How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?

Hi,

Twayne wrote"........Because images restore faster; no
platter/track/sector tracking needed."

Have you ever used a clone? When and for what?

---==X={}=X==---

Jim Self

AVIATION ANIMATION, the internet's largest depository.
http://avanimation.avsupport.com

Your only internet source for spiral staircase plans.
http://jself.com/stair/Stair.htm

Experimental Aircraft Association #140897
EAA Technical Counselor #4562

WaIIy wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:25:23 -0600, Mike Torello
wrote:

WaIIy wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:35:52 -0600, Mike Torello
wrote:

This thread has been going back and forth on the merits of a couple
programs for making backups... CLONING is not the type of backup I
need or want, no matter how easy it is to make one, etc.

Uhh, the thread is about cloning. A ham sandwich is not my type of
backup. The thread is about cloning, if it's not your type of backup,
keep it to yourself.

It began on Jan 16 as: "How to use Acronis to backup o/s"

It ran with that subject for no less than 145 posts and 9 days before
it got changed yesterday to "Using Casper... " by "Anna" when she had
to backtrack and correct the bad info she'd posted about Casper.

Like something to help you wash that mouth full of crow down?

No crow.

You are in a thread regarding Casper and state you don't like cloning.

This is a different thread, you lost your chance.

Same thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/micro...d2cf8e3f7b5a6#

PA20Pilot wrote:

Hi,

Twayne wrote"........Because images restore faster; no
platter/track/sector tracking needed."

Have you ever used a clone? When and for what?

Have you ever restored from a clone on an external drive?


---==X={}=X==---

Jim Self

AVIATION ANIMATION, the internet's largest depository.
http://avanimation.avsupport.com

Your only internet source for spiral staircase plans.
http://jself.com/stair/Stair.htm

Experimental Aircraft Association #140897
EAA Technical Counselor #4562

PA20Pilot wrote:
Hi,

"........... images allow you to mess with a single drive, directory,
file, whatever in any manner you wish. You can retrieve a lost file from
an image in a few minutes but it's quite a task with a clone and can't
really be very cleanly accomplished without hoops.


I Clone my entire drive every friday night. As was mentioned earlier,
it's an exact copy of the main hard drive. When I open a file explorer I
see both the original and the clones contents, that means individual
files, not an image of the disk contents.

You can do that with Acronis True Image, too (have access to the individual
files in the image backup using Windows Explorer)

There are no "hoops", drag,
drop, whatever suits your needs. It's like having two of everything
available at once.

If it takes you "a few minutes" to "retrieve a lost file from an image",

It doesn't. Using Windows Explorer, you can see and access the file and
copy it if you want. It doesn't take a few minutes.

you should look into using a cloned drive instead.


---==X={}=X==---

Jim Self

AVIATION ANIMATION, the internet's largest depository.
http://avanimation.avsupport.com

Your only internet source for spiral staircase plans.
http://jself.com/stair/Stair.htm

Experimental Aircraft Association #140897
EAA Technical Counselor #4562

Hi,

Mike Torello wrote......"Have you ever restored from a clone on an
external drive?"

I use a removeable carraage so I can turn the key and place any hard
drive I want in the holder. It's a lot like an external, but I an slap
any drive I need to in there whenever it's needed.

This setup works very well for me, might not be your choice though. I
can handle that.

Wally wrote......Here ! Here ! Pick me Pick me

Sorry, I don't need any games right now.


---==X={}=X==---

Jim Self

AVIATION ANIMATION, the internet's largest depository.
http://avanimation.avsupport.com

Your only internet source for spiral staircase plans.
http://jself.com/stair/Stair.htm

Experimental Aircraft Association #140897
EAA Technical Counselor #4562

Hi,

Bill in CO wrote......"Using Windows Explorer, you can see and access
the file and copy it if you want. It doesn't take a few minutes."

Lucky us. By the way, I don't use either of the programs you folks are
discussing.


---==X={}=X==---

Jim Self

AVIATION ANIMATION, the internet's largest depository.
http://avanimation.avsupport.com

Your only internet source for spiral staircase plans.
http://jself.com/stair/Stair.htm

Experimental Aircraft Association #140897
EAA Technical Counselor #4562

"Anna" wrote in message...
Daave:
Please understand that there is *nothing* that stands in the way of a
user of the Casper 5 program to create a clone of his or her source HDD
on a *daily* basis. We do this on a number of our PCs and we're aware of
many Casper 5 users who likewise do this.


"Daave" wrote in message
Actually, my point was that doing just that *could* be problematic.
Probably not, but the possibility exists for the last "good" clone to no
longer exist. At least with imaging, since you can store a number of
generational images on one hard drive, you can restore the last good image
because it still exists.


"Anna" wrote in message...
As I have tried to emphasize all through this discussion of the Casper 5
program in comparing it with other disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs, it
is the program's incredible speed in creating a clone of one's HDD when
the program is used on a routine *frequent* basis that makes the program
so attractive in my estimation.


"Daave" wrote in message...
And if it's done too frequently, it's possible (admittedly not probable,
but still the possibility exists) that the most recent clone would be
problematic.


"Anna" wrote in message...
Using as an example a HDD containing 50 GB of data...

Should the user clone the contents of that drive on a *daily* basis, it
will probably take somewhere in the vicinity of 2 to 4 minutes to
complete the disk-cloning operation. TWO TO FOUR MINUTES! The precise
amount of time to complete the disk-cloning operation would, of course,
depend chiefly upon the amount of changes made in the system since the
last disk-cloning operation.


"Daave" wrote in message...
That's impressive, yes. But that gives us the trade-off. Disk-to-disk
cloning has the advantage of giving you a fully bootable drive, yes. But
imaging gives you a much larger number of options. And if your most recent
clone has the same problems, then as I see it, imaging is superior in that
instance. It might be rare. But I'd rather have that extra bit of
security.


"Anna" wrote in message...
And the Casper program also provides the user with an option of automatic
scheduling of these disk-cloning operations on whatever time frame the
user chooses, including a daily basis should the user desire such.

Frankly, I'm not entirely clear re the scenario(s) you posit. One of the
recommendations we make to users of Casper 5 (or for that matter users of
*any* disk-cloning/disk-imaging program) is that *before* making
substantive changes to one's system, e.g., installing new, untested
programs, or making radical configuration changes, or installing a new
Service Pack, etc. etc., the user undertake a disk-cloning operation with
the Casper program. Thus, should problems arise as a consequence of any
of those events the user will have at hand a bootable, functional clone
of their "good" system. There's no "trade-off" involved here.


"Daave" wrote in message...
Sure there is. Here is the scenario again:

Monday: You install program A. It turns out to mess up your system
something fierce. The problem is that you don't notice the damage right
away. Tuesday: Updates (e.g., Windows security updates) are installed with
no consequence that you can tell. Friday: You install Program B. Later
that day you start noticing some performance problems. Then Saturday comes
and you can't even boot to Windows.

Let's say you cloned Sunday night or Monday morning prior to installing
Program A. That's great. But then you created other clones on Tuesday
(before the updates) and Friday (prior to installing Program B). If you
want to pop in the cloned hard drive that is the best (i.e., the one made
before Program A was installed), you can't do it; it doesn't exist!
However, if you have been making images, that image *would* exist.

I am assuming the user is performing disk-to-disk cloning so that the
destination drive is an exact bootable copy.


"Anna" wrote in message...
And as I've repeatedly emphasized, because the Casper program speedily
completes the disk-cloning operation this gives the user strong
encouragement to frequently back up their entire system even on a daily
basis if one chooses to do so since the expenditure of backup time comes
close to being trivial.

And where the destination HDD (the recipient of the clone) is another
internal HDD, the user has *immediately* at hand a bootable, functional
HDD


"Daave" wrote in message...
In my scenario, the cloned HDD is *not* functional. Now if the user has
seven physical hard drives and chooses to use the clone made on Monday,
then all is well. I assume that's not your typical user, though!

with all data *immediately* accessible and no "restoration" process is
necessary to achieve this capability.

In my scenario, the restoration process, albeit longer, is better.


Daave:
I honestly believe that, for the most part, you're setting up "straw men".
In the *real world* of personal computing nearly *all* PC users know soon
enough that a new program they installed, or a configuration modification
they've just made, or whatever additions, deletions, modifications they've
made to their system has caused a problem. It's a relatively rare situation
in my experience that a user cannot *immediately* identify a problem
resulting from one or more of these types of changes.

How many times a day do we come across in this newsgroup and similar ones
the following kinds of pleas for help...

"Helllllp! My hard drive apparently died. How do I get my data back?", or,
"I just installed SP3 and now my computer doesn't even boot", or,
"I made that registry change XYZ suggested and now I'm getting weird
messages from Windows", or,
"I installed the latest update from Microsoft and now my anti-spyware
program has been trashed", or,
"I installed that new Super-Duper Anti-Malware program and now all I get a
black screen", or,
"All of a sudden I'm getting that dreaded BSOD. How can I save my precious
photos?", or...

The list goes on & on, does it not?

And would you not agree that in the *vast* number of these cases the problem
nearly always immediately arises and is so identified by the user
immediately following the addition, deletion, modification, etc., involving
the user's system? And that as a practical matter the "cause-effect"
scenario happens virtually instantaneously in a PC environment?

In so many cases the problem would have been a "non-problem" had the user
made a precise copy of his or her functional system *prior* to installing a
major program on their machine or making some major configuration change in
their otherwise perfectly-working system, an approach which we continually
recommend. This can be relatively easily & quickly achieved through the use
of a disk-cloning program such as the Casper 5 program which we prefer. So
that in the event of a catastrophe - minor or major - the system can be
easily & quickly restored to its previous functional state.

In any event, as I have repeatedly stated in the past...if a user's primary
interest is in maintaining generational copies of his or her system at
particular points-in-time, then generally speaking a disk-imaging program
rather than a disk-cloning program better suits that objective.

However, I have to add that there is no bar to using the Casper 5
disk-cloning program for that purpose as well. The only limitation(s) is the
total amount of the user's data to be cloned and the disk-space available on
the destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the cloned contents. So, for
example, if the user's data contents totaled 50 GB and the user's
destination drive had a capacity of 500 GB, nearly ten (10) "generational"
copies of the user's source drive could be maintained on the destination
HDD.
Anna

"Anna" wrote:

However, I have to add that there is no bar to using the Casper 5
disk-cloning program for that purpose as well. The only limitation(s) is the
total amount of the user's data to be cloned and the disk-space available on
the destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the cloned contents. So, for
example, if the user's data contents totaled 50 GB and the user's
destination drive had a capacity of 500 GB, nearly ten (10) "generational"
copies of the user's source drive could be maintained on the destination
HDD.

HOW!?

If Casper's "Copy Drive" is used, it destroys ALL data/partitions on
the destination drive before making the clone.

I thought that was firmly established in the past couple of days!

Hi,

"........... images allow you to mess with a
single
drive, directory, file, whatever in any manner
you wish.
You can retrieve a lost file from an image in a
few
minutes but it's quite a task with a clone and
can't
really be very cleanly accomplished without
hoops.

I Clone my entire drive every friday night. As
was
mentioned earlier, it's an exact copy of the
main hard
drive. When I open a file explorer I see both
the
original and the clones contents, that means
individual
files, not an image of the disk contents. There
are no
"hoops", drag, drop, whatever suits your needs.
It's like
having two of everything available at once.
If it takes you "a few minutes" to "retrieve a
lost file
from an image", you should look into using a
cloned drive
instead.

You're right, Jim.
That was a silly statement and who knows what
produced it, I agree. Since a cloned drive is an
exact copy of another drive, it's going to look
exactly like the other. In fact, without checking
the drive letter, one won't be able to tell the
difference.
In fact, that's the purpsoe of a cloned drive:
It's ready to go and is a bootable drive ready to
be accessed.

I do disagree that it's worth the lost time and
machine cycles it takes to make clones as opposed
to images with incrementals though. They give you
a history you can keep in reasonable smaller space
on disk for retrieval of files etc. that are no
longer on the machine or in the clone.
Technically a clone, even by Casper's definition,
is a hard disk with a mirror of the original
disk's contents on it. To me that's not a backup
literally; it's a catastrophic recovery method
requireing a disk drive for each clone.
They've been discussing putting multiple clones
on a single drive which means, if it can even be
done, that the MBR and tables, etc., are in wrong
places, so cloning that back to another hard disk
would not result in a usable bootable drive. As
most know, the OS must reside in a specific
location on the drive.
Soory about the mis speak,

Twayne


My error.

Hi,

Twayne wrote"...... If you can pick out a file
to
restore on its own, it's not a clone."

Why do you say that? My clones are an exact copy
of the
drive, file by file, folder by folder. Are you
writing
that a clone is not an exact copy?

No, I said that for no good reason; it's erroneous
and I do appreciate it being caught and
straightened out. No, I am not saying a clone is
not an exact copy; it fact, it is an exact copy,
bit by bit, sector by sector. You are quite
right.

Twayne




---==X={}=X==---

Jim Self

AVIATION ANIMATION, the internet's largest
depository.
http://avanimation.avsupport.com

Your only internet source for spiral staircase
plans.
http://jself.com/stair/Stair.htm

Experimental Aircraft Association #140897
EAA Technical Counselor #4562

Mike Torello wrote:
"Anna" wrote:

However, I have to add that there is no bar to using the Casper 5
disk-cloning program for that purpose as well. The only limitation(s) is
the
total amount of the user's data to be cloned and the disk-space available
on
the destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the cloned contents. So, for
example, if the user's data contents totaled 50 GB and the user's
destination drive had a capacity of 500 GB, nearly ten (10)
"generational"
copies of the user's source drive could be maintained on the destination
HDD.

HOW!?

If Casper's "Copy Drive" is used, it destroys ALL data/partitions on
the destination drive before making the clone.

I thought that was firmly established in the past couple of days!

I thought it was stated that with Casper there was that other option of just
copying the partitions, one by one, into unallocated space? But even if
that is possible with Casper, you will end up with multiple drive letter
designations in the destination drive for each of the cloned partitions
(which can impact assignments of some other drives and their drive letters
that you are using, like flash or CD drive letter assignments).

I know such partition copying can be done with Partition Magic and Boot It
NG, (because I've done it with both), but as even Anna has conceded, it's
probably best to use an imagining program for keeping such generational
backup copies. Hence I've been using Acronis True Image (I have about 10
generational backup images on the secondary internal drive).

Anna wrote:
"Anna" wrote in message...
Daave:
Please understand that there is *nothing* that stands in the way of a
user of the Casper 5 program to create a clone of his or her source HDD
on a *daily* basis. We do this on a number of our PCs and we're aware of
many Casper 5 users who likewise do this.


"Daave" wrote in message
Actually, my point was that doing just that *could* be problematic.
Probably not, but the possibility exists for the last "good" clone to no
longer exist. At least with imaging, since you can store a number of
generational images on one hard drive, you can restore the last good
image
because it still exists.


"Anna" wrote in message...
As I have tried to emphasize all through this discussion of the Casper 5
program in comparing it with other disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs,
it
is the program's incredible speed in creating a clone of one's HDD when
the program is used on a routine *frequent* basis that makes the program
so attractive in my estimation.


"Daave" wrote in message...
And if it's done too frequently, it's possible (admittedly not probable,
but still the possibility exists) that the most recent clone would be
problematic.


"Anna" wrote in message...
Using as an example a HDD containing 50 GB of data...

Should the user clone the contents of that drive on a *daily* basis, it
will probably take somewhere in the vicinity of 2 to 4 minutes to
complete the disk-cloning operation. TWO TO FOUR MINUTES! The precise
amount of time to complete the disk-cloning operation would, of course,
depend chiefly upon the amount of changes made in the system since the
last disk-cloning operation.


"Daave" wrote in message...
That's impressive, yes. But that gives us the trade-off. Disk-to-disk
cloning has the advantage of giving you a fully bootable drive, yes. But
imaging gives you a much larger number of options. And if your most
recent
clone has the same problems, then as I see it, imaging is superior in
that
instance. It might be rare. But I'd rather have that extra bit of
security.


"Anna" wrote in message...
And the Casper program also provides the user with an option of
automatic
scheduling of these disk-cloning operations on whatever time frame the
user chooses, including a daily basis should the user desire such.

Frankly, I'm not entirely clear re the scenario(s) you posit. One of the
recommendations we make to users of Casper 5 (or for that matter users
of
*any* disk-cloning/disk-imaging program) is that *before* making
substantive changes to one's system, e.g., installing new, untested
programs, or making radical configuration changes, or installing a new
Service Pack, etc. etc., the user undertake a disk-cloning operation
with
the Casper program. Thus, should problems arise as a consequence of any
of those events the user will have at hand a bootable, functional clone
of their "good" system. There's no "trade-off" involved here.


"Daave" wrote in message...
Sure there is. Here is the scenario again:

Monday: You install program A. It turns out to mess up your system
something fierce. The problem is that you don't notice the damage right
away. Tuesday: Updates (e.g., Windows security updates) are installed
with
no consequence that you can tell. Friday: You install Program B. Later
that day you start noticing some performance problems. Then Saturday
comes
and you can't even boot to Windows.

Let's say you cloned Sunday night or Monday morning prior to installing
Program A. That's great. But then you created other clones on Tuesday
(before the updates) and Friday (prior to installing Program B). If you
want to pop in the cloned hard drive that is the best (i.e., the one made
before Program A was installed), you can't do it; it doesn't exist!
However, if you have been making images, that image *would* exist.

I am assuming the user is performing disk-to-disk cloning so that the
destination drive is an exact bootable copy.


"Anna" wrote in message...
And as I've repeatedly emphasized, because the Casper program speedily
completes the disk-cloning operation this gives the user strong
encouragement to frequently back up their entire system even on a daily
basis if one chooses to do so since the expenditure of backup time comes
close to being trivial.

And where the destination HDD (the recipient of the clone) is another
internal HDD, the user has *immediately* at hand a bootable, functional
HDD


"Daave" wrote in message...
In my scenario, the cloned HDD is *not* functional. Now if the user has
seven physical hard drives and chooses to use the clone made on Monday,
then all is well. I assume that's not your typical user, though!

with all data *immediately* accessible and no "restoration" process is
necessary to achieve this capability.

In my scenario, the restoration process, albeit longer, is better.


Daave:
I honestly believe that, for the most part, you're setting up "straw men".
In the *real world* of personal computing nearly *all* PC users know soon
enough that a new program they installed, or a configuration modification
they've just made, or whatever additions, deletions, modifications they've
made to their system has caused a problem. It's a relatively rare
situation
in my experience that a user cannot *immediately* identify a problem
resulting from one or more of these types of changes.

How many times a day do we come across in this newsgroup and similar ones
the following kinds of pleas for help...

"Helllllp! My hard drive apparently died. How do I get my data back?", or,
"I just installed SP3 and now my computer doesn't even boot", or,
"I made that registry change XYZ suggested and now I'm getting weird
messages from Windows", or,
"I installed the latest update from Microsoft and now my anti-spyware
program has been trashed", or,
"I installed that new Super-Duper Anti-Malware program and now all I get a
black screen", or,
"All of a sudden I'm getting that dreaded BSOD. How can I save my precious
photos?", or...

The list goes on & on, does it not?

And would you not agree that in the *vast* number of these cases the
problem
nearly always immediately arises and is so identified by the user
immediately following the addition, deletion, modification, etc.,
involving
the user's system? And that as a practical matter the "cause-effect"
scenario happens virtually instantaneously in a PC environment?

For most cases, yes. But there are a lot of cases which do NOT show up
right away! For example, one may not be using a program regularly, and
then come back and find it doesn't work properly anymore. Or something else
starts acting up several days later after something was installed or done to
the system. Or the case of the random crash out "of the blue" that starts
appearing later after some change had been made to the system a few days
back. And I've been through each of these scenarios. Without generational
backups, you're screwed, and the intermittent bugs (the worst ones) are
nearly impossible to track down and debug.


In so many cases the problem would have been a "non-problem" had the user
made a precise copy of his or her functional system *prior* to installing
a
major program on their machine or making some major configuration change
in
their otherwise perfectly-working system, an approach which we continually
recommend. This can be relatively easily & quickly achieved through the
use
of a disk-cloning program such as the Casper 5 program which we prefer. So
that in the event of a catastrophe - minor or major - the system can be
easily & quickly restored to its previous functional state.

In any event, as I have repeatedly stated in the past...if a user's
primary
interest is in maintaining generational copies of his or her system at
particular points-in-time, then generally speaking a disk-imaging program
rather than a disk-cloning program better suits that objective.

However, I have to add that there is no bar to using the Casper 5
disk-cloning program for that purpose as well. The only limitation(s) is
the
total amount of the user's data to be cloned and the disk-space available
on
the destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the cloned contents. So, for
example, if the user's data contents totaled 50 GB and the user's
destination drive had a capacity of 500 GB, nearly ten (10) "generational"
copies of the user's source drive could be maintained on the destination
HDD.
Anna

....

However, I have to add that there is no bar to
using the
Casper 5 disk-cloning program for that purpose
as well.
The only limitation(s) is the total amount of
the user's
data to be cloned and the disk-space available
on the
destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the
cloned
contents. So, for example, if the user's data
contents
totaled 50 GB and the user's destination drive
had a
capacity of 500 GB, nearly ten (10)
"generational" copies
of the user's source drive could be maintained
on the
destination HDD. Anna

I'm curious; I checked out Casper's site and I
don't see references to things like that.
Have you actually ever created multiple
"clones" to a single hard drive, and then used any
of the interim clones to totally rebuild a new or
formatted boot drive? And it worked?

I have a suspicion it didn't/doesn't work; in
fact, I'm reasonably sure, but ... would be
interested in learning more about it if it's true.
Here's some information I dug up:

Each clone requires a hard drive.
They do create a clone, and maintain the clone
via copy/data management methods"
Read about it he
http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/smartclone.aspx

and here for Normal hype:
http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/
http://www.fssdev.com/
http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/features.aspx

It's classed as:
Utilities : Backup/Copy Tools
http://www.filebuzz.com/fileinfo/42540/Casper.html
Some How tos:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/...ckup-of-a.aspx

Backing up a complete system with either
“Image” or “Cloning” software.
What’s the difference?

http://www.sctxca.org/export/sites/d...sperbackup.pdf
Page 3 of the above has probably the clearest,
concise definition of clone/image I've seen yet.

Cloning vs IMaging:
The two procedures are similar, but yet so
different in how they are formed
and how they can be used. To clone a hard drive
the clone should be
copied directly to another hard drive. That hard
drive can either be external
or internal. They need not be of the same size. To
image a hard drive the
image is much smaller that the original and can be
place on many different
storage devises such as CD, DVD and other hard
drives. They can be
internal or external.
To recover with a clone it is only necessary to
boot up the clone. Nothing
else needs to be done. To recover an image a boot
up disc (often the disk
that made the clone) is placed in the CD drawer
and the computer is booted
from that. It then needs the image disc to restore
the computer to its original
state. Different programs handle this recover in
different ways
Recovery with a clone is faster and in my opinion
more reliable, but it does
necessitate having a second hard drive, preferable
internal.
Another point in favor of a clone is that is
simple to check the clone to see if
it works. Just reboot the computer and in the BIOS
change the boot order of
the drives. To check an image it is destructive
and if is not good you have
ruined your day. You can check the validity of a
backup image by running a
backup validate which completely rebuilds the disk
image in memory and
validates that the whole backup could be restored
without error. Still?

There's a lot more but that should assist anyone
wanting to do some reading. I've purposely not
bothered with anything negative because IMO it's
not called for. What Casper has created is a new
methodology for backup systems that can logically
even take an existing clone and modify it
(incremental, if you will) to create a new clone
from the old one by moving data and inserting it
where it needs to be in order to keep it as a
"clone". So, the end result, even after running
an incremental or differential clone, I forget
what they called it, does actually create a new
clone from the old one, rather than by creating a
completly new clone copy. The first link above I
think it was, shows that process rather well.

They have managed to take one of the best
concepts of imaging, incremental backups, and
added it to the cloning feature but without
creating new files and instead revising data
locations in the current clone to place the
new/changed data into the same data slots on the
clone as they are onthe hard disk, thus
maintaining the same addresses of data inthe clone
as are used on the hard disk. AFAIK other
low-priced Clone software programs don't do that,
or even many of the pay-fors in the same price
range as Casper.
That's a good step forward. Imaging software
doesn't do that until you go to Restore it. But,
imaging software still carries the advantage of
being to restore only an incremental as opposed to
the entire backup, which the cloning operation
can't to. So that part comes down to whether the
user cares or not. I do, but many may not. There
are a few other things like that too, but they all
come down to user preference.

As for time to make a clone and increment it,
there is nothing special there. It works in the
background like many do to create the first clone,
a time consuing operation for any software, and
depending on the amount of data in the incremental
to the clone is a little slower than imaging
because instead of simply creating another file,
it has to move data around so it can be inserted
into the right places inside the clone and that
can take anything from a pretty short time to a
long time, depending on how many changes there are
and how much data has to be moved around inside
the clone. If something is added at the end of
the clone, it's quicker than if something were
added at the beginning, requiring possibly many
gigabytes of information to be slid over xx bytes
to make room for the new data write. Again, see
http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/smartclone.aspx
for an example of how that works.
OTOH, time is of little consequence unless it
occurs while the opearator is sitting at the
keyboard. Any program worth its existance will do
the monkey work in the background and works by
schedule and unattended.

So Casper isn't too shoddy at all. At $60-$70 I
think it's priced a bit steeply for what it does,
but ... if it's reliable and support is available,
it could work well for a lot of people if they
haven't built in auto-obsoletion a la Microsoft's
practicesg. One will still get more features
and better control over everything with most
imaging applications than with Casper or one of
its competitors.

I'll be sticking with imaging because I use a
lot of the features Casper can't offer plus I can
also clone anytime I need to. This thread was
good for getting me to thinking about my backup
situation and to consider whether it was enough or
not, and I think it is; I have the best of both
worlds this way. Should anyone wonder, I use
Ghost14 for backups; a tad more expensive than
Acronis was, but the extra bells & whistles are
handy too.

And of course all recommend the all-important
external disk drives, which are now very
reasonably priced all the way up to a Terabyte.

Of no consequence, but should anyone wonder:
Machine 1: XP Pro SP3, Pentium 4, 2.7 GHz, 1 Gig
RAM, 5 physical drives, two of the externals for
swapping on alternate days for backups, 7 USB
peripherals, no firewire.

Machine 2: Dell dual Xeon, 1 Gig RAM, 2 SCSI
drives, 1 IDE, Windows 2000 Server Edition SP4,
used as a sandbox. Only the OS is backed up;
carries little keepable data.

Machine 3: Laptop, P4, 1.7 GHz, 512 RAM, 80 Gig
drive. Carried off premises for whatever; kept
synced with this machine, backed up to the 1 TB
drive as required. .

All are backed up to the 1 TB external drive
monthly or as required, depending on use/activity.
This machine does a full backup once per month,
nightly incrementals in between. Other machines
as required.

Cheers,
Twayne

Twayne wrote:
...

However, I have to add that there is no bar to
using the
Casper 5 disk-cloning program for that purpose
as well.
The only limitation(s) is the total amount of
the user's
data to be cloned and the disk-space available
on the
destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the
cloned
contents. So, for example, if the user's data
contents
totaled 50 GB and the user's destination drive
had a
capacity of 500 GB, nearly ten (10)
"generational" copies
of the user's source drive could be maintained
on the
destination HDD. Anna

I'm curious; I checked out Casper's site and I
don't see references to things like that.
Have you actually ever created multiple
"clones" to a single hard drive, and then used any
of the interim clones to totally rebuild a new or
formatted boot drive? And it worked?

I have a suspicion it didn't/doesn't work; in
fact, I'm reasonably sure, but ... would be
interested in learning more about it if it's true.
Here's some information I dug up:

Each clone requires a hard drive.
They do create a clone, and maintain the clone
via copy/data management methods"
Read about it he
http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/smartclone.aspx

and here for Normal hype:
http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/
http://www.fssdev.com/
http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/features.aspx

It's classed as:
Utilities : Backup/Copy Tools
http://www.filebuzz.com/fileinfo/42540/Casper.html
Some How tos:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/...ckup-of-a.aspx

Backing up a complete system with either
"Image" or "Cloning" software.
What's the difference?

http://www.sctxca.org/export/sites/d...sperbackup.pdf
Page 3 of the above has probably the clearest,
concise definition of clone/image I've seen yet.

Cloning vs IMaging:
The two procedures are similar, but yet so
different in how they are formed
and how they can be used. To clone a hard drive
the clone should be
copied directly to another hard drive. That hard
drive can either be external
or internal. They need not be of the same size. To
image a hard drive the
image is much smaller that the original and can be
place on many different
storage devises such as CD, DVD and other hard
drives. They can be
internal or external.
To recover with a clone it is only necessary to
boot up the clone. Nothing
else needs to be done. To recover an image a boot
up disc (often the disk
that made the clone) is placed in the CD drawer
and the computer is booted
from that. It then needs the image disc to restore
the computer to its original
state. Different programs handle this recover in
different ways
Recovery with a clone is faster and in my opinion
more reliable, but it does
necessitate having a second hard drive, preferable
internal.
Another point in favor of a clone is that is
simple to check the clone to see if
it works. Just reboot the computer and in the BIOS
change the boot order of
the drives. To check an image it is destructive
and if is not good you have
ruined your day. You can check the validity of a
backup image by running a
backup validate which completely rebuilds the disk
image in memory and
validates that the whole backup could be restored
without error. Still?

There's a lot more but that should assist anyone
wanting to do some reading. I've purposely not
bothered with anything negative because IMO it's
not called for. What Casper has created is a new
methodology for backup systems that can logically
even take an existing clone and modify it
(incremental, if you will) to create a new clone
from the old one by moving data and inserting it
where it needs to be in order to keep it as a
"clone". So, the end result, even after running
an incremental or differential clone, I forget
what they called it, does actually create a new
clone from the old one, rather than by creating a
completly new clone copy. The first link above I
think it was, shows that process rather well.

They have managed to take one of the best
concepts of imaging, incremental backups, and
added it to the cloning feature but without
creating new files and instead revising data
locations in the current clone to place the
new/changed data into the same data slots on the
clone as they are onthe hard disk, thus
maintaining the same addresses of data inthe clone
as are used on the hard disk. AFAIK other
low-priced Clone software programs don't do that,
or even many of the pay-fors in the same price
range as Casper.
That's a good step forward. Imaging software
doesn't do that until you go to Restore it. But,
imaging software still carries the advantage of
being to restore only an incremental as opposed to
the entire backup, which the cloning operation
can't to. So that part comes down to whether the
user cares or not. I do, but many may not. There
are a few other things like that too, but they all
come down to user preference.

As for time to make a clone and increment it,
there is nothing special there. It works in the
background like many do to create the first clone,
a time consuing operation for any software, and
depending on the amount of data in the incremental
to the clone is a little slower than imaging
because instead of simply creating another file,
it has to move data around so it can be inserted
into the right places inside the clone and that
can take anything from a pretty short time to a
long time, depending on how many changes there are
and how much data has to be moved around inside
the clone. If something is added at the end of
the clone, it's quicker than if something were
added at the beginning, requiring possibly many
gigabytes of information to be slid over xx bytes
to make room for the new data write.

This assumes the relative disk sectors used for each of the files in the
destination drive need to remain identical to those used in the source drive
for "a perfect copy", which is an assumption. I believe all that is really
required is that it's the same at the file and directory levels, and not the
actual disk sector levels, so that assumption may not be true. Otherwise I
expect this would take a VERY long time and you would notice the delays
while using Casper and its Smart Cloning. (Well, for that matter, you
might still notice the delays otherwise, but it would be a LOT less)

IOW, the data can be written anywhere there is free space, and not in the
exact same location on the disk - just as normally happens.

Again, see
http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/smartclone.aspx
for an example of how that works.

Hi again,

Twain wrote ".......Sorry about the mis speak,"

No problem, I was pretty sure you let it slip by accidentally.

".......I do disagree that it's worth the lost time and
machine cycles it takes to make clones"

I just go watch TV ant let the box play with itself for a while.

"......To me that's not a backup literally; it's a catastrophic recovery
method"

It's working well as my backup, everything is right here for the grabbing.

".......requiring a disk drive for each clone."

I have ample disks so that's not a problem.

".......MBR and tables, etc., are in wrong places, so cloning that back
to another hard disk would not result in a usable bootable drive."

There's really no reason to clone back to anything, just run/boot the
clone disk and when you get a chance reclone it to another spare drive.

That's one of the reasons I like to clone instead of image, ease of
recovery. If a master drive went to hell and all I had was an image I'd
need to find another drive to put the image on while hoping I could find
a non scratched CD to boot from.

Since I've never played with image files, am I wrong in my assumption
that an image file can't be restored to the disk it's on?

Another question of mine would be how much compression could I expect
from an image? Let's say I have 10GB of data and image it. About what
size would that image file be?

Thanks!

---==X={}=X==---

Jim Self

AVIATION ANIMATION, the internet's largest depository.
http://avanimation.avsupport.com

Your only internet source for spiral staircase plans.
http://jself.com/stair/Stair.htm

Experimental Aircraft Association #140897
EAA Technical Counselor #4562