Jump to content

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

Guest Bill in Co.

By Guest Bill in Co.
in Windows XP

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Brian A.

Guest Brian A.

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

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

news:%23k43ICZjIHA.4076@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>

> I'd like to add a comment here.

> Yes, but OTOH, the Smart Cloning to keep the backup up-to-date only takes a

> short amount of time, and would be very easy to do (unlike the Incrementals

> that need to be kept track of in True Image, if you go that incremental

> route), so there could be a significant *overall* time savings.

>

 

I am truly miffed as to why you continually think anyone needs to keep track

of backup/image increments. They are created in the same disk/partition that

the related image was created, and as I stated previously you can set the total

amount of increments allowed per each backup/image.

 

 

 

--

 

 

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

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest PD43

Guest PD43

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

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

> I am truly miffed as to why you continually think anyone needs to keep track

>of backup/image increments. They are created in the same disk/partition that

>the related image was created, and as I stated previously you can set the total

>amount of increments allowed per each backup/image.

 

Not to mention that all backups can be scheduled to go during a time

when you're not using the computer so there's really no time factor to

be concerned about.

 

Billy doesn't like to be wrong.

Guest Daave

Guest Daave

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Brian A. wrote:

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

> news:%23k43ICZjIHA.4076@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>

>> I'd like to add a comment here.

>> Yes, but OTOH, the Smart Cloning to keep the backup up-to-date only

>> takes a short amount of time, and would be very easy to do (unlike

>> the Incrementals that need to be kept track of in True Image, if you

>> go that incremental route), so there could be a significant

>> *overall* time savings.

>>

>

> I am truly miffed as to why you continually think anyone needs to

> keep track of backup/image increments. They are created in the same

> disk/partition that the related image was created, and as I stated

> previously you can set the total amount of increments allowed per

> each backup/image.

 

This is important.

 

If Bill says that "keeping track" of the increments is a "pain in the

ass," then I can understand why the incremental cloning process would

seem attractive to him.

 

But still, I really can't see why he thinks this way in the first place,

either.

Guest Daave

Guest Daave

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

> Daave wrote:

>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>

>>> and perhaps even consider giving Casper a try (except for the

>>> potential low level conflict problem I've already covered here).

>>

>> As long as you're not running these programs simultaneouly, I'm

>> pretty sure there won't be any conflict.

>

> Nope, that's not it. See, both programs will have low-level, in the

> background, disk access concurrently running tasks to continuously

> monitor and access the drives, and a PC Magazine article cautioned

> against such potential conflicts (but not singling out any particular

> cloning or imagining program) - all of which makes sense. That

> doesn't necessarily mean there will (for a certainty) be conflicts,

> but it does seem likely.

 

Then all you need to do is disable any background processes.

 

Or simply uninstall. You can always reinstall. Or for that matter,

restore an image, which will have the same efeect.

Guest PD43

Guest PD43

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

"Daave" <dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote:

>But still, I really can't see why he thinks this way in the first place,

>either.

 

He hasn't been here long, but it's apparent to me in that short bit of

time that once he fixes on a particular idea, it's hard to get him off

of it - even if he's wrong.

Guest Anna

Guest Anna

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

 

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

news:u6w4EXWjIHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

(SNIP)

> N.B: I'm not trying to push Casper here, I'm trying to somewhat

> objectively note some of the advantages and disadvantages of each program

> for backup purposes, and perhaps even consider giving Casper a try (except

> for the potential low level conflict problem I've already covered here).

>

> I'm already using Acronis True Image 11 like many here for backups, and it

> works great, with the possible exception of the time it takes to overwrite

> a complete image typically each day. I typically make new (full) images

> each day, IF I have made some significant changes on the drive.

 

 

Bill:

First of all, let me make it clear (as I have tried to do throughout all

these "ATI vs. Casper 4" posts that if you, or any other user is completely

satisfied with ATI in that you believe it meets your day-to-day needs in

terms of establishing & maintaining a comprehensive routine backup system -

fine. I've no problem with that. While I believe that Casper 4 is a superior

program for the reasons I've detailed a number of times in my previous posts

I can understand a satisfied ATI user's reluctance to change to another

similar type of program. But I would encourage you and others (as I have

tried to do) to at least work with the trial version of the Casper 4 program

over a period of time and determine if that program might even better serve

your needs.

 

But all-in-all my comments re the Casper 4 program are primarily directed to

users who are casting about for a comprehensive backup program. I've always

encouraged users to try out various programs to determine what's best for

their particular needs. Especially so if 'trial" versions of the programs

are available.

 

Now that I've gotten the above out-of-the-way...the real reason for this

post.

 

In your first paragraph you again mention that you would "consider giving

Casper a try except for the potential low level conflict problem I've

already covered here". I do recall your mentioning this "low level conflict

problem" in one or more of your previous posts. But I'm not clear on what

this "potential problem" is? Would you be good enough to explain this

"potential low level problem"?

Anna

 

P.S.

As I was about to send this I came across some later posts of yours re your

exchange of views with Daave, to wit...

>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> and perhaps even consider giving Casper a try (except for the

>> potential low level conflict problem I've already covered here).

 

Daave wrote:

> As long as you're not running these programs simultaneouly, I'm pretty

> sure there won't be any conflict.

 

Bill wrote...

"Nope, that's not it. See, both programs will have low-level, in the

background, disk access concurrently running tasks to continuously monitor

and access the drives, and a PC Magazine article cautioned against such

potential conflicts (but not singling out any particular cloning or

imagining program) - all of which makes sense. That doesn't necessarily

mean there will (for a certainty) be conflicts, but it does seem likely."

 

Bill:

First of all, it is *always* recommended by virtually every commentator that

prior to the disk-cloning (or for that matter, disk-imaging) operation, all

open programs be closed. I would guess we would all consider that a sensible

precaution, would we not?

 

Now as far as "low-level background disk access concurrently running tasks

(that) continuously monitor and access the drives" and might cause

"potential conflicts" in the disk-cloning process...

 

All I can tell you is that after undertaking or participating in about a

thousand or so of disk-cloning operations involving the Casper 4 program, we

have never run into a single instance where "low-level background access"

caused a problem of any sort. Frankly, I can't recall any instances of that

"problem" arising even during disk-cloning operations involving the Symantec

Ghost 2003 or Acronis True Image programs that we previously extensively

used.

Anna

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

PD43 wrote:

> "Daave" <dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote:

>

>> But still, I really can't see why he thinks this way in the first place,

>> either.

>

> He hasn't been here long, but it's apparent to me in that short bit of

> time that once he fixes on a particular idea, it's hard to get him off

> of it - even if he's wrong.

 

Pot, kettle. (just FYI)

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Daave wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> Daave wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>

>>>> and perhaps even consider giving Casper a try (except for the

>>>> potential low level conflict problem I've already covered here).

>>>

>>> As long as you're not running these programs simultaneouly, I'm

>>> pretty sure there won't be any conflict.

>>

>> Nope, that's not it. See, both programs will have low-level, in the

>> background, disk access concurrently running tasks to continuously

>> monitor and access the drives, and a PC Magazine article cautioned

>> against such potential conflicts (but not singling out any particular

>> cloning or imagining program) - all of which makes sense. That

>> doesn't necessarily mean there will (for a certainty) be conflicts,

>> but it does seem likely.

>

> Then all you need to do is disable any background processes.

>

> Or simply uninstall. You can always reinstall. Or for that matter,

> restore an image, which will have the same efeect.

 

Yes, I am fully aware of all these options, but you have to admit, they are

a bit of a PIA. It would be interesting to see if anyone else has tried

having both installed together, but if I get a wee bit more motivated, I

will jump in and give it a try. :-)

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Brian A. wrote:

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

> news:%23k43ICZjIHA.4076@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>

>> I'd like to add a comment here.

>> Yes, but OTOH, the Smart Cloning to keep the backup up-to-date only takes

>> a

>> short amount of time, and would be very easy to do (unlike the

>> Incrementals

>> that need to be kept track of in True Image, if you go that incremental

>> route), so there could be a significant *overall* time savings.

>>

>

> I am truly miffed as to why you continually think anyone needs to keep

> track

> of backup/image increments. They are created in the same disk/partition

> that

> the related image was created, and as I stated previously you can set the

> total amount of increments allowed per each backup/image.

 

Well Brian, I haven't used the incremental feature yet, just preferring the

more fundamental full approach. So maybe it's not such a big deal - I

don't know.

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Daave wrote:

> Brian A. wrote:

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

>> news:%23k43ICZjIHA.4076@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>

>>> I'd like to add a comment here.

>>> Yes, but OTOH, the Smart Cloning to keep the backup up-to-date only

>>> takes a short amount of time, and would be very easy to do (unlike

>>> the Incrementals that need to be kept track of in True Image, if you

>>> go that incremental route), so there could be a significant

>>> *overall* time savings.

>>>

>>

>> I am truly miffed as to why you continually think anyone needs to

>> keep track of backup/image increments. They are created in the same

>> disk/partition that the related image was created, and as I stated

>> previously you can set the total amount of increments allowed per

>> each backup/image.

>

> This is important.

>

> If Bill says that "keeping track" of the increments is a "pain in the

> ass," then I can understand why the incremental cloning process would

> seem attractive to him.

>

> But still, I really can't see why he thinks this way in the first place,

> either.

 

As I said to Brian, I haven't tried using the incremental approach yet,

feeling a bit more comfortable going the full route (for the C: partition,

and the other two hidden Dell utility partitions). Yeah, I know, why not

try it. :-)

Guest PD43

Guest PD43

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

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

>Well Brian, I haven't used the incremental feature yet, just preferring the

>more fundamental full approach. So maybe it's not such a big deal - I

>don't know.

 

Don't bash a program until you've tried all the options.

Guest PD43

Guest PD43

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

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

>> He hasn't been here long, but it's apparent to me in that short bit of

>> time that once he fixes on a particular idea, it's hard to get him off

>> of it - even if he's wrong.

>

>Pot, kettle. (just FYI)

 

In the case where you and I have "gone at it", you are both the pot

AND the kettle.

 

You don't like being told you're wrong, and when you are asked to

support your position, you resort to ad-hominem replies or completely

irrelevant replies.

 

This is that last I will post on this subject.

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

OK, let me cut to the chase on this one, and try to streamline this response

a bit:

 

Are you saying you actually have installed Ghost, True Image, AND Casper (or

at least two of the above) on some computers (that is, all programs

*together*), and have never run into these potential low-level disk

access/monitoring conflicts (and yes, of course, assuming the user isn't

trying to run them simulataneously!)?

 

The thing here is that these programs must be continously monitoring the

hard drives and need fast access to them (and you can see their running

tasks in task manager, even though the user is not running the program), and

if they both request access at the same time, there may be a race condition,

and potential lockup.

 

And I think that was what the PC Magazine article cautioning against

installing some of these programs together (note: regardless of their not

being "run", per se, by the user, simultaneously), was saying. Perhaps he

was being a bit too conservative.

 

 

Anna wrote:

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

> news:u6w4EXWjIHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> (SNIP)

>> N.B: I'm not trying to push Casper here, I'm trying to somewhat

>> objectively note some of the advantages and disadvantages of each program

>> for backup purposes, and perhaps even consider giving Casper a try

>> (except

>> for the potential low level conflict problem I've already covered here).

>>

>> I'm already using Acronis True Image 11 like many here for backups, and

>> it

>> works great, with the possible exception of the time it takes to

>> overwrite

>> a complete image typically each day. I typically make new (full)

>> images

>> each day, IF I have made some significant changes on the drive.

>

>

> Bill:

> First of all, let me make it clear (as I have tried to do throughout all

> these "ATI vs. Casper 4" posts that if you, or any other user is

> completely

> satisfied with ATI in that you believe it meets your day-to-day needs in

> terms of establishing & maintaining a comprehensive routine backup

> system -

> fine. I've no problem with that. While I believe that Casper 4 is a

> superior

> program for the reasons I've detailed a number of times in my previous

> posts

> I can understand a satisfied ATI user's reluctance to change to another

> similar type of program. But I would encourage you and others (as I have

> tried to do) to at least work with the trial version of the Casper 4

> program

> over a period of time and determine if that program might even better

> serve

> your needs.

>

> But all-in-all my comments re the Casper 4 program are primarily directed

> to

> users who are casting about for a comprehensive backup program. I've

> always

> encouraged users to try out various programs to determine what's best for

> their particular needs. Especially so if 'trial" versions of the programs

> are available.

>

> Now that I've gotten the above out-of-the-way...the real reason for this

> post.

>

> In your first paragraph you again mention that you would "consider giving

> Casper a try except for the potential low level conflict problem I've

> already covered here". I do recall your mentioning this "low level

> conflict

> problem" in one or more of your previous posts. But I'm not clear on what

> this "potential problem" is? Would you be good enough to explain this

> "potential low level problem"?

> Anna

>

> P.S.

> As I was about to send this I came across some later posts of yours re

> your

> exchange of views with Daave, to wit...

>

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>> and perhaps even consider giving Casper a try (except for the

>>> potential low level conflict problem I've already covered here).

>

> Daave wrote:

>> As long as you're not running these programs simultaneouly, I'm pretty

>> sure there won't be any conflict.

>

> Bill wrote...

> "Nope, that's not it. See, both programs will have low-level, in the

> background, disk access concurrently running tasks to continuously monitor

> and access the drives, and a PC Magazine article cautioned against such

> potential conflicts (but not singling out any particular cloning or

> imagining program) - all of which makes sense. That doesn't necessarily

> mean there will (for a certainty) be conflicts, but it does seem likely."

>

> Bill:

> First of all, it is *always* recommended by virtually every commentator

> that

> prior to the disk-cloning (or for that matter, disk-imaging) operation,

> all

> open programs be closed. I would guess we would all consider that a

> sensible

> precaution, would we not?

>

> Now as far as "low-level background disk access concurrently running tasks

> (that) continuously monitor and access the drives" and might cause

> "potential conflicts" in the disk-cloning process...

>

> All I can tell you is that after undertaking or participating in about a

> thousand or so of disk-cloning operations involving the Casper 4 program,

> we

> have never run into a single instance where "low-level background access"

> caused a problem of any sort. Frankly, I can't recall any instances of

> that

> "problem" arising even during disk-cloning operations involving the

> Symantec

> Ghost 2003 or Acronis True Image programs that we previously extensively

> used.

> Anna

Guest Brian A.

Guest Brian A.

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

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

news:O%23$O7SfjIHA.4908@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Daave wrote:

>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>> Daave wrote:

>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> and perhaps even consider giving Casper a try (except for the

>>>>> potential low level conflict problem I've already covered here).

>>>>

>>>> As long as you're not running these programs simultaneouly, I'm

>>>> pretty sure there won't be any conflict.

>>>

>>> Nope, that's not it. See, both programs will have low-level, in the

>>> background, disk access concurrently running tasks to continuously

>>> monitor and access the drives, and a PC Magazine article cautioned

>>> against such potential conflicts (but not singling out any particular

>>> cloning or imagining program) - all of which makes sense. That

>>> doesn't necessarily mean there will (for a certainty) be conflicts,

>>> but it does seem likely.

>>

>> Then all you need to do is disable any background processes.

>>

>> Or simply uninstall. You can always reinstall. Or for that matter,

>> restore an image, which will have the same efeect.

>

> Yes, I am fully aware of all these options, but you have to admit, they are a

> bit of a PIA. It would be interesting to see if anyone else has tried

> having both installed together, but if I get a wee bit more motivated, I will

> jump in and give it a try. :-)

>

 

If I had a disk that needed cloning I'd give it a shot, although it would be

internal in the same box or over a network, I don't and never have used an

external enclosure that houses only one disk. Perhaps I can test it in a VPC

where I have Acronis Echo as well, that's if Casper supports Virtual.

 

 

--

 

 

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

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

PD43 wrote:

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

>

>>> He hasn't been here long, but it's apparent to me in that short bit of

>>> time that once he fixes on a particular idea, it's hard to get him off

>>> of it - even if he's wrong.

>>

>> Pot, kettle. (just FYI)

>

> In the case where you and I have "gone at it", you are both the pot

> AND the kettle.

>

> You don't like being told you're wrong, and when you are asked to

> support your position, you resort to ad-hominem replies or completely

> irrelevant replies.

>

> This is that last I will post on this subject.

 

Good. Just remember what I told you about projection, and we'll be all

set.

Guest PD43

Guest PD43

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

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

>The thing here is that these programs must be continously monitoring the

>hard drives and need fast access to them (and you can see their running

>tasks in task manager, even though the user is not running the program), and

>if they both request access at the same time, there may be a race condition,

>and potential lockup.

 

NOT if you start a backup using only one of them at a time.

 

Just a common sense answer IMNSHO.

 

I also think it's the correct answer - also IMNSHO.

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Brian A. wrote:

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

> news:O%23$O7SfjIHA.4908@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> Daave wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>> Daave wrote:

>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> and perhaps even consider giving Casper a try (except for the

>>>>>> potential low level conflict problem I've already covered here).

>>>>>

>>>>> As long as you're not running these programs simultaneouly, I'm

>>>>> pretty sure there won't be any conflict.

>>>>

>>>> Nope, that's not it. See, both programs will have low-level, in the

>>>> background, disk access concurrently running tasks to continuously

>>>> monitor and access the drives, and a PC Magazine article cautioned

>>>> against such potential conflicts (but not singling out any particular

>>>> cloning or imagining program) - all of which makes sense. That

>>>> doesn't necessarily mean there will (for a certainty) be conflicts,

>>>> but it does seem likely.

>>>

>>> Then all you need to do is disable any background processes.

>>>

>>> Or simply uninstall. You can always reinstall. Or for that matter,

>>> restore an image, which will have the same efeect.

>>

>> Yes, I am fully aware of all these options, but you have to admit, they

>> are a

>> bit of a PIA. It would be interesting to see if anyone else has tried

>> having both installed together, but if I get a wee bit more motivated, I

>> will

>> jump in and give it a try. :-)

>

> If I had a disk that needed cloning I'd give it a shot, although it would

> be

> internal in the same box or over a network, I don't and never have used an

> external enclosure that houses only one disk. Perhaps I can test it in a

> VPC

> where I have Acronis Echo as well, that's if Casper supports Virtual.

 

I think the best backup for one's source hard drive IS an external USB hard

drive enclosure, since it's only powered on when you make the backup - so

its life is very long, as it hardly gets much use at all (as in contrast

with an internal drive).

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

PD43 wrote:

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

>

>> The thing here is that these programs must be continously monitoring the

>> hard drives and need fast access to them (and you can see their running

>> tasks in task manager, even though the user is not running the program),

>> and

>> if they both request access at the same time, there may be a race

>> condition,

>> and potential lockup.

>

> NOT if you start a backup using only one of them at a time.

>

> Just a common sense answer IMNSHO.

 

Nope, you're wrong, because you have made some erroneous *assumptions*.

Guest Anna

Guest Anna

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

>> Anna wrote:

>> Bill wrote...

>> "Nope, that's not it. See, both programs will have low-level, in the

>> background, disk access concurrently running tasks to continuously

>> monitor

>> and access the drives, and a PC Magazine article cautioned against such

>> potential conflicts (but not singling out any particular cloning or

>> imagining program) - all of which makes sense. That doesn't

>> necessarily

>> mean there will (for a certainty) be conflicts, but it does seem likely."

>>

>> Bill:

>> First of all, it is *always* recommended by virtually every commentator

>> that prior to the disk-cloning (or for that matter, disk-imaging)

>> operation, all open programs be closed. I would guess we would all

>> consider that a sensible precaution, would we not?

>>

>> Now as far as "low-level background disk access concurrently running

>> tasks

>> (that) continuously monitor and access the drives" and might cause

>> "potential conflicts" in the disk-cloning process...

>>

>> All I can tell you is that after undertaking or participating in about a

>> thousand or so of disk-cloning operations involving the Casper 4 program,

>> we have never run into a single instance where "low-level background

>> access"

>> caused a problem of any sort. Frankly, I can't recall any instances of

>> that "problem" arising even during disk-cloning operations involving the

>> Symantec Ghost 2003 or Acronis True Image programs that we previously

>> extensively

>> used.

>> Anna

 

 

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

news:O6tvjbfjIHA.5412@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> OK, let me cut to the chase on this one, and try to streamline this

> response a bit:

>

> Are you saying you actually have installed Ghost, True Image, AND Casper

> (or at least two of the above) on some computers (that is, all programs

> *together*), and have never run into these potential low-level disk

> access/monitoring conflicts (and yes, of course, assuming the user isn't

> trying to run them simulataneously!)?

>

> The thing here is that these programs must be continously monitoring the

> hard drives and need fast access to them (and you can see their running

> tasks in task manager, even though the user is not running the program),

> and if they both request access at the same time, there may be a race

> condition, and potential lockup.

>

> And I think that was what the PC Magazine article cautioning against

> installing some of these programs together (note: regardless of their not

> being "run", per se, by the user, simultaneously), was saying. Perhaps

> he was being a bit too conservative.

 

 

Bill:

I'm just about "burned-out" re this thread but let me give it one more shot

and then be done with it, OK?

 

While there have been many occasions where we've had more than one

disk-cloning program installed on a single HDD (primarily for testing

purposes or because of simple laziness in failing to uninstall the

now-unused program), is it not obvious that only ONE program would be used

at any given time to undertake the disk-cloning process? So how could there

be some sort of conflict arising in that kind of situation?

 

Where in the world did you get the idea that "these programs must be

continuously monitoring the hard drives ..."? One implements the program

when one desires to use the program to perform what it's supposed to do - in

this case to perform a disk-cloning operation. Period.

 

I would assume that if the PC Magazine article referred to these "conflicts"

they were referring to some copying-types of programs that run in the

background and might cause some conflicts should they be different programs

all running simultaneously. In any event there's no problem along those

lines with the disk-cloning programs we've been discussing.

Anna

Guest PD43

Guest PD43

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

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

>PD43 wrote:

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

>>

>>> The thing here is that these programs must be continously monitoring the

>>> hard drives and need fast access to them (and you can see their running

>>> tasks in task manager, even though the user is not running the program),

>>> and

>>> if they both request access at the same time, there may be a race

>>> condition,

>>> and potential lockup.

>>

>> NOT if you start a backup using only one of them at a time.

>>

>> Just a common sense answer IMNSHO.

>

>Nope, you're wrong, because you have made some erroneous *assumptions*.

 

I'm really tired of your adolescent replies.

 

this is bye-bye

Guest Brian A.

Guest Brian A.

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

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

news:O6tvjbfjIHA.5412@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> OK, let me cut to the chase on this one, and try to streamline this response a

> bit:

>

> Are you saying you actually have installed Ghost, True Image, AND Casper (or

> at least two of the above) on some computers (that is, all programs

> *together*), and have never run into these potential low-level disk

> access/monitoring conflicts (and yes, of course, assuming the user isn't

> trying to run them simulataneously!)?

 

If you need someone to say they do, I will gladly fess up that I have both

Ghost v.9 and ATI Enterprise Server installed. They've been creating backups

over a network for over two years and I have never run into any problems. If a

disk on a machine failed to boot for any numerous purpose other than a dead

harddrive, toss in either a Ghost or ATI Recovery CD in the dead PCs DVD/CD

drive to gain access to the image file and restore the drive anywhere within 10

mins to an hour depending on the image size. And believe you-me, I've restored

drives with well over 200GB of data on them.

>

> The thing here is that these programs must be continously monitoring the hard

> drives and need fast access to them (and you can see their running tasks in

> task manager, even though the user is not running the program), and if they

> both request access at the same time, there may be a race condition, and

> potential lockup.

 

Now you're way off Bill. They run as a Service due to scheduled backups set

by the user, all they're doing is sitting and waiting for a command que to wake

them up to perform their task. While they sit and wait they may be using up

memory, yet they aren't doing anything else. If yours is continually on the job

monitoring other disks, there's something amiss and you need to find out what.

>

> And I think that was what the PC Magazine article cautioning against

> installing some of these programs together (note: regardless of their not

> being "run", per se, by the user, simultaneously), was saying. Perhaps he

> was being a bit too conservative.

>

>

 

 

 

--

 

 

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

Guest PD43

Guest PD43

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

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

>Where in the world did you get the idea that "these programs must be

>continuously monitoring the hard drives ..."? One implements the program

>when one desires to use the program to perform what it's supposed to do - in

>this case to perform a disk-cloning operation. Period.

 

Hear, hear.

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

PD43 wrote:

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

>

>> PD43 wrote:

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

>>>

>>>> The thing here is that these programs must be continously monitoring

>>>> the

>>>> hard drives and need fast access to them (and you can see their running

>>>> tasks in task manager, even though the user is not running the

>>>> program),

>>>> and

>>>> if they both request access at the same time, there may be a race

>>>> condition,

>>>> and potential lockup.

>>>

>>> NOT if you start a backup using only one of them at a time.

>>>

>>> Just a common sense answer IMNSHO.

>>

>> Nope, you're wrong, because you have made some erroneous *assumptions*.

>

> I'm really tired of your adolescent replies.

>

> this is bye-bye

 

Projection noted, once again.

Adios.

Guest PD43

Guest PD43

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

On Mar 24, 4:51 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net>

wrote:

> PD43 wrote:

>

> > NOT if you start a backup using only one of them at a time.

>

> > Just a common sense answer IMNSHO.

>

> Nope, you're wrong, because you have made some erroneous *assumptions*.

 

See Anna's reply to the same effect, bozo:

 

She wrote:

>Where in the world did you get the idea that "these programs must be

>continuously monitoring the hard drives ..."? One implements the program

>when one desires to use the program to perform what it's supposed to do - in

>this case to perform a disk-cloning operation. Period.

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

> I would assume that if the PC Magazine article referred to these

> "conflicts"

> they were referring to some copying-types of programs that run in the

> background and might cause some conflicts should they be different

> programs

> all running simultaneously

 

No, Anna. You're assumption is incorrect.

But we can let it rest there. Like you, I'm just about "burned-out" re

this thread. If I get around to it, I may give it a try. Right now I'm

still looking at (considering) a BIOS update and a couple of other things,

so that may keep me busy, too.

 

 

 

Anna wrote:

>>> Anna wrote:

>>> Bill wrote...

>>> "Nope, that's not it. See, both programs will have low-level, in the

>>> background, disk access concurrently running tasks to continuously

>>> monitor

>>> and access the drives, and a PC Magazine article cautioned against such

>>> potential conflicts (but not singling out any particular cloning or

>>> imagining program) - all of which makes sense. That doesn't

>>> necessarily

>>> mean there will (for a certainty) be conflicts, but it does seem

>>> likely."

>>>

>>> Bill:

>>> First of all, it is *always* recommended by virtually every commentator

>>> that prior to the disk-cloning (or for that matter, disk-imaging)

>>> operation, all open programs be closed. I would guess we would all

>>> consider that a sensible precaution, would we not?

>>>

>>> Now as far as "low-level background disk access concurrently running

>>> tasks (that) continuously monitor and access the drives" and might cause

>>> "potential conflicts" in the disk-cloning process...

>>>

>>> All I can tell you is that after undertaking or participating in about a

>>> thousand or so of disk-cloning operations involving the Casper 4

>>> program,

>>> we have never run into a single instance where "low-level background

>>> access"

>>> caused a problem of any sort. Frankly, I can't recall any instances of

>>> that "problem" arising even during disk-cloning operations involving the

>>> Symantec Ghost 2003 or Acronis True Image programs that we previously

>>> extensively used.

>>> Anna

>

>

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

> news:O6tvjbfjIHA.5412@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> OK, let me cut to the chase on this one, and try to streamline this

>> response a bit:

>>

>> Are you saying you actually have installed Ghost, True Image, AND Casper

>> (or at least two of the above) on some computers (that is, all programs

>> *together*), and have never run into these potential low-level disk

>> access/monitoring conflicts (and yes, of course, assuming the user isn't

>> trying to run them simulataneously!)?

>>

>> The thing here is that these programs must be continously monitoring the

>> hard drives and need fast access to them (and you can see their running

>> tasks in task manager, even though the user is not running the program),

>> and if they both request access at the same time, there may be a race

>> condition, and potential lockup.

>>

>> And I think that was what the PC Magazine article cautioning against

>> installing some of these programs together (note: regardless of their not

>> being "run", per se, by the user, simultaneously), was saying. Perhaps

>> he was being a bit too conservative.

>

>

> Bill:

> I'm just about "burned-out" re this thread but let me give it one more

> shot

> and then be done with it, OK?

>

> While there have been many occasions where we've had more than one

> disk-cloning program installed on a single HDD (primarily for testing

> purposes or because of simple laziness in failing to uninstall the

> now-unused program), is it not obvious that only ONE program would be used

> at any given time to undertake the disk-cloning process? So how could

> there

> be some sort of conflict arising in that kind of situation?

>

> Where in the world did you get the idea that "these programs must be

> continuously monitoring the hard drives ..."? One implements the program

> when one desires to use the program to perform what it's supposed to do -

> in

> this case to perform a disk-cloning operation. Period.

>

> I would assume that if the PC Magazine article referred to these

> "conflicts"

> they were referring to some copying-types of programs that run in the

> background and might cause some conflicts should they be different

> programs

> all running simultaneously. In any event there's no problem along those

> lines with the disk-cloning programs we've been discussing.

> Anna

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