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 |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|