Can't boot. Trying recovery console. How long to 'examine disk'?

June 23, 2008

Re: Can't boot. Trying recovery console. How long to 'examine disk

Re: Can't boot. Trying recovery console. How long to 'examine disk

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

>> news:eeYlgZC1IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> (SNIP)

>>> So in summary, I guess if we view *cloning* as a partition-to-partition

>>> copy operation, and not necessarily a *drive-to-drive* copy operation,

>>> then I guess there is no real practical difference here, EXCEPT that, of

>>> course, if one uses *imaging*, one cannot ever bootup that backup drive,

>>> of course.

>>>

>>> Anyway, maybe I've got it straight by now. (if not, pse let me know).

>>>

>>> Thanks,

>>> Bill

> Anna wrote:

>> Bill:

>> Yes, you have it "straight" now. The Casper disk-cloning program can

>> clone

>> the contents of one partition on a multi-partitioned "source" HDD to

>> another partition on a multi-partitioned "destination" drive. And when

>> the >> need arises, do the same in reverse.

>>

>> Taking your specific example of your 250 GB HDD which contains a number

>> of partitions including a 40 GB partition that contains your operating

>> system and perhaps other data, i.e., your C: partition, and you want to

>> clone *only* the contents of that specific partition to your 80 GB >>

>> USBEHD "destination" drive, but you don't want to use the entire 80 GB of

>> >> disk space on that drive to contain that 40 GB of data, but just

>> another 40 >> GB partition on that destination drive...

>>

>> No problem. Using the Casper disk-cloning program it would be a simple

>> matter to clone the contents of that 40 GB partition on the source HDD to

>> a similar-sized partition or whatever other partition size you may have

>> established on the destination drive.

>>

>> And should you do this on a rather frequent basis - say every few days or

>> once a week or even more frequently - it would probably take you not much

>> more than two (2) or three (3) minutes to complete the entire cloning

>> operation because of Casper's "SmartClone" capability.

>> Anna

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

news:eKvACIK1IHA.3756@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> But if I did that AND recloned it back (from the *external* USB backup

> drive > back to the *internal* source drive), it would surely take more

> than 3 minutes. Right? And that's the only way I would use the

> program.

>

> Something else I'm not sure about is: just how reliable relying

> exclusively on the Smart Cloning (or incremental in TI) feature is.

>

> For some reason, it seems safer to me to (every time) do the FULL

> partition backup cloning (or imaging), rather than RELY on any incremental

> technology being able to keep proper track of ALL changes (with 100%

> certainity).

>

> Of course, this method takes longer. Just to give you some idea, I have

> about 20 GB of actual data (programs, data, windows, etc) on my 40 GB C:

> partitition.

>

> When I use True Image to make a backup image, it takes about 15 minutes

> (for that 20 GB of actual data). (I am using a 1.6 GHz computer here,

> probably considered a bit slow these days :-).

>

> However, to restore it back to the source drive, takes almost an HOUR (but

> that includes it first verifying the image, etc). And at the end, it

> reboots, of course (since it's my Active partition. I presume it would

> have to do the same using Casper).

>

> I presume if I used Casper, it would take about the same time, UNLESS I

> used the Smart Cloning bit, and *relied* on that. I'm curious about the

> total time it would take however, if you have any rough ideas from your

> experiences (either using or not using the Smart Cloning feature).

>

> Thanks again,

> Bill

Bill:

With respect to your first question re the cloning (or what you might call

the "re:cloning") of the contents of the USBEHD back to the internal HDD to

restore a dysfunctional HDD or return the system to its state at the time

the contents of that internal HDD was previously cloned to the USBEHD as a

backup of the system...

No, the amount of time that would be expended re that "re:cloning" process

would be similarly relatively slight in most cases. Naturally it would

depend upon when the USBEHD was the recipient of the cloned contents of the

internal HDD, i.e., how close to the time when the clone was created, and of

course the amount of data to be cloned.

Again, taking the kind of situation that you've indicated you frequently

engage in...

Let's say, for example, that you want to experiment with a program with

which you've had no experience to determine whether that program meets a

particular need. But because you're wisely cautious about installing and

working with that new untested program on your day-to-day working HDD you

want to back up your present system in the event things go awry after you've

installed that new program, or you find the program is unsuitable for your

needs and you don't want to leave the usual garbage/debris in your registry

or other parts of your system even after you've uninstalled the program. And

you & I know that frequently happens.

So you do the wise thing and, using Casper in this example, you back up your

system through the disk-cloning process to your USBEHD before installing

that new program. After working with that new program for a couple of days

or so you find yourself dissatisfied with it and want to return to the

previous state of your system before you installed the program. So you clone

the contents of the USBEHD back to the internal HDD. By & large, in the

example you've cited, it would probably take you a couple of minutes to do

so, most likely not much more than four minutes. In effect, the SmartClone

process will kick in.

Now as to the reliability of the SmartClone feature (in effect, an

"incremental" disk-cloning process that Casper incorporates in its

program)...

All I can tell you is that over the two years or so that we've been working

with Casper, and have personally used the program or participated with

others in using or observing the program -- involving hundreds of

disk-cloning operations, we've found it extraordinarily reliable. And that,

of course, includes its SmartClone feature. I won't say the program is

flawless, no program is or ever has been in my experience, but I can't

recall a single instance where use of the program resulted in a corruption

or loss of data. Simply stated, the program *always* seems to "work" without

problems. Of course I'm relating all this to an XP environment since my

experience with Vista is minimal. But I'm also aware of many Casper users

who work primarily or exclusively with Vista and they have reported the

program works just fine in that operating system.

Please bear in mind as I have tried to continually emphasize that this

"incremental" cloning feature results in a *complete* clone of the source

HDD. It's an integral part of the program and, as a practical matter, cannot

be separated from the program by the user. Understand that there is no user

option to select a "full clone" or an "incremental clone". A clone is a

clone is a clone. The SmartClone feature is completely integrated in the

program and thus always present when using the program. I trust I've made

that clear.

Anna

June 24, 2008

Re: Can't boot. Trying recovery console. How long to 'examine disk

Re: Can't boot. Trying recovery console. How long to 'examine disk

Anna wrote:

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

>>> news:eeYlgZC1IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>> (SNIP)

>>>> So in summary, I guess if we view *cloning* as a partition-to-partition

>>>> copy operation, and not necessarily a *drive-to-drive* copy operation,

>>>> then I guess there is no real practical difference here, EXCEPT that,

>>>> of

>>>> course, if one uses *imaging*, one cannot ever bootup that backup

>>>> drive,

>>>> of course.

>>>>

>>>> Anyway, maybe I've got it straight by now. (if not, pse let me know).

>>>>

>>>> Thanks,

>>>> Bill

>

>> Anna wrote:

>>> Bill:

>>> Yes, you have it "straight" now. The Casper disk-cloning program can

>>> clone the contents of one partition on a multi-partitioned "source" HDD

>>> to

>>> another partition on a multi-partitioned "destination" drive. And when

>>> the need arises, do the same in reverse.

>>>

>>> Taking your specific example of your 250 GB HDD which contains a number

>>> of partitions including a 40 GB partition that contains your operating

>>> system and perhaps other data, i.e., your C: partition, and you want to

>>> clone *only* the contents of that specific partition to your 80 GB

>>> USBEHD "destination" drive, but you don't want to use the entire 80 GB

>>> of disk space on that drive to contain that 40 GB of data, but just

>>> another 40 GB partition on that destination drive...

>>>

>>> No problem. Using the Casper disk-cloning program it would be a simple

>>> matter to clone the contents of that 40 GB partition on the source HDD

>>> to

>>> a similar-sized partition or whatever other partition size you may have

>>> established on the destination drive.

>>>

>>> And should you do this on a rather frequent basis - say every few days

>>> or

>>> once a week or even more frequently - it would probably take you not

>>> much

>>> more than two (2) or three (3) minutes to complete the entire cloning

>>> operation because of Casper's "SmartClone" capability.

>>> Anna

>

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

> news:eKvACIK1IHA.3756@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> But if I did that AND recloned it back (from the *external* USB backup

>> drive > back to the *internal* source drive), it would surely take more

>> than 3 minutes. Right? And that's the only way I would use the

>> program.

>>

>> Something else I'm not sure about is: just how reliable relying

>> exclusively on the Smart Cloning (or incremental in TI) feature is.

>>

>> For some reason, it seems safer to me to (every time) do the FULL

>> partition backup cloning (or imaging), rather than RELY on any

>> incremental

>> technology being able to keep proper track of ALL changes (with 100%

>> certainity).

>>

>> Of course, this method takes longer. Just to give you some idea, I

>> have

>> about 20 GB of actual data (programs, data, windows, etc) on my 40 GB C:

>> partitition.

>>

>> When I use True Image to make a backup image, it takes about 15 minutes

>> (for that 20 GB of actual data). (I am using a 1.6 GHz computer here,

>> probably considered a bit slow these days :-).

>>

>> However, to restore it back to the source drive, takes almost an HOUR

>> (but

>> that includes it first verifying the image, etc). And at the end, it

>> reboots, of course (since it's my Active partition. I presume it would

>> have to do the same using Casper).

>>

>> I presume if I used Casper, it would take about the same time, UNLESS I

>> used the Smart Cloning bit, and *relied* on that. I'm curious about the

>> total time it would take however, if you have any rough ideas from your

>> experiences (either using or not using the Smart Cloning feature).

>>

>> Thanks again,

>> Bill

>

> Bill:

> With respect to your first question re the cloning (or what you might call

> the "re:cloning") of the contents of the USBEHD back to the internal HDD

> to

> restore a dysfunctional HDD or return the system to its state at the time

> the contents of that internal HDD was previously cloned to the USBEHD as a

> backup of the system...

>

> No, the amount of time that would be expended re that "re:cloning" process

> would be similarly relatively slight in most cases. Naturally it would

> depend upon when the USBEHD was the recipient of the cloned contents of

> the

> internal HDD, i.e., how close to the time when the clone was created, and

> of

> course the amount of data to be cloned.

OK.

> Again, taking the kind of situation that you've indicated you frequently

> engage in...

>

> Let's say, for example, that you want to experiment with a program with

> which you've had no experience to determine whether that program meets a

> particular need. But because you're wisely cautious about installing and

> working with that new untested program on your day-to-day working HDD you

> want to back up your present system in the event things go awry after

> you've

> installed that new program, or you find the program is unsuitable for your

> needs and you don't want to leave the usual garbage/debris in your

> registry

> or other parts of your system even after you've uninstalled the program.

> And

> you & I know that frequently happens.

Yup. But I probably don't test as many as you have (or have seen),

however.

But some of the larger programs I do try out are in the 30+ MB (exe)

installer sizes, which are often somewhat invasive (and generally the much

smaller ones, aren't).

For anything like this, if after I run try it out using a trial version, and

I don't want to keep it, I'll roll back using my backup, as I have learned

not to simply trust the uninstaller on all occasions (particularly these

larger software packages). :-)

> So you do the wise thing and, using Casper in this example, you back up

> your

> system through the disk-cloning process to your USBEHD before installing

> that new program. After working with that new program for a couple of days

> or so you find yourself dissatisfied with it and want to return to the

> previous state of your system before you installed the program. So you

> clone

> the contents of the USBEHD back to the internal HDD. By & large, in the

> example you've cited, it would probably take you a couple of minutes to do

> so, most likely not much more than four minutes. In effect, the SmartClone

> process will kick in.

Well, that IS quick. Sounds like a LOT quicker than one hour overall, too.

:-)

> Now as to the reliability of the SmartClone feature (in effect, an

> "incremental" disk-cloning process that Casper incorporates in its

> program)...

>

> All I can tell you is that over the two years or so that we've been

> working

> with Casper, and have personally used the program or participated with

> others in using or observing the program -- involving hundreds of

> disk-cloning operations, we've found it extraordinarily reliable. And

> that,

> of course, includes its SmartClone feature. I won't say the program is

> flawless, no program is or ever has been in my experience, but I can't

> recall a single instance where use of the program resulted in a corruption

> or loss of data. Simply stated, the program *always* seems to "work"

> without

> problems. Of course I'm relating all this to an XP environment since my

> experience with Vista is minimal. But I'm also aware of many Casper users

> who work primarily or exclusively with Vista and they have reported the

> program works just fine in that operating system.

I also take it that at least some of these users are also familiar with True

Image, and still prefer it (even if they were using it like I would - to

clone and then reclone back to the source drive after trying something out).

We may have already covered this, but, all this being said, when would YOU

prefer to use *imaging* instead of cloning (in this case, use TI instead of

Casper)? Can you think of any possible case or reason?

> Please bear in mind as I have tried to continually emphasize that this

> "incremental" cloning feature results in a *complete* clone of the source

> HDD. It's an integral part of the program and, as a practical matter,

> cannot

> be separated from the program by the user. Understand that there is no

> user

> option to select a "full clone" or an "incremental clone". A clone is a

> clone is a clone. The SmartClone feature is completely integrated in the

> program and thus always present when using the program. I trust I've made

> that clear.

> Anna

I see. I didn't know the Smart Cloning was completely integrated.

So, that being said, then evidently the option of backing up the whole thing

afresh (as if it were brand new (i.e., without using Smart Cloning) is not

available, nor even needed, (from what you are saying). And we have to

trust that the program is smart enough to keep FULL track of ALL successive

incremental changes over time, with no lapses, whatsover. (Which seems a

bit amazing to me still (that it can be that foolproof, vs doing the whole

thing afresh, each time).

Well, as I said, I'm just accustomed to using Acronis True Image to always

write the complete backup images as completely new files (i.e., no

incrementals, etc, and often overwriting the previous ones to save disk

space).

But it sounds like Casper has a much quicker approach, as you've been

saying.

I still may try it! :-) (I downloaded it before, version 4.0). Maybe

if I can take a break from trying out other things here.

I think they should sell Casper boxed WITH the program on a bootup restore

CD, like Acronis True Image, however. Of course, it's not too much work

to make one, I guess. :-)

Bill

June 24, 2008

Re: Can't boot. Trying recovery console. How long to 'examine disk

Re: Can't boot. Trying recovery console. How long to 'examine disk

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

news:%23lGuTrZ1IHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> We may have already covered this, but, all this being said, when would YOU

> prefer to use *imaging* instead of cloning (in this case, use TI instead

> of Casper)? Can you think of any possible case or reason?

(SNIP)

> I think they should sell Casper boxed WITH the program on a bootup restore

> CD, like Acronis True Image, however. Of course, it's not too much work

> to make one, I guess. :-)

>

> Bill

Bill:

We rarely use the disk-imaging approach in our day-to-day backups. In

general, when we do use the disk-imaging approach (using Acronis True Image)

it's because of a rather unusual reason that most users would have no need

for.

We frequently have occasion to fresh install the XP OS for a variety of

users with different PCs. And in many instances also install various

programs on these machines. So we like to have copies of those particular

installations in case the user later has problems with the system. Also for

our own reference reasons. To that end the disk-imaging approach better

meets our needs rather than going the disk-cloning route, primarily because

the compression feature of disk-imaging allows us to "store" more different

systems on a multi-partitioned HDD. (We generally work with removable HDDs

so that we store the disk-images on an internal HDD).

Also, when a user is concerned with creating "generational" backups of his

or her system, i.e., individual comprehensive backups of their system at

various points in time, a disk-imaging program is generally considered to be

the program of choice, although depending upon the number of "generations"

desired by the user, the amount of data involved, and the size of the

"destination" HDD, that capability can also be accommodated by a

disk-cloning program such as Casper.

But when all is said & done, we recognize that many users are quite

comfortable with the disk-imaging approach rather than the disk-cloning

approach and simply do not wish to change.

I agree with your comment that the developer should offer a retail, boxed

version of the Casper program - one which, in effect, would include the

"Startup Disk" in the form of the bootable CD that contains the installation

program. Failing that, the "Startup Disk" CD should not be considered an

extra-cost option as it currently is. As I've previously indicated we have

complained to the developer about this since the Startup Disk is obviously

an essential piece of the program.

Anna

June 24, 2008

Re: Can't boot. Trying recovery console. How long to 'examine disk

Re: Can't boot. Trying recovery console. How long to 'examine disk

Anna wrote:

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

> news:%23lGuTrZ1IHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> We may have already covered this, but, all this being said, when would

>> YOU

>> prefer to use *imaging* instead of cloning (in this case, use TI instead

>> of Casper)? Can you think of any possible case or reason?

> (SNIP)

>> I think they should sell Casper boxed WITH the program on a bootup

>> restore

>> CD, like Acronis True Image, however. Of course, it's not too much

>> work

>> to make one, I guess. :-)

>>

>> Bill

>

> Bill:

> We rarely use the disk-imaging approach in our day-to-day backups. In

> general, when we do use the disk-imaging approach (using Acronis True

> Image)

> it's because of a rather unusual reason that most users would have no need

> for.

>

> We frequently have occasion to fresh install the XP OS for a variety of

> users with different PCs. And in many instances also install various

> programs on these machines. So we like to have copies of those particular

> installations in case the user later has problems with the system. Also

> for

> our own reference reasons. To that end the disk-imaging approach better

> meets our needs rather than going the disk-cloning route, primarily

> because

> the compression feature of disk-imaging allows us to "store" more

> different

> systems on a multi-partitioned HDD. (We generally work with removable HDDs

> so that we store the disk-images on an internal HDD).

OK. And the assumption here is that the compressed image is significantly

smaller than the actual data, and that is the main reason in this case.

Although there may be another one come to think of it, mentioned below:

> Also, when a user is concerned with creating "generational" backups of his

> or her system, i.e., individual comprehensive backups of their system at

> various points in time, a disk-imaging program is generally considered to

> be

> the program of choice, although depending upon the number of "generations"

> desired by the user, the amount of data involved, and the size of the

> "destination" HDD, that capability can also be accommodated by a

> disk-cloning program such as Casper.

Right, so what's the big difference here, except that 1) the image is

somewhat smaller than a clone would be, and 2) perhaps it is easier to keep

track of several image files rather than keeping track of several different

clones - because each image just presents itself as a single file to manage,

and NOT the multitude of thousands of directories and files, as it really

is, via the cloning approach.

> But when all is said & done, we recognize that many users are quite

> comfortable with the disk-imaging approach rather than the disk-cloning

> approach and simply do not wish to change.

Well, I'm still thinking about it, if I can get done with some other stuff

I'm messing with here first. :-)

> I agree with your comment that the developer should offer a retail, boxed

> version of the Casper program - one which, in effect, would include the

> "Startup Disk" in the form of the bootable CD that contains the

> installation

> program. Failing that, the "Startup Disk" CD should not be considered an

> extra-cost option as it currently is.

Ooops, I forgot that. I thought you could roll your own CD. My mistake,

there.

> As I've previously indicated we have

> complained to the developer about this since the Startup Disk is obviously

> an essential piece of the program.

> Anna

June 25, 2008

Re: Can't boot. Trying recovery console. How long to 'examine disk

Re: Can't boot. Trying recovery console. How long to 'examine disk

(POSSIBLY DUPLICATE POST)