Re: Backup Software rcommendation

March 23, 2008

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

Bill in Co. wrote:

> I had thought Anna had said it could *also* do imaging operations,

> too (as another option).

On the contrary, Anna said the exact opposite!

"The Casper 4 program does not have disk-imaging

capability; rather it is strictly a disk-cloning type of program."

From:

news:elt4bK6iIHA.4868@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl

Perhaps your confusion stems from Anna's statement that a user could

re-clone the cloned drive. IMO, if one is going to do that, one might as

well make an image of the hard drive (which Casper can't do) and simply

restore the image. Cloning is best used (IMO) to make an identical twin

HDD, which can be easily *physically* swapped if the need ever arises.

I suppose for people only interested in making clones, Casper would be

preferable since it has the ability to clone incrementally. That is, say

you clone your drive every day and not much has happened in the last

twenty-four hours. When you use Casper to clone the drive today, it

won't take that long since you won't be cloning from scratch if you use

the incremental mode.

Still, for my money, I'm most interested in preserving data, so imaging

makes more sense. And if my PC's hard drive ever craps out, it's no big

deal. I'll purchase another drive and I can still restore the old

drive's image onto it.

For those who want the ability to *both* clone and image, ATI fits the

bill. The only advantage Casper's cloning has over ATI is the ability to

clone incrementally. So, if cloning is *all* you're interested in, I

guess it makes sense to go with Casper. Otherwise, I believe it's wasted

money.

March 23, 2008

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>

>> I had thought Anna had said it could *also* do imaging operations,

>> too (as another option).

"Daave" <dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote in message

news:OqmYnuOjIHA.3780@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> On the contrary, Anna said the exact opposite!

>

> "The Casper 4 program does not have disk-imaging

> capability; rather it is strictly a disk-cloning type of program."

>

> From:

> news:elt4bK6iIHA.4868@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl

> Perhaps your confusion stems from Anna's statement that a user could

> re-clone the cloned drive. IMO, if one is going to do that, one might as

> well make an image of the hard drive (which Casper can't do) and simply

> restore the image. Cloning is best used (IMO) to make an identical twin

> HDD, which can be easily *physically* swapped if the need ever arises.

>

> I suppose for people only interested in making clones, Casper would be

> preferable since it has the ability to clone incrementally. That is, say

> you clone your drive every day and not much has happened in the last

> twenty-four hours. When you use Casper to clone the drive today, it

> won't take that long since you won't be cloning from scratch if you use

> the incremental mode.

>

> Still, for my money, I'm most interested in preserving data, so imaging

> makes more sense. And if my PC's hard drive ever craps out, it's no big

> deal. I'll purchase another drive and I can still restore the old

> drive's image onto it.

>

> For those who want the ability to *both* clone and image, ATI fits the

> bill. The only advantage Casper's cloning has over ATI is the ability to

> clone incrementally. So, if cloning is *all* you're interested in, I

> guess it makes sense to go with Casper. Otherwise, I believe it's wasted

> money.

Daave:

Your comments above are quite accurate as they refer to the disk-cloning

capability of the Casper 4 program. As I have repeatedly stated - what seems

like ad infinitum - the program does not have disk-imaging capability.

But when you dismiss Casper's *incremental* disk-cloning capability as

apparently some minor advantage over Acronis True Image (as well as other

disk-cloning disk-imaging programs), you're overlooking a truly tremendous

advantage for most users of the Casper 4 program in comparison with other

similar types of programs designed to provide a comprehensive & timely

backup system that can be employed by a user on a routine systematic basis.

An advantage of such significance that (in my view) recommends the program

over all other disk-cloning disk-imaging programs with which I've had

experience.

Again - for the benefit of others coming upon this thread - Casper 4 has the

unique ability (at least unique in my experience with other disk-cloning

programs) to create what we might call "incremental" clones following the

initial disk-cloning operation. To cite an example...

Let's say the user desires to establish & maintain a comprehensive backup

system. A backup system that will clone the contents of their day-to-day

working HDD to another HDD (internal or external). So that the resulting

"clone", i.e,, the recipient of these contents, will be (for all practical

purposes) a copy of the "source" drive, including the operating system, all

programs & applications, and of course, all user-created data. In short,

*everything* that's on the user's boot drive.

Using the Casper 4 program, the initial disk-cloning operation undertaken by

the user will probably make little or no difference in comparison with any

other disk-cloning program in terms of the time expended in performing this

first disk-cloning operation. As an example, let's say the user is cloning

45 GB of data from the "source" drive to the "destination" drive. It will

probably take about 45 minutes to 1 hour (more or less) to complete the

disk-cloning operation. As I've indicated there probably won't be much

difference time-wise among other disk-cloning or disk-imaging programs in

completing this process.

However, and it's a big "however"...

Subsequent disk-cloning operations (designed, of course, to maintain a

comprehensive timely backup of one's system) using the Casper 4 program will

take only a *fraction* of the time to complete the disk-cloning operations.

Let's say, using the above example, that the user desires to backup their

system three or four days following the initial disk-cloning operation. In

that situation it will probably take well under five minutes to complete the

disk-cloning operation because of Casper's "SmartClone" technology. PLEASE

UNDERSTAND THAT THIS "INCREMENTAL" CLONE IS A *COMPLETE* CLONE - AGAIN, A

COPY OF THE SOURCE HDD. Compared side-by-side with the source HDD, the

recipient (destination) HDD will be a precise copy of the source HDD. As

such, all the data on the cloned HDD is immediately accessible and should

that drive be another internal HDD it will be bootable. Should the recipient

drive of the clone be an external HDD, e.g., a USB external HDD, the

contents of that drive would be cloned back to the user's internal HDD for

restoration purposes should that be necessary. No special recovery process

would be needed other than a straightforward re:cloning process should the

need arise.

So...

Is it not clear that this "incremental" disk-cloning process of the Casper 4

program is a tremendous incentive for most users to keep their systems

completely backed up on a reasonably current basis, knowing that the

disk-cloning process they will be undertaking each time will take only a few

short minutes to complete in most cases? And, as a consequence, have at hand

a precise copy of their day-to-day working HDD that's up-to-date. What

better backup system can one have?

Anna

March 23, 2008

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

"Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote:

>Daave:

>Your comments above are quite accurate as they refer to the disk-cloning

>capability of the Casper 4 program. As I have repeatedly stated - what seems

>like ad infinitum - the program does not have disk-imaging capability.

I think "Bill in Co." has dyslexia, or Alzheimer's, or...

He repeatedly misses what people are trying to tell him.

March 23, 2008

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

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

news:%2324SwlLjIHA.4076@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>

>>> No, what I said above was that one *could* choose to do this, if one wanted

>>> to. NOT that one normally makes a clone TO do this!! BUT it IS an option IF

>>> one so chooses, or at least it can be, right? Well, more on that below..

>>

>> Before getting to the below, Yes, one could use a Cloned disk to Clone

>> another disk, yet I don't see any reason to do that to a failed disk.

>

> Failed disk? No, not to a failed disk, but to a good backup HD, which could then

> be "restored" to the source drive (note: I am *not* talking about hardware disk

> failures here, just restoration for software failures).

As I mentioned previously, disk failure can be caused by any number of reasons,

that would include software corruption. Perhaps I should have used: a disk that

fails to properly boot the system which could be caused by any number of reasons. I

still see no purpose, reason or otherwise to create a clone disk as a restore disk,

that's what images are for, not clones, especially if the clone is an external USB

drive. IMO external USB drives are problematic at best as backup media when it comes

to crunch time in get a system back up and running.

>

> Obviously if there were a hardware-failed disk, that disk would be junk, and the

> whole concept I'm talking about here makes no sense. In that case, a cloned disk

> would be the right option (pull it out afterwards, and put it in the failed drive's

> place).

>

>>>> When one uses an application such as ATI, Ghost or Casper to "Clone"

>>>> disk(s), all data ("information") on the disk(s) platters that are selected

>>>> to be cloned is written to the "recipient" disks platters. Depending on the

>>>> app used, *this has been a debate drudgery", the "Clone is a Sector x

>>>> Sector, Byte x Byte replica including the MBR//MFT of the "Donor" disk.

>>>> When the clone is completed, the "recipient" disk has the same data on it

>>>> that is on the "donor" disk and it should be stored in a what the user deems

>>>> a relatively safe haven. To minorly clarify, a cloned disk is an "exact"

>>>> replica of a "donor" disk, if the "donor" fails for any reason all one has

>>>> to do is shut down the PC, swap out the disks and reboot to be back up and

>>>> running again. *Keep in mind that any cloned disk(s) can be and are prone

>>>> to conditional issues already present on the "donor" disk at the point in

>>>> time the clone is created.

>>>

>>> Yes, but I know this already - (UNLESS you are stating that the clone disk

>>> must be exactly the same size as (identical to) the source disk).

>>

>> Not at all, it makes what-so-ever no difference whether one clones a disk or

>> creates an image of the disk. Depending on the application used and the

>> knowledge on use of such application by the user, one can use a clone to

>> clone another disk or "Restore" an image to a disk\volume\partition which has

>> less free space then the clone/image, as long as there is enough free space

>> on that drive\volume to expand the volume\partition.

>

> OR one could choose to "restore" the source drive (which had some software failure)

> by "restoring" the clone back to the source drive - that is, by cloning FROM the

> backup drive TO the source drive (the opposite direction, in other words) - if one

> so desired.

>

> Actually, someone may WANT to do that, if the cloned backup drive is in an USB

> external enclosure (it can be a pain to swap it out!), and all they have is a

> cloned backup (because they didn't use imaging for their backups, in other words)

>

I wish anyone that chooses to do so good luck, it's still senseless IMO to use a

clone as a restore disk in that manner.

>> I'm sure I have some

>> type of error in the use of terms drive\volume\partiton for this particular

>> post, but I'd rather swap out a cloned disk as apposed to waiting for an

>> image restore to complete so I could have at it.

>

> Right, except that if we're just making system backups, and one of the drives (the

> backup drive) is in an USB enclosure, it's more convenient to leave it there.

>

>>> But if that is not the case, then again I ask: but this does not necessarily

>>> preclude one from doing the reverse operation, does it? That was my point.

>>> IOW, one could use a cloned disk to (in effect) restore the source disk. If not,

>>> why not?

>>

>> The only way I see it is to swap out the the failed disk with the clone to

>> expedite user production, otherwise it's senseless.

>

> Wait - to "expedite user production" you say. What I see is a reverse operation

> being employed, and yeah, ok, perhaps that takes more time than simply doing a

> backup image restoration, but I don't see how it's so difficult. Granted, it may

> take longer - I don't know. However, there is ONE advantage (to the cloning

> backup approach), in that you have a bootable clone disk right there at your

> fingertips, IF the need arises - like a hardware disk failure of the source drive).

How is the user going to get that external USB so called "bootable disk" to boot if

the OS itself won't boot? Are they going to boot with a type of recovery disk for

the backup application with hopes of USB support working?

>

>> You mentioned you use

>> ATI, check into Acronis Snap Deploy. Although I believe it would be an extra

>> cost at the moment, in the long run it could/would be a godsend to some. Ooops,

>> sorry, they now call it Snap Restore:

>> http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/tour/6/

>>

>>>

>>> Heck, I *know* I can do that - by booting up on a floppy in BootitNG (BING),

>>> which does a low level, partition copy, between two disks of any size (but

>>> NOT in windows). So is that an image copy or a clone copy? Somewhat

>>> ambiguous. What is NOT ambiguous is that it does a disk partition copy

>>> operation.

>>

>> From what I've read by others BING creates an "Image", not a clone, in the

>> way you mention. As I mentioned before, a clone is a sector x sector/byte x

>> byte transfer from one disk to another without compression, I did however

>> fail to mention about the compression. An image is created where the user

>> chooses to place it and it is compressed.

>

> I think the terms are still a bit confusing here, but to clarify, what BING does do

> is a *partition to partition* copy. There is no ambiguity of terms at this level.

> (And there is no compression). It's just a fundamental, sector-to-sector, copy of

> any partition you choose. (If you want to copy two partitions, you'll have to run

> it a second time for the second one, and so on). And of course, when you are in

> BING, you can't see anything (except at the sector level) - files, per se, are not

> defined at this level.

>

I'll take your word on that sincer I don't and never have used BING to create a

backup.

>>>>

>>>> Although not scientifically exact in a manner of my wording, an "Image" is

>>>> an exact copy of all data ("information") on the disk(s) platters that are

>>>> selected to be cloned is written to the "recipient" disks platters.

>>>> Depending on the app used, *this has been a debate drudgery", the "Image is

>>>> a compressed Sector x Sector, Byte x Byte replica including the MBR//MFT of

>>>> the "Donor" disk.. Think of an "Image" being like that of a Zip file.

>>>

>>> (But (in some cases) still accessible, in that the files inside can be

>>> accessed, as I mentioned before). But yeah, in a sense it is like a zip file.

>>

>> The files of a cloned disk can be accessed at the point it is connected and

>> the OS is up and running, whether it be connected as a Master or Slave drive.

>> An image can only be accessed via the software which created it unless it's

>> not proprietory.

>

> Yup. The True Image disk image is indeed accessible (to a limited extent) in

> Windows Explorer, but only through a low level running background service provided

> by True Image. I say to a limited extent, because while you can copy from it,

> you can't copy to it (which seems expectable).

>

I'd have to look into that for ATI, yet I know Ghost, at least 2003 and ver. 9 can

do exactly that.

--

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience }

Conflicts start where information lacks.

http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

March 23, 2008

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

"Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote:

>> Actually, someone may WANT to do that, if the cloned backup drive is in an USB

>> external enclosure (it can be a pain to swap it out!), and all they have is a

>> cloned backup (because they didn't use imaging for their backups, in other words)

>>

>

> I wish anyone that chooses to do so good luck, it's still senseless IMO to use a

>clone as a restore disk in that manner.

In most cases it is *senseless* to clone to an external USB drive.

Imagine cloning an internal 80 gig drive that maybe has 60 gigs used

to a 250 gig external USB drive so that you can use that clone as a

backup.

That 250 gig drive is now sitting there with 190 gigs unusable for

other purposes.

March 23, 2008

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

Daave wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>

>> I had thought Anna had said it could *also* do imaging operations,

>> too (as another option).

>

> On the contrary, Anna said the exact opposite!

>

> "The Casper 4 program does not have disk-imaging

> capability; rather it is strictly a disk-cloning type of program."

>

> From:

> news:elt4bK6iIHA.4868@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl

>

> Perhaps your confusion stems from Anna's statement that a user could

> re-clone the cloned drive. IMO, if one is going to do that, one might as

> well make an image of the hard drive (which Casper can't do) and simply

> restore the image. Cloning is best used (IMO) to make an identical twin

> HDD, which can be easily *physically* swapped if the need ever arises.

>

> I suppose for people only interested in making clones, Casper would be

> preferable since it has the ability to clone incrementally. That is, say

> you clone your drive every day and not much has happened in the last

> twenty-four hours. When you use Casper to clone the drive today, it

> won't take that long since you won't be cloning from scratch if you use

> the incremental mode.

>

> Still, for my money, I'm most interested in preserving data, so imaging

> makes more sense. And if my PC's hard drive ever craps out, it's no big

> deal. I'll purchase another drive and I can still restore the old

> drive's image onto it.

>

> For those who want the ability to *both* clone and image, ATI fits the

> bill. The only advantage Casper's cloning has over ATI is the ability to

> clone incrementally. So, if cloning is *all* you're interested in, I

> guess it makes sense to go with Casper. Otherwise, I believe it's wasted

> money.

But this is the point that still seems to be missed here (IMHO): Yes, on

the surface it normally doesn't seem to make much sense to clone the source

drive to the backup and then reverse the operation (like when some software

installation has screwed up the source drive) - EXCEPT that Casper may have

a significant total time advantage, in that instead of making those daily,

complete images (like in TI) to overwrite the previous day's complete image,

it has this fast Smart Clone operation, which might only take a minute each

day to incorporate all the daily changes made on the source drive for that

day's work.

So, if one religiously makes these "smart clone" backups every day, it takes

very little time; and when and if one wants to "restore" the source drive

(due to some software mal-installation problem on it), one CAN simply clone

the backup clone back to the source drive. (And I'm assuming that

operation takes about as long as doing a image restore operation in True

Image).

The total time invested for doing all this might well be less than using

True Image each day to completely overwrite the previous day's image (and

then later restore it back).

And trying to use TI's "Incremental" feature seems a pain, as you have to

keep track (and use) ALL of the increments accumulated when the time comes

due - a real PIA, I think.

March 23, 2008

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

Brian A. wrote:

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

> news:%2324SwlLjIHA.4076@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>

>>>> No, what I said above was that one *could* choose to do this, if one

>>>> wanted

>>>> to. NOT that one normally makes a clone TO do this!! BUT it IS an

>>>> option IF one so chooses, or at least it can be, right? Well, more

>>>> on

>>>> that below..

>>>

>>> Before getting to the below, Yes, one could use a Cloned disk to Clone

>>> another disk, yet I don't see any reason to do that to a failed disk.

>>

>> Failed disk? No, not to a failed disk, but to a good backup HD, which

>> could then be "restored" to the source drive (note: I am *not* talking

>> about hardware disk failures here, just restoration for software

>> failures).

>

> As I mentioned previously, disk failure can be caused by any number of

> reasons, that would include software corruption. Perhaps I should have

> used:

> a disk that fails to properly boot the system which could be caused by any

> number of reasons. I still see no purpose, reason or otherwise to create

> a

> clone disk as a restore disk, that's what images are for, not clones,

> especially if the clone is an external USB drive. IMO external USB drives

> are problematic at best as backup media when it comes to crunch time in

> get a

> system back up and running.

Yes, *normally* clones are used just for the purpose you said. BUT (see

below)

Let me repeat what I just said in response to Daave, and see if makes more

sense: