Backing up

[Richard Urban [MVP]]

And IF you boot up using the Ghost CD, what Windows files would be in use?

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from: George Ankner
"If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

 

[Richard Urban [MVP]]

TI restores single or multiple files while booted into Windows - only. If
the file you want to restore is being used by windows (as in a system file,
running process or dll etc.) the file can not be restored. If you have found
a way to do this, please post your methodology here for everyone to see.

TI also does NOT give you the opportunity to do this by booting up with
their CD.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from: George Ankner
"If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

 

[WTC]

message
[Top-posting corrected]

And IF you boot up using the Ghost CD, what Windows files would be in
use?

I did not make any claims about windows files being in use when booting
from a Ghost CD.

Maybe you misunderstood me, I simply meant you can restore file(s)
within Windows (not using the GhostCD) as long as the file(s) are not in
use.

 

[Richard Urban [MVP]]

Thank you for the clarification. At times I can be obtuse.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from: George Ankner
"If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

message
[Top-posting corrected]

And IF you boot up using the Ghost CD, what Windows files would be in
use?

I did not make any claims about windows files being in use when booting
from a Ghost CD.

Maybe you misunderstood me, I simply meant you can restore file(s) within
Windows (not using the GhostCD) as long as the file(s) are not in use.

 

[Lem]

Putting aside the use of removable media, why do you prefer to "clone" a drive
rather than create an "image" of it? From what I can tell from the Ghost
manuals, "cloning" seems to overwrite the entire destination disk or partition,
while an "image" appears to use only the space necessary.

For example, suppose I'm backing up a 80 GB drive and I have a 120 GB
USB/Firewire drive. It seems that if I were to clone the 80 GB drive, it would
use up all of the backup drive (unless I had previously partitioned the backup
drive). But, if (because my 80 GB drive isn't completely full, and I elect to
use some compression) the Ghost "image" is say only 35 GB, I could keep three
images on the backup drive and do a "rotating" backup.

 

[WTC]

Thank you for the clarification. At times I can be obtuse.

--

Not a problem.

 

[Anna]

Putting aside the use of removable media, why do you prefer to "clone" a
drive
rather than create an "image" of it? From what I can tell from the Ghost
manuals, "cloning" seems to overwrite the entire destination disk or
partition,
while an "image" appears to use only the space necessary.

For example, suppose I'm backing up a 80 GB drive and I have a 120 GB
USB/Firewire drive. It seems that if I were to clone the 80 GB drive, it
would
use up all of the backup drive (unless I had previously partitioned the
backup
drive). But, if (because my 80 GB drive isn't completely full, and I
elect to
use some compression) the Ghost "image" is say only 35 GB, I could keep
three
images on the backup drive and do a "rotating" backup.

Lem:
My overriding concern -- and more importantly that of my clients -- is to
*always* (or at least *nearly* always) have at hand a fully cloned copy of
one's working HD. A cloned copy that is instantly bootable (we generally
work with removable hard drives in their mobile racks so we have that
capability) or at least a simple installation/configuring of the cloned HD
so that the system is operational in as short a time frame as possible.
Obviously in the case where the user employs a USB external HD as his/her
recipient of the clone, this will necessitate a re:clone of the external
drive's contents back to the internal drive.

We have little or no interest in compressing data. Our experience has taught
us that compression schemes carry too great a potential risk (albeit
admittedly small with modern OSs like XP) for file corruption. Given today's
relatively cheap cost of hard drive capacity we have no interest in that
area. Our exclusive goal is to create a near-failsafe backup system that's
simple to use, reasonably quick to perform, and effective in its results. By
& large we have found using a disk imaging program to carry out
straightforward disk-to-disk cloning meets our objectives.

You give the example of cloning the contents of an 80 GB drive to a 120 GB
drive. You'll still have a 120 GB drive, no? If you've cloned the contents
of your 80 GB drive to the 120 GB one, then the 120 GB drive will still have
40 GB of unused capacity, will it not? Is that a problem? If you feel you're
"wasting" 40 GB, then simply create two or three or whatever partitions on
your 120 GB drive -- one of 80 GB, and the other(s) totaling 40 GB. And just
so there's no misunderstanding about this -- if the contents of your 80 GB
drive total, say 35 GB as in your example, then *that's* the amount of data
that will be cloned to your destination drive. So you're not really "using
up" the total capacity of your destination disk.
Anna

 

[Richard Urban [MVP]]

One of the things I like about Ghost is that you can create/verify the image
in one step. If the image doesn't verify it lets you know and you can try
again. With True Image it is a separate and distinct 2nd step.

What I really wish one of these programs would do is:
1. Create an image you are overwriting as a temp file in the destination
drive, no matter what file name you choose to give it.
2. When the image has been verified, change the name programmatically and
overwrite the original.
3. If the new image does not verify, leave the original intact and
unchanged.

I have had the experience of creating an image (say WinXP-last) every
Friday. One time the image failed - after the original had been deleted, of
course. It was a 25 gig image so the recycle bin did not pick it up.

Just a dream I guess. (-:

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from: George Ankner
"If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

Make certain you verify the integrity of the image file. A bad image is a
terrible thing to encounter when you need it as there is no way to open a
corrupt image file that I know of. You can do this from Ghost by going to
the Check file option.

--

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp

I've used Second copy very successfully over the years to back up my data
to an external hard drive, but I'm thinking that it might be better to
use something like Norton Ghost to image the whole hard drive.

I haven't got my brain around why imaging is not done by everybody who
wants to be able to recover files quickly from a disaster. Just backing
up data (as I do) rather than the whole HDD seems to only sort part of
the problem. So I'm thinking of switching to imaging. Is there a downside
to this?

Rob Graham

 

[NobodyMan]

Not true. You can easily restore single files on any partition with Acronis.

Feature list from www.acronis.com :

Key features:


Online system disk backup and instant bare-metal system restore


Restore individual files and folders


Integrated compression and password protection


Disk imaging and disk cloning


Incremental disk backup and disk backup image verification


Acronis Secure Zone and Acronis Startup Recovery Manager



mxh

Don't post binaries in a text newsgroup. I didn't want your crappy
pictures on my hard drive.

 

[NoStop]

After sticking his head out from his XP firewall, Lem had this to say:

Putting aside the use of removable media, why do you prefer to "clone" a
drive
rather than create an "image" of it? From what I can tell from the Ghost
manuals, "cloning" seems to overwrite the entire destination disk or
partition, while an "image" appears to use only the space necessary.

For example, suppose I'm backing up a 80 GB drive and I have a 120 GB
USB/Firewire drive. It seems that if I were to clone the 80 GB drive, it
would use up all of the backup drive (unless I had previously partitioned
the backup
drive). But, if (because my 80 GB drive isn't completely full, and I
elect to use some compression) the Ghost "image" is say only 35 GB, I
could keep three images on the backup drive and do a "rotating" backup.

IMO, you are choosing to do it the best way. The advocates of cloning the
hard drive as opposed to imaging it, should just setup a mirrored raid
system if that is what they want to accomplish. For backups, imaging with
incremental backups are the preferred way to go.

 

[NoStop]

After sticking his head out from his XP firewall, NobodyMan had this to say:

Don't post binaries in a text newsgroup. I didn't want your crappy
pictures on my hard drive.

You shouldn't have replied. I didn't want your crappy reply on my computer!
Ooops, forgot. Guess I could have avoided reading it.

 

[NoStop]

After sticking his head out from his XP firewall, Rob graham had this to
say:

Does the image contain the OS as well or do you have to install XP before
recovering the program and data files from the external HD? I.e. assuming
I could boot the machine from a boot CD, would the rest of the restore
process be literally copying the image back to the internal HD, OS and
all?

Rob

Of course. It's an image of the hard drive. If that hard drive that was
imaged, contained the OS, it would be restored also.

 

[NoStop]

After sticking his head out from his XP firewall, Kerry Brown had this to
say:

I have many clients who use ntbackup. I have had to restore from a crashed
hard drive several times for them. It only takes a few hours if they have
backed up the system state. Install new drive. Install Windows. Restore
backup. Test operation.

Kerry

You should advise them to get True Image or Ghost. The cost of having you
spend a "few hours" going through that process is surely far more expensive
than either one of those programs?

 

[Kerry Brown]

After sticking his head out from his XP firewall, Kerry Brown had this to
say:


You should advise them to get True Image or Ghost. The cost of having you
spend a "few hours" going through that process is surely far more
expensive
than either one of those programs?

In most cases they are using tape. I recommend an image as well as tape but
most clients don't go for it. Some of them are also backing up servers. I've
never been able to get an image program to work properly with when restoring
a domain controller. Ntbackup works great for that.

Kerry

 

[Lem]

Lem:
My overriding concern -- and more importantly that of my clients -- is to
*always* (or at least *nearly* always) have at hand a fully cloned copy of
one's working HD. A cloned copy that is instantly bootable (we generally
work with removable hard drives in their mobile racks so we have that
capability) or at least a simple installation/configuring of the cloned HD
so that the system is operational in as short a time frame as possible.
Obviously in the case where the user employs a USB external HD as his/her
recipient of the clone, this will necessitate a re:clone of the external
drive's contents back to the internal drive.

We have little or no interest in compressing data. Our experience has taught
us that compression schemes carry too great a potential risk (albeit
admittedly small with modern OSs like XP) for file corruption. Given today's
relatively cheap cost of hard drive capacity we have no interest in that
area. Our exclusive goal is to create a near-failsafe backup system that's
simple to use, reasonably quick to perform, and effective in its results. By
& large we have found using a disk imaging program to carry out
straightforward disk-to-disk cloning meets our objectives.

You give the example of cloning the contents of an 80 GB drive to a 120 GB
drive. You'll still have a 120 GB drive, no? If you've cloned the contents
of your 80 GB drive to the 120 GB one, then the 120 GB drive will still have
40 GB of unused capacity, will it not? Is that a problem? If you feel you're
"wasting" 40 GB, then simply create two or three or whatever partitions on
your 120 GB drive -- one of 80 GB, and the other(s) totaling 40 GB. And just
so there's no misunderstanding about this -- if the contents of your 80 GB
drive total, say 35 GB as in your example, then *that's* the amount of data
that will be cloned to your destination drive. So you're not really "using
up" the total capacity of your destination disk.
Anna

Anna:
I'm not very familiar with Ghost, but as I read the manual, it seemed to
say that if you cloned a 80 GB disk to a one-partition 120 GB disk, then
you would not have any free space left. As you say, though, one could
partition it appropriately first. And thanks for explaining your
rationale -- your approach may not be the best for everyone, but I
understand what you're doing.

 

[Rob graham]

Thanks everybody for your help in sorting me out, and particularly to Anna
for her lengthy reply.

Rob

 

[mxh]

TI restores single or multiple files while booted into Windows - only. If
the file you want to restore is being used by windows (as in a system
file, running process or dll etc.) the file can not be restored. If you
have found a way to do this, please post your methodology here for
everyone to see.

Is this last line some sort of reprimand? If so, you should know that I
respond very poorly to such stimuli. Below, you will find my "methodology".
Not sure if *everyone* will see it, but if it means that much to you,
perhaps you could repost it at various intervals.

"Explore" the image you wish to restore the system file from, restore to a
folder of your choice (other than windows), boot into DOS (or better yet,
use Barts PE) & copy from the folder you placed it in to the required folder
Presumably Windows\?, overwriting the exisiting file.

A simple solution that requires an extra step, but TI is well worth it if it
means avoiding Norton and the destestable Ghost v9. Sometimes, one need only
be a little creative.

mxh

 

[mxh]

Don't post binaries in a text newsgroup. I didn't want your crappy
pictures on my hard drive.

Actually, I didn't post those and was surprised to find out they were
attached to my post. I subsequently ran 2 different virus scanners and found
no viri, etc.
Perhaps some sort of server glitch. In any event, I wouldn't advise opening
them, as you might find these "crappy pictures" on YOUR HD. Also, learn some
manners.

mxh

 

[Richard Urban [MVP]]

That is not "exactly" restoring a file with True Image but thank you for
posting the information. As the procedure is NOT an integral part of True
Image, and requires use of other programs, others would not have likely
figured it out.

As I have stated, Ghost does this natively from within the program. No extra
steps needed.

As for my challenge, it did get you to post what you were only obliquely
alluding to earlier, so others may have benefited.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from: George Ankner
"If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

 

[mxh]

That is not "exactly" restoring a file with True Image but thank you for
posting the information. As the procedure is NOT an integral part of True
Image, and requires use of other programs, others would not have likely
figured it out.

As I have stated, Ghost does this natively from within the program. No
extra steps needed.

As for my challenge, it did get you to post what you were only obliquely
alluding to earlier, so others may have benefited.

Is that what you call it? A "challenge". Seemed to be more of an
antogonistic remark. Perhaps because you are uncomfortable with being
challenged. From your response, it's obvious that you felt the need to
declare righteousness (subjective...).

You do, however, seem to overlook the reality that those "others who would
not have likely figured it out" would "not have likely" figured out the need
to restore an individual system file, let alone figured out how to do it,
even from within (ugh) Ghost v9.

Your "challenge" was indeed antagonistic and provocative, as you well know.
One would think that, as an MVP, you would subject yourself to a higher
standard of behavior than has been displayed, but then, one would also
expect that an MVP would understand usenet etiquette and the reason that top
posting is frowned on, but apparently not, given that both ideals seem to
elude you.


mxh

<snip>