Backup/Restore suggestions for XP, and Vista

[Guest Tuttle]

Re: Backup/Restore suggestions for XP, and Vista

 

"Anonymous" <com@com.com> wrote in message

news:5q1Xj.3224$ah4.2192@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...

>

> "Tuttle" <nospamhere@notarealaddressnospam.gs> wrote in message

> news:OcOY39rtIHA.5500@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: "Anonymous" <com@com.com>

> > Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

> > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:35 PM

> > Subject: Re: Backup/Restore suggestions for XP, and Vista

> >

> >

> >>

> >> "dadiOH" <dadiOH@invalid.com> wrote in message

> >> news:Ot2vzSntIHA.5268@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> >> > Anonymous wrote:

> >> >> Any suggestions for "complete" backup/restore SW for XP

> >> >> Pro? And that can be eventually migrated to Vista?

> >> >>

> >> >> I need "complete" backup/restore for data retention, image

> >> >> recovery, boot restore, (int)(ext)ernal large HD, and (E)-

> >> >> SATA support.

> >> >>

> >> >> The obvious answers, Acronis and Ghost, seem not to have

> >> >> unanimously glowing feedback on Amazon.

> >> >>

> >> >> Or, are the feedback just flawed?

> >

> > All backup software will have some negative feedback, imaging software

> > even

> > moreso.

> >

> > I've used several tools over the years. My current favourite is Acronis

> > True

> > Image Home.

> >

> > Acronis True Image Home can do a complete image of your drive, so in the

> > event of a drive failure you just install a replacement drive and

restore

> > your recent image to the new drive. Everything will be exactly as you

left

> > it before the old drive failed: Windows (or whatever OS you use), all

> > applications, all your settings and config, all your data.

> >

> > Or, you can use Acronis True Image Home to backup just your documents

and

> > settings, or just specific files, or whatever you want. You can schedule

> > automated backups, can do full, incremental and differential backups,

etc.

> > It's a great tool that has saved me a few times.

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

> I've had similar replies, including the suggestion to use the

> Acronis Workstation version, rather than Home.

>

> Like you, my years of Ntbackup usage have been quite

> positive, meeting all my needs for a backup.

>

> However, although Ntbackup will easily protect against

> accidental loss, it is either unable, or quite cumbersome

> at providing recovery, or bare metal restore.

>

> I have to admit that the backup product from CMS looks

> quite attractive though. Because I like the idea of simply

> rebooting the backup image for a quick recovery. Watch

> this video:

> http://www.cmsproducts.com/video/desktop_backup.html

>

> Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with E/SATA, and support

> would require my upgrade. But, I'd get the functionality

> described, in addition to the significantly higher speeds.

>

> One of the Amazon reviewers complaints on Acronis TI

> Home was that E/SATA was not currently supported. I

> guess I would've thought a backup product would simply

> rely on the OS for peripheral access.

>

> I'm currently investigating this "boot from backup" on an

> external drive issue. What it takes? (E/SATA, Firewire,

> etc?), and what I've have to upgrade. But, I like the idea.

>

> Not only is it easier, but simple testing of a crash recovery

> requires no intermediate restore. Much less exposure to

> error.

>

> Additionally, because the backup image is stored in native

> format(non-composite), even lost file restores are easier.

> And FAT limitations are avoided for users of that archi-

> tecture.

 

As far as I know, Acronis True image supports SATA drives. In fact I have a

SATA drive in my new external USB drive.

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Backup/Restore suggestions for XP, and Vista

 

Tuttle wrote:

> "Anonymous" <com@com.com> wrote in message

> news:5q1Xj.3224$ah4.2192@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...

>>

>> "Tuttle" <nospamhere@notarealaddressnospam.gs> wrote in message

>> news:OcOY39rtIHA.5500@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>> ----- Original Message -----

>>> From: "Anonymous" <com@com.com>

>>> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

>>> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:35 PM

>>> Subject: Re: Backup/Restore suggestions for XP, and Vista

>>>

>>>

>>>>

>>>> "dadiOH" <dadiOH@invalid.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:Ot2vzSntIHA.5268@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>> Anonymous wrote:

>>>>>> Any suggestions for "complete" backup/restore SW for XP

>>>>>> Pro? And that can be eventually migrated to Vista?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I need "complete" backup/restore for data retention, image

>>>>>> recovery, boot restore, (int)(ext)ernal large HD, and (E)-

>>>>>> SATA support.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> The obvious answers, Acronis and Ghost, seem not to have

>>>>>> unanimously glowing feedback on Amazon.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Or, are the feedback just flawed?

>>>

>>> All backup software will have some negative feedback, imaging software

>>> even

>>> moreso.

>>>

>>> I've used several tools over the years. My current favourite is Acronis

>>> True

>>> Image Home.

>>>

>>> Acronis True Image Home can do a complete image of your drive, so in the

>>> event of a drive failure you just install a replacement drive and

>>> restore

>>> your recent image to the new drive. Everything will be exactly as you

>>> left

>>> it before the old drive failed: Windows (or whatever OS you use), all

>>> applications, all your settings and config, all your data.

>>>

>>> Or, you can use Acronis True Image Home to backup just your documents

>>> and

>>> settings, or just specific files, or whatever you want. You can schedule

>>> automated backups, can do full, incremental and differential backups,

>>> etc.

>>> It's a great tool that has saved me a few times.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

>>

>>

>> I've had similar replies, including the suggestion to use the

>> Acronis Workstation version, rather than Home.

>>

>> Like you, my years of Ntbackup usage have been quite

>> positive, meeting all my needs for a backup.

>>

>> However, although Ntbackup will easily protect against

>> accidental loss, it is either unable, or quite cumbersome

>> at providing recovery, or bare metal restore.

>>

>> I have to admit that the backup product from CMS looks

>> quite attractive though. Because I like the idea of simply

>> rebooting the backup image for a quick recovery. Watch

>> this video:

>> http://www.cmsproducts.com/video/desktop_backup.html

>>

>> Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with E/SATA, and support

>> would require my upgrade. But, I'd get the functionality

>> described, in addition to the significantly higher speeds.

>>

>> One of the Amazon reviewers complaints on Acronis TI

>> Home was that E/SATA was not currently supported. I

>> guess I would've thought a backup product would simply

>> rely on the OS for peripheral access.

>>

>> I'm currently investigating this "boot from backup" on an

>> external drive issue. What it takes? (E/SATA, Firewire,

>> etc?), and what I've have to upgrade. But, I like the idea.

>>

>> Not only is it easier, but simple testing of a crash recovery

>> requires no intermediate restore. Much less exposure to

>> error.

>>

>> Additionally, because the backup image is stored in native

>> format(non-composite), even lost file restores are easier.

>> And FAT limitations are avoided for users of that archi-

>> tecture.

>

> As far as I know, Acronis True image supports SATA drives. In fact I have

> a

> SATA drive in my new external USB drive.

 

And I'm using TI to backup my internal SATA system drive, to an external USB

enclosure (with an older PATA drive inside) without problems. But as Anna

has said, the newer, all SATA approach, is preferable, but not a necessity

(for just backing up via imaging, at least).

[Guest Anna]

Re: Backup/Restore suggestions for XP, and Vista

 

>>> "Anonymous" <com@com.com> wrote in message

>>> news:5q1Xj.3224$ah4.2192@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...

>>>> I've had similar replies, including the suggestion to use the

>>>> Acronis Workstation version, rather than Home.

>>>>

>>>> Like you, my years of Ntbackup usage have been quite

>>>> positive, meeting all my needs for a backup.

>>>>

>>>> However, although Ntbackup will easily protect against

>>>> accidental loss, it is either unable, or quite cumbersome

>>>> at providing recovery, or bare metal restore.

>>>>

>>>> I have to admit that the backup product from CMS looks

>>>> quite attractive though. Because I like the idea of simply

>>>> rebooting the backup image for a quick recovery. Watch

>>>> this video:

>>>> http://www.cmsproducts.com/video/desktop_backup.html

>>>>

>>>> Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with E/SATA, and support

>>>> would require my upgrade. But, I'd get the functionality

>>>> described, in addition to the significantly higher speeds.

>>>>

>>>> One of the Amazon reviewers complaints on Acronis TI

>>>> Home was that E/SATA was not currently supported. I

>>>> guess I would've thought a backup product would simply

>>>> rely on the OS for peripheral access.

>>>>

>>>> I'm currently investigating this "boot from backup" on an

>>>> external drive issue. What it takes? (E/SATA, Firewire,

>>>> etc?), and what I've have to upgrade. But, I like the idea.

>>>>

>>>> Not only is it easier, but simple testing of a crash recovery

>>>> requires no intermediate restore. Much less exposure to

>>>> error.

>>>>

>>>> Additionally, because the backup image is stored in native

>>>> format(non-composite), even lost file restores are easier.

>>>> And FAT limitations are avoided for users of that archi-

>>>> tecture.

>>>>

>>>> Thanks.

 

 

Anna wrote:

I'm sure you understand that when we talk about eSATA or just plain SATA in

this context of backup programs, we're simply talking about the HDD that

will be involved in the backup and/or restore process. And that HDD will be

a SATA (not a PATA) HDD. The distinction between SATA & eSATA is simply the

connector that a SATA HDD will be connected to. The "e" in eSATA stands for

"external". A number of motherboards are equipped with an eSATA port and a

number of desktop computer cases are similarly equipped. The eSATA port is

considered a more secure SATA connector than the "regular" or "normal" SATA

connector and the eSATA data cable will be equipped with an eSATA connector,

not a "regular" SATA connector. But for all practical purposes a SATA HDD

will perform just as well connected to either type of port - SATA or eSATA.

 

The important point to remember here is that connecting a external SATA HDD

to *either* a SATA or eSATA port will give the user SATA-to-SATA

connectivity (as opposed to USB connectivity for example). Obviously we're

presuming that the PC has SATA capability, i.e., it supports SATA hard

drives.

 

Having SATA-to-SATA connectivity is most advantageous when using an external

SATA HDD as the recipient of the backed-up contents of one's internal

day-to-day working HDD. There are two significant advantages...

1. The data transfer rate is considerably higher than, for example, a USB

external HDD device.

2. Assuming the SATA HDD contained in a SATA external enclosure is the

recipient of the cloned contents of the user's internal HDD through the use

of a disk-cloning program, e.g., the Acronis one that has been mentioned,

the SATA HDD will be a bootable device even though it's being used in an

external capacity. The system will treat that drive as an *internal* HDD

because of its SATA-to-SATA connectivity notwithstanding the fact that it is

physically external to the machine.

 

(BTW, that CMS device you mention is really nothing more than an external

enclosure that provides both USB & SATA connectivity. There are scores of

similar enclosures on the market. You can simply install your own SATA HDD

into the enclosure.)

 

The Acronis True Image program that has been recommended to you is a fine

program with many satisfied users. You should consider it, especially since

there's a trial version available.

 

However, for a variety of reasons, the disk-cloning program we greatly

prefer is the Casper 4 program. If you (or anyone coming upon this thread)

want some details about that program I'll post such.

Anna

 

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

> news:u6jcxcvtIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> Just to be complete, Anna, you should point out that he doesn't HAVE to

>> use SATA or eSATA for backups, however. He could instead just use his

>> existing setup, and get an external USB HD enclosure (containing a

>> regular PATA hard drive) for backup purposes too (i.e., for storing and

>> restoring a backup image). That's what I'm doing over here, and it

>> works great. Granted, it's not as fast, but it doesn't really take me

>> that long, either.

 

 

"Anonymous" <com@com.com> wrote in message

news:Mj7Xj.931$qH4.828@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...

> I'm not fully up to speed on E/SATA, but I've been reading.

>

> Your comments/explanations will help with that understanding.

>

> I think it was another thread of yours where I read about

> the interface being "glitchy". Or, at least, the interface when

> added with a upgrade card, I think.

>

> The thread concerned another's question concerning whether

> a 3.0 ATA unit would synchronize at the existing 1.5 level.

>

> As I said, I'm researching the details. But, that was the first

> indication I'd seen of any faults.

>

> I do currently have two external drives in use for backup via

> a usb2.0 interface. I'm researching a new strategy because

> I don't have a viable crash recovery solution(at least not with-

> out a ton of rebuild work involved). And while researching

> the new path, thought I'd upgrade to an ATA interface to

> gain the extra speed. Although, I'm not unhappy with the

> usb throughput.

>

> Thanks.

 

 

First of all, understand that the SATA/eSATA interface is not "glitchy". By

& large it makes for a day-in day-out stable connection between the HDD and

the system (the motherboard) and yields the advantages I have enumerated.

That previous thread you referred to re possible incompatibilities between

the older SATA HDDs (with the 1.5 Gb/s data interface) and the newer

(so-called) SATA-II HDDs (with the 3.0 Gb/s data interface) is of no

relevance re the issue under discussion here. So put any of your doubts to

rest as to any "faults" re using an external SATA HDD for backup purposes.

 

Since you already have USB external enclosures I would see no reason why you

shouldn't use them as recipients of the disk clone (or disk image) assuming

you would be using a disk cloning or disk imaging program in establishing &

maintaining a comprehensive backup program. This would be the same setup as

the one "Bill in Co." is using (as well as many other users) and it would

basically serve the purpose.

 

My recommendation for using an external SATA HDD with SATA-to-SATA

connectivity for that purpose would yield the advantages I detailed above,

but obviously it would entail an add'l cost to the user should the user

already have a USB (or Firewire) external enclosure containing an existing

HDD. Whether the user would want to incur the add'l expense in purchasing

the components I have indicated to secure the advantages I've indicated is

obviously a decision that would have to be made by him or her.

Anna

[Guest Anonymous]

Re: Backup/Restore suggestions for XP, and Vista

 

 

"Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message

news:OkiSLg3tIHA.5580@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>

>>>> "Anonymous" <com@com.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:5q1Xj.3224$ah4.2192@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...

>>>>> I've had similar replies, including the suggestion to use the

>>>>> Acronis Workstation version, rather than Home.

>>>>>

>>>>> Like you, my years of Ntbackup usage have been quite

>>>>> positive, meeting all my needs for a backup.

>>>>>

>>>>> However, although Ntbackup will easily protect against

>>>>> accidental loss, it is either unable, or quite cumbersome

>>>>> at providing recovery, or bare metal restore.

>>>>>

>>>>> I have to admit that the backup product from CMS looks

>>>>> quite attractive though. Because I like the idea of simply

>>>>> rebooting the backup image for a quick recovery. Watch

>>>>> this video:

>>>>> http://www.cmsproducts.com/video/desktop_backup.html

>>>>>

>>>>> Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with E/SATA, and support

>>>>> would require my upgrade. But, I'd get the functionality

>>>>> described, in addition to the significantly higher speeds.

>>>>>

>>>>> One of the Amazon reviewers complaints on Acronis TI

>>>>> Home was that E/SATA was not currently supported. I

>>>>> guess I would've thought a backup product would simply

>>>>> rely on the OS for peripheral access.

>>>>>

>>>>> I'm currently investigating this "boot from backup" on an

>>>>> external drive issue. What it takes? (E/SATA, Firewire,

>>>>> etc?), and what I've have to upgrade. But, I like the idea.

>>>>>

>>>>> Not only is it easier, but simple testing of a crash recovery

>>>>> requires no intermediate restore. Much less exposure to

>>>>> error.

>>>>>

>>>>> Additionally, because the backup image is stored in native

>>>>> format(non-composite), even lost file restores are easier.

>>>>> And FAT limitations are avoided for users of that archi-

>>>>> tecture.

>>>>>

>>>>> Thanks.

>

>

> Anna wrote:

> I'm sure you understand that when we talk about eSATA or just plain SATA

> in this context of backup programs, we're simply talking about the HDD

> that will be involved in the backup and/or restore process. And that HDD

> will be a SATA (not a PATA) HDD. The distinction between SATA & eSATA is

> simply the connector that a SATA HDD will be connected to. The "e" in

> eSATA stands for "external". A number of motherboards are equipped with an

> eSATA port and a number of desktop computer cases are similarly equipped.

> The eSATA port is considered a more secure SATA connector than the

> "regular" or "normal" SATA connector and the eSATA data cable will be

> equipped with an eSATA connector, not a "regular" SATA connector. But for

> all practical purposes a SATA HDD will perform just as well connected to

> either type of port - SATA or eSATA.

>

> The important point to remember here is that connecting a external SATA

> HDD to *either* a SATA or eSATA port will give the user SATA-to-SATA

> connectivity (as opposed to USB connectivity for example). Obviously we're

> presuming that the PC has SATA capability, i.e., it supports SATA hard

> drives.

>

> Having SATA-to-SATA connectivity is most advantageous when using an

> external SATA HDD as the recipient of the backed-up contents of one's

> internal day-to-day working HDD. There are two significant advantages...

> 1. The data transfer rate is considerably higher than, for example, a USB

> external HDD device.

> 2. Assuming the SATA HDD contained in a SATA external enclosure is the

> recipient of the cloned contents of the user's internal HDD through the

> use of a disk-cloning program, e.g., the Acronis one that has been

> mentioned, the SATA HDD will be a bootable device even though it's being

> used in an external capacity. The system will treat that drive as an

> *internal* HDD because of its SATA-to-SATA connectivity notwithstanding

> the fact that it is physically external to the machine.

>

> (BTW, that CMS device you mention is really nothing more than an external

> enclosure that provides both USB & SATA connectivity. There are scores of

> similar enclosures on the market. You can simply install your own SATA HDD

> into the enclosure.)

>

> The Acronis True Image program that has been recommended to you is a fine

> program with many satisfied users. You should consider it, especially

> since there's a trial version available.

>

> However, for a variety of reasons, the disk-cloning program we greatly

> prefer is the Casper 4 program. If you (or anyone coming upon this thread)

> want some details about that program I'll post such.

> Anna

>

>

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

>> news:u6jcxcvtIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> >> Just to be complete, Anna, you should point out that he doesn't HAVE to

>>> use SATA or eSATA for backups, however. He could instead just use his

>>> existing setup, and get an external USB HD enclosure (containing a

>>> regular PATA hard drive) for backup purposes too (i.e., for storing and

>>> restoring a backup image). That's what I'm doing over here, and it

>>> works great. Granted, it's not as fast, but it doesn't really take me

>>> that long, either.

>

>

> "Anonymous" <com@com.com> wrote in message

> news:Mj7Xj.931$qH4.828@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...

>> I'm not fully up to speed on E/SATA, but I've been reading.

>>

>> Your comments/explanations will help with that understanding.

>>

>> I think it was another thread of yours where I read about

>> the interface being "glitchy". Or, at least, the interface when

>> added with a upgrade card, I think.

>>

>> The thread concerned another's question concerning whether

>> a 3.0 ATA unit would synchronize at the existing 1.5 level.

>>

>> As I said, I'm researching the details. But, that was the first

>> indication I'd seen of any faults.

>>

>> I do currently have two external drives in use for backup via

>> a usb2.0 interface. I'm researching a new strategy because

>> I don't have a viable crash recovery solution(at least not with-

>> out a ton of rebuild work involved). And while researching

>> the new path, thought I'd upgrade to an ATA interface to

>> gain the extra speed. Although, I'm not unhappy with the

>> usb throughput.

>>

>> Thanks.

>

>

> First of all, understand that the SATA/eSATA interface is not "glitchy".

> By & large it makes for a day-in day-out stable connection between the HDD

> and the system (the motherboard) and yields the advantages I have

> enumerated. That previous thread you referred to re possible

> incompatibilities between the older SATA HDDs (with the 1.5 Gb/s data

> interface) and the newer (so-called) SATA-II HDDs (with the 3.0 Gb/s data

> interface) is of no relevance re the issue under discussion here. So put

> any of your doubts to rest as to any "faults" re using an external SATA

> HDD for backup purposes.

>

> Since you already have USB external enclosures I would see no reason why

> you shouldn't use them as recipients of the disk clone (or disk image)

> assuming you would be using a disk cloning or disk imaging program in

> establishing & maintaining a comprehensive backup program. This would be

> the same setup as the one "Bill in Co." is using (as well as many other

> users) and it would basically serve the purpose.

>

> My recommendation for using an external SATA HDD with SATA-to-SATA

> connectivity for that purpose would yield the advantages I detailed above,

> but obviously it would entail an add'l cost to the user should the user

> already have a USB (or Firewire) external enclosure containing an existing

> HDD. Whether the user would want to incur the add'l expense in purchasing

> the components I have indicated to secure the advantages I've indicated is

> obviously a decision that would have to be made by him or her.

> Anna

>

 

 

 

Yeah, I assumed that there were other vendors, beside CMS,

with a similar offering.

 

The usb externals have performed well for me over the years.

I just agonize over the work that will be required for a bare

metal recovery. I just think it's time for me to address such

a possibility/eventuality.

 

I was steering toward an external ATA solution because it is

bootable, and for a speed increase. (although the speed is

not really an need issue).

 

I like the CMS product because the backup image looks

identical to the source drive. IOW, it's natively organized,

as opposed to a single extent composite. In the time of a

failure, this swap seems like a much better solution to gain

lost access quickly. Without fumbling/waiting for a recov-

ery.

 

But, your explanation/comments have helped me understand

some of the issues, and technicalities behind the curtain.

 

One thing that I'm still stuck on though. Assuming an EHDD

boot for recovery, how are all OS C:\ references resolved

subsequently. Is the EHDD assigned C:\ as the boot drive?

 

Or, are all C:\ references resolved on the fly?

 

Thanks....

[Guest Anna]

Re: Backup/Restore suggestions for XP, and Vista

 

>> Anna wrote:

>> I'm sure you understand that when we talk about eSATA or just plain SATA

>> in this context of backup programs, we're simply talking about the HDD

>> that will be involved in the backup and/or restore process. And that HDD

>> will be a SATA (not a PATA) HDD. The distinction between SATA & eSATA is

>> simply the connector that a SATA HDD will be connected to. The >> "e" in

>> eSATA stands for "external". A number of motherboards are equipped >>

>> with an eSATA port and a number of desktop computer cases are similarly

>> >> equipped.

>> The eSATA port is considered a more secure SATA connector than the

>> "regular" or "normal" SATA connector and the eSATA data cable will be

>> equipped with an eSATA connector, not a "regular" SATA connector. But >>

>> for all practical purposes a SATA HDD will perform just as well connected

>> >> to either type of port - SATA or eSATA.

>>

>> The important point to remember here is that connecting a external SATA

>> HDD to *either* a SATA or eSATA port will give the user SATA-to-SATA

>> connectivity (as opposed to USB connectivity for example). Obviously

>> we're presuming that the PC has SATA capability, i.e., it supports SATA

>> hard drives.

>>

>> Having SATA-to-SATA connectivity is most advantageous when using an

>> external SATA HDD as the recipient of the backed-up contents of one's

>> internal day-to-day working HDD. There are two significant advantages...

>> 1. The data transfer rate is considerably higher than, for example, a USB

>> external HDD device.

>> 2. Assuming the SATA HDD contained in a SATA external enclosure is the

>> recipient of the cloned contents of the user's internal HDD through the

>> use of a disk-cloning program, e.g., the Acronis one that has been

>> mentioned, the SATA HDD will be a bootable device even though it's being

>> used in an external capacity. The system will treat that drive as an

>> *internal* HDD because of its SATA-to-SATA connectivity notwithstanding

>> the fact that it is physically external to the machine.

>>

>> (BTW, that CMS device you mention is really nothing more than an external

>> >> enclosure that provides both USB & SATA connectivity. There are scores

>> of >> similar enclosures on the market. You can simply install your own

>> SATA >> HDD into the enclosure.)

>>

>> The Acronis True Image program that has been recommended to you is a fine

>> program with many satisfied users. You should consider it, especially

>> since there's a trial version available.

>>

>> However, for a variety of reasons, the disk-cloning program we greatly

>> prefer is the Casper 4 program. If you (or anyone coming upon this

>> thread) want some details about that program I'll post such.

>>

>> First of all, understand that the SATA/eSATA interface is not "glitchy".

>> By & large it makes for a day-in day-out stable connection between the

>> HDD and the system (the motherboard) and yields the advantages I have

>> enumerated. That previous thread you referred to re possible

>> incompatibilities between the older SATA HDDs (with the 1.5 Gb/s data

>> interface) and the newer (so-called) SATA-II HDDs (with the 3.0 Gb/s data

>> interface) is of no relevance re the issue under discussion here. So put

>> any of your doubts to rest as to any "faults" re using an external SATA

>> HDD for backup purposes.

>>

>> Since you already have USB external enclosures I would see no reason why

>> you shouldn't use them as recipients of the disk clone (or disk image)

>> assuming you would be using a disk cloning or disk imaging program in

>> establishing & maintaining a comprehensive backup program. This would >>

>> be the same setup as the one "Bill in Co." is using (as well as many

>> other users) and it would basically serve the purpose.

>>

>> My recommendation for using an external SATA HDD with SATA-to-

>> SATA connectivity for that purpose would yield the advantages I detailed

>> >> above, but obviously it would entail an add'l cost to the user should

>> the user >> already have a USB (or Firewire) external enclosure

>> containing an existing HDD. Whether the user would want to incur the

>> add'l expense in purchasing >> the components I have indicated to secure

>> the advantages I've indicated is obviously a decision that would have to

>> be made by him or her.

>> Anna

 

 

"Anonymous" <com@com.com> wrote in message

news:VkkXj.4757$nl7.1747@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...

> Yeah, I assumed that there were other vendors, beside CMS,

> with a similar offering.

>

> The usb externals have performed well for me over the years.

> I just agonize over the work that will be required for a bare

> metal recovery. I just think it's time for me to address such

> a possibility/eventuality.

>

> I was steering toward an external ATA solution because it is

> bootable, and for a speed increase. (although the speed is

> not really an need issue).

>

> I like the CMS product because the backup image looks

> identical to the source drive. IOW, it's natively organized,

> as opposed to a single extent composite. In the time of a

> failure, this swap seems like a much better solution to gain

> lost access quickly. Without fumbling/waiting for a recov-

> ery.

>

> But, your explanation/comments have helped me understand

> some of the issues, and technicalities behind the curtain.

>

> One thing that I'm still stuck on though. Assuming an EHDD

> boot for recovery, how are all OS C:\ references resolved

> subsequently. Is the EHDD assigned C:\ as the boot drive?

>

> Or, are all C:\ references resolved on the fly?

>

> Thanks....

 

 

When you use a disk-cloning program such as Acronis True Image, or

Symantec's Ghost, or our favorite, the Casper 4 program, and you use that

type of program to clone the contents of your "source" HDD to a USB external

HDD as apparently you intend to do...

 

For all practical purposes, the USBEHD - the recipient of the clone - will

be a precise copy of the source HDD, however, it is ordinarily not a

bootable device although some users have indicated they have been able to

boot to a cloned USBEHD. We have never achieved that capability (at least in

an XP environment).

 

If & when the time comes that you wish to restore your system to a bootable,

functional state (presumably because the internal source HDD has become

defective or the OS has become corrupt & dysfunctional), then you would

simply clone back the contents on the USBEHD to the internal HDD. The system

would retain the C: letter drive assignment. It is immaterial as to the

drive letter designation on the cloned USBEHD while it is merely functioning

as the repository of the cloned contents of the internal (source) HDD.

You're using that device basically as a retainer of the contents of your

internal (source) HDD and ultimately as a vehicle for cloning the contents

on the external HDD back to your internal HDD for restoration purposes. As

I've indicated, under those circumstances you will thus have a bootable,

functioning system with the C: drive letter assignment.

Anna