Concerned About Upcoming Drive Copy

[Tom]

Hi,

I have a 120GB Western Digital drive that was split down the middle, so
it has two partitions (C: and D. I have WinXP sp1 in the C: partition.
I just purchased a new Western Digital 320GB drive where I would like to
move the C: partition. The 320GB drive will likely just be one big
partition (C. I'm not concerned about D: as that is just data and I
can do a normal explorer Cut and Paste later to move the data to the
320GB drive once the OS has been moved.

In the past I've made backup images with Disk Image 2002 and while I
have NEVER had to do a complete restore from the backups, the images
have always reported no errors when verifying, even months later. Pulled
a file out of the image maybe once or twice, but nothing major. So I
feel somewhat comfortable with that software only to that degree.

Thinking that Drive Image 2002 was, perhaps, a little long in the tooth,
I started to look around for newer software.

I am scared as hell after reading about Ghost and True Image!

Another option would be to use Western Digital's Data Lifeguard Tools
drive copy, but I don't know how well that works. Seems a bit too
simple.

I just don't feel confident about these four software packages (Drive
Image 2002, Ghost, True Image and Data Lifeguard) that the end results
will work 100 percent after the move and I won't find out that something
is messed up until after I reformat the 120 GB drive.

Does anyone have any recommendations?

Thanks,

 

[Rod Speed]

I have a 120GB Western Digital drive that was split down the middle,
so it has two partitions (C: and D. I have WinXP sp1 in the C:
partition. I just purchased a new Western Digital 320GB drive where
I would like to move the C: partition. The 320GB drive will likely just
be one big partition (C. I'm not concerned about D: as that is just
data and I can do a normal explorer Cut and Paste later to move the
data to the 320GB drive once the OS has been moved.

In the past I've made backup images with Disk Image 2002 and while
I have NEVER had to do a complete restore from the backups, the
images have always reported no errors when verifying, even months later.

Pulled a file out of the image maybe once or twice, but nothing major.
So I feel somewhat comfortable with that software only to that degree.

Something more modern like True Image does give you
more capability for backups as well as that sort of cloning.

Thinking that Drive Image 2002 was, perhaps, a little long
in the tooth, I started to look around for newer software.

I am scared as hell after reading about Ghost and True Image!

You shouldnt be with True Image, just about Ghost.

Another option would be to use Western Digital's Data Lifeguard Tools
drive copy, but I don't know how well that works. Seems a bit too simple.

And it can do strange things to the destination drive too.

I just don't feel confident about these four software packages
(Drive Image 2002, Ghost, True Image and Data Lifeguard)
that the end results will work 100 percent after the move

They will with True Image.

and I won't find out that something is messed
up until after I reformat the 120 GB drive.

That doesnt happen, the problem is
obvious when you try to use the clone.

Does anyone have any recommendations?

True Image.

 

[Tom]

Something more modern like True Image does give you more capability
for backups as well as that sort of cloning.

I take it that I would want True Image Workstation?

You shouldnt be with True Image, just about Ghost.

I read a lot of disparaging remarks about both.

And it can do strange things to the destination drive too.

Really, like what? When I talked to Western Digital they were really
touting it. Of course, I suppose they would since it's their software.

They will with True Image.


That doesnt happen, the problem is obvious when you try to use the
clone.

So I'll know right away, that good. I was thinking of using a file
compare program, but even that wouldn't do any good for the hidden
stuff.

True Image.

Do you have a minimum recommenced version?

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

I take it that I would want True Image Workstation?

TI Home will do what you want fine.

I read a lot of disparaging remarks about both.

There is no basis for those with TI. The most you can say is that Acronis
does have a bit of a tendency to release stuff early so you can need to
download the latest build for free at times, but thats the only downside.

Really, like what?

Like installing a bios overlay when it isnt necessary and is undesirable.

When I talked to Western Digital they were really touting it.
Of course, I suppose they would since it's their software.

So I'll know right away, that good. I was thinking of using a file compare
program, but even that wouldn't do any good for the hidden stuff.

No need, if you can boot it, its fine.

Do you have a minimum recommenced version?

Anything will do fine, even an older version like 8.

9 Home has some worthwhile extras over 8, particularly file
level backup as well as imaging and cloning. Can be handy
for decent backups of less than an entire partition etc.

 

[Neil Maxwell]

Anything will do fine, even an older version like 8.

9 Home has some worthwhile extras over 8, particularly file
level backup as well as imaging and cloning. Can be handy
for decent backups of less than an entire partition etc.

I'll echo the recommendation for TI8 or 9. It's far more friendly and
bulletproof than Ghost, IME. I've run into a few hardware
incompatibilities now and again, but those usually go away by
downloading the latest build.

I use it all the time, and it hasn't let me down yet. It's a major
improvement in imaging systems.

 

[CWatters]

I just don't feel confident about these four software packages (Drive
Image 2002, Ghost, True Image and Data Lifeguard) that the end results
will work 100 percent after the move and I won't find out that something
is messed up until after I reformat the 120 GB drive.

Ghost has saved me 4 times in as many years.

What I would do is:

1) backup to CD/DVD (two copies if paranoid)
2) Remove the old drive and put it somewhere safe
3) Install new one
4) Do the restore

That way there is no possibility of doing a restore to the wrong drive or
partion.

 

[Rod Speed]

Ghost has saved me 4 times in as many years.

What I would do is:

1) backup to CD/DVD (two copies if paranoid)

You dont need two copys, you still have the
original drive if the restore fails due to bad media.

2) Remove the old drive and put it somewhere safe
3) Install new one
4) Do the restore

That way there is no possibility of doing
a restore to the wrong drive or partion.

Sure, but any decent imager allows you to see
what you are telling it to do with the drive size
displayed, and with TI you get to confirm that
before you do it.

 

[Rod Speed]

You dont need two copys, you still have the
original drive if the restore fails due to bad media.

Whoops, my massive brain fart there.

 

[Rod Speed]

Whoops, my massive brain fart there.

No it wasnt, time to shoot myself |-)

 

[willbill]

I'll echo the recommendation for TI8 or 9.

i'll also echo for TI9 (mine was something
like $29 from www.newegg.com)

i mean it boots from the CD, and that is
a major key thing that i want for clone backups
(i run my primary HD as a 150GB SATA raptor,
and plug in a 250GB IDE drive to do an
"as is" (TI9 clone term) backup). i've got
a wide collection of different 250GB IDE drives
(2 versions of Hitachi, WD RE, Seagate 7200.9)

It's far more friendly and
bulletproof than Ghost, IME.

which Ghost? Windows or DOS?

i've most recently run the DOS Ghost
2003 (included with SystemWorks 2003).
if anything, it is easier to use,
provided that you use the same drive
as primary and for backup

for cloning your main HD to a mix of
different temps that you plug in, i've
run into problems with DOS Ghost 2003,
and i gave up on it and tried TI9, booted
from the CD

anyhow, so far TI9 has worked every time,
even if it is a little bit trickier to use

fwiw, i put a 1" square rod of wood down
and prop the end of the temp disk on it and
the front on the edge of the open side of
the case; needless to say, i run an ordinary
fan and direct the air flow to the temp disk;
i'm averaging 2.1 to 2.2 GB/min for these
mixed clone backups, on two different PCs!

i plan to have my Sister (a computer numnut)
continue to use DOS Ghost 2003 coz she doesn't
mix HD types for the backups

bill

 

[CWatters]

No it wasnt, time to shoot myself |-)

Too much caffine eh Rod makes the finger work too fast

Yeah you were right the first time - no real need to two copies on CD/DVD as
the original HD is working.

 

[CWatters]

which Ghost? Windows or DOS?

i've most recently run the DOS Ghost
2003 (included with SystemWorks 2003).
if anything, it is easier to use,
provided that you use the same drive
as primary and for backup

I'm also still with the old version of Ghost. Mainly because when I tried
using Drive Image (on which the new version is based) it let me down. I just
couldn't get the restored drive to boot. I had several images to choose from
but none would produce a working image once restored. Lucky I had a ghost
image as well that time.

 

[willbill]

I'm also still with the old version of Ghost.
Mainly because when I tried using Drive Image
(on which the new version is based)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

True Image 9 is based on Drive Image?

it let me down.
I just couldn't get the restored drive to boot.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

i hate it when that happens

I had several images to choose from
but none would produce a working image once restored.

i've always assummed that an image, say of
a 150GB hard drive, will only use as much
space as there actually is on the source drive?

so if the source 150GB hard drive has 50GB
of data, then the image will only need 50GB
(or less? (if compression is used)) on the
backup drive?

fwiw, i've never done images, only full clones;
always when booted from a simple OS,
like the DOS that came with Win98SE,
or the OS that's on a bootable CD
(several here claim that the boot OS
on the TI9 CD is Linux based)

i've found that it's very easy to test
full clones. just pull the data plug
on your primary drive, leave the temp
drive (that you just backed up to) connected,
and see if it boots. i did this with my
recent switch to a 150GB SATA Raptor (as my
primary (boot) drive), and i was surprised
that i didn't have to screw around with
changing the bios (the backup was a 250GB
IDE drive)

one interesting thing about True Image 9
is that it appears to offer a verify
step of their image backups, something that
is of interest to me, so i may get around
to trying that in the next month or two

given that hard drive manufacturers spec
their drives at having bit errors less
than 10 to the 14th or 15th, that's an
error roughly every 125TB, so maybe it's
not too pressing.

it'll also be a bit harder to check it coz
i'll have to run two external temp drives,
but i've got a spare 120GB IDE drive, so i'll
put the image (of the 150GB Raptor) on that,
and then plug in a 250GB and restore the
image (that's on the 120GB drive) to that
and see if it boots

that's one of the key things i've learned.
if you use the same size hard drives (as
primary (boot) drive and backup drive,
it's all too easy to mistake one for the
other and wipe out your real boot drive.

bill

 

[Rod Speed]

Too much caffine eh Rod makes the finger work too fast

Dont bother with any caffiene anymore, so its must have been a brain fart |-)

Yeah you were right the first time - no real need to
two copies on CD/DVD as the original HD is working.

Yeah, that's what I meant. No idea why the brain fart happened.

 

[chrisv]

No it wasnt, time to shoot myself |-)

That Fosters is pretty good stuff, eh Rod? 8)

 

[Tom]

Does anyone have any recommendations?

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank those who responded to my
initial post. I have another question, if I may.

The new 320GB drive that is replacing the old 120GB OS drive will be my
fourth 320GB drive. I will be temporarily removing the other three 320GB
drives so there is no possibility of confusing the new drive for the
others. All current drives are jumped using Cable Select and this has
worked flawless for years. While doing research, I found Master and
Slave this and Master and Slave that, hardly anyone used the term Cable
Select to describe their bus.

Is there any particular reason that come time to do the Clone, and with
both drives on the same controller chain, that the 120GB and the new
320GB drive should be jumped as Master and Slave (respectively) or will
Cable Select continue to work fine?

 

[Rod Speed]

CWatters wrote

True Image 9 is based on Drive Image?

Nope, Ghost 9 and 10 is based on V2i
which was called Drive Image 9 sort of.

i hate it when that happens

i've always assummed that an image, say of
a 150GB hard drive, will only use as much
space as there actually is on the source drive?

Normally significantly less due to compression.

so if the source 150GB hard drive has 50GB
of data, then the image will only need 50GB
(or less? (if compression is used)) on the
backup drive?

fwiw, i've never done images, only full clones;

Those are much more dangerous, too easy
to clone backwards and lose the original.

always when booted from a simple OS,
like the DOS that came with Win98SE,
or the OS that's on a bootable CD
(several here claim that the boot OS
on the TI9 CD is Linux based)

Its not a claim, its a fact. All TI rescue CDs are.

i've found that it's very easy to test full clones.

Not necessarily. That can get you into a considerable
mess with XP if you let the clone see the original for
the first boot of the clone after the clone has been made.
It will boot fine, but if the original dies or is unplugged,
you'll find that you cant boot the clone anymore
because the boot uses files off the original drive.

just pull the data plug on your primary drive, leave the temp drive (that you just
backed up to) connected, and see if it boots. i did this with my recent switch to a
150GB SATA Raptor (as my primary (boot) drive), and i was surprised that i didn't have
to screw around with changing the bios (the backup was a 250GB IDE drive)

It just goes thru the boot order list until it finds a bootable drive.

one interesting thing about True Image 9
is that it appears to offer a verify
step of their image backups, something that
is of interest to me, so i may get around
to trying that in the next month or two

given that hard drive manufacturers spec
their drives at having bit errors less
than 10 to the 14th or 15th, that's an
error roughly every 125TB, so maybe it's
not too pressing.

The problem isnt with the errors the drive produces,
its that the image may not be correctly produced.

it'll also be a bit harder to check it coz
i'll have to run two external temp drives,
but i've got a spare 120GB IDE drive, so i'll
put the image (of the 150GB Raptor) on that,
and then plug in a 250GB and restore the
image (that's on the 120GB drive) to that
and see if it boots

that's one of the key things i've learned.
if you use the same size hard drives (as
primary (boot) drive and backup drive,
it's all too easy to mistake one for the
other and wipe out your real boot drive.

Yep, and the other advantage of using images
is that you can have more than one image of
the original onto the drive you use for backup.

And you can now do incremental and differential images
too. Most cloners cant do that. Some like xxclone can.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

That Fosters is pretty good stuff, eh Rod? 8)

Its shit, actually, never drink it if I have any choice.

And I wasnt drinking any beer at all at that time of day either.

 

[Rod Speed]

The new 320GB drive that is replacing the old 120GB OS
drive will be my fourth 320GB drive. I will be temporarily
removing the other three 320GB drives so there is no
possibility of confusing the new drive for the others.

Yeah, well worth doing for safety.

All current drives are jumped using Cable Select and
this has worked flawless for years. While doing research, I found
Master and Slave this and Master and Slave that, hardly anyone used
the term Cable Select to describe their bus.

Thats because the master/slave system was what was mostly
used with the older 40 wire cables and many keep using it now.

Most drives come jumpered cable select by default now
and virtually all 80 wire cables are cable select cables,
so it makes some sense to use cable select now.

The main downside with cable select is that the master and slave
are determined by the cable connector the drive is plugged into
and that can be less than ideal mechanically at times. It can be
mechanically easier to plug the drive into any connector when
there is more than drive on the cable and change the jumper to
specify which is master and which is slave.

Is there any particular reason that come time to do the Clone, and
with both drives on the same controller chain, that the 120GB and the
new 320GB drive should be jumped as Master and Slave (respectively)
or will Cable Select continue to work fine?

Cable select will work fine. And is a little safer because its easier
to check which is the master and which is the slave since its determined
by which cable connector the drive is plugged into. No big deal when
the drives are different sized, but a bit safer if they are the same size,
harder to clone them backwards and lose the original drive contents.

 

[Tom]

Yeah, well worth doing for safety.

Right, that's the last thing anyone wants is to pick the wrong
source/target.

Thats because the master/slave system was what was mostly used with
the older 40 wire cables and many keep using it now.

I like the convenience of being able to take two drives and move them
around with little fuss.

Most drives come jumpered cable select by default now and virtually
all 80 wire cables are cable select cables, so it makes some sense to
use cable select now.

I double check a new drive to make sure Cable Select is jumpered, but I
don't think I've had to change a jumper on a drive for at least five
years.

The main downside with cable select is that the master and slave are
determined by the cable connector the drive is plugged into and that
can be less than ideal mechanically at times. It can be mechanically
easier to plug the drive into any connector when there is more than
drive on the cable and change the jumper to specify which is master
and which is slave.

My computer case has two hard drive cages and I remember having to
shuffle the drives around in the beginning. It was a little bit of trial
and error until I had them connected and positioned the way I wanted
them. I think in the long run Cable Select may have made the task
easier.

Cable select will work fine. And is a little safer because its easier
to check which is the master and which is the slave since its
determined by which cable connector the drive is plugged into. No big
deal when the drives are different sized, but a bit safer if they are
the same size, harder to clone them backwards and lose the original
drive contents.

That's certainly good news that Cable Select will work and I don't have
to change all the drives to Master and Slave to make the Clone work
correctly.

I mentioned above that the Clone would take place on two drives
connected to the same controller. While this has more to do with
convenience, it's not ideal for data transfers. Can I assume that it is
not necessary for both drives to reside on the same controller chain,
and that placing the 320GB on the secondary controller would also work,
and would be a bit more efficient?

Once I start the process, I won't be able to come back here. So can you
think of anything a first-timer might need to know before starting the
process of moving the OS from drive A to drive B?

Thanks for all the help.