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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cloning questions.
Three major topics about cloning
1) Took 30 hours to make a first clone of a 90 gig partition. Some time later I made an incremantal update of that clone partition. During that time, my partition displayed as Unallocated, so I had no access to any of its files for 30 hours. If there had been a crash, power failure, or if my delinquent nephew had turned off the computer, I think my clone would have disappeared, become unallocated space no matter what files were in it, and it would take 30 more hours from the time I noticed to make another one. During which time something might go wrong with the System drive. This all sounds very risky. What am I missing? Also, they said an incremental update would run faster, but it had only done 20% in about 8 hours, which extrapolated to 40 hours. Not remembering that this was a semi-reasonable value, I cancelled the clone and the partition was labeled Unallocated!! That's how I know what I said in the previous paragraph. But in addition, it said the incremental clone would be much faster than the original clone, and it was no faster, probably slower. Think about it. For the original clone all it has to do is read a secton and write the same sector to the second drive. To do an incremental clone, IIUC it has to read the sector on the old drive, read the sector on the new drive, compare the two, and if they dont' match, write the sector; That's one or two extra steps! Or is there a flag that shows a sector has been changed. And if there is and if that helps, why was my incremental backup running so slowly; Not that much had been changed, although when files get rewritten in normal computer operation, arent' they likely to change 2 source sectors or more, the one(s) they were in and the one(s) they are written to? 2) Using different software products sequentially. It seems to me that if a clone program makes a real clone, there is no evidence of which program made it (except that the installed program and maybe its log will be copied too). But it seems to me that none of that would prevent any other incremental clone program from applying incremental changes of the, say, C: partition to the clone. That I could use the program I like most for initial cloning, say once a month, and use the program I like most or any functioning program for intermediate, incremental clones. Right? 3) When the process was done, even though I only asked to clone one partition, I had allocated space in 3 parttions, and it had copied all 3 partitions, the Win10 partition and a tiny one before and after it. None of them were labeled active in the partition manager, so I used it to make the first one active. But still none are labeled Boot or System. Do I need to do something to make them bootable, like run EasyBCD. I thought that cloning them would do all this. Since that seems to me the meaning of clone. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cloning questions.
micky wrote:
Three major topics about cloning 1) Took 30 hours to make a first clone of a 90 gig partition. Some time later I made an incremantal update of that clone partition. During that time, my partition displayed as Unallocated, so I had no access to any of its files for 30 hours. If there had been a crash, power failure, or if my delinquent nephew had turned off the computer, I think my clone would have disappeared, become unallocated space no matter what files were in it, and it would take 30 more hours from the time I noticed to make another one. During which time something might go wrong with the System drive. This all sounds very risky. What am I missing? Also, they said an incremental update would run faster, but it had only done 20% in about 8 hours, which extrapolated to 40 hours. Not remembering that this was a semi-reasonable value, I cancelled the clone and the partition was labeled Unallocated!! That's how I know what I said in the previous paragraph. But in addition, it said the incremental clone would be much faster than the original clone, and it was no faster, probably slower. Think about it. For the original clone all it has to do is read a secton and write the same sector to the second drive. To do an incremental clone, IIUC it has to read the sector on the old drive, read the sector on the new drive, compare the two, and if they dont' match, write the sector; That's one or two extra steps! Or is there a flag that shows a sector has been changed. And if there is and if that helps, why was my incremental backup running so slowly; Not that much had been changed, although when files get rewritten in normal computer operation, arent' they likely to change 2 source sectors or more, the one(s) they were in and the one(s) they are written to? 2) Using different software products sequentially. It seems to me that if a clone program makes a real clone, there is no evidence of which program made it (except that the installed program and maybe its log will be copied too). But it seems to me that none of that would prevent any other incremental clone program from applying incremental changes of the, say, C: partition to the clone. That I could use the program I like most for initial cloning, say once a month, and use the program I like most or any functioning program for intermediate, incremental clones. Right? 3) When the process was done, even though I only asked to clone one partition, I had allocated space in 3 parttions, and it had copied all 3 partitions, the Win10 partition and a tiny one before and after it. None of them were labeled active in the partition manager, so I used it to make the first one active. But still none are labeled Boot or System. Do I need to do something to make them bootable, like run EasyBCD. I thought that cloning them would do all this. Since that seems to me the meaning of clone. So right away, you know the performance level is *way way off* and something is near to failing. If you have a SMART utility (the Health tab in HDTune 2.55 will do), check the Reallocated on both the source and destination drives. If you cancel a clone, a utility should prevent "half-finished" partitions from being offered to you. You would not want a half-finished work of art. You would have no way of knowing what files were missing. For safety, it should remove the partitions from the partition table on the destination, to ensure you don't make any mistakes about "successful" copies. You can clone single partitions. You can put them on the end of several partitions already on the target (you can even drag and drop them). If the clone is prematurely terminated, the utility has to be careful to not make any of the "stable" partitions disappear. I would also be running CHKDSK on the source partition, in the mode of operation that read-verifies every sector. Or, barring that, even using HDTune benchmark or HDTune Error Scan and watching the transfer rates involved, should tell you whether either the source or destination disk is near death. An older SATA might be 65MB/sec on the outer diameter of the disk. A newer drive can be as high as 200-220MB/sec. Certain 15K drives, can manage 300MB/sec, but I don't own any of those :-) To do 90GB at 65MB/sec takes 90000/65 = about half an hour :-) To Robocopy a similar amount, would take longer (allowing for random access head movement on source). Intelligent Cloning should be mostly sequential (the software can compute a map of what sectors must be copied, to make a complete imaging of the info). You can use Process Monitor from Sysinternals, if you need to keep a log of how it does the actual operations. The WriteFile size and starting LBA recorded in Process Monitor, can help you understand how software copies stuff. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|