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 |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD
Anna said:
.... Understand that if this was merely a situation (which is usually the *typical* situation) where the user was simply using his or her destination HDD, e.g., a USB external HDD, *solely* for the purpose as the recipient of the cloned contents of the source HDD, it could have been done in one fell swoop. There would be no need to clone the contents of the source HDD on a partition-by-partition basis. A very simple & quick disk-to-disk cloning operation using Casper 5. In the overwhelming amount of cases (based on my experience) this is the usual backup strategy employed by the typical PC user. And what would the user have at the "end of the day"? A precise copy of his or her day-to-day working HDD with all data on the clone *immediately* accessible and the drive potentially bootable. No special restoration process being necessary, only another simple cloning of the destination drive's contents back to the internal HDD in the event the system needed to be restored. Anna You've done a good job of clarification, Anna, and it all makes sense. I think it also enables one to understand the spirit of what you've been trying to say, and very well. I only have one exception comment: That is not what "the typical PC user" would want, or do. Ideally the "typical" user is going to be using an imaging program, which also includes the ability to clone, as most do, and creating a full disk image say monthly, and incremental updates to it in between. If one were going to toll out operating systems, whatever, to the field for several machines, that would be a way to accomplish the task and be sure that each capable machine ended up with an identical installation. It's not too unusual to see things like that in IT departments. The typical user however is going to be using the much more efficient and automated imaging program or something else of their own choosing such as even ntbackup.exe on XP, for backups or 7-Zip, whatever, depending on what their own situation seems to warrant in their opinions. If you go into any of those programs Help sections are read about the cloning capability, you'll see quite clearly their intent/spirit of providing the cloning capabilities in addition to the imaging capabilities, which are the main intent of the programs. I won't get into it since I think it's been beat to death by nowg. So, all I'm saying is that " this is the usual backup strategy employed by the typical PC user " isn't so in the general world, but perhaps your experience does run that way for whatever reason. I really only got into it again here for the sake of newbies reading this who may not yet have their heads around imaging programs and cloning. "Clone" has become so diluted anymore that when a person actually means "clone" it almost has to be defined so people don't read it as something else. Regards, Twayne |
Ads |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD
Mike Torello wrote:
"Anna" wrote: And what would the user have at the "end of the day"? A precise copy of his or her day-to-day working HDD with all data on the clone *immediately* accessible and the drive potentially bootable. No special restoration process being necessary, only another simple cloning of the destination drive's contents back to the internal HDD in the event the system needed to be restored. Anna Thanks for the explanation, but it's still not apparent to me how cloning is better than imaging when one has no need for another bootable disk. The fact that a potentially bootable hard drive is created *is* what makes cloning superior. But if you have no need for that (and most users don't - -as long as they have an up-to-date image), then there is no advantage. The potentially bootable drive would be beneficial for day traders or anyone else who cannot wait for the restoration of an image. But this potentially bootable drive would need to be ready to go; an eSATA drive with the option to boot from it in the boot menu would get the user up and running immediately. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:45:01 -0600, Mike Torello wrote: Sounds like a REAL PITA to me. If one doesn't want to clone, using an imaging program like Acronis makes more sense - a LOT more sense. Mike adds... The way she described cloning a disk with several partitions to another disk with partitions... no way. It took several cloning operations. WaIIy wrote: "Bring in the Clones" Casper couldn't be easier. Once you do the first clone, just click on a shorcut and it "reclones" in a few minutes and even in the background. Even an MVP could do it with a little help. "Anna" wrote: Mike: As Wally has indicated, it's actually a very simple operation for Casper 5 to clone the contents of one HDD to another HDD. By & large it's easier than any other disk-cloning (or disk-imaging) program I've ever used, including the various versions of Acronis True Image (excepting their latest 2009 version which I haven't yet tried). In the example I gave it was a bit complicated (in the description but not the *actual* process!), because we were dealing with a situation where the user had multi-partitioned their source HDD and their destination HDD (the intended recipient of the cloned contents of the source HDD) was also multi-partitioned with one or more of the established partitions on the destination drive being used for other purposes (data storage, perhaps another clone, etc.) by the user. It probably took longer to read my detailed description of the process to clone the contents of the source HDD, i.e., the three partitions, to the destination drive than undertaking the process itself. Understand that if this was merely a situation (which is usually the *typical* situation) where the user was simply using his or her destination HDD, e.g., a USB external HDD, *solely* for the purpose as the recipient of the cloned contents of the source HDD, it could have been done in one fell swoop. There would be no need to clone the contents of the source HDD on a partition-by-partition basis. A very simple & quick disk-to-disk cloning operation using Casper 5. In the overwhelming amount of cases (based on my experience) this is the usual backup strategy employed by the typical PC user. And what would the user have at the "end of the day"? A precise copy of his or her day-to-day working HDD with all data on the clone *immediately* accessible and the drive potentially bootable. No special restoration process being necessary, only another simple cloning of the destination drive's contents back to the internal HDD in the event the system needed to be restored. Anna "Mike Torello" wrote in message ... Thanks for the explanation, but it's still not apparent to me how cloning is better than imaging when one has no need for another bootable disk. My imaging program can clone should I need one. From what I gather here, Casper can't image. Mike: First of all, let me say at the outset (as I've always said to all other users coming upon my comments re the Casper 5 program) that if you're completely satisfied with the ATI program (or for that matter any other backup program you may be using) in that it meets your particular backup objective(s) and you see no need to change programs, that's fine. What I've always tried to do is to encourage PC users to try (as best they can) to work with different backup programs and determine which one best meets their needs. Fortunately, both the ATI & Casper programs do have trial versions available as do many other disk-cloning & disk-imaging programs. What I *do* feel strongly about is that for many, if not most PC users, they should employ a *comprehensive* backup program as at least one element of their backup strategy. A comprehensive backup program in the sense that the program is designed to backup the *complete* contents of their day-to-day working HDD, i.e., their OS, all programs & applications, all their configurations, and of course, their personal data. In short *everything* that's on their "source" HDD. So that if their system becomes unusable because of a corrupted HDD or a defective HDD, or for *any* reason - they will have the wherewithal immediately at hand to restore their system to a bootable functional state. And most important... The program should carry out its operation as quickly as possible so that the user will know that the expenditure of time in *routinely* backing up their *complete* system will be relatively slight, thus giving them encouragement to *frequently* back up their system so that they will always (or nearly always) have a reasonably up-to-date backup of their system. I cannot overemphasize this last point. And that's where the Casper 5 program does an outstanding job based on my experience with many disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs. Casper employs what it calls its "SmartClone" technology. This 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 (at least "unique" in my experience) 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 "incremental cloning" methodology, here's an excerpt from one of my recent posts re the process... "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 or perhaps two or three times a week) 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 considerable changes in the source drive's data have taken place over that time. Today's disk-cloning operation took about 3 minutes. Three minutes." Understand that the end process of this operation would *not* be an "incremental file". Rather it would be a *complete* clone - again, a precise copy of the user's source HDD. Since in the example given the destination HDD (the recipient of the clone) used in the process was another internal HDD (it could have been an external SATA HDD having SATA-to-SATA connectivity), that HDD is *immediately* bootable & functional without any "restoration" process. What better backup system can a PC user have? Based upon my experience with thousands of PC users over the years I really believe that a disk-to-disk cloning program rather than a disk-imaging program is preferable for the vast number of them. Most particularly if the disk-cloning program "does its thing" quickly, effectively, and easily. And to that end I've not found a program superior to the Casper 5 program. Just one final comment or two... 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 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. Also, if the user has a particularly strong interest in maintaining "generational" copies of his or her system at particular points in time, then generally speaking a disk-imaging program (in most cases) would be more suitable to that objective. While the Casper 5 (or probably most other disk-cloning programs) could maintain such generational copies of one's system (depending upon the size of the contents of the source drive and the disk space available on the destination drive), it doesn't lend itself as readily to that objective as would a disk-imaging program. But truth-to-tell would you not agree that most PC users are not really interested in having generational copies of their systems available for backup purposes, except for perhaps two or three such copies (which Casper 5 could probably easily accommodate)? Anna |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD
WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:38:44 -0600, Mike Torello wrote: Thanks for the explanation, but it's still not apparent to me how cloning is better than imaging when one has no need for another bootable disk. What does that mean? That's the whole point of the clone. Is English your primary language? What part of "when one has no need for another bootable disk" are you having a problem understanding? This thread has been going back and forth on the merits of a couple programs for making backups... CLONING is not the type of backup I need or want, no matter how easy it is to make one, etc. You apparently didn't read any further than where you positioned your reply. If you had, it should have been apparent: My imaging program can clone should I need one. From what I gather here, Casper can't image. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:54:29 -0500, "Daave"
wrote: Mike Torello wrote: "Anna" wrote: And what would the user have at the "end of the day"? A precise copy of his or her day-to-day working HDD with all data on the clone *immediately* accessible and the drive potentially bootable. No special restoration process being necessary, only another simple cloning of the destination drive's contents back to the internal HDD in the event the system needed to be restored. Anna Thanks for the explanation, but it's still not apparent to me how cloning is better than imaging when one has no need for another bootable disk. The fact that a potentially bootable hard drive is created *is* what makes cloning superior. But if you have no need for that (and most users don't - -as long as they have an up-to-date image), then there is no advantage. Why would I want to fiddle with images when I have an updated exact copy of my drive in a few minutes? Makes no sense to me. As a "typical" user, there is no fiddling around. The potentially bootable drive would be beneficial for day traders or anyone else who cannot wait for the restoration of an image. But this potentially bootable drive would need to be ready to go; an eSATA drive with the option to boot from it in the boot menu would get the user up and running immediately. Because images restore faster; no platter/track/sector tracking needed. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD
"WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:54:29 -0500, "Daave" wrote: Mike Torello wrote: "Anna" wrote: And what would the user have at the "end of the day"? A precise copy of his or her day-to-day working HDD with all data on the clone *immediately* accessible and the drive potentially bootable. No special restoration process being necessary, only another simple cloning of the destination drive's contents back to the internal HDD in the event the system needed to be restored. Anna Thanks for the explanation, but it's still not apparent to me how cloning is better than imaging when one has no need for another bootable disk. The fact that a potentially bootable hard drive is created *is* what makes cloning superior. But if you have no need for that (and most users don't - -as long as they have an up-to-date image), then there is no advantage. Why would I want to fiddle with images when I have an updated exact copy of my drive in a few minutes? Makes no sense to me. As a "typical" user, there is no fiddling around. But "fiddling around" can actually be beneficial! Example: Monday: You install program A. It turns out to mess up your system something fierce. The problem is that you don't notice the damage right away. Tuesday: Updates (e.g., Windows security updates) are installed with no consequence that you can tell. Friday: You install Program B. Later that day you start noticing some performance problems. Then Saturday comes and you can't even boot to Windows. If you had been imaging rather than cloning, you would have the ability to restore any of the incremental images you had been making along the way. But if you only have one clone, the fact that it *is* up-to-date is not to your advantage. You choose to boot from this clone. But you have problems and the next day your PC again won't boot. If you had restored the image made prior to Monday when the problematic program was installed, you'd be in much better shape! There's your trade-off. Restoring an image or swapping a cloned drive (or re-cloning as some do) is not really done that often anyway. I'd rather have the process take a little bit longer if it means I can choose from a multitude of images. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD
WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:35:52 -0600, Mike Torello wrote: This thread has been going back and forth on the merits of a couple programs for making backups... CLONING is not the type of backup I need or want, no matter how easy it is to make one, etc. Uhh, the thread is about cloning. A ham sandwich is not my type of backup. The thread is about cloning, if it's not your type of backup, keep it to yourself. It began on Jan 16 as: "How to use Acronis to backup o/s" It ran with that subject for no less than 145 posts and 9 days before it got changed yesterday to "Using Casper... " by "Anna" when she had to backtrack and correct the bad info she'd posted about Casper. Like something to help you wash that mouth full of crow down? |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD
WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:38:01 -0500, "Daave" wrote: "WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:54:29 -0500, "Daave" wrote: Mike Torello wrote: "Anna" wrote: And what would the user have at the "end of the day"? A precise copy of his or her day-to-day working HDD with all data on the clone *immediately* accessible and the drive potentially bootable. No special restoration process being necessary, only another simple cloning of the destination drive's contents back to the internal HDD in the event the system needed to be restored. Anna Thanks for the explanation, but it's still not apparent to me how cloning is better than imaging when one has no need for another bootable disk. The fact that a potentially bootable hard drive is created *is* what makes cloning superior. But if you have no need for that (and most users don't - -as long as they have an up-to-date image), then there is no advantage. Why would I want to fiddle with images when I have an updated exact copy of my drive in a few minutes? Makes no sense to me. As a "typical" user, there is no fiddling around. But "fiddling around" can actually be beneficial! Example: Monday: You install program A. It turns out to mess up your system something fierce. The problem is that you don't notice the damage right away. Tuesday: Updates (e.g., Windows security updates) are installed with no consequence that you can tell. Friday: You install Program B. Later that day you start noticing some performance problems. Then Saturday comes and you can't even boot to Windows. If you had been imaging rather than cloning, you would have the ability to restore any of the incremental images you had been making along the way. But if you only have one clone, the fact that it *is* up-to-date is not to your advantage. You choose to boot from this clone. But you have problems and the next day your PC again won't boot. If you had restored the image made prior to Monday when the problematic program was installed, you'd be in much better shape! There's your trade-off. Restoring an image or swapping a cloned drive (or re-cloning as some do) is not really done that often anyway. I'd rather have the process take a little bit longer if it means I can choose from a multitude of images. Excellent, excellent post and good examples. Exactly. And kudos for his clean explanation. I agree, there is some danger to cloning. Hey, I like to live on the edge Same here. That's why I use imaging, so I can have multiple dated backups any which I can easily restore at a moment's notice. I can't take the chance with cloning and only having one copy. I *need* the generational copies, any one which of can be used to make a bootable disk, for the reasons mentioned. (And even if the source HD fails, it's possible to install a new source HD, and then restore the destination disk's image backup. Granted, that's not as easy as with a cloned disk, however). I do make a copy of my drive on a different HD , which I can boot with after some fiddling around and clone/copy at different times. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:43:59 -0500, "Twayne"
wrote: Because images restore faster; no platter/track/sector tracking needed. Uhh, it's close to impossible to restore faster than Casper. That seems to be a silly statement at first take, but ... . You seem so positive of yourself, and it's so counter-intuitive, that I would like to know more. Can you cite a source of any kind to support that it's "impossible" for anything to "restore" any "faster" than Casper? I am legitimately interested; not just looking for a way to argue against itg. Regards, Twayne |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD
Twayne wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:43:59 -0500, "Twayne" wrote: Because images restore faster; no platter/track/sector tracking needed. Uhh, it's close to impossible to restore faster than Casper. That seems to be a silly statement at first take, but ... . You seem so positive of yourself, and it's so counter-intuitive, that I would like to know more. Can you cite a source of any kind to support that it's "impossible" for anything to "restore" any "faster" than Casper? An amazing response from you, of all people. Probably only after using a registry cleaner, as you've often said, and never documented. ROFL. I am legitimately interested; not just looking for a way to argue against itg. Regards, Twayne |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD
WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:32:55 -0700, "Bill in Co." wrote: WaIIy wrote: On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:38:01 -0500, "Daave" wrote: "WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:54:29 -0500, "Daave" wrote: Mike Torello wrote: "Anna" wrote: And what would the user have at the "end of the day"? A precise copy of his or her day-to-day working HDD with all data on the clone *immediately* accessible and the drive potentially bootable. No special restoration process being necessary, only another simple cloning of the destination drive's contents back to the internal HDD in the event the system needed to be restored. Anna Thanks for the explanation, but it's still not apparent to me how cloning is better than imaging when one has no need for another bootable disk. The fact that a potentially bootable hard drive is created *is* what makes cloning superior. But if you have no need for that (and most users don't - -as long as they have an up-to-date image), then there is no advantage. Why would I want to fiddle with images when I have an updated exact copy of my drive in a few minutes? Makes no sense to me. As a "typical" user, there is no fiddling around. But "fiddling around" can actually be beneficial! Example: Monday: You install program A. It turns out to mess up your system something fierce. The problem is that you don't notice the damage right away. Tuesday: Updates (e.g., Windows security updates) are installed with no consequence that you can tell. Friday: You install Program B. Later that day you start noticing some performance problems. Then Saturday comes and you can't even boot to Windows. If you had been imaging rather than cloning, you would have the ability to restore any of the incremental images you had been making along the way. But if you only have one clone, the fact that it *is* up-to-date is not to your advantage. You choose to boot from this clone. But you have problems and the next day your PC again won't boot. If you had restored the image made prior to Monday when the problematic program was installed, you'd be in much better shape! There's your trade-off. Restoring an image or swapping a cloned drive (or re-cloning as some do) is not really done that often anyway. I'd rather have the process take a little bit longer if it means I can choose from a multitude of images. Excellent, excellent post and good examples. Exactly. And kudos for his clean explanation. I agree, there is some danger to cloning. Hey, I like to live on the edge Same here. That's why I use imaging, so I can have multiple dated backups any which I can easily restore at a moment's notice. I can't take the chance with cloning and only having one copy. I *need* the generational copies, any one which of can be used to make a bootable disk, for the reasons mentioned. (And even if the source HD fails, it's possible to install a new source HD, and then restore the destination disk's image backup. Granted, that is NOT as easy as with a cloned disk, however). After reading all this stuff the past week, I think that imaging with mutiple incremental backups is safer, as you state. good point It just depends on what the user needs and how technically inclined s/he is. Cloning a disk with Casper is no doubt a simpler approach for the average Joe or Jill, and may serve his/her needs quite well. But the average Joe or Jill isn't making generational backups, AND would like the easiest program to use. :-) Actually, I'm not using multiple incremental (or differential) image backups. I'm using multiple FULL image backups; each image file is complete in its own right, and there is only ONE file for each generational image. I have about 10 of them right now on the secondary internal (SATA) drive. It takes me 10 minutes to backup my C: partition, with the system, programs, and data (a total of about 20 GB worth), to my second internal SATA hard drive. And it takes about 25 minutes to restore any one of those images (since they're all roughly the same size). |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD
"Daave" wrote in message ... But "fiddling around" can actually be beneficial! Example: Monday: You install program A. It turns out to mess up your system something fierce. The problem is that you don't notice the damage right away. Tuesday: Updates (e.g., Windows security updates) are installed with no consequence that you can tell. Friday: You install Program B. Later that day you start noticing some performance problems. Then Saturday comes and you can't even boot to Windows. If you had been imaging rather than cloning, you would have the ability to restore any of the incremental images you had been making along the way. But if you only have one clone, the fact that it *is* up-to-date is not to your advantage. You choose to boot from this clone. But you have problems and the next day your PC again won't boot. If you had restored the image made prior to Monday when the problematic program was installed, you'd be in much better shape! There's your trade-off. Restoring an image or swapping a cloned drive (or re-cloning as some do) is not really done that often anyway. I'd rather have the process take a little bit longer if it means I can choose from a multitude of images. Daave: Please understand that there is *nothing* that stands in the way of a user of the Casper 5 program to create a clone of his or her source HDD on a *daily* basis. We do this on a number of our PCs and we're aware of many Casper 5 users who likewise do this. As I have tried to emphasize all through this discussion of the Casper 5 program in comparing it with other disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs, it is the program's incredible speed in creating a clone of one's HDD when the program is used on a routine *frequent* basis that makes the program so attractive in my estimation. Using as an example a HDD containing 50 GB of data... Should the user clone the contents of that drive on a *daily* basis, it will probably take somewhere in the vicinity of 2 to 4 minutes to complete the disk-cloning operation. TWO TO FOUR MINUTES! The precise amount of time to complete the disk-cloning operation would, of course, depend chiefly upon the amount of changes made in the system since the last disk-cloning operation. And the Casper program also provides the user with an option of automatic scheduling of these disk-cloning operations on whatever time frame the user chooses, including a daily basis should the user desire such. Frankly, I'm not entirely clear re the scenario(s) you posit. One of the recommendations we make to users of Casper 5 (or for that matter users of *any* disk-cloning/disk-imaging program) is that *before* making substantive changes to one's system, e.g., installing new, untested programs, or making radical configuration changes, or installing a new Service Pack, etc. etc., the user undertake a disk-cloning operation with the Casper program. Thus, should problems arise as a consequence of any of those events the user will have at hand a bootable, functional clone of their "good" system. There's no "trade-off" involved here. And as I've repeatedly emphasized, because the Casper program speedily completes the disk-cloning operation this gives the user strong encouragement to frequently back up their entire system even on a daily basis if one chooses to do so since the expenditure of backup time comes close to being trivial. And where the destination HDD (the recipient of the clone) is another internal HDD, the user has *immediately* at hand a bootable, functional HDD with all data *immediately* accessible and no "restoration" process is necessary to achieve this capability. And where the destination HDD is an external HDD, e.g., a USB-connected device, it's a relatively simple matter to clone the contents of that external drive back to the user's internal HDD and the system is easily & relatively quickly returned to a bootable functional state. I have previously stated a number of times that when the user has a specific interest in maintaining "generational" copies of his or her system at particular points in time, in most cases a disk-imaging program would be more suitable to that objective. While the Casper 5 (and probably most other disk-cloning programs) could maintain such generational copies of one's system (depending upon the size of the contents of the source drive and the disk space available on the destination drive), it doesn't lend itself as readily to that objective as would a disk-imaging program. But as a general proposition (in my experience) it's the commercial enterprises who have a particular interest in maintaining generational copies of their data. In my experience with thousands PC users (as it involves this issue of comprehensive backup programs) the vast majority of users are interested only in maintaining a reasonably up-to-date backup of their system and they are not particularly interested in generational copies of their system at past points-in-time. Anna |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD
"Anna" wrote in message
... "Daave" wrote in message ... But "fiddling around" can actually be beneficial! Example: Monday: You install program A. It turns out to mess up your system something fierce. The problem is that you don't notice the damage right away. Tuesday: Updates (e.g., Windows security updates) are installed with no consequence that you can tell. Friday: You install Program B. Later that day you start noticing some performance problems. Then Saturday comes and you can't even boot to Windows. If you had been imaging rather than cloning, you would have the ability to restore any of the incremental images you had been making along the way. But if you only have one clone, the fact that it *is* up-to-date is not to your advantage. You choose to boot from this clone. But you have problems and the next day your PC again won't boot. If you had restored the image made prior to Monday when the problematic program was installed, you'd be in much better shape! There's your trade-off. Restoring an image or swapping a cloned drive (or re-cloning as some do) is not really done that often anyway. I'd rather have the process take a little bit longer if it means I can choose from a multitude of images. Daave: Please understand that there is *nothing* that stands in the way of a user of the Casper 5 program to create a clone of his or her source HDD on a *daily* basis. We do this on a number of our PCs and we're aware of many Casper 5 users who likewise do this. Actually, my point was that doing just that *could* be problematic. Probably not, but the possibility exists for the last "good" clone to no longer exist. At least with imaging, since you can store a number of generational images on one hard drive, you can restore the last good image because it still exists. As I have tried to emphasize all through this discussion of the Casper 5 program in comparing it with other disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs, it is the program's incredible speed in creating a clone of one's HDD when the program is used on a routine *frequent* basis that makes the program so attractive in my estimation. And if it's done too frequently, it's possible (admittedly not probable, but still the possibility exists) that the most recent clone would be problematic. Using as an example a HDD containing 50 GB of data... Should the user clone the contents of that drive on a *daily* basis, it will probably take somewhere in the vicinity of 2 to 4 minutes to complete the disk-cloning operation. TWO TO FOUR MINUTES! The precise amount of time to complete the disk-cloning operation would, of course, depend chiefly upon the amount of changes made in the system since the last disk-cloning operation. That's impressive, yes. But that gives us the trade-off. Disk-to-disk cloning has the advantage of giving you a fully bootable drive, yes. But imaging gives you a much larger number of options. And if your most recent clone has the same problems, then as I see it, imaging is superior in that instance. It might be rare. But I'd rather have that extra bit of security. And the Casper program also provides the user with an option of automatic scheduling of these disk-cloning operations on whatever time frame the user chooses, including a daily basis should the user desire such. Frankly, I'm not entirely clear re the scenario(s) you posit. One of the recommendations we make to users of Casper 5 (or for that matter users of *any* disk-cloning/disk-imaging program) is that *before* making substantive changes to one's system, e.g., installing new, untested programs, or making radical configuration changes, or installing a new Service Pack, etc. etc., the user undertake a disk-cloning operation with the Casper program. Thus, should problems arise as a consequence of any of those events the user will have at hand a bootable, functional clone of their "good" system. There's no "trade-off" involved here. Sure there is. Here is the scenario again: Monday: You install program A. It turns out to mess up your system something fierce. The problem is that you don't notice the damage right away. Tuesday: Updates (e.g., Windows security updates) are installed with no consequence that you can tell. Friday: You install Program B. Later that day you start noticing some performance problems. Then Saturday comes and you can't even boot to Windows. Let's say you cloned Sunday night or Monday morning prior to installing Program A. That's great. But then you created other clones on Tuesday (before the updates) and Friday (prior to installing Program B). If you want to pop in the cloned hard drive that is the best (i.e., the one made before Program A was installed), you can't do it; it doesn't exist! However, if you have been making images, that image *would* exist. I am assuming the user is performing disk-to-disk cloning so that the destination drive is an exact bootable copy. And as I've repeatedly emphasized, because the Casper program speedily completes the disk-cloning operation this gives the user strong encouragement to frequently back up their entire system even on a daily basis if one chooses to do so since the expenditure of backup time comes close to being trivial. And where the destination HDD (the recipient of the clone) is another internal HDD, the user has *immediately* at hand a bootable, functional HDD snip In my scenario, the cloned HDD is *not* functional. Now if the user has seven physical hard drives and chooses to use the clone made on Monday, then all is well. I assume that's not your typical user, though! with all data *immediately* accessible and no "restoration" process is necessary to achieve this capability. In my scenario, the restoration process, albeit longer, is better. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
Hi,
"........... images allow you to mess with a single drive, directory, file, whatever in any manner you wish. You can retrieve a lost file from an image in a few minutes but it's quite a task with a clone and can't really be very cleanly accomplished without hoops. I Clone my entire drive every friday night. As was mentioned earlier, it's an exact copy of the main hard drive. When I open a file explorer I see both the original and the clones contents, that means individual files, not an image of the disk contents. There are no "hoops", drag, drop, whatever suits your needs. It's like having two of everything available at once. If it takes you "a few minutes" to "retrieve a lost file from an image", you should look into using a cloned drive instead. ---==X={}=X==--- Jim Self AVIATION ANIMATION, the internet's largest depository. http://avanimation.avsupport.com Your only internet source for spiral staircase plans. http://jself.com/stair/Stair.htm Experimental Aircraft Association #140897 EAA Technical Counselor #4562 |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
Hi,
Twayne wrote"...... If you can pick out a file to restore on its own, it's not a clone." Why do you say that? My clones are an exact copy of the drive, file by file, folder by folder. Are you writing that a clone is not an exact copy? ---==X={}=X==--- Jim Self AVIATION ANIMATION, the internet's largest depository. http://avanimation.avsupport.com Your only internet source for spiral staircase plans. http://jself.com/stair/Stair.htm Experimental Aircraft Association #140897 EAA Technical Counselor #4562 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|