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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Setting up an external hard drive - partioning and sharing issues
"Bill in Co." wrote:
So my apologies to all of you for the misinformation. Now that's better. Because (as you've said), the hand-holding was getting a bit old. How's that sweater coming along? Anna is the one who said "So my apologies...", not me. I think you forgot your meds this afternoon. Nurse Cratchett was looking for you. |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Setting up an external hard drive - partioning and sharing issues
Mike Torello wrote:
"Bill in Co." wrote: I believe that when I put that to a test here a few months ago, Casper saw EACH partition on the source drive separately and wanted to clone EACH of those partitions to its OWN partition on the destination drive and would NOT clone the entire multi-partitioned disk to a single partition on the destination drive. Obviously. I can find that discussion if need be, but I believe that is what I found. You can't clone *multiple partitions* into ONE *partition*, per se. I don't care what program you are using. Hello? Say "Hello?" to Anna, you senile old coot. She's the one saying it can be done. It's actually cloned into unallocated space on the destination drive. (Those details may be hidden from the user in some programs, but that's what's happening). IOW, if there was a partition over there on the destination drive, and you told the program to "clone into that partition", it would first delete that partition to make it "unallocated space", and THEN clone the source partition(s) over to that space. The only "exception" is that you can create logical partitions within an "Extended Partition", obviously. But that's not what we're addressing here. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Setting up an external hard drive - partioning and sharing issues
"Bill in Co." wrote:
IOW, if there was a partition over there on the destination drive, and you told the program to "clone into that partition", it would first delete that partition to make it "unallocated space", and THEN clone the source partition(s) over to that space By Jove, I THINK HE'S FINALLY GOT IT! |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Setting up an external hard drive - partioning and sharing issues
Mike Torello wrote:
"Bill in Co." wrote: IOW, if there was a partition over there on the destination drive, and you told the program to "clone into that partition", it would first delete that partition to make it "unallocated space", and THEN clone the source partition(s) over to that space By Jove, I THINK HE'S FINALLY GOT IT! You mean you think YOU have it now. It's about time. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Setting up an external hard drive - partioning and sharing issues
Anna,
Thank you for explaining in further detail how Casper accomplishes the task of creating disk clones, how it achieves relatively quick performance, and the rationale for using it. Without any hands-on experience of any disk imaging or disk cloning program, other than tools that ship with the operating system, I can see that both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. This my assessment based on the information provided in this thread: A. Disc imaging approach 1. Since the disk image is a single file, we can back up multiple disks to a single disk without having to partition the disk. The disk will simply contain one image file for each source disk. 2, The size of the disk image file generated is approximately equal to the volume of data on the source disk. Thus if the source disk has a capacity of 80 GB but only contains 3 GB of data, then the image file will be in the region of 3GB in size. On the other hand, a disk clone must be created to accommodate the full size of the source disk, in this case 80 GB. 3. The disk image file can be encrypted and/or compressed. 4. The disk image file is a file, not a bootable disk, so in the event of the death of the source disk more work needs to be done to recover the data from the image file to a bootable disk. 5. Multiple image files for a succession of back-ups can be accommodated in a single disk/partition (of sufficient size). B. Disk cloning approach 1. We need a separate disk or partition for each source disk or partition that we wish to backup. Not suitable for maintaining a succession of backups. 2. The disk clone, if on an external hard drive, may make private files public, but cannot be easily encrypted. 3. The disk clone makes system restoration a breeze if on an internal HD. 4. Backup to a disk clone is very simple, because there are few choices to be made. I shall need to weigh up the pros and cons as they have a number of implications! But the disk cloning approach does sound like an attractive option! Regards, EM "Anna" wrote in message ... EM: I was under the impression that in my previous posts re this thread I had explained in some detail the *significant* advantage of the Casper 5 program (in my opinion, of course) over other disk-cloning (as well as disk-imaging) programs in connection with Casper's so-called "SmartClone" technology and how it (favorably) impacts on disk-to-disk (or partition-to-partition) cloning speed when the program is used routinely & frequently. I trust you're *not* now asking me to provide you with some technical treatise on how the program accomplishes this from a programming/design point of view, but your question is really of the rhetorical kind, yes? So let me try to answer this way based upon my experience with the program involving some hundreds of disk (partition)-cloning operations... The basic point of a disk-cloning program such as the one we highly recommend - Casper 5 - is that by "cloning" the contents of one's day-to-day working HDD to another HDD (internal or external), the user creates a precise copy of his or her "source" HDD. Thus, a comprehensive backup of one's system has been accomplished in one fell swoop, i.e., the user has backed up his/her system including the operating system, all programs & applications, and of course, all user-created data. In short - *everything* that's on the "source" HDD. What better backup system can one have? While there are other disk-cloning programs (Acronis True Image is one) that can perform this operation, Casper has a rather extroardinary ability to create "incremental clones", using what Casper refers to as its "SmartClone" technology. Understand that the "incremental clone" is a complete clone of the source disk, not an "incremental file". The result of this incremental clone process is that it takes the user only a fraction of the time to create subsequent clones of the source HDD than it would otherwise take using the typical disk-cloning methodology. As an example... When a typical disk-cloning program undertakes its disk-to-disk cloning process it does so without regard that the "source" and "destination" HDDs involved in the disk-cloning operation are the *identical* drives that had been involved when a prior disk-cloning operation had been undertaken. It doesn't matter to the disk-cloning program whether the HDD now being cloned was cloned an hour ago, or a day ago, or whenever. The "now" disk-cloning operation will proceed as if the HDD recipient of the clone, i.e., the destination HDD is bare of data, even if that same destination HDD was the recipient of a prior clone from the same source HDD 10 minutes ago. As a result... The disk-cloning operation will take a substantial amount of time to "do its work" each time the disk-cloning operation is undertaken, without regard to the fact that perhaps only a relatively few changes involving the source HDD's data has changed since the last disk-cloning operation. So, as an example, let's say it takes about 30 minutes or so to clone the contents of a HDD containing 40 GB of data to another HDD. Two days later the user decides to again back up his or her system by undertaking another disk-cloning operation. Presumably the data changes over those two days haven't been especially large. But with the typical disk-cloning program, e.g., Acronis True Image, it will take the disk-cloning program just about the *same* period of time to perform current the disk-cloning operation as it did originally, i.e., 30 minutes in the preceding example. And so on and so on in the following days. But with the Casper 5 program, the program has the capability of recognizing *only* the change in data that has occurred from its last disk-cloning operation and will proceed to "do its work" on that basis. Thus, given the example above it will probably take less than 3 or 4 minutes to complete the disk-cloning operation. And so on and so forth. So you can see what a valuable incentive this is for users to systematically & routinely backup their systems with the Casper 5 program - knowing that the expenditure of time to complete the disk-cloning operation will be relatively slight. Surely this is a strong incentive for a user to maintain his/her complete system in a reasonably up-to-date fashion. Obviously the amount of time it will take to complete this "incremental" disk-cloning operation with Casper will be dependent upon the total volume of data being cloned as well as the additions, deletions, configuration changes, etc. that had been made since the previous disk-cloning operation. So the user is encouraged to perform these disk-cloning operations on a relatively frequent basis since by doing so the expenditure of time in completing the operation will be relatively trifling. This last point is crucial. The program works best when it is used with a fairly high degree of frequency - perhaps not less than once a week or even on a daily or two or three times a week basis . When it is used in that manner, the expenditure of time in completing the disk (partition)-cloning operation comes close to being trifling. A quick example based upon one of my PCs HDDs containing total data of about 50 GB. Note this is *total* data - including the OS, all programs & applications, all my user-created data - in short, *everything* that's on that "source" HDD. I last used the Casper 5 program to clone the contents of that drive four days ago. Naturally, like most users, I've made changes of various kinds over that four-day period. Added, deleted, modified some programs, manipulated this or that configuration, etc., etc. More or less the typical kinds of changes made by most users over a period of time. Earlier today I again cloned the contents of that source HDD to one of my internal HDDs. It took just about four (4) minutes. Four minutes. And keep in mind that the recipient of that clone - the destination HDD - will be a precise copy of the source HDD with all its data immediately accessible in exactly the same way one would access data from their source HDD - their day-to-day working HDD in most cases. And the destination HDD, should it be an internal HDD or installed as a internal HDD from an exterior enclosure will be immediately bootable without the need of any recovery process. So that if my source HDD becomes dysfunctional for any reason - I have at hand a bootable HDD that will return my system to a functional state in virtually no time at all. Had I cloned the contents of my source HDD to a USB external HDD (instead of an internal HDD), I could restore my system in reasonably short order by cloning the contents of the USBEHD back to an internal HDD or, should the hard drive itself be removed from the external enclosure it could then be installed as the system's internal HDD - fully bootable & functional. Again, what better backup system can one have? Anna |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Setting up an external hard drive - partioning and sharing issues
"Anna" wrote in message ... EM: I was under the impression that in my previous posts re this thread I had explained in some detail the *significant* advantage of the Casper 5 program (in my opinion, of course) over other disk-cloning (as well as disk-imaging) programs in connection with Casper's so-called "SmartClone" technology and how it (favorably) impacts on disk-to-disk (or partition-to-partition) cloning speed when the program is used routinely & frequently. I trust you're *not* now asking me to provide you with some technical treatise on how the program accomplishes this from a programming/design point of view, but your question is really of the rhetorical kind, yes? So let me try to answer this way based upon my experience with the program involving some hundreds of disk (partition)-cloning operations... The basic point of a disk-cloning program such as the one we highly recommend - Casper 5 - is that by "cloning" the contents of one's day-to-day working HDD to another HDD (internal or external), the user creates a precise copy of his or her "source" HDD. Thus, a comprehensive backup of one's system has been accomplished in one fell swoop, i.e., the user has backed up his/her system including the operating system, all programs & applications, and of course, all user-created data. In short - *everything* that's on the "source" HDD. What better backup system can one have? While there are other disk-cloning programs (Acronis True Image is one) that can perform this operation, Casper has a rather extroardinary ability to create "incremental clones", using what Casper refers to as its "SmartClone" technology. Understand that the "incremental clone" is a complete clone of the source disk, not an "incremental file". The result of this incremental clone process is that it takes the user only a fraction of the time to create subsequent clones of the source HDD than it would otherwise take using the typical disk-cloning methodology. As an example... When a typical disk-cloning program undertakes its disk-to-disk cloning process it does so without regard that the "source" and "destination" HDDs involved in the disk-cloning operation are the *identical* drives that had been involved when a prior disk-cloning operation had been undertaken. It doesn't matter to the disk-cloning program whether the HDD now being cloned was cloned an hour ago, or a day ago, or whenever. The "now" disk-cloning operation will proceed as if the HDD recipient of the clone, i.e., the destination HDD is bare of data, even if that same destination HDD was the recipient of a prior clone from the same source HDD 10 minutes ago. As a result... The disk-cloning operation will take a substantial amount of time to "do its work" each time the disk-cloning operation is undertaken, without regard to the fact that perhaps only a relatively few changes involving the source HDD's data has changed since the last disk-cloning operation. So, as an example, let's say it takes about 30 minutes or so to clone the contents of a HDD containing 40 GB of data to another HDD. Two days later the user decides to again back up his or her system by undertaking another disk-cloning operation. Presumably the data changes over those two days haven't been especially large. But with the typical disk-cloning program, e.g., Acronis True Image, it will take the disk-cloning program just about the *same* period of time to perform current the disk-cloning operation as it did originally, i.e., 30 minutes in the preceding example. And so on and so on in the following days. But with the Casper 5 program, the program has the capability of recognizing *only* the change in data that has occurred from its last disk-cloning operation and will proceed to "do its work" on that basis. Thus, given the example above it will probably take less than 3 or 4 minutes to complete the disk-cloning operation. And so on and so forth. So you can see what a valuable incentive this is for users to systematically & routinely backup their systems with the Casper 5 program - knowing that the expenditure of time to complete the disk-cloning operation will be relatively slight. Surely this is a strong incentive for a user to maintain his/her complete system in a reasonably up-to-date fashion. Obviously the amount of time it will take to complete this "incremental" disk-cloning operation with Casper will be dependent upon the total volume of data being cloned as well as the additions, deletions, configuration changes, etc. that had been made since the previous disk-cloning operation. So the user is encouraged to perform these disk-cloning operations on a relatively frequent basis since by doing so the expenditure of time in completing the operation will be relatively trifling. This last point is crucial. The program works best when it is used with a fairly high degree of frequency - perhaps not less than once a week or even on a daily or two or three times a week basis . When it is used in that manner, the expenditure of time in completing the disk (partition)-cloning operation comes close to being trifling. A quick example based upon one of my PCs HDDs containing total data of about 50 GB. Note this is *total* data - including the OS, all programs & applications, all my user-created data - in short, *everything* that's on that "source" HDD. I last used the Casper 5 program to clone the contents of that drive four days ago. Naturally, like most users, I've made changes of various kinds over that four-day period. Added, deleted, modified some programs, manipulated this or that configuration, etc., etc. More or less the typical kinds of changes made by most users over a period of time. Earlier today I again cloned the contents of that source HDD to one of my internal HDDs. It took just about four (4) minutes. Four minutes. And keep in mind that the recipient of that clone - the destination HDD - will be a precise copy of the source HDD with all its data immediately accessible in exactly the same way one would access data from their source HDD - their day-to-day working HDD in most cases. And the destination HDD, should it be an internal HDD or installed as a internal HDD from an exterior enclosure will be immediately bootable without the need of any recovery process. So that if my source HDD becomes dysfunctional for any reason - I have at hand a bootable HDD that will return my system to a functional state in virtually no time at all. Had I cloned the contents of my source HDD to a USB external HDD (instead of an internal HDD), I could restore my system in reasonably short order by cloning the contents of the USBEHD back to an internal HDD or, should the hard drive itself be removed from the external enclosure it could then be installed as the system's internal HDD - fully bootable & functional. Again, what better backup system can one have? Anna "Enquiring Mind" wrote in message ... Anna, Thank you for explaining in further detail how Casper accomplishes the task of creating disk clones, how it achieves relatively quick performance, and the rationale for using it. Without any hands-on experience of any disk imaging or disk cloning program, other than tools that ship with the operating system, I can see that both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. This my assessment based on the information provided in this thread: A. Disc imaging approach 1. Since the disk image is a single file, we can back up multiple disks to a single disk without having to partition the disk. The disk will simply contain one image file for each source disk. 2, The size of the disk image file generated is approximately equal to the volume of data on the source disk. Thus if the source disk has a capacity of 80 GB but only contains 3 GB of data, then the image file will be in the region of 3GB in size. On the other hand, a disk clone must be created to accommodate the full size of the source disk, in this case 80 GB. 3. The disk image file can be encrypted and/or compressed. 4. The disk image file is a file, not a bootable disk, so in the event of the death of the source disk more work needs to be done to recover the data from the image file to a bootable disk. 5. Multiple image files for a succession of back-ups can be accommodated in a single disk/partition (of sufficient size). B. Disk cloning approach 1. We need a separate disk or partition for each source disk or partition that we wish to backup. Not suitable for maintaining a succession of backups. 2. The disk clone, if on an external hard drive, may make private files public, but cannot be easily encrypted. 3. The disk clone makes system restoration a breeze if on an internal HD. 4. Backup to a disk clone is very simple, because there are few choices to be made. I shall need to weigh up the pros and cons as they have a number of implications! But the disk cloning approach does sound like an attractive option! Regards, EM EM: By & large I think you've covered the basic differences between disk-cloning & disk-imaging as they apply to creating a comprehensive backup system for one's PC. Just a few comments... With respect to the disk-imaging approach (referring to your numbered items above)... 1. Keep in mind that while the *original* disk-image (Acronis refers to it as an "archive") created by the user is a single file, presumably the user will be subsequently creating *incremental* files ("archives") necessary to maintain up-to-date backups of one's system. Both the original file (archive) and subsequent incremental files will ordinarily be retained until either they're used for recovery purposes or the user decides the sheer number of them is too unwieldy to continue and simply "starts over" by creating a new "original" disk-image backup, deleting the existing files/archives in the process. While there's no need to create multiple partitions on the "destination" drive to serve as the recipient of these disk-images, folders would ordinarily be created to house the images from different "source" HDDs. In any event, please do not attach too much importance to the issue of creating partitions on the destination HDD either in terms of difficulty or amount of time needed to do so. This is a very simple operation that can be easily achieved through XP's Disk Management snap-in or using the Casper 5 program during its disk-cloning operation. 2. With respect to the disk-image, there will (usually) be a certain amount of compression provided by the program so that the resultant file/archive will be somewhat smaller than the actual size of the contents that are imaged. In the case of the Acronis program we have generally found that this reduction via compression is somewhat in the order of 20% - 25%. So, taking your example, of 3 GB of contents being "imaged", the resultant file/image would be about 2.5 GB or so. But you've misunderstood this situation with respect to the disk-cloning process. (Again, my comments refer specifically to the Casper 5 program)... Again, using your example of an 80 GB HDD (or partition) that contains 3 GB of data, as I previously explained, the user could easily create a partition on the destination drive *equal* to the size of the data being cloned - in this case, 3 GB. Or, he or she could create a larger size to anticipate future increases in the size of data subsequently cloned. The choice of the size of the partition rests with the user, the *only* limitation being that the partition must be of sufficient size to contain the cloned contents. And, of course, there is no compression of data using the disk-cloning process. A clone is a clone is a clone. It is true that in the usual scenario - where a user has a single day-to-day working HDD (which probably represents the overwhelming number of cases) - that user will employ the "destination" drive (internal or external) as the dedicated recipient of the cloned contents of their source HDD and simply create disk-to-disk clones and not be concerned in any way with partition manipulation. In your situation where you're working with two different PCs and apparently desire a single USBEHD to serve as the recipient of the data from each of those two PCs, obviously the creation/manipulation of partitions is important. In many cases we find that where a user is working with both a laptop/notebook and a desktop machine they simply use two separate drives to serve as recipients of the clones from each machine. Given the dramatic decreases in costs for these devices over the past few years it's not a terribly expensive proposition for many users to go that route. 3. See above re the compression issue. 4. Yes, you have it right. There's a "recovery" process that is necessary, but it's not particularly onerous or too terribly time-demanding. In any event, what is important is that the process be *effective*, not the amount of time it takes to return the system to a bootable, functional state. As I have tried to point out in my previous posts, it is the routine *backup* operation that's important from an expenditure of (user) time point-of-view. Presumably, in the vast bulk of cases, the user will be performing scores, if not hundreds, of backup operations before a recovery of the system will become necessary. It's this extroardinary speed of the backup operation (cloning) that makes the Casper 5 program so superior in my view. But as I have emphasized the program must be used with reasonable frequency to achieve this advantage. 5. Yes, I'm assuming you're referring to incremental disk-image files (archives) here. With respect to your observations re the disk-cloning process... Yes, as I've previously indicated, should a user be primarily interested in maintaining "generational" copies of his/her system at various points-in-time, a disk-imaging program lends itself better to that goal. While relatively few home PC users are interested in that objective, in that they are exclusively interested in maintaining an up-to-date backup of their system(s), many commercial entities require that capability for obvious reasons. While a disk-cloning program could be used to some extent for that purpose, it would depend upon the volume of data to be cloned together with the size (disk-space) of the destination drive(s). For example, we know of a number of Casper 5 users who are interested in retaining 2, 3, or 4 previous clones of their systems and in many cases this can be easily accommodated given the enormous capacity of today's HDDs - both internal & external. May I again suggest, as I've done throughout this entire thread, the only *real* way to determine which program best meets your needs is to experiment with them. In the final analysis, only a "hands-on" approach will determine what's best for you. Fortunately, many of these programs have demo or trial versions available so you can gain at least some understanding as to whether this one or that one will best serve you. And, as you have discovered, there are a number of freely available programs you can test out as well. What I'm trying to impress upon you (and others) is simply this... Don't rely on theoretical explanations (from me or anyone else) of what this program or that program or this approach or that approach can do or not do for you. Work with these different programs as best you can so that you - and only you - will determine the appropriate approach/program needed in your unique situation. Anna |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Setting up an external hard drive - partioning and sharing issues
Anna,
Thanks again for your exhaustive and instructive post. Please see some further comments embedded in the copy of your post. "Anna" wrote in message ... EM: By & large I think you've covered the basic differences between disk-cloning & disk-imaging as they apply to creating a comprehensive backup system for one's PC. Just a few comments... With respect to the disk-imaging approach (referring to your numbered items above)... 1. Keep in mind that while the *original* disk-image (Acronis refers to it as an "archive") created by the user is a single file, presumably the user will be subsequently creating *incremental* files ("archives") necessary to maintain up-to-date backups of one's system. Both the original file (archive) and subsequent incremental files will ordinarily be retained until either they're used for recovery purposes or the user decides the sheer number of them is too unwieldy to continue and simply "starts over" by creating a new "original" disk-image backup, deleting the existing files/archives in the process. Thanks for the clear explanation. It's reassuring to know that it's not necessary to create a new mammoth disk-image file at each back-up cycle. While there's no need to create multiple partitions on the "destination" drive to serve as the recipient of these disk-images, folders would ordinarily be created to house the images from different "source" HDDs. In any event, please do not attach too much importance to the issue of creating partitions on the destination HDD either in terms of difficulty or amount of time needed to do so. This is a very simple operation that can be easily achieved through XP's Disk Management snap-in or using the Casper 5 program during its disk-cloning operation. It may be simple to do using XP's Disk Management snap-in , but I understand that the data on the disk must be backed up beforehand because creating new partitions using the snap-in deletes the files on the disk. Or is that no longer the case? 2. With respect to the disk-image, there will (usually) be a certain amount of compression provided by the program so that the resultant file/archive will be somewhat smaller than the actual size of the contents that are imaged. In the case of the Acronis program we have generally found that this reduction via compression is somewhat in the order of 20% - 25%. So, taking your example, of 3 GB of contents being "imaged", the resultant file/image would be about 2.5 GB or so. But you've misunderstood this situation with respect to the disk-cloning process. (Again, my comments refer specifically to the Casper 5 program)... Again, using your example of an 80 GB HDD (or partition) that contains 3 GB of data, as I previously explained, the user could easily create a partition on the destination drive *equal* to the size of the data being cloned - in this case, 3 GB. Or, he or she could create a larger size to anticipate future increases in the size of data subsequently cloned. The choice of the size of the partition rests with the user, the *only* limitation being that the partition must be of sufficient size to contain the cloned contents. This makes me wonder whether I have misunderstood what Casper does. I thought that it creates a low level sector-by-sector copy of the source disk on the destination disk without regard to the structure or meaning of the data. But if we can clone a 80GB disk to a 3GB disk, this suggests that Casper is not copying all raw data in the disk, but just the data in actual files, since in the source disk the file data may be dispersed on sectors that could be located anywhere on the disk (if the disk is highly fragmented). So the low-level byte layout on the clone may be different to that on the source. If Casper is backing up files only, this explains why when Casper is doing an incremental back-up, it only needs to back up files that have changed since the previous backup. And, of course, there is no compression of data using the disk-cloning process. A clone is a clone is a clone. It is true that in the usual scenario - where a user has a single day-to-day working HDD (which probably represents the overwhelming number of cases) - that user will employ the "destination" drive (internal or external) as the dedicated recipient of the cloned contents of their source HDD and simply create disk-to-disk clones and not be concerned in any way with partition manipulation. In your situation where you're working with two different PCs and apparently desire a single USBEHD to serve as the recipient of the data from each of those two PCs, obviously the creation/manipulation of partitions is important. In many cases we find that where a user is working with both a laptop/notebook and a desktop machine they simply use two separate drives to serve as recipients of the clones from each machine. Given the dramatic decreases in costs for these devices over the past few years it's not a terribly expensive proposition for many users to go that route. 3. See above re the compression issue. 4. Yes, you have it right. There's a "recovery" process that is necessary, but it's not particularly onerous or too terribly time-demanding. In any event, what is important is that the process be *effective*, not the amount of time it takes to return the system to a bootable, functional state. As I have tried to point out in my previous posts, it is the routine *backup* operation that's important from an expenditure of (user) time point-of-view. Presumably, in the vast bulk of cases, the user will be performing scores, if not hundreds, of backup operations before a recovery of the system will become necessary. It's this extroardinary speed of the backup operation (cloning) that makes the Casper 5 program so superior in my view. But as I have emphasized the program must be used with reasonable frequency to achieve this advantage. The rationale for backing up the whole system rather than just the user settings and data seems to be that by so doing in the event of a disk failure one can reboot directly from the backup disk and one is spared the task of reinstalling all one's software and system settings. However, will this really work? Some software programs use the serial number of the disk as part of a license control system. So even though the restored files are the same as on the original disk, the disk serial number has changed, so some programs may not work without being reinstalled afresh. 5. Yes, I'm assuming you're referring to incremental disk-image files (archives) here. With respect to your observations re the disk-cloning process... Yes, as I've previously indicated, should a user be primarily interested in maintaining "generational" copies of his/her system at various points-in-time, a disk-imaging program lends itself better to that goal. While relatively few home PC users are interested in that objective, in that they are exclusively interested in maintaining an up-to-date backup of their system(s), many commercial entities require that capability for obvious reasons. While a disk-cloning program could be used to some extent for that purpose, it would depend upon the volume of data to be cloned together with the size (disk-space) of the destination drive(s). For example, we know of a number of Casper 5 users who are interested in retaining 2, 3, or 4 previous clones of their systems and in many cases this can be easily accommodated given the enormous capacity of today's HDDs - both internal & external. May I again suggest, as I've done throughout this entire thread, the only *real* way to determine which program best meets your needs is to experiment with them. In the final analysis, only a "hands-on" approach will determine what's best for you. Fortunately, many of these programs have demo or trial versions available so you can gain at least some understanding as to whether this one or that one will best serve you. And, as you have discovered, there are a number of freely available programs you can test out as well. What I'm trying to impress upon you (and others) is simply this... Don't rely on theoretical explanations (from me or anyone else) of what this program or that program or this approach or that approach can do or not do for you. Work with these different programs as best you can so that you - and only you - will determine the appropriate approach/program needed in your unique situation. Anna Good advice, but it is nevertheless prudent to understand what you are doing before doing too much experimentation! May I add another back up option to the disk-imaging and disk-cloning options discussed so far? The third option is to simply maintain a parallel copy of the source folder and file structure on the back-up disk (like offline files between a laptop and a desktop). This option offers the following advantages and disadvantages: 1) If the synchronization between the source and back-up folders is performed by a specialised application, the files in the back-up folder may be password protected and/or individually compressed, thus guaranteeing the privacy of the content of a medium which gets no privacy protection whatsoever from the computer, being an external device connectable to any computer. 2) The synchronization application can minimise the number of files that have to be copied during the backup operation by using the file's Archive flag or Time Last Modified to determine whether or not it needs to be backed up. This means that the time needed to complete a backup cycle may be no longer than a couple of minutes even for a large number of files. 3) There's no need for partitioning the back-up drive. Partitions are in principle a great aid, but limit flexibility to change source drives in the future. The folders on the back-up device can grow in size without causing a lot of disk activity. The same can't be said for the disk imaging option. 4) The owner of the back-up data can browse the file names in Windows Explorer. 5) The files can be restored on folder or file basis. 6) Because the backup process never needs to delete mammoth archive files, but only relatively small individual files, the disk should not become too fragmented, and it may be defragmented relatively infrequently. 7) There is less wear and tear of the disk drives. 8) The disadvantage is that somebody could accidentally delete or modify some of the files in the back-up folder, thereby rendering the back-up folder no longer a true image of the source folder. When I recently used the Windows XP Pro Backup utility to make a copy of "All information on the computer", I was horrified to see that not only did it back up all the files on the internal drives of the computer, but also all the files on the external hard drive to which I was backing up (except the back-up file I was creating, of course)! This meant that the monolithic back up file also contained copies of all the previous back-up files on the EHD, making it MUCH larger and more cumbersome than necessary! I suppose this is the sort of thing that creates a market for third party tools like Casper and Acronis True Image. Regards, EM |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Setting up an external hard drive - partioning and sharing issues
Enquiring Mind wrote:
Anna, Thanks again for your exhaustive and instructive post. Please see some further comments embedded in the copy of your post. "Anna" wrote in message ... snip This makes me wonder whether I have misunderstood what Casper does. I thought that it creates a low level sector-by-sector copy of the source disk on the destination disk without regard to the structure or meaning of the data. But if we can clone a 80GB disk to a 3GB disk, this suggests that Casper is not copying all raw data in the disk, but just the data in actual files, since in the source disk the file data may be dispersed on sectors that could be located anywhere on the disk (if the disk is highly fragmented). So the low-level byte layout on the clone may be different to that on the source. If Casper is backing up files only, this explains why when Casper is doing an incremental back-up, it only needs to back up files that have changed since the previous backup. Partition copying programs often give you the option of either doing a complete sector-by-sector partition copy of ALL the sectors (useful for making an EXACT duplicate), OR just the sectors containing data. I believe most default to the latter. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Setting up an external hard drive - partioning and sharing issues
Enquiring Mind wrote: Anna, Thanks again for your exhaustive and instructive post. Please see some further comments embedded in the copy of your post. "Anna" wrote in message ... snip This makes me wonder whether I have misunderstood what Casper does. I thought that it creates a low level sector-by-sector copy of the source disk on the destination disk without regard to the structure or meaning of the data. But if we can clone a 80GB disk to a 3GB disk, this suggests that Casper is not copying all raw data in the disk, but just the data in actual files, since in the source disk the file data may be dispersed on sectors that could be located anywhere on the disk (if the disk is highly fragmented). So the low-level byte layout on the clone may be different to that on the source. If Casper is backing up files only, this explains why when Casper is doing an incremental back-up, it only needs to back up files that have changed since the previous backup. "Bill in Co." wrote in message ... Partition copying programs often give you the option of either doing a complete sector-by-sector partition copy of ALL the sectors (useful for making an EXACT duplicate), OR just the sectors containing data. I believe most default to the latter. Gentlemen: (I'm assuming "EM" is of the male gender; my apologies should I be mistaken)... As that trite saying goes, "with all due respect", but nevertheless, with all due respect... I really think it clouds the issue when phrases are bandied about such as "low level sector-by-sector copy...", or "low-level byte layout", or "sectors containing data", or "copying all raw data in the disk" and the like. First of all, with specific reference to the Casper 5 disk-cloning program... We are *not* cloning "a 80GB disk to a 3GB disk". What I explained, (or tried to explain) was that if the source drive's 80 GB partition contained 3 GB of data, the user could, should he or she desire, set the partition on the destination drive to be equal in size to the contents being cloned - in this case 3 GB. Using Casper 5, there is no *requirement* that this be done, nor is it the default. The user could establish a partition of 10 GB, or 30 GB or 50 GB or the precise size of the source drive's partition, i.e., 80 GB (or even larger should the user desire such for one reason or another). I was making the point (or trying to make the point) that the only size requirement re the destination partition is that, at the *minimum*, it be sufficient in size to contain the cloned data contents. Bill, Emphasizing that my remarks pertain to the Casper 5 program... With the understanding that I am substituting "partition(s)" for "sector(s)"... I trust you understand that a partition on the source drive containing *no* data can be cloned to the destination drive. There is *no* requirement that the source partition contain data; it can be completely void of data and still be cloned. This situation happens from time-to-time with many users in my experience. Again, in my experience, the overwhelming number of Casper 5 users (and I daresay users of other disk-cloning programs) simply dedicate another HDD - either an internal HDD or a USB external HDD - to serve as the recipient of their day-to-day internal HDD. Putting it simply - they clone the entire contents of their source HDD to a destination HDD without regard to partition-to-partition cloning. Simple, direct, effective. All they require is that the destination HDD - the recipient of the clone - be a precise duplicate of their source HDD. Naturally as I'm sure you know, many users' source drives contain multiple partitions. Some users prefer a single partition for the OS, another for programs, another for personal data of one kind or another, for games, etc., etc. So let's say the user's source 300 GB HDD contains four partitions, C, D, E, & F. He or she routinely clones the contents of the source HDD to a 500 GB USBEHD. In most cases the user will simply undertake a disk-to-disk cloning operation without giving any consideration to sizing the partitions on the destination HDD. Again, all that the user is interested in is that he/she has a precise copy of the *total* contents of their source HDD so that restoration of their systems can be achieved easily & effectively. Without user intervention Casper 5 will simply automatically proportion the size of the destination partitions based upon corresponding size of the source HDD's partitions. So that if, for example, the size of the source drive's C: partition represents 10% of the total disk space of the source drive, then the destination partition will similarly be set at 10% of the total disk space of the destination drive. And so on & so on. But again, should a user desire to manipulate the size of the destination partitions, that option is open to him/her during the cloning process. And should one of the partitions on the source HDD be vacant of data - perhaps the user has deleted all previous data but still desires the existence of that partition for some future use - that empty source drive's partition will be cloned along with the other partitions on the source drive. Again, it will be sized proportionally unless the user desires otherwise. I recognize the preceding scenario does not apply to all users; the OP's situation where he/she has two PC's and desires to use a single destination drive to house the contents of those two machines is a case in point. And obviously there are other situations involving a need for partition-to-partition cloning. Anna |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Setting up an external hard drive - partioning and sharing issues
Anna wrote:
Enquiring Mind wrote: Anna, Thanks again for your exhaustive and instructive post. Please see some further comments embedded in the copy of your post. "Anna" wrote in message ... snip This makes me wonder whether I have misunderstood what Casper does. I thought that it creates a low level sector-by-sector copy of the source disk on the destination disk without regard to the structure or meaning of the data. But if we can clone a 80GB disk to a 3GB disk, this suggests that Casper is not copying all raw data in the disk, but just the data in actual files, since in the source disk the file data may be dispersed on sectors that could be located anywhere on the disk (if the disk is highly fragmented). So the low-level byte layout on the clone may be different to that on the source. If Casper is backing up files only, this explains why when Casper is doing an incremental back-up, it only needs to back up files that have changed since the previous backup. "Bill in Co." wrote in message ... Partition copying programs often give you the option of either doing a complete sector-by-sector partition copy of ALL the sectors (useful for making an EXACT duplicate), OR just the sectors containing data. I believe most default to the latter. Gentlemen: (I'm assuming "EM" is of the male gender; my apologies should I be mistaken)... As that trite saying goes, "with all due respect", but nevertheless, with all due respect... I really think it clouds the issue when phrases are bandied about such as "low level sector-by-sector copy...", or "low-level byte layout", or "sectors containing data", or "copying all raw data in the disk" and the like. Well, I agree some of it can perhaps sometimes be overstated. But I think using the phrase "sector-by-sector copy" is usefully definitive (at least to me), as in stark contrast to, say, folder and file copying, for example; there is a truly SIGNIFICANT difference there, and I think it's useful at to understand it at that level. More on that below. First of all, with specific reference to the Casper 5 disk-cloning program... We are *not* cloning "a 80GB disk to a 3GB disk". What I explained, (or tried to explain) was that if the source drive's 80 GB partition contained 3 GB of data, the user could, should he or she desire, set the partition on the destination drive to be equal in size to the contents being cloned - in this case 3 GB. Using Casper 5, there is no *requirement* that this be done, nor is it the default. The user could establish a partition of 10 GB, or 30 GB or 50 GB or the precise size of the source drive's partition, i.e., 80 GB (or even larger should the user desire such for one reason or another). I was making the point (or trying to make the point) that the only size requirement re the destination partition is that, at the *minimum*, it be sufficient in size to contain the cloned data contents. Bill, Emphasizing that my remarks pertain to the Casper 5 program... With the understanding that I am substituting "partition(s)" for "sector(s)"... I trust you understand that a partition on the source drive containing *no* data can be cloned to the destination drive. There is *no* requirement that the source partition contain data; it can be completely void of data and still be cloned. I absolutely understand. :-) But as I said, regardless of the specific program being used, IF it allows for partition-to-partition copying, there is often the choice of only copying those sectors with data, OR copying the entire partition structure literally and faithfully to a destination drive (which can be required in certain cases, as in forensic work, as someone else mentioned). And as an EE, it's just kinda natural for me to try to see and understand it from that level. This situation happens from time-to-time with many users in my experience. Again, in my experience, the overwhelming number of Casper 5 users (and I daresay users of other disk-cloning programs) simply dedicate another HDD - either an internal HDD or a USB external HDD - to serve as the recipient of their day-to-day internal HDD. Putting it simply - they clone the entire contents of their source HDD to a destination HDD without regard to partition-to-partition cloning. Simple, direct, effective. All they require is that the destination HDD - the recipient of the clone - be a precise duplicate of their source HDD. Naturally as I'm sure you know, many users' source drives contain multiple partitions. Some users prefer a single partition for the OS, another for programs, another for personal data of one kind or another, for games, etc., etc. So let's say the user's source 300 GB HDD contains four partitions, C, D, E, & F. He or she routinely clones the contents of the source HDD to a 500 GB USBEHD. In most cases the user will simply undertake a disk-to-disk cloning operation without giving any consideration to sizing the partitions on the destination HDD. Again, all that the user is interested in is that he/she has a precise copy of the *total* contents of their source HDD so that restoration of their systems can be achieved easily & effectively. Without user intervention Casper 5 will simply automatically proportion the size of the destination partitions based upon corresponding size of the source HDD's partitions. So that if, for example, the size of the source drive's C: partition represents 10% of the total disk space of the source drive, then the destination partition will similarly be set at 10% of the total disk space of the destination drive. And so on & so on. But again, should a user desire to manipulate the size of the destination partitions, that option is open to him/her during the cloning process. And should one of the partitions on the source HDD be vacant of data - perhaps the user has deleted all previous data but still desires the existence of that partition for some future use - that empty source drive's partition will be cloned along with the other partitions on the source drive. Again, it will be sized proportionally unless the user desires otherwise. I recognize the preceding scenario does not apply to all users; the OP's situation where he/she has two PC's and desires to use a single destination drive to house the contents of those two machines is a case in point. And obviously there are other situations involving a need for partition-to-partition cloning. Anna |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Setting up an external hard drive - partioning and sharing issues
I dont know if this will help, but I bought a Seagate 80GB external device
specificaly to download a mmorpg game onto because pc didnt have enough memory to to it straight to pc. I think the security would be excelent because I couldn't access game without the device turned on, or even connected. as for encripted files, I have no Idea. The game is still on the device altho it has been upplugged from the pc and all. yu could put stuff on it then put the thing in a vault or something. thing is it can be accessed from other pc if yu know how to do it. I dont. my son does. yours A true Newb "Enquiring Mind" wrote: 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|