Backing up

[Rob graham]

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

 

[CWatters]

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?

Imaging and verifying a whole drive takes about 45 mins (to a USB drive) so
I schedule mine at night. That means leaving the PC on which increases your
electricity bill. Some say that imaging an entire drive every night wears
out the drive faster but who knows if that's really true.

 

[Gordon]

data

Imaging and verifying a whole drive takes about 45 mins (to a USB drive) so
I schedule mine at night. That means leaving the PC on which increases your
electricity bill. Some say that imaging an entire drive every night wears
out the drive faster but who knows if that's really true.

But does imaging (with Ghost for example) allow you to restore individual
files from within that image? AFAIK it doesn't, so an incremental backup
program might be of more use?

 

[WTC]

But does imaging (with Ghost for example) allow you to restore
individual
files from within that image? AFAIK it doesn't, so an incremental
backup
program might be of more use?

Ghost 9.0 can restore individual files and can also perform incremental
backups. I use Ghost to image my drives onto a networked storage device.
It takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes to image 40 to 50 gigabytes of
data.

 

[Gordon]

Ghost 9.0 can restore individual files and can also perform incremental
backups. I use Ghost to image my drives onto a networked storage device.
It takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes to image 40 to 50 gigabytes of
data.

Thanks for the correction!

 

[Rob graham]

Imaging and verifying a whole drive takes about 45 mins (to a USB drive)

snip



Ghost 9.0 can restore individual files and can also perform incremental
backups. I use Ghost to image my drives onto a networked storage device.
It takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes to image 40 to 50 gigabytes of
data.

So after the initial imaging process, which may take up to say 45 mins,
daily incremental backups (or images, if you like) could be done, probably
taking no more than a few seconds, depending? And any specific file could be
accessed easily? At the moment I can access any file which I have backed up
(and it's not a *restore* process to do this) just simply by opening the
file from its separate location on the external HDD.

Rob

 

[Richard Urban [MVP]]

Booting the computer from the Ghost CD, you are able to use the Ghost Image
Browser to restore any single file, or multiple files to your Windows
partition. You can also restore the complete Windows partition/drive.

Please note that True Image does NOT allow you to do this single file
restore on the Windows partition. With TI it is all or nothing.

--
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]

Booting the computer from the Ghost CD, you are able to use the Ghost
Image Browser to restore any single file, or multiple files to your
Windows partition. You can also restore the complete Windows
partition/drive.

<snip>

With Ghost 9.0, you can restore a single or multiple files as long they
are *not in use* within windows as well..

 

[CWatters]

With Ghost 9.0, you can restore a single or multiple files as long they
are *not in use* within windows as well..

Can Ghost 9.0 do incremental backups?

I'm using Drive Image which Ghost is now based on. I believe Drive Image had
an older brother called v2i Protector that could do incremental backups
following a full drive image.

 

[WTC]

Can Ghost 9.0 do incremental backups?

<snip>

Yes Ghost 9.0 can do this.

 

[Andre De Clercq]

Ghost 9.0 can restore individual files and can also perform incremental
backups. I use Ghost to image my drives onto a networked storage device.
It takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes to image 40 to 50 gigabytes of
data.

--
William


Can you boot-up yr PC from the networked drive when there is a system drive
crash?

 

[WTC]

Yes, the Ghost 9.0 disk is bootable and supports restoring from the
network.

 

[Harry Ohrn]

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.

 

[mxh]

Booting the computer from the Ghost CD, you are able to use the Ghost
Image
Browser to restore any single file, or multiple files to your Windows
partition. You can also restore the complete Windows partition/drive.

Please note that True Image does NOT allow you to do this single file
restore on the Windows partition. With TI it is all or nothing.

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

 

[Mike Fields]

Yes, the Ghost 9.0 disk is bootable and supports restoring from the
network.

Even if it was not able to restore across the network if
you have a crash, if you have an image of what the drive
was ANYWHERE, there are ways to move that image
(CD-R, DVD, move drives etc) so you could work the
restore problem. The biggest issue is making sure you
have that image SOMEWHERE ;-) If you have a drive
crash, you can get a new drive and do the restore on a
different machine (that has the image) then put the drive
back where it belongs - been there, done that. (I use
Drive Image 7)

mikey

 

[Andre De Clercq]

Even if it was not able to restore across the network if
you have a crash, if you have an image of what the drive
was ANYWHERE, there are ways to move that image
(CD-R, DVD, move drives etc) so you could work the
restore problem. The biggest issue is making sure you
have that image SOMEWHERE ;-) If you have a drive
crash, you can get a new drive and do the restore on a
different machine (that has the image) then put the drive
back where it belongs - been there, done that. (I use
Drive Image 7)

mikey

Yes mikey, if you have the image you can always make e.g. a boot CDrom, but
my question was aboyt the ability to boot from a remote site (server...)
after a disk crash without an intermediate step.

 

[HeyBub]

So after the initial imaging process, which may take up to say 45
mins, daily incremental backups (or images, if you like) could be
done, probably taking no more than a few seconds, depending? And any
specific file could be accessed easily? At the moment I can access
any file which I have backed up (and it's not a *restore* process to
do this) just simply by opening the file from its separate location
on the external HDD.
Rob

If you screw up a single file, backups are best. If you're worried about a
disk failure, imaging is best.

If your hard drive croaks, you're a couple of days from recovery. You've got
to format a new drive, install the operating system, update it, and install
all the system tools (virus checkers, etc.). You've got to configure this
and that, fuss with passwords, and other sticks and stones. Next, you've got
to install all your application software - and attendant updates. Whew!

Now (2 days later), you're ready to restore your data.

 

[Kerry Brown]

If you screw up a single file, backups are best. If you're worried about a
disk failure, imaging is best.

If your hard drive croaks, you're a couple of days from recovery. You've
got to format a new drive, install the operating system, update it, and
install all the system tools (virus checkers, etc.). You've got to
configure this and that, fuss with passwords, and other sticks and stones.
Next, you've got to install all your application software - and attendant
updates. Whew!

Now (2 days later), you're ready to restore your data.

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

 

[Rob graham]

Booting the computer from the Ghost CD, you are able to use the Ghost
Image Browser to restore any single file, or multiple files to your
Windows partition. You can also restore the complete Windows
partition/drive.

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

 

[Anna]

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

Rob:
Hopefully, all the responses you've rec'd will give you sufficient info to
make a sensible choice for your particular situation. Anyway, let me give
you my thoughts as well...

I've been working with disk imaging programs for better than five years
now -- primarily Norton Ghost and more recently Acronis True Image. During
that time I would estimate I've personally or participated in the
disk-to-disk cloning of thousands of hard drives.

It has been a continual source of wonder to me why relatively few personal
computer users do not use a disk imaging program to clone the contents of
their day-to-day working hard drive to another drive in order to achieve a
near fail-safe backup system. In my view you will be well-served by
employing a disk imaging program such as the programs I've mentioned to
"clone" the contents of your working HD to another internal HD or preferably
(because of the added security) a removable HD or a USB/Firewire external
HD. In doing so you will be creating (for all practical purposes) an exact
duplicate of your working HD, in effect backing up your XP operating system,
registry and configuration settings, your programs and data files. In short,
*everything* that's on your working drive will be on your destination drive.
What better backup system can one have? So when the time comes that you have
to restore your working drive because of one problem or another with that
drive, you can re:clone the contents of your "cloned" drive back to the
internal drive. (You cannot boot from a USB EHD; however, if the recipient
of your clone was another internal HD, you could boot from that drive).

I've worked with various versions of the Ghost program over the years and
have found it to be a most reliable and effective program. The disk-to-disk
cloning process is simple, relatively quick, and most important of all --
effective.

In my own case I prefer to work with the Ghost 2003 program (now bundled
with the Ghost 9 program) because of my long experience with that program in
the XP OS environment. I've found the program easy to use and quite
effective in carrying out the disk-to-disk cloning operation. In working
with the Ghost 2003 program I usually use a Ghost bootable floppy and
sometimes a Ghost bootable CD to perform the cloning operation rather than
Ghost's Windows GUI. I find its simplicity and effectiveness and portability
aspects quite attractive for my purposes. The bootable floppy and/or
bootable CD are very simple to create in the Ghost program. My *exclusive*
interest is in creating disk-to-disk clones as previously mentioned. I've no
interest in creating "disk images" on CD/DVD media, nor do I have any
interest in making "incremental backups". To my mind the speed, simplicity,
and effectiveness of creating disk-to-disk clones obviates the need for
incremental backups. That, of course, is an individual choice.

I've recently started working with the Acronis True Image program because of
all the favorable reviews I've come across. I've been quite impressed with
the program because of its cloning speed. It's much faster than Ghost in my
experience, at least with respect to the Ghost 2003 program. Based on my
experience using ATI with medium-powered processors and modern drives,
cloning speed will be about 1.5+ GB/min (cloning to an internal drive), and
about 800+ MB/min (cloning to a USB EHD). Ghost's cloning speed is
considerably slower. One negative to the Acronis program (insofar as I'm
concerned) is that you cannot use that program with a single bootable floppy
disk as you can with Ghost. But you can use the program with a bootable CD
easily created in the Acronis program and that's what I usually use when I'm
employing that program.
Anna