If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
"WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:34:55 -0500, "Patrick Keenan" wrote: "John D99" wrote in message news:vdKdndZQ2PzUxOzUnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@earthlink. com... I've got Acronis True Image 9. I want to backup my standalone's o/s to a diferent physical harddrive on the machine, with the priority being on simplicty and actually being able to re-install when the o/s goes bad, or won't boot, a year or two from now. The o/s is only about 7 gigs, and I've got lots of space, so that's not an issue. I have looked over the Acronis material, and even used their online chat to ask about a straightforward way of doing it, without really coming away with anything I want to operate on. Can anybody give me a few streps and some overview info on this? Clone versus image? Cloning is for duplicating the disk, to another disk you have ready. You want an image, to store for later. Why? You can do an updated clone in a few minutes and be bootable. Because you can't always do that, the times you can't are the times you really need to, and it can turn out that when you realize that you can't, you've also damaged what you had. You create and store an image because you can only clone if the source disk is functioning, or can actually *be* cloned, and that is sometimes not the case. Disks can fail in ways that prevent either cloning or imaging from concluding successfully, though they can still function. I've rebuilt a number of client systems recently that could not be cloned or imaged due to disk read errors. I *could* scrape data off, so little was lost, but neither cloning or imaging was an option. The errors appeared well into the process, and if I had been "updating" a clone, I would have had a drive that couldn't be cloned and a damaged clone that was no longer usable. If I already had an image, and was restoring that to a drive because of a failure, no problem. I know that I have a working image because I was able to create it and restore it for testing. Never rely one one single backup. It's cheaper to have several stored images on one or two disks than several stored hard disks. Again, you do not want to have only one source and only one backup. You want to have some sort of copy on hand of a base install, which perhaps you update regularly; but if it's a file that you store on another drive, it's an image. If it's to a separate drive, it's a clone. Cloning and imaging are basically the same process. The difference is the target and immediacy of use. Images are also often used for testing software configurations. It's quick to restore an image, and costs less than having a separate hard disk for each install. Boot to the recovery CD, select the appropriate image, restore. If you are making a working copy of the hard disk to another physical hard disk each time, you are cloning. Often, cloning in this way is a waste of space since multiple images can be stored on one disk, but cloning is one-to-one. But if you need instant replacement, you would be re-cloning very regularly to have the disk on hand and ready to go, and you would be doing this with several hard disks that you rotated in sequence, so that you do not rely one one backup. HTH -pk -pk How to for a boot disk.. what to do when a failure happens, etc. Thnx |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
Patrick Keenan wrote:
"WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:34:55 -0500, "Patrick Keenan" wrote: "John D99" wrote in message m... I've got Acronis True Image 9. I want to backup my standalone's o/s to a diferent physical harddrive on the machine, with the priority being on simplicty and actually being able to re-install when the o/s goes bad, or won't boot, a year or two from now. The o/s is only about 7 gigs, and I've got lots of space, so that's not an issue. I have looked over the Acronis material, and even used their online chat to ask about a straightforward way of doing it, without really coming away with anything I want to operate on. Can anybody give me a few streps and some overview info on this? Clone versus image? Cloning is for duplicating the disk, to another disk you have ready. You want an image, to store for later. Why? You can do an updated clone in a few minutes and be bootable. Because you can't always do that, the times you can't are the times you really need to, and it can turn out that when you realize that you can't, you've also damaged what you had. You create and store an image because you can only clone if the source disk is functioning, or can actually *be* cloned, and that is sometimes not the case. Disks can fail in ways that prevent either cloning or imaging from concluding successfully, though they can still function. I've rebuilt a number of client systems recently that could not be cloned or imaged due to disk read errors. I *could* scrape data off, so little was lost, but neither cloning or imaging was an option. The errors appeared well into the process, and if I had been "updating" a clone, I would have had a drive that couldn't be cloned and a damaged clone that was no longer usable. If I already had an image, and was restoring that to a drive because of a failure, no problem. I know that I have a working image because I was able to create it and restore it for testing. Never rely one one single backup. It's cheaper to have several stored images on one or two disks than several stored hard disks. Again, you do not want to have only one source and only one backup. You want to have some sort of copy on hand of a base install, which perhaps you update regularly; but if it's a file that you store on another drive, it's an image. If it's to a separate drive, it's a clone. Cloning and imaging are basically the same process. The difference is the target and immediacy of use. Images are also often used for testing software configurations. It's quick to restore an image, and costs less than having a separate hard disk for each install. Boot to the recovery CD, select the appropriate image, restore. If you are making a working copy of the hard disk to another physical hard disk each time, you are cloning. Often, cloning in this way is a waste of space since multiple images can be stored on one disk, but cloning is one-to-one. Except for the case of multiple partition cloning to ONE destination disk, though. I think it's a bit misleading to simply state that a clone is a copy of the entire hard disk, as it doesn't have to be that. It can (altenatively) be just a partition copy "clone" of a source drive partition, and not the entire source drive (which could have several other partitions). So one could store several partition type clones on ONE destination backup disk, but they will each be assigned different drive letters in windows. So for example, if your C: partition on your main internal source drive contains windows and all your programs, one *could* choose to make multiple "partition type clone" copies of that to the destination disk, for backup purposes. Although I think it makes a lot more sense to use imaging for this purpose. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
"Anna" wrote in message ... (SNIP) Our disk-cloning program of choice is the Casper 5 program - one of the reasons being that we've never encountered the above problem with this program regardless that both the source & destination drives were connected immediately following the disk-cloning operation. And we've been involved in hundreds of disk-cloning operations with this program. It is simply unnecessary that following the successful disk-cloning operation (again, involving internal hard drives), the cloned HDD be disconnected from the system (or, conversely, the source HDD be disconnected from the system and an initial boot be made only to the newly-cloned HDD.) As far as we're concerned the disk-cloning approach (especially using the Casper 5 program) is ideally suited for the vast majority of PC users in terms of creating & maintaining a comprehensive backup program. We greatly prefer it over the Acronis program (for a variety of reasons) and believe that the disk-to-disk (or partition-to-partition) disk-cloning process better meets the needs of average PC users. What better backup system can one have than having at hand a precise copy of his or her day-to-day working HDD? Where all the data on the cloned disk is immediately accessible and should that disk be an internal HDD it's immediately bootable & completely functional without the need for any restoration process. Now I do realize that many users - particularly the more advanced users - for various reasons prefer the disk-imaging process for backup purposes. I always encourage users to experiment with both approaches and decide for themselves what best meets their needs. Anna "WaIIy" wrote in message ... Hi Anna, Great name, BTW (same as my daughter's). I've taken your advice and now clone with Casper. I first went with internal sata to sata and it all worked great, no reboot issues at all. I then went to external sata, but was getting a missing drive error when external was shut off. Not a big deal, but I wanted things clean. Since the enclosure I bought was usb and also sata, I opted to go with the usb option so I could easily turn off the external drive. Sata to sata, external, internal, usb... Casper made it so easy and it takes less than ten minutes to do the incremental after the first clone. I tested the drive with each cloning method and it booted up instantly. I was surprised at how fast the usb was, about the same as internal sata to sata. I have a Dell 8400 P4 3.0. I had a hd fail one time and never again. I had all my data backed up, but it took me a long time to get my programs reinstalled and my tweaks taken care of. Next time I will go from three days to a few minutes. Thanks for your great advice. Wally: Glad to hear your positive comments re the Casper 5 program. We've introduced that disk-cloning program to I-don't-know-how-many-users and virtually all of them are greatly satisfied with the program even to the extent of giving up their former disk-cloning and/or disk-imaging programs. In addition to its simplicity of operation (there's virtually no "learning-curve" for even the most inexperienced user), straightforward design, and general effectiveness re the disk-cloning process, its truly "greatest" advantage over every disk-cloning or disk-imaging program I've ever used (and I've used quite a few over the years!) is its ability to create "incremental" clones through what Casper terms its "SmartClone" capability. Obviously you're aware of this capability based on your above comments but let me kind of "flesh it out" for the benefit of others who might be contemplating purchasing a disk-cloning program... This "SmartClone" feature of the Casper 5 program results in the routine disk-cloning operation taking only a fraction of the time other disk-cloning (or disk- imaging) programs need re this backup operation. The Casper program has this unique (at least unique in my experience) ability to detect only the data changes in the system being cloned since the previous disk-cloning operation; consequently the program needs a considerably shorter period of time to complete subsequent (routine) disk-cloning operations. To my mind, that is the overriding advantage of Casper 5 as compared with other disk-cloning & disk-imaging programs in my experience. To illustrate this with a concrete example, here's a portion of some comments I posted some time ago to one of the MS XP newsgroups... Earlier today we had occasion (for routine backup purposes) to use the Casper 5 program to clone the contents of a user's day-to-day working HDD - the "source" disk - to another internal HDD - the "destination" drive. Today's disk-cloning operation involved about 40 GB of data (the entire contents, of course, of the source HDD). (The first, i.e., initial disk-cloning operation involving these drives took place a couple of weeks ago. That initial disk-cloning operation took about 45 minutes - probably about the same amount of time any disk-cloning or disk-imaging program would take). Routine (nearly daily) disk-cloning operations involving these same two HDDs have taken place over the past two weeks or so since that initial disk-cloning operation. Obviously changes in the data have taken place over that time. Today's disk-cloning operation took about 3 minutes. Three minutes. (It's likely that should the contents of the "source" HDD be cloned to a USB external HDD, the process would have taken a bit longer, but not terribly so). And should the user undertake another disk-cloning operation within the next day or so the operation will again take a relatively short period of time. So there is an *enormous* incentive for users to backup their systems on a current basis knowing that the expenditure of time in doing so will be relatively slight. Heretofore this has been a problem with disk-cloning programs because each time the disk-cloning operation was undertaken it was a "fresh" operation and took a considerable amount of time. So under those circumstances many users were hesitant to use their disk-cloning program on a frequent basis because of this expenditure of time. I trust this example will give users a clear idea of the value of this Casper 5 "incremental clone" capability in terms of using this type of program as a routine comprehensive backup program, one that will be used *frequently* so that the user will always have a reasonably *up-to-date* precise copy of his/her day-to-day working HDD. While many, if not most, users will have no need nor desire to back up their systems on a daily basis or even every two or three days, they will be encouraged to do so on perhaps on a weekly basis or perhaps twice a month knowing that the process will take a relatively short period of time. I cannot overemphasize this feature. Again, users should understand that as a result of this "incremental" disk-cloning operation the recipient of the clone - one's destination HDD - will be a precise copy of one's source HDD at that particular point-in-time. No special recovery or restore process is necessary should the user employ the clone as a bootable, functional drive. A clone is a clone is a clone. Let me make it clear that should a user's interest be *only* in a one-time disk-cloning (or disk-imaging) operation and have little or no interest in using such a program as a routine comprehensive backup system as we have discussed, then it really doesn't matter which disk-cloning or disk-imaging program he or she uses. In that case all that is important is that the program is effective in transferring the contents of one HDD to another HDD. Now about the problem you experienced with your external SATA HDD... It would really be worthwhile if there was some practical way to achieve SATA-to-SATA capability between the external SATA HDD and your Dell 8400. Obviously that desktop machine is not equipped (insofar as I know) with an eSATA port, so that type of connectivity wouldn't be available. But if it was possible to affix a simple eSATA adapter (they run around $10 or so) to a vacant backplane slot on the case and achieve SATA-to-SATA connectivity that way (the SATA data cable affixed to the adapter is simply connected to one of the motherboard's SATA connectors), it would be much more desirable than using a USBEHD to serve as the destination drive, i.e., the recipient of the cloned (boot) HDD. For two reasons... 1. The data transfer rate would be significantly faster, and, 2. The external SATA HDD would be potentially bootable since it would contain the cloned contents of your boot drive. Under these circumstances the system treats the external SATA HDD as an *internal* HDD. (Another possibility if you're so inclined is to simply run the SATA signal (data) cable from the SATA enclosure (I'm assuming it's a eSATA port) *directly* to a vacant SATA connector on the motherboard (I believe there are four SATA connectors on the system board, yes?). So you would need a SATA data cable with a SATA connector on one end and an eSATA connector on the other end.) I think the problem you have experienced with the failure of the system to detect the external SATA HDD is a "hot-plugging" issue. If you connect and power-up the device *prior to* booting to the OS, there's no problem with the system recognizing the external SATA HDD. Is that right? However if the connection/powering up the SATA external HDD occurs *following* bootup it's then you experience the non-recognition problem, right? If this is the case, there's probably a simple solution. Access Device Manager, and right-click on "Disk drives", then click on the "Scan for hardware changes" menu item. The drive should then be detected and listed in the "Disk drives" section. Anna |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:34:55 -0500, "Patrick
Keenan" wrote: "John D99" wrote in message m... I've got Acronis True Image 9. I want to backup my standalone's o/s to a diferent physical harddrive on the machine, with the priority being on simplicty and actually being able to re-install when the o/s goes bad, or won't boot, a year or two from now. The o/s is only about 7 gigs, and I've got lots of space, so that's not an issue. I have looked over the Acronis material, and even used their online chat to ask about a straightforward way of doing it, without really coming away with anything I want to operate on. Can anybody give me a few streps and some overview info on this? Clone versus image? Cloning is for duplicating the disk, to another disk you have ready. You want an image, to store for later. Why? You can do an updated clone in a few minutes and be bootable. Patrick, About Wally's response: A clone is a full backup and stands alone. As such, it can not be added to, in the sense of incremental backups. An image starts with a full backup and then, instead of wasting all the space that full backups cost, only has to do incrementals, meaning only backing up the files that have changed, and adding them to the image. Disk Cloning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_cloning Disk Imaging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_image "Clone" and "Image" meanings have become seriously *******ized over the years and people, even some who should know better, tend to use them interchangeably. Depending on which dictionary definition you wish to use, they could be interchangeable in some ways. In general, consider: Clone = a way to copy an entire, whole, bootable disk in one pass. There is no futzing with individual files or folders, and no way to do so. During a restore from a Clone, all you can do is the whole thing. What previously sat on sector 99, for instance, will be returned to sector 99, 199 to 199, and so on. Image = a way to back up any drive, folder, file or combination of them, for use and restorating at any time. It MIGHT be able to do the same thing as a clone can, but it also does much more and allows a lot more capabilities. Sort of an image or picture record of the drive at any particular time. Nearly all IMAGING programs will also allow you to CLONE a drive. But a specific CLONE program usually will not include this same kind of IMAGE capability. There are a lot of nuances and other things/similarities/differences one could go into, but that should work OK for a layman's description, I think. Maybe it's just me, but I've never heard of an "updated clone". A clone is a clone. You might update an image in a few minutes, but ... that's not the same thing as creating a clone. A true Clone cannot be "updated"; it must be created each time. Each clone is equivalent to a disk's worth if data and so takes up a lot of space. Where a full image and incremental images thereafter, takes a LOT less space for the same amount of data. And, just to keep things accurate, there are two sides to it: Backing up and then Restoring from backup, plus cloning if/when one purchases a new disk drive.. Even if an incremental only takes a few minutes, it's still going to require the half hour to whatever, depending on how much data has to be restored, for the Restore process. Right now a Restore of my system drive requires about 23 minutes and if it's a new disk or one that is being repaired from an unbootable state, add to that time whatever it takes to put the bootable CD into the drive, tell it where your backup images are, and get everything initiated. That's around a half hour for my system disk, should i have a catastrophic failure and need to use the ISO created emergency boot CD. Additionally, almost any hard drive you purchase today comes with or has available, a cloning program provided by the manufacturer to help you get the data from the old drive moved over onto the new drive. It's standard operating procedure for them and mostly automated so it only requires a few key clicks since it's a specialized function. HTH a little, Twayne -pk How to for a boot disk.. what to do when a failure happens, etc. Thnx |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:48:46 -0500, "Twayne"
wrote: Maybe it's just me, but I've never heard of an "updated clone". A clone is a clone. You might update an image in a few minutes, but ... that's not the same thing as creating a clone. A true Clone cannot be "updated"; it must be created each time. NEWS FLASH: You're wrong. Casper (http://www.fssdev.com/) not only makes clones, it makes them without having to leave Windows AND it makes "incremental clones" the same way... it even provides the user with an icon for the desktop or the quick launch to start the process with one click. Incremental clones take only a fraction of the time needed to make a full clone. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
"Twayne" wrote in message ... (SNIP) Maybe it's just me, but I've never heard of an "updated clone". A clone is a clone. You might update an image in a few minutes, but ... that's not the same thing as creating a clone. A true Clone cannot be "updated"; it must be created each time. Each clone is equivalent to a disk's worth if data and so takes up a lot of space. Where a full image and incremental images thereafter, takes a LOT less space for the same amount of data. And, just to keep things accurate, there are two sides to it: Backing up and then Restoring from backup, plus cloning if/when one purchases a new disk drive.. Even if an incremental only takes a few minutes, it's still going to require the half hour to whatever, depending on how much data has to be restored, for the Restore process. Right now a Restore of my system drive requires about 23 minutes and if it's a new disk or one that is being repaired from an unbootable state, add to that time whatever it takes to put the bootable CD into the drive, tell it where your backup images are, and get everything initiated. That's around a half hour for my system disk, should i have a catastrophic failure and need to use the ISO created emergency boot CD. Additionally, almost any hard drive you purchase today comes with or has available, a cloning program provided by the manufacturer to help you get the data from the old drive moved over onto the new drive. It's standard operating procedure for them and mostly automated so it only requires a few key clicks since it's a specialized function. HTH a little, Twayne Twayne: As I've tried to explain (apparently unsuccessfully in many cases!) in a number of posts re the Casper 5 disk-cloning program... Casper has this unique ability (at least "unique" based upon my experience with a wide variety of disk-cloning programs) to create what I can only describe as an "incremental" clone. There's probably a better term for the process, but it will have to do for the moment. Casper terms this process their "SmartClone" capability. In case you haven't seen my recent posts on the subject let me just repeat in substance that information, OK? This SmartClone feature of the Casper 5 program results in the routine disk-cloning operation taking only a fraction of the time other disk-cloning (or disk- imaging) programs need re this backup operation. The Casper program has this unique ability to detect only the data changes in the system being cloned since the *previous* disk-cloning operation; consequently the program needs a *considerably* shorter period of time to complete subsequent (routine) disk-cloning operations. To my mind, that is the overriding advantage of Casper 5 as compared with other disk-cloning & disk-imaging programs in my experience and this is the primary reason I strongly recommend the program over all over disk-cloning programs (at least those I've worked with). To illustrate this with a concrete example, here's a portion of some comments I posted some time ago to one of the MS XP newsgroups... Earlier today we had occasion (for routine backup purposes) to use the Casper 5 program to clone the contents of a user's day-to-day working HDD - the "source" disk - to another internal HDD - the "destination" drive. Today's disk-cloning operation involved about 40 GB of data (the entire contents, of course, of the source HDD). (The first, i.e., initial disk-cloning operation involving these drives took place a couple of weeks ago. That initial disk-cloning operation took about 45 minutes - probably about the same amount of time any disk-cloning or disk-imaging program would take). Routine (nearly daily) disk-cloning operations involving these same two HDDs have taken place over the past two weeks or so since that initial disk-cloning operation. Obviously changes in the data have taken place over that time. Today's disk-cloning operation took about 3 minutes. Three minutes. (It's likely that should the contents of the "source" HDD be cloned to a USB external HDD, the process would have taken a bit longer, but not terribly so). And should the user undertake another disk-cloning operation within the next day or so the operation will again take a relatively short period of time. So there is an *enormous* incentive for users to backup their systems on a current basis knowing that the expenditure of time in doing so will be relatively slight. Heretofore this has been a problem with disk-cloning programs because each time the disk-cloning operation was undertaken it was a "fresh" operation and took a considerable amount of time. So under those circumstances many users were (are) hesitant to use their disk-cloning program on a frequent basis because of this expenditure of time. I trust this example will give users a clear idea of the value of this Casper 5 "incremental clone" capability in terms of using this type of program as a routine comprehensive backup program, one that will be used *frequently* so that the user will always have a reasonably *up-to-date* precise copy of his/her day-to-day working HDD. What better backup system can the average user have? While many, if not most, users will have no need nor desire to back up their systems on a daily basis or even every two or three days, they will be encouraged to do so on perhaps at least on a weekly basis or perhaps twice a month knowing that the process will take a relatively short period of time. I cannot overemphasize this feature. Again, users should understand that as a result of this "incremental" disk-cloning operation the recipient of the clone - one's destination HDD - will be a *precise copy* of one's source HDD at that particular point-in-time. No special recovery or restore process is necessary should the user employ the clone as a bootable, functional drive. A clone is a clone is a clone. Again, what better backup system can the average PC user have than having at hand an absolute copy of his or her HDD, including the OS, registry & configuration settings, all programs & applications, their mail program, their personal data - in short, *everything* that's contained on their day-to-day working HDD? And this "clone" will be immediately bootable (if the recipient HDD is an internally-connected drive) so that the user can return his/her system to a bootable, functional state with a minimum of time & effort. Let me make it (again) clear that should a user's interest be *only* in a one-time disk-cloning (or disk-imaging) operation and have little or no interest in using such a program as a *routine* comprehensive backup system or will use the program relatively infrequently, then it really doesn't matter which disk-cloning or disk-imaging program he or she uses. In that case all that is important is that the program is effective in transferring the contents of one HDD to another HDD. And for that there are a considerable number of backup programs to choose from. I trust the above will give you a clearer idea of this "incremental clone" process. Anna |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
Carper is a snake oil program. Have tested it and I stand by my comment
-- Peter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. "Steve McGarrett" wrote in message ... On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:48:46 -0500, "Twayne" wrote: Maybe it's just me, but I've never heard of an "updated clone". A clone is a clone. You might update an image in a few minutes, but ... that's not the same thing as creating a clone. A true Clone cannot be "updated"; it must be created each time. NEWS FLASH: You're wrong. Casper (http://www.fssdev.com/) not only makes clones, it makes them without having to leave Windows AND it makes "incremental clones" the same way... it even provides the user with an icon for the desktop or the quick launch to start the process with one click. Incremental clones take only a fraction of the time needed to make a full clone. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:42:41 -0500, "Anna" wrote:
Twayne: As I've tried to explain (apparently unsuccessfully in many cases!) in a number of posts re the Casper 5 disk-cloning program... Perhaps your explanations are too lengthy and are filled with unnecessary info. ----- Here's a fairly concise summary of what Casper can do. It should be more easily digested than the book Anna usually posts, and it also lists Casper's shortcomings - something Anna normally down plays. Summary: Casper is probably the BEST cloning tool available. It can clone an entire disk or just a partition from within Windows simply and easily. If one makes frequent clones for the purpose of backing up one's system drive or partition, Casper does it more easily than the others. The Pros: The initial cloning can be performed from within Windows. Once the initial clone has been made, it can be updated at will also from within Windows, such effort resulting in a complete clone as if a full clone had been once again performed. Casper provides a desktop shortcut for that process. Click the shortcut, tell it to proceed -VOILA! In significantly less time than it takes to make a full clone the clone is updated. If one wants to keep a clone ready at all times on an internal drive so that it can be quickly booted in the case of a system disk or partition failure, Casper is the tool to use. Or... if one can envision ONLY needing a backup for use in restoring an ENTIRE disk or partition, It does nicely there as well and only an external drive will be needed. The Cons: Casper works best if it can clone to a second internal drive. If the clone is made on an external drive, and a restoration is required, there is a problem: one will need a bootable CD with Casper on it and that will cost an additional $10 in addition to the $50 purchase price of the program. Casper can ONLY do a full restoration of the disk or partition. One cannot easily/selectively restore files/directories from the clone using the program. For those who have no frequent need to make/update a clone, or who feel they might like to browse a backup and make selective restorations, other options make more sense. Either way, they cost significantly less to buy. Richie Hardwick |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
WaIIy wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:57:52 -0700, "Bill in Co." wrote: Patrick Keenan wrote: "WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:34:55 -0500, "Patrick Keenan" wrote: "John D99" wrote in message m... I've got Acronis True Image 9. I want to backup my standalone's o/s to a diferent physical harddrive on the machine, with the priority being on simplicty and actually being able to re-install when the o/s goes bad, or won't boot, a year or two from now. The o/s is only about 7 gigs, and I've got lots of space, so that's not an issue. I have looked over the Acronis material, and even used their online chat to ask about a straightforward way of doing it, without really coming away with anything I want to operate on. Can anybody give me a few streps and some overview info on this? Clone versus image? Cloning is for duplicating the disk, to another disk you have ready. You want an image, to store for later. Why? You can do an updated clone in a few minutes and be bootable. Because you can't always do that, the times you can't are the times you really need to, and it can turn out that when you realize that you can't, you've also damaged what you had. You create and store an image because you can only clone if the source disk is functioning, or can actually *be* cloned, and that is sometimes not the case. Disks can fail in ways that prevent either cloning or imaging from concluding successfully, though they can still function. I've rebuilt a number of client systems recently that could not be cloned or imaged due to disk read errors. I *could* scrape data off, so little was lost, but neither cloning or imaging was an option. The errors appeared well into the process, and if I had been "updating" a clone, I would have had a drive that couldn't be cloned and a damaged clone that was no longer usable. If I already had an image, and was restoring that to a drive because of a failure, no problem. I know that I have a working image because I was able to create it and restore it for testing. Never rely one one single backup. It's cheaper to have several stored images on one or two disks than several stored hard disks. Again, you do not want to have only one source and only one backup. You want to have some sort of copy on hand of a base install, which perhaps you update regularly; but if it's a file that you store on another drive, it's an image. If it's to a separate drive, it's a clone. Cloning and imaging are basically the same process. The difference is the target and immediacy of use. Images are also often used for testing software configurations. It's quick to restore an image, and costs less than having a separate hard disk for each install. Boot to the recovery CD, select the appropriate image, restore. If you are making a working copy of the hard disk to another physical hard disk each time, you are cloning. Often, cloning in this way is a waste of space since multiple images can be stored on one disk, but cloning is one-to-one. Except for the case of multiple partition cloning to ONE destination disk, though. I think it's a bit misleading to simply state that a clone is a copy of the entire hard disk, as it doesn't have to be that. It can (altenatively) be just a partition copy "clone" of a source drive partition, and not the entire source drive (which could have several other partitions). In Casper's case, a clone has to be a copy of the entire disk. You can't "clone" partitions separately. AFAIK I had thought Anna had said Casper COULD do that. That would just be copying a partition. Which again I think Anna had said Casper COULD do. The clone copies the active, bootable, operating system disk, including partitions. But only as the most commonly used option, I believe. In Casper's case, with a desktop shortcut in Windows. Too easy. Again, the subsequent clones just take a few minutes. In my case, six minutes. For my purposes, I define a clone as a *bootable * copy of the entire drive your operating system is on, including any partitions. An exact copy of it. (Okay, maybe excluding swap file, etc) So one could store several partition type clones on ONE destination backup disk, but they will each be assigned different drive letters in windows. So for example, if your C: partition on your main internal source drive contains windows and all your programs, one *could* choose to make multiple "partition type clone" copies of that to the destination disk, for backup purposes. Although I think it makes a lot more sense to use imaging for this purpose. I don't think you can make a bootable clone to a partition on the destination disk. I admit I could be wrong about that. For one thing, the partiton has to be active to be bootable and you can only have one active partition on a disk AFAIK. Well, maybe Anna can weigh in on this. I assume Casper has some way of keeping the destination drive partition marked active and yet its not being a problem, IF that drive is being used as the destination drive. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
Steve McGarrett wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:48:46 -0500, "Twayne" wrote: Maybe it's just me, but I've never heard of an "updated clone". A clone is a clone. You might update an image in a few minutes, but ... that's not the same thing as creating a clone. A true Clone cannot be "updated"; it must be created each time. NEWS FLASH: You're wrong. Casper (http://www.fssdev.com/) not only makes clones, it makes them without having to leave Windows AND it makes "incremental clones" the same way... it even provides the user with an icon for the desktop or the quick launch to start the process with one click. Incremental clones take only a fraction of the time needed to make a full clone. He's still working on that AA. (Give him a bit more time. :-) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:33:46 -0500, WaIIy wrote:
With Casper, the first clone takes a while. For me and 50 gigs, it took 45 minutes. Now, I add, delete, whatever when running Windows as I normally do. Okay, a few days later, I make another clone (I made a desktop shortcut via Casper). I click on my shortcut and Casper uses what it calls "SmartClone Technology" and apparently just clones the changes and takes off whatever I might have deleted from my C drive. The second clone and all others after that just take a few minutes, in my case 6 minutes. I end up with another exact, bootable cloned drive. It's freakin awsome. Takes me about 12 minutes to update the clone - which is an internal drive that is second in the boot order behind my system drive. For my regular backup needs I use Acronis True Image to image the system drive to another drive. I can easily keep multiple backups that way and fully restore to any date I like OR just restore selected files/folders from any of the backups as I so choose. While I have both Casper and Acronis and use both daily, if I had to choose just one, it would be Acronis - and I would clone less frequently. Richie Hardwick |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:49:43 -0500, WaIIy wrote:
In Casper's case, a clone has to be a copy of the entire disk. You can't "clone" partitions separately. AFAIK Yes you can. Richie Hardwick |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:49:53 -0500, WaIIy wrote:
Casper works best if it can clone to a second internal drive. If the clone is made on an external drive, and a restoration is required, there is a problem: one will need a bootable CD with Casper on it and that will cost an additional $10 in addition to the $50 purchase price of the program. I bought a sata/usb enclosure and put a Seagate drive in it. I am currently backing up using usb with the enclosure. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817173042 I can take the drive, replace my current C drive and it boots normally. Of course it will. I can even hook the enclosure sata cable to my C drive sata connector and boot from the external drive. Of course it will. In both cases, your drive then becomes an internal drive. Try doing that without installing the drive to internal connectors. MOST PC users have no clue about the innards of a computer and have only external USB drives which cannot be used to load Windows. As eSata drives become more common that won't be a problem. BTW... if your computer has an external SATA connector, you probably don't have to go through all that hassle. Try loading Windows without moving the drive or the connector. Richie Hardwick |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
WaIIy wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:52:11 -0700, "Bill in Co." wrote: For one thing, the partiton has to be active to be bootable and you can only have one active partition on a disk AFAIK. Well, maybe Anna can weigh in on this. I assume Casper has some way of keeping the destination drive partition marked active and yet its not being a problem, IF that drive is being used as the destination drive. Well, the destination drive IS active and doesn't cause any problem in my case, even when the drive was inside my computer. No, it's not the drive itself being active, it's a special bit in the partition table on the hard drive, marking it (or rather, that partition) as being active (80 hex), so that it is bootable. If that disk drives partition's bit isn't set (80 hex), it won't be bootable. Presumably with Casper it can somehow be set (in the destination drive), and yet the internal, currently bootable drive, also stays set, of course (or it wouldn't boot). But normally only ONE drive partition is allowed to be set, or so I thought. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
WaIIy wrote: (SNIP) I don't think you can make a bootable clone to a partition on the destination disk. I admit I could be wrong about that. For one thing, the partiton has to be active to be bootable and you can only have one active partition on a disk AFAIK. "Bill in Co." wrote in message ... Well, maybe Anna can weigh in on this. I assume Casper has some way of keeping the destination drive partition marked active and yet its not being a problem, IF that drive is being used as the destination drive. Wally: Bill is absolutely correct. There's no problem using the Casper 5 program to clone the contents of one's booting HDD (the "source" HDD) to a *partition* on the destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the clone. Taking the example where a user's destination HDD is a USB external HDD... Let's say the user (for one reason or another) divides his/her USBEHD into five partitions. He or she could then clone the contents of their "source" HDD to *any* partition on that USBEHD that the user desired. (This naturally assumes the partition is sufficient in size to hold the cloned contents). There would be *no* need to "mark active" the destination partition in any way. Should the user clone the contents of *any* partition on that USBEHD containing a bootable clone to their internal source HDD for restoration purposes, i.e., the source HDD had failed or the user's OS became corrupted & dysfunctional, that HDD would become bootable & functional without any further ado. It's as simple as that. If, on the other hand the user is interested in maintaining "generational" copies of his or her system at particular points in time this can also be accomplished using the Casper program. One can multi-partition their USBEHD into as many partitions as they think they will need to hold the contents of their source HDD at various points-in-time. Obviously the size of the destination drive and the estimated amount of the cloned contents throughout the period of time would be decisive factors in determining how may partitions can the user create on that destination drive. So *any* of the partitions on the USBEHD could be simply cloned to an internal HDD for restoration purposes. The scenario is slightly different should the destination HDD be another *internal* HDD or a *external* SATA HDD having SATA-to-SATA capability (as I explained in my previous post to Wally) and the user has *multi-partitioned* that drive. As we know, the system treats that latter HDD as an *internal* HDD. The ordinary scenario, of course, is simply where the user clones the contents of his or her source HDD (it's immaterial whether the source HDD contains a single partition or is multi-partitioned) to their internal HDD. Since the destination HDD will thus be a precise copy of the source HDD, it will be immediately bootable & functional in exactly the same manner as the user's source HDD. No "restore" or "recovery" process is necessary. But let's take another example in which the user also multi-partitions his or her *internal* destination HDD. Because that destination HDD is a potentially *bootable* device, the user can clone the contents of his/her source HDD to *any* of the partitions on the destination drive and any primary partition can be selected as the "active" partition and thus be selected as the boot drive. Continuing the example, say that the user is interested in maintaining "generational" copies of his or her system at particular points in time. So he or she multi-partitions their destination HDD (again we're talking about either another internal HDD or a SATA-to-SATA connected *external* HDD) into 10 partitions. Thereafter the user clones their source disk to each partition at different points-in-time. (Obviously the size of the destination drive and the estimated amount of cloned contents would be a factor in determining how may partitions can the user create on that destination drive). So we'll say that on 1/15 the cloned contents of the source system resides on partition #1. On 1/20 the clone "goes" to partition #2. On 1/25 partition #3, and so on... Should the user subsequently need to restore his/her system with any of the primary partitions (the first three partitions on the disk) he or she can do so by marking the particular partition as the "active" partition. This would be done either through Disk Management or should DM was inaccessible, then by the bootable Casper "Startup Disk" (CD). Naturally, if the cloned contents resided on a Logical Drive (within an extended partition) one could not designate that partition as active. In that situation the contents of a Logical Drive would need to be cloned to a Primary Partition and then made active. But note that if the contents of the Logical Drive were cloned to *another* (internal) HDD, those contents, i.e., that partition, would automatically be designated active and the internal HDD would be completely bootable & functional. Again, no special "restore" or "recovery" process need be undertaken other than a simple partition-to-disk-cloning operation. Generally speaking, we believe that where a user's prime interest is in maintaining "generational" copies of his or her system it's probably more practical to use a disk-imaging program such as Acronis True Image, Symantec's Ghost, or others. Although it is entirely possible to use the Casper 5 program for this purpose as explained above. Anna |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|