How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
John D99
I want to backup my standalone's o/s to a diferent physical harddrive on the
machine, with the priority being on simplicty and actually being able to
re-install when the o/s goes bad, or won't boot, a year or two from now.
The o/s is only about 7 gigs, and I've got lots of space, so that's not an
issue.
I have looked over the Acronis material, and even used their online chat to
ask about a straightforward way of doing it, without really coming away with
anything I want to operate on.
Can anybody give me a few streps and some overview info on this? Clone
versus image? How to for a boot disk.. what to do when a failure happens,
etc.
Thnx
Leonard Grey
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=65
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est
Max Goldman
You gotta be kidding. If you can't figure out how to use Acronis
True Image, you don't belong at that keyboard.
Image, don't clone. Create the image on a different hard drive, not a
different partition - preferably an external drive.
Boot disk: Acronis does it for you. If it fails, your burner needs
replacing.
Backup won't fail unless you don't have enough space for the image.
John D99
"Max Goldman" <maxgo...@adiceclay.invalid> wrote in message
news:vjo2n45gjovk2h4jd...@4ax.com...
> "John D99" <JD...@quantum.com> wrote:
>
>>I've got Acronis True Image 9.
>>
>>I want to backup my standalone's o/s to a diferent physical harddrive on
>>the
>>machine, with the priority being on simplicty and actually being able to
>>re-install when the o/s goes bad, or won't boot, a year or two from now.
>>The o/s is only about 7 gigs, and I've got lots of space, so that's not an
>>issue.
>>
>>I have looked over the Acronis material, and even used their online chat
>>to
>>ask about a straightforward way of doing it, without really coming away
>>with
>>anything I want to operate on.
>>
>>Can anybody give me a few streps and some overview info on this? Clone
>>versus image? How to for a boot disk.. what to do when a failure happens,
>>etc.
>
> You gotta be kidding. If you can't figure out how to use Acronis
> True Image, you don't belong at that keyboard.
Eat shit, asshole.
This is a forum for people who are unfamaliar with something to ask
questions.
Daave
news:vdKdndZQ2PzUxOzU...@earthlink.com...
> I've got Acronis True Image 9.
>
> I want to backup my standalone's o/s to a diferent physical harddrive
> on the machine, with the priority being on simplicty and actually
> being able to re-install when the o/s goes bad, or won't boot, a year
> or two from now. The o/s is only about 7 gigs, and I've got lots of
> space, so that's not an issue.
>
> I have looked over the Acronis material, and even used their online
> chat to ask about a straightforward way of doing it, without really
> coming away with anything I want to operate on.
>
> Can anybody give me a few streps and some overview info on this?
It's all spelled out in Chapter 4 of the manual. Section 4.2 on p.22
covers how to perform an image backup.
> Clone versus image?
Cloning is an option, but IMO it's not that practical. Just make an
image of the drive. Store the image on an external hard drive. This way,
you'll be able to store *other* things on the external hard drive, too.
In addition to the image of the pristine state, you should get into the
habit of making regular images because you will be installing new
programs and creating and storing new data over time. Suppose it's two
years down the road and your system is still stable. You have tons of
different kinds of data on it, all sorts of programs, security updates,
settings to any number of things configured just the way you like it.
Imagine you have an image of the entire hard drive. Now imagine
something bad happens (could be anything that results in your not being
able to boot up). As long as you have the image on an external hard
drive, all you need to do is boot off the Acronis CD and you can restore
the image to your hard drive and everything will be as it was right
before the disaster.
> How to for a boot disk..
That's in Section 10.2 on pp. 55-56.
> what to do when a failure happens, etc.
No offense, but RTFM. After reading it, then ask your questions (if you
still have any). Once you roll up your sleeves and use the product, you
will start to feel very comforable with it.
The only thing I would add is later on down the road, you may find you
don't like the boot CD. In my case, restoration takes quite a while when
using their Linux-based emergrency CD. That's why I burned my own
custom-made Bart PE CD with an Acronis True Image plugin. The
restoration process is much quicker when using that particular boot CD.
Some tweaks were necessary, though. I needed the latest build of Version
9 (at the time, it was 3854). After registering, Acronis gave me a link
to download it. I also needed to obtain two DLLs that Acronis didn't
include for their plugin (!) -- MSVCP71.DLL and MSVCR71.DLL and made the
following additions to the acronis.inf file:
files\Drivers\msvcr71.dll=2,,1
files\Drivers\msvcp71.dll=2,,1
Keep in mind, that the above is only for "later on down the road!"
(Building a BART PE emergency boot CD is a different matter. I just
brought it up so you know there are workarounds to the CD that Acronis
provides.)
For now, just familiarize yourself with the program and use it. Schedule
incremental imaging backups, too. And as Leonard stated, the Acronis
forum would be the best place to ask questions:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com:80/forumdisplay.php?f=65
Max Goldman
>No offense, but RTFM. After reading it, then ask your questions (if you
>still have any). Once you roll up your sleeves and use the product, you
>will start to feel very comforable with it.
>
>The only thing I would add is later on down the road, you may find you
>don't like the boot CD. In my case, restoration takes quite a while when
>using their Linux-based emergrency CD. That's why I burned my own
>custom-made Bart PE CD with an Acronis True Image plugin.
They guy didn't even RTFM and is here begging for help.
What chance do you think he'll have setting up a BartPE CD!???
Slim and NONE.
Engin Tarhan
wants in a single click (in a "straightforward" way)?
Engin
"Max Goldman" <maxgo...@adiceclay.invalid> wrote in message
news:in33n411hbmd3obi7...@4ax.com...
Big_Al
Anna
John D99:
Although I know you've received responses to your query that probably have
resolved your problem, allow me to submit one more...
I prepared the below step-by-step instructions for using the ATI program
(versions 9 or 10) some time ago for a group of users.
Step-by-Step Instructions for Using the Acronis True Image Program to Backup
& Restore One's Hard Drive...
Using the Acronis True Image program there are two different approaches one
can take to back up the entire contents of one's day-to-day working HDD,
i.e., the operating system, all programs & applications, and user-created
data - in short, *everything* that's on one's HDD...
1. Direct disk-to-disk cloning, or,
2. Creating disk images
By using either of these strategies the user can restore his or her system
should their day-to-day working HDD become inoperable because of
mechanical/electronic failure of the disk or corruption of the system
resulting in a dysfunctional operating system.
In undertaking either of these two backup & recovery processes you're
dealing with two hard drives - the so-called source & destination disks -
the source disk being the HDD you're backing up and the destination disk
being the HDD that will be the recipient of the cloned contents of the
source disk or the recipient of the disk image you will be creating.
When using either process it's usually best for most users to use an
external HDD as the destination drive, i.e., the recipient of the cloned
contents of the source disk or the recipient of the created disk image. This
can be either a USB or Firewire or SATA external HDD. While another internal
HDD can also serve as the destination disk there's an additional element of
safety in using an external HDD since that drive will be ordinarily
disconnected from the system except during the disk cloning or recovery
process.
One other suggestion. After you install the Acronis program on your computer
it's a good idea to create what Acronis calls their "Bootable Rescue Media"
(CD). In most cases the recovery process (described below) will utilize that
Acronis bootable CD to restore your system. This "rescue" CD is easily
created from the program by
clicking on the "Create Bootable Rescue Media" icon on the opening Acronis
screen and simply going through the screens to create the bootable CD.
The following are step-by-step instructions for using the Acronis True Image
9 program to clone the contents of one HDD to an external HDD. (The steps
are essentially the same using the newer ATI 10 version):
1. With both hard drives (source & destination disks) connected, boot up.
Ensure that no other storage devices, e.g., flash drives, ZIP drives, etc.,
are connected. It's also probably a good idea to shut down any programs you
may have working in the background - including any anti-virus anti-spyware
programs - before undertaking this disk-to-disk cloning operation.
2. Access the Acronis True Image 9 program and under "Pick a Task", click
on "Clone Disk". (In the ATI 10 version click on "Manage Hard Disks" in the
"Pick a Tool" area and on the next screen click on "Clone Disk").
3. On the next "Welcome to the Disk Clone Wizard!" window, click Next.
4. On the next "Clone Mode" window select the Automatic option (it should
be the default option selected) and click Next.
5. On the next "Source Hard Disk" window, ensure that the correct source
HDD (the disk you're cloning from) has been selected (click to highlight).
Click Next.
6. On the next "Destination Hard Disk" window, ensure that the correct
destination HDD (the disk you're cloning to) has been selected (again, click
to highlight). Click Next.
7. On the next window, select the option "Delete partitions on the
destination hard disk". Understand that all data presently on the disk that
will be the recipient of the clone will be deleted prior to the disk cloning
operation. Click Next.
8. The next window will reflect the source and destination disks. Again,
confirm that the correct drives have been selected. Click Next.
9. On the next window click on the Proceed button. A message box will
display indicating that a reboot will be required to undertake the disk
cloning operation. Click Reboot.
10. The cloning operation will proceed during the reboot. With modern
components and a medium to high-powered processor, data transfer rate will
be somewhere in the range of about 450 MB/min to 800 MB/min when cloning to
a USB external HDD; considerably faster when cloning to another internal
HDD.
11. When the cloning operation has been completed, a message will appear
indicating the disk cloning process has been successful and instructs you to
shut down the computer by pressing any key. Do so and disconnect your USB
external HDD.
If, however, the destination drive has been another *internal* HDD, see the
NOTE below.
12. Note that the cloned contents now residing on the USB external HDD take
on the file system of the source drive. For example, if prior to the
disk-cloning operation your USB external HDD had been FAT32-formatted and
your XP OS was NTFS-formatted, the cloned contents will be NTFS-formatted.
There is no need to format the USB external HDD prior to the disk-cloning
operation. Similarly, there is no need prior to the disk-cloning operation
to format an internal HDD should you be using an internal HDD as the
destination drive .
13. Restoration of the system can be achieved by cloning the contents of the
data residing on the external HDD to an internal HDD through the normal
disk-cloning process as described above.
NOTE: Just one other point that should be emphasized with respect to the
disk cloning operation should the recipient of the clone be another
*internal* HDD and not a USB or Firewire external HDD. Immediately following
the disk cloning operation the machine should be shutdown and the source HDD
should be disconnected. Boot ONLY to the newly-cloned drive. DO NOT BOOT
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE CLONING OPERATION WITH BOTH DRIVES CONNECTED.
While this problem doesn't always arise there is a strong possibility that
by doing so it is likely to cause future boot problems with the cloned
drive. Obviously there is no problem in this area should a USB or Firewire
EHD be the recipient of the clone since that device is not ordinarily
bootable in an XP environment.
John99...
I've not included the instructions for the Acronis disk-imaging process
since I assume from your query that you would be interested only in the
disk-cloning process. But if you want step-by-step instructions for the
disk-imaging (and restoration) process, I'll post them.
Anna
Bill P
> since I assume from your query that you would be interested only in the
> disk-cloning process. But if you want step-by-step instructions for the
> disk-imaging (and restoration) process, I'll post them.
> Anna
>
>
Hi Anna
I have ATI 9 installed and I would appreciate it if you would post the step
by step instructions for the disc imaging/restoration process.
Regards Bill
John D99
"Max Goldman" <maxgo...@adiceclay.invalid> wrote in message
news:in33n411hbmd3obi7...@4ax.com...
We had a Maxie jerkoff like this where I work. He thought everybody should
spend all their time reading cryptic manuals on numerous programs instead of
asking questions pertinent to their own usage. In addition to being an
asshole, the advice he gave was often misleading and inappropriate for the
purposes intended.
To be brief, a few of us got him fired a year ago, and the only place he
could get a job was Circuit City as some kind of a tech.
John D99
Biil P's request for a similar plain language guide for recovering, would
also be much appreciated.
Patrick Keenan
>
> I want to backup my standalone's o/s to a diferent physical harddrive on
> the machine, with the priority being on simplicty and actually being able
> to re-install when the o/s goes bad, or won't boot, a year or two from
> now. The o/s is only about 7 gigs, and I've got lots of space, so that's
> not an issue.
>
> I have looked over the Acronis material, and even used their online chat
> to ask about a straightforward way of doing it, without really coming away
> with anything I want to operate on.
>
> Can anybody give me a few streps and some overview info on this? Clone
> versus image?
Cloning is for duplicating the disk, to another disk you have ready. You
want an image, to store for later.
-pk
John D99
"Anna" <myn...@myisp.net> wrote in message
news:eYoXhPLe...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>
> John99...
> I've not included the instructions for the Acronis disk-imaging process
> since I assume from your query that you would be interested only in the
> disk-cloning process. But if you want step-by-step instructions for the
> disk-imaging (and restoration) process, I'll post them.
> Anna
Please post your Acronis 9 disk-imaging process notes also, and everything
for recovery for both approaches.
Your note about cloning on an internal hard drive, possibly creating a
problem on bootup was excellent.
I guess that's becasue a "clone" is an operable copy of the o/s, and on
bootup, the system won't know which "o/s" it's supposed to bootup from?
Anna
Bill:
Sure, here they are. Again, these apply to versions 9 & 10. I think (but am
not sure) that they apply (at least broadly) to version 11 as well, but I
haven't worked with the latest version of the ATI program - Home 2009 - so
I've no idea if they apply to that version. Please bear in mind that I wrote
all this about two years ago (as I remember), so some of this material may
be out-of-date depending on possible changes brought about by newer "builds"
of these programs that Acronis might have released since then.
Disk imaging:
The following are step-by-step instructions for using the Acronis True Image
9 Program to create disk images for backup purposes and using those disk
images for recovery of the system. (The steps are essentially the same using
the newer ATI 10 version):
Note: The recipient of the disk image, presumably a USB external HDD or an
internal HDD, ordinarily must be a formatted drive and have a drive letter
assigned to it. Recall that in the case of a disk-to-disk cloning operation
as previously described, an unformatted or "virgin" HD can be used as the
destination disk.
Before undertaking this disk imaging process it's probably best to close all
programs running in the background including your anti-virus and other
anti-malware programs.
1. With both your source and destination hard drives connected, access the
Acronis program and click "Backup" on main menu.
2. The "Create Backup Wizard" screen opens. Click Next.
3. "Select Backup Type" screen opens with two options:
a. The entire disk contents or individual partitions.
b. Files and folders.
Select a. and click Next.
(In the ATI 10 version four options will be listed: My Computer, My Data, My
Application Settings, and My E-mail. Select the My Computer option and click
Next.)
4. The "Partitions Selection" screen opens. Disk 1 and Disk 2 are listed
with their drive letter designations. Check the disk to be backed up -
presumably Disk 1 - and click Next.
5. An informational message appears recommending an incremental or
differential backup if original full backup had previously been created.
Since this will be the first backup we will be selecting, just click OK to
close the message box.
6. Next screen is the "Backup Archive Location". In the "File name:" text
box, (in ATI 10 version it's the "Folder:" text box) enter your backup drive
letter and enter a file name for the backup file, e.g., "F:\Backup 11-19".
The Acronis program will automatically append the ".tib" file extension to
the filename. Click Next.
7. "Select Backup Mode" screen opens. Select "Create a new full backup
archive" option and click Next.
8. "Choose Backup Options" screen opens with two options:
a. Use default options
b. Set the options manually
If you select the b. option, you can select various options listed on the
next screen. Two of them are of interest to us:
Compression level - Four options - None, Normal (the default), High,
Maximum.
There's a "Description" area that shows the estimated size of the backup
archive depending upon the option chosen, and the estimated "creation time"
for each option.
(In this example, the actual size of the data to be backed up is 20 GB).
None - 20 GB and estimated creation time of 1 hr 40 min
Normal - 11.96 GB " " " " 50 min (Default)
High - 10.46 GB " " " " 1 hr
Maximum - 10.2 GB " " " " 1 hr
Backup priority - Three options - Low, Normal, or High
Low - "backup processed more slowly, but it will not influence other
processes running on computer." (Default)
Normal - "normal speed but backup process will influence other processes
running on computer."
High - "normal speed but backup process will strongly influence other
processes running on computer."
(As an example, I selected Normal (default) compression level and High
backup priority. The backup archive totaled 15.8 GB compressed from 20 GB;
took 16 min 15 sec to create. Creating a disk-to-disk clone would probably
have taken no longer and possibly a bit faster.)
NOTE: You can set the defaults from the Acronis Tools > Options > Default
backup options menu items.
9. "Archive comments" screen opens allowing you to add comments to the
backup archive which you can review during the Recovery process. Click Next.
10. The next screen summarizes the backup operation to be performed. Review
the information for correctness and click the Proceed button.
11. The next screen will display status bars reflecting the progress of the
backup operation. After the backup operation finishes, an informational
message will appear indicting the operation was successfully completed.
Incremental Backups (Disk Images)
1. After the initial backup archive has been created you can create
incremental backups reflecting any data changes since the previous backup
operation. This incremental backup process proceeds considerably faster than
the initial backup operation. This, of course, is a major advantage of
creating disk images rather than undertaking the disk-to-disk cloning
process. Then too, since these created disk images are compressed files they
are reasonable in size. And because the incremental disk images can usually
be created very quickly (as compared with the direct disk-to-disk cloning
process), there's an incentive for the user to keep his/her system
up-to-date backup-wise by using this disk imaging process on a more frequent
basis than the disk-cloning process.
Note that you must create the incremental backup files on the same HDD where
you stored the original backup archive and any subsequent incremental backup
files.
2. Access the Acronis program as detailed above and move through the
screens. When you arrive at the "Backup Archive Location" screen, click on
the original backup archive file, or if one or more incremental backup files
were previously created, click on the last incremental backup file and
verify that the correct drive letter and file name are shown in the "File
name:" text box. After clicking Next, the program will automatically create
a file name for the incremental backup archive file, using the original file
name and appending a consecutive number - starting at 2 - at the end of the
file name. For example, say you named the original backup archive file
"Backup 1-19". The first incremental backup file will be automatically named
"Backup 1-192" and the next incremental file "Backup 1-193", etc.
3. On the following "Select Backup Mode" screen, select the "Create
incremental backup" option, click Next, and proceed through the screens as
you did in creating the initial backup archive.
Recovery Process (Disk images)
We'll assume the recovery will be to either a non-defective HDD that has
become unbootable for one reason or another, or to a new HDD. The HDD to be
restored need not be partitioned/formatted since the recovery process will
take care of that function.
Note that in most cases you will be using the Acronis "bootable rescue
media" (CD) that you created when you originally installed the Acronis
program. If you didn't create that bootable CD at that time, you can create
it now from the Acronis program (assuming you can access the program at this
time) by clicking on the "Create Bootable Rescue Media" icon on the opening
Acronis screen and simply going through the screens to create the bootable
CD.
Note: If the recovery will be made to a HDD that is still bootable and
you're able to access the Acronis program on that drive, then you can
undertake the recovery process without the need for using the "bootable
rescue" CD.
1. With both the drive containing the backup disk images and the drive you
want to restore connected and with the bootable rescue CD inserted, boot up.
2. At the opening screen, click on "Acronis True Image Home (Full Version)".
3. The program will open after some moments. On the "Pick a Task" screen
that opens, click on "Recovery".
4. The "Welcome to the Restore Data Wizard!" screen opens. Click on Next.
5. The "Archive Selection" screen opens. Navigate to the drive containing
the backup archive file(s) and select the last incremental backup file or
the original full backup file if no incremental backup files were
subsequently created. Ensure that the correct drive letter and filename are
entered in the "File name:" text box. Click Next.
6. In the Acronis version 9 program, the "Archive Date Selection" screen
opens. Select (highlight) the last incremental backup file from the listing
and click Next. This screen does not appear in version 10.
7. The "Restoration Type Selection" screen opens. Select the option,
"Restore disks or partitions" and click Next.
8. The "Partition or Disk to Restore" will open. Click on "Disk 1" and click
Next.
9. After some moments the "Restored Hard Disk Drive Location" screen opens.
Select (highlight) the HDD to be restored and click Next.
10. On the next screen select the "Yes" option to delete all current
partitions on the destination HDD. Click Next.
11. On the next screen select the "No" option and click Next.
12. On the next screen you have the option to validate the backup archive
before restoration. Click Next.
13. The final screen before the restoration operation begins will open.
Confirm that the information as shown is correct. Click Proceed.
14. Click OK when following completion of the recovery operation a message
appears indicating a successful recovery operation.
15. Remove the Acronis bootable rescue CD and close the Acronis program. The
system will reboot. A Windows "Found New Hardware" message followed by the
"System Settings Change" message box may appear on the Desktop. If they do,
click Yes for a reboot.
Note: While the Acronis program is not designed to clone individual
partitions - it can clone only the entire contents of one HDD to another
HDD - you can backup & recover *individual* partitions through the disk
imaging process as described above.
Anna
Anna
> "Anna" <myn...@myisp.net> wrote in message
> news:eYoXhPLe...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> John99...
>> I've not included the instructions for the Acronis disk-imaging process
>> since I assume from your query that you would be interested only in the
>> disk-cloning process. But if you want step-by-step instructions for the
>> disk-imaging (and restoration) process, I'll post them.
>> Anna
"John D99" <JD...@quantum.com> wrote in message
news:dqmdneeHpZPKhe_U...@earthlink.com...
> Please post your Acronis 9 disk-imaging process notes also, and everything
> for recovery for both approaches.
>
> Your note about cloning on an internal hard drive, possibly creating a
> problem on bootup was excellent.
>
> I guess that's becasue a "clone" is an operable copy of the o/s, and on
> bootup, the system won't know which "o/s" it's supposed to bootup from?
John99:
I did post step-by-step instructions re the Acronis disk-imaging process -
at least as it applies to the ATI versions 9, 10, and probably 11. You've
probably seen my post by now. Hope it will help.
One thing I didn't cover in those instructions was the distinction of
creating "incremental" vs. "differential" archives (as Acronis calls them).
I purposely left out of those basic disk-imaging instructions an explanation
of those processes. I did so because the differences between the two seemed
to confuse users and it appeared to me that there was near-universal
acceptance of the incremental-archive approach, at least among the users I
talked to or who read the instructions. So I focused only on creating
incremental files (archives).
But there are pros & cons between the two processes and a user such as
yourself, as well as others who use the ATI program, might want to
investigate the differences since both capabilities are present in the
program and the user has the option of using one or the other. The ATI
program's Help files contain info on this and as I recall there was also
info on the Acronis site as well.
As to your question...
It's really just a (potential) glitch in virtually every disk-cloning
program that I've worked with except for one exception (which I'll get to).
Again, this is a *potential* problem that *may* occur when using an
*internally-connected* HDD as the recipient of the clone, i.e., the
"destination" drive. Keep in mind that if the destination HDD is an
*external* HDD, e.g., a USB external HDD, there's ordinarily no problem
along the lines that will be described.
Following the successful disk-cloning operation should the user boot with
*both* of his/her hard drives connected (the so-called "source" &
"destination" drives), the system, of course, will ordinarily boot to the
source HDD (presumably the C: drive) as would be expected.
However, at some later date when the user attempts to subsequently boot with
*only* the previously-cloned (destination) HDD connected - let's say for
restoration purposes - there's a strong possibility the system will not boot
should *only* that HDD be connected. And this, even though the disk-cloning
operation had been successful, i.e., the cloned HDD is a precise copy of the
source HDD.
What has happened (and again, keep in mind this is a *potential* problem in
that it
does not *always* occur) is that when both HDDs are connected *immediately*
following the disk-cloning operation and the user boots the system, a drive
letter other than C: is assigned to the destination (newly-cloned) HDD. This
other-than-C: drive letter assignment remains permanently assigned to the
destination HDD. So that if later the user attempts to boot to that HDD that
is solely connected to the system, it will not boot since the XP OS will not
"see" it as the boot drive. (A number of commentators have indicated a
registry modification can be employed to correct this problem, i.e., assign
a C: drive letter to the HDD, but we have not found this to be a reliable,
workable solution).
So the point here is that it's desirable for the user that *immediately*
following the disk-cloning process he or she disconnect the destination HDD
from the system and boot only to the source HDD.
Alternatively, the user can disconnect the source HDD and boot only to the
newly-cloned HDD and then shut down the machine and disconnect that drive
and re:connect the source HDD. The advantage here is that the user checks
that the disk-cloning process was successful.
Again, I have to emphasize that this problem doesn't always occur and it
only affects a situation where the destination HDD is an
*internally-connected* HDD. There's no problem affecting a USB external HDD
if that device is the recipient of the clone. But the problem has arisen
with sufficient frequency that we refer to this cautionary note.
Our disk-cloning program of choice is the Casper 5 program - one of the
reasons being that we've never encountered the above problem with this
program regardless that both the source & destination drives were connected
immediately following the disk-cloning operation. And we've been involved in
hundreds of disk-cloning operations with this program. It is simply
unnecessary that following the successful
disk-cloning operation (again, involving internal hard drives), the cloned
HDD be disconnected from the system (or, conversely, the source HDD be
disconnected from the system and an initial boot be made only to the
newly-cloned HDD.)
As far as we're concerned the disk-cloning approach (especially using the
Casper 5 program) is ideally suited for the vast majority of PC users in
terms of creating & maintaining a comprehensive backup program. We greatly
prefer it over the Acronis program (for a variety of reasons) and believe
that the disk-to-disk (or partition-to-partition) disk-cloning process
better meets the needs of average PC users. What better backup system can
one have than having at hand a precise copy of his or her day-to-day working
HDD? Where all the data on the cloned disk is immediately accessible and
should that disk be an internal HDD it's immediately bootable & completely
functional without the need for any restoration process.
Now I do realize that many users - particularly the more advanced users -
for various reasons prefer the disk-imaging process for backup purposes. I
always encourage users to experiment with both approaches and decide for
themselves what best meets their needs.
Anna
Jim Moriarty
wrote:
>We had a Maxie jerkoff like this where I work. He thought everybody should
>spend all their time reading cryptic manuals on numerous programs instead of
>asking questions pertinent to their own usage.
There are a lot of bozos in the world who want others to do their work
for them so that they don't have to RTFM.
You have a lot of company.
John D99
"Jim Moriarty" <jmor...@aconandoyle.invalid> wrote in message
news:com4n4p8hhkj72bsk...@4ax.com...
Moron, people ask questions in newsgroups so they can get information.
Jim Moriarty
wrote:
>
>"Jim Moriarty" <jmor...@aconandoyle.invalid> wrote in message
>news:com4n4p8hhkj72bsk...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:21:46 -0700, "John D99" <JD...@quantum.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>We had a Maxie jerkoff like this where I work. He thought everybody should
>>>spend all their time reading cryptic manuals on numerous programs instead
>>>of
>>>asking questions pertinent to their own usage.
>>
>
>> There are a lot of bozos in the world who want others to do their work
>> for them so that they don't have to RTFM.
>>
>> You have a lot of company.
>
>Moron, people ask questions in newsgroups so they can get information.
Some, such as yourself, are just plain lazy and don't even TRY to help
themselves. YOU are the moron, bozo.
ushere
seconded.
if someone can't be bothered to rtfm, then why should anyone be bothered
helping them?
Bill P
>
>>> I've not included the instructions for the Acronis disk-imaging process
>>> since I assume from your query that you would be interested only in the
>>> disk-cloning process. But if you want step-by-step instructions for the
>>> disk-imaging (and restoration) process, I'll post them.
>>> Anna
>
>
>> Hi Anna
>> I have ATI 9 installed and I would appreciate it if you would post the
>> step by step instructions for the disc imaging/restoration process.
>> Regards Bill
>
>
> Bill:
> Sure, here they are. Again, these apply to versions 9 & 10. I think (but
> am not sure) that they apply (at least broadly) to version 11 as well, but
> I haven't worked with the latest version of the ATI program - Home 2009 -
> so I've no idea if they apply to that version. Please bear in mind that I
> wrote all this about two years ago (as I remember), so some of this
> material may be out-of-date depending on possible changes brought about by
> newer "builds" of these programs that Acronis might have released since
> then.
Thanks Anna
dfrog
John D99,
You are absolutely right, some people do need the kind of help that Anna has
given even tho' they have RTM. (I'm one of them too).
Some other people just aren't aware of this and choose to show their
aggressive non - helpful nature; it no doubt makes them feel smart.
Thankfully, there are people like Anna who go to a lot of trouble to help
us, and I hope she gets to know just how much some of us do appreciate her
help.
dfrog
Mickey Mouse
" dfrog" <df...@lineone1.net> wrote in message
news:6th0g0F...@mid.individual.net...
Mickey
Patrick Keenan
"WaIIy" <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote in message
news:gnr6n4p9eb18j2nv9...@4ax.com...
Because you can't always do that, the times you can't are the times you
really need to, and it can turn out that when you realize that you can't,
you've also damaged what you had.
You create and store an image because you can only clone if the source disk
is functioning, or can actually *be* cloned, and that is sometimes not the
case. Disks can fail in ways that prevent either cloning or imaging from
concluding successfully, though they can still function.
I've rebuilt a number of client systems recently that could not be cloned or
imaged due to disk read errors. I *could* scrape data off, so little was
lost, but neither cloning or imaging was an option.
The errors appeared well into the process, and if I had been "updating" a
clone, I would have had a drive that couldn't be cloned and a damaged clone
that was no longer usable.
If I already had an image, and was restoring that to a drive because of a
failure, no problem. I know that I have a working image because I was able
to create it and restore it for testing.
Never rely one one single backup. It's cheaper to have several stored
images on one or two disks than several stored hard disks. Again, you do
not want to have only one source and only one backup.
You want to have some sort of copy on hand of a base install, which perhaps
you update regularly; but if it's a file that you store on another drive,
it's an image. If it's to a separate drive, it's a clone.
Cloning and imaging are basically the same process. The difference is the
target and immediacy of use.
Images are also often used for testing software configurations. It's quick
to restore an image, and costs less than having a separate hard disk for
each install. Boot to the recovery CD, select the appropriate image,
restore.
If you are making a working copy of the hard disk to another physical hard
disk each time, you are cloning. Often, cloning in this way is a waste of
space since multiple images can be stored on one disk, but cloning is
one-to-one. But if you need instant replacement, you would be re-cloning
very regularly to have the disk on hand and ready to go, and you would be
doing this with several hard disks that you rotated in sequence, so that you
do not rely one one backup.
HTH
-pk
Bill in Co.
Except for the case of multiple partition cloning to ONE destination disk,
though.
I think it's a bit misleading to simply state that a clone is a copy of the
entire hard disk, as it doesn't have to be that. It can (altenatively) be
just a partition copy "clone" of a source drive partition, and not the
entire source drive (which could have several other partitions).
So one could store several partition type clones on ONE destination backup
disk, but they will each be assigned different drive letters in windows. So
for example, if your C: partition on your main internal source drive
contains windows and all your programs, one *could* choose to make multiple
"partition type clone" copies of that to the destination disk, for backup
purposes. Although I think it makes a lot more sense to use imaging for
this purpose.
Anna
"WaIIy" <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote in message
news:bas6n4lvoejqhdd8l...@4ax.com...
> Hi Anna,
>
> Great name, BTW (same as my daughter's).
>
> I've taken your advice and now clone with Casper.
>
> I first went with internal sata to sata and it all worked great, no
> reboot issues at all.
>
> I then went to external sata, but was getting a missing drive error when
> external was shut off. Not a big deal, but I wanted things clean.
>
> Since the enclosure I bought was usb and also sata, I opted to go with
> the usb option so I could easily turn off the external drive.
>
> Sata to sata, external, internal, usb... Casper made it so easy and it
> takes less than ten minutes to do the incremental after the first clone.
>
> I tested the drive with each cloning method and it booted up instantly.
>
> I was surprised at how fast the usb was, about the same as internal
> sata to sata. I have a Dell 8400 P4 3.0.
>
> I had a hd fail one time and never again. I had all my data backed up,
> but it took me a long time to get my programs reinstalled and my tweaks
> taken care of.
>
> Next time I will go from three days to a few minutes.
> Thanks for your great advice.
Wally:
Glad to hear your positive comments re the Casper 5 program. We've
introduced that disk-cloning program to I-don't-know-how-many-users and
virtually all of them are greatly satisfied with the program even to the
extent of giving up their former disk-cloning and/or disk-imaging programs.
In addition to its simplicity of operation (there's virtually no
"learning-curve" for even the most inexperienced user), straightforward
design, and general effectiveness re the disk-cloning process, its truly
"greatest" advantage over every disk-cloning or disk-imaging program I've
ever used (and I've used quite a few over the years!) is its ability to
create "incremental" clones through what Casper terms its "SmartClone"
capability.
Obviously you're aware of this capability based on your above comments but
let me kind of "flesh it out" for the benefit of others who might be
contemplating purchasing a disk-cloning program...
This "SmartClone" feature of the Casper 5 program results in the routine
disk-cloning operation taking only a fraction of the time other disk-cloning
(or disk- imaging) programs need re this backup operation. The Casper
program has this unique (at least unique in my experience) ability to detect
only the data changes in the system being cloned since the previous
disk-cloning operation; consequently the program needs a considerably
shorter period of time to complete subsequent (routine) disk-cloning
operations. To my mind, that is the overriding advantage of Casper 5 as
compared with other disk-cloning & disk-imaging programs in my experience.
To illustrate this with a concrete example, here's a portion of some
comments I posted some time ago to one of the MS XP newsgroups...
Earlier today we had occasion (for routine backup purposes) to use the
Casper 5 program to clone the contents of a user's day-to-day working HDD -
the "source" disk - to another internal HDD - the "destination" drive.
Today's disk-cloning operation involved about 40 GB of data (the entire
contents, of course, of the source HDD). (The first, i.e., initial
disk-cloning operation involving these drives took place a couple of weeks
ago. That initial disk-cloning operation took about 45 minutes - probably
about the same amount of time any disk-cloning or disk-imaging program would
take).
Routine (nearly daily) disk-cloning operations involving these same two HDDs
have taken place over the past two weeks or so since that initial
disk-cloning operation. Obviously changes in the data have taken place over
that time. Today's disk-cloning operation took about 3 minutes. Three
minutes. (It's likely that should the contents of the "source" HDD be cloned
to a USB external HDD, the process would have taken a bit longer, but not
terribly so).
And should the user undertake another disk-cloning operation within the next
day or so the operation will again take a relatively short period of time.
So there is an *enormous* incentive for users to backup their systems on a
current basis knowing that the expenditure of time in doing so will be
relatively slight. Heretofore this has been a problem with disk-cloning
programs because each time the disk-cloning operation was undertaken it was
a "fresh" operation and took a considerable amount of time. So under those
circumstances many users were hesitant to use their disk-cloning program on
a frequent basis because of this expenditure of time.
I trust this example will give users a clear idea of the value of this
Casper 5 "incremental clone" capability in terms of using this type of
program as a routine comprehensive backup program, one that will be used
*frequently* so that the user will always have a reasonably *up-to-date*
precise copy of his/her day-to-day working HDD. While many, if not most,
users will have no need nor desire to back up their systems on a daily basis
or even every two or three days, they will be encouraged to do so on perhaps
on a weekly basis or perhaps twice a month knowing that the process will
take a relatively short period of time. I cannot overemphasize this
feature.
Again, users should understand that as a result of this "incremental"
disk-cloning operation the recipient of the clone - one's destination HDD -
will be a precise copy of one's source HDD at that particular point-in-time.
No special recovery or restore process is necessary should the user employ
the clone as a bootable, functional drive. A clone is a clone is a clone.
Let me make it clear that should a user's interest be *only* in a one-time
disk-cloning (or disk-imaging) operation and have little or no interest in
using such a program as a routine comprehensive backup system as we have
discussed, then it really doesn't matter which disk-cloning or disk-imaging
program he or she uses. In that case all that is important is that the
program is effective in transferring the contents of one HDD to another HDD.
Now about the problem you experienced with your external SATA HDD...
It would really be worthwhile if there was some practical way to achieve
SATA-to-SATA capability between the external SATA HDD and your Dell 8400.
Obviously that desktop machine is not equipped (insofar as I know) with an
eSATA port, so that type of connectivity wouldn't be available. But if it
was possible to affix a simple eSATA adapter (they run around $10 or so) to
a vacant backplane slot on the case and achieve SATA-to-SATA connectivity
that way (the SATA data cable affixed to the adapter is simply connected to
one of the motherboard's SATA connectors), it would be much more desirable
than using a USBEHD to serve as the destination drive, i.e., the recipient
of the cloned (boot) HDD. For two reasons...
1. The data transfer rate would be significantly faster, and,
2. The external SATA HDD would be potentially bootable since it would
contain the cloned contents of your boot drive. Under these circumstances
the system treats the external SATA HDD as an *internal* HDD.
(Another possibility if you're so inclined is to simply run the SATA signal
(data) cable from the SATA enclosure (I'm assuming it's a eSATA port)
*directly* to a vacant SATA connector on the motherboard (I believe there
are four SATA connectors on the system board, yes?). So you would need a
SATA data cable with a SATA connector on one end and an eSATA connector on
the other end.)
I think the problem you have experienced with the failure of the system to
detect the external SATA HDD is a "hot-plugging" issue. If you connect and
power-up the device *prior to* booting to the OS, there's no problem with
the system recognizing the external SATA HDD. Is that right?
However if the connection/powering up the SATA external HDD occurs
*following* bootup it's then you experience the non-recognition problem,
right?
If this is the case, there's probably a simple solution. Access Device
Manager, and right-click on "Disk drives", then click on the "Scan for
hardware changes" menu item. The drive should then be detected and listed in
the "Disk drives" section.
Anna
John D99
"Jim Moriarty" <jmor...@aconandoyle.invalid> wrote in message
Dumbasses like yourself aren't even aware they are posting in a newsgroup
that is designed to answer questions.
Anything dealt with in groups like this, could be answered in some sort of
manual, dumbass.
>
John D99
"ushere" <removethis....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ytxcl.12069$cu...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> seconded.
Seconded that you are as much of a dumbass as he is.
As pointed out, all computer help groups, which this is one, deal with
questions that are cryptically dealth with in manuals.
Johnny Fosse
wrote:
>
>"ushere" <removethis....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ytxcl.12069$cu...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Jim Moriarty wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:54:12 -0700, "John D99" <JD...@quantum.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jim Moriarty" <jmor...@aconandoyle.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:com4n4p8hhkj72bsk...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:21:46 -0700, "John D99" <JD...@quantum.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We had a Maxie jerkoff like this where I work. He thought
>>>>>> everybody should spend all their time reading cryptic manuals
>>>>>> on numerous programs instead of asking questions pertinent to
>>>>>> their own usage.
>>>>> There are a lot of bozos in the world who want others to do their
>>>>> work for them so that they don't have to RTFM.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have a lot of company.
>>>> Moron, people ask questions in newsgroups so they can get
>>>> information.
>>>
>>> Some, such as yourself, are just plain lazy and don't even TRY to
>>> help themselves. YOU are the moron, bozo.
>>
>
>> seconded.
>
>Seconded that you are as much of a dumbass as he is.
>
>As pointed out, all computer help groups, which this is one, deal with
>questions that are cryptically dealth with in manuals.
The Acronis manual is SO simple, a 6th grader with dyslexia could
follow it.
Twayne
> Keenan" <te...@dev.null>
> wrote:
>
>>
> minutes and be bootable.
Patrick,
About Wally's response:
A clone is a full backup and stands alone. As
such, it can not be added to, in the sense of
incremental backups. An image starts with a full
backup and then, instead of wasting all the space
that full backups cost, only has to do
incrementals, meaning only backing up the files
that have changed, and adding them to the image.
Disk Cloning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_cloning
Disk Imaging:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_image
"Clone" and "Image" meanings have become seriously
bastardized over the years and people, even some
who should know better, tend to use them
interchangeably. Depending on which dictionary
definition you wish to use, they could be
interchangeable in some ways. In general,
consider:
Clone = a way to copy an entire, whole, bootable
disk in one pass. There is no futzing with
individual files or folders, and no way to do so.
During a restore from a Clone, all you can do is
the whole thing. What previously sat on sector
99, for instance, will be returned to sector 99,
199 to 199, and so on.
Image = a way to back up any drive, folder, file
or combination of them, for use and restorating at
any time. It MIGHT be able to do the same thing
as a clone can, but it also does much more and
allows a lot more capabilities. Sort of an image
or picture record of the drive at any particular
time.
Nearly all IMAGING programs will also allow you to
CLONE a drive. But a specific CLONE program
usually will not include this same kind of IMAGE
capability.
There are a lot of nuances and other
things/similarities/differences one could go into,
but that should work OK for a layman's
description, I think.
Maybe it's just me, but I've never heard of an
"updated clone". A clone is a clone. You might
update an image in a few minutes, but ... that's
not the same thing as creating a clone. A true
Clone cannot be "updated"; it must be created each
time. Each clone is equivalent to a disk's worth
if data and so takes up a lot of space. Where a
full image and incremental images thereafter,
takes a LOT less space for the same amount of
data. And, just to keep things accurate, there
are two sides to it: Backing up and then
Restoring from backup, plus cloning if/when one
purchases a new disk drive..
Even if an incremental only takes a few minutes,
it's still going to require the half hour to
whatever, depending on how much data has to be
restored, for the Restore process. Right now a
Restore of my system drive requires about 23
minutes and if it's a new disk or one that is
being repaired from an unbootable state, add to
that time whatever it takes to put the bootable CD
into the drive, tell it where your backup images
are, and get everything initiated. That's around
a half hour for my system disk, should i have a
catastrophic failure and need to use the ISO
created emergency boot CD.
Additionally, almost any hard drive you
purchase today comes with or has available, a
cloning program provided by the manufacturer to
help you get the data from the old drive moved
over onto the new drive. It's standard operating
procedure for them and mostly automated so it only
requires a few key clicks since it's a specialized
function.
HTH a little,
Twayne
Steve McGarrett
<nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:
>Maybe it's just me, but I've never heard of an
>"updated clone". A clone is a clone. You might
>update an image in a few minutes, but ... that's
>not the same thing as creating a clone. A true
>Clone cannot be "updated"; it must be created each
>time.
NEWS FLASH: You're wrong.
Casper (http://www.fssdev.com/) not only makes clones, it makes them
without having to leave Windows AND it makes "incremental clones" the
same way... it even provides the user with an icon for the desktop or
the quick launch to start the process with one click.
Incremental clones take only a fraction of the time needed to make a
full clone.
Anna
"Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:es0JQgde...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
(SNIP)
Twayne:
As I've tried to explain (apparently unsuccessfully in many cases!) in a
number of posts re the Casper 5 disk-cloning program...
Casper has this unique ability (at least "unique" based upon my experience
with a wide variety of disk-cloning programs) to create what I can only
describe as an "incremental" clone. There's probably a better term for the
process, but it will have to do for the moment.
Casper terms this process their "SmartClone" capability. In case you haven't
seen my recent posts on the subject let me just repeat in substance that
information, OK?
This SmartClone feature of the Casper 5 program results in the routine
disk-cloning operation taking only a fraction of the time other disk-cloning
(or disk- imaging) programs need re this backup operation. The Casper
program has this unique ability to detect only the data changes in the
system being cloned since the *previous*
disk-cloning operation; consequently the program needs a *considerably*
shorter period of time to complete subsequent (routine) disk-cloning
operations. To my mind, that is the overriding advantage of Casper 5 as
compared with other disk-cloning & disk-imaging programs in my experience
and this is the primary reason I strongly recommend the program over all
over disk-cloning programs (at least those I've worked with).
circumstances many users were (are) hesitant to use their disk-cloning
program on a frequent basis because of this expenditure of time.
I trust this example will give users a clear idea of the value of this
Casper 5 "incremental clone" capability in terms of using this type of
program as a routine comprehensive backup program, one that will be used
*frequently* so that the user will always have a reasonably *up-to-date*
precise copy of his/her day-to-day working HDD. What better backup system
can the average user have? While many, if not most, users will have no need
nor desire to back up their systems on a daily basis or even every two or
three days, they will be encouraged to do so on perhaps at least on a weekly
basis or perhaps twice a month knowing that the process will take a
relatively short period of time. I cannot overemphasize this feature.
Again, users should understand that as a result of this "incremental"
disk-cloning operation the recipient of the clone - one's destination HDD -
will be a *precise copy* of one's source HDD at that particular
point-in-time. No special recovery or restore process is necessary should
the user employ the clone as a bootable, functional drive. A clone is a
clone is a clone. Again, what better backup system can the average PC user
have than having at hand an absolute copy of his or her HDD, including the
OS, registry & configuration settings, all programs & applications, their
mail program, their personal data - in short, *everything* that's contained
on their day-to-day working HDD? And this "clone" will be immediately
bootable (if the recipient HDD is an internally-connected drive) so that the
user can return his/her system to a bootable, functional state with a
minimum of time & effort.
Let me make it (again) clear that should a user's interest be *only* in a
one-time disk-cloning (or disk-imaging) operation and have little or no
interest in using such a program as a *routine* comprehensive backup system
or will use the program relatively infrequently, then it really doesn't
matter which disk-cloning or disk-imaging program he or she uses. In that
case all that is important is that the program is effective in transferring
the contents of one HDD to another HDD. And for that there are a
considerable number of backup programs to choose from.
I trust the above will give you a clearer idea of this "incremental clone"
process.
Anna
Peter Foldes
--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
"Steve McGarrett" <smcg...@bookem.com> wrote in message
news:3jp7n411k0eq3jtvv...@4ax.com...
Richie Hardwick
>Twayne:
>As I've tried to explain (apparently unsuccessfully in many cases!) in a
>number of posts re the Casper 5 disk-cloning program...
Perhaps your explanations are too lengthy and are filled with
unnecessary info.
-----
Here's a fairly concise summary of what Casper can do. It should be
more easily digested than the book Anna usually posts, and it also
lists Casper's shortcomings - something Anna normally down plays.
Summary:
Casper is probably the BEST cloning tool available. It can clone an
entire disk or just a partition from within Windows simply and easily.
If one makes frequent clones for the purpose of backing up one's
system drive or partition, Casper does it more easily than the others.
The Pros:
The initial cloning can be performed from within Windows. Once the
initial clone has been made, it can be updated at will also from
within Windows, such effort resulting in a complete clone as if a full
clone had been once again performed. Casper provides a desktop
shortcut for that process. Click the shortcut, tell it to proceed
-VOILA! In significantly less time than it takes to make a full clone
the clone is updated.
If one wants to keep a clone ready at all times on an internal drive
so that it can be quickly booted in the case of a system disk or
partition failure, Casper is the tool to use.
Or... if one can envision ONLY needing a backup for use in restoring
an ENTIRE disk or partition, It does nicely there as well and only an
external drive will be needed.
The Cons:
Casper works best if it can clone to a second internal drive. If the
clone is made on an external drive, and a restoration is required,
there is a problem: one will need a bootable CD with Casper on it and
that will cost an additional $10 in addition to the $50 purchase price
of the program.
Casper can ONLY do a full restoration of the disk or partition. One
cannot easily/selectively restore files/directories from the clone
using the program.
For those who have no frequent need to make/update a clone, or who
feel they might like to browse a backup and make selective
restorations, other options make more sense.
Either way, they cost significantly less to buy.
Richie Hardwick
Bill in Co.
> can't "clone" partitions separately. AFAIK
I had thought Anna had said Casper COULD do that.
> That would just be copying a partition.
Which again I think Anna had said Casper COULD do.
> The clone copies the
> active, bootable, operating system disk, including partitions.
But only as the most commonly used option, I believe.
> In Casper's case, with a desktop shortcut in Windows. Too easy.
> Again, the subsequent clones just take a few minutes.
> In my case, six minutes.
>
> For my purposes, I define a clone as a *bootable * copy of
> the entire drive your operating system is on, including any
> partitions. An exact copy of it. (Okay, maybe excluding swap file, etc)
>
>
>> So one could store several partition type clones on ONE destination
>> backup
>> disk, but they will each be assigned different drive letters in windows.
>> So
>> for example, if your C: partition on your main internal source drive
>> contains windows and all your programs, one *could* choose to make
>> multiple
>> "partition type clone" copies of that to the destination disk, for backup
>> purposes. Although I think it makes a lot more sense to use imaging for
>> this purpose.
>>
>
> I don't think you can make a bootable clone to a partition on the
> destination disk. I admit I could be wrong about that.
>
> For one thing, the partiton has to be active to be bootable and you
> can only have one active partition on a disk AFAIK.
Well, maybe Anna can weigh in on this. I assume Casper has some way of
keeping the destination drive partition marked active and yet its not being
a problem, IF that drive is being used as the destination drive.
Bill in Co.
He's still working on that AA. (Give him a bit more time. :-)
Richie Hardwick
>With Casper, the first clone takes a while. For me and
>50 gigs, it took 45 minutes.
>
>Now, I add, delete, whatever when running Windows as I normally do.
>
>Okay, a few days later, I make another clone (I made a desktop
>shortcut via Casper). I click on my shortcut and Casper uses
>what it calls "SmartClone Technology" and apparently just clones the
>changes and takes off whatever I might have deleted from my C drive.
>
>The second clone and all others after that just take a few minutes, in
>my case 6 minutes.
>
>I end up with another exact, bootable cloned drive.
>
>It's freakin awsome.
Takes me about 12 minutes to update the clone - which is an internal
drive that is second in the boot order behind my system drive.
For my regular backup needs I use Acronis True Image to image the
system drive to another drive. I can easily keep multiple backups
that way and fully restore to any date I like OR just restore selected
files/folders from any of the backups as I so choose.
While I have both Casper and Acronis and use both daily, if I had to
choose just one, it would be Acronis - and I would clone less
frequently.
Richie Hardwick
Richie Hardwick
>In Casper's case, a clone has to be a copy of the entire disk. You
>can't "clone" partitions separately. AFAIK
Yes you can.
Richie Hardwick
John D99
"Johnny Fosse" <johnn...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:8pe7n45f35h2bbjaa...@4ax.com...
I don't have the manual, idiot. The program was bought as a download a
couple years ago, idiot. I searched online, and didn't find any pdf manual
for it,
idiot.
In addition, idiot, manuals often don't address issues specific to a
particular user, idiot.
This is a help group, and if the issues of using Acronis were so
simple, why are there so many posts from other people responding in depth,
and asking their own in depth questions?
Richie Hardwick
>>Casper works best if it can clone to a second internal drive. If the
>>clone is made on an external drive, and a restoration is required,
>>there is a problem: one will need a bootable CD with Casper on it and
>>that will cost an additional $10 in addition to the $50 purchase price
>>of the program.
>
>I bought a sata/usb enclosure and put a Seagate drive in it.
>
>I am currently backing up using usb with the enclosure.
>
>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817173042
>
>I can take the drive, replace my current C drive and it boots normally.
Of course it will.
>I can even hook the enclosure sata cable to my C drive sata connector
>and boot from the external drive.
Of course it will.
In both cases, your drive then becomes an internal drive. Try doing
that without installing the drive to internal connectors.
MOST PC users have no clue about the innards of a computer and have
only external USB drives which cannot be used to load Windows.
As eSata drives become more common that won't be a problem.
BTW... if your computer has an external SATA connector, you probably
don't have to go through all that hassle. Try loading Windows without
moving the drive or the connector.
Richie Hardwick
Bill in Co.
> my case, even when the drive was inside my computer.
No, it's not the drive itself being active, it's a special bit in the
partition table on the hard drive, marking it (or rather, that partition) as
being active (80 hex), so that it is bootable. If that disk drives
partition's bit isn't set (80 hex), it won't be bootable. Presumably with
Casper it can somehow be set (in the destination drive), and yet the
internal, currently bootable drive, also stays set, of course (or it
wouldn't boot). But normally only ONE drive partition is allowed to be
set, or so I thought.
Robin Bignall
Saturday, and wonder if anyone has the same problem with scheduling
that I've found. (Most recent version 9646.) Effectively, trying to
schedule any sort of backup daily, weekly or monthly simply doesn't
work (XP Pro SP3). On clicking on any of those buttons I see "Error:
invalid repetition period" even before any of the parameters are
touched. On trying to complete the backup one gets "Error #50: failed
to create scheduled task: request not supported: 0xFFF0". It's also
failing to pick up my Windows logon password correctly, too. I am, of
course, an administrator.
Acronis admits there's a problem with scheduling. If you look at their
knowledge base http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/support/kb/ and
enter "scheduling" in the search box you get to fourth article on page
http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/support/kb/articles/261/ "Acronis
True Image Scheduled Tasks Do Not Run"
I have downloaded and run the fix supplied there, to no avail, have
downloaded and run the tools they recommend and shipped the whole
thing to Acronis.
But my problem is not that a scheduled task won't run: it's that I
can't even create one using their backup wizard. Since scheduling
backups is such an integral part of any backup system, I'm beginning
to wonder how the product ever got released.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Anna
> WaIIy wrote:
(SNIP)
>> I don't think you can make a bootable clone to a partition on the
>> destination disk. I admit I could be wrong about that.
>>
>> For one thing, the partiton has to be active to be bootable and you
>> can only have one active partition on a disk AFAIK.
>
"Bill in Co." <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eDIhyGfe...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Well, maybe Anna can weigh in on this. I assume Casper has some way of
> keeping the destination drive partition marked active and yet its not
> being a problem, IF that drive is being used as the destination drive.
Wally:
Bill is absolutely correct. There's no problem using the Casper 5 program to
clone the contents of one's booting HDD (the "source" HDD) to a *partition*
on the destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the clone.
Taking the example where a user's destination HDD is a USB external HDD...
Let's say the user (for one reason or another) divides his/her USBEHD into
five partitions. He or she could then clone the contents of their "source"
HDD to *any* partition on that USBEHD that the user desired. (This naturally
assumes the partition is sufficient in size to hold the cloned contents).
There would be *no* need to "mark active" the destination partition in any
way. Should the user clone the contents of *any* partition on that USBEHD
containing a bootable clone to their internal source HDD for restoration
purposes, i.e., the source HDD had failed or the user's OS became corrupted
& dysfunctional, that HDD would become bootable & functional without any
further ado. It's as simple as that.
If, on the other hand the user is interested in maintaining "generational"
copies of his or her system at particular points in time this can also be
accomplished using the Casper program. One can multi-partition their USBEHD
into as many partitions as they think they will need to hold the contents of
their source HDD at various points-in-time. Obviously the size of the
destination drive and the estimated amount of the cloned contents throughout
the period of time would be decisive factors in determining how may
partitions can the user create on that destination drive.
So *any* of the partitions on the USBEHD could be simply cloned to an
internal HDD for restoration purposes.
The scenario is slightly different should the destination HDD be another
*internal* HDD or a *external* SATA HDD having SATA-to-SATA capability (as I
explained in my previous post to Wally) and the user has *multi-partitioned*
that drive. As we know, the system treats that latter HDD as an *internal*
HDD.
The ordinary scenario, of course, is simply where the user clones the
contents of his or her source HDD (it's immaterial whether the source HDD
contains a single partition or is multi-partitioned) to their internal HDD.
Since the destination HDD will thus be a precise copy of the source HDD, it
will be immediately bootable & functional in exactly the same manner as the
user's source HDD. No "restore" or "recovery" process is necessary.
But let's take another example in which the user also multi-partitions his
or her *internal* destination HDD. Because that destination HDD is a
potentially *bootable* device, the user can clone the contents of his/her
source HDD to *any* of the partitions on the destination drive and any
primary partition can be selected as the "active" partition and thus be
selected as the boot drive.
Continuing the example, say that the user is interested in maintaining
"generational" copies of his or her system at particular points in time. So
he or she multi-partitions their destination HDD (again we're talking about
either another internal HDD or a SATA-to-SATA connected *external* HDD) into
10 partitions. Thereafter the user clones their source disk to each
partition at different points-in-time. (Obviously the size of the
destination drive and the estimated amount of cloned contents would be a
factor in determining how may partitions can the user create on that
destination drive).
So we'll say that on 1/15 the cloned contents of the source system resides
on partition #1. On 1/20 the clone "goes" to partition #2. On 1/25 partition
#3, and so on...
Should the user subsequently need to restore his/her system with any of the
primary partitions (the first three partitions on the disk) he or she can do
so by marking the particular partition as the "active" partition. This would
be done either through Disk Management or should DM was inaccessible, then
by the bootable Casper "Startup Disk" (CD). Naturally, if the cloned
contents resided on a Logical Drive (within an extended partition) one could
not designate that partition as active. In that situation the contents of a
Logical Drive would need to be cloned to a Primary Partition and then made
active. But note that if the contents of the Logical Drive were cloned to
*another* (internal) HDD, those contents, i.e., that partition, would
automatically
be designated active and the internal HDD would be completely bootable &
functional. Again, no special "restore" or "recovery" process need be
undertaken other than a simple partition-to-disk-cloning operation.
Generally speaking, we believe that where a user's prime interest is in
maintaining "generational" copies of his or her system it's probably more
practical to use a disk-imaging program such as Acronis True Image,
Symantec's Ghost, or others. Although it is entirely possible to use the
Casper 5 program for this purpose as explained above.
Anna
Richie Hardwick
>On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:52:40 -0600, Richie Hardwick
><richieh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:49:53 -0500, WaIIy <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>Casper works best if it can clone to a second internal drive. If the
>>>>clone is made on an external drive, and a restoration is required,
>>>>there is a problem: one will need a bootable CD with Casper on it and
>>>>that will cost an additional $10 in addition to the $50 purchase price
>>>>of the program.
>>>
>>>I bought a sata/usb enclosure and put a Seagate drive in it.
>>>
>>>I am currently backing up using usb with the enclosure.
>>>
>>>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817173042
>>>
>>>I can take the drive, replace my current C drive and it boots normally.
>>
>>Of course it will.
>>
>>>I can even hook the enclosure sata cable to my C drive sata connector
>>>and boot from the external drive.
>>
>>Of course it will.
>>
>>In both cases, your drive then becomes an internal drive. Try doing
>>that without installing the drive to internal connectors.
>
>Yes, but you didn't make yourself clear in what you wrote.
"External" and "Internal" aren't defined by the physical location of
the drive, but by the connection to the computer. Can't help it if
you're not up to speed on even the simplest of technical terms.
Norman
--
If people concentrated on the really
important things of life, there'd
be a shortage of fishing poles.
Doug Larson
Anna
"WaIIy" <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote in message
(SNIP)
> I don't have an eSata connection, thanks for the suggestion, though.
Wally:
In your original post (I think it was your first one) re this thread you
stated (in part) the following...
"I then went to external sata, but was getting a missing drive error when
external was shut off. Not a big deal, but I wanted things clean.
Since the enclosure I bought was usb and also sata, I opted to go with the
usb option so I could easily turn off the external drive."
So you apparently have a SATA-USB external enclosure that has SATA-to-SATA
connectivity capability, right?
So I responded with the following...
"Now about the problem you experienced with your external SATA HDD...
It would really be worthwhile if there was some practical way to achieve
SATA-to-SATA capability between the external SATA HDD and your Dell 8400.
Obviously that desktop machine is not equipped (insofar as I know) with an
eSATA port, so that type of connectivity wouldn't be available. But if it
was possible to affix a simple eSATA adapter (they run around $10 or so) to
a vacant backplane slot on the case and achieve SATA-to-SATA connectivity
that way (the SATA data cable affixed to the adapter is simply connected to
one of the motherboard's SATA connectors), it would be much more desirable
than using a USBEHD to serve as the destination drive, i.e., the recipient
of the cloned (boot) HDD. For two reasons...
1. The data transfer rate would be significantly faster, and,
2. The external SATA HDD would be potentially bootable since it would
contain the cloned contents of your boot drive. Under these circumstances
the system treats the external SATA HDD as an *internal* HDD.
(Another possibility if you're so inclined is to simply run the SATA signal
(data) cable from the SATA enclosure (I'm assuming it's a eSATA port)
*directly* to a vacant SATA connector on the motherboard (I believe there
are four SATA connectors on the system board, yes?). So you would need a
SATA data cable with a SATA connector on one end and an eSATA connector on
the other end.)
(EDIT: Re my following comment...I was assuming that the problem you related
was based on a SATA-to-SATA connection between your external HDD enclosure
and your PC. But I have come to realize this might not have been the case.
So the following may not at all be relevant to your situation)...
I think the problem you have experienced with the failure of the system to
detect the external SATA HDD may be a "hot-plugging" issue. If you connect
and power-up the device *prior to* booting to the OS, there's no problem
with the system recognizing the external SATA HDD. Is that right?
However if the connection/powering up the SATA external HDD occurs
*following* bootup it's then you experience the non-recognition problem,
right?
If this is the case, there's probably a simple solution. Access Device
Manager, and right-click on "Disk drives", then click on the "Scan for
hardware changes" menu item. The drive should then be detected and listed in
the "Disk drives" section.
Anna"
And I might mention in addition to the above that many, if not most, of the
SATA external enclosures now include such an adapter as I indicated above.
Anyway, the point is you do not *need* an eSATA port to achieve SATA-to-SATA
connectivity (although it's a most desirable feature that I wish was
included on *every* desktop motherboard). I wasn't sure from your last post
that you understand this. As I explained above, it's really a significant
advantage for a desktop PC user to have this type of capability if at all
practical for him or her. (Laptop/notebook users can also avail themselves
of this feature through an eSATA ExpressCard.)
Anna
Anna
>
>>
>>"WaIIy" <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote in message
>>news:5p4an45ovpoe5e16r...@4ax.com...
>>(SNIP)
>>> I don't have an eSata connection, thanks for the suggestion, though.
>>Wally:
>>"Now about the problem you experienced with your external SATA HDD...
>>
>>It would really be worthwhile if there was some practical way to achieve
>>SATA-to-SATA capability between the external SATA HDD and your Dell 8400.
>>Obviously that desktop machine is not equipped (insofar as I know) with an
>>eSATA port, so that type of connectivity wouldn't be available. But if it
>>was possible to affix a simple eSATA adapter (they run around $10 or so)
>>to
>>a vacant backplane slot on the case and achieve SATA-to-SATA connectivity
>>that way (the SATA data cable affixed to the adapter is simply connected
>>to
>>one of the motherboard's SATA connectors), it would be much more desirable
>>than using a USBEHD to serve as the destination drive, i.e., the recipient
>>of the cloned (boot) HDD. For two reasons...
>>1. The data transfer rate would be significantly faster, and,
>>2. The external SATA HDD would be potentially bootable since it would
>>contain the cloned contents of your boot drive. Under these circumstances
>>the system treats the external SATA HDD as an *internal* HDD.
> Wally responds...
> I can do that. If I connect my enclosure to the external connector I
> put on the back of my computer, I can boot and run off the external.
> I switched the external sata cable inside my computer to the
> original C drive plug. Haven't tried any other way.
"WaIIy" <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote in message
news:358cn49a9in7g5dnb...@4ax.com...
> The usb takes about the same time as a direct sata connection. I don't
> know why.
>
> The problem is the bios error on boot with the external sata drive
> turned off. It's looking for something on the port and it stops the
> computer and asks me to push F-1 to proceed or F-2 to go to the bios.
>
> I have to turn off the external port in the bios to not get the error.
>
> Odd, though. My bios tells me the default setting is to have them all
> enabled.
Wally:
As far as the USB & SATA-to-SATA connections result in roughly the same data
transfer rate in your experience could be due to the amount of data being
copied/transferred. If it's not a very substantial amount of data that's
involved then it's reasonable to assume there won't be too great of a
difference between the two types of devices re data transfer rates. And
sometimes it's simply due to the construction of the enclosure that has both
capabilities. But generally speaking a SATA-to-SATA data transfer rate is
faster than a USB transfer. At least based on our experience.
Your "bios error" may be due to the fact that you've connected the external
SATA HDD to your first SATA connector (either labeled SATA0 or SATA1
depending upon the system board). Your day-to-day internal SATA boot drive
should ordinarily be connected to the first SATA connector on the system
board. I don't know if that's the cause of the problem you're experiencing
but I thought I'd mention it as a possibility.
Anyway, check your boot priority order in the BIOS to determine that the
settings seem correct there.
Anna
Bill in Co.
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:25:09 -0500, "Anna" <myn...@myisp.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> WaIIy wrote:
>> (SNIP)
>>>> I don't think you can make a bootable clone to a partition on the
>>>> destination disk. I admit I could be wrong about that.
>>>>
>>>> For one thing, the partiton has to be active to be bootable and you
>>>> can only have one active partition on a disk AFAIK.
>>>
>>
>> "Bill in Co." <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:eDIhyGfe...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Well, maybe Anna can weigh in on this. I assume Casper has some way of
>>> keeping the destination drive partition marked active and yet its not
>>> being a problem, IF that drive is being used as the destination drive.
>>
>>
>> Wally:
>> Bill is absolutely correct. There's no problem using the Casper 5 program
>> to
>> clone the contents of one's booting HDD (the "source" HDD) to a
>> *partition*
>> on the destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the clone.
>>
>> Taking the example where a user's destination HDD is a USB external
>> HDD...
>
>
> Well, after reading this more times, I comprehend what you're saying.
>
> I'm surprised I can clone my C drive that has three partitions to one of
> three partitions on a second drive.
>
> Live and learn - Thanks for taking the time to explain all this.
> Wally
I think you meant above that you can clone A partition on your C drive over
to a (cloned) partition on the second drive.
Bill in Co.
> the drive will be erased.
> Also, Casper (not me) marks my drive "Active". The drive was not
> marked Active before I did the clone.
>
> My C drive is marked "Healthy (System)" and H is "Healthy (Active)"
> Again, I did not have my H drive active, Casper did it.
> partition on another drive.
>
> I didn't think I could do that.
>
> Let's say my C drive has three partitions. I don't think you can clone
> that to one partition on another drive. Doesn't make sense to me.
>
> My understanding is a CLONE wipes out the destination drive.
>
> I guess I need to understand when you mean COPY and when you mean
> CLONE in your descriptions above.
>
> or, I'm just confused :)
Think of partition cloning as making an exact copy of the source drive's
partition on the destination drive. Like if your source drive has C and D
partitions, and you clone just the C partition, that one, and that one
alone, will be copied to the destination drive.
OR
If you clone the entire drive, ALL partitions on the source drive are
copied over to the second drive, and in that case (unless I'm mistaken
here), you're right - the destination drive will have whatever was
previously stored on it, wiped out.
Bill in Co.
And roughly twice as fast, as I recall?? I guess the USB2 vs SATA specs
could give some idea; however that assumes the hardware is operating at the
spec limits.
I *do* know that using my internal SATA to SATA transfer is a LOT faster
than when I was using the USBEXT drive. ike around twice as fast, as I
recall.
I probably should recall better, since I've done several such transfers, but
it's been awhile since I was using the USBEXT hard drive enclosure, due to
the HUGE difference in speed - and convenience.
Anna
"WaIIy" <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote in message
> I'm very confused. I think you are saying I can clone my C drive to a
> partition on another drive.
>
> I didn't think I could do that.
>
> Let's say my C drive has three partitions. I don't think you can clone
> that to one partition on another drive. Doesn't make sense to me.
>
> My understanding is a CLONE wipes out the destination drive.
>
> I guess I need to understand when you mean COPY and when you mean CLONE
> in your descriptions above.
> > or, I'm just confused :)
Wally:
Yes, as I've tried to explain, Casper 5 does have the capability of doing
exactly that.
You can set up as many partitions as you desire on your destination drive -
say a USB external HDD - and clone those three partitions (presumably
encompassing the entire source disk, yes?) to *any* partition that you set
up on your destination HDD. The *only* requirement is that the destination
partition is, of course, sufficient in size to hold the contents of your
source HDD, i.e., the three partitions. In other words you're cloning the
disk containing the three partitions to a single partition on the
destination drive if that's what you want. The remaining partitions on the
destination drive can then be used for *any* purpose you want.
On the other hand, if you wanted to clone *individual* partitions on the
source disk to a particular partition on the destination drive you could
also do that. It would simply be a partition-to-partition clone.
Hope I've made this clear.
Anna
Bill in Co.
Well then it appears I didn't understand it fully. I was under the
impression you could EITHER do a partition-by-partition cloning operation,
OR clone the entire HD with or without several partitions over the
destination disk.
And NOT that you could clone, for example 5 individual source drive
partitions over to a SINGLE partition on the destination drive, UNLESS that
one is just a big logical one that incorporates the five partitions - but
it's still really 5 partitions on the destination drive that were
effectively cloned, and not just one, and each would presumably have a
different drive letter assoicated with it. Or maybe it depends on how you
look at it.
Bill in Co.
corrected below.
> one is just a big Extended partition that incorporates the five
Anna
>>> Anna writes...
>>> Wally:
>>> Bill is absolutely correct. There's no problem using the Casper 5
>>> program to clone the contents of one's booting HDD (the "source" HDD) to
>>> a *partition* on the destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the clone.
>>>
>>> Taking the example where a user's destination HDD is a USB external
>>> HDD...
>> WaIIy wrote:
>> Well, after reading this more times, I comprehend what you're saying.
>>
>> I'm surprised I can clone my C drive that has three partitions to one of
>> three partitions on a second drive.
>>
>> Live and learn - Thanks for taking the time to explain all this.
>> Wally
"Bill in Co." <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:e2e2PC0e...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> I think you meant above that you can clone A partition on your C drive
> over to a (cloned) partition on the second drive.
"Bill in Co." <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OdtGpF0...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Think of partition cloning as making an exact copy of the source drive's
> partition on the destination drive. Like if your source drive has C and
> D partitions, and you clone just the C partition, that one, and that one
> alone, will be copied to the destination drive.
>
> OR
>
> If you clone the entire drive, ALL partitions on the source drive are
> copied over to the second drive, and in that case (unless I'm mistaken
> here), you're right - the destination drive will have whatever was
> previously stored on it, wiped out.
Bill:
Just to slightly amend your last paragraph which may be a bit misleading to
some...
Let's say the user has multi-partitioned his or her destination drive - say,
for example with five partitions. Using Casper 5 the user could clone the
contents of his or her source HDD (whether a single partition or more than
one partition) to *any* particular partition on the destination HDD he or
she desires. ONLY if *that* destination partition contained previous
contents would those contents be "wiped out". NONE of the other partitions
on the destination HDD would be affected in *any* way.
The same basic scenario would hold true should the user desire to clone only
a single partition on his multi-partitioned source HDD. The user could clone
that partition to *any* partition on the destination HDD on *only* that
destination partition would be affected by the clone, i.e., prior contents
would be deleted. Again, the other partitions on that multi-partitioned
destination would *not* be affected in any way.
I think you're aware of all this but I wanted to make it clear to others.
Anna
Frank Holman
>Good thought, I double checked that. My C Drive is on connection 1,
>internal on connection 2 and my external SATA was on connection 3
>(They show up as Disks 0-1-2 in Windows).
Your "external SATA" can only be truly "external" if it's connected to
an external port.
It's not.
So it's not external.
Richie Hardwick
<not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Well then it appears I didn't understand it fully.
In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and Bill's inability
to ever fully understand Casper.
Richie Hardwick
Richie Hardwick
>On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:40:33 -0600, Frank Holman <hol...@lucacrew.com>
>wrote:
>I guess I'll just shove in into my case somewhere then.
(I can't pass this up)
If it won't fit, I can suggest an alternative place where you can
shove it ;->
Richie Hardwick
Richie Hardwick
>Good one, I have to be more careful :)
Fo' sho'!
Anna
"Frank Holman" <hol...@lucacrew.com> wrote in message
news:flkcn4djsp9lqse8h...@4ax.com...
Frank:
That is simply not so. As I explained in a previous post, the signal (data)
cable of the external SATA HDD can be connected *directly* to one of the
motherboard's SATA connectors. It doesn't have to be an "external" port. We
do this all the time.
Presumably the external SATA HDD will be powered by an auxiliary PSU. But
even here we can use the PC's power supply if necessary through an
appropriate adapter. This hardware configuration is very simple to install.
Naturally this SATA-to-SATA connectivity is facilitated should the
motherboard have an eSATA port, or the desktop's case contain a SATA or
eSATA port, or a SATA adapter can be affixed to the backplane of the desktop
PC case.
Naturally we're talking desktop PCs here. In the case of a laptop/notebook
an ExpressCard with eSATA capability can be used to make the SATA-to-SATA
connection.
Anna
Bill in Co.
Haven't used it. But I *have* used Partition Magic, Boot It NG, and
Acronis True Image, unlike some here, which gives me a different
perspective.
Richie Hardwick
<not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Richie Hardwick wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:11:29 -0700, "Bill in Co."
>> <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Well then it appears I didn't understand it fully.
>>
>> In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and Bill's inability
>> to ever fully understand Casper.
>>
>> Richie Hardwick
>
>Haven't used it.
Then perhaps you shouldn't be trying to explain it to anyone. Hmm?
>But I *have* used Partition Magic, Boot It NG, and
>Acronis True Image, unlike some here, which gives me a different
>perspective.
Having a "different perspective" and being wrong are two different
things. Stick to what you know and you'll cause everyone a lot less
confusion.
Richie Hardwick
Anna
"Bill in Co." <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Oj9Mw%231eJH...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Haven't used it. But I *have* used Partition Magic, Boot It NG, and
> Acronis True Image, unlike some here, which gives me a different
> perspective.
Bill:
Unless I'm mistaken the "it" you refer to is the Casper 5 program. Are you
indicating that in all this time we've discussed that program and have gone
into extensive detail re its use & capabilities, etc., you haven't once used
that program? Even the trial version?
Anna
Richie Hardwick
Amazing, huh?
Richie Hardwick
Bill in Co.
I installed it some time ago but later uninstalled it and am still using
imaging, for several of the reasons we've already mentioned (like
multigenerational backups). So what I've learned (or not) about Casper has
come from reading your (and some other's) posts about Casper, and some vague
recollections of when I first installed it. I *do*, however, have
firsthand experience with the other programs (Boot-It-NG (aka BING), ATI
Home Version 11, and Partition Magic), which I have used. At this point,
just keeping track of those 3 is enough (and what they can or can't do very
well).
Bill in Co.
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:32:02 -0700, "Bill in Co."
> <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Richie Hardwick wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:11:29 -0700, "Bill in Co."
>>> <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well then it appears I didn't understand it fully.
>>>
>>> In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and Bill's inability
>>> to ever fully understand Casper.
>>>
>>> Richie Hardwick
>>
>> Haven't used it.
>
> Then perhaps you shouldn't be trying to explain it to anyone. Hmm?
>
>> But I *have* used Partition Magic, Boot It NG, and
>> Acronis True Image, unlike some here, which gives me a different
>> perspective.
>
> Having a "different perspective" and being wrong are two different
> things. Stick to what you know and you'll cause everyone a lot less
> confusion.
>
> Richie Hardwick
Are you talking about me or you? Some self projection duly noted. I
wasn't the one who was so confused about the active partition, and having
several cloned partitions on the backup drive with different drive letters
assigned to them, as you were. Even after I explained that to you (in
reference to BING). You thought that had to be an imaged backup, and as I
explained to you, it was NOT. And it *was* a partition clone. Get that?
A clone of an individual partition, NOT the entire source drive. It was
NOT an image file.
Bill in Co.
But it's one-to-one. Unless you are talking about taking say 5 separate
partitions on the source drive, and cloning them all over into one large
extended partition on the destination drive? But that extended partition
on the destination drive will include those 5 individual partitions, each
having assigned to it a different drive letter, as on the source drive.
Unless you are saying they would somehow all be *merged* on the destination
drive, which makes little sense to me at this point. Maybe I'm having a
senior moment though. :-)
> ONLY if *that* destination partition contained previous
> contents would those contents be "wiped out". NONE of the other partitions
> on the destination HDD would be affected in *any* way.
OK. And using Casper, if one chooses to clone the entire source drive,
and say the destination drive is much larger and has data all over it in
several other partitions, you're saying that those other partitions on the
destination drive will not automatically be wiped out. (IOW, you don't
end up with unallocated space in what's left after the cloning).
> The same basic scenario would hold true should the user desire to clone
> only
> a single partition on his multi-partitioned source HDD. The user could
> clone
> that partition to *any* partition on the destination HDD on *only* that
> destination partition would be affected by the clone, i.e., prior contents
> would be deleted. Again, the other partitions on that multi-partitioned
> destination would *not* be affected in any way.
>
> I think you're aware of all this but I wanted to make it clear to others.
> Anna
No, its good to go over it, as I'm not aware of all of it either.
Bill in Co.
> one is just a big extended one that incorporates the five partitions - but
Max Goldman
>On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:35:18 -0500, "Anna" <myn...@myisp.net> wrote:
>
>>
>hee hee
>
>You're good, really good.
She's nonplussed because Bill has asked/re-asked a bazillion questions
of her over the past 6 months or more while trying gain an
understanding of the program. Naturally, she assumed he was using it.
Bill in Co.
I did use it once. On top of the other 3 programs I've already mentioned
(unlike anyone else in here). So, give it a rest. :-)
Bill in Co.
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:25:44 -0700, "Bill in Co."
> <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Max Goldman wrote:
>>> WaIIy <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:35:18 -0500, "Anna" <myn...@myisp.net> >>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> news:Oj9Mw%231eJH...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Haven't used it. But I *have* used Partition Magic, Boot It NG, and
>>>>>> Acronis True Image, unlike some here, which gives me a different
>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill:
>>>>> Unless I'm mistaken the "it" you refer to is the Casper 5 program. Are
>>>>> you indicating that in all this time we've discussed that program and
>>>>> have
>>>>> gone into extensive detail re its use & capabilities, etc., you
>>>>> haven't once
>>>>> used that program? Even the trial version?
>>>>> Anna
Well, that wasn't quite accurate, as I already stated.
>>>> hee hee
>>>>
>>>> You're good, really good.
Thank you.
>>> She's nonplussed because Bill has asked/re-asked a bazillion questions
>>> of her over the past 6 months or more while trying gain an
>>> understanding of the program. Naturally, she assumed he was using it.
Look, many of us in here were benefitting from Anna's expertise and good
explanations. So, stuff it. :-) This isn't a personal issue, or a
sales job, so don't try to make it one. :-)
>> I did use it once. On top of the other 3 programs I've already
>> mentioned
>> (unlike anyone else in here). So, give it a rest. :-)
>>
>
> I never would have guessed that backing stuff up could be so entertaining.
I'm not sure the appropriate adjective here is "entertaining", per se. :-)
Now, putting all this nonsense and the snide remarks aside, and moving
forward, as in the spirit of our new President:
You can't believe how much there really is to it, if you really get into it,
and all the various details and possibilities. There are sooo many
variations and combinations possible, and potentially problematic ones, if
you mess up. Like the occasional horror stories heard here about how some
lost their backup, or now their system won't boot, or now they discover
windows is on the D drive!, or whatever.
And then this whole more general thing about cloning vs imaging, and the
pros and cons of each. That always leads to a "spirited" debate here.
Anna
> If I'm wrong here, please advise, Anna.
>>> "WaIIy" <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:j5acn4li815ilnrbc...@4ax.com...
>>>> I'm very confused. I think you are saying I can clone my C drive to a
>>>> partition on another drive.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't think I could do that.
>>>>
>>>> Let's say my C drive has three partitions. I don't think you can clone
>>>> that to one partition on another drive. Doesn't make sense to me.
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is a CLONE wipes out the destination drive.
>>>>
>>>> I guess I need to understand when you mean COPY and when you mean CLONE
>>>> in your descriptions above.
>>>>> or, I'm just confused :)
>>> Anna wrote:
>>> Wally:
>>> Yes, as I've tried to explain, Casper 5 does have the capability of
>>> doing
>>> exactly that.
>>>
>>> You can set up as many partitions as you desire on your destination
>>> drive - say a USB external HDD - and clone those three partitions
>>> (presumably
>>> encompassing the entire source disk, yes?) to *any* partition that you
>>> set up on your destination HDD. The *only* requirement is that the
>>> destination partition is, of course, sufficient in size to hold the
>>> contents of your
>>> source HDD, i.e., the three partitions. In other words you're cloning
>>> the
>>> disk containing the three partitions to a single partition on the
>>> destination drive if that's what you want. The remaining partitions on
>>> the destination drive can then be used for *any* purpose you want.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if you wanted to clone *individual* partitions on the
>>> source disk to a particular partition on the destination drive you could
>>> also do that. It would simply be a partition-to-partition clone.
>>>
>>> Hope I've made this clear.
>>> Anna
>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> Well then it appears I didn't understand it fully. I was under the
>> impression you could EITHER do a partition-by-partition cloning
>> operation,
>> OR clone the entire HD with or without several partitions over the
>> destination disk.
>>
>> And NOT that you could clone, for example 5 individual source drive
>> partitions over to a SINGLE partition on the destination drive, UNLESS
>> that one is just a big extended one that incorporates the five
>> partitions - but
>> it's still really 5 partitions on the destination drive that were
>> effectively cloned, and not just one, and each would presumably have a
>> different drive letter assoicated with it. Or maybe it depends on how
>> you look at it.
Bill:
First of all, as I've tried to emphasize...
Forget about drive letter assignments on partitions of a USB external HDD in
the context of this discussion re the Casper 5 disk-cloning process. Drive
letter assignments involving a USBEHD (designed to be the recipient device
of one or more clones) are of *NO* relevance in this process. Please try to
understand that.
Let me try to make this partition-disk cloning process as clear as possible
using the following example...
(For simplicity's sake we're using approximate figures)...
Let's assume the user's source (boot) HDD - say a 300 GB HDD - contains
three partitions - the C: partition, the D: partition and the E: partition.
Obviously the C: partition is his or her's boot partition. Let's say the C:
partition is 80 GB in size and contains 30 GB of data.
Now the D: partition may have been used for installing the user's programs,
or for
whatever purpose. Let's say the D: partition is 90 GB in size and contains
50 GB of data.
The E: partition is likewise used for data storage of one type or another.
Let's say that E: partition is 130 GB in size and contains 40 GB of data.
So the three partitions totaling 300 GB in size contain 120 GB of data.
A more-or-less typical scenario followed by many users in multi-partitioning
their
day-to-day working HDD, right? Although obviously the number of partitions
and amount of data will, of course, be different from user-to-user.
So in our example the source disk's first partition of 80 GB represents 26%
of the total disk space of the 300 GB HDD.
The second partion of 90 GB represents 31% of the total disk space.
And the final third partition of 130 GB represents 43% of total disk space.
Now the user has a 250 GB USBEHD which he or she intends to be the recipient
of one or more clones (or partitions) of the user's source HDD.
Using the Casper 5 program, the user has various options to choose from...
1. He or she can clone the *entire* contents of their source HDD (containing
the three partitions) to a single partition created on the USBEHD. In
effect, a disk-to-disk clone. The user would not have to partition/format
the USBEHD "destination" drive in this situation - the destination HDD could
even be a brand-new out-of-the-box disk; the partitioning/formatting process
would be automatically accomplished by the Casper program through its
disk-cloning process.
Under this scenario Casper would automatically create three partitions on
the USB destination HDD, mirroring the partitions of the source drive. But
since the destination drive is of a different total size than the source
drive the resultant partitions will be established on a *proportional*
basis.
So partition #1 of that 250 destination drive GB drive will be 65 GB (26% of
the total disk space);
Partition #2 will be 77 GB (31% of the total disk space);
Partition #3 will be 108 GB (43% of the total disk space).
AGAIN, FORGET ABOUT THE DRIVE LETTER ASSIGNMENTS ON THE DESTINATION DRIVE.
THEY HAVE NO RELEVANCE IF & WHEN THEIR CONTENTS ARE USED FOR RESTORATION
PURPOSES.
2. However, the user will, of course, have another option in creating
(ordinarily through Disk Management) whatever number & size partitions he or
she desires on their destination HDD. They could then clone the entire
contents of their source HDD to one of the partitions so created (a
disk-to-partition) clone, or choose to clone individual partitons on the
source drive to this or that partition on the destination HDD.
3. Still another option the user will have with the Casper program is
creating a partition on the destination HDD only sufficient in size to
contain the *actual* data contents of a source drive's partition.
Say the user desires to set up a partition on the destination HDD only
sufficient in size to hold the contents of his or her source HDD - in our
example presently 120 GB of data. No problem. That is easily done with a
click of the mouse. The resultant partition on the destination HDD will then
be 120 GB; the remaining disk space on the destination HDD could then be
partitioned along whatever lines the user desires.
The next time the user clones the contents of his/her source HDD, let's say
those contents now total 150 GB in size. Again, no problem. A new partition
of 150 GB will be created on the destination HDD to contain those cloned
contents. Naturally the previously created 120 GB partition will simply
disappear.
Again, the only requirement is that the destination partition be sufficient
in size to hold the cloned contents, be they the contents of a partition or
the contents of a disk.
Anna
Bill in Co.
Comment: they can be of significance to me. I'm not just talking about in
terms of succeeding in copying the data or not. More on that below.
> Let me try to make this partition-disk cloning process as clear as
> possible
> using the following example...
>
> (For simplicity's sake we're using approximate figures)...
>
> Let's assume the user's source (boot) HDD - say a 300 GB HDD - contains
> three partitions - the C: partition, the D: partition and the E:
> partition.
> Obviously the C: partition is his or her's boot partition. Let's say the
> C:
> partition is 80 GB in size and contains 30 GB of data.
>
> Now the D: partition may have been used for installing the user's
> programs,
> or for
> whatever purpose. Let's say the D: partition is 90 GB in size and contains
> 50 GB of data.
>
> The E: partition is likewise used for data storage of one type or another.
> Let's say that E: partition is 130 GB in size and contains 40 GB of data.
>
> So the three partitions totaling 300 GB in size contain 120 GB of data.
OK. On the source drive we have 3 partitions with a total of 120 GB of
data between them, but in separate partitions, *which is presumably the way
we want to keep it* on the backup drive. More below.
> A more-or-less typical scenario followed by many users in
> multi-partitioning
> their
> day-to-day working HDD, right? Although obviously the number of partitions
> and amount of data will, of course, be different from user-to-user.
>
> So in our example the source disk's first partition of 80 GB represents
> 26%
> of the total disk space of the 300 GB HDD.
> The second partion of 90 GB represents 31% of the total disk space.
> And the final third partition of 130 GB represents 43% of total disk
> space.
>
> Now the user has a 250 GB USBEHD which he or she intends to be the
> recipient of one or more clones (or partitions) of the user's source HDD.
And strictly (or at least normally) speaking, that means each of the three
partitions must be preserved on the backup too, and not combined into one
partition there.
> Using the Casper 5 program, the user has various options to choose from...
>
> 1. He or she can clone the *entire* contents of their source HDD
> (containing
> the three partitions) to a single partition created on the USBEHD. In
> effect, a disk-to-disk clone. The user would not have to partition/format
> the USBEHD "destination" drive in this situation - the destination HDD
> could
> even be a brand-new out-of-the-box disk; the partitioning/formatting
> process
> would be automatically accomplished by the Casper program through its
> disk-cloning process.
>
> Under this scenario Casper would automatically create three partitions on
> the USB destination HDD, mirroring the partitions of the source drive.
That's my point - yes. (and that they will also show up in explorer with
their own drive letters, naturally, bumping up any flash drives letter
assignments that are plugged in now in terms of their previous drive
letters, which can be a nuisance).
> But since the destination drive is of a different total size than the
> source
> drive the resultant partitions will be established on a *proportional*
> basis.
Right. Of course.
> So partition #1 of that 250 destination drive GB drive will be 65 GB (26%
> of
> the total disk space);
> Partition #2 will be 77 GB (31% of the total disk space);
> Partition #3 will be 108 GB (43% of the total disk space).
>
> AGAIN, FORGET ABOUT THE DRIVE LETTER ASSIGNMENTS ON THE DESTINATION DRIVE.
> THEY HAVE NO RELEVANCE IF & WHEN THEIR CONTENTS ARE USED FOR RESTORATION
> PURPOSES.
No, but they CAN have relevance to me (besides simply looking at this from
the point of view of restoration purposes), as I suggested above. Like if
you are keeping that external drive connected during normal use.
> 2. However, the user will, of course, have another option in creating
> (ordinarily through Disk Management) whatever number & size partitions he
> or
> she desires on their destination HDD. They could then clone the entire
> contents of their source HDD to one of the partitions so created (a
> disk-to-partition) clone,
And end up with 3 partitions on the destination drive. So when you say
this, it sounds like youre saying it's combining 3 into 1, but it's not.
So you are saying in this example it will copy the contents of the 3 source
partitions and merge them all together inside 1 partition on the destination
drive, effectively destroying the previously-separated (by using different
partition) data. Not nice. UNLESS the user wanted to consolidate all of
the 3 partitions.
> or choose to clone individual partitons on the
> source drive to this or that partition on the destination HDD.
>
> 3. Still another option the user will have with the Casper program is
> creating a partition on the destination HDD only sufficient in size to
> contain the *actual* data contents of a source drive's partition.
The actual data of all 3 partitions in the source? But why would someone
want to do that anyways, unless they were trying to merge the 3 partitions
into one, which sounds quite atypical.
> Say the user desires to set up a partition on the destination HDD only
> sufficient in size to hold the contents of his or her source HDD - in our
> example presently 120 GB of data. No problem. That is easily done with a
> click of the mouse. The resultant partition on the destination HDD will
> then
> be 120 GB; the remaining disk space on the destination HDD could then be
> partitioned along whatever lines the user desires.
>
> The next time the user clones the contents of his/her source HDD, let's
> say
> those contents now total 150 GB in size.
But that's being stored in 3 separate partitions, presumably for a reason.
> Again, no problem. A new partition
> of 150 GB will be created on the destination HDD to contain those cloned
> contents. Naturally the previously created 120 GB partition will simply
> disappear.
Again, I don't know why anyone would want to do that. Put them all into one
partition on the backup.
But assuming they could, somehow:
If they then wanted to restore that back to the source drive, by recloning
it all back to the source drive, how would Casper be able to know (or even
could it) what to put back in EACH of the 3 separate source drive
partitions?
> Again, the only requirement is that the destination partition be
> sufficient
> in size to hold the cloned contents, be they the contents of a partition
> or
> the contents of a disk.
> Anna
Right.
Richie Hardwick
<not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Now the user has a 250 GB USBEHD which he or she intends to be the
>> recipient of one or more clones (or partitions) of the user's source HDD.
>
>And strictly (or at least normally) speaking, that means each of the three
>partitions must be preserved on the backup too, and not combined into one
>partition there.
They won't be combined.
>And end up with 3 partitions on the destination drive. So when you say
>this, it sounds like youre saying it's combining 3 into 1, but it's not.
>So you are saying in this example it will copy the contents of the 3 source
>partitions and merge them all together inside 1 partition on the destination
>drive, effectively destroying the previously-separated (by using different
>partition) data. Not nice. UNLESS the user wanted to consolidate all of
>the 3 partitions.
They WON'T be combined.
>> 3. Still another option the user will have with the Casper program is
>> creating a partition on the destination HDD only sufficient in size to
>> contain the *actual* data contents of a source drive's partition.
>
>The actual data of all 3 partitions in the source? But why would someone
>want to do that anyways, unless they were trying to merge the 3 partitions
>into one, which sounds quite atypical.
They WON'T BE COMBINED.
>> Again, no problem. A new partition
>> of 150 GB will be created on the destination HDD to contain those cloned
>> contents. Naturally the previously created 120 GB partition will simply
>> disappear.
>
>Again, I don't know why anyone would want to do that. Put them all into one
>partition on the backup.
<SIGH>
>If they then wanted to restore that back to the source drive, by recloning
>it all back to the source drive, how would Casper be able to know (or even
>could it) what to put back in EACH of the 3 separate source drive
>partitions?
Because they WERE NOT COMBINED DURING THE CLONING.
Wow.
You're impossible.
The 3 partitions are proportionally reduced in size to fit the
partition they're being cloned to. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
Anyone wanting the particulars of this person's problem
can call my hotline (Google it) and for a fee I can give
you all the details.
Miss Cleo
--
Psychic Extraordinaire
Bill in Co.
LOL. I thought you said you were retired? Clearly you are NOT of the
FDR generation, as your behavior is more like that of a newage boomer.
Bill in Co.
source drive with say 3 partitions over to a destination drive, it is a bit
inaccurate to say "you can clone those three INTO an existing partition on
the destination drive".
Because what is really happening must be this: when Casper (or any such
program) starts cloning TO the currently existing partition on the
destination drive, that existing partition is destroyed (marked as
unallocated, behind the scenes), in preparation for the cloning of the 3
partitions.
Richie Hardwick
How does that change anything??
If the resulting partition is the same size as it was created to be
before the cloning operation and contains the clone of the source
drive afterwards, I don't care if it changes the partition into a
pretzel before making the clone.
All I care about is that it contains the clone and that the clone is
usable for restoration purposes.
It can be a partition that is either smaller, the same size, or larger
than the size of the source drive, as long as it's large enough to
contain all the data on the source drive.
Which will be the case.