A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » The Basics
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old January 18th 09, 09:10 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Patrick Keenan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,415
Default 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  
Old January 18th 09, 09:57 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Bill in Co.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,106
Default 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  
Old January 18th 09, 09:59 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Anna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,039
Default 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  
Old January 19th 09, 02:48 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Twayne[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,276
Default 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  
Old January 19th 09, 03:36 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Steve McGarrett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default 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  
Old January 19th 09, 03:42 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Anna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,039
Default 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  
Old January 19th 09, 05:05 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Peter Foldes[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 309
Default 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  
Old January 19th 09, 05:32 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Richie Hardwick[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default 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  
Old January 19th 09, 05:52 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Bill in Co.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,106
Default 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  
Old January 19th 09, 05:53 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Bill in Co.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,106
Default 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  
Old January 19th 09, 05:59 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Richie Hardwick[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default 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  
Old January 19th 09, 06:02 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Richie Hardwick[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default 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  
Old January 19th 09, 06:52 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Richie Hardwick[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default 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  
Old January 19th 09, 07:13 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Bill in Co.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,106
Default 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  
Old January 20th 09, 01:25 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Anna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,039
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.