Ghost 2003 OEM version for Dummies

[Ralph Wade Phillips]

Howdy!

That depends on whether you choose disk-to-disk (yes) or disk-to-image
(no).

No, that's not it.

I'm thinking.



Perhaps you have a different version. I'm using Ghost 2003 and the DOS
GUI (which is the default) allows me to use the mouse to choose either
disk-to-disk or disk-to-image. If I choose disk-to-disk I get an exact
identical copy, including the MBR, all files and all blank areas, and I
have *never* used the -ir flag or any other flag. If I choose
disk-to-image I also get an exact copy, but in the form of a file image,
which omits any blank areas. Perhaps we're having a semantics
difference here. If you are using the word "image" in the sense of
"mirror image" then I understand where you're coming from.

Actually, if you watch the copy amount, disk-to-disk doesn't copy
the blank areas either (which is rather stupid to do - why would you
photocopy 400 blank pages in a book, for instance?)

I think you're not quite saying what you mean here ...

And, yes, I use Ghost 2003. When I can't avoid it .. I prefer
Corporate 7.5 myself (same engine, but it just works without the fiddling
around 2003 gave me)

But if it's bit for bit, then it's a mirror image, by definition.

I don't claim to be any great expert on this, so if I have erred, please
let me know where.


Norton calls it an image and so do I. Can you explain how your
definition differs?

An "image" would be "copy all including blank". But unless you DO
specify -IA or -IR, then GHOST does it as files.

Another way to see this is to look at the fragmentation - if the
source is fragmented, the destination ISN'T - since GHOST copied by file.

RwP

 

[Bill Turner]

Actually, if you watch the copy amount, disk-to-disk doesn't copy
the blank areas either (which is rather stupid to do - why would you
photocopy 400 blank pages in a book, for instance?)

_________________________________________________________

That's not quite the right analogy. It would be more like *inserting*
400 blank pages in the book, not necessarily photocopying them.

And as I understand it, Ghost does indeed *insert* the 400 blank pages
when doing disk-to-disk, doesn't it? When Ghost is done, the
destination drive is an exact copy of the source drive, blank areas and
all. (Again, I emphasize I'm talking disk-to-disk, not disk-to-image).

Am I wrong?

 

[Dave M]

yup.
doesn't really happen for me either-just looks like it is.

 

[John E. Carty]

It's because I only run the DOS GUI in XP. Though if Windows crashes and you
need to reload your Ghost backup you also will need to use a boot disk

Date : Fri Nov 14 15:57:04 2003
Error Number: (440)
Message: Ghost cannot run on Windows NT based systems (NT/2K/XP).
Please boot your system into Dos and then run Ghost.
Version: 2003.775 (Aug 14 2002, Build=775)
Command line arguments:
Active Switches :
AutoName

 

[Ralph Wade Phillips]

Howdy!

_________________________________________________________

That's not quite the right analogy. It would be more like *inserting*
400 blank pages in the book, not necessarily photocopying them.

Yes, it IS the right analogy. "Bit by bit" includes all the
non-used ones.

And as I understand it, Ghost does indeed *insert* the 400 blank pages
when doing disk-to-disk, doesn't it? When Ghost is done, the
destination drive is an exact copy of the source drive, blank areas and
all. (Again, I emphasize I'm talking disk-to-disk, not disk-to-image).

Yes, it does. BECAUSE IT DOES INTELLIGENT FILE COPIES.

You keep saying the same thing, but saying I'm wrong.

Have you even THOUGHT about what you say?

-IR does the blank spots ALSO, as does -IA. Without them, GHOST
does file-by-file on known file systems (FAT, FAT32, NTFS, Ext2, etc.) and
bit-by-bit on unknown ones (Netware 3.x, etc.)

RwP

 

[Will Dormann]

_________________________________________________________

Perhaps with the command line version you have to use the -ir flag, but
I use the DOS GUI and it copies bit for bit without any special
instructions.

You are quite wrong. Unless you specify the "-IR" flag, Ghost will
*not* copy the blank areas of your disk. If you use -IR, Ghost will
copy the drive in a sector-by-sector manner. This is required for
creating a forensic copy of a disk.

Let's say that you have a 120GB disk that currently has about 1GB of
data on it. At some point in time it was nearly full of information
that has since been deleted. This "deleted" information is easily
retrieved with forensic software. The data is still stored on the
drive, but the areas of the drive used to store the data are marked as
"OK to overwrite"

Now take that 120GB drive that has 1GB of data on it and ghost it.
(Either to another drive or to an image). How much data does it copy?
Watch the progress on-screen, look at the size of the resulting
image, and/or keep track of how long it takes to copy. It shouldn't be
too hard to determine if it's copying 1GB or 120GB. Now try the same
with the "-IR" flag. This time it copies the whole 120GB in a
sector-by-sector (or "bit-for-bit") mode.

This is because Ghost does a "smart" backup of the drive or partition.
It looks at the filesystem and determines what needs to be backed
up, and doesn't look at the empty/unused space. If you use the
appropriate flags, or if you back up a filesystem type that Ghost
doesn't understand (such as ReiserFS, as of Ghost 2003), then it will do
a sector-by-sector copy.


-WD

 

[Bill Turner]

-IR does the blank spots ALSO, as does -IA.

_________________________________________________________

I give up. I keep telling you I don't use command line switches because
I don't use command lines, I use a GUI.

If you are too damn stupid to read what I have said umpteen times, the
conversation is over.

 

[Dave M]

I actually use both, but normally just windows gui.
interesting sidenote-symantec does not, and does not plan, on supporting
SATA without a command line of -noide on ghost. with all motherboard using
sata interface ghost may not be updated for "easy" use. kind of dumb...

 

[Ralph Wade Phillips]

Howdy!

_________________________________________________________

I give up. I keep telling you I don't use command line switches because
I don't use command lines, I use a GUI.

No, you keep telling me that you copy the whole drive bit by bit
when you don't.

If you are too damn stupid to read what I have said umpteen times, the
conversation is over.

Oh, I've read it. But that's not what you keep arguing with me
about.

I notice you didn't quote any of it. Typical for netlusers when
confronted by their inadequacies.

But do remember- Google has it all on tap.

RwP