Setting up an external hard drive - partioning and sharing issues

  • Thread starter Thread starter Enquiring Mind
  • Start date Start date
Anna said:
In our view a disk-to-disk (partition-to-partition) cloning program is an
effective tool in meeting that objective. We've continually searched for a
program that was effective (it did what it was supposed to do),
straightforward in design, and easy-to-use even for an inexperienced user.
We've used & experimented with a variety of such programs over the years and
found the Casper 5 program met those objectives. Together with its
"SmartClone" technology (of which I've already commented on in some detail)
we've found this program superior to the others we've used over the years.
Click to expand...

It is the superior program FOR CLONING... but cloning is definitely
not the only backup method that is an "effective tool", nor does it
fit the majority of users backup needs.

That is why Acronis True Image is the backup tool of choice for almost
everyone talking about backups in these groups - other than yourself.
 
Mike,

You seem to be engaging a bit of a religious cum commercial war here! But I
grant you that Acronis seems to get most of the media recognition for
products of this type - Casper is not even mentioned in the Wikipedia
articles on disk cloning.

For the uninitiated like myself, what's the difference between a disc clone
and a disk image? Is a disk image a single file containing the disc data
(perhaps compressed), while a disc clone is an actual disk/volume containing
exactly the same data as on the source disk on a byte by byte basis? Is a
disk clone bootable while a disc image not bootable? What do I see in
Windows Explorer for the disk image and for the disk clone? Do disk clones
each have to be in their own partition whilst perhaps disk images do not? Or
are the two to all intents and purposes different names for the same thing?

Thanks,

EM
 
Thanks for another comprehensive post. I can see the merits of the cloning
strategy if it is the only strategy of those discussed that allow the
computer to be booted and integrally restored from the disk clone. Given the
greater security afforded by the more comprehensive back-up option, the
speed and therefore freqnency of the back-up operation would then seem to be
the main remaining issue.

I have across references to the following alternative tools:

- Acronis
- Ghost
- Partition Image
- DriveImage
- CloneZilla
- PING
- PartImage
- SelfImage
- dd for windows

Any experience with any of these?

Regards,

EM
 
Enquiring Mind said:
Mike,

You seem to be engaging a bit of a religious cum commercial war here! But I
grant you that Acronis seems to get most of the media recognition for
products of this type - Casper is not even mentioned in the Wikipedia
articles on disk cloning.

For the uninitiated like myself, what's the difference between a disc clone
and a disk image? Is a disk image a single file containing the disc data
(perhaps compressed), while a disc clone is an actual disk/volume containing
exactly the same data as on the source disk on a byte by byte basis? Is a
disk clone bootable while a disc image not bootable? What do I see in
Windows Explorer for the disk image and for the disk clone? Do disk clones
each have to be in their own partition whilst perhaps disk images do not? Or
are the two to all intents and purposes different names for the same thing?
Click to expand...

IMAGE=a proprietary file, usually also somewhat compressed, that
contains everything that is needed to restore all or part of your
system. It requires the use of the imaging program to perform that
restoration. It is otherwise unusable and cannot be browsed with
anything other than the program that created it. Images can be on a
separate partition on the same drive, or - better yet - on a different
drive, either internal or external.

CLONE=an exact, bootable copy of the disk or partition that was
cloned. It can be used to restore a corrupted system, or it can be
booted (if it's on an internal disc). It can be browsed with Explorer
just as any other drive or partition. If it is to be used as a backup
of the system drive and it is on an external drive, normally the
program that produced it will be used to make the restoration, but
that is not a requirement. Any program that can perform a cloning
operation can do that.
 
Enquiring said:
Thanks for another comprehensive post. I can see the merits of the cloning
strategy if it is the only strategy of those discussed that allow the
computer to be booted and integrally restored from the disk clone. Given the
greater security afforded by the more comprehensive back-up option, the
speed and therefore freqnency of the back-up operation would then seem to be
the main remaining issue.

I have across references to the following alternative tools:

- Acronis
- Ghost
- Partition Image
- DriveImage
- CloneZilla
- PING
- PartImage
- SelfImage
- dd for windows

Any experience with any of these?

Regards,

EM
Click to expand...

one vote for acronis.
 
Enquiring Mind said:
Thanks for another comprehensive post. I can see the merits of the cloning
strategy if it is the only strategy of those discussed that allow the
computer to be booted and integrally restored from the disk clone. Given the
greater security afforded by the more comprehensive back-up option, the
speed and therefore freqnency of the back-up operation would then seem to be
the main remaining issue.

I have across references to the following alternative tools:

- Acronis
- Ghost
- Partition Image
- DriveImage
- CloneZilla
- PING
- PartImage
- SelfImage
- dd for windows

Any experience with any of these?
Click to expand...

You've missed a couple.

EASEUS
BootItNG
Partition Magic

I've used Drive Image, Partition Magic, BootItNG, Ghost, and Acronis -
in that order from oldest to newest. Acronis has been my main choice
for over five years.

It should be noted that I also use Casper on a daily basis to maintain
a bootable clone on an internal drive to cover me for the case where
my main drive completely fails. It's not necessary, but since I have
four internal drives and don't need one of them for anything else, I
use it as a clone.

I use another internal drive (and also an external USB drive) for my
images - full system images, and images of selected directories.
 
Mike,

Many thanks for the clear definitions. Are you saying that in the event of
major hard drive failure, the state of the hard drive can only be restored
from a disk clone? Or are you saying that the state of the hard drive can
also be recovered from an image file, provided that one is in possession of
the application that created it, as only this application can restore it? If
so, why do you bother to keep both disk images and disk clones - wouldn't
either one or the other suffice?

If my back-up of the complete system disk is stored on an external hard
drive, and I want to restore it to a replacement disk fitted into my
computer, how do I proceed?

Regards,

EM
 
Enquiring Mind said:
Thanks for another comprehensive post. I can see the merits of the cloning
strategy if it is the only strategy of those discussed that allow the
computer to be booted and integrally restored from the disk clone. Given
the greater security afforded by the more comprehensive back-up option,
the speed and therefore freqnency of the back-up operation would then seem
to be the main remaining issue.

I have across references to the following alternative tools:

- Acronis
- Ghost
- Partition Image
- DriveImage
- CloneZilla
- PING
- PartImage
- SelfImage
- dd for windows

Any experience with any of these?

Regards,

EM
Click to expand...


EM:
First of all the number of disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs both freely &
commercially available is virtually limitless. An exaggeration perhaps - but
just to make the point.

Please understand - as well as anyone coming upon this thread - that I'm
approaching this issue from the perspective of using these types of programs
as a comprehensive backup strategy that the user will employ on a routine &
frequent basis. This must be understood in the context of my comments &
recommendations.

The point I'm trying to make is that if a user is primarily interested in
using such a program as either a one-shot deal, e.g., a single instance of
copying the contents of an old HDD to a new HDD, or doesn't plan to use the
program on a routine, frequent basis - then virtually *any*
disk-cloning/disk-imaging program will probably suffice for that user's
needs.

I have worked fairly extensively with various versions of the Acronis True
Image program up through version 11. Except for a cursory glance at their
latest version - ATI 2009 - I haven't had any experience with that program.
But I've been told by users of that program that it's not terribly different
from ATI's previous versions.

ATI is a fine program. As you have pointed out it gets a good press and
(generally) favorable reviews from users. Incidentally in the past I've
posted to this & similar newsgroups step-by-step instructions for using the
ATI 9, 10, & 11 versions. As I've indicated in my prior posts on this
subject I encourage prospective users to try out the program since Acronis
does provide a trial version for this purpose.

ATI (like similar programs of this type) also has disk-imaging capability.
Many users prefer this technique over the disk-cloning process. As I've
previously mentioned Casper 5 does not have disk-imaging capability. By &
large, in today's PC environment I believe that for the majority of PC users
disk-to-disk (or partition-to-partition) cloning (using the Casper 5 program
in particular) is a superior backup system. In my prior posts I've detailed
my reasons for this opinion.

There is, however, one area that is particularly suited to the disk-imaging
process. If the user has an especially strong interest in maintaining
"generational" copies of his or her system at particular points-in-time,
then generally speaking a disk-imaging program (in most cases) would be more
suitable in meeting that objective. While the Casper 5 (or probably most
other disk-cloning programs) could maintain such generational copies of
one's system (depending upon the size of the contents of the source drive
and the disk space available on the destination drive), it doesn't lend
itself as readily to that objective as would a disk-imaging program. But
truth-to-tell would you not agree that most PC users are not really
interested in having generational copies of their systems available for
backup purposes, except for perhaps two or three such copies (which Casper 5
could probably easily accommodate)?

We also worked with Symantec's Norton Ghost program, especially the Ghost
2003 program which we used extensively over the years. (On occasion, we
still work with it today!). For a variety of reasons we had not been
thrilled with later versions of the Norton Ghost program and haven't worked
with current versions of that program in some time. Although we do know a
number of users who are satisfied with the program.

I worked with older versions of the DriveImage program but not the latest
DriveImage XML program. Again, I'm aware of a number of users who use the
program regularly and speak highly of it. It's worth looking into.

I vaguely recall trying out that Clonezilla program (it's a freebie, yes?)
but don't recall the details other than I wasn't particularly thrilled with
that program (again, I'm comparing these types of programs with Casper 5).

I've no experience with the other programs you listed. Perhaps someone
coming upon this thread who has used one or more of those programs might
wish to comment.

In any event, as I've continually stressed - work with as many of these
programs as you can to determine which best meets your needs & interests.
It's really the *only* way to determine a program of choice.

In the final analysis the important point (in my view) is that for a
substantial body of PC users (admittedly not everyone) it is important -
perhaps even crucial in many respects - that they employ some
*comprehensive* backup program that will allow them to return their system
to a bootable, functional state when, for whatever reason, their system
becomes dysfunctional. And most importantly - use that backup program
routinely & frequently so as to maintain a reasonably up-to-date complete
backup of their system and thus have the wherewithal to restore their system
easily with a minimum of fuss & bother if & when the need arises.

For the reasons I've previously indicated I believe (based upon my
experience) that the Casper 5 disk (partition)-cloning program admirably
meets that criteria in a fashion superior to other disk-cloning/disk-imaging
programs that I've used.
Anna
 
Enquiring Mind said:
Mike,

Many thanks for the clear definitions. Are you saying that in the event of
major hard drive failure, the state of the hard drive can only be restored
from a disk clone? Or are you saying that the state of the hard drive can
also be recovered from an image file, provided that one is in possession of
the application that created it, as only this application can restore it? If
so, why do you bother to keep both disk images and disk clones - wouldn't
either one or the other suffice?

If my back-up of the complete system disk is stored on an external hard
drive, and I want to restore it to a replacement disk fitted into my
computer, how do I proceed?

Regards,

EM
Click to expand...

I'm really not in the mood to hold your hand here. You need to do
some Googling if you want more info.

On exit, I'll tell you what should be intuitive: a failed drive can be
restored from either a clone or an image.
 
Enquiring Mind said:
If so, why do you bother to keep both disk images and disk
clones - wouldn't either one or the other suffice?
Click to expand...

I can boot the clone in 15 seconds if my system drive COMPLETELY DIES.
That's why I have the clone.
 
Mike Torello said:
On exit, I'll tell you what should be intuitive: a failed drive can be
restored from either a clone or an image.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that's good to know, so the difference between the 2 approaches
probably lies in the amount of work needed to accomplish the restoration.
Restoration from a disk clone is almost immediate, as you point out in your
subsequent post, while restoring from an image file must require more work,
perhaps to create a bootable disk clone from the disk image file.

Now Windows XP and later versions ship with a built-in back-up utility
which seems to produce a disk image. What advantages do applications like
Acronis have over this?

A further thought: a disk image file sounds to be very similar to an archive
(zip) file to which every file on a disk has been copied. Is this the case?

Regards,

EM
 
Anna,

Thanks for another helpful post. The only remaining doubt I have about disk
cloning is the speed issue. You suggested that it might take 5 minutes to
clone a disk - but I have just run the Windows System backup utility and it
took well over 2 hours. How can Casper be so much more efficient, when it's
handling roughly the same volume of data?

Regards,

EM
 
Enquiring Mind said:
Thanks, that's good to know, so the difference between the 2 approaches
probably lies in the amount of work needed to accomplish the restoration.
Restoration from a disk clone is almost immediate, as you point out in your
subsequent post, while restoring from an image file must require more work,
perhaps to create a bootable disk clone from the disk image file.
Click to expand...

No.

The clone is faster because it's sitting there waiting and ready to
go. IF my main drive physically fails, a restart automatically
results in the cloned disk being my system disk.

I can also use it even if my main disk doesn't physically fail, but
merely gets scrambled. I restart, enter the BIOS and make the cloned
disk the first in the boot order.
 
Mike said:
You've missed a couple.

EASEUS
BootItNG
Partition Magic

I've used Drive Image, Partition Magic, BootItNG, Ghost, and Acronis -
in that order from oldest to newest. Acronis has been my main choice
for over five years.
Click to expand...

If you've used BING, it must have been a pretty limited use, as you seemed
to know nothing about it from your previous posts. I'm talking about its
Maintenance Mode.
 
Bill in Co. said:
If you've used BING, it must have been a pretty limited use, as you seemed
to know nothing about it from your previous posts. I'm talking about its
Maintenance Mode.
Click to expand...

I believe I used it 8 or 9 years ago when it was only available in a
DOS version.

Go back to your knitting old boy. I'll call you if I need a refresher
on it... which will probably be like, never.
 
Bill in Co. said:
Really? What a "loss".
At any rate, EQ's probably got it by now.
Click to expand...

That's more than anyone can say for YOU, boo-boo - and you've been
working this subject matter for over a year.
 
Enquiring Mind said:
Anna,

Thanks for another helpful post. The only remaining doubt I have about
disk cloning is the speed issue. You suggested that it might take 5
minutes to clone a disk - but I have just run the Windows System backup
utility and it took well over 2 hours. How can Casper be so much more
efficient, when it's handling roughly the same volume of data?

Regards,

EM
Click to expand...


EM:
I was under the impression that in my previous posts re this thread I had
explained in some detail the *significant* advantage of the Casper 5 program
(in my opinion, of course) over other disk-cloning (as well as disk-imaging)
programs in connection with Casper's so-called "SmartClone" technology and
how it (favorably) impacts on disk-to-disk (or partition-to-partition)
cloning speed when the program is used routinely & frequently.

I trust you're *not* now asking me to provide you with some technical
treatise on how the program accomplishes this from a programming/design
point of view, but your question is really of the rhetorical kind, yes?

So let me try to answer this way based upon my experience with the program
involving some hundreds of disk (partition)-cloning operations...

The basic point of a disk-cloning program such as the one we highly
recommend - Casper 5 - is that by "cloning" the contents of one's day-to-day
working HDD to another HDD (internal or external), the user creates a
precise copy of his or her "source" HDD. Thus, a comprehensive backup of
one's system has been accomplished in one fell swoop, i.e., the user has
backed up his/her system including the operating system, all programs &
applications, and of course, all user-created data. In short - *everything*
that's on the "source" HDD. What better backup system can one have?

While there are other disk-cloning programs (Acronis True Image is one) that
can perform this operation, Casper has a rather extroardinary ability to
create "incremental clones", using what Casper refers to as its "SmartClone"
technology. Understand that the "incremental clone" is a complete clone of
the source disk, not an "incremental file". The result of this incremental
clone process is that it takes the user only a fraction of the time to
create subsequent clones of the source HDD than it would otherwise take
using the typical disk-cloning methodology.

As an example...

When a typical disk-cloning program undertakes its disk-to-disk cloning
process it does so without regard that the "source" and "destination" HDDs
involved in the disk-cloning operation are the *identical* drives that had
been involved when a prior disk-cloning operation had been undertaken. It
doesn't matter to the disk-cloning program whether the HDD now being cloned
was cloned an hour ago, or a day ago, or whenever. The "now" disk-cloning
operation will proceed as if the HDD recipient of the clone, i.e., the
destination HDD is bare of data, even if that same destination HDD was the
recipient of a prior clone from the same source HDD 10 minutes ago.

As a result...

The disk-cloning operation will take a substantial amount of time to "do its
work" each time the disk-cloning operation is undertaken, without regard to
the fact that perhaps only a relatively few changes involving the source
HDD's data has changed since the last disk-cloning operation. So, as an
example, let's say it takes about 30 minutes or so to clone the contents of
a HDD containing 40 GB of data to another HDD. Two days later the user
decides to again back up his or her system by undertaking another
disk-cloning operation. Presumably the data changes over those two days
haven't been especially large. But with the typical disk-cloning program,
e.g., Acronis True Image, it will take the disk-cloning program just about
the *same* period of time to perform current the disk-cloning operation as
it did originally, i.e., 30 minutes in the preceding example. And so on and
so on in the following days.

But with the Casper 5 program, the program has the capability of recognizing
*only* the change in data that has occurred from its last disk-cloning
operation and will proceed to "do its work" on that basis. Thus, given the
example above it will probably take less than 3 or 4 minutes to complete the
disk-cloning operation. And so on and so forth.

So you can see what a valuable incentive this is for users to systematically
& routinely backup their systems with the Casper 5 program - knowing that
the expenditure of time to complete the disk-cloning operation will be
relatively slight. Surely this is a strong incentive for a user to maintain
his/her complete system in a reasonably up-to-date fashion. Obviously the
amount of time it will take to complete this "incremental" disk-cloning
operation with Casper will be dependent upon the total volume of data being
cloned as well as the additions, deletions, configuration changes, etc. that
had been made since the previous disk-cloning operation. So the user is
encouraged to perform these disk-cloning operations on a relatively frequent
basis since by doing so the expenditure of time in completing the operation
will be relatively trifling. This last point is crucial. The program works
best when it is used with a fairly high degree of frequency - perhaps not
less than once a week or even on a daily or two or three times a week basis
.. When it is used in that manner, the expenditure of time in completing the
disk (partition)-cloning operation comes close to being trifling.

A quick example based upon one of my PCs HDDs containing total data of about
50 GB. Note this is *total* data - including the OS, all programs &
applications, all my user-created data - in short, *everything* that's on
that "source" HDD.

I last used the Casper 5 program to clone the contents of that drive four
days ago. Naturally, like most users, I've made changes of various kinds
over that four-day period. Added, deleted, modified some programs,
manipulated this or that configuration, etc., etc. More or less the typical
kinds of changes made by most users over a period of time. Earlier today I
again cloned the contents of that source HDD to one of my internal HDDs. It
took just about four (4) minutes. Four minutes.

And keep in mind that the recipient of that clone - the destination HDD -
will be a precise copy of the source HDD with all its data immediately
accessible in exactly the same way one would access data from their source
HDD - their day-to-day working HDD in most cases. And the destination HDD,
should it be an internal HDD or installed as a internal HDD from an exterior
enclosure will be immediately bootable without the need of any recovery
process.

So that if my source HDD becomes dysfunctional for any reason - I have at
hand a bootable HDD that will return my system to a functional state in
virtually no time at all. Had I cloned the contents of my source HDD to a
USB external HDD (instead of an internal HDD), I could restore my system in
reasonably short order by cloning the contents of the USBEHD back to an
internal HDD or, should the hard drive itself be removed from the external
enclosure it could then be installed as the system's internal HDD - fully
bootable & functional.

Again, what better backup system can one have?
Anna
 
Anna said:
Again, what better backup system can one have?
Click to expand...

One that isn't restricted to only cloning a drive or a partition.

The vast majority of users don't using cloning as a backup strategy.
If the source is a drive with a single partition, or is itself a
single partition, then one can clone to either the entire destination
drive or to a partition on that drive simply enough. And Casper's
"Smartclone" ability is a plus when one wants to update that clone.

If the source drive has multiple partitions, then the destination disk
is most easily used in its entirety. If the source is 160gigs and the
destination is 500gigs or a terabyte, that's very inefficient use of
the destination drive. It surely hasn't escaped your notice that
people are now buying spare drives that are humongous compared to
their older system drives, so the efficient use of all that space is
of more importance than when the source and destination drive are
close in size.

An imaging program only requires the space needed to store the image.
A destination does not have to be dedicated to storing images - it can
be used for a bazillion other purposes as well.

AND... if one decides to move the backup image(s) to a different drive
- or if the person is an obsessive-compulsive about having multiple
copies of the same backup - copying one or all to another drive is a
simple task. Can't do that with a clone.

Casper is the best at what it does. Period. But what it does is not
what most computer users want to do or need to do and trying to
convince someone who is not aware of all the differences between
Casper and say, Acronis True Image (which can also clone) is
irresponsible IMP.

It's just that simple.
 
Mike Torello said:
One that isn't restricted to only cloning a drive or a partition.

The vast majority of users don't using cloning as a backup strategy.
If the source is a drive with a single partition, or is itself a
single partition, then one can clone to either the entire destination
drive or to a partition on that drive simply enough. And Casper's
"Smartclone" ability is a plus when one wants to update that clone.

If the source drive has multiple partitions, then the destination disk
is most easily used in its entirety. If the source is 160gigs and the
destination is 500gigs or a terabyte, that's very inefficient use of
the destination drive. It surely hasn't escaped your notice that
people are now buying spare drives that are humongous compared to
their older system drives, so the efficient use of all that space is
of more importance than when the source and destination drive are
close in size.

An imaging program only requires the space needed to store the image.
A destination does not have to be dedicated to storing images - it can
be used for a bazillion other purposes as well.

AND... if one decides to move the backup image(s) to a different drive
- or if the person is an obsessive-compulsive about having multiple
copies of the same backup - copying one or all to another drive is a
simple task. Can't do that with a clone.

Casper is the best at what it does. Period. But what it does is not
what most computer users want to do or need to do and trying to
convince someone who is not aware of all the differences between
Casper and say, Acronis True Image (which can also clone) is
irresponsible IMP.

It's just that simple.
Click to expand...


Mike:
I'll once again try to correct your misleading, indeed, *incorrect*
statement above if only for the benefit of others coming upon this thread.

As I've explained more than once in this thread and in previous ones that I
know you're familiar with...

Using Casper 5 to clone the contents of one's source HDD to a destination
HDD (either internal or external), there is *no* requirement, repeat - *no*
requirement - that the entire disk space of the destination HDD be used to
contain the cloned contents of the user's source HDD.

Using *your* example of a source HDD of 160 GB and a destination HDD (again,
either internal or external HDD) of 500 GB, there is *no* requirement that
the entire disk space of the 500 GB HDD be used to contain the cloned
contents of the 160 GB HDD.

All that is necessary - again, *all* that is necessary - is that the
recipient partition on the destination HDD be sufficient in disk space to
house the cloned contents. So, for example, if the total data contents of
the user's 160 GB source HDD was 110 GB, all that would be necessary is for
the user to establish a partition on the destination HDD of at least 110 GB.
The remaining disk space on the destination drive could be used for whatever
other purposes desired by the user. The user could then leave the remaining
disk space on the destination HDD "unallocated" or set up add'l partitions
as desired.

And the user could easily employ Casper 5 to create the appropriate size of
the destination's partition during the disk-cloning operation. It would be a
simple matter (using the Casper program) to create whatever partition size
on the destination partition he or she desired. Again, as long as it's of
sufficient size to hold the cloned contents. The user (given this example)
could create a partition of 110 GB or 150 GB or 160 GB or even 200 GB or
whatever, if desired (anticipating future data contents).
Anna
 
Back
Top