the remark by BudDurland about ATI sharing resources with Windows. On Googling for folks with similar problems with ATI as me (bad validation) it seems that it works fine on some systems but not on others and I have yet to find anyone who has had these problems having resolved them with or without help from Acronis.
Back to top




User: inactive
Posts:



PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:27 pm    Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

Regardless, of which program a person uses, doing a Validation on the new Image File is, or should be, Mandatory.

Nothing is any worse than needing a backup file in an emergency and finding out that it can't be read! (shuddering)

If you don't do your backups very often, doing a "Scandisk" or "Chkdsk" before doing the backup can save you having to do the backup AGAIN when the validation fails.

I clean and backup my C: drive several times a week, so I'm well versed in all the processes and pitfalls.

Cheers Mates!
The Shadow Cool
Back to top
zlim



Joined: Mar 11, 2005
Posts: 2747



PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:49 am    Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

Not only do I always validate my images, whether made using Ghost or True Image in addition, if it is the first such image for a given computer, I do something really scary - I restore using that image.
I take the computer and make a few changes to the desktop folders, download an image and put it on the desktop - just enough to have visible changes so I can see what I have is not the same as my image. Then I turn off the computer, boot up with either my floppy set or CD that loads the program and then point it to my image (either on burned CDs or an external hd) and restore it. I want to be sure that I know exactly how the restore works because even if I have an image and it is valid, I want to be sure that it is also restorable. I take notes on what I had to do: some computers, mainly the notebooks, don't work well with my USB mouse so I need to connect my PS/2 mouse. Once I have it restored, I know that if my computers dies, I do have one good image that is restorable! That is a major relief.
Note: I don't go through this every time I make an image because I figure if I successfully restored once, any of my subsequents images will work the same way.
Back to top
CyberD



Joined: Dec 03, 2007
Posts: 4



PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:14 am    Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

Hi, I'm new to the forum and I am interested in the use of Ghost as discussed here and in several other questions. My recollection of Ghost is that it has two lineages; the early Symantec one and the PowerQuest Drive Image one. The latter company was acquired by Symantec and they put Drive Image out under the Ghost name for several years I thought.

I used DI in a number of versions and quickly put my hands on three, 2.0, 4.0 and 2002. I used them in Windows up through 2k. I did not install the several copies of XP I have, but went to Vista Ultimate 64-bit. Can the DI 2002 and or Ghost work on Vista 64 bit?

For backup in Vista I have been using it's image software, but I am looking for faster and more options and wondered about using DI, Ghost, or ????

Thanks. Great forum.

CyberD
Back to top
goretsky



Joined: Dec 07, 2002
Posts: 9826

Location: Southern California

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:04 am    Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

Hello,

Symantec (formerly PowerQuest) Drive Image and Ghost may work with 64-bit Microsoft Windows Vista, however, it would probably be safer to use the latest version.

The latest version of Symantec Norton Ghost is v12. According to the system requirements, it does work with Microsoft Windows Vista, however, there is no explicit mention of x64 support. If the program works from a self-booting disc, though, this may be a non-issue, as it would likely run in 32-bit mode on 64-bit hardware without any issues.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky
Back to top
CyberD



Joined: Dec 03, 2007
Posts: 4



PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:23 pm    Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

Goretsky thanks for the info (and Dextor looks like a "great" dog!). I found the following info on Symantec's site:
System requirements for Norton Ghost 12.0
Operating system
Windows 32-bit or 64-bit operating systems:

Windows Vista Home Basic
Windows Vista Home Premium
Windows Vista Ultimate
Windows Vista Business
Windows XP Home (SP2 or later)
Windows XP Professional (SP2 or later)
Windows XP Media Center Edition (SP2 or later)

So, 64-bit seems to be covered. Now to find if that has always been the case for this program (DI is still the heart of Ghost now it seems). If so maybe I can use my DI 2002. Simple solution would be to try it using the MS image as a backup/recovery if needed. However, I am not quite ready for that yet. Hopefully soon.

CyberD
Back to top
CyberD



Joined: Dec 03, 2007
Posts: 4



PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:00 am    Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

After spending more time rooting around on the Symantec site I found their product compatibility with OS's and 32 and 64-bit is given at:

http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/tsgeninfo.nsf/0/835a15bab738fa698...6ad1006

Ghost 10 and several other versions including "Norton PartitionMagic 8.0" are not 64-bit compatible, so my copies of DI probably are not.

So I am back looking for a backup and imaging software, appreciate suggestions.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   General Reply to Topic (not reply to a specific post)    Forums Home -> Problem Solvers All times are: Eastern Time (US & Canada)
Goto page 1, 2
Page 1 of 2

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum