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 | Rating: | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
On Wed, 21 May 2014 19:49:46 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
Sorry about the double spacing in the previous post, reposted. In , Gene E. Bloch typed: On Wed, 21 May 2014 19:07:14 -0500, BillW50 wrote: In , Gene E. Bloch typed: On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:36:27 -0500, BillW50 wrote: In , Char Jackson typed: On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:49:34 -0400, AlDrake wrote: So in the long run none of these backup applications are even worth the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of who I am. I have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping them. When you clone your drive(s), you need an additional drive for every drive you wish to clone, or simply an additional drive for every clone you wish to make. For many people, that gets expensive. When you create a backup, you can typically put multiple backups on a single drive. Actually it should be cheaper the first time around. As a backup drive will hold more than one backup I assume (otherwise you might as well clone). So it has to be larger than the original drive and that costs more. Sure the three drives you clone you might be breaking even vs. a one backup drive. Images are smaller than the whole drive. They are even smaller than the used portion of the drive, if as is typical you use compression. SNIP since I have no further comments. True, but even if you take a 120GB drive and backup to an external and say you get a 60GB saved compressed backup. Which is probably very typical. Now how do you know you can restore? Are you going to test it? Or are you going to hope it works? If you test it, are you going to use the original drive? If so and it fails to boot, now what? Bad idea eh? So you really need a spare drive to test it, don't you? So if you need a spare drive to test, you could have saved lots of time, money and trouble just cloning to the spare drive anyway. Obviously you could test dozens of different images on one and the same spare drive, if all you're doing is making sure they are in fact restorable. You only need to devote a drive to a single image if you are in fact restoring the image to that drive because the original drive is defunct. But that's the way it would be under any plan, no? Yes absolutely! Although are you going to test every single backup? If so, that is twice the work than cloning. If you test less, well then it is less work for sure. You still have the problem that you are trusting one backup drive to stay working and not ever corrupting anything. For me, that is a big if! Where did I say that there will be only one drive for the backups? What I said was that imaging allows backups from several drives to exist on a single drive. If you get three backups on one drive, you'd only need two drives to duplicate three backups. If you cloned, you'd need six. I always duplicate my backups...just not often enough. And everyone who suggests testing suggests testing every backup anyway. Also, a clone needs to be tested too. Even a supposed exact copy could end up being inexact. I do have some machines that it isn't practical to swap drives. One of them has a 4GB SSD soldered on the motherboard. So I am stuck using backup/restore. But guess what? I can't trust one backup/restore program, I use three different backup programs using three different backup drives. I can't throw in a spare SSD, so I have to restore to the original. So maybe one might fail to restore, maybe the second might fail, but I hope the third will never fail. Otherwise that one gets a factory reset. -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
BillW50 wrote, On 5/21/2014 4:34 AM:
Same here. Heck I still have Acronis 2013 and 2014 here unopened. I didn't really need them for anything, I just wanted to checkout what was new in these versions. As things generally work out with me, they will probably stay on the shelf for 15 years before I'll break the seal on the boxes. If unopened how did you check them out ? If not checked out via the program what was the point of purchasing them ? -- ...winston msft mvp consumer apps |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
On 5/21/2014 5:06 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In , AlDrake typed: On 5/21/2014 4:34 AM, BillW50 wrote: In , I'm glad that you agree with me so at least I haven't been doing it wrong through the years. I usually install the clone at the time of making the copy so I'm sure from the start I have a fail safe method. So in the long run none of these backup applications are even worth the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of who I am. I have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping them. Same here. Heck I still have Acronis 2013 and 2014 here unopened. I didn't really need them for anything, I just wanted to checkout what was new in these versions. As things generally work out with me, they will probably stay on the shelf for 15 years before I'll break the seal on the boxes. I have a unopened still wrapped in plastic Win7 OS I'll probably never use. Actually I have a whole system I need to through together. I just don't have the space to put another desktop. One funny part is my wife wouldn't even notice if I did build again, there so must stuff around my computer room. All I'd have to do is rearrange some stuff and she'd be none the wiser. What's one more system give or take? Yes same here. I too still have sealed Windows 7 OS that I was going to use on a bunch of XP laptops (like this one). I did upgrade one of them and that worked fine. I never upgraded the others yet. Although I did move away from desktops in 2005 and went all laptops. Although I do use docks, external monitors, etc. with them too. As you can store a lot of laptops in a wall cabinet like you wouldn't believe. I don't like working with small assemblies unless you're not referring to actually building laptops. I knew someone that said he did. I like building the larger beasts. I have a few of these: http://www.sweetpond.com/index.php?r...uct_id=1620122 They're really nice when it comes to putting everything together before you add the case. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
On 5/21/2014 5:55 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In , AlDrake typed: On 5/21/2014 3:29 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:49:34 -0400, AlDrake wrote: So in the long run none of these backup applications are even worth the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of who I am. I have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping them. When you clone your drive(s), you need an additional drive for every drive you wish to clone, or simply an additional drive for every clone you wish to make. For many people, that gets expensive. When you create a backup, you can typically put multiple backups on a single drive. So it's a trade-off, as are many things in life. If cost isn't an issue, go ahead and clone. If the budget is tight, get a big drive and put multiple backups/images on it, with the knowledge that you've saved a chunk of cash but if it ever comes down to having to use one of those backups, you'll have to restore it first. The trade-off is time versus money. I have so many drives that are smaller than the ones I use at any given moment. They used to get moved to the second drive for "whatever". Since I switched over to SSDs I have gone from 128G to 256G and now I'm at Crucial M550 512G so I can use an older one to clone to. I lost count of all the drives with somewhere over a dozen SSDs alone. I have 1,2,3 and 4 TB external drives. I keep several SSDs in USB3 external cases. I can keep one with me as it's smaller than my wallet which has been getting smaller also. Boy we sure do many things the same way. Although I have delayed longer on my older machines to SSD and I just started recently. And they are going to all get 120GB SSD I believe for now. I was a bit concern about an SSD on this machine in particular, since it also has a TV tuner connected and does a far amount of TV recording sometimes. Although monitoring the lifetime writes, I don't think I'll hit the limit for at least 10 years. Plus it won't be long before this one is cloned and replaced with another SSD anyway. Maybe 256GB next time around. I can't see myself going larger than the Crucial M550 512GB but I'm waiting to see if they start using faster chips than the Micron. You have an advantage because they're much cheaper then when I started purchasing SSDs. I put one in my ASUS Eee PC and at the time the SSD cost more than the netbook. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
In ,
Gene E. Bloch typed: On Wed, 21 May 2014 19:49:46 -0500, BillW50 wrote: Sorry about the double spacing in the previous post, reposted. In , Gene E. Bloch typed: On Wed, 21 May 2014 19:07:14 -0500, BillW50 wrote: In , Gene E. Bloch typed: On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:36:27 -0500, BillW50 wrote: In , Char Jackson typed: On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:49:34 -0400, AlDrake wrote: So in the long run none of these backup applications are even worth the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of who I am. I have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping them. When you clone your drive(s), you need an additional drive for every drive you wish to clone, or simply an additional drive for every clone you wish to make. For many people, that gets expensive. When you create a backup, you can typically put multiple backups on a single drive. Actually it should be cheaper the first time around. As a backup drive will hold more than one backup I assume (otherwise you might as well clone). So it has to be larger than the original drive and that costs more. Sure the three drives you clone you might be breaking even vs. a one backup drive. Images are smaller than the whole drive. They are even smaller than the used portion of the drive, if as is typical you use compression. SNIP since I have no further comments. True, but even if you take a 120GB drive and backup to an external and say you get a 60GB saved compressed backup. Which is probably very typical. Now how do you know you can restore? Are you going to test it? Or are you going to hope it works? If you test it, are you going to use the original drive? If so and it fails to boot, now what? Bad idea eh? So you really need a spare drive to test it, don't you? So if you need a spare drive to test, you could have saved lots of time, money and trouble just cloning to the spare drive anyway. Obviously you could test dozens of different images on one and the same spare drive, if all you're doing is making sure they are in fact restorable. You only need to devote a drive to a single image if you are in fact restoring the image to that drive because the original drive is defunct. But that's the way it would be under any plan, no? Yes absolutely! Although are you going to test every single backup? If so, that is twice the work than cloning. If you test less, well then it is less work for sure. You still have the problem that you are trusting one backup drive to stay working and not ever corrupting anything. For me, that is a big if! Where did I say that there will be only one drive for the backups? What I said was that imaging allows backups from several drives to exist on a single drive. If you get three backups on one drive, you'd only need two drives to duplicate three backups. If you cloned, you'd need six. I always duplicate my backups...just not often enough. All of the examples up to now were assuming one backup drive vs. cloning. Adding multiple backup drives changes everything. And one of the only disadvantage of cloning is it could end of costing more. Now adding more reliability for backup/restore method by adding more cost by backing up backups... what are you gaining? If you are trading cost for reliability, why use backup/restore? Because that is the only negative of cloning (sometimes). And that one is a bit iffy, as cloning is cheaper to start off with. But you have to spend more later. Although spending later, you pay less for more anyway. And everyone who suggests testing suggests testing every backup anyway. Wow, I hated that part. That is twice the work. In my experience, cloning and backing up takes about the same amount of time. Ok, not always true, some software is slower than others. But generally they are very close. Although the heavier the compression for backup, the longer it takes. But they can take generally the same amount of time if the compression isn't that heavy. So up to this point, the time is about the same. Cloning all you have to do is to drop the new cloned drive and you are done (unless it failed). Using backup/restore you are done if you don't test. That is ok if you want to risk it. I've been burned enough that I want to test it. Now the time you spent to backup, you now have to spend on restoring. Twice the time! Worse it isn't like you can set it up and go to bed. No you have to have to start restore manually half way through the process. Also, a clone needs to be tested too. Even a supposed exact copy could end up being inexact. Oh yes, absolutely! I clone and use the clone and save the original (you were using it and you know that one works). If the clone fails, you would know right away if it doesn't boot. And you will be using it until the next clone. So you have time to make sure everything works ok. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
In ,
....winston typed: BillW50 wrote, On 5/21/2014 4:34 AM: Same here. Heck I still have Acronis 2013 and 2014 here unopened. I didn't really need them for anything, I just wanted to checkout what was new in these versions. As things generally work out with me, they will probably stay on the shelf for 15 years before I'll break the seal on the boxes. If unopened how did you check them out ? No I didn't, I purchased them to check them out. If not checked out via the program what was the point of purchasing them ? It is on the to do list when nothing important is happening. Sometimes it takes 15 years to get to that list. And sometimes I lose the list in the 15 year time span. Then I think by then, why the hell did I buy that for? -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
BillW50 wrote, On 5/21/2014 10:35 PM:
In , ...winston typed: BillW50 wrote, On 5/21/2014 4:34 AM: Same here. Heck I still have Acronis 2013 and 2014 here unopened. I didn't really need them for anything, I just wanted to checkout what was new in these versions. As things generally work out with me, they will probably stay on the shelf for 15 years before I'll break the seal on the boxes. If unopened how did you check them out ? No I didn't, I purchased them to check them out. If not checked out via the program what was the point of purchasing them ? It is on the to do list when nothing important is happening. Sometimes it takes 15 years to get to that list. And sometimes I lose the list in the 15 year time span. Then I think by then, why the hell did I buy that for? After installation, if you want to report [here]what you find when checking them out 15 yrs might be too long. Usenet or some of us may expire before then. Optionally the manual can be downloaded here http://www.acronis.com/download/docs/ati2014/userguide -- ...winston msft mvp consumer apps |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
In ,
AlDrake typed: On 5/21/2014 5:06 PM, BillW50 wrote: In , Yes same here. I too still have sealed Windows 7 OS that I was going to use on a bunch of XP laptops (like this one). I did upgrade one of them and that worked fine. I never upgraded the others yet. Although I did move away from desktops in 2005 and went all laptops. Although I do use docks, external monitors, etc. with them too. As you can store a lot of laptops in a wall cabinet like you wouldn't believe. I don't like working with small assemblies unless you're not referring to actually building laptops. I knew someone that said he did. I like building the larger beasts. I have a few of these: http://www.sweetpond.com/index.php?r...uct_id=1620122 They're really nice when it comes to putting everything together before you add the case. Wow! What a beautiful tech station I love it! :-D As for small assemblies... yes I always had a fondness towards them. And while my first laptop was back in '84, I also needed desktops. Since desktops had more power and sometimes I needed the extra power. Although since 2005, laptops had enough power to compete with desktop machines for my needs anyway. I even replaced my gaming desktops with Alienware laptops. Although these portable monster space heaters are not known as laptops (though they look like laptops), but rather known as desktop replacements. I also don't mind taking them apart and doing repair work on them. And the ones I like a lot have docking ports and removable bays. Like earlier today I popped this machine out of the dock (no wires to disconnect), slid the DVD drive out of its bay while the machine is still running. And inserted a second battery that slides right into that same bay. With two batteries, I have 8 hours of runtime. And I could always swap charged batteries while it is still running too. And I have about 9 charged batteries and I could run for days without power if I wanted too. I really like that freedom. :-D -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
In ,
AlDrake typed: On 5/21/2014 5:55 PM, BillW50 wrote: In , AlDrake typed: On 5/21/2014 3:29 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:49:34 -0400, AlDrake wrote: So in the long run none of these backup applications are even worth the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of who I am. I have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping them. When you clone your drive(s), you need an additional drive for every drive you wish to clone, or simply an additional drive for every clone you wish to make. For many people, that gets expensive. When you create a backup, you can typically put multiple backups on a single drive. So it's a trade-off, as are many things in life. If cost isn't an issue, go ahead and clone. If the budget is tight, get a big drive and put multiple backups/images on it, with the knowledge that you've saved a chunk of cash but if it ever comes down to having to use one of those backups, you'll have to restore it first. The trade-off is time versus money. I have so many drives that are smaller than the ones I use at any given moment. They used to get moved to the second drive for "whatever". Since I switched over to SSDs I have gone from 128G to 256G and now I'm at Crucial M550 512G so I can use an older one to clone to. I lost count of all the drives with somewhere over a dozen SSDs alone. I have 1,2,3 and 4 TB external drives. I keep several SSDs in USB3 external cases. I can keep one with me as it's smaller than my wallet which has been getting smaller also. Boy we sure do many things the same way. Although I have delayed longer on my older machines to SSD and I just started recently. And they are going to all get 120GB SSD I believe for now. I was a bit concern about an SSD on this machine in particular, since it also has a TV tuner connected and does a far amount of TV recording sometimes. Although monitoring the lifetime writes, I don't think I'll hit the limit for at least 10 years. Plus it won't be long before this one is cloned and replaced with another SSD anyway. Maybe 256GB next time around. I can't see myself going larger than the Crucial M550 512GB but I'm waiting to see if they start using faster chips than the Micron. You have an advantage because they're much cheaper then when I started purchasing SSDs. I put one in my ASUS Eee PC and at the time the SSD cost more than the netbook. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
In ,
AlDrake typed: On 5/21/2014 5:55 PM, BillW50 wrote: In , Boy we sure do many things the same way. Although I have delayed longer on my older machines to SSD and I just started recently. And they are going to all get 120GB SSD I believe for now. I was a bit concern about an SSD on this machine in particular, since it also has a TV tuner connected and does a far amount of TV recording sometimes. Although monitoring the lifetime writes, I don't think I'll hit the limit for at least 10 years. Plus it won't be long before this one is cloned and replaced with another SSD anyway. Maybe 256GB next time around. I can't see myself going larger than the Crucial M550 512GB but I'm waiting to see if they start using faster chips than the Micron. My newer machines came stock with SSD and they are fine and I haven't had a desire to upgrade those yet. The ones that I am upgrading right now had SATA (type 1) 7200rpm hard drives. Since the SATA port can only handle 150MB/s tops, I am not interested in anything faster anyway. So cheap, slow, and reliable will get the job done on these machines. I wasn't sure what to expect on such systems. Since 95% of the time the hard drive wasn't doing anything anyway. But boy, it is a huge difference. Boot times are 5 times faster, games loads five times faster, and most applications load in a blink of an eye. Nor do I have to be careful about bumping the machine while moving around with it. Head crashes are a thing of the past. You have an advantage because they're much cheaper then when I started purchasing SSDs. I put one in my ASUS Eee PC and at the time the SSD cost more than the netbook. Oh yes, I remember. Although what I liked in the early days of SSD, was most SSD were the SLC type and MLC type were the ones that were hard to find. Today it is just the opposite. I would prefer SLC SSDs, but they are so hard to find nowadays. But MLC SSDs are more reliable as ever and cheaper than they ever have been. So I guess it isn't so bad anymore. :-) -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
On 5/22/2014 12:14 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In , AlDrake typed: On 5/21/2014 5:06 PM, BillW50 wrote: In , Yes same here. I too still have sealed Windows 7 OS that I was going to use on a bunch of XP laptops (like this one). I did upgrade one of them and that worked fine. I never upgraded the others yet. Although I did move away from desktops in 2005 and went all laptops. Although I do use docks, external monitors, etc. with them too. As you can store a lot of laptops in a wall cabinet like you wouldn't believe. I don't like working with small assemblies unless you're not referring to actually building laptops. I knew someone that said he did. I like building the larger beasts. I have a few of these: http://www.sweetpond.com/index.php?r...uct_id=1620122 They're really nice when it comes to putting everything together before you add the case. Wow! What a beautiful tech station I love it! :-D As for small assemblies... yes I always had a fondness towards them. And while my first laptop was back in '84, I also needed desktops. Since desktops had more power and sometimes I needed the extra power. Although since 2005, laptops had enough power to compete with desktop machines for my needs anyway. I even replaced my gaming desktops with Alienware laptops. Although these portable monster space heaters are not known as laptops (though they look like laptops), but rather known as desktop replacements. I also don't mind taking them apart and doing repair work on them. And the ones I like a lot have docking ports and removable bays. Like earlier today I popped this machine out of the dock (no wires to disconnect), slid the DVD drive out of its bay while the machine is still running. And inserted a second battery that slides right into that same bay. With two batteries, I have 8 hours of runtime. And I could always swap charged batteries while it is still running too. And I have about 9 charged batteries and I could run for days without power if I wanted too. I really like that freedom. :-D I just goggled "laptop replacements" and had some interesting reading. My only need for one would be running SolidWorks 2014/SolidCAM. I never did get into gaming. For now my ASUS Republic of Games G73Sw will do. I, of coarse, replaced the original HDD with a Crucial SSD. Unfortunately it came from BestBuy back when I didn't know of their underhanded misleading sales. I know many people I work with are opting for laptops over desktops for the smaller footprint and portability. I'm lucky enough to have a sizable loft I converted so I get my solitude and comfort when needed. It sounds like you hate wires. I rather like cables and wires. I rearrange then just for something to do. I enjoy cable management in my desktops. Lights too and fans. It's like a computer carnival around here. Laptops just wouldn't do it for me. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
On 5/22/2014 12:50 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In , AlDrake typed: On 5/21/2014 5:55 PM, BillW50 wrote: In , Boy we sure do many things the same way. Although I have delayed longer on my older machines to SSD and I just started recently. And they are going to all get 120GB SSD I believe for now. I was a bit concern about an SSD on this machine in particular, since it also has a TV tuner connected and does a far amount of TV recording sometimes. Although monitoring the lifetime writes, I don't think I'll hit the limit for at least 10 years. Plus it won't be long before this one is cloned and replaced with another SSD anyway. Maybe 256GB next time around. I can't see myself going larger than the Crucial M550 512GB but I'm waiting to see if they start using faster chips than the Micron. My newer machines came stock with SSD and they are fine and I haven't had a desire to upgrade those yet. The ones that I am upgrading right now had SATA (type 1) 7200rpm hard drives. Since the SATA port can only handle 150MB/s tops, I am not interested in anything faster anyway. So cheap, slow, and reliable will get the job done on these machines. I wasn't sure what to expect on such systems. Since 95% of the time the hard drive wasn't doing anything anyway. But boy, it is a huge difference. Boot times are 5 times faster, games loads five times faster, and most applications load in a blink of an eye. Nor do I have to be careful about bumping the machine while moving around with it. Head crashes are a thing of the past. You have an advantage because they're much cheaper then when I started purchasing SSDs. I put one in my ASUS Eee PC and at the time the SSD cost more than the netbook. Oh yes, I remember. Although what I liked in the early days of SSD, was most SSD were the SLC type and MLC type were the ones that were hard to find. Today it is just the opposite. I would prefer SLC SSDs, but they are so hard to find nowadays. But MLC SSDs are more reliable as ever and cheaper than they ever have been. So I guess it isn't so bad anymore. :-) Yes, I like the speed too. I think it's not beneficial to keep an HDD installed as it's powered and produces heat. The only system I have any in is my InWin BUC666 http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...odid=CA-017-IW that has side access though a locked door. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
My comments are inline below...
On Wed, 21 May 2014 21:24:49 -0500, BillW50 wrote: In , Gene E. Bloch typed: On Wed, 21 May 2014 19:49:46 -0500, BillW50 wrote: Sorry about the double spacing in the previous post, reposted. In , Gene E. Bloch typed: On Wed, 21 May 2014 19:07:14 -0500, BillW50 wrote: In , Gene E. Bloch typed: On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:36:27 -0500, BillW50 wrote: In , Char Jackson typed: On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:49:34 -0400, AlDrake wrote: So in the long run none of these backup applications are even worth the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of who I am. I have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping them. When you clone your drive(s), you need an additional drive for every drive you wish to clone, or simply an additional drive for every clone you wish to make. For many people, that gets expensive. When you create a backup, you can typically put multiple backups on a single drive. Actually it should be cheaper the first time around. As a backup drive will hold more than one backup I assume (otherwise you might as well clone). So it has to be larger than the original drive and that costs more. Sure the three drives you clone you might be breaking even vs. a one backup drive. Images are smaller than the whole drive. They are even smaller than the used portion of the drive, if as is typical you use compression. SNIP since I have no further comments. True, but even if you take a 120GB drive and backup to an external and say you get a 60GB saved compressed backup. Which is probably very typical. Now how do you know you can restore? Are you going to test it? Or are you going to hope it works? If you test it, are you going to use the original drive? If so and it fails to boot, now what? Bad idea eh? So you really need a spare drive to test it, don't you? So if you need a spare drive to test, you could have saved lots of time, money and trouble just cloning to the spare drive anyway. Obviously you could test dozens of different images on one and the same spare drive, if all you're doing is making sure they are in fact restorable. You only need to devote a drive to a single image if you are in fact restoring the image to that drive because the original drive is defunct. But that's the way it would be under any plan, no? Yes absolutely! Although are you going to test every single backup? If so, that is twice the work than cloning. If you test less, well then it is less work for sure. You still have the problem that you are trusting one backup drive to stay working and not ever corrupting anything. For me, that is a big if! Where did I say that there will be only one drive for the backups? What I said was that imaging allows backups from several drives to exist on a single drive. If you get three backups on one drive, you'd only need two drives to duplicate three backups. If you cloned, you'd need six. I always duplicate my backups...just not often enough. All of the examples up to now were assuming one backup drive vs. cloning. Adding multiple backup drives changes everything. And one of the only disadvantage of cloning is it could end of costing more. Now adding more reliability for backup/restore method by adding more cost by backing up backups... what are you gaining? I didn't say backing up backups, I said making multiple backups - it never occurred to me to back up a backup. I back up the *original* drive multiple times. OK, usually twice, and usually a clone on one drive and an incremental image on another. If you are trading cost for reliability, why use backup/restore? Because that is the only negative of cloning (sometimes). And that one is a bit iffy, as cloning is cheaper to start off with. But you have to spend more later. Although spending later, you pay less for more anyway. Why do you say cloning is cheaper? Makes no sense to me. It can cost a whole drive, whereas images only need a partial drive. And everyone who suggests testing suggests testing every backup anyway. Wow, I hated that part. That is twice the work. In my experience, cloning and backing up takes about the same amount of time. Ok, not always true, some software is slower than others. But generally they are very close. Although the heavier the compression for backup, the longer it takes. But they can take generally the same amount of time if the compression isn't that heavy. So up to this point, the time is about the same. Confession time: I believe that it is important to test backups. I don;t do it, however :-) See, we sometimes *do* agree! Cloning all you have to do is to drop the new cloned drive and you are done (unless it failed). Using backup/restore you are done if you don't test. That is ok if you want to risk it. I've been burned enough that I want to test it. Now the time you spent to backup, you now have to spend on restoring. Twice the time! Worse it isn't like you can set it up and go to bed. No you have to have to start restore manually half way through the process. You forget that a clone can also fail. Also, I might want to replace the failed hard drive by a new one and restore it from the clone, or if I do replace the failed drive by the clone, I will *definitely* want to back the clone up. Immediately. Also, a clone needs to be tested too. Even a supposed exact copy could end up being inexact. Oh yes, absolutely! I clone and use the clone and save the original (you were using it and you know that one works). If the clone fails, you would know right away if it doesn't boot. And you will be using it until the next clone. So you have time to make sure everything works ok. There are computers where you can't replace the hard drive unless you own an axe. That setup breaks most schemes :-( -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
In message , BillW50
writes: [] Boy we sure do many things the same way. Although I have delayed longer on my older machines to SSD and I just started recently. And they are going to all get 120GB SSD I believe for now. I was a bit concern about an SSD on this machine in particular, since it also has a TV tuner connected and does a far amount of TV recording sometimes. Although monitoring the lifetime writes, I don't think I'll hit the limit for at least 10 years. Plus it won't be long before this one is cloned and replaced with another SSD anyway. Maybe 256GB next time around. I take it that the two of you cloners (I agree cloning's better than backing up if you can afford all the extra drives) always swap the drives, i. e. remove and store the drive you cloned from and install the clone, whenever you do it - as a (quick and dirty, see next post) way of ensuring the clone is successful. When you do this, and the drive you are putting into storage is an SSD, do you label it with how much life it has left? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf A good pun is its own reword. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
In message , BillW50
writes: In , Gene E. Bloch typed: [] Also, a clone needs to be tested too. Even a supposed exact copy could end up being inexact. Oh yes, absolutely! I clone and use the clone and save the original (you were using it and you know that one works). If the clone fails, you would know right away if it doesn't boot. And you will be using it until the next clone. So you have time to make sure everything works ok. How do you decide when the testing is complete? Obviously if it doesn't boot, it has failed, but if it does boot, what further testing (e. g. of applications) do you do - if any? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I'd be a middle-class hero if I had the time, but I've got to go to Waitrose first. - Tim Vine, RT 2014/2/15-21 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|