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 » Windows XP Help and Support
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
  #166  
Old January 29th 09, 07:49 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Bill in Co.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,106
Default Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD

Mike Torello wrote:
"Bill in Co." wrote:

Mike Torello wrote:
WaIIy wrote:

The existing partition I copied to was and is 37 gigs, the copy takes
up
27 gigs

That's because the pre-existing partition there was deleted in the
copy
partition operation (and effectively recreated as this new and smaller
one).

"Was and is" The destination drive had partition D of 37 gigs. The
copy was 27 gigs. The partition is still 37 gigs.
Casper didn't touch it.

Maybe that will quiet "Bill" and his repetitive assertion that Casper
is deleting a partition before it accomplishes its task.


IF it is making a bonafide *partition copy*. That means the source and
destination partitions are *identical*, in all respects. (I'm not just
talking about transferring the data within one partition over to another
one).


Everything on one's system disk is "data"... all the files, the
registry, etc.


That doesn't answer my question at all. I said, identical. All the
files and data is NOT the same thing. And, there is no registry being
copied UNLESS you are backing up the system disk, and even then, it's not
the registry that's on there, it the registry's data files, not the registry
itself (which is loaded into memory).

You really need to download and LOOK at the Casper 5.0 user guide.
What isn't in the text, is easily found in the graphics.

Casper has two cloning/copying methods:

1) Copy an entire hard disk - one partition or many. The result is
that everything on the destination drive is destroyed before the task
is accomplished.

2) Copy a specific drive - which can be the entire system disk if it
has only one partition, or all the partitions on the disk. This
method is used IF/WHEN one wants to preserve the partition makeup of
the destination drive or doesn't want to use the entire drive.

Again... download and take the time to digest the material in the user
guide. It is quite simple to follow - easier than one of Anna's
treatises... and might even include less text.


Too simple, to the point of being a bit too simplistic, although the general
ideas are covered.

I'm talking about what partition copying IS, or is NOT. I've used ATI,
BING, and PM, so I think I've got a pretty good understanding of the
*underlying concepts* here which have nothing to do with the specific
program being used, except as to which technique is or is not being used.


Ads
  #167  
Old January 29th 09, 08:30 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Bill in Co.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,106
Default Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD

Addended:

the registry that's on there, it the registry's data files, not the
registry
itself (which is loaded into memory).


Let me restate that: the information in the registry is stored on the disk
in several data files, and is loaded and utilitized in memory after bootup.


  #168  
Old January 29th 09, 04:47 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Mike Torello
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 391
Default Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD

"Bill in Co." wrote:

Again... download and take the time to digest the material in the user
guide. It is quite simple to follow - easier than one of Anna's
treatises... and might even include less text.


Too simple, to the point of being a bit too simplistic, although the general
ideas are covered.

I'm talking about what partition copying IS, or is NOT. I've used ATI,
BING, and PM, so I think I've got a pretty good understanding of the
*underlying concepts* here which have nothing to do with the specific
program being used, except as to which technique is or is not being used.


You can keep this conversation alive if you like. I am satisfied that
the partition copying results in an IDENTICAL copy.

Pony up the bucks, try it out and report back if/when you find
differently. Until then all you can do is guess - and continue to
qualify your guesses with the disclaimer that you've never used the
program.
  #169  
Old January 29th 09, 07:17 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Twayne[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,276
Default Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD

Mike Torello wrote:
WaIIy wrote:

The existing partition I copied to was and
is 37
gigs, the copy takes up
27 gigs

That's because the pre-existing partition
there was
deleted in the copy partition operation (and
effectively recreated as this new and smaller
one).

"Was and is" The destination drive had
partition D of
37 gigs. The copy was 27 gigs. The partition
is still
37 gigs. Casper didn't touch it.


Maybe that will quiet "Bill" and his repetitive
assertion that Casper is deleting a partition
before it
accomplishes its task.


IF it is making a bonafide *partition copy*.
That
means the source and destination partitions are
*identical*, in all respects. (I'm not just
talking
about transferring the data within one partition
over to
another one).


Sort of; when USED or expanded, the data
(partition/s will be identical. Meanwhile, it may
live as compressed and/ore even encrypted.).
"Copy" does not imply any kind of identiical-ness.
Hey, if politicians can make up their own words,
so can othersg.

Twayne


  #170  
Old January 29th 09, 07:30 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Twayne[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,276
Default Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD

WaIIy wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:41:49 -0700, "Bill in
Co."
wrote:

WaIIy wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:35:38 -0700, "Bill in
Co."
wrote:

WaIIy wrote:

I have the option to clone the drive or
copy it. I
copied it to an existing partition on my
second
internal drive.

I think the message for copying reads
something like
"copy a partition" so I just copied the
whole C
drive which is one partition to
an existing partition on my second drive
(which has
2 partitions).

OK, then presumably Casper handles it behind
the
scenes by first deleting that partition and
then
creating it WHEN it copies the source drive
partition
to the destination drive. (In contrast,
using Boot
It NG, which
does less hand holding, *you* must FIRST
mark that
space as "Unallocated" on the destination
drive (or
delete the partition there), and only THEN
will it
do the partition copy operation.

In my case, I copied (not cloned) the C drive
to a
partition (D) on my destination drive. I
have D and E
on my destination drive.


The existing partition I copied to was and
is 37
gigs, the copy takes up 27 gigs

That's because the pre-existing partition
there was
deleted in the copy partition operation (and
effectively recreated as this new and
smaller one).

"Was and is" The destination drive had
partition D of
37 gigs. The copy was 27 gigs. The
partition is
still 37 gigs.
Casper didn't touch it.

Then it's not a true "partition copy" in the
normal
usage of the term, since the source and
destination
partitions are NOT identical. If what you
said is
true, then apparently it's only copying the
data
contents of what's inside the partition, and
is NOT
making identical partitions. (I'm talking
about the
size of the partition here, NOT the total size
of the
data inside!. For example, my main C:
partition is
40 GB in size, but only half of it is in use
at this
point (about 20 GB of data).


I agree, the partitions are not identical.

The stuff in them seems to be, although my copy
is not
bootable from the outset.

I "think" "possibly" it can be made bootable,
but not
quite sure.


It's gotta be. What about when you copy a
single-partitioned system disk to a partition on
a second
drive.


No. Only when the MBR and system files etc.
reside in the proper sectors on a drive where the
boot loader expects to find them is anything
bootable. Only specific, identifiable areas of a
disk can be used to boot from; and that's where
the boot loader looks for them. It does not
search for them; it goes to an address on the disk
and if the correct data isn't there - no boot.
"Copy" can not create a bootable disk.


It's not an image. If it ain't bootable, what
good is it
as a backup!?


An "image" is not bootable either; ever. Clones
are bootable.
And, the reasons for backing up are not
primarily to back up the operating system. In a
catastrophe, those can be rebuilt from the
original CDs if necessary but the user's DATA,
pics, letters, email addresses, financial data,
anything a progam can save, can NOT be recreated
from anything but some sort of a backup. That is
the main target to be protected on any production
machine. Data is much more important on the scale
than is the operating system, although the OS is
still high on the list for a complete solution.
I do understand some don't care about their
data and that's fine, it's a matter of preference
and needs. I have such a machine myself; it's a
sandbox used strictly for testing so most of the
time all that gets backed up on it is the OS.
Nothing else on it is of any value once I'm done
testing things.

Cheers,

Twayne



  #171  
Old January 29th 09, 07:31 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Twayne[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,276
Default Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD

Twayne wrote:
"Bill in Co."
wrote:

Mike Torello wrote:
"Bill in Co."

wrote:

Mike Torello wrote:
"Twayne"
wrote:

...

However, I have to add that there is no
bar to
using the
Casper 5 disk-cloning program for that
purpose
as well.
The only limitation(s) is the total
amount
of
the user's
data to be cloned and the disk-space
available
on the
destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of
the
cloned
contents. So, for example, if the user's
data
contents
totaled 50 GB and the user's destination
drive
had a
capacity of 500 GB, nearly ten (10)
"generational" copies
of the user's source drive could be
maintained
on the
destination HDD. Anna

I'm curious; I checked out Casper's site
and I
don't see references to things like that.

There's probably good reason for that:
they
don't
exist because the capability doesn't
exist.
From the
past couple of days there seems to be
strong
evidence
that "Anna" hasn't used Casper for
anything
other
than cloning disk-to-disk.

Wait a minute. Are you stating that
Casper
CANNOT do
just partition copying?
That is, simply backup a partition to
unallocated
space on the other drive?

And that Casper can ONLY clone the entire
source disk
over to a destination
disk, and NOT do multiple, generational,
partition
backups to the destination drive, like
Partition Magic
and Boot IT NG can? (Casper is the
only program of the four we've discussed
that
I have
no real experience with).

Someone here did testing trying to clone a
multi-partitioned drive
every-which-way-possible and
said that Casper destroys everything on the
destination
disk when cloning and that there is even a
warning
message to that effect. Right after that
"Anna"
backtracked and said that person was
correct.

From that I gathered that yes, it WILL clone
a
partition to unallocated space - by making
the
entire
drive unallocated space before performing
the
clone.

Ahhhh. Now THAT is a key and important
distinction!!
So Casper will ONLY allow the source drive to
be
transferred to the destination drive and
nothing else
can remain on the destination drive? Not
nice. But
ok, IF you SOLELY want a clone of the source
drive.

With Partition Magic and BootIT NG you CAN do
selective,
individual partition copies, but I don't
think
you can
simply make a clone of the source drive, per
se, or at
least not in one easy operation. (But I
haven't ever
investigated that possibility, however)

Go for it.



Uhhhh, Did you really mean Partition Magic, the
partition management program, for creating,
deleting, resizing, merging and otherwise
managing
partition structures (not the data in them)?


Partition Magic can copy partitions. That
INCLUDES the
data within in them, obviously. Partition
copying is
NOT the same thing as a simple file or data
copying
operation (say like using xcopy or whatever)


lol, OK, but it's a pretty clunky way to do
anything! You're beginning to pull at too many
straws here for some reason.


  #172  
Old January 29th 09, 07:56 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Bill in Co.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,106
Default Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD

Mike Torello wrote:
"Bill in Co." wrote:

Again... download and take the time to digest the material in the user
guide. It is quite simple to follow - easier than one of Anna's
treatises... and might even include less text.


Too simple, to the point of being a bit too simplistic, although the
general
ideas are covered.

I'm talking about what partition copying IS, or is NOT. I've used ATI,
BING, and PM, so I think I've got a pretty good understanding of the
*underlying concepts* here which have nothing to do with the specific
program being used, except as to which technique is or is not being used.


You can keep this conversation alive if you like. I am satisfied that
the partition copying results in an IDENTICAL copy.

Pony up the bucks, try it out and report back if/when you find
differently. Until then all you can do is guess - and continue to
qualify your guesses with the disclaimer that you've never used the
program.


Actually, it won't take any guessing if you (or whoever) just check it out
yourself.

To see if it is a bonafide sector-by-sector partition copy, look at the
sizes of the two partitions (i.e., on the source and destination drive)
after the operation is complete. And also look at the copied folder date
and time stamps, and see if they are the same as on the source partition.
A true generational copy will also maintain the original folder and
subfolder dates, in addition to the sizes of the partitions themselves
(note: size of the partition, and NOT the amount of the data inside; BIG
difference there).


  #173  
Old January 29th 09, 07:59 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Bill in Co.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,106
Default Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD

Twayne wrote:
Twayne wrote:
"Bill in Co."
wrote:

Mike Torello wrote:
"Bill in Co."

wrote:

Mike Torello wrote:
"Twayne"
wrote:

...

However, I have to add that there is no
bar to
using the
Casper 5 disk-cloning program for that
purpose
as well.
The only limitation(s) is the total
amount
of
the user's
data to be cloned and the disk-space
available
on the
destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of
the
cloned
contents. So, for example, if the user's
data
contents
totaled 50 GB and the user's destination
drive
had a
capacity of 500 GB, nearly ten (10)
"generational" copies
of the user's source drive could be
maintained
on the
destination HDD. Anna

I'm curious; I checked out Casper's site
and I
don't see references to things like that.

There's probably good reason for that:
they
don't
exist because the capability doesn't
exist.
From the
past couple of days there seems to be
strong
evidence
that "Anna" hasn't used Casper for
anything
other
than cloning disk-to-disk.

Wait a minute. Are you stating that
Casper
CANNOT do
just partition copying?
That is, simply backup a partition to
unallocated
space on the other drive?

And that Casper can ONLY clone the entire
source disk
over to a destination
disk, and NOT do multiple, generational,
partition
backups to the destination drive, like
Partition Magic
and Boot IT NG can? (Casper is the
only program of the four we've discussed
that
I have
no real experience with).

Someone here did testing trying to clone a
multi-partitioned drive
every-which-way-possible and
said that Casper destroys everything on the
destination
disk when cloning and that there is even a
warning
message to that effect. Right after that
"Anna"
backtracked and said that person was
correct.

From that I gathered that yes, it WILL clone
a
partition to unallocated space - by making
the
entire
drive unallocated space before performing
the
clone.

Ahhhh. Now THAT is a key and important
distinction!!
So Casper will ONLY allow the source drive to
be
transferred to the destination drive and
nothing else
can remain on the destination drive? Not
nice. But
ok, IF you SOLELY want a clone of the source
drive.

With Partition Magic and BootIT NG you CAN do
selective,
individual partition copies, but I don't
think
you can
simply make a clone of the source drive, per
se, or at
least not in one easy operation. (But I
haven't ever
investigated that possibility, however)

Go for it.


Uhhhh, Did you really mean Partition Magic, the
partition management program, for creating,
deleting, resizing, merging and otherwise
managing
partition structures (not the data in them)?


Partition Magic can copy partitions. That
INCLUDES the
data within in them, obviously. Partition
copying is
NOT the same thing as a simple file or data
copying
operation (say like using xcopy or whatever)


lol, OK, but it's a pretty clunky way to do
anything! You're beginning to pull at too many
straws here for some reason.


No straws being pulled.
As I just posted earlier, to repeat:

Actually, it won't take any guessing if you (or whoever) just check it out
yourself.

To see if it is a bonafide sector-by-sector partition copy, look at the
sizes of the two partitions (i.e., on the source and destination drive)
after the operation is complete. And also look at the copied folder date
and time stamps, and see if they are the same as on the source partition.
A true generational copy will also maintain the original folder and
subfolder dates, in addition to the sizes of the partitions themselves
(note: size of the partition, and NOT the amount of the data inside; BIG
difference there).

To summarize, there is a significant difference between having a
sector-by-sector transfer, and simply copying all the folders and files over
to a new partition. Or to be more accurate, I should say it's pretty
significant to me, at least.


  #174  
Old January 29th 09, 08:25 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Anna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,039
Default Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD


WaIIy wrote:
(QUOTE)
I have the option to clone the drive or copy it. I copied it to an existing
partition on my second internal drive.

(SNIP) In my case, I copied (not cloned) the C drive to a partition (D) on
my destination drive. I have D and E on my destination drive.

The existing partition I copied to was and is 37 gigs, the copy takes up
27 gigs

That's because the pre-existing partition there was deleted in the copy
partition operation (and effectively recreated as this new and smaller one).

"Was and is" The destination drive had partition D of 37 gigs. The copy
was 27 gigs. The partition is still 37 gigs. Casper didn't touch it.
(SNIP) I agree, the partitions are not identical.

The stuff in them seems to be, although my copy is not bootable from the
outset.

I "think" "possibly" it can be made bootable, but not quite sure.
(SNIP) I clone my c drive to an external enclosure.

I have an internal drive with two partitions.

I copy my main drive to one of the partitions and have some misc, stuff on
the second partition.

Copying the drive (not cloning) doesn't touch my second partition. Casper
just asks me where I want to copy to.

I "assume" it would not be a problem if I didn't have anything on the second
partition and made a copy of my drive there, too.
(SNIP) The enclosure is usb and also sata capable.

I backed up my c drive via usb and can boot the enclosure via the sata
hookup. I've tried it.

If my c drive ever pooped out, I would take the time to remove the drive
from the enclosure and install it inside my tower.
(SNIP)
In my case, I copied (not cloned) the C drive to a partition (D) on my
destination drive. I have D and E on my destination drive. The destination
drive had partition D of 37 gigs. The copy was 27 gigs. The partition is
still 37 gigs. Casper didn't touch it.
(SNIP) I agree, the partitions are not identical.

The stuff in them seems to be, although my copy is not bootable from the
outset.

I "think" "possibly" it can be made bootable, but not quite sure.
(END QUOTE)


Wally (& any others who might be interested)...
Let us (hopefully) agree at the outset that from the user's viewpoint the
sole objective of this disk-cloning process is one thing, and one thing
only.

And that "one thing" is to allow the user to clone the contents of his or
her partition(s) or entire disk to a "destination" drive - an internal or
external HDD - and be subsequently be able to retrieve those cloned contents
at some future time in order to return the user's partition(s) or entire
disk to its precise state at the time those contents were cloned.

Obviously the user would want to carry out these operations easily,
relatively quickly, and of course effectively.

In the vast number of cases where a user undertakes a disk-cloning process -
whether using the Casper 5 program or any other disk-cloning program - the
user simply undertakes a disk-to-disk cloning process. He or she clones the
contents of their "source" HDD (their day-to-day working HDD) to a
"destination" HDD - internal or external - that has usually been set aside
for this purpose, i.e., the recipient of the clone. Using the Casper 5
disk-cloning program this process is simple, straightforward, and effective.

So that when the user needs to restore their system to a bootable functional
state because their source HDD has failed or that the OS has become
corruptible & dysfunctional, the user find it relatively easy to restore the
system to that bootable, functional state using ("retrieving" if you will)
the cloned contents on his or her destination drive. Again, the
"restoration" process is simple, straightforward, and effective.

Whether the cloned contents, measured in disk-space, residing on the
destination drive are identical to contents of the source HDD in terms of
disk-space is totally irrelevant. There will be differences because of
certain manipulations made by the disk-cloning program (in this case the
Casper 5 program) during the disk or partition cloning process. This
difference (as it impacts on the utilization of disk space) has absolutely
no practical effect on the contents itself. A clone is a clone is a clone.

As to Wally's case...
If I correctly understand him his source (internal) HDD contains two
partitions, obviously his boot partition presumably C: and another
partition, we'll assign it a drive letter of D: which he uses for data
storage of one kind or another.

He uses a USB external HDD as his destination drive. Apparently that drive
has two existing partitions which Wally uses some purpose(s) or other.

If Wally simply cloned the contents of his source HDD (comprising the two
partitions) to the USBEHD - a simple disk-to-disk cloning operation -
obviously the two existing partitions on that destination drive would
disappear.

Since we've concluded that Wally is probably using those two existing
partitions on his destination drive and doesn't want to delete those
partitions and lose their data contents, he apparently has not chosen to
perform a simple disk-to-disk cloning operation from source HDD to the
destination USBEHD.

Wally has chosen (or so it seems to me) to clone *only* the C: (boot)
partition to the USEHD. He presumably wants to do this without affecting in
any way the existing two partitions on his USBEHD. There's no problem in
doing so if that's what he wants. The only proviso (as I previously detailed
in my post concerning partition-cloning) is that the destination drive
contains sufficient unallocated disk space to receive the contents of the
partition being cloned.

I should add here (as I commented on in a previous post re cloning to a
multi-partitioned destination drive) that Casper 5 also provides the user
with an option to clone only the *actual* contents (in disk-space) of the
partition to the destination drive. So in Wally's case, assuming the 37 GB
partition being cloned contains only 15 GB in data, Wally would have the
option of creating that lattter size partition on his destination drive to
contain the cloned contents. Or he could select another partition size if so
desired. As long as it's large enough to contain the cloned contents of
course.

Again, if I correctly understand him, his source C: partition is 37 GB.
Should he desire to clone *only* that partition over to his USBEHD (and not
the other partition on his source HDD) he could do so as long as the USBEHD
contains (roughly) 37 GB of unallocated disk space. Again, the two existing
partitions on that latter drive would be unaffected in that case.

The drive letter assignments on the USBEHD are of *no* relevance - "Bill
from Colorado" notwithstanding!). The drive letter assignments on the
now-three-partitioned USBEHD could be, for example, F:, G:, & H, with the H:
partition containing the newly-cloned contents of Wally's (source HDD) C:
partition. Should Wally need to restore his working system because of a
defective HDD or corrupted OS, he could simply clone the contents of the
USBEHD's H: partition back to his source HDD. The working system would
automatically designate the partition as C:.

Wally commented that he "copied (not cloned) the C drive to a partition (D)
on my destination drive. I have D and E on my destination drive." I'm at a
loss to understand the reference to "copied" and not "cloned".

I'm similarly unable to understand Wally's comment to the effect that "The
stuff in them seems to be, although my copy is not bootable from the outset.
I "think" "possibly" it can be made bootable, but not quite sure."

I take it the "stuff" he refers to are the cloned partitions on his USBEHD
but I'm really not sure if my assumption is correct. A USBEHD is not a
bootable device. (I'm aware of a number of commentators who purportedly
indicate that it is but we've not found any reliable way to achieve this
capability).

In any event, to avoid complications arising out of partition-to-partition
type cloning operations, it's usually best to clone the *entire* contents of
one's source HDD to the destination HDD. So that when the need arises to
restore the system a simple disk-to-disk reverse cloning operation is all
that's needed. It's another reason why we lean toward a single-partitioned
source HDD and encourage users to organize their data contents on a
folder-by-folder basis whenever it's practical to do so rather than create a
multi-partitioned drive.
Anna


  #175  
Old January 29th 09, 08:55 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Mike Torello
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 391
Default Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD

"Bill in Co." wrote:

Mike Torello wrote:
"Bill in Co." wrote:

Again... download and take the time to digest the material in the user
guide. It is quite simple to follow - easier than one of Anna's
treatises... and might even include less text.

Too simple, to the point of being a bit too simplistic, although the
general
ideas are covered.

I'm talking about what partition copying IS, or is NOT. I've used ATI,
BING, and PM, so I think I've got a pretty good understanding of the
*underlying concepts* here which have nothing to do with the specific
program being used, except as to which technique is or is not being used.


You can keep this conversation alive if you like. I am satisfied that
the partition copying results in an IDENTICAL copy.

Pony up the bucks, try it out and report back if/when you find
differently. Until then all you can do is guess - and continue to
qualify your guesses with the disclaimer that you've never used the
program.


Actually, it won't take any guessing if you (or whoever) just check it out
yourself.

To see if it is a bonafide sector-by-sector partition copy, look at the
sizes of the two partitions (i.e., on the source and destination drive)
after the operation is complete. And also look at the copied folder date
and time stamps, and see if they are the same as on the source partition.
A true generational copy will also maintain the original folder and
subfolder dates, in addition to the sizes of the partitions themselves
(note: size of the partition, and NOT the amount of the data inside; BIG
difference there).


You are wrong again (who woulda thunk it!?). A partition/disk can be
cloned with the resulting clone being either larger, smaller or the
same size as the original.

You're hopeless.
  #176  
Old January 29th 09, 09:03 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Mike Torello
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 391
Default Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD

"Anna" wrote:

In any event, to avoid complications arising out of partition-to-partition
type cloning operations, it's usually best to clone the *entire* contents of
one's source HDD to the destination HDD. So that when the need arises to
restore the system a simple disk-to-disk reverse cloning operation is all
that's needed.


So... what was all that about how to clone a drive/disk to a single
partition, and then doing it again later to another partition... so
that one could keep "generational copies"??
  #177  
Old January 29th 09, 09:04 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Bill in Co.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,106
Default Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD

Mike Torello wrote:
"Bill in Co." wrote:

Mike Torello wrote:
"Bill in Co." wrote:

Again... download and take the time to digest the material in the user
guide. It is quite simple to follow - easier than one of Anna's
treatises... and might even include less text.

Too simple, to the point of being a bit too simplistic, although the
general
ideas are covered.

I'm talking about what partition copying IS, or is NOT. I've used
ATI,
BING, and PM, so I think I've got a pretty good understanding of the
*underlying concepts* here which have nothing to do with the specific
program being used, except as to which technique is or is not being
used.

You can keep this conversation alive if you like. I am satisfied that
the partition copying results in an IDENTICAL copy.

Pony up the bucks, try it out and report back if/when you find
differently. Until then all you can do is guess - and continue to
qualify your guesses with the disclaimer that you've never used the
program.


Actually, it won't take any guessing if you (or whoever) just check it
out
yourself.

To see if it is a bonafide sector-by-sector partition copy, look at the
sizes of the two partitions (i.e., on the source and destination drive)
after the operation is complete. And also look at the copied folder
date
and time stamps, and see if they are the same as on the source partition.
A true generational copy will also maintain the original folder and
subfolder dates, in addition to the sizes of the partitions themselves
(note: size of the partition, and NOT the amount of the data inside; BIG
difference there).


You are wrong again (who woulda thunk it!?). A partition/disk can be
cloned with the resulting clone being either larger, smaller or the
same size as the original.


That is NOT a partition copy, at the disk sector level. They are not
identical.

Also, did you, or did you not, check the folder dates on the destination
drive, to see if they were identical to those on the source drive partition?
I notice you didn't address that, and it would be useful to know. You
could easily check it in windows explorer.


  #178  
Old January 29th 09, 09:49 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Mike Torello
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 391
Default Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD

"Bill in Co." wrote:

Mike Torello wrote:
"Bill in Co." wrote:

Mike Torello wrote:
"Bill in Co." wrote:

Again... download and take the time to digest the material in the user
guide. It is quite simple to follow - easier than one of Anna's
treatises... and might even include less text.

Too simple, to the point of being a bit too simplistic, although the
general
ideas are covered.

I'm talking about what partition copying IS, or is NOT. I've used
ATI,
BING, and PM, so I think I've got a pretty good understanding of the
*underlying concepts* here which have nothing to do with the specific
program being used, except as to which technique is or is not being
used.

You can keep this conversation alive if you like. I am satisfied that
the partition copying results in an IDENTICAL copy.

Pony up the bucks, try it out and report back if/when you find
differently. Until then all you can do is guess - and continue to
qualify your guesses with the disclaimer that you've never used the
program.

Actually, it won't take any guessing if you (or whoever) just check it
out
yourself.

To see if it is a bonafide sector-by-sector partition copy, look at the
sizes of the two partitions (i.e., on the source and destination drive)
after the operation is complete. And also look at the copied folder
date
and time stamps, and see if they are the same as on the source partition.
A true generational copy will also maintain the original folder and
subfolder dates, in addition to the sizes of the partitions themselves
(note: size of the partition, and NOT the amount of the data inside; BIG
difference there).


You are wrong again (who woulda thunk it!?). A partition/disk can be
cloned with the resulting clone being either larger, smaller or the
same size as the original.


That is NOT a partition copy, at the disk sector level. They are not
identical.

Also, did you, or did you not, check the folder dates on the destination
drive, to see if they were identical to those on the source drive partition?
I notice you didn't address that, and it would be useful to know. You
could easily check it in windows explorer.


OK... here's a hypothetical situation for YOU to think about -
everyone else sit back and lurk.

Remember: Casper uses the term "copy" when it clones.

System disk: 160gigs, two partitions, C (system) and D (misc. data,
none of it needed by any installed programs, none of it even referred
to by anything on C). C is 110gigs - 40gigs of it used. D is 50
gigs.

Second internal disk: 110gigs, two partitions, G and H. G: 55gigs, H
is the same.

If one uses Casper's partition copy (Copy a specific drive) to copy C
to G, what do you predict the result will be on G?

Predict the same if the first disk is only a single partition C, and
only 40 gigs of it is used.
  #179  
Old January 30th 09, 12:07 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Anna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,039
Default Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD


"Anna" wrote:
In any event, to avoid complications arising out of partition-to-partition
type cloning operations, it's usually best to clone the *entire* contents
of
one's source HDD to the destination HDD. So that when the need arises to
restore the system a simple disk-to-disk reverse cloning operation is all
that's needed.



"Mike Torello" wrote in message
news
So... what was all that about how to clone a drive/disk to a single
partition, and then doing it again later to another partition... so
that one could keep "generational copies"??



As I've indicated, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which impacts
on the disk-cloning process, we generally encourage users to create a
single-partitioned source HDD rather than a multi-partitioned disk and
organize their contents on a folder-by-folder basis rather than on a
partition-by-partition basis.

Having a single-partitioned source HDD does facilitate the disk-cloning
process when the user is particularly interested in maintaining
"generational" copies of his or her system. So that the user can clone the
contents of his/her source HDD at different points-in-time to their
destination HDD (the recipient of the clones) and each created partition on
the destination drive will mirror their source drive's contents at that
particular point-in-time.

Remember that as long as the destination HDD has sufficient unallocated disk
space the user can create as many generational clones as the destination
drive can accommodate.

Where the user has a multi-partitioned source HDD the cloning process
becomes a bit more complicated since now the user must clone each partition
on the source HDD (assuming that's what he or she wants to do, i.e., include
*all* the partitions on their source HDD) to the destination HDD. While
there's little problem in doing that, it does mean that the destination HDD
will contain a multitude of partitions and depending upon the sheer number
of generational copies of the user's system he or she wants to retain, this
can be a bit unwieldy.

But as long as the user properly labels each destination partition so that
he or she can later easily identify the date each partition was created
there should be no problem in later determining which partition(s) the user
needs to restore his/her system as of a particular date.

So, for example, if the user's source HDD had three partitions - C:, E: &
F:, and the user cloned those partitions to their destination HDD today -
1-29, the user might want to label those three cloned partitions on the
destination drive "C: 1-29", "E: 1-29", "F: 1-29" and so on & so on. Not
particularly difficult, nor terribly time-consuming but some sort of
identification label for each partition would be called for.

Again, as I've previously indicated, the *actual* drive letter assignments
on the destination HDD are of no consequence here. When, for example, the
user needs to restore his/her system with the three partition-clones created
on 2-5 because the user's source HDD has become defective and is no longer
usable, he or she will simply clone those three partitions on the
destination HDD (ensuring of course, that they're the correct three 2-5
clones) to a new HDD. The appropriate source drive letters will be properly
assigned by the system regardless of how the destination HDD had assigned
drive letters to those partitions.
Anna


  #180  
Old January 30th 09, 12:49 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Twayne[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,276
Default Using Casper 5 disk-cloning program to clone multi-partitioned HDD

"Anna" wrote:
In any event, to avoid complications arising
out of
partition-to-partition type cloning
operations, it's
usually best to clone the *entire* contents of
one's source HDD to the destination HDD. So
that when
the need arises to restore the system a simple
disk-to-disk reverse cloning operation is all
that's
needed.



"Mike Torello" wrote in
message
news
So... what was all that about how to clone a
drive/disk
to a single partition, and then doing it again
later to
another partition... so that one could keep
"generational copies"??



As I've indicated, for a variety of reasons, not
the
least of which impacts on the disk-cloning
process, we
generally encourage users to create a
single-partitioned
source HDD rather than a multi-partitioned disk
and
organize their contents on a folder-by-folder
basis
rather than on a partition-by-partition basis.
Having a single-partitioned source HDD does
facilitate
the disk-cloning process when the user is
particularly
interested in maintaining "generational" copies
of his or
her system. So that the user can clone the
contents of
his/her source HDD at different points-in-time
to their
destination HDD (the recipient of the clones)
and each
created partition on the destination drive will
mirror
their source drive's contents at that particular
point-in-time.
Remember that as long as the destination HDD has
sufficient unallocated disk space the user can
create as
many generational clones as the destination
drive can
accommodate.
Where the user has a multi-partitioned source
HDD the
cloning process becomes a bit more complicated
since now
the user must clone each partition on the source
HDD
(assuming that's what he or she wants to do,
i.e.,
include *all* the partitions on their source
HDD) to the
destination HDD. While there's little problem in
doing
that, it does mean that the destination HDD will
contain
a multitude of partitions and depending upon the
sheer
number of generational copies of the user's
system he or
she wants to retain, this can be a bit unwieldy.
But as long as the user properly labels each
destination
partition so that he or she can later easily
identify the
date each partition was created there should be
no
problem in later determining which partition(s)
the user
needs to restore his/her system as of a
particular date.
So, for example, if the user's source HDD had
three
partitions - C:, E: & F:, and the user cloned
those
partitions to their destination HDD today -
1-29, the
user might want to label those three cloned
partitions on
the destination drive "C: 1-29", "E: 1-29", "F:
1-29" and
so on & so on. Not particularly difficult, nor
terribly
time-consuming but some sort of identification
label for
each partition would be called for.
Again, as I've previously indicated, the
*actual* drive
letter assignments on the destination HDD are of
no
consequence here. When, for example, the user
needs to
restore his/her system with the three
partition-clones
created on 2-5 because the user's source HDD has
become
defective and is no longer usable, he or she
will simply
clone those three partitions on the destination
HDD
(ensuring of course, that they're the correct
three 2-5
clones) to a new HDD. The appropriate source
drive
letters will be properly assigned by the system
regardless of how the destination HDD had
assigned drive
letters to those partitions. Anna


Wow; Anna, you're just 'amazing'. You should go
away and attempt to make some of your rhetoric
work so you can quit contradicting yourself and
mixing up your terminology. Take notes and make
them clear and concise. Or find something better
to spend your time on.
I'm a closet sociologist at heart and this has
been a great case sampling. No, I'm not imparting
a label to it; just watching the revisions and
related talents.



 




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 11:40 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.