Backup/Imaging Software w/ support for USB drives?

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote:

I concur, Ghost 9 is not the best choice. From what I hear, Ghost 9 is
actually just Drive Image

V2i actually.

that's been rebranded (Symantec purchased PowerQuest).
Correct.

However, previous versions of Ghost are excellent.

Ghost 2003 has other much more serious problems,
particularly with lan support when the NIC isnt in the list
included. Its certainly possible to add support for unlisted
NICs but its not something the average user can manage.

And while ghost corporate is a very powerful product,
its not really suitable for the average user either.

I have an old version (7?) and it's a great, life-saving program.

I prefer Drive Image 2002 to that personally. The older ghosts
have a rather less intuitive user interface and if the image
creation fails, the way it does the boot to dos with its own
dedicated partition can leave the average user with an unusable
system. Its not hard to fix if you know what you are doing,
but again, not something the average user can do.

I boot off a floppy, but I suspect you could probably make a bootable CD of
Ghost.

Yes, and the easiest way to do that is to create a small
image to CD. That CD is bootable and you can just ignore
the image file on the CD and do whatever you want with ghost
once its booted off the CD. You can do that with Drive Image too.

I believe Ghost 2003 can also create/restore images from Windows.

Not the system partition.

And thats the main problem with those older imagers, they
do the important stuff at the dos level and you are stuck with
the downsides of that approach, needing drivers for hardware
even as basic as the NIC if you want to image over the lan etc.

The latest imagers all have a full modern OS on the
bootable CD, PE in the case of Ghost 9 and linux with
True Image. That makes imaging over the lan as easy
as falling off a log even for very basic users.

Just had someone at that level need to do that with a craptop
with a hard drive that is no longer bootable. Reasonably well
backed up, but not completely up to date like with most of
that level of user. Very easy to boot the True Image CD,
image the drive over the lan to the desktop system, do a
restore of the not quite current image to the craptop,
then manually browse the latest image to get the small
number of document files back onto the craptop.

Thats something Ghost 9 cant do, essentially because it
cant create an image after booting its CD and it cant be
run from the craptop because it wasnt bootable anymore.
XP claimed it couldnt repair the craptop install.

 

[Rod Speed]

One more question regarding True Image.

It seems that the license agreement requires one license per machine.
This means that I would have to purchase 2 licenses for my desktop PC
and my notebook - which would cost me as much as a Windows license.

I just ignore stupiditys like that.

So ... Does TI include a hardware-related activation
mechanism or "phone home" in one way or another?
Nope.

I do not want to imply that I plan on doing something
illegal here, but purchasing this software twice just to
back up a plain home system seems a bit much.

Yeah, my feeling entirely. Acronis can get stuffed.

Symantec is even worse.

So I might do a "perfect" default configuration on my Desktop PC,
make an image, uninstall True Image and install it on the notebook
to do the same there. I wonder if Acronis could live with this...

Who cares ?

 

[David Chien]

Ghost 2003 works fine for this. Comes with the latest version of Ghost
on sale today.

 

[David Chien]

I would not trust any of the 'live' backup programs. How would they
know, when a file is being modified every milisecond, which version at
what time is the true, valid one to backup!?!

You can't know for sure, and certainly can't prove that a true, working,
100% perfect backup is being made of the system everytime you do this.

Only real way is to start up from a boot disk, bypassing all writes to
the HD in question, then run a backup program that'll image it off to
another drive/cd off-line.

 

[Rod Speed]

I would not trust any of the 'live' backup programs. How would they know,
when a file is being modified every milisecond, which version at what time is
the true, valid one to backup!?!

It isnt hard to keep track of what got changed since it was
included in the image and update the image with the changes.

You can't know for sure,

Corse you can.

and certainly can't prove that a true, working, 100% perfect backup is being
made of the system everytime you do this.

Corse its possible.

Only real way is to start up from a boot disk, bypassing all writes to the HD
in question, then run a backup program that'll image it off to another
drive/cd off-line.

Thats just one way.

 

[Peter]

I would not trust any of the 'live' backup programs. How would they

know, when a file is being modified every milisecond, which version at
what time is the true, valid one to backup!?!

You can't know for sure, and certainly can't prove that a true, working,
100% perfect backup is being made of the system everytime you do this.

Only real way is to start up from a boot disk, bypassing all writes to
the HD in question, then run a backup program that'll image it off to
another drive/cd off-line.

Anyways, Ghost 2003 has worked perfectly for me to internal & external
drives, and is reliable.

That is why I have suggested to boot off CD with WinPE or
Linux, then run a good imaging software.

While Ghost2003 worked for you, it might not work with newer
hardware which has poor or no support in DOS.

 

[Peter]

Ghost 2003 works fine for this. Comes with the latest version of Ghost

on sale today.

??, do you mean Ghost 2003 comes with Symantec Norton Ghost 9.0?
I don't think so.

 

[Rod Speed]

??, do you mean Ghost 2003 comes with Symantec Norton Ghost 9.0?
I don't think so.

Fraid so
http://www.symantec.com/sabu/ghost/ghost_personal/features.html

 

[Peter]

Ghost 2003 works fine for this. Comes

Fraid so
http://www.symantec.com/sabu/ghost/ghost_personal/features.html

OK. It does. My mistake.

 

[David Chien]

It isnt hard to keep track of what got changed since it was
included in the image and update the image with the changes.

And at what point in time do you make the backup of a changing file?
1us ago? 1us later? the current us? The problem here is that the
entire system timing isn't 100% synchronized perfectly, so if you try to
time-freeze a system at, let's say 12:00am exactly, some parts of the
system can be in the middle of a write (let's say just started, hasn't
completed), some parts can be in the middle of an erase (just started,
hasn't completed), some parts have finished but that signal hasn't
gotten back to the CPU yet (data written on the HD, is done, CPU doesn't
have a clue), and some parts can be in the middle of finishing writing
the very last bit of data to a file. (just one more bit left to write to
the file system tables, then the file is complete).

Now, if you start a backup right at 12:00am, you've got the problem
where you're time stamping things at 12:00am - okay, you can backup
what's written to the HD already but the CPU doesn't yet know about
(because it's on the HD), you can't backup the files half-way done
(because that's not even a file yet in the file system entry), and even
the one file that has one more bit to go won't be backed up because the
file system entry isn't complete.

YET, if you're like any user, you'd have no clue that that OH SO
VERY IMPORTANT file that has only 1 more bit to go isn't being backed up
today because it's hasn't completed, so it's time stamp will fall after
the backup start time. Heck, you can wiggle your mouse a little harder
(get the CPU occupied a bit more) starting a backup and you could miss a
few files just like that.

What these backup programs never do is to tell the user what files
were still in-process after the backup initiated so that the user will
know what files were missed!!!!!

What's the point of making a live backup when you assume what you're
working on and saving will be backed up when it isn't? (And what's the
point of doing 100% nothing with the sytstem during a live backup? when
that's the point of a live backup? - that you can still use the system
while it's making the backup?)

You can't guarentee a 100% working, complete backup of a system will
all files you want backed up intact w/o going to an offline backup. A
live backup will always miss files in the process of being written to
disk, and thus, miss those files important to you and the OS. (Heck, I
can even be in the middle of hex editing my OS files during a backup and
result in a system that won't start up again because I haven't finished
writing the changes I made to the OS before the backup start timestamp
is made!)

---

You can always do an incremental afterwards, but as long as the
drive/system is being modified in any way with any open files, you still
can't backup those open files correctly. You can get into the case
where the full first backup and all later incremental backups on a live
system simply won't result in a working bootable system or backup of
important files you've been editing because it never backs up at a time
when the files are 'good' (ie. finished writing to disc completely).

(Imagine a big GB database of patient records. You're in the middle
of editing that database, so changes haven't all yet been made correctly
- ie. saved - to the file. It's in the middle of saving. It'll be
bypassed on the first backup. and as long as you're still modifying the
database or simply saving to disk (since it's a GB sized database),
it'll be missed time and time again until the write has been finished. -
this can easily take hours/overnight on large databases, you know...)

 

[J. Clarke]

And at what point in time do you make the backup of a changing file?
1us ago? 1us later? the current us? The problem here is that the
entire system timing isn't 100% synchronized perfectly, so if you try to
time-freeze a system at, let's say 12:00am exactly, some parts of the
system can be in the middle of a write (let's say just started, hasn't
completed), some parts can be in the middle of an erase (just started,
hasn't completed), some parts have finished but that signal hasn't
gotten back to the CPU yet (data written on the HD, is done, CPU doesn't
have a clue), and some parts can be in the middle of finishing writing
the very last bit of data to a file. (just one more bit left to write to
the file system tables, then the file is complete).

Now, if you start a backup right at 12:00am, you've got the problem
where you're time stamping things at 12:00am - okay, you can backup
what's written to the HD already but the CPU doesn't yet know about
(because it's on the HD), you can't backup the files half-way done
(because that's not even a file yet in the file system entry), and even
the one file that has one more bit to go won't be backed up because the
file system entry isn't complete.

YET, if you're like any user, you'd have no clue that that OH SO
VERY IMPORTANT file that has only 1 more bit to go isn't being backed up
today because it's hasn't completed, so it's time stamp will fall after
the backup start time. Heck, you can wiggle your mouse a little harder
(get the CPU occupied a bit more) starting a backup and you could miss a
few files just like that.

What these backup programs never do is to tell the user what files
were still in-process after the backup initiated so that the user will
know what files were missed!!!!!

What's the point of making a live backup when you assume what you're
working on and saving will be backed up when it isn't? (And what's the
point of doing 100% nothing with the sytstem during a live backup? when
that's the point of a live backup? - that you can still use the system
while it's making the backup?)

You can't guarentee a 100% working, complete backup of a system will
all files you want backed up intact w/o going to an offline backup. A
live backup will always miss files in the process of being written to
disk, and thus, miss those files important to you and the OS. (Heck, I
can even be in the middle of hex editing my OS files during a backup and
result in a system that won't start up again because I haven't finished
writing the changes I made to the OS before the backup start timestamp
is made!)

---

You can always do an incremental afterwards, but as long as the
drive/system is being modified in any way with any open files, you still
can't backup those open files correctly. You can get into the case
where the full first backup and all later incremental backups on a live
system simply won't result in a working bootable system or backup of
important files you've been editing because it never backs up at a time
when the files are 'good' (ie. finished writing to disc completely).

(Imagine a big GB database of patient records. You're in the middle
of editing that database, so changes haven't all yet been made correctly
- ie. saved - to the file. It's in the middle of saving. It'll be
bypassed on the first backup. and as long as you're still modifying the
database or simply saving to disk (since it's a GB sized database),
it'll be missed time and time again until the write has been finished. -
this can easily take hours/overnight on large databases, you know...)

All of the timings you are worried about can be easily handled by the
operating system. It gets an order to freeze the state of the system, it
waits until all activity pending at the time of the order to complete,
freezes that state, reports that to the backup application, the backup
application does its thing, reports complete, the OS goes back to business
as usual. Meanwhile alternative sectors are used for ongoing activity and
where one of those contains an update to data that is on a frozen sector
the frozen sector can be simply mapped as free and the sector containing
the revised data mapped back in.

Further, your database scenario is unrealistic. No database manager works
the way you think--there's no saving a gigabyte file. Changes occur on a
sector by sector basis as required, with transactions queued and the
ability, _always_ to return to the former state of the database if the
write is unsuccessful. If you're using some primitive piece of crap that
holds a gigabyte file in memory and writes it out once a day to manage
patient data then you need to talk to (a) your lawyers and (b) IBM.

But if it _did_ work that way then whoever designed it would be a fool to
not put some provision in place to deal with an interruption in service
during that long, long write.

By your argument it would be impossible to reliably put a laptop into sleep
mode, which is the same thing, freeze the state of the system at a given
time. Yet it works fine.

 

[Rod Speed]

And at what point in time do you make the backup of a changing file? 1us ago?
1us later? the current us?

If you want the latest in the image file, you dont keep changing the file.

It isnt rocket science.

The problem here is that the entire system timing isn't 100% synchronized
perfectly,

It never can be with a changing file.

If you want that, you need mirroring.

so if you try to time-freeze a system at, let's say 12:00am exactly, some
parts of the system can be in the middle of a write (let's say just started,
hasn't completed), some parts can be in the middle of an erase (just started,
hasn't completed), some parts have finished but that signal hasn't gotten back
to the CPU yet (data written on the HD, is done, CPU doesn't have a clue), and
some parts can be in the middle of finishing writing the very last bit of data
to a file. (just one more bit left to write to the file system tables, then
the file is complete).

Now, if you start a backup right at 12:00am, you've got the problem where
you're time stamping things at 12:00am - okay, you can backup what's written
to the HD already but the CPU doesn't yet know about (because it's on the HD),
you can't backup the files half-way done (because that's not even a file yet
in the file system entry), and even the one file that has one more bit to go
won't be backed up because the file system entry isn't complete.

See above on mirroring.

YET, if you're like any user, you'd have no clue that that OH SO VERY
IMPORTANT file that has only 1 more bit to go isn't being backed up today
because it's hasn't completed, so it's time stamp will fall after the backup
start time. Heck, you can wiggle your mouse a little harder (get the CPU
occupied a bit more) starting a backup and you could miss a few files just
like that.

The reality with desktop systems is that there wont be much
going on at the time you do the incremental image at say 12am.

It should obviously be scheduled for when
there wont be anything much going on.

If that isnt feasible, you need a mirror, not an image for backup.

What these backup programs never do is to tell the user what files were still
in-process after the backup initiated so that the user will know what files
were missed!!!!!

They arent 'missed'

What's the point of making a live backup when you assume what you're working
on and saving will be backed up when it isn't?

You do the image backup when it isnt changing.

(And what's the point of doing 100% nothing with the sytstem during a live
backup?

An incremental image backup is a lot quicker than a full image
creation at the dos level. So you may well choose to do one
before doing an install or a significant reconfig etc.

when that's the point of a live backup? - that you can still use the system
while it's making the backup?)

Thats just ONE point of a live backup.

The other obvious advantage is that its better than now new backup.

You can't guarentee a 100% working, complete backup of a system will all files
you want backed up intact w/o going to an offline backup.

Wrong. You just need to ensure that nothing
that matters is happening during the live backup.

A live backup will always miss files in the process of being written to disk,
and thus, miss those files important to you and the OS.

Wrong again. Modern live backup doesnt miss those files at all.

(Heck, I can even be in the middle of hex editing my OS files during a backup
and result in a system that won't start up again because I haven't finished
writing the changes I made to the OS before the backup start timestamp is
made!)

Anyone with a clue realises that its not a triffic idea
to be doing that sort of thing during a live backup.

If you want protection during that sort of thing, you need a mirror.

---

You can always do an incremental afterwards, but as long as the drive/system
is being modified in any way with any open files, you still can't backup those
open files correctly.

Wrong again. You dont understand how modern
live backup works. It backs up open files fine.

You can get into the case where the full first backup and all later
incremental backups on a live system simply won't result in a working bootable
system or backup of important files you've been editing because it never backs
up at a time when the files are 'good' (ie. finished writing to disc
completely).

Wrong again. See above.

(Imagine a big GB database of patient records. You're in the middle of
editing that database, so changes haven't all yet been made correctly - ie.
saved - to the file. It's in the middle of saving. It'll be bypassed on the
first backup. and as long as you're still modifying the database or simply
saving to disk (since it's a GB sized database), it'll be missed time and time
again until the write has been finished. - this can easily take
hours/overnight on large databases, you know...)

Utterly mangled. And thats a situation where you need mirroring anyway.

 

[Paul Atreides]

I am looking for a reliable and affordable backup/imaging software that
will allow me to backup a partition from an internal harddrive (with
optional compression) to an external USB harddisk and restore the image
later with minimum fuss. The machines in question have no floppy
drives, so I probably need a software that can boot the PC from
CD-ROM/DVD and then find and restore the image from the external USB HD
(I assume that booting from a USB stick will not work with most PCs
...).

I have Drive Image 2002, but as it seems it will not let me restore
data from USB drives (or is there a way)?

What do you guys suggest?

Ghost? I heard quite some bitching about it.
TrueImage?
Something else?

I need no fancy extras, just a reliable and easy-to-use imaging/restore
solution ...

I use Drive Snapshot to backup "live" partitions and
BartPE CD (or UBCD4WIN) to restore from an USB external HD.
Simple, very small and very fast.

http://www.drivesnapshot.de/en/

http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/

http://www.ubcd4win.com/

 

[Peter Frank]

In point of fact Acronis provides the BartPE plugin directly. Right now
they only provide it as a fix for folks who can't access their external
drive from the Acronis CD but that might change.

Do you mean they do not offer the BartPE plugin officially but only on
request when you tell them you're having problems? Is that the only way
to get the BartPE plugin?

Peter F.

 

[J. Clarke]

Do you mean they do not offer the BartPE plugin officially but only on
request when you tell them you're having problems? Is that the only way
to get the BartPE plugin?

That is my understanding.