Clone vs. Image

[Fruit2O]

I have a laptop and can put a drive in an extra bay. I would like to
have a backup of my primary drive in case it goes bad. I have been
told that an image is better than a clone - so I'm confused. I
thought a clone was an exact duplicate of another drive - so, if I
cloned my primary drive and it went bad, I could just swap it for the
clone and I would be back in business. What is the difference between
that and an image and which is better for what I want to do?

 

[Ted Zieglar]

Technically speaking, a clone is an exact copy of a hard disk. Am image
is the same thing, but it excludes unused disk sectors and is typically
compressed. Nevertheless, the two terms basically mean the same thing
and are sometimes used interchangeably.

A "ghost" is Symantec's term for an image, but more recently they use
the term "recovery point". Apparently, Symantec likes to invent their
own names for commonly used terms.

 

[Fruit2O]

Technically speaking, a clone is an exact copy of a hard disk. Am image
is the same thing, but it excludes unused disk sectors and is typically
compressed. Nevertheless, the two terms basically mean the same thing
and are sometimes used interchangeably.

A "ghost" is Symantec's term for an image, but more recently they use
the term "recovery point". Apparently, Symantec likes to invent their
own names for commonly used terms.

Thanks...that means I'm doing the right thing (my objective). Well, I
used Norton Ghost 2003 to clone my drive. One day, I decided to test
the clone and I couldn't get past the POST. I got a message that
asked for a password. When I made the ghost, I used all defaults and
didn't even see a place that asked if I wanted a password. Then, I
put the clone in my extra drive bay (laptop) and I got a message that
sais it didn't recognize the drive and, perhaps, it wasn't seated
properly. So, I returned this brand new drive and got a replacement.
The same thing happened with that drive. Was there something else I
was supposed to do to get my notebook to recognize the clone before I
tried to use it? Also, Ghost 2003 is no longer supported and I'd like
to buy the best cloning and imaging software available so I can keep
up to date and not have this problem again. Can you help?

 

[Ted Zieglar]

I can't help you with Symantec software...that's Symantec's responsibility.

The 'best' imaging software is a matter of opinion. Try this comparative
review from TechWeb:

"Review: Five Recovery Apps Bring Your PC Back From The Dead"
http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=161900003

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I have a laptop and can put a drive in an extra bay. I would like to
have a backup of my primary drive in case it goes bad. I have been
told that an image is better than a clone - so I'm confused. I
thought a clone was an exact duplicate of another drive - so, if I
cloned my primary drive and it went bad, I could just swap it for the
clone and I would be back in business. What is the difference between
that and an image and which is better for what I want to do?

Just to add to Ted's answer, if anything a clone is better than an image,
since it can be used directly without having to be restored. However an
image is smaller than a clone and often can be created faster, so many
people prefer imaging.

One additional point: I do *not* recommend that you put a backup drive in an
extra bay. I don't recommend backup to a second non-removable hard drive
because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and
backup to many of the most common dangers: severe power glitches, nearby
lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer. With a laptop,
I feel even more strongly about that, because of the increased danger of its
being stolen, and because you also have the additional risk opf dropping the
entire computer and cxrashing both drives.

In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept in
the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the life of
your business depends on your data) you should have multiple generations of
backup, and at least one of those generations should be stored off-site.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

My computer isn't used for business, but my personal backup scheme uses two
identical removable hard drives,I alternate between the two, and use Acronis
True Image to make a complete copy of the primary drive.

I also use a pair of 1GB thumb drives for making more frequent backups of my
most critical data (like financial information). For that I just drag and
drop.

 

[D. Spencer Hines]

What's the verdict on Iomega's Automatic Backup Pro?

DSH

 

[Fruit2O]

I can't help you with Symantec software...that's Symantec's responsibility.

The 'best' imaging software is a matter of opinion. Try this comparative
review from TechWeb:

"Review: Five Recovery Apps Bring Your PC Back From The Dead"
http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=161900003

Thank you.....

 

[Fruit2O]

Just to add to Ted's answer, if anything a clone is better than an image,
since it can be used directly without having to be restored. However an
image is smaller than a clone and often can be created faster, so many
people prefer imaging.

One additional point: I do *not* recommend that you put a backup drive in an
extra bay. I don't recommend backup to a second non-removable hard drive
because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and
backup to many of the most common dangers: severe power glitches, nearby
lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer. With a laptop,
I feel even more strongly about that, because of the increased danger of its
being stolen, and because you also have the additional risk opf dropping the
entire computer and cxrashing both drives.

In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept in
the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the life of
your business depends on your data) you should have multiple generations of
backup, and at least one of those generations should be stored off-site.

Understood! The clone I use is only in the laptop when I'm creating
the clone - then I remove it and place it in a secure place in my
home. The laptop used to be carried around the world - but now sits
ib an expansion box and is never moved. I think I'm pretty safe. I
know I could do better - but, for now, I can't think od anything else
to do (except that I also make a complete backup to another drive at
least once a week). Thanks for the help.

 

[D. Spencer Hines]

How about this one?

Iomega's Automatic Backup Pro.

DSH

 

[dg1261]

I have been told that an image is better than a clone - so I'm confused.
I thought a clone was an exact duplicate of another drive - so, if I
cloned my primary drive and it went bad, I could just swap it for the
clone and I would be back in business. What is the difference
between that and an image ...

A clone of a hard disk is another hard disk. A clone of a partition is a
partition. An image of either is a *file*. See
www.goodells.net/multiboot/notes.htm#14.

... and which is better for what I want to do?

Personally, I think images are better for backup purposes. Since an image
is a file, you can copy it to CD/DVD if you want, or you could save
chronological versions of your main system on an external hard drive. For
example, let's say your main system is a 250GB drive that's 40GB full. If
your modus operandi is cloning, you'll get one backup on an external 250GB
drive. If you instead use imaging, you can probably fit 10 images on the
same external drive. That gives you the opportunity to retain multiple
versions, such as several monthly or weekly images.

If some virus/worm ruins your system, you can restore from the latest image.
But what if the virus/worm was already on your system when you made the last
image? If you were cloning you'd only have one backup, so you'd be out of
luck. If you're imaging, you'd simply revert to the second-to-last backup
and try that instead.

 

[D. Spencer Hines]

Let's say you have just made an image backup -- now you want to test out the
software and see if it works properly -- making sure it is a Good Backup.

But your computer is just fine and operating properly -- so you don't want
to restore the backup to IT.

What to do?

DSH

 

[Ted Zieglar]

You can mount the image - if the software has that capability - to make
sure all the files are there. But you never know for certain whether an
image will work until you restore it.

 

[D. Spencer Hines]

Yes, that's the conundrum.

I don't like it.

One should always have drills and practice runs to make sure everything
works -- just as with fire drills.

DSH

 

[Fruit2O]

A clone of a hard disk is another hard disk. A clone of a partition is a
partition. An image of either is a *file*. See
www.goodells.net/multiboot/notes.htm#14.


Personally, I think images are better for backup purposes. Since an image
is a file, you can copy it to CD/DVD if you want, or you could save
chronological versions of your main system on an external hard drive. For
example, let's say your main system is a 250GB drive that's 40GB full. If
your modus operandi is cloning, you'll get one backup on an external 250GB
drive. If you instead use imaging, you can probably fit 10 images on the
same external drive. That gives you the opportunity to retain multiple
versions, such as several monthly or weekly images.

If some virus/worm ruins your system, you can restore from the latest image.
But what if the virus/worm was already on your system when you made the last
image? If you were cloning you'd only have one backup, so you'd be out of
luck. If you're imaging, you'd simply revert to the second-to-last backup
and try that instead.

Thanks, now I understand much better.

 

[Fruit2O]

Let's say you have just made an image backup -- now you want to test out the
software and see if it works properly -- making sure it is a Good Backup.

But your computer is just fine and operating properly -- so you don't want
to restore the backup to IT.

What to do?

Good point!!!!!

 

[Fruit2O]

You can mount the image - if the software has that capability - to make
sure all the files are there. But you never know for certain whether an
image will work until you restore it.
Understood.

 

[Fruit2O]

Yes, that's the conundrum.

I don't like it.

One should always have drills and practice runs to make sure everything
works -- just as with fire drills.

DSH

I always keep a session-based backup AND the clone. Also, the
majority of my data is saved AGAIN on another drive - all happens
about once a week. My 250GB backup drive just went kaput - so I won't
install any software until I get a new one (which is already on the
way).

 

[D. Spencer Hines]

Yes, understood.

But that's not a complete drill.

I want to restore and make SURE.

Can't be done without a guinea-pig computer -- an extra one?

DSH

 

[dg1261]

Let's say you have just made an image backup -- now you want to test out
the software and see if it works properly -- making sure it is a Good
Backup.

But your computer is just fine and operating properly -- so you don't want
to restore the backup to IT.

What to do?

Most of the programs include an option to test/check/verify/validate the
image. That's a good idea because sometimes the image gets corrupted,
either because the utility messed up or the image file got stepped on
afterward. But if the image verifies, it *will* restore.

 

[D. Spencer Hines]

Yes, that was precisely my worry -- some sort of corruption of the image
file.

Thanks for the Good Advice.

I'll check it out.

DSH