Guest tcarp Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 I updating my whole strategy for backing up my home computers. I've read (and re-read) the threads and DO NOT want to go back over cloning and imaging or, for that matter file/folder backups. I'm also NOT interested in comparing software (I can do that). The only questions I have relate to 1) whether to have all the capabilities (clone, image, and file/folder) and 2) given the objective to keep the cost down some, how to limit the software selection. Casper, TI and Ghost seem to be the biggies for cloning and/or imaging. There seem to be a lot of file/folder software options. I downloaded a trial copy of TI just to see what it does and look at the interface. I didn't try cloning (not sure if it has that capability (yet)) but I did do an image "backup" (full and then an incremental). Seems pretty straight forward and it appears I can either restore the whole image or individual files/folders. This implies that I don't need (or don't get too much incremental value from) having a separate file/folder tool. I guess one could argue that a file/folder utility for My Documents might be a "nice to have" but is there a good argument why one would want a separate utility in the context of a backup strategy. I haven't looked at Casper 5 yet but, if they also have a trail version, I'll do the same test (same with Ghost). As a novice it appears that having one utility to do both cloning and imaging makes sense. I'd expect the market (for small home networks) would drive the utilities to do both. Is it? As I've read the threads (and posted to a couple) my thinking has been drawn to the recovery side of the discussion not the backup side. I mean, there's no reason to do backups without thinking about the recovery scenarios. If I have it right, cloning is done to be able to simply boot off an exact copy of the HD (or one of it's partitions). And I can see that taking a clone just before doing something (like upgrading the OS or major apps) would make sense. But as time goes by documents get changed so copying a full clone back to the original HD seems like something that becomes less and less attractive as time goes on. I what circumstances would having the clone be most useful? Again, I've read the "over and over" discussions and don't want to start the techie debate. Just some understanding that will help me make the decisions on what capabilities to buy for my home use. Thanks Tom
Guest R. McCarty Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) One key point to imaging, is data partitioning. If you make use of a dedicated volume for data then recovering the OS partition doesn't affect your personal data. On my machine I have a Data partition, and separate drives for Multimedia, Virtual PC Machines....Cloning has it's place but I consider imaging a better overall solution. If I ever need to restore XP, I can do that in less than 4 minutes. Also having separate volumes/partitions allows me to perform backups on different data using various schedules. Certain things like email and documents need more frequent backup than other types of data. Using multiple physical drives also helps with performance of the PC since disk operations are spread out on different drives. "tcarp" <tcarp@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:5EEC7963-AAD6-4E2C-B694-763B0A9DB466@microsoft.com... >I updating my whole strategy for backing up my home computers. I've read > (and re-read) the threads and DO NOT want to go back over cloning and > imaging > or, for that matter file/folder backups. > > I'm also NOT interested in comparing software (I can do that). The only > questions I have relate to 1) whether to have all the capabilities (clone, > image, and file/folder) and 2) given the objective to keep the cost down > some, how to limit the software selection. > > Casper, TI and Ghost seem to be the biggies for cloning and/or imaging. > There seem to be a lot of file/folder software options. I downloaded a > trial > copy of TI just to see what it does and look at the interface. I didn't > try > cloning (not sure if it has that capability (yet)) but I did do an image > "backup" (full and then an incremental). > > Seems pretty straight forward and it appears I can either restore the > whole > image or individual files/folders. This implies that I don't need (or > don't > get too much incremental value from) having a separate file/folder tool. > I > guess one could argue that a file/folder utility for My Documents might be > a > "nice to have" but is there a good argument why one would want a separate > utility in the context of a backup strategy. > > I haven't looked at Casper 5 yet but, if they also have a trail version, > I'll do the same test (same with Ghost). As a novice it appears that > having > one utility to do both cloning and imaging makes sense. I'd expect the > market (for small home networks) would drive the utilities to do both. Is > it? > > As I've read the threads (and posted to a couple) my thinking has been > drawn > to the recovery side of the discussion not the backup side. I mean, > there's > no reason to do backups without thinking about the recovery scenarios. > > If I have it right, cloning is done to be able to simply boot off an exact > copy of the HD (or one of it's partitions). And I can see that taking a > clone just before doing something (like upgrading the OS or major apps) > would > make sense. But as time goes by documents get changed so copying a full > clone back to the original HD seems like something that becomes less and > less > attractive as time goes on. > > I what circumstances would having the clone be most useful? > > Again, I've read the "over and over" discussions and don't want to start > the > techie debate. Just some understanding that will help me make the > decisions > on what capabilities to buy for my home use. > > Thanks > > Tom
Guest Big_Al Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) tcarp wrote: > I updating my whole strategy for backing up my home computers. I've read > (and re-read) the threads and DO NOT want to go back over cloning and imaging > or, for that matter file/folder backups. > > I'm also NOT interested in comparing software (I can do that). The only > questions I have relate to 1) whether to have all the capabilities (clone, > image, and file/folder) and 2) given the objective to keep the cost down > some, how to limit the software selection. > > Casper, TI and Ghost seem to be the biggies for cloning and/or imaging. > There seem to be a lot of file/folder software options. I downloaded a trial > copy of TI just to see what it does and look at the interface. I didn't try > cloning (not sure if it has that capability (yet)) but I did do an image > "backup" (full and then an incremental). > > Seems pretty straight forward and it appears I can either restore the whole > image or individual files/folders. This implies that I don't need (or don't > get too much incremental value from) having a separate file/folder tool. I > guess one could argue that a file/folder utility for My Documents might be a > "nice to have" but is there a good argument why one would want a separate > utility in the context of a backup strategy. > > I haven't looked at Casper 5 yet but, if they also have a trail version, > I'll do the same test (same with Ghost). As a novice it appears that having > one utility to do both cloning and imaging makes sense. I'd expect the > market (for small home networks) would drive the utilities to do both. Is it? > > As I've read the threads (and posted to a couple) my thinking has been drawn > to the recovery side of the discussion not the backup side. I mean, there's > no reason to do backups without thinking about the recovery scenarios. > > If I have it right, cloning is done to be able to simply boot off an exact > copy of the HD (or one of it's partitions). And I can see that taking a > clone just before doing something (like upgrading the OS or major apps) would > make sense. But as time goes by documents get changed so copying a full > clone back to the original HD seems like something that becomes less and less > attractive as time goes on. > > I what circumstances would having the clone be most useful? > > Again, I've read the "over and over" discussions and don't want to start the > techie debate. Just some understanding that will help me make the decisions > on what capabilities to buy for my home use. > > Thanks > > Tom A clone is not the only way for making an exact image to boot. An Image will make an exact copy. And you can use that image to rebuild a HD and boot. So they are basically the same. Its just the steps they go through to get from point A to B, and the usage of the destination. Images are just files and you can put several of them on one external HD, where a clone consumes the drive or at least the partition. Both will allow you to resize a drive at restore. I've done both while flipping my laptop drives around, and they seem to be identical in function to me. I cloned once and imaged a second time. No wonder you are confused. IMHO, A clone is good for a new drive install. End of conversation. Image all the other times works for files and or complete restore. And with this logic you don't need a file backup utility. You could also just xcopy your mydocs folder if you wanted to or a batch file with several xcopy commands. It could be that simple.
Guest tcarp Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) "R. McCarty" wrote: > One key point to imaging, is data partitioning. If you make use of a > dedicated volume for data then recovering the OS partition doesn't > affect your personal data. On my machine I have a Data partition, > and separate drives for Multimedia, Virtual PC Machines....Cloning > has it's place but I consider imaging a better overall solution. If I > ever need to restore XP, I can do that in less than 4 minutes. Also > having separate volumes/partitions allows me to perform backups > on different data using various schedules. Certain things like email > and documents need more frequent backup than other types of > data. Using multiple physical drives also helps with performance of > the PC since disk operations are spread out on different drives. > Perfect! Thanks.
Guest tcarp Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) > > Tom > A clone is not the only way for making an exact image to boot. An > Image will make an exact copy. And you can use that image to rebuild a > HD and boot. So they are basically the same. Its just the steps they > go through to get from point A to B, and the usage of the destination. > Images are just files and you can put several of them on one external > HD, where a clone consumes the drive or at least the partition. > Both will allow you to resize a drive at restore. I've done both while > flipping my laptop drives around, and they seem to be identical in > function to me. I cloned once and imaged a second time. No wonder > you are confused. > > IMHO, A clone is good for a new drive install. End of conversation. > Image all the other times works for files and or complete restore. > > And with this logic you don't need a file backup utility. > You could also just xcopy your mydocs folder if you wanted to or a batch > file with several xcopy commands. It could be that simple. Thanks so very much. You confirmed my novice thinking. I can understand the value of cloning if you're maintaining quite a few machines and doing regular installs. But for home use, it may be a luxury that I could save a few $ bu using imaging (possible augmented by a simple file/folder utility for stuff that changes all the time (documents). Tom
Guest Timothy Daniels Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) "tcarp" asked: > I what circumstances would having the clone be most useful? Did you ever forget to backup a particular folder while backing up all the rest? Can you spare 20 minutes to backup an entire partition instead of picking and choosing and wondering if you got everything? If your hard drive fails or if your OS got a virus, would you like to boot up a copy of that OS without having to get out the CDs/DVDs and spending half an hour restoring the OS? With a clone on a 2nd internal HD or on a HD in a removable tray or on an external eSATA hard drive, you can just restart, switch the identity of the boot drive in the BIOS, and off you go. The advantage of a clone, then, is speed of getting back in the action - important for stock day-trading, for example. The usual advantage of image files are the speed of incremental backup after the first copy ia made and the smaller archiving capacity needed to store just the files you've selected to cheap media (CDs, DVDs, USB thumb drives). But hard drives have gotten cheap, too, and utilities such as Casper can do incremental updates to clones as well as to image files, so the maintenance of an up-to-date clone takes only as much time as making image file updates. I do both - to cheap archiving media AND to a bootable hard drive. And doing both is not as time-consuming as you'd imagine. *TimDaniels*
Guest PA20Pilot Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) Hi, ........But as time goes by documents get changed so copying a full clone back to the original HD seems like something that becomes less and less attractive as time goes on. I clone my hard drive every weekend, Friday night usually. The only time you would need to "copy a full clone back to the hard drive" would be when you've really had a catastrophy. Normally a clone is just an exact copy of your drive, if you just need a few files off it, just take them as you would from any other storage location. There's nothing magical here, just double copies of everything you've cloned. ---==X={}=X==--- Jim Self AVIATION ANIMATION, the internet's largest depository. http://avanimation.avsupport.com Your only internet source for spiral staircase plans. http://jself.com/stair/Stair.htm Experimental Aircraft Association #140897 EAA Technical Counselor #4562
Guest Timothy Daniels Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) "PA20Pilot" wrote: > .......But as time goes by documents get changed so copying a full clone back > to the original HD seems like something that becomes less and less attractive > as time goes on. Yes, copying a clone "back to the original hard drive" makes no sense at all since a clone's value is in its immediate bootability and its lack of need for a schedual of files to backup. If you want to archive your tax records or the wedding photos, put them on CD or DVD. If you want to get back on the air quickly in case of a hard drive crash or data corruption, have a clone on another hard drive handy. *TimDaniels*
Guest Lil' Dave Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) "tcarp" <tcarp@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:5EEC7963-AAD6-4E2C-B694-763B0A9DB466@microsoft.com... >I updating my whole strategy for backing up my home computers. I've read > (and re-read) the threads and DO NOT want to go back over cloning and > imaging > or, for that matter file/folder backups. > > I'm also NOT interested in comparing software (I can do that). The only > questions I have relate to 1) whether to have all the capabilities (clone, > image, and file/folder) and 2) given the objective to keep the cost down > some, how to limit the software selection. > > Casper, TI and Ghost seem to be the biggies for cloning and/or imaging. > There seem to be a lot of file/folder software options. I downloaded a > trial > copy of TI just to see what it does and look at the interface. I didn't > try > cloning (not sure if it has that capability (yet)) but I did do an image > "backup" (full and then an incremental). > > Seems pretty straight forward and it appears I can either restore the > whole > image or individual files/folders. This implies that I don't need (or > don't > get too much incremental value from) having a separate file/folder tool. > I > guess one could argue that a file/folder utility for My Documents might be > a > "nice to have" but is there a good argument why one would want a separate > utility in the context of a backup strategy. > > I haven't looked at Casper 5 yet but, if they also have a trail version, > I'll do the same test (same with Ghost). As a novice it appears that > having > one utility to do both cloning and imaging makes sense. I'd expect the > market (for small home networks) would drive the utilities to do both. Is > it? > > As I've read the threads (and posted to a couple) my thinking has been > drawn > to the recovery side of the discussion not the backup side. I mean, > there's > no reason to do backups without thinking about the recovery scenarios. > Totally inaccurate. Any cloning or imaging software implementation should assure the clone or restoration of image is successful from the git-go as part of the test of that software. > If I have it right, cloning is done to be able to simply boot off an exact > copy of the HD (or one of it's partitions). And I can see that taking a > clone just before doing something (like upgrading the OS or major apps) > would > make sense. But as time goes by documents get changed so copying a full > clone back to the original HD seems like something that becomes less and > less > attractive as time goes on. > > I what circumstances would having the clone be most useful? > Cloning and imaging should be both be done if the software is capable. Different hard drive targets, of course. If so, a clone shoud be done much less often for many reasons. The clone is for quick recovery, the imaging is for strategic timely/multiple backups. As you can see, I'm not a fan of this vs that stuff. Both are useful. So, I won't go down the road you're paving. -- Dave
Guest Lil' Dave Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) "Timothy Daniels" <NoSpam@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message news:OlWZxFb0IHA.4964@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > "tcarp" asked: >> I what circumstances would having the clone be most useful? > > Did you ever forget to backup a particular folder while > backing up all the rest? Can you spare 20 minutes to > backup an entire partition instead of picking and choosing > and wondering if you got everything? If your hard drive > fails or if your OS got a virus, would you like to boot up a > copy of that OS without having to get out the CDs/DVDs > and spending half an hour restoring the OS? With a clone > on a 2nd internal HD or on a HD in a removable tray or > on an external eSATA hard drive, you can just restart, > switch the identity of the boot drive in the BIOS, and off > you go. The advantage of a clone, then, is speed of > getting back in the action - important for stock day-trading, > for example. > > The usual advantage of image files are the speed of > incremental backup after the first copy ia made and the > smaller archiving capacity needed to store just the files > you've selected to cheap media (CDs, DVDs, USB thumb > drives). But hard drives have gotten cheap, too, and utilities > such as Casper can do incremental updates to clones as well > as to image files, so the maintenance of an up-to-date clone > takes only as much time as making image file updates. > > I do both - to cheap archiving media AND to a bootable > hard drive. And doing both is not as time-consuming as you'd > imagine. > > *TimDaniels* > All well and good. Except, there's only one copy, the clone. Imaging allows many copies of different instances of different times of the same windows partition or whatever partition to a sizable hard drive. Restoration of the proper image may allow usage without something unwanted where other images may not, depending on what you're trying to revert to. Both cloning and imaging serve purposes. Some typical imaging restoration options include the option of or not: restore the mbr, restore the original disk signature, allow the primary partition to be bootable, restore the primary partition to a logical partition, hiding the restored partition. All at the time of restoration when needed, not before the fact like cloning. -- Dave
Guest tcarp Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) So, I won't go down the road you're > paving. > -- A little unfair given the opening comments on the original tread post. Even to Subject was intended to avoid the debate that seems to happen when this topic has come up on other threads. The intent is to understand the use of the two techniques and that, unfortunately, has to be done by comparison. It's not a question of better or worse, it's understanding the use of each since I designing/updating my backup methods. Ultimately it's going to boil down to 1) how much risk am I willing to take, 2) how time critical is my use, and 2) how much I'm willing to spend on backup sw and hw. To make those decision (for me) requires understanding the tools and techniques. That's been my objective. Ultimately, when I get a little more understanding (remember, I'm not an expert), I will be looking for guidance regarding my specific home network configuration.
Guest tcarp Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) > Yes, copying a clone "back to the original hard drive" makes no sense > at all since a clone's value is in its immediate bootability and its lack of > need for a schedual of files to backup. If you want to archive your tax > records or the wedding photos, put them on CD or DVD. If you want to > get back on the air quickly in case of a hard drive crash or data corruption, > have a clone on another hard drive handy. Tim I think I finally "got it" with this post because its viewing things from the recovery side not the backup side of the methods and tools. Deciding on whether to get cloning capabilities (in the tools I ultimately select) is probably going to boil down to the convenience of having a clone and the software cost (if it's separate from imaging capabilities). Let me ask a question about what to clone. I assume it's obvious that for computers with relatively small internal HDs (the machine I'm using right now is 30G) a full clone of the entire HD is both impractical and (in my case) physically impossible. I have other computers on my home net (a Mac Mini, and a couple other PCs) but all have internal HDs <40G or so. I do have a couple externals (160G each). So, if I have cloning as part of my backup strategy can/should I put it on an external? If yes, it can be a little bit of an issue with my laptops (we tend to go places together without the external HDs). Keep in mind I'm not trying to trigger the "which is better" discussion that occurs frequently on the threads when discussion cloning, imaging, etc. I want a thorough understand of the practical use (in this case of cloning) so I can make an informed decision about whether and how to fit it in my backup strategy. Thanks Tom
Guest tcarp Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) "PA20Pilot" wrote: > Normally a clone is just an exact > copy of your drive, if you just need a few files off it, just take them > as you would from any other storage location. There's nothing magical > here, just double copies of everything you've cloned. > Jim Thanks. I posted elsewhere that my interest when starting this thread was to understand cloning and imaging, etc. enough to make some decisions about using the techniques as I review my backup methods. So let me ask some questions about your backup methods. You posted that you take a clone every week. Assuming the only issue (if we can even call it an "issue") with cloning is the amount of HD space needed, Since the internal HDs on all my computers (a couple Macs and a couple PC laptops) are 40G or less, I tend to think they will not be a good place to partition and target cloning. That means the external HDs I have would be the place. Even there, though, at 40G or so a clone, these 160G externals will fill quickly also which means only a few clones (using your cycle, perhaps a month). Not suggesting that any more than that is needed to be able to get right back on the air, but for documents, I'd think backups that go a bit further back would be a good idea. So, do you also image (or file/folder )backups (independent of the cloning) you your system? I'm thinking that doing both would be best. Although I haven't opened up the topic of creating bootable CDs, I'm suspecting they would also be part of a comprehensive backup strategy for home networks.
Guest tcarp Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) Tim I do have one additional question I thought of after my first reply. I'm seeing that some cloning tools now allow for incrementals. Nice feature to deal with the HD space needs but seems like "not cloning". Do you understand their approach? If the biggest value for cloning is the ability to just boot up right away it would seem that somehow the cloning application would need to be involved in the boot to determine which version to use. Tom
Guest Timothy Daniels Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) "Lil' Dave" wrote: > "Timothy Daniels" wrote: >> [.....] >> I do both - to cheap archiving media AND to a bootable >> hard drive. And doing both is not as time-consuming as you'd >> imagine. >> >> *TimDaniels* >> > > All well and good. Except, there's only one copy, the clone.... Read above. I do both, and others can do the same since the two forms of backup are not mutually exclusive. *TimDaniels*
Guest Timothy Daniels Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) "tcarp" wrote: > > Tim > > I do have one additional question I thought of after my first reply. > > I'm seeing that some cloning tools now allow for incrementals. > Nice feature to deal with the HD space needs but seems like > "not cloning". Do you understand their approach? If the > biggest value for cloning is the ability to just boot up right away > it would seem that somehow the cloning application would need > to be involved in the boot to determine which version to use. > > Tom Some cloning utilities have incremental cloning as an option. Casper does, and I think some of the others. According to their literature, the first clone takes the usual amount of time (or perhaps a little longer), but the subsequent incremental updates to the clone take *much* less time. The way they do this is proprietary, of course, but either way, what is generated is a bootable exact copy of the original partition or partitions - without any need for participation by other software during bootup. I've never used the feature since as far as I'm concerned, it's just another thing to go wrong, and it only takes me about 20 minutes to clone a 40GB partition, anyway, so I always do the basic cloning. If my OS's partition were 160GB, though, I'd give serious consider- ation to incremental cloning. *TimDaniels*
Guest Timothy Daniels Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) "tcarp" wrote: > [......] > Deciding on whether to get cloning capabilities (in the tools > I ultimately select) is probably going to boil down to the > convenience of having a clone and the software cost (if it's > separate from imaging capabilities). > > Let me ask a question about what to clone. I assume it's > obvious that for computers with relatively small internal HDs > (the machine I'm using right now is 30G) a full clone of the > entire HD is both impractical and (in my case) physically > impossible. > > I have other computers on my home net (a Mac Mini, and > a couple other PCs) but all have internal HDs <40G or so. > > I do have a couple externals (160G each). > > So, if I have cloning as part of my backup strategy can/should > I put it on an external? If yes, it can be a little bit of an issue > with my laptops (we tend to go places together without the > external HDs). Laptops present a problem for cloning because the average laptop doesn't have a 2nd hard drive, and unless the laptop's motherboard IO controller has an eSATA port like some desktop PCs do, booting the clone from storage media is almost impossible. I've tried using an eSATA ExpressCard adapter, but the external hard drive isn't seen by the system until the OS is loaded - making it impossible to use for booting the OS. My Dell laptop claims to be bootable from "USB devices", and Dell Tech Support steadfastly adhers to that claim, but they haven't told me how to boot a USB hard drive, yet. The only "USB device" that I've been able to boot from is a USB "thumb drive". So for a laptop, a failed hard drive means physically replacing the internal hard drive with another internal hard drive that contains the clone. If the failure is file corruption due to a failing write head, it's likely to corrupt all the partitions on the internal hard drive as well, so keeping a clone on another partition doesn't make much sense. Even keeping a clone on another internal hard drive doesn't make sense if virus recovery is the purpose, as viruses can migrate to all partitions that the OS can "see". One way around this is to disable the backup hard drive during normal operation via the BIOS. Another way, that I use, is to switch off the power connection to the backup hard drive with a small toggle switch that is mounted in a chassis vent hole just under the plastic fascia. As long as the backup hard drive is unpowered, the BIOS and the OS can't "see" it. There are also 3rd-party software utilities which can render a partition "hidden" - BootItNG being one of them. But for laptops, unless you have a 2nd internal hard drive, you're pretty much out of luck for a quick backup. In such a case, the quickest recovery (assuming the internal hard drive hasn't failed) is to have a clone or an image file on an external hard drive (eSATA, USB or Firewire - eSATA being fastest), and copy it back to the internal hard drive. Up until Casper 4.0 came out, there was another problem with putting a clone on the same hard drive as the original OS. That had to do with the initial startup OF THE CLONE after it had been made. Although the parent OS could view the clone without a problem, the clone had to be kept from seeing its parent OS when the clone started up for the first time. Otherwise, the clone got its own files confused with those of its parent, and sometimes the confusion was so subtle as not to be noticed until much later when the parent OS was removed. Now, with Casper 4.0, the utility is smart enough to prepare the clone for the First Startup situation, and putting the clone on the same hard drive *may* not present a problem. Otherwise, you'd have to "hide" the parent OS's partition before starting up the clone for its first run. All these problems make cloning less suitable for laptops. The only advantage is that copying a clone back to an internal hard drive may use slightly less time because no expansion is needed in copying a compressed image file. *TimDaniels*
Guest AJR Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) tcarp (Originator I take it) - Regarding clone vs image is similar to car vs automobile. Will use term "Backup" to mean either. Full Backup refers to entire HD or select partitions - Differential/Incremental backups refer to changes since the since the last full backup made to keep the"Full Backup current. You also have the choice of only backing up specfic file/folders - again with add-ons (incremental) to keep up-to-date. Full backup programs (such as Acronis, Ghost, etc.) do not "backup" free (unused) space - With a 320 gig HD and 32 gig used - only the 32 gig will be backed up - also you can indicate the compression level. of "Timothy Daniels" <NoSpam@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message news:uoQNVPj0IHA.3756@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > "tcarp" wrote: >> [......] >> Deciding on whether to get cloning capabilities (in the tools >> I ultimately select) is probably going to boil down to the >> convenience of having a clone and the software cost (if it's >> separate from imaging capabilities). >> >> Let me ask a question about what to clone. I assume it's >> obvious that for computers with relatively small internal HDs >> (the machine I'm using right now is 30G) a full clone of the >> entire HD is both impractical and (in my case) physically >> impossible. >> >> I have other computers on my home net (a Mac Mini, and >> a couple other PCs) but all have internal HDs <40G or so. >> >> I do have a couple externals (160G each). >> >> So, if I have cloning as part of my backup strategy can/should >> I put it on an external? If yes, it can be a little bit of an issue >> with my laptops (we tend to go places together without the >> external HDs). > > > Laptops present a problem for cloning because the average > laptop doesn't have a 2nd hard drive, and unless the laptop's > motherboard IO controller has an eSATA port like some desktop > PCs do, booting the clone from storage media is almost impossible. > I've tried using an eSATA ExpressCard adapter, but the external > hard drive isn't seen by the system until the OS is loaded - making > it impossible to use for booting the OS. My Dell laptop claims to > be bootable from "USB devices", and Dell Tech Support steadfastly > adhers to that claim, but they haven't told me how to boot a USB > hard drive, yet. The only "USB device" that I've been able to boot > from is a USB "thumb drive". So for a laptop, a failed hard drive > means physically replacing the internal hard drive with another > internal hard drive that contains the clone. If the failure is file > corruption due to a failing write head, it's likely to corrupt all the > partitions on the internal hard drive as well, so keeping a clone on > another partition doesn't make much sense. Even keeping a clone > on another internal hard drive doesn't make sense if virus recovery > is the purpose, as viruses can migrate to all partitions that the OS > can "see". One way around this is to disable the backup hard drive > during normal operation via the BIOS. Another way, that I use, is > to switch off the power connection to the backup hard drive with a > small toggle switch that is mounted in a chassis vent hole just under > the plastic fascia. As long as the backup hard drive is unpowered, > the BIOS and the OS can't "see" it. There are also 3rd-party software > utilities which can render a partition "hidden" - BootItNG being one > of them. But for laptops, unless you have a 2nd internal hard drive, > you're pretty much out of luck for a quick backup. In such a case, > the quickest recovery (assuming the internal hard drive hasn't failed) > is to have a clone or an image file on an external hard drive (eSATA, > USB or Firewire - eSATA being fastest), and copy it back to the > internal hard drive. > > Up until Casper 4.0 came out, there was another problem with > putting a clone on the same hard drive as the original OS. That had > to do with the initial startup OF THE CLONE after it had been made. > Although the parent OS could view the clone without a problem, > the clone had to be kept from seeing its parent OS when the clone > started up for the first time. Otherwise, the clone got its own files > confused with those of its parent, and sometimes the confusion was > so subtle as not to be noticed until much later when the parent OS > was removed. Now, with Casper 4.0, the utility is smart enough to > prepare the clone for the First Startup situation, and putting the clone > on the same hard drive *may* not present a problem. Otherwise, > you'd have to "hide" the parent OS's partition before starting up the > clone for its first run. > > All these problems make cloning less suitable for laptops. The > only advantage is that copying a clone back to an internal hard drive > may use slightly less time because no expansion is needed in copying > a compressed image file. > > *TimDaniels* > >
Guest PA20Pilot Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) Hi again, .......So, do you also image (or file/folder )backups (independent of the cloning) your system? I'm thinking that doing both would be best. You're right about doing both would be best, if your situation required redundancy. I overwrite the previous weeks clone when I do my Friday night routine. If something is valuable enough to warrant long time backup I'd slap it on a CD as I don't have a DVD writer, then store if off site. I've never fooled around with incremental saves, so I might be missing out on something good, but I'm happy, and that's all that I really care about anyway. I have three partitions on my drive, C,D and E. When I turn on my second disk just prior to cloning, it shows three partitions also, labeled as G, H, and I. My program makes the letters choice, not me. But when I replace the main hard drive with the clone copy as a test to see if things are really as good as I think they are, Windoze changes G,H, and I into C, D and E during the boot. It's like I didn't even switch drives, everything is just normal. Keep in mind though, that things can, and for some people often, go wrong. Windoze clones, for me, has always booted, but I have had to go into My Computer and manually change two of the cloned partitions into what they were on the original instead of H and I as they were temporarily named during the clone phase. Don't let anyone tell you you can't have a clone copy and the original disk installed at the same boot time because Windows will get confused with two operating systems installed. The BIOS or whatever will know where to boot from, and won't be confused by another disk with the same info on it. Since the clone has everything on it the original drive does, I don't see a reason, for me, to copy very many other files separately. My strategy certainly has flaws, like a house fire, but what I do do has saved me a lot of grief after an install gone wrong, or another M$ update gone to hell, or just a system file gone into corruption. My clone is actually on an internal drive that's installed in a sliding case with a key that turns off it's power, so....., there's no chance of its being written to without my approval. ---==X={}=X==--- Jim Self AVIATION ANIMATION, the internet's largest depository. http://avanimation.avsupport.com Your only internet source for spiral staircase plans. http://jself.com/stair/Stair.htm Experimental Aircraft Association #140897 EAA Technical Counselor #4562
Guest Lil' Dave Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) Dave "Timothy Daniels" <NoSpam@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message news:uBok8wi0IHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > "Lil' Dave" wrote: >> "Timothy Daniels" wrote: >>> [.....] >>> I do both - to cheap archiving media AND to a bootable >>> hard drive. And doing both is not as time-consuming as you'd >>> imagine. >>> >>> *TimDaniels* >>> >> >> All well and good. Except, there's only one copy, the clone.... > > Read above. I do both, and others can do the same since > the two forms of backup are not mutually exclusive. > > *TimDaniels* > Evidently the conversation is off as you snipped just about everything. I'm out of here. -- Dave
Guest Lil' Dave Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) "tcarp" <tcarp@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:D666B8A4-0236-427D-8800-48411A152821@microsoft.com... > > So, I won't go down the road you're >> paving. >> -- > A little unfair given the opening comments on the original tread post. > Even > to Subject was intended to avoid the debate that seems to happen when this > topic has come up on other threads. > > The intent is to understand the use of the two techniques and that, > unfortunately, has to be done by comparison. > > It's not a question of better or worse, it's understanding the use of each > since I designing/updating my backup methods. Ultimately it's going to > boil > down to 1) how much risk am I willing to take, 2) how time critical is my > use, and 2) how much I'm willing to spend on backup sw and hw. > > To make those decision (for me) requires understanding the tools and > techniques. That's been my objective. > > Ultimately, when I get a little more understanding (remember, I'm not an > expert), I will be looking for guidance regarding my specific home network > configuration. > > > Another snipper of original postings in reply. Forget it. You don't want to talk, you want to lead people to one thing only. -- Dave
Guest Timothy Daniels Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) "PA20Pilot" wrote: > [............] > Don't let anyone tell you you can't have a clone copy and the > original disk installed at the same boot time because Windows > will get confused with two operating systems installed. The > BIOS or whatever will know where to boot from, and won't > be confused by another disk with the same info on it. What you say is literally true - a clone and its original OS can reside in the same machine, even on the same hard drive. But unless you're using one of the very few cloning utilities which handles the problem of the clone's first startup in the presence of its "parent" OS, the "files" in the clone can end up being merely pointers to the corresponding files in the "parent" OS. You can edit what you think are separate files in the two systems, but "they" will actually be one file - the original file in the "parent" OS. And if you subsequently delete the "parent" OS and its partition, you also delete your only copy of that file. The difficult feature of this problem is that it's random - only a few files are affected. If those files happen to be part of the registry, you find out very fast, and you can correct it by re-cloning the "parent" OS. But if those files are just archived text documents, you may not find out for years that the file is gone. Like I've said, the way around this problem is to hide or remove the "parent" OS from view of the clone when the clone is started up for the first time. Thereafter, the clone can see its "parent" OS during startup without a problem. Note that this affects the startup of the clone only. The "parent" OS can be started up immediately after the cloning, and seeing its clone has no affect on the "parent's" files or the files of the clone. This problem affected the Windows clones produced by all the cloning utilities, and most people didn't notice it because of its obscurity and because clones were usually not booted until the "parent" OS had expired due to hard drive failure. But when you have multiple clones of the same "parent" OS in the system, such as I do, this problem is eventually noticed. Fortunately, at least one cloning utility has solved the problem, that being Casper 4.0, and the clone can be started up with its "parent" OS in view, and its files will remain separate from those of its "parent" OS. Note also that this problem is a Windows problem (or design feature by Microsoft to discourage pirating), and it doesn't affect Linux or OS X or Solaris (as far as I know). *TimDaniels*
Guest Timothy Daniels Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Re: Clone vs. image (I promise not the same ol ground) "Lil' Dave" sniped: > Another snipper of original postings in reply. Forget it. > You don't want to talk, you want to lead people to one thing only. Editing, or "snipping", is standard procedure in Usenet that keeps down the superflous traffic in irrelevant text. It's quite properly used when it's just one topic in a lengthy posting that one wants to address. Each of us wanted to address just one topic in your posting, and we spared the readers the agony of reading all the other extraneous verbiage which we may not care about, or which is irrelevant, and or with which we may even agree. It was just that "one thing" that you said that were addressing, so it was that "one thing" that we included in the quote. The entirety of your posting is still there in the thread if you want to refer to it. *TimDaniels*
Recommended Posts