Best method to backup and Recover Windows XP Pro and Windows 2K Pro??

  • Thread starter Thread starter JC
  • Start date Start date
J

JC

Hi folks,

There are various methods of backing up via operating systems , using
"ghost software" to hdd-hdd backup or using "partition magic software".

Appreciate if you can share your experiences what are the methods that
was used and the pro and cons !


thanks in advance
JC
 
JC said:
Hi folks,

There are various methods of backing up via operating systems , using
"ghost software" to hdd-hdd backup or using "partition magic software".

Appreciate if you can share your experiences what are the methods that
was used and the pro and cons !


thanks in advance
JC
Click to expand...
To be recommended is Acronis True Image. After installation. you can create
a self booting CD. It`s compatible with USB drives as well as internal
drives. Does everything you want.
Best wishes..OJ
 
JC said:
Hi folks,

There are various methods of backing up via operating systems , using
"ghost software" to hdd-hdd backup or using "partition magic software".

Appreciate if you can share your experiences what are the methods that
was used and the pro and cons !


thanks in advance
JC
Click to expand...

Hi JC

I use Drive Image 7. Its saved the day on a few occasions! (Its now sold as
Symantec Ghost 9 that may have other issues I'm not aware of since I havent
used it).

DI7 The pros:

I can be sure that everything on the drive is saved and not have to worry
about forgetting anything ie files that may have been saved in the wrong
folder.

Its reliable. I have scheduled backups that run every Thursday night. Then
on Friday morning I burn the image segments to DVD-RW.

Its very fast. On my system it takes 40 mins to create and verify an image
of an 18Gb partition to another partition reserved for saving images to. I
once used Nero backup to do the same and it took over 9hrs and I couldnt use
my PC!!! Of course the amount of time it takes will depend on the speed of
your drives and processor and what level of compression is used.

You can save an image of an active system ie the very same drive than DI and
Windows are running from! (Though you should be aware that some files wont
save properly if the files are open eg Outlook Express Message Folders so
its best to close OE before imaging the drive OE messages are saved on.)

You can restore individual files/folders or the whole partition to any
location.

You can password protect the images.

You can browse the contents of the images just like using windows explorer
on an HDD.

The only cons I can think of...

You need to have sufficient drive space to save the images to. I use a
second drive for that very purpose. I wouldnt bother saving directly to DVD
or CD as it takes too long and if the disk write fails you lose the whole
thing so it could be a waste of time. I write to HDD first then use Nero to
copy to DVD later. Thats the only pain but it works. Once in a while I copy
the image segments to hispeed DVD-R and make several copies to store in
different locations.

YMMV but thats my take on it and throughly recommend it.

Guess it depends on how much data you need to backup.

HTH

Ian
 
Previously JC said:
Hi folks,
Click to expand...
There are various methods of backing up via operating systems , using
"ghost software" to hdd-hdd backup or using "partition magic software".
Click to expand...
Appreciate if you can share your experiences what are the methods that
was used and the pro and cons !
Click to expand...

Creating a partition image with Linux. Fast and clean.
Since I have only FAT32 (for the exact reason to allow
Linux access), the first thing I do is fill up the empty
space with zeros and the do a compressed partition image
with 'cat' and 'bzip2'.

Disadvantages: No OS specific possibilities like partition
resizeing or the like.

Arno
 
Arno Wagner said:
Creating a partition image with Linux. Fast and clean.
Since I have only FAT32 (for the exact reason to allow
Linux access), the first thing I do is fill up the empty
space with zeros and the do a compressed partition image
with 'cat' and 'bzip2'.

Disadvantages: No OS specific possibilities like partition
resizeing or the like.

Arno
Click to expand...

Another disadvantage is relatively poor image performance and the lack of
image integrity check.
 
Another disadvantage is relatively poor image performance and the lack of
image integrity check.
Click to expand...

Performance: Whatever the compressor gives. No compressor => ~25MB/s.
I would not call that bad...

Integrity check: None, but I do comparison to the original. This is
a fundamental problem with all sector imagers. Of course I can allways
mount via loopback, but ther is no filesystem checker for FAT32 under
linux that I know of.

Arno
 
Another disadvantage is relatively poor image performance and the lack
of
Performance: Whatever the compressor gives. No compressor => ~25MB/s.
I would not call that bad...
Click to expand...

"No compressor" ?
Do you normally take image with no compression? I don't think so.
To me image performance is the time required to take an image,
relative to original partition/disk size.
For the same partition/disk, I compare image taking times between
Ghost 8.x , TI or Linux image tool. Usually Ghost is fastest,
TI second and Linux the slowest.
Integrity check: None, but I do comparison to the original. This is
a fundamental problem with all sector imagers. Of course I can allways
mount via loopback, but ther is no filesystem checker for FAT32 under
linux that I know of.
Click to expand...

How you do comparison to the original?
 
"No compressor" ?
Do you normally take image with no compression? I don't think so.
To me image performance is the time required to take an image,
relative to original partition/disk size.
Click to expand...

Yes. As it is dominated by the compressor. Faster compressor does
make faster images. The image-making is not a bottleneck, except
when using no compressor. Since Linux does allow you to use any
compressor you like, comparing image making speed connot
be compared unless you use no compression. Pretty obvious.
For the same partition/disk, I compare image taking times between
Ghost 8.x , TI or Linux image tool. Usually Ghost is fastest,
TI second and Linux the slowest.
Click to expand...

Sorry, unless you compare with the same compression factor this
comparison is worthless. Note the if speed is all you want, you can
use lzop. But the compression ratio will suck. And note also that
image tools under Linux are only for those that do not understand
what they are doing. These tools are not needed at all.
How you do comparison to the original?
Click to expand...

cat /dev/original | md5sum
md5sum image

compare the output.

Arno
 
Another disadvantage is relatively poor image performance and the
lack
Yes. As it is dominated by the compressor. Faster compressor does
make faster images. The image-making is not a bottleneck, except
when using no compressor. Since Linux does allow you to use any
compressor you like, comparing image making speed connot
be compared unless you use no compression. Pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I can care less about compression if resulting image file is still
reasonably small.
Sorry, unless you compare with the same compression factor this
comparison is worthless. Note the if speed is all you want, you can
use lzop. But the compression ratio will suck. And note also that
image tools under Linux are only for those that do not understand
what they are doing. These tools are not needed at all.
Click to expand...

I don't care about compression. But I do want a small image size and fast,
reliable image taking process.

If I get an image of 25% full 40GB disk using:
1. Ghost 8.x in 30 minutes, image size 5GB, verifiable
2. TI in 35 minutes, image size 5.3GB, verifiable
3. Linux 75 minutes, image size 6.0GB, unverifiable
4. Linux 50 minutes, image size 40GB, sometimes verifiable
then results speak for themselves.
cat /dev/original | md5sum
md5sum image

compare the output.
Click to expand...

What's an "original" and "image" in above example?
 
The Western Digital software copied the complete boot partition
from my old WD80 to the new WD200.
 
Back
Top