Hard Drive Cloning

[Monica]

I've had my new computer for about a month now and am ready to clone the
hdd. I installed a internal 1TB but I think instead of using that I'm going
to use a 1TB drive that's not installed. Just pop it in a docking station
and perform a clone...how often??
Do subsequent backups just write the changes or rewrite the entire drive
contents?
I've never cloned my os drive before and when my system went semi-belly up
back in Sept, several of you allowed as had I cloned the drive, I wouldn't
be in this pickle (like I needed to be reminded) <g>
On a recent thread, BillW50 suggested XXClone. Has anyone else used this?
Any other suggestions? Free is always good :) I don't have PhD in rocket
science or computer science so simplicity is most welcomed :)
That will give me one clone backup and two data backups.
Monica

[Brian K]

For a backup you should be considering images. Cloning is generally used
when upgrading to a larger HD and you want to use the clone immediately.

[olfart]

"Brian K" <bjk444_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GPrmq.4236$NR2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...

>
> For a backup you should be considering images. Cloning is generally used
> when upgrading to a larger HD and you want to use the clone immediately.

Not So
Cloning is a good way to backup a HD. I've been using Casper for years. Yes
it costs a few $$$ but is much faster than imaging since once the initial
backup is made it only copies new or changed files so I can usually clone
one of my 2 500gb drives in about 3-4 minutes each while most imaging
programs take alot longer. I've had a HD failure and by installing my cloned
drive in place of the bad one I was up and running in a couple of minutes.
The only data lost is whatever wasn't included in the last clone and since I
do it everyday I lose very little if any. You can set it up to perform a
clone on schedule. My cloned drives are installed in a dual USB enclosure.
http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/

[BillW50]

In news:b6rmq.2797$6G4....@newsfe01.iad,

Monica wrote:
> I've had my new computer for about a month now and am ready to clone
> the hdd. I installed a internal 1TB but I think instead of using
> that I'm going to use a 1TB drive that's not installed. Just pop it
> in a docking station and perform a clone...how often??

The same as often as you would be doing with a backup program. For some,
it is hourly, others nightly, others still weekly, etc. It all depends
on how much you are willing to loose.

> Do subsequent backups just write the changes or rewrite the entire
> drive contents?

It depends on the software. Most overwrite everything. But Casper and
the commercial version of XXClone can write just the changes. Which
means cloning is very fast after the first time.

> I've never cloned my os drive before and when my system went
> semi-belly up back in Sept, several of you allowed as had I cloned
> the drive, I wouldn't be in this pickle (like I needed to be
> reminded) <g> On a recent thread, BillW50 suggested XXClone. Has
> anyone else used
> this? Any other suggestions? Free is always good :) I don't have
> PhD in rocket science or computer science so simplicity is most
> welcomed :) That will give me one clone backup and two data backups.
> Monica

I've used many cloning software. And what bothers me is that with the
exception of XXClone, they don't always get it right. Then I have to
repair the clone to get it usable once again. Although all of these
problems disappeared once I started using XXClone. And it is so easy to
use as well. The free version all you do is to click on the Start button
(unless you have more than two drives connected, then you have to make
sure the right target and source drives are correct). And the commercial
version you have to check one of four cloning options.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

[BillW50]

In news:GPrmq.4236$NR2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com,

I used to say the very same thing. ;-) Although after going through the
horrors of restoring images a number of times, you learn there has to be
a better way. And that better way is by cloning. The only downside I
know by cloning instead is that you need more individual drives. But
that too is a plus when you think about it. ;-)

[Dan Wenz]

On 10/16/2011 8:06 AM, BillW50 wrote:
> In news:GPrmq.4236$NR2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com,
> Brian K wrote:
>> For a backup you should be considering images. Cloning is generally
>> used when upgrading to a larger HD and you want to use the clone
>> immediately.
>
> I used to say the very same thing. ;-) Although after going through the
> horrors of restoring images a number of times, you learn there has to be
> a better way. And that better way is by cloning. The only downside I
> know by cloning instead is that you need more individual drives. But
> that too is a plus when you think about it. ;-)
>

This thread is of interest to me also. I use Acronis for daily
differential backups, and see that the differential backups average
around 50 GB, while the initial full backup is around 180 GB. 50 GB
seems awfully large if just the changes made in one day are reflected in
it. No gaming, just email, occasional "researching" on the 'Net, an odd
stint or two on FX flight simulator (OK, not a game, a simulation!). Any
insight appreciated.

[BillW50]

In news:j7el5l$f0k$1...@dont-email.me,

Acronis is great when it works. I can understand why it is so popular.
Although it won't restore from some USB drives (it will backup to the
same ones all day, go figure). And when using Acronis cloning feature,
it lacks incremental / differential cloning. It is all or nothing.

I too am a big time flight simulator user since '81. And since I am a
pilot and a RC pilot too, I have most of whatever has been made. By the
way, have you tried XPlane yet? They have a trial version of it so you
can try it out before buying. Although speaking about Acronis and
cloning, Acronis can't even clone the 18 keys I need for RealFlight,
addons, and expansion packs. So I am not too impressed to say the least
with Acronis 2009 or 2011.

Incremental cloning is the best way to go IMHO. No more BS that you have
with imaging files. And you don't even know if those images can actually
be restored until you actually tried them. And since I view this as a
must do (because I learned the hard way some of them won't)... you
should have cloned in the first place. ;-)

The only two cloning programs that I know of that does incremental
cloning is Casper and the commercial version of XXClone. Hopefully there
is more of them, or at least hopefully more of them will follow. ;-)

[alexandrin...@gmail.com]

I use the free Seagate version of Acronis, Seagate Disc Wizard to
clone a backup to the second drive in my desktop. Both hard drives are
the same size. One is a Seagate and the other is a WD. Since most of
my work is writing, I use a usb drive for daily backups and do the
full clone backup once a week or so. It takes about 15 minutes for the
cloning procedure. But at least one drive has to be a Seagate.

The Seagate disc Wizard can be downloaded from the Seagate website.
As someone said, with a cloned drive you can be up and running in a
few minutes.

[BillW50]

In news:j7e6ep$2io$1...@speranza.aioe.org,

Yes I agree that cloning is the best way to go. But backup software also
does the incremental thing that is also very quick. Well Acronis is
quick in this department and Paragon is one of the worst. Don't ask me
why Paragon's incremental takes like 5 times longer than a full backup
does. Otherwise Paragon and Acronis is pretty much the same in other
departments. Although each one also has their own quirks.

You know, there is another software that is a bit different than cloning
and backing up. Yet it does everything that those all do (except AFAIK
making a new drive bootable) and does so much more too. It started out
as one of the best syncing applications I know of. But it has evolved
into so much more. It is called SyncBack. They have three different
versions including a free version. The other two versions can be used up
to 5 computers per license. And boy is it fast too. ;-)

Backup software comparison
http://www.2brightsparks.com/syncback/compare.html

I have used the free version for years for backing up, restoring, and
syncing data files. But I am really close to trying the trial versions
of the other two products. As they do so much that nothing else comes
close to having all of the features as the SE and Pro versions can do.
You can even set them up to do their thing when your backup or clone
drive comes online automatically. Geez, how lazy can you get?

[BillW50]

In news:j7eu0v$6et$1...@dont-email.me,

BillW50 wrote:
> You know, there is another software that is a bit different than
> cloning and backing up. Yet it does everything that those all do
> (except AFAIK making a new drive bootable) and does so much more too.
> It started out as one of the best syncing applications I know of. But
> it has evolved into so much more. It is called SyncBack. They have
> three different versions including a free version. The other two
> versions can be used up to 5 computers per license. And boy is it
> fast too. ;-)
> Backup software comparison
> http://www.2brightsparks.com/syncback/compare.html
>
> I have used the free version for years for backing up, restoring, and
> syncing data files. But I am really close to trying the trial versions
> of the other two products. As they do so much that nothing else comes
> close to having all of the features as the SE and Pro versions can do.
> You can even set them up to do their thing when your backup or clone
> drive comes online automatically. Geez, how lazy can you get?

UPDATE: I used SyncBackSE on a clone I did a few days ago. Everything
seemed to go fine and it was really fast. The real test was actually
using the updated clone. Well that test failed! Windows booted for about
10 seconds and the computer was stuck in an endless rebooting loop. That
sure was disappointing. The free version is still great for data files
though. ;-)

[alexandrin...@gmail.com]

On Oct 16, 12:29 pm, "BillW50" <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote:
> Innews:j7eu0v$6et$1...@dont-email.me,

Hi Bill,

I used the free backup software from 2brightsparks a couple of years
ago and noticed that it could not be used for making a bootable drive.
I emailed the company asking about that and they confirmed that none
of their versions would produce a bootable drive.

When I read your post I thought that maybe the software had been
improved. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Brian K]

"olfart" My cloned drives are installed in a dual USB enclosure.
> http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/
>


At least you have two backup clones, but it's not enough. With images you
can have multiple generations of backups, going back months is advisable. If
your OS is corrupt then your clone or image will be corrupt too.
Occasionally it will not be apparent for some time that the OS is corrupt
(or infected) and your one or two backups may not contain an error free OS.

Hard drive failure is an uncommon event but software issues with the OS
partition aren't uncommon. I'd restore 50 images for software issues during
the life of a HD.

[alexandrin...@gmail.com]

Sorry to butt in...but a question...Don't most cloning software check
the OS for corruption before it begins to backup? Once, when using
Seagate Disc Wizard I mentioned above for making a clone, the process
was aborted when Disc Wizard warned me that the index file on the boot
drive was corrupted. I checked the hard drive and sure enough it was
infected with virus, even tho I was protected by Mcaffee. After
cleaning the hard drive with Malwarebytes, I was able to proceed with
the cloning.

[BillW50]

In
news:c415d9c8-7b1a-4da5...@x25g2000yqb.googlegroups.com,

>> Bill

>
> Hi Bill,
>
> I used the free backup software from 2brightsparks a couple of years
> ago and noticed that it could not be used for making a bootable drive.
> I emailed the company asking about that and they confirmed that none
> of their versions would produce a bootable drive.
>
> When I read your post I thought that maybe the software had been
> improved. Thanks for clearing that up.

It is tricky to copy, clone, or backup a partition that is a currently
running under a system partition. Some tricks works well and some
doesn't. I believe the trick that works well is to cache all writes as a
Windows service once the process starts. At least that is how I would do
it and it should work flawlessly.

I call this process live. Some software are too chicken to even try
this. And that is okay too. As some require you to boot from a CD/DVD or
flash drive or something to boot another OS so the system drive isn't
actually being used for anything. Now it is a piece of cake to clone,
copy, or backup all of the folders and files. You can actually do this
with BartPE and the A43 file manager for most systems.

When I was younger, I was very eager to study and see what went wrong
and I have learned a lot. And it isn't out of character for me to study
it enough and actually fix what something like SyncBack actually got
wrong. As I have done this many times in the past. Although I am getting
older and I am caring less about learning how others gets it wrong and
getting more interested in things working correctly from the get go.

Now SyncBack is definitely a fine piece of software and it does so much.
That I really give them kudos for. Although what is hurting them big
time is failing to make a copy of a bootable OS and making a drive
bootable. And that to me is pretty simple to do (ok it wouldn't likely
be free, but it will most likely cost them something). And I wonder what
is holding them back?

[Brian K]

I meant corruption in a fairly loose way. Any sort of software issue.

[BillW50]

In news:ViGmq.4295$7r4....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com,

I totally agree. Although while I was a big fan in the beginning of
making images, I've changed. As restoring from images doesn't always
work, trust me. So you need another spare drive to test if the restore
actually works well. And you might have to use the restore version or
even a cloned version for weeks or even months to make sure everything
works correctly.

But backing up and restoring takes twice as long or longer than cloning
itself. The whole idea is to make this as easy as possible, not harder.
So cloning makes far more sense. And yes, something that goes wrong and
remains undetected for weeks, months, and sometimes years... just one
cloned drive isn't enough.

So I think the best of the best is either backup an early copy or clone
of the OS, drivers, and applications that is a must have that would
require you to install the OS (or recovery disc) and your favorite
applications and utilities would usually take a few days or weeks to
recreate from scratch once again and just save it. Hopefully you will
never need it ever again, but you have it just in case.

So if you favor cloning, you need at least three drives. One which is an
early clone (that you hopefully don't touch again) and the other two
which you switch from one clone to another testing to make sure
everything is okay. This seems to work well with three drives.

Well it gets better. Say every 6 months you buy another drive. And one
of them gets frozen in time to be never touched again until you really
need it. In a few years, you end up with a lot of drives. And you can
rotate more than just two of them.

The only flaw in this plan as far as for I am concern is the data
changes a lot. As some parts of the data does many times a day. And the
OS and the applications doesn't a lot. And lots of people believe in
keeping things under separent partitions. Like the OS, applications, and
data all separent. I thought so too at first, but I discovered that
piecing applications out of sync with the OS doesn't work too well. And
not as bad, but I have some problems with data in other than drive C
too.

So I keep everything on drive C. And I sync the data to all of my
computers. So I have zillions of copies of the data. So what data is on
the clones or the backups doesn't matter much. So the way I see it, it
is like this:

1) Data backup is most important among all

2) OS and applications should be cloned or copied at the same time.

[Brian K]

"BillW50"

> . As restoring from images doesn't always work, trust me.

Bill, I can't trust you there as I've restored many thousands of images
using a variety of apps and I've yet to experience a failure.

[BillW50]

In news:Z2Jmq.4276$NR2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com,

Well that is great news to me. So what are you using? The three that I
have used a lot are Acronis, Paragon, and Ghost. I never had a problem
per se with Ghost, just the version v11 I have is a bit dated and didn't
have the features of the newer Acronis or Paragon.

Now both Paragon and Acronis are very nice software for sure. And for
many, they can be flawless for sure. As I had some conditions that they
indeed work really well. But I have some sort of flaw as I like to push
my software as hard as they can go. And when you do this, bugs and
limitations pop up out of nowhere. Of course I am discouraged. As I know
if I wrote the program it wouldn't be there because I am better than
that. And I actually paid money for this?

I am sure you would feel the same way in my shoes. Take Acronis for
example since lots of people like that one. And backing up to any USB
drive isn't a problem that I ever found. Some people backup for years
and believes everything is just fine. But when it comes to the real test
and trying to restore, some USB drives it might only find on a good day.
And some it can never find.

Acronis support is just rock bottom. It takes them weeks sometimes to
answer their email. And after pushing them months to years you know what
they finally admit to? Yes they know about the problem, but they are not
going to fix it (yet every other backup program works fine with all USB
drives). Their solution is to use an internal drive for backups. That to
me is the craziest thing I ever heard of! As the last drive you ever
want to use for a backup is a fixed internal drive.

Companies like to complain about software privacy. And yes, I too think
it is a bad thing and something needs to be done about it. But on the
other hand, these same companies are selling useless software to honest
people that they can't even use. And can't get their money back because
of the dang catch 22 shrink-wrap law... well I don't have much feelings
for a crook who wants sympathy when they were robbed too. And it is this
side of the story that is rarely told on the Internet (I am not sure,
but I might be the only one repeating this). Why is that?

[Brian K]

Bill,

The reason I do so many restores is I have an interest in multi-booting
(about 20 OS on my HD0) and an interest in automated restores. A mouse click
and the restore happens or the restore can start at 3 am while I'm sleeping.
I used most of the common imaging apps until three years ago when I stopped
testing new imaging apps because I couldn't get a restore to fail. I accept
Acronis has a bad reputation but it worked for me. I still use Ghost 15 on a
test computer but mainly I use the TeraByte products because there are so
many different ways they can be used. So to me they are fun and very
amenable to automated restores.

I think you suggested separating the OS from the data files. That's what I
do and an OS image backup or restore only takes 3 minutes. I don't image the
data partition as I use data backup software and a backup of 300 GB takes
about 2 minutes (to update the changes).

[RnR]

Unfortunately I have to agree with Bill. Years ago I have had bad
images and to be honest, I don't know why. I know this may sound
crazy but I wonder if a good image can get corrupted over time??? I
tend to still use Acronis but I don't trust just having one or two
images for this reason. I think one version I had of Acronis years
ago had a way to test an image and I think I tried it at the time but
it took to long and I aborted it. And altho I use Acronis, I am not
a big fan of it. And I think I tried Casper about 3 years ago and it
seemed too complicated but maybe it's better now. In fairness tho,
Acronis is getting so bloated now, it's not as easy to use as before
too (IMO). I think tho I may want to revisit Casper or look at
XXclone.

Last I saw Bill mention that some software wouldn't restore properly
and I think that has to do with Open files. I know in order to
properly backup a system, it needs to be able to backup open files.
Now how it does this, is beyond me but I've read up on different
backup software years ago and that seemed to be a major point then.

[RnR]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:39:52 +1100, "Brian K"
<bjk444_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

[Brian K]

"Dan Wenz" <djw...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:j7el5l$f0k$1...@dont-email.me...

>and see that the differential backups average around 50 GB, while the
>initial full backup is around 180 GB. 50 GB seems awfully large

Dan,

It is very large. My OS image is 5 GB as I separate the OS from the data
files. But after 2 weeks of daily differential images they have peaked at 25
MB. Yes, that is correct, 25 MB. I'm using Image for Windows.

Have you been defragmenting since the initial image backup?

[alexandrin...@gmail.com]

On Oct 16, 7:24 pm, "BillW50" <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote:
> Innews:Z2Jmq.4276$NR2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com,

Hi Bill,

This discussion about backing up is informative. And it is interesting
to read about alternative ideas.

But I am curious about the following statement you made:

"That to me is the craziest thing I ever heard of! As the last drive
you ever
want to use for a backup is a fixed internal drive."

I am using the Seagate Disc wizard to do exactly that, cloning to an
internal harddrive. The software is free and the cloning process is
done outside of windows, you have to reboot and Disc wizard takes
over. When it is done, it creates a bootable harddrive and shuts
down, For my purposes it seems free, simple and effective and I can
easily test the clone drive to ensure it works.

So why is using an internal drive for a backup a bad idea?

[RnR]

Sorry for butting in here ....
Well I won't speak for Bill but I can think of one reason... namely if
you backup to the same drive you boot off of, it could crash or fail
more likely than the other secondary drives simply because you are
using it more often (read / writes / OS crashes). Others even go as
far as to say not to backup to anything in the same location in case
of a fire. I guess it comes down to how safe do you want your backup
to be.

[olfart]

"lgree...@srt.com" <alexandrin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c030205-10a9-472e...@s14g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...

On Oct 16, 7:24 pm, "BillW50" <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote:
> Innews:Z2Jmq.4276$NR2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com,

<snip>

Hi Bill,

This discussion about backing up is informative. And it is interesting
to read about alternative ideas.

But I am curious about the following statement you made:

"That to me is the craziest thing I ever heard of! As the last drive
you ever
want to use for a backup is a fixed internal drive."

I am using the Seagate Disc wizard to do exactly that, cloning to an
internal harddrive. The software is free and the cloning process is
done outside of windows, you have to reboot and Disc wizard takes
over. When it is done, it creates a bootable harddrive and shuts
down, For my purposes it seems free, simple and effective and I can
easily test the clone drive to ensure it works.

So why is using an internal drive for a backup a bad idea?

What Bill is probably referring to is the fact that an internal backup drive
could be subject to damage from power surges, lightning etc as well as
possibly picking up any virus that has infected your primary drive.
I have 2 internal 500gb HDs....C:/ for OS and Programs and E:\ for data
storage. I have a dual USB external enclosure containing 2 500gb drives and
I use Casper to clone my backups. When not actually performing a backup the
ext USB drives are turned off so there isn't much chance for damage to them.
I also keep a data backup on another 500gb drive which is swapped out to my
Bank safe deposit box every few months. This may sound like overkill, but I
have had several bad experiences back in the Win98 days where I lost some
valuable data due to HD failures. In the last few years I have had 2
instances where a C:\ drive became corrupted on my Dell WS 390 and both
times I was back up and running in less than 5 minutes. I also use Casper to
backup my 2 Dell Laptops and use Paragon to backup my eeePC701. Once you get
a system of backups set up it is well worth the few minutes each one takes.

[Steve W.]

lgree...@srt.com wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> This discussion about backing up is informative. And it is interesting
> to read about alternative ideas.
>
> But I am curious about the following statement you made:
>
> "That to me is the craziest thing I ever heard of! As the last drive
> you ever
> want to use for a backup is a fixed internal drive."
>
> I am using the Seagate Disc wizard to do exactly that, cloning to an
> internal harddrive. The software is free and the cloning process is
> done outside of windows, you have to reboot and Disc wizard takes
> over. When it is done, it creates a bootable harddrive and shuts
> down, For my purposes it seems free, simple and effective and I can
> easily test the clone drive to ensure it works.
>
> So why is using an internal drive for a backup a bad idea?

I can think of a few reasons.
Power spike that makes it through the power supply and blows the
controller boards on both drives.
Failure on the MB which corrupts both drives (because they are both
connected to the same power supply and control circuits)
Some software problem that tries to write to both drives and corrupts
the back-up.

Then you have the external causes.
Fire, flood, theft, accidental spills.

I run two back-ups. One sits on the desk with me while the other goes
into a good fire rated safe. I do a back-up before I do a software
change or updates. Files that I use a lot get copied to the main drive
and a USB stick. The stick gets pulled right after I store the file.

--
Steve W.

[alexandrin...@gmail.com]

On Oct 17, 9:13 am, "olfart" <olfar...@excite.com> wrote:
> "lgreenw...@srt.com" <alexandrinelibrar...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Thanks for responding I can see your point and the set up you describe
makes good sense....I also keep a backup harddrive in a safety deposit
box, so don't think it is overkill, more like disaster protection. I
rotate the two internal drives every couple of months I use for
backup, keep one internal and store one. I might reevaluate that idea.

So you use Casper for both cloning and data backup?

[alexandrin...@gmail.com]

On Oct 17, 9:31 am, "Steve W." <csr684...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Ok,, I got it..thanks...I go back to the Kaypro CP/M days and have
never have experienced those problems (knock on wood!). I have two
harddrives that I use for internal backing up and I rotate them
keeping one in a safety deposit box.

[Brian K]

"lgree...@srt.com" <alexandrin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c030205-10a9-472e...@s14g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...

>So why is using an internal drive for a backup a bad idea?

I'll have to disagree with Bill as I think it's the best place to create the
initial backup. Convenient and fast. But you should have at least one
secondary backup series, stored off-site for the reasons mentioned in this
thread. I'm glad Steve mentioned "Fire, flood, theft, accidental spills" as
these are rarely discussed in a backup context.

I'm pleased you guys are testing your clones to make sure they boot. Some
years ago there were reports in the Acronis Forum of clones not booting when
the cloned HD was installed in the computer. It was clones created in USB
external HD enclosures from computers with 240 heads BIOS geometry. eg IBM,
Lenovo, HP and Compaq. Owners of these systems had to do reverse clones
where the old HD was in the USB enclosure and the new HD was mounted
internally so it was seen by the BIOS in its "final resting place". I think
newer apps such as Casper get around this BIOS issue but if you own one of
those computer brands you should check your clone.

[BillW50]

On 10/17/2011 2:04 PM, Brian K wrote:
> "lgree...@srt.com"<alexandrin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5c030205-10a9-472e...@s14g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
>
>> So why is using an internal drive for a backup a bad idea?
>
> I'll have to disagree with Bill as I think it's the best place to create the
> initial backup. Convenient and fast. But you should have at least one
> secondary backup series, stored off-site for the reasons mentioned in this
> thread. I'm glad Steve mentioned "Fire, flood, theft, accidental spills" as
> these are rarely discussed in a backup context.

I believe I was misunderstood. My complaint was about Acronis states on
the packages they support USB drives. And they do, except for the most
important step, trying to restore an image from an USB drive. Here they
work with some USB controllers, some others they work on a good day, and
some others it will never work.

Only Acronis has this flaw. No other software I have ever used has this
problem. As the others, if it works with one of them, it works with the
rest of them. And if you can get Acronis to finally to admit this is a
problem, their answer is to use an internal drive instead.

Well what kind of fix is this? I have over 20 laptops and most of them
only support one internal drive. That just isn't going to work well.

Another thing is finding all this out about Acronis is very hard to find
on the Internet. Sure it pops up now and then. But they quickly
disappear about as fast as they appear. Why does that happen? Does
Acronis have a team of lawyers doing damage control or what? Wouldn't it
be far cheaper to just fix their stupid software to began with?

As for your belief is an internal drive is the best place to make
backups. I have no trouble here as long as there are copies somewhere
else too.

And you mentioned speed is one good reason to use an internal drive. But
have you actually ran tests? And added the time it takes to pull out the
internal drive to store it in a safe place? My three Alienware M9700
have two drive bays and I usually use one for backups and cloning.
Although I have to admit, it doesn't seem all that much faster than USB2
if you ask me.

I haven't investigated why this seems to be. As I/O speeds are
definitely faster than USB2 speeds. Although it seems the backup or
cloning software is very busy with other tasks too which can't keep the
I/O transferring at their top speeds. So I noticed time wise, sometimes
it doesn't matter that much. And I do it both ways.

--
Bill
Alienware M9700 ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3
AMD Turion 64 ML37 2GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

[Brian K]

"BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:j7k11s$mns$1...@dont-email.me...

> . My complaint was about Acronis states on the packages they support USB
> drives. And they do, except for the most important step, trying to restore
> an image from an USB drive. Here they work with some USB controllers, some
> others they work on a good day, and some others it will never work.

Acronis does receive more complaints than any any other imaging app.

>
> And you mentioned speed is one good reason to use an internal drive. But
> have you actually ran tests? And added the time it takes to pull out the
> internal drive to store it in a safe place?

I don't pull out the internal HD. All of my computers have at least two HDs
and the backup images are written to the second HD and later copied to an
external HD and/or a network share on another computer. Most of this is
automated and usually I don't know it's happening while I continue to work
on the computer. I mentioned the TeraByte imaging apps are interesting to
use. For example, my son's OS backup images are stored in a shared folder in
my computer. I can restore his OS partition over the network without leaving
my room. No boot disks are needed. Other imaging apps can create images over
the network but I haven't heard of any that can do restores remotely.

Restoring images from a second internal HD is very convenient (one mouse
click and no boot disk) and I've never experienced a double HD failure. But
I'm covered if it happens.

I agree, with image compression USB2 isn't all that much slower than an
internal HD. With no image compression creating an image on an internal HD
takes only a quarter of the time of a USB2 image.

[Hank Arnold]

Differential backups backup everything since THE LAST FULL BACKUP.
Incremental backups back up everything changed since the last backup.

The advantage of differentials is that you only have to restore the last
Full backup and the latest Differential. The disadvantage is that the
size of the Differential can increase significantly each time.

The advantage of Incrementals is that they can increase, decrease or
stay stable, can be significantly smaller and take less time to run. The
downside is that to restore, you have to restore the last full backup
and every incremental since then in sequence..

--------

Regards,
Hank Arnold
Microsoft MVP
Windows Server - Directory Services
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/personal-pc-assistant/

On 10/16/2011 9:11 AM, Dan Wenz wrote:
> On 10/16/2011 8:06 AM, BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:GPrmq.4236$NR2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com,
>> Brian K wrote:

>>> For a backup you should be considering images. Cloning is generally
>>> used when upgrading to a larger HD and you want to use the clone
>>> immediately.
>>

>> I used to say the very same thing. ;-) Although after going through the
>> horrors of restoring images a number of times, you learn there has to be
>> a better way. And that better way is by cloning. The only downside I
>> know by cloning instead is that you need more individual drives. But
>> that too is a plus when you think about it. ;-)
>>
>
> This thread is of interest to me also. I use Acronis for daily

> differential backups, and see that the differential backups average

> around 50 GB, while the initial full backup is around 180 GB. 50 GB

[BillW50]

On 10/23/2011 5:05 AM, Hank Arnold wrote:
> Differential backups backup everything since THE LAST FULL BACKUP.
> Incremental backups back up everything changed since the last backup.
>
> The advantage of differentials is that you only have to restore the last
> Full backup and the latest Differential. The disadvantage is that the
> size of the Differential can increase significantly each time.
>
> The advantage of Incrementals is that they can increase, decrease or
> stay stable, can be significantly smaller and take less time to run. The
> downside is that to restore, you have to restore the last full backup
> and every incremental since then in sequence..

Thanks Hank for explaining it so even I can understand. So it is okay to
delete all of the previous differentials if the last one is okay?

And what happens if you make a full backup, then only make incremental
and differential backups from there? You know, mix the methods back and
forth. Will that work? Or do you have to stick with one or the other
method until the next full backup?

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

[Hank Arnold]

You're welcome. It can get a bit confusing...

I wouldn't do it. I don't see any advantage to it. It just complicates
your life. As soon as you do a differential, everything before it is out
of date. Why would you want to do it? If it's space, then get an
external hard drive. I saw a sale recently on a 2TB drive for $79 USD !!!

--------

Regards,
Hank Arnold
Microsoft MVP
Windows Server - Directory Services
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/personal-pc-assistant/

[Ben Myers]

On Oct 17, 10:13 am, "olfart" <olfar...@excite.com> wrote:
> "lgreenw...@srt.com" <alexandrinelibrar...@gmail.com> wrote in message

You (or I?) want to have a backup drive that is independently powered
and can be taken off-line and put aside. In other words, there is no
reason for a backup drive to be running when the computer itself is
running unless you are doing some sort of real-time backup, like
transaction journaling... Ben Myers