Partition saving programs review

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roger Johansson
  • Start date Start date
R

Roger Johansson

Partition saving to an image file is very useful for backup purposes.
Most useful for partitions with a content of up to 3GB.
Big storage disks take very long to save or restore.

Restoring an image overwrites the chosen partition with the content of the
image file. These programs can save only the used parts of a partition and
can resize the image to fit on a smaller or larger partition, as long as
there is space enough for the content.

_Norton Ghost (ver6 or 2003)_
Payware

Speed: 70MB/s, and the speed seems to be very constant, no matter if you
use a slow or fast computer, or choose no compression or fast compression.
The speed seems to depend only on the speed of the hard disk.

Explorer: Very good explorer functions. You can view, delete, add and
change files in the image file. Good search and sort features.

_Drive Image (ver5)_
Payware

Speed: Faster than Ghost, maybe 120MB/s, with no compression or low
compression.

Explorer: Less good than Ghost. You can view the content and restore any
file to its original location or any other location, but not add or change
anything in the image file. Difficult to find files in big directories as
there are no find or sort features.

_Savepart, Partition Saving V 2.80_
Freeware: http://www.partition-saving.com
Copyright (c) 1999-2003 D. Guibouret

Speed: When I tried with compression level 1 it was very fast, similar to
DI and a lot faster than Ghost.
The resulting partition image file has exactly the right size, the same as
the ghost file for the same partition. So I think the saving was done
correctly.

I think the reports I have heard about it being very slow is the result of
less well chosen parameters. You need to choose to save only used sectors,
and choose compression level 1, which gives 50% reduction in size, the same
as the optimal compression in DI and Ghost.
A slow computer makes the saving time longer.

Partition saving has a good visual interface, you choose what to save,
where to save it, what compression level to use, on a series of visual
screens. The user interface is good and similar in all these programs.
I found Partition Saving easy to use, but you need some basic knowledge
about partitions in your computer. That is needed for all these programs.

Explorer: No explorer functions at all.
I talked about this with the author via email and he is maybe thinking
about adding such functions

I did not test unpacking and restoring functions in Ghost and Partition
Saving, I only saved a partition image of my C:\ drive, 800MB used.

It took 3 minutes in PS, similar time in DI, and 10 minutes in Ghost.
 
Roger Johansson said:
Speed: 70MB/s, and the speed seems to be very constant, no matter if you
use a slow or fast computer, or choose no compression or fast compression.
The speed seems to depend only on the speed of the hard disk.

Explorer: Very good explorer functions. You can view, delete, add and
change files in the image file. Good search and sort features.

_Drive Image (ver5)_
Payware

Speed: Faster than Ghost, maybe 120MB/s, with no compression or low
compression.
Click to expand...

Correction to speed numbers, I mean MB per minute, not seconds.
 
Partition saving to an image file is very useful for backup purposes.
Most useful for partitions with a content of up to 3GB.
Big storage disks take very long to save or restore.
Click to expand...
snippage
Click to expand...

Have you tested Acronis True Image? I'd be interested to see how it stacks
up.

regards

Dud
 
Roger Johansson ([email protected]) schrieb/wrote:
[Ghost]
Speed: 70MB/s, and the speed seems to be very constant, no matter if
you use a slow or fast computer, or choose no compression or fast
compression. The speed seems to depend only on the speed of the hard
disk.

Explorer: Very good explorer functions. You can view, delete, add and
change files in the image file. Good search and sort features.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Correction to speed numbers, I mean MB per minute, not seconds.
Click to expand...

For large files I get up to 180MB/min (PIII@500, IBM DTxx drives, 15GB,
light compression) when I copy a partition from one drive to another.
Defrag'ed partitions are processed faster than partitions with
fragmented files. 1.5GB take ~10-11 minutes, resulting in a ~1GB image.
Faster processing and smaller images can be achieved via the
file exclusion feature.
 
I just tried restoring the C:\ drive from a Partition Saving image.
It worked, and it was very fast, 3-5 minutes.
That is the same speed as Drive Image in restoring an image.

To make it easier for others to use Partition Saving without reading long
text files I can give some easy directions:

Get the program: http://www.partition-saving.com

Make a bootable floppy disk, either from some dos system or windows.
savepart.exe is very small, just 215kB, but you may have to remove some
file to make place for it on a windows rescue disk.
Or you can put it alone on a floppy and load it after loading a bootable
floppy disk. I put the two other small files on the floppy too, drvpart.sys
and Allocxms.com, just in case savepart has some use for them.

Reboot into the floppy disk and start savepart.exe.

In all these screens, use tab, arrow keys, and enter to navigate. You may
need to use the US-american keyboard layout to write file names, if your
boot floppy does not set your country keyboard correctly.

First screen: Choose save an element. It means save a partition, a disk, or
another part of a disk.

Second screen: Choose disk number, usually zero for the first hard disk in
your system, where your C: drive is.

Third screen: Choose partition to save. In the third column it gives you
the real names, choose C:

Fourth screen: What do you want to save?
Choose "occupied sectors". No use in saving unused parts of the partition.

Fifth screen: Choose a filename to save to. Use D:\saved.par for example.
Use a partition you know has enough space for the file.

Sixth screen: Choose maximum size of the saved file. This is probably a
safety measure in case something would go wrong. Default is 2GB and you can
use that unless you think the file will be bigger than that.
Maybe it is better to choose a lower value based on your own estimates.

The size of the saved file will be approximately half of the used part of
your C: drive. In my case 800MB resulted in a 390MB file with compression
level 1.

Seventh screen: Choose level to deflate, choose level 1

Now the copying starts, and you see a screen showing the progress and a
time estimate of how long it will take, BUT this screen is very misleading
in its estimates, both the time and the progress bar show what would happen
if the partition was absolutely full, and if the whole maximum size of the
saved file was to be used.

So the process will stop a lot faster than one is lead to believe, and it
looks like only a part of the process has been completed.
Don't worry though, it has done what you told it to do when it says the
copying is ended.
Look at the center of the screen close to the top, where it say "running"
as long as the copying is going on, and it says "ended" when it has ended
the copying process.

Choose to not let it create a bat file if you like, and reboot into your
normal windows operatingsystem.

Check out the created file, it should have half around the size of the
content of your C: drive.

Restoring is even simpler, just start savepart from the boot floppy again
and choose to restore an element.
In the next screen choose the file you saved, either by writing its name
including path, or looking for it and use enter to choose it.
Push the OK button.

Next screen, choose what partition to restore it to.
This is, of course, the critical choice. Make a mistake here and you will
wipe out all the content of another partition, so be careful here.
But the display is easy to read and you should have no problem choosing the
C: drive.

Also this time the predicted times and the progress bar are giving the
impression that it will take a long time, but it took only a few minutes
for my 800MB C: drive to be restored.

All in all, this freeware program is very good and easy to use.
I have hesitated to try it out for a long time because the documentation
text files are not fully clear on how to use it.

Together with the Ranish partition manager this program is one of the most
useful and essential partition saving and restoring tools.

I republish here below my review of 3 partition saving programs, to get it
all in one text:
......

Partition saving to an image file is very useful for backup purposes.
Most useful for partitions with a content of up to 4GB.
Big storage disks can take very long to save or restore.

Restoring an image overwrites the chosen partition with the content of the
image file. These programs can save only the used parts of a partition and
can resize the image to fit on a smaller or larger partition, as long as
there is space enough for the content.

_Norton Ghost (ver6 or 2003)_
Payware

Speed: 70MB/minute, and the speed seems to be very constant, no matter if
you use a slow or fast computer, or choose no compression or fast
compression.
The speed seems to depend only on the speed of the hard disk.

Explorer: Very good explorer functions. You can view, delete, add and
change files in the image file. Good search and sort features.

_Drive Image (ver5)_
Payware

Speed: Faster than Ghost, maybe 140MB/minute, with no compression or low
compression.

Explorer: Less good than Ghost. You can view the content and restore any
file to its original location or any other location, but not add or change
anything in the image file. Difficult to find files in big directories as
there are no find or sort features.

_Savepart, Partition Saving V 2.80_
Freeware: http://www.partition-saving.com
Copyright (c) 1999-2003 D. Guibouret

Speed: When I tried with compression level 1 it was very fast, similar to
DI and a lot faster than Ghost.
The resulting partition image file has exactly the right size, the same as
the ghost file for the same partition. So I think the saving was done
correctly. (I restored it later and it was good)

I think the reports I have heard about it being very slow is the result of
less well chosen parameters. You need to choose to save only used sectors,
and choose compression level 1, which gives 50% reduction in size, the same
as the optimal compression in DI and Ghost.
A slow computer makes the saving time longer.

Partition Saving has a good visual interface, you choose what to save,
where to save it, what compression level to use, on a series of visual
screens. The user interface is good and similar in all these programs.
I found Partition Saving easy to use, but you need a little basic knowledge
about partitions in your computer. That is needed for all these programs.

Explorer: No explorer functions at all.
I talked about this with the author via email and he is maybe thinking
about adding such functions

I saved a partition image of my C:\ drive, 800MB used.
It took 3 minutes in PS, similar time in DI, and 10 minutes in Ghost.
 
Roger Johansson said:
I just tried restoring the C:\ drive from a Partition Saving image.
It worked, and it was very fast, 3-5 minutes.
That is the same speed as Drive Image in restoring an image.

To make it easier for others to use Partition Saving without reading long
text files I can give some easy directions:
Click to expand...
[...]

GREAT contribution!

.. . .

Say, Roger, this was a very good deed! You now have so many points you
may go forth in sin for the rest of the week. ;)
 
Duddits said:
Have you tested Acronis True Image? I'd be interested to see how it stacks
up.
Click to expand...

Somewhere or other on usenet, I'd read that one of the drive image
products requires product activation. Not saved the message, and not
remembered which this was said about, so one day, I tried a lot of
searching. Got null in results. Did I read something false then? Or
does anyone know of one of the products having the disorder?
 
To make it easier for others to use Partition Saving without reading long
text files I can give some easy directions:
Click to expand...

Thanks for both the directions and reviews. Very helpful.
 
Duddits said:
Have you tested Acronis True Image? I'd be interested to see how it stacks
up.
Click to expand...
I had real problems using PQ Drive Image 2002 on my XP machine so I
tried Acronis True Image. The major advantage I see is the ability to
backup your partition from within Windows, no need to reboot to perform
the image process. A major advantage in my books, as you can continue to
use the machine as it performs it's duties, so speed is less relevant..
HK
 
Roger said:
Partition saving to an image file is very useful for backup purposes.
...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the nice review.

For another option, consider SystemRescueCD
(http://www.systemrescuecd.org). I have recently been experimenting
with this as an alternative to SavePart, which is what I have been
using.

Basically you boot linux (a stripped down Knoppix), then use PartImage
to save the partition.

I found it has some advantages.

- You can save to files on ntfs partitions. Unfortunately, writing to
NTFS partitions is slow, about 8X slower than writing to a FAT or
FAT32 partition. But you can do it if needed.

- You can save to a file on a network share (on some other computer).
This is a huge advantage if you don't have a spare partition or enough
space on the system you are trying to back up. You can restore from a
network share as well, of course. This is fast.

The disadvantage is that you have to learn some linux to be able to do
this. For example, you will have to use "mount" commands to mount the
partition or share you are saving to (or restoring from). Once past
this learning curve, however, I find it superior to savepart.

FWIW I am one of the people who find savepart fairly slow. I haven't
done a direct comparison, but I think it was about 10 minutes to save
800 MB of used sectors on an ntfs partition. SystemRescueCD and
PartImage did this in under 3 minutes, very similar to the times you
saw using savepart and DriveImage.

And yes, I was only saving used sectors, and I didn't find much speed
difference in the different compression levels of savepart. I don't
know why we see the different results. I may be wrong here, I'm going
from memory...

Saving across the network also only took me 3 minutes to save that
same 800 MB partition.

For me, the ability to save across the network to another machine was
a big hit. It means I don't have to keep a FAT32 partition just for
saving partition iamges.

Terry
 
Terry Orchard said:
Thanks for the nice review.

For another option, consider SystemRescueCD
(http://www.systemrescuecd.org). I have recently been experimenting
with this as an alternative to SavePart, which is what I have been
using.

Basically you boot linux (a stripped down Knoppix), then use PartImage
to save the partition.
Click to expand...

I actually have a copy of a rescue CD in linux.
I used it to create partitions on a hard disk a week ago.
Then I used another program on it.
Didn't know that there is a PartImage program on it too.
Thanks for the tip.

It is good that linux has similar possibilities as windows, and we are
slowly starting to find them and to use them.
I will take a look at PartImage too someday.

Gordon Darling has given us many good links to linux stuff, and I have
followed up his links many times.

I have a Knoppix CD which I play with now and then.
Suse 9 and Mandrake 10 CE are other distros I am trying out.

"Linux from scratch" and "automated linux from scratch" are interesting
projects which I learn a lot from. They give the very basic knowledge about
linux you need to be able to build a customized linux system.
 
|
|If you tell me how to get it I could try it.

I have the full version that came on a cover disk. It's about
10mb. If you are interested you can contact me here
(e-mail address removed) I can set up a quick web or ftp server for
you.

-=-
 
(snip of great info)

Could you please do a step by step of how to make a partition in
the first place? What programs to use? TIA

-=-
 
Terry Orchard said:
Thanks for the nice review.

For another option, consider SystemRescueCD
(http://www.systemrescuecd.org). I have recently been experimenting
with this as an alternative to SavePart, which is what I have been
using.

Basically you boot linux (a stripped down Knoppix), then use PartImage
to save the partition.

I found it has some advantages.

- You can save to files on ntfs partitions. Unfortunately, writing to
NTFS partitions is slow, about 8X slower than writing to a FAT or
FAT32 partition. But you can do it if needed.

- You can save to a file on a network share (on some other computer).
This is a huge advantage if you don't have a spare partition or enough
space on the system you are trying to back up. You can restore from a
network share as well, of course. This is fast.

The disadvantage is that you have to learn some linux to be able to do
this. For example, you will have to use "mount" commands to mount the
partition or share you are saving to (or restoring from). Once past
this learning curve, however, I find it superior to savepart.

FWIW I am one of the people who find savepart fairly slow. I haven't
done a direct comparison, but I think it was about 10 minutes to save
800 MB of used sectors on an ntfs partition. SystemRescueCD and
PartImage did this in under 3 minutes, very similar to the times you
saw using savepart and DriveImage.

And yes, I was only saving used sectors, and I didn't find much speed
difference in the different compression levels of savepart. I don't
know why we see the different results. I may be wrong here, I'm going
from memory...

Saving across the network also only took me 3 minutes to save that
same 800 MB partition.

For me, the ability to save across the network to another machine was
a big hit. It means I don't have to keep a FAT32 partition just for
saving partition iamges.

Terry
Click to expand...

I tried partImage a year or two ago, at that time it was noticeably slower than
savepart on my system (win98 Fat32), I guess by now newer versions might be
faster. I found both easy to use. Savepart worked fastest with high compression,
as msdos disk access limits its performance.

I've also tried savepart across a network with dos network drivers,
but that was unacceptably slow.

I currently use an old version of DriveImage that was given away on a
magazine. Much, much faster and much smaller archives, but seems to
mess up slightly if restored using a different cluster size - eg to a smaller partition.

I've also tried a full free magazine giveaway of Arconis, marginarily slower
than driveImage, runs while windows is active! (although I had to boot it from
cd for it to work on my then set-up - but this worked fine on XP with NTFS).
 
Anonymous said:
I have the full version that came on a cover disk. It's about
10mb. If you are interested you can contact me here
(e-mail address removed) I can set up a quick web or ftp server for
you.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I have become more occupied with things in my non-computer life
now, so I won't have time to try True Image.

There seems to be an interest in it though, so I am sure somebody will
write a review about it soon.
 
Anonymous wrote in said:
|FDISK Guide to Hard Drive Partitioning
|<http://fdisk.radified.com/>
|
|PLANNING YOUR PARTITIONS
|<http://aumha.org/a/parts.htm>
Click to expand...
Thank you.
Click to expand...

YW. For more info, software suggestions etc,
try browse past messages in this group via Google, like here:
<http://google.com/groups?as_oq=part...ugroup=alt.comp.freeware&as_scoring=d&num=100>

or if above url breaks - try this instead:
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?R30F224C7>

also, many good links here: <http://lists.gpick.com/>

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen
 
Back
Top