Jump to content

Replacing C: Drive - Again

Guest Dave

By Guest Dave
in Windows XP

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Dave

Guest Dave

Posted
Posted

Two weeks ago I posted a question about how to replace my C: drive with a

larger one. I got many good replies (thank you), one of which was to go to

the mfg's website and download cloning software.

 

Since I wanted to install a Western Digital (which I already have, and have

been using it for external storage), I went to the WD website and downloaded

their Data Lifeguard Tools. After unzipping and reading the tutorial/info,

I'm not sure this is what I want. It never uses the word 'clone', the

nearest thing is 'Drive-to-Drive Data Copy'

 

It would seem I need to do a little more than just 'copy' my current C:

drive onto another HD. Am I missing something - obviously I am :-)

 

What to do ?

 

Dave

  • Replies 17
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Either get a disk cloning or disk imaging program. Examples are Casper,

and Acronis True Image.

 

Dave wrote:

> Two weeks ago I posted a question about how to replace my C: drive with a

> larger one. I got many good replies (thank you), one of which was to go

> to

> the mfg's website and download cloning software.

>

> Since I wanted to install a Western Digital (which I already have, and

> have

> been using it for external storage), I went to the WD website and

> downloaded

> their Data Lifeguard Tools. After unzipping and reading the

> tutorial/info,

> I'm not sure this is what I want. It never uses the word 'clone', the

> nearest thing is 'Drive-to-Drive Data Copy'

>

> It would seem I need to do a little more than just 'copy' my current C:

> drive onto another HD. Am I missing something - obviously I am :-)

>

> What to do ?

>

> Dave

Guest MAP

Guest MAP

Posted
Posted

RE: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Hi, about six weeks ago I replaced my HD with a larger one as well, I used

the WD

Data Lifeguard Tools to clone it. All I can say is that it works just fine

so I would use it if I were you.

The only thing that I thought was odd and most likely it was the programs

themselfs was that several programs that I brought were no longer

registered,meaning that they reverted to the free trial mode and I had to

re-enter my registration codes,but like XP the programs most likely scanned

my system during the original install and noted the change it might have

happened using another cloning program as well.

 

Good Luck

--

Mike Pawlak

 

 

"Dave" wrote:

> Two weeks ago I posted a question about how to replace my C: drive with a

> larger one. I got many good replies (thank you), one of which was to go to

> the mfg's website and download cloning software.

>

> Since I wanted to install a Western Digital (which I already have, and have

> been using it for external storage), I went to the WD website and downloaded

> their Data Lifeguard Tools. After unzipping and reading the tutorial/info,

> I'm not sure this is what I want. It never uses the word 'clone', the

> nearest thing is 'Drive-to-Drive Data Copy'

>

> It would seem I need to do a little more than just 'copy' my current C:

> drive onto another HD. Am I missing something - obviously I am :-)

>

> What to do ?

>

> Dave

>

>

>

Guest Paul Montgomery

Guest Paul Montgomery

Posted
Posted

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

On Aug 15, 6:50 pm, "Dave" <djb...@dcwis.com> wrote:

> Two weeks ago I posted a question about how to replace my C: drive with a

> larger one.  I got many good replies (thank you), one of which was to go to

> the mfg's website and download cloning software.

>

> Since I wanted to install a Western Digital (which I already have, and have

> been using it for external storage), I went to the WD website and downloaded

> their Data Lifeguard Tools.  After unzipping and reading the tutorial/info,

> I'm not sure this is what I want.  It never uses the word 'clone', the

> nearest thing is 'Drive-to-Drive Data Copy'

>

> It would seem I need to do a little more than just 'copy' my current C:

> drive onto another HD.  Am I missing something - obviously I am  :-)

>

> What to do ?

 

Bill in Co. is right... get one or the other that he lists.

 

I use both in their most recent versions, and I would strongly suggest

that you get Acronis True Image because it does more than just clone

and that will make it very useful after you've installed your new

drive.

 

Casper is a cloning tool par excellence, but it won't image your drive

and it won't permit you to do selective backup/images of data files

and directories.

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Paul Montgomery wrote:

> On Aug 15, 6:50 pm, "Dave" <djb...@dcwis.com> wrote:

>> Two weeks ago I posted a question about how to replace my C: drive with a

>> larger one. I got many good replies (thank you), one of which was to go

>> to

>> the mfg's website and download cloning software.

>>

>> Since I wanted to install a Western Digital (which I already have, and

>> have

>> been using it for external storage), I went to the WD website and

>> downloaded

>> their Data Lifeguard Tools. After unzipping and reading the

>> tutorial/info,

>> I'm not sure this is what I want. It never uses the word 'clone', the

>> nearest thing is 'Drive-to-Drive Data Copy'

>>

>> It would seem I need to do a little more than just 'copy' my current C:

>> drive onto another HD. Am I missing something - obviously I am :-)

>>

>> What to do ?

>

> Bill in Co. is right... get one or the other that he lists.

>

> I use both in their most recent versions, and I would strongly suggest

> that you get Acronis True Image because it does more than just clone

> and that will make it very useful after you've installed your new

> drive.

>

> Casper is a cloning tool par excellence, but it won't image your drive

> and it won't permit you to do selective backup/images of data files

> and directories.

 

But isn't it at least theoretically possible to use Casper to store separate

and selective backups *in separate partitions* on the same backup drive?

(I've asked about this before, but can't recall). (But I don't think it's

a fantastic idea, and still prefer imaging for keeping multiple backups in

ONE partition on the backup drive)

Guest Paul Montgomery

Guest Paul Montgomery

Posted
Posted

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

On Aug 15, 10:03 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net>

wrote:

> Paul Montgomery wrote:

>

> > Casper is a cloning tool par excellence, but it won't image your drive

> > and it won't permit you to do selective backup/images of data files

> > and directories.

>

> But isn't it at least theoretically possible to use Casper to store separate

> and selective backups *in separate partitions* on the same backup drive?

> (I've asked about this before, but can't recall).    (But I don't think it's

> a fantastic idea, and still prefer imaging for keeping multiple backups in

> ONE partition on the backup drive)

 

Casper clones. A clone is a full-disk-to-full-disk exact copy

resulting in the clone being bootable and indistinguishable (except

for possibly its size) from the original.

 

I use it to maintain a clone of my system drive to be used in case the

system drive fails. Casper can clone from within Windows, and once a

clone has been made, it can be updated at will from within Windows as

well. Updates are "incremental" and take a fraction of the time

needed to make a full clone.

 

To do the same with Acronis True Image requires a full clone be made

every time, and it also requires rebooting because the cloning must be

accomplished outside of the Windows environment. I found that to be a

PITA.

Guest Paul Montgomery

Guest Paul Montgomery

Posted
Posted

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

On Aug 15, 10:03 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net>

wrote:

> But isn't it at least theoretically possible to use Casper to store separate

> and selective backups *in separate partitions* on the same backup drive?

 

Forgot to add:

 

Casper can clone either a disk or a partition, and it can put the

clone on a partition. Note that the receiving partition must be at

least as large as the original, because there is no compression during

cloning. It is an exact copy of the original. One would do this so

that one could use the clone to restore the original.

 

I see no need for such a function on my system.

Guest John John (MVP)

Guest John John (MVP)

Posted
Posted

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

That is what you want to use, it will work just fine. Read the manual

for more help:

http://www.wdc.com/en/library/eide/2779-001005.pdf

 

John

 

Dave wrote:

> Two weeks ago I posted a question about how to replace my C: drive with a

> larger one. I got many good replies (thank you), one of which was to go to

> the mfg's website and download cloning software.

>

> Since I wanted to install a Western Digital (which I already have, and have

> been using it for external storage), I went to the WD website and downloaded

> their Data Lifeguard Tools. After unzipping and reading the tutorial/info,

> I'm not sure this is what I want. It never uses the word 'clone', the

> nearest thing is 'Drive-to-Drive Data Copy'

>

> It would seem I need to do a little more than just 'copy' my current C:

> drive onto another HD. Am I missing something - obviously I am :-)

>

> What to do ?

>

> Dave

>

>

Guest Dave

Guest Dave

Posted
Posted

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Thank you all again -

 

One last (hopefully) amateur question. Given that I have several additional

HDs (some partitioned) for backup, is there any point/benefit to

partitioning my (newer & larger) main HD?

 

Thx

 

Dave

 

 

"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message

news:uaeKyR6$IHA.2244@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> That is what you want to use, it will work just fine. Read the manual for

> more help:

> http://www.wdc.com/en/library/eide/2779-001005.pdf

>

> John

>

> Dave wrote:

>

>> Two weeks ago I posted a question about how to replace my C: drive with a

>> larger one. I got many good replies (thank you), one of which was to go

>> to the mfg's website and download cloning software.

>>

>> Since I wanted to install a Western Digital (which I already have, and

>> have been using it for external storage), I went to the WD website and

>> downloaded their Data Lifeguard Tools. After unzipping and reading the

>> tutorial/info, I'm not sure this is what I want. It never uses the word

>> 'clone', the nearest thing is 'Drive-to-Drive Data Copy'

>>

>> It would seem I need to do a little more than just 'copy' my current C:

>> drive onto another HD. Am I missing something - obviously I am :-)

>>

>> What to do ?

>>

>> Dave

Guest dadiOH

Guest dadiOH

Posted
Posted

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Dave wrote:

> Two weeks ago I posted a question about how to replace my C: drive

> with a larger one. I got many good replies (thank you), one of which

> was to go to the mfg's website and download cloning software.

>

> Since I wanted to install a Western Digital (which I already have,

> and have been using it for external storage), I went to the WD

> website and downloaded their Data Lifeguard Tools. After unzipping

> and reading the tutorial/info, I'm not sure this is what I want. It

> never uses the word 'clone', the nearest thing is 'Drive-to-Drive

> Data Copy'

> It would seem I need to do a little more than just 'copy' my current

> C: drive onto another HD. Am I missing something - obviously I am :-)

> What to do ?

 

Use what you downloaded, it does the job just fine.

 

BTW, the words "clone" and "image" imply a sector by sector copy of a

drive - of all sectors, used or not. Programs that clone or image may or

may not copy unused sectors but even copying used sectors sector by sector

is not needed. One can simply copy all files and folders to a drive as long

as that drive has a valid boot sector and the program doing the copying will

copy all files/folders.

 

--

 

dadiOH

____________________________

 

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...

....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from

LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.

Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Paul Montgomery wrote:

> On Aug 15, 10:03 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net>

> wrote:

>

>> But isn't it at least theoretically possible to use Casper to store

>> separate

>> and selective backups *in separate partitions* on the same backup drive?

>

> Forgot to add:

>

> Casper can clone either a disk or a partition, and it can put the

> clone on a partition. Note that the receiving partition must be at

> least as large as the original, because there is no compression during

> cloning. It is an exact copy of the original. One would do this so

> that one could use the clone to restore the original.

>

> I see no need for such a function on my system.

 

OK, thanks, Paul. I think for my needs (if I understand this) then ATI is

then better, since I'm NOT trying to make a bootable backup drive, but I

*am* trying to keep a few multiple and dated system partition backups on the

backup drive that I can restore at will.

 

And - if I tried to use Casper to do this (by cloning the source drive

partition):

 

1) there would be no compression,

 

2) the "Smart Cloning" feature of Casper might be inapplicable here(??),

since a new and complete clone would be created each time in its own unique

partition, and

 

3) a separate lettered drive partition would need to be created each time on

the backup drive.

 

Not sure about #2 above.

 

And in any case, to use this (for my purposes) I would have to RECLONE back

the desired backup clone - which is similar to what I am doing now with ATI

(except I'm restoring an image).

Guest Paul Montgomery

Guest Paul Montgomery

Posted
Posted

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

On Aug 16, 3:57 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net>

wrote:

> Paul Montgomery wrote:

> > On Aug 15, 10:03 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net>

> > wrote:

>

> >> But isn't it at least theoretically possible to use Casper to store

> >> separate

> >> and selective backups *in separate partitions* on the same backup drive?

>

> > Forgot to add:

>

> > Casper can clone either a disk or a partition, and it can put the

> > clone on a partition.  Note that the receiving partition must be at

> > least as large as the original, because there is no compression during

> > cloning.  It is an exact copy of the original.  One would do this so

> > that one could use the clone to restore the original.

>

> > I see no need for such a function on my system.

>

> OK, thanks, Paul.    I think for my needs (if I understand this) then ATI is

> then better, since I'm NOT trying to make a bootable backup drive, but I

> *am* trying to keep a few multiple and dated system partition backups on the

> backup drive that I can restore at will.

>

> And - if I tried to use Casper to do this (by cloning the source drive

> partition):

>

> 1) there would be no compression,

>

> 2) the "Smart Cloning" feature of Casper might be inapplicable here(??),

> since a new and complete clone would be created each time in its own unique

> partition, and

 

Smart Cloning is like an incremental backup. Casper looks at both

drives and only updates the clone where needed, resulting in a

significant time saving.

> 3) a separate lettered drive partition would need to be created each time on

> the backup drive.

>

> Not sure about #2 above.

>

> And in any case, to use this (for my purposes) I would have to RECLONE back

> the desired backup clone - which is similar to what I am doing now with ATI

> (except I'm restoring an image).

 

Correct. I think you've finally got the difference between the two

down pat. It certainly took you long enough <G> (I'm not new here).

Guest Paul Montgomery

Guest Paul Montgomery

Posted
Posted

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

On Aug 16, 3:57 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net>

wrote:

> OK, thanks, Paul.    I think for my needs (if I understand this) then ATI is

> then better, since I'm NOT trying to make a bootable backup drive, but I

> *am* trying to keep a few multiple and dated system partition backups on the

> backup drive that I can restore at will.

 

Just a thought on that: do you make a new image every time you are

about to install a new program or to try "going under the hood" to

play with your setup?

 

I would make ONE image, and do incremental images periodically,

keeping a string of them running. To backup two days, all you would

have to do is cut any incrementals more recent than the point you want

to backup to, and temporarily put them somewhere else and then restore

from the remainder.

 

Doing periodic incrementals would save you having to make multiple

full backups, and would save you a lot of time making the images. You

could keep written notes telling you why you made each incremental

image making the choice of which to restore to easier.

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Paul Montgomery wrote:

> On Aug 16, 3:57 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net>

> wrote:

>> Paul Montgomery wrote:

>>> On Aug 15, 10:03 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net>

>>> wrote:

>>

>>>> But isn't it at least theoretically possible to use Casper to store

>>>> separate

>>>> and selective backups *in separate partitions* on the same backup

>>>> drive?

>>

>>> Forgot to add:

>>

>>> Casper can clone either a disk or a partition, and it can put the

>>> clone on a partition. Note that the receiving partition must be at

>>> least as large as the original, because there is no compression during

>>> cloning. It is an exact copy of the original. One would do this so

>>> that one could use the clone to restore the original.

>>

>>> I see no need for such a function on my system.

>>

>> OK, thanks, Paul. I think for my needs (if I understand this) then ATI is

>> then better, since I'm NOT trying to make a bootable backup drive, but I

>> *am* trying to keep a few multiple and dated system partition backups on

>> the

>> backup drive that I can restore at will.

>>

>> And - if I tried to use Casper to do this (by cloning the source drive

>> partition):

>>

>> 1) there would be no compression,

>>

>> 2) the "Smart Cloning" feature of Casper might be inapplicable here(??),

>> since a new and complete clone would be created each time in its own

>> unique

>> partition, and

>

> Smart Cloning is like an incremental backup. Casper looks at both

> drives and only updates the clone where needed, resulting in a

> significant time saving.

 

But what about the case I mentioned, where one desires to several new clones

(of the source drive partition C:) in different partitions on the same

backup drive, so that one could have a collection to choose from, IF one

wanted to reclone it back to the source drive (and yes, I know that's not

it's main design function)? (instead of using ATI and imaging, I mean, or

as an alternative)

>> 3) a separate lettered drive partition would need to be created each time

>> on

>> the backup drive.

>>

>> Not sure about #2 above.

>>

>> And in any case, to use this (for my purposes) I would have to RECLONE

>> back

>> the desired backup clone - which is similar to what I am doing now with

>> ATI

>> (except I'm restoring an image).

>

> Correct. I think you've finally got the difference between the two

> down pat.

 

Ummm, not quite - per my above comment. :-) (So there is still a bit of

confusion there on my part)

> It certainly took you long enough <G> (I'm not new here).

 

I'm not quite "there" yet, but gettin close (I hope).

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Paul Montgomery wrote:

> On Aug 16, 3:57 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net>

> wrote:

>

>> OK, thanks, Paul. I think for my needs (if I understand this) then ATI is

>> then better, since I'm NOT trying to make a bootable backup drive, but I

>> *am* trying to keep a few multiple and dated system partition backups on

>> the

>> backup drive that I can restore at will.

>

> Just a thought on that: do you make a new image every time you are

> about to install a new program or to try "going under the hood" to

> play with your setup?

 

Not quite every time, but pretty close, yes. Any time I think it could be

potentially problematic (and actually HAS been, on several occasions,

especially with the larger and/or "more invasive" programs)

> I would make ONE image, and do incremental images periodically,

> keeping a string of them running. To backup two days, all you would

> have to do is cut any incrementals more recent than the point you want

> to backup to, and temporarily put them somewhere else and then restore

> from the remainder.

 

I don't like incrementals (they are a bit of a PIA), because you always have

to keep track of the increments and use them all, when necessary (for a

restore operation).

 

But that is NEVER needed - and it is MUCH simpler, to simply make a brand

new FULL image backup. It only takes me now about 10 minutes to make a

full system backup of my C: partition (I'm using a second internal SATA

drive, which really helps in that regard! - but I also have a USB external

enclosure backup drive, which, of course, is noticeably slower for backups

and restores)

> Doing periodic incrementals would save you having to make multiple

> full backups, and would save you a lot of time making the images.

 

It's faster, of course, but has the disadvantage I mentioned above.

> You could keep written notes telling you why you made each incremental

> image making the choice of which to restore to easier.

 

But see the above. As it is now, I simply have about 4 complete image

backups, each identified with a single, but different numbered, file name

(and a short comment in each since ATI lets you put a comment in there when

you create the image backup (and you can also see it when you open ATI as

needbe)

Guest Daave

Guest Daave

Posted
Posted

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:eM%23UcRBAJHA.2244@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> I don't like incrementals (they are a bit of a PIA), because you

> always have to keep track of the increments and use them all, when

> necessary (for a restore operation).

 

What do you mean "you always have to keep track of the increments and

use them all?" When was the last time you restored from the initial full

backup *plus* any susequent incremental backups? From the User Guide

(mine is Version 9):

 

<quote>

p. 30

 

3. If you are to restore a disk/partition from an incremental backup,

Acronis True Image will suggest that you select one of successive

incremental archives by date/time of its creation. Thus, you can return

the disk/partition to a certain moment, often called "a point of

restore."

 

To restore data from an incremental backup, you must have all previous

incremental backup files and the initial full backup. If any of

successive backups is missing, restoration is impossible.

 

To restore data from a differential backup, you must have the initial

full backup as well.

</quote>

 

So, if you want to restore your system to a particulat point in time,

you merely select the appropriate archive in order to return to the

"point of restore." As long as you haven't deleted the initial full

backup or any of the subsequent incremental backups, the procedure is as

easy as pie. Try it again. :-)

 

Regarding cloning, if the goal does not include creating something

that's bootable, I'd say you're just wasting your time. It's like

forcing a square peg into a round hole!

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Daave wrote:

> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> news:eM%23UcRBAJHA.2244@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>

>> I don't like incrementals (they are a bit of a PIA), because you

>> always have to keep track of the increments and use them all, when

>> necessary (for a restore operation).

>

> What do you mean "you always have to keep track of the increments and

> use them all?"

 

Well, I didn't mean it quite so literally that "I" had to keep track, but

rather, ATI does. More below.

> When was the last time you restored from the initial full

> backup *plus* any susequent incremental backups?

 

Never, nor do I want to, for the reasons below.

> From the User Guide

> (mine is Version 9):

>

> <quote>

> p. 30

>

> 3. If you are to restore a disk/partition from an incremental backup,

> Acronis True Image will suggest that you select one of successive

> incremental archives by date/time of its creation. Thus, you can return

> the disk/partition to a certain moment, often called "a point of

> restore."

>

> To restore data from an incremental backup, you must have all previous

> incremental backup files and the initial full backup. If any of

> successive backups is missing, restoration is impossible.

>

> To restore data from a differential backup, you must have the initial

> full backup as well.

> </quote>

>

> So, if you want to restore your system to a particulat point in time,

> you merely select the appropriate archive in order to return to the

> "point of restore." As long as you haven't deleted the initial full

> backup or any of the subsequent incremental backups, the procedure is as

> easy as pie. Try it again. :-)

 

No, I don't want that. I want the simplicity and reliability of having

just ONE *composite and full* backup image that *stands on its own*.

 

PLUS: sometimes I use Windows Explorer to copy a file or two out of that

backed up image file.

> Regarding cloning, if the goal does not include creating something

> that's bootable, I'd say you're just wasting your time. It's like

> forcing a square peg into a round hole!

 

So it seems!

Guest Daave

Guest Daave

Posted
Posted

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again

 

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:O5U6PMKAJHA.3648@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Daave wrote:

>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>> news:eM%23UcRBAJHA.2244@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>

>>> I don't like incrementals (they are a bit of a PIA), because you

>>> always have to keep track of the increments and use them all, when

>>> necessary (for a restore operation).

>>

>> What do you mean "you always have to keep track of the increments and

>> use them all?"

>

> Well, I didn't mean it quite so literally that "I" had to keep track,

> but rather, ATI does. More below.

>

>> When was the last time you restored from the initial full

>> backup *plus* any susequent incremental backups?

>

> Never, nor do I want to, for the reasons below.

>

>> From the User Guide

>> (mine is Version 9):

>>

>> <quote>

>> p. 30

>>

>> 3. If you are to restore a disk/partition from an incremental backup,

>> Acronis True Image will suggest that you select one of successive

>> incremental archives by date/time of its creation. Thus, you can

>> return

>> the disk/partition to a certain moment, often called "a point of

>> restore."

>>

>> To restore data from an incremental backup, you must have all

>> previous

>> incremental backup files and the initial full backup. If any of

>> successive backups is missing, restoration is impossible.

>>

>> To restore data from a differential backup, you must have the initial

>> full backup as well.

>> </quote>

>>

>> So, if you want to restore your system to a particulat point in time,

>> you merely select the appropriate archive in order to return to the

>> "point of restore." As long as you haven't deleted the initial full

>> backup or any of the subsequent incremental backups, the procedure is

>> as

>> easy as pie. Try it again. :-)

>

> No, I don't want that. I want the simplicity and reliability of

> having just ONE *composite and full* backup image that *stands on its

> own*.

 

Why? The other method is equally simple and reliable.

> PLUS: sometimes I use Windows Explorer to copy a file or two out of

> that backed up image file.

 

You would still be able to do this.

 

It's your choice, obviously. If you only want to deal exclusively with

full backup images, that's your prerogative. It's not necessary and will

actually take you a bit longer, but if that's what makes you happy, go

for it. After all, the really important point is that you have a regular

and reliable backup strategy, so that's good.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...