D
David Williams
Can somebody tell me what the difference is between an image of a drive and
a copy of a drive.
thanks
David
a copy of a drive.
thanks
David
R
Rod Speed
A copy of a drive produces a second drive with the same
contents as the original drive. The copy can be booted
just like the original. They dont need to be the same
sized, but obviously the second drive needs to be big
enough to contain all the DATA on the original drive.
An image of a drive is theoretically a FILE which
contains all the information from the original drive
and some extra stuff that allows the original drive
to be restored from it, if say the drive dies etc.
The image cannot be booted directly, it needs to be
restored to a physical drive before it can be booted.
Most modern imaging apps have some way of getting
individual files or a number of files out of the image file.
In practice its not usually just one file, the
image file is usually chopped up into 2GB
bits so it can be put on any type of partition.
F
Farouk Dindar
I have this question
If your hard disk data is fragmented and if you make
an image followed by restore of the image will the the disk
now be defragged?
Farouk Dindar
W
Will Dormann
Farouk said:
Yes. I've heard of people using Ghost for this purpose, as it's faster
than a "normal" defrag.
-WD
F
Farouk Dindar
Hi Wil
Thanks for the information.
I have been testing Acronis True Image recently.
This morning I made an image on a slave drive and then deleted
everything on my main disk.
I then restored the image.
I just ran the win 2k defrag utility and it gives me these answers
===============
Volume WIN2K (C
:Volume size = 10,252 MB
Cluster size = 4 KB
Used space = 2,731 MB
Free space = 7,520 MB
Percent free space = 73 %
Volume fragmentation
Total fragmentation = 1 %
File fragmentation = 3 %
Free space fragmentation = 0 %
File fragmentation
Total files = 19,030
Average file size = 158 KB
Total fragmented files = 79
Total excess fragments = 565
Average fragments per file = 1.02
===================
Farouk Dindar
M
Michael Kimmer
Farouk said:
If the image process is *file* based, the fragmentation level is back to 0
because during the creation process the files are sequentially read and then
put in the image file (a rather time consuming process).
If the image file is *sector* based, the actual fragmentation level is
exactly recorded in the image file. After a restore the very same
fragmentation level is actually restored as well as other sector based
optimizations (Drive Image always images sector based, and only the
allocated sectors (SmartSector Technology.).
--
M.f.G.
Michael Kimmer
"Ein Tag an dem Du nicht lächelst ist ein verlorener Tag"
"Eine Nacht in der Du nicht schläfst ist eine verschlafene Nacht"
R
Rod Speed
Tad radical in a technical newsgroup |-)
Yes, with most imaging programs.
Not always tho, with Ghost for example you
can do a image at the physical sector level,
and that basically produces exactly the same
thing when restored, fragmentation and all.
R
Rod Speed
Farouk Dindar said:Hi Wil
Thanks for the information.
I have been testing Acronis True Image recently.
This morning I made an image on a slave drive and then deleted
everything on my main disk.
I then restored the image.
I just ran the win 2k defrag utility and it gives me these answers
===============
Volume WIN2K (C
Volume size = 10,252 MB
Cluster size = 4 KB
Used space = 2,731 MB
Free space = 7,520 MB
Percent free space = 73 %
Volume fragmentation
Total fragmentation = 1 %
File fragmentation = 3 %
Free space fragmentation = 0 %
File fragmentation
Total files = 19,030
Average file size = 158 KB
Total fragmented files = 79
Total excess fragments = 565
Average fragments per file = 1.02
===================
You should have got those details before the restore too.
And you can still get some fragmented files in some situations.