Setting up an external hard drive - partioning and sharing issues

Hi,

I recently purchased an external hard drive with a view to storing back up
copies of the files on the 3 hard drives on my 2 computers, one computer
having 2 internal hard drives (1 FAT32, 1 NTFS), and the other 1 NTFS
internal hard drive. I would appreciate any guidance on how best to set up
the external hard drive for this purpose, whilst maintaining the security
attributes of the source files. My first thought was to create 5 separate 80
GB logical partitions on the external hard drive, and utilise 3 of these as
destinations for the back-up copies of the 3 source hard drives on my
computers. There are a few questions that I am uncertain about, though:

1) Given that the external hard drive has a capacity of 500 GB, is there
anything to be gained by subdividing it into multiple partitions?

2) The external hard drive came preformatted as a single NTFS drive. When I
right click on it the Windows XP Disk Management window with a view to
creating new logical drives the context menu that pops up contains "Delete
partition ...", not "New logical drive". Does this mean that in order to
create the logical partitions that I require I must first delete the
existing partition, then create the logical partitions starting from
scratch?

2) I would like to make the back up copy of the folder "Documents and
Settings/User A" private to user A of computer C1, so that even though it's
on the external hard drive it can only be opened when the hard drive is
connected to computer C1 and the user logged in to computer C1 is user A.
However when calling up the Sharing property sheet for any folder on the
external hard drive the "Make this folder private" check box is greyed out.
Does this mean that it's not possible to make a folder on an external hard
drive private to a specific user of a specific computer?

3) The files that I wish to back up include files encrypted using NTFS file
encryption. I have previously discovered that it's not possible to transfer
encrypted files between a private folder and a shared folder and then back
again without the files being decrypted along the way, and the "Last
Modified" timestamp being updated. Can this problem be avoided when backing
up files on a file by file basis?

Thanks for any guidance on these issues.

EM

partitioning is a good
idea.

primarily, you want
to keep the system
partition free of user
data.

that way if the system
partition needs to be
formatted or the o.s.
needs to be reinstalled,

you won't have to worry
about loosing user data.

here is more info:

http://tinyurl.com/dokbw


as a tip:

you can relocate "my
documents" off the
system partition.

the option to assign
a new location is
provided via its property
page.

--

db·´¯`·...¸)))º
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @hotmail.com
"share the nirvana" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"Enquiring Mind" wrote in message ...
Hi,

I recently purchased an external hard drive with a view to storing back up copies of the files on the 3 hard drives on my 2
computers, one computer having 2 internal hard drives (1 FAT32, 1 NTFS), and the other 1 NTFS internal hard drive. I would
appreciate any guidance on how best to set up the external hard drive for this purpose, whilst maintaining the security attributes
of the source files. My first thought was to create 5 separate 80 GB logical partitions on the external hard drive, and utilise 3
of these as destinations for the back-up copies of the 3 source hard drives on my computers. There are a few questions that I am
uncertain about, though:

1) Given that the external hard drive has a capacity of 500 GB, is there anything to be gained by subdividing it into multiple
partitions?

2) The external hard drive came preformatted as a single NTFS drive. When I right click on it the Windows XP Disk Management
window with a view to creating new logical drives the context menu that pops up contains "Delete partition ...", not "New logical
drive". Does this mean that in order to create the logical partitions that I require I must first delete the existing partition,
then create the logical partitions starting from scratch?

2) I would like to make the back up copy of the folder "Documents and Settings/User A" private to user A of computer C1, so that
even though it's on the external hard drive it can only be opened when the hard drive is connected to computer C1 and the user
logged in to computer C1 is user A. However when calling up the Sharing property sheet for any folder on the external hard drive
the "Make this folder private" check box is greyed out. Does this mean that it's not possible to make a folder on an external hard
drive private to a specific user of a specific computer?

3) The files that I wish to back up include files encrypted using NTFS file encryption. I have previously discovered that it's not
possible to transfer encrypted files between a private folder and a shared folder and then back again without the files being
decrypted along the way, and the "Last Modified" timestamp being updated. Can this problem be avoided when backing up files on a
file by file basis?

Thanks for any guidance on these issues.

EM

db, thanks for the advice!

I later did a search on the Internet on the subject of external hard drive
partitioning and found disparate advice. Some expressed the opinion that
it's not worth partitioning an external hard drive, others took the opposite
view. I would have thought that, if the files in some partitions are likely
not too change too often, partitioning an external hard drive could make
defragmentation faster, owing to the smaller number of files in each
partition.

On reflection I don't think that using NTFS encryption on the external hard
drive makes too much sense, because one might want to access the files from
any computer, in the event of failure of the source drive. Therefore
encryption using encryption software that can be installed on any computer,
and a key which is known to the owner of the driver, rather than the key
used by Windows XP, seems to be a better approach.

Regards,

EM

yes, partitions not only
minimize fragmentation
but makes defragging
faster and making backups
quicker,

than if you were to do
the above for one
large partition.

in regards to encryption,
it all depends on your
needs.

for specific folder and
file encryptions, like
my bank statements
and other such info,

I simply use "free folder
hide" and microsoft's
"my private folder".

I never found a need to
encrypt an entire disk
or partition.
--

db·´¯`·...¸)))º
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @hotmail.com
"share the nirvana" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"Enquiring Mind" wrote in message ...
db, thanks for the advice!

I later did a search on the Internet on the subject of external hard drive partitioning and found disparate advice. Some expressed
the opinion that it's not worth partitioning an external hard drive, others took the opposite view. I would have thought that, if
the files in some partitions are likely not too change too often, partitioning an external hard drive could make defragmentation
faster, owing to the smaller number of files in each partition.

On reflection I don't think that using NTFS encryption on the external hard drive makes too much sense, because one might want to
access the files from any computer, in the event of failure of the source drive. Therefore encryption using encryption software
that can be installed on any computer, and a key which is known to the owner of the driver, rather than the key used by Windows
XP, seems to be a better approach.

Regards,

EM

And don't forget to export the encryption keys or you'll soon lose
everything you encrypted. Once it's gone, it's gone and can't be gotten
back without the keys. It's one thing windows does right, but MS forgot
to tell anyone about how to handle the keys unless you specifically look
for it.


db wrote:
yes, partitions not only
minimize fragmentation
but makes defragging
faster and making backups
quicker,

than if you were to do
the above for one
large partition.

in regards to encryption,
it all depends on your
needs.

for specific folder and
file encryptions, like
my bank statements
and other such info,

I simply use "free folder
hide" and microsoft's
"my private folder".

I never found a need to
encrypt an entire disk
or partition.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"Enquiring Mind" wrote in
message ...
db, thanks for the advice!

I later did a search on the Internet on the subject of external hard
drive partitioning and found disparate advice. Some expressed the
opinion that it's not worth partitioning an external hard drive,
others took the opposite view. I would have thought that, if the
files in some partitions are likely not too change too often,
partitioning an external hard drive could make defragmentation
faster, owing to the smaller number of files in each partition. On
reflection I don't think that using NTFS encryption on the
external hard drive makes too much sense, because one might want to
access the files from any computer, in the event of failure of the
source drive. Therefore encryption using encryption software that
can be installed on any computer, and a key which is known to the
owner of the driver, rather than the key used by Windows XP, seems
to be a better approach. Regards,

EM

Twayne,

Thanks for the warning. I have finally got round to backing up my private
encryption key, but I had to search for instructions about how to do it on
the Internet, so bad are the Windows help files in this regard.

On close analysis it seems to me that the NTFS encryption facility is
somewhat flawed, because of the problems it throws up when backing up files.
Simple password protection of files and folders seems to me to be a more
flexible approach, because the password is computer-independent. An even
better approach would be if applications like MS office programs allowed the
user to set up file encryption as a document property, and did the
encryption/decryption whenever a file is saved or opened. Then files could
be backed up and copied without any concern for whether or not the file is
encrypted - this aspect only comes into play when someone tries to read the
file.

Regards,

EM

"Enquiring Mind" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I recently purchased an external hard drive with a view to storing back up
copies of the files on the 3 hard drives on my 2 computers, one computer
having 2 internal hard drives (1 FAT32, 1 NTFS), and the other 1 NTFS
internal hard drive. I would appreciate any guidance on how best to set up
the external hard drive for this purpose, whilst maintaining the security
attributes of the source files. My first thought was to create 5 separate
80 GB logical partitions on the external hard drive, and utilise 3 of
these as destinations for the back-up copies of the 3 source hard drives
on my computers. There are a few questions that I am uncertain about,
though:

1) Given that the external hard drive has a capacity of 500 GB, is there
anything to be gained by subdividing it into multiple partitions?

2) The external hard drive came preformatted as a single NTFS drive. When
I right click on it the Windows XP Disk Management window with a view to
creating new logical drives the context menu that pops up contains
"Delete partition ...", not "New logical drive". Does this mean that in
order to create the logical partitions that I require I must first delete
the existing partition, then create the logical partitions starting from
scratch?

2) I would like to make the back up copy of the folder "Documents and
Settings/User A" private to user A of computer C1, so that even though
it's on the external hard drive it can only be opened when the hard drive
is connected to computer C1 and the user logged in to computer C1 is user
A. However when calling up the Sharing property sheet for any folder on
the external hard drive the "Make this folder private" check box is greyed
out. Does this mean that it's not possible to make a folder on an external
hard drive private to a specific user of a specific computer?

3) The files that I wish to back up include files encrypted using NTFS
file encryption. I have previously discovered that it's not possible to
transfer encrypted files between a private folder and a shared folder and
then back again without the files being decrypted along the way, and the
"Last Modified" timestamp being updated. Can this problem be avoided when
backing up files on a file by file basis?

Thanks for any guidance on these issues.

EM


"Enquiring Mind" wrote in message
...
Twayne,

Thanks for the warning. I have finally got round to backing up my private
encryption key, but I had to search for instructions about how to do it on
the Internet, so bad are the Windows help files in this regard.

On close analysis it seems to me that the NTFS encryption facility is
somewhat flawed, because of the problems it throws up when backing up
files. Simple password protection of files and folders seems to me to be a
more flexible approach, because the password is computer-independent. An
even better approach would be if applications like MS office programs
allowed the user to set up file encryption as a document property, and did
the encryption/decryption whenever a file is saved or opened. Then files
could be backed up and copied without any concern for whether or not the
file is encrypted - this aspect only comes into play when someone tries to
read the file.

Regards,

EM


EM...
Since you've apparently come to some conclusion re the encryption process as
it relates to data contained on a (USB-connected) external HDD, I'll just
direct my comments to the first portion of your query relating to the
backing-up of the data on your internal HDDs and how this might affect the
partitioning of your USBEHD device. Again, just to be clear, I'm not
concerned here with any process involving "maintaining the security
attributes of the source files" so I'm not addressing that issue.

Might I suggest that you consider a disk-cloning or disk-imaging program to
maintain a comprehensive backup of *all* the data on each of your HDDs? By
"all" I mean the total contents of these drives, including the OS, all
programs & applications, all personal data - in short, *everything* that's
contained on your internal HDDs. In effect, for all practical purposes, a
precise copy of your drives. (I'll indicate my recommendation of such a
program by & by).

So, should you go that route...

1. You've indicated that you have two PCs, each containing a single physical
internal HDD. One of them is multi-partitioned with two partitions and the
second PC's HDD apparently contains a single partition. Obviously each of
those PCs contains an OS, or so I assume.

2. While you didn't indicate the size of these HDDs nor the amount of data
contained on these drives I assume from your contemplation of possibly
setting up your 500 GB USBEHD with (roughly) five 80 GB partitions and
proposing to use three of those partitions to contain the backups of the two
physical HDDs (the three partitions), that the *total* contents of each of
your internal HDDs is relatively modest.

I'm not clear why you would be thinking of creating *five* partitions on the
USBEHD. You have other plans for the remaining two partitions? Perhaps to
hold data "on the fly"?

3. Anyway, assuming I'm not too far off the mark on this, why not consider
the following as a possible backup strategy using the Casper 5 disk cloning
program - (my comments re the Casper program follow below)?...

4. Using the XP Disk Management snap-in you could create three partitions on
your 500 GB USBEHD. The remainder (if any) of the disk space on that
external drive would be unpartitioned/unformatted at that point. You would
size each of those three partitions to whatever size you desired; they need
not mirror the size of the partitions on your source HDDs. The only proviso,
of course, is that each partition be at least sufficient in size to contain
the contents of the data you will be cloning from each of the source drives'
partitions.

5. Re your source drive "PC #1" - the one containing two partitions - you
would clone the contents of each partition to the first two partitions on
the USBEHD.

Note that the disk-cloning process will clone the file systems of the
partition(s) along with their contents, be those file systems FAT32- or
NTFS-formatted. So it is immaterial what file system was established during
the original creation of the partitions on the USBEHD. A clone is a clone is
a clone!

6. Re "PC #2" - the one containing a single partition - you would similarly
clone the contents of that HDD to the third partition you had created on the
USBEHD.

7. When you again decide to back up your two systems so as to continue to
maintain reasonably up-to-date backups of both systems, you would simply
repeat the process. And so on & so on...

8. The upshot of all this is that through the use of *routinely* using a
disk-cloning program in the manner described above, you would be maintaining
precise copies of your internal HDDs. So that if & when the day comes when
you find your internal HDD has become defective or if the drive has become
dysfunctional for any reason, you have the wherewithal to restore your
system to a bootable, functional state easily & relatively quickly by
cloning the contents of the data residing on your USBEHD back to your
internal HDD(s).

5. The program I personally recommend for most PC users to accomplish all
this is the Casper 5 disk-cloning program. (It does *not* have disk-imaging
capability).

We've been using the Casper program for a number of years and have found it
an extraordinarily effective program in establishing & maintaining a
comprehensive backup system through its disk-cloning capability. It has a
straightforward design and is extremely simple to use; there's virtually no
"learning-curve" involved.

But its major advantage and what sets it apart from other
disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs (in our experience) is its speed of
creating these comprehensive backups (clones) when the program is used on a
*frequent* basis - say, at least once a week in most cases, even daily or
every two or three days. Obviously the amount of time the program will take
to complete the disk or partition-cloning operation will depend on a number
of factors including the amount of data being cloned and even
more-importantly in most cases, the frequency of the cloning operations.
It's hard, if not impossible, to provide precise figures in this regard, but
assuming about 50 GB of data per HDD (partition) was being cloned and using
the program perhaps twice a week for comprehensive backups (following the
initial disk-cloning operation), I'd venture to say the disk (partition)
cloning operation would take under five (5) minutes per HDD.

Casper accomplishes this through what it labels its "SmartClone" capability.
It has the unique ability (at least *unique* in our experience) to determine
what changes have been made to the system since the previous disk-cloning
operation so that it "incrementally" can take only those changes into
account during the current disk-cloning operation. This dramatically speeds
up the backup cloning operation so that the user has a strong incentive to
use the program on a frequent basis, knowing that the disk (partition)
cloning operation will take a short period of time in most cases.

If, on the other hand, a user is not especially interested in maintaining
current backups of his/her system and plans to use a disk-cloning (or
disk-imaging) program on a relatively infrequent basis - say, not much more
than once a month for example - then the Casper program will probably hold
no special interest for that type of user. Under those circumstances pretty
much any disk-cloning or disk-imaging program will suffice or perhaps a
different type of backup program would be more appropriate.

Anyway, give this disk-cloning or disk-imaging process some thought in your
situation. There's an enormous amount of information on the net re these
programs and you may wish to do a Google search on such. Many of these
programs have demo or trial versions available. Casper, for example, has a
trial version available at...
http://www.fssdev.com. It's somewhat crippled but should give you an idea as
to whether it holds any interest for you.
Anna

"Anna" wrote:

If, on the other hand, a user is not especially interested in maintaining
current backups of his/her system and plans to use a disk-cloning (or
disk-imaging) program on a relatively infrequent basis - say, not much more
than once a month for example - then the Casper program will probably hold
no special interest for that type of user. Under those circumstances pretty
much any disk-cloning or disk-imaging program will suffice or perhaps a
different type of backup program would be more appropriate.

Notice that Anna has no reservations about naming the program SHE
prefers, but doesn't name any of the "different type of backup"
programs... like the one that 99% of those who recommend such a
program in these groups recommend: Acronis True Image.

Anna is the ONLY person out of everyone in these (and the Vista)
groups who touts Casper, and ONLY Casper. Ask for a backup program
recommendation, and if she doesn't reply, easily 99% of the
recommendations you will receive will be for the Acronis product.

Acronis will cost you $10 less than Casper if you buy it from it's own
vendor - because you won't have to pay extra for the bootable CD as
you will with Casper. AND it will cost you much less if bought
elsewhere online, like from newegg.com.

She also doesn't emphasize that to use Casper, you will have to
dedicate an entire second drive to its purposes (one of the drawbacks
of cloning as a backup strategy). IMAGING does not have this
drawback.

"Anna" wrote in message
...

Many thanks for taking the time to post such a comprehensive answer! Please
see below a few comments inserted at relevant points in your message.



Might I suggest that you consider a disk-cloning or disk-imaging program
to maintain a comprehensive backup of *all* the data on each of your HDDs?
By "all" I mean the total contents of these drives, including the OS, all
programs & applications, all personal data - in short, *everything* that's
contained on your internal HDDs. In effect, for all practical purposes, a
precise copy of your drives. (I'll indicate my recommendation of such a
program by & by).

I hadn't considered this option as a routine (i.e. daily) back-up option,
because it seemed to be potentially excessive in terms of time, and wear and
tear of the hardware! Suppose that in a day I modify files totalling say 500
MB in size, and the total size of files on the hard disc I need to back up
is 35GB. With a file-based back-up system I only need to copy 500MB to the
EHD, whilst with the cloning approach I am copying 35000MB of data, most of
which hasn't changed. However, I appreciate that some products, Casper
included, may be smart enough to copy and apply a "patch" to the back-up
device. Or does disk cloning differ from disk imaging in that it is file
based rather than raw binary data based?

1. You've indicated that you have two PCs, each containing a single
physical internal HDD. One of them is multi-partitioned with two
partitions and the second PC's HDD apparently contains a single partition.
Obviously each of those PCs contains an OS, or so I assume.

The first PC has 2 internal hard drives each having a single partition .
They run different OS's - Windows ME, and Windows XP Pro.


2. While you didn't indicate the size of these HDDs nor the amount of data
contained on these drives I assume from your contemplation of possibly
setting up your 500 GB USBEHD with (roughly) five 80 GB partitions and
proposing to use three of those partitions to contain the backups of the
two physical HDDs (the three partitions), that the *total* contents of
each of your internal HDDs is relatively modest.

Yes the capacity of the drives is modest - none larger than 80 GB.

I'm not clear why you would be thinking of creating *five* partitions on
the USBEHD. You have other plans for the remaining two partitions? Perhaps
to hold data "on the fly"?

I was thinking of creating multiple partitions of 80 GB each.

3. Anyway, assuming I'm not too far off the mark on this, why not consider
the following as a possible backup strategy using the Casper 5 disk
cloning program - (my comments re the Casper program follow below)?...

Sounds interesting ...

4. Using the XP Disk Management snap-in you could create three partitions
on your 500 GB USBEHD. The remainder (if any) of the disk space on that
external drive would be unpartitioned/unformatted at that point. You would
size each of those three partitions to whatever size you desired; they
need not mirror the size of the partitions on your source HDDs. The only
proviso, of course, is that each partition be at least sufficient in size
to contain the contents of the data you will be cloning from each of the
source drives' partitions.

OK

5. Re your source drive "PC #1" - the one containing two partitions - you
would clone the contents of each partition to the first two partitions on
the USBEHD.

Note that the disk-cloning process will clone the file systems of the
partition(s) along with their contents, be those file systems FAT32- or
NTFS-formatted. So it is immaterial what file system was established
during the original creation of the partitions on the USBEHD. A clone is a
clone is a clone!

Do you mean that a copy of the raw binary data is being made (directory plus
files)?

6. Re "PC #2" - the one containing a single partition - you would
similarly clone the contents of that HDD to the third partition you had
created on the USBEHD.

7. When you again decide to back up your two systems so as to continue to
maintain reasonably up-to-date backups of both systems, you would simply
repeat the process. And so on & so on...

8. The upshot of all this is that through the use of *routinely* using a
disk-cloning program in the manner described above, you would be
maintaining precise copies of your internal HDDs. So that if & when the
day comes when you find your internal HDD has become defective or if the
drive has become dysfunctional for any reason, you have the wherewithal to
restore your system to a bootable, functional state easily & relatively
quickly by cloning the contents of the data residing on your USBEHD back
to your internal HDD(s).

Sounds very reassuring, but the cost seems potentially high!

5. The program I personally recommend for most PC users to accomplish all
this is the Casper 5 disk-cloning program. (It does *not* have
disk-imaging capability).

We've been using the Casper program for a number of years and have found
it an extraordinarily effective program in establishing & maintaining a
comprehensive backup system through its disk-cloning capability. It has a
straightforward design and is extremely simple to use; there's virtually
no "learning-curve" involved.

But its major advantage and what sets it apart from other
disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs (in our experience) is its speed of
creating these comprehensive backups (clones) when the program is used on
a *frequent* basis - say, at least once a week in most cases, even daily
or every two or three days. Obviously the amount of time the program will
take to complete the disk or partition-cloning operation will depend on a
number of factors including the amount of data being cloned and even
more-importantly in most cases, the frequency of the cloning operations.
It's hard, if not impossible, to provide precise figures in this regard,
but assuming about 50 GB of data per HDD (partition) was being cloned and
using the program perhaps twice a week for comprehensive backups
(following the initial disk-cloning operation), I'd venture to say the
disk (partition) cloning operation would take under five (5) minutes per
HDD.

The time taken doesn't sound at all bad, compared to the time it takes a
virus scanner to scanner a hard drive! My virus scanner can take 3 to 5
hours!

Casper accomplishes this through what it labels its "SmartClone"
capability. It has the unique ability (at least *unique* in our
experience) to determine what changes have been made to the system since
the previous disk-cloning operation so that it "incrementally" can take
only those changes into account during the current disk-cloning operation.
This dramatically speeds up the backup cloning operation so that the user
has a strong incentive to use the program on a frequent basis, knowing
that the disk (partition) cloning operation will take a short period of
time in most cases.

This capability sounds like exactly what the doctor ordered! I will
investigate it.

Regards,

EM

Mike Torello wrote:

"Anna" wrote:

If, on the other hand, a user is not especially interested in maintaining
current backups of his/her system and plans to use a disk-cloning (or
disk-imaging) program on a relatively infrequent basis - say, not much more
than once a month for example - then the Casper program will probably hold
no special interest for that type of user. Under those circumstances pretty
much any disk-cloning or disk-imaging program will suffice or perhaps a
different type of backup program would be more appropriate.

Notice that Anna has no reservations about naming the program SHE
prefers, but doesn't name any of the "different type of backup"
programs... like the one that 99% of those who recommend such a
program in these groups recommend: Acronis True Image.

Anna is the ONLY person out of everyone in these (and the Vista)
groups who touts Casper, and ONLY Casper. Ask for a backup program
recommendation, and if she doesn't reply, easily 99% of the
recommendations you will receive will be for the Acronis product.

Acronis will cost you $10 less than Casper if you buy it from it's own
vendor - because you won't have to pay extra for the bootable CD as
you will with Casper. AND it will cost you much less if bought
elsewhere online, like from newegg.com.

She also doesn't emphasize that to use Casper, you will have to
dedicate an entire second drive to its purposes (one of the drawbacks
of cloning as a backup strategy). IMAGING does not have this
drawback.

Forgot to reply to what she said:

If, on the other hand, a user is not especially interested in maintaining
current backups of his/her system and plans to use a disk-cloning (or
disk-imaging) program on a relatively infrequent basis - say, not much more
than once a month for example - then the Casper program will probably hold
no special interest for that type of user.

Acronis can be used DAILY without cramping your computing style if you
aren't using cloning as your backup strategy. You can schedule
Acronis to image your system daily, twice a day, whatever. It will do
so while you do other things with your computer.

NOTE: I know what I'm talking about here - probably more than Anna
does, because unlike Anna, who only uses Casper, I USE BOTH PROGRAMS
DAILY.

Mike Torello wrote:
Mike Torello wrote:

"Anna" wrote:

If, on the other hand, a user is not especially interested in
maintaining
current backups of his/her system and plans to use a disk-cloning (or
disk-imaging) program on a relatively infrequent basis - say, not much
more
than once a month for example - then the Casper program will probably
hold
no special interest for that type of user. Under those circumstances
pretty
much any disk-cloning or disk-imaging program will suffice or perhaps a
different type of backup program would be more appropriate.

Notice that Anna has no reservations about naming the program SHE
prefers, but doesn't name any of the "different type of backup"
programs... like the one that 99% of those who recommend such a
program in these groups recommend: Acronis True Image.

Anna is the ONLY person out of everyone in these (and the Vista)
groups who touts Casper, and ONLY Casper. Ask for a backup program
recommendation, and if she doesn't reply, easily 99% of the
recommendations you will receive will be for the Acronis product.

Acronis will cost you $10 less than Casper if you buy it from it's own
vendor - because you won't have to pay extra for the bootable CD as
you will with Casper. AND it will cost you much less if bought
elsewhere online, like from newegg.com.

She also doesn't emphasize that to use Casper, you will have to
dedicate an entire second drive to its purposes (one of the drawbacks
of cloning as a backup strategy). IMAGING does not have this
drawback.

I thought it had been stated that one could JUST do a partition copy
operation with Casper ("copy drive option"?) and leave the other existing
partitions on the backup drive intact?

More below..

Forgot to reply to what she said:

If, on the other hand, a user is not especially interested in maintaining
current backups of his/her system and plans to use a disk-cloning (or
disk-imaging) program on a relatively infrequent basis - say, not much
more
than once a month for example - then the Casper program will probably
hold
no special interest for that type of user.

Acronis can be used DAILY without cramping your computing style if you
aren't using cloning as your backup strategy. You can schedule
Acronis to image your system daily, twice a day, whatever. It will do
so while you do other things with your computer.

NOTE: I know what I'm talking about here - probably more than Anna
does, because unlike Anna, who only uses Casper, I USE BOTH
PROGRAMS DAILY.

I take it you are using Casper here solely for the case of if your primary
hard drive dies and you want to simply swap it with the backup drive.
Otherwise, you could just use the imaging of ATI to a brand new drive, which
admitedly would take a bit more work.

"Enquiring Mind" wrote in message
...
Many thanks for taking the time to post such a comprehensive answer!
Please see below a few comments inserted at relevant points in your
message.


"Anna" wrote in message
...
Might I suggest that you consider a disk-cloning or disk-imaging program
to maintain a comprehensive backup of *all* the data on each of your
HDDs? By "all" I mean the total contents of these drives, including the
OS, all programs & applications, all personal data - in short,
*everything* that's contained on your internal HDDs. In effect, for all
practical purposes, a precise copy of your drives. (I'll indicate my
recommendation of such a program by & by).


"Enquiring Mind" wrote in message...
I hadn't considered this option as a routine (i.e. daily) back-up option,
because it seemed to be potentially excessive in terms of time, and wear
and tear of the hardware! Suppose that in a day I modify files totalling
say 500 MB in size, and the total size of files on the hard disc I need to
back up is 35GB. With a file-based back-up system I only need to copy
500MB to the EHD, whilst with the cloning approach I am copying 35000MB of
data, most of which hasn't changed. However, I appreciate that some
products, Casper included, may be smart enough to copy and apply a "patch"
to the back-up device. Or does disk cloning differ from disk imaging in
that it is file based rather than raw binary data based?


"Anna" wrote in message...
1. You've indicated that you have two PCs, each containing a single
physical internal HDD. One of them is multi-partitioned with two
partitions and the second PC's HDD apparently contains a single
partition. Obviously each of those PCs contains an OS, or so I assume.


"Enquiring Mind" wrote in message...
...
The first PC has 2 internal hard drives each having a single partition .
They run different OS's - Windows ME, and Windows XP Pro.


"Anna" wrote in message...
2. While you didn't indicate the size of these HDDs nor the amount of
data contained on these drives I assume from your contemplation of
possibly setting up your 500 GB USBEHD with (roughly) five 80 GB
partitions and proposing to use three of those partitions to contain the
backups of the two physical HDDs (the three partitions), that the *total*
contents of each of your internal HDDs is relatively modest.


"Enquiring Mind" wrote in message...
Yes the capacity of the drives is modest - none larger than 80 GB.


"Anna" wrote in message...
I'm not clear why you would be thinking of creating *five* partitions on
the USBEHD. You have other plans for the remaining two partitions?
Perhaps to hold data "on the fly"?


"Enquiring Mind" wrote in message
I was thinking of creating multiple partitions of 80 GB each.


"Anna" wrote in message...
3. Anyway, assuming I'm not too far off the mark on this, why not
consider the following as a possible backup strategy using the Casper 5
disk cloning program - (my comments re the Casper program follow
below)?...


"Enquiring Mind" wrote in message
Sounds interesting ...


"Anna" wrote in message...
4. Using the XP Disk Management snap-in you could create three partitions
on your 500 GB USBEHD. The remainder (if any) of the disk space on that
external drive would be unpartitioned/unformatted at that point. You
would size each of those three partitions to whatever size you desired;
they need not mirror the size of the partitions on your source HDDs. The
only proviso, of course, is that each partition be at least sufficient in
size to contain the contents of the data you will be cloning from each of
the source drives' partitions.


"Enquiring Mind" wrote in message...
OK


"Anna" wrote in message...
5. Re your source drive "PC #1" - the one containing two partitions - you
would clone the contents of each partition to the first two partitions on
the USBEHD.

Note that the disk-cloning process will clone the file systems of the
partition(s) along with their contents, be those file systems FAT32- or
NTFS-formatted. So it is immaterial what file system was established
during the original creation of the partitions on the USBEHD. A clone is
a clone is a clone!


"Enquiring Mind" wrote in message...
Do you mean that a copy of the raw binary data is being made (directory
plus files)?


"Anna" wrote in message...
6. Re "PC #2" - the one containing a single partition - you would
similarly clone the contents of that HDD to the third partition you had
created on the USBEHD.

7. When you again decide to back up your two systems so as to continue to
maintain reasonably up-to-date backups of both systems, you would simply
repeat the process. And so on & so on...

8. The upshot of all this is that through the use of *routinely* using a
disk-cloning program in the manner described above, you would be
maintaining precise copies of your internal HDDs. So that if & when the
day comes when you find your internal HDD has become defective or if the
drive has become dysfunctional for any reason, you have the wherewithal
to restore your system to a bootable, functional state easily &
relatively quickly by cloning the contents of the data residing on your
USBEHD back to your internal HDD(s).


"Enquiring Mind" wrote in message...
Sounds very reassuring, but the cost seems potentially high!


"Anna" wrote in message...
5. The program I personally recommend for most PC users to accomplish all
this is the Casper 5 disk-cloning program. (It does *not* have
disk-imaging capability).

We've been using the Casper program for a number of years and have found
it an extraordinarily effective program in establishing & maintaining a
comprehensive backup system through its disk-cloning capability. It has a
straightforward design and is extremely simple to use; there's virtually
no "learning-curve" involved.

But its major advantage and what sets it apart from other
disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs (in our experience) is its speed of
creating these comprehensive backups (clones) when the program is used on
a *frequent* basis - say, at least once a week in most cases, even daily
or every two or three days. Obviously the amount of time the program will
take to complete the disk or partition-cloning operation will depend on a
number of factors including the amount of data being cloned and even
more-importantly in most cases, the frequency of the cloning operations.
It's hard, if not impossible, to provide precise figures in this regard,
but assuming about 50 GB of data per HDD (partition) was being cloned and
using the program perhaps twice a week for comprehensive backups
(following the initial disk-cloning operation), I'd venture to say the
disk (partition) cloning operation would take under five (5) minutes per
HDD.


"Enquiring Mind" wrote in message...
The time taken doesn't sound at all bad, compared to the time it takes a
virus scanner to scanner a hard drive! My virus scanner can take 3 to 5
hours!


"Anna" wrote in message...
Casper accomplishes this through what it labels its "SmartClone"
capability. It has the unique ability (at least *unique* in our
experience) to determine what changes have been made to the system since
the previous disk-cloning operation so that it "incrementally" can take
only those changes into account during the current disk-cloning
operation. This dramatically speeds up the backup cloning operation so
that the user has a strong incentive to use the program on a frequent
basis, knowing that the disk (partition) cloning operation will take a
short period of time in most cases.


"Enquiring Mind" wrote in message...
This capability sounds like exactly what the doctor ordered! I will
investigate it.

Regards,

EM


EM:
Let me respond to your above comments/queries here, more-or-less in the
order you raised them...

1. In terms of the disk-cloning program such as the one we recommend, i.e.,
Casper 5, imposing some sort of a penalty re "wear & tear" on your systems'
HDDs, even when the program is used on a daily basis (should the user desire
that approach), we have never discerned any such problem in that area.
Actually, using the program on a daily basis or a few times per week would
amount to what realistically can be considered as a trifling effect re the
use of the HDDs involved and I really can't imagine it having any practical
effect on the longevity of the drives involved.

2. The fact that one of your two PCs contains two different OSs, each on a
separate partition, is no bar to the disk (partition) cloning process I've
described. As I mentioned, when you would clone the contents of the
partition containing the ME OS, its FAT32 file system would be an integral
part of the clone.

3. Aside from the three partitions you would be creating on the USBEHD to
contain the cloned contents of your two HDDs, you could create however many
add'l partitions on the external HDD limited only by the disk size of the
latter.

4. Re your query about the copy possibly being "raw binary data is being
made (directory plus files)", simply think of the clone on the "destination"
drive, i.e., the USBEHD, as a *precise* copy of the contents of the
partition you are cloning from the "source" drive. It's identical in every
practical respect.

5. When you write "Sounds very reassuring, but the cost seems potentially
high!". Are you referring to the cost of the Casper 5 program here? It *is*
true that the program is not particularly inexpensive as disk cloning
programs go. Cost for a single-license is $49.95. AFAIK, the program is
available for download only from the developer at http://www.fssdev.com and
this does not include the downloaded file to create an .iso image that will
create the "Casper Startup Disk" (CD) and which sells for an additional
$9.95. That "Startup Disk" is a really essential piece of the program since
in many cases it would be the only way to effect a recovery of the system
when the installed Casper program could not be accessed from the Windows
environment because the program resides on a HDD that has failed or has
become unbootable. The usual scenario for using the Startup Disk is when the
recipient of the clone has been an external HDD - most likely a USB external
HDD - and the original source disk has become defective or dysfunctional
(unbootable) so that there is no opportunity to access the installed Casper
program. Since the USB external HDD containing the cloned contents of the
source drive is not bootable, one must use the Startup Disk in that
situation in order to clone the contents of the external HDD back to a
non-defective internal HDD in order to recover the system.

However, when one considers that a user will be employing the program
(hopefully!) hundreds (if not thousands) of times over a period of months &
years, we believe the additional cost of the program (in comparison with
other disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs) is bearable. Obviously that's
something each user must decide for himself/herself.

6. As I have tried to emphasize it is that "SmartClone" capability of the
Casper 5 program which, in our view, makes the program so desirable &
superior to other disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs we've used over the
years. Its importance, however, can only be appreciated when the program is
used on a frequent basis as I have previously described. I cannot
overemphasize that "incremental clone" feature.

In any event, give all this some thought to determine if this type of
program meets your objectives. As I mentioned in my previous post, Google
around for additional information on these disk-cloning/disk-imaging
programs. As I indicated, many of these programs have demo or trial versions
available.
Anna

"Bill in Co." wrote:

She also doesn't emphasize that to use Casper, you will have to
dedicate an entire second drive to its purposes (one of the drawbacks
of cloning as a backup strategy). IMAGING does not have this
drawback.

I thought it had been stated that one could JUST do a partition copy
operation with Casper ("copy drive option"?) and leave the other existing
partitions on the backup drive intact?

More below..

I stopped here. If you've not figured it out yet, you're hopeless.

Bye guy.

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

She also doesn't emphasize that to use Casper, you will have to
dedicate an entire second drive to its purposes (one of the drawbacks
of cloning as a backup strategy). IMAGING does not have this
drawback.

I thought it had been stated that one could JUST do a partition copy
operation with Casper ("copy drive option"?) and leave the other existing
partitions on the backup drive intact?

More below..

I stopped here. If you've not figured it out yet, you're hopeless.

Bye guy.

Typical, for a newager.

"Bill in Co." wrote:
I thought it had been stated that one could JUST do a partition copy
operation with Casper ("copy drive option"?) and leave the other existing
partitions on the backup drive intact?


"Mike Torello" wrote in message
...
She also doesn't emphasize that to use Casper, you will have to
dedicate an entire second drive to its purposes (one of the drawbacks
of cloning as a backup strategy). IMAGING does not have this
drawback.


Bill:
Essentially you're correct. There is generally *no* need to "dedicate an
entire second drive" when using the Casper 5 disk-cloning
(partition-cloning) capability.

The OP's situation is a perfect example of this. He/she has two PCs - one PC
containing two partitions, each having a different OS, and the other PC
containing a single-partitioned HDD.

So, as I explained in my response to the OP, he/she could set up three
partitions on his/her USB external HDD (the "destination" drive), clone each
of the two partitions on his/her first "source" HDD to two of the three
partitions on the USBEHD, and then clone the contents of his/her second PC -
the one containing a single-partitioned HDD - to the third partition on the
USBEHD.

As I recall, the OP was using, or intending to use, a 500 GB USBEHD, and
indicated the total data contents on each of the three partitions on the two
source drives was somewhere around 80 GB.

So this would leave a considerable amount of "unallocated" disk space
remaining on the USBEHD - disk space that the user could utilize for
whatever purposes he/she desired.

Thus, when the time came for the user to again clone the contents of his/her
two PCs for comprehensive backup purposes, he/she would (in most cases) use
the originally created three partitions on the USBEHD to again serve as
recipients of the clones.
Anna