PC Cloning

[Guest]

Hello, my boss and I have an argument about cloning a PC over the network vs. cloning a PC disk to disk. He says that he likes the old fasioned way of "cracking the case" of the machine and slaving an internal IDE hard drive that has the image, and cloning disk to disk. He says that it is much faster and "cleaner" than imaging over the network. I agree that the actual time that it takes to image the drive is faster, but what about the time and risks involved of carrying around an internal IDE drive to each machine, connecting it to the secondary channel, possibly having to change jumper settings, possibly risking ESD or maybe even bending or breaking a pin on the hard drive?? And how do you test which image is "cleaner"!!!??? Also, while the actual cloning time may be faster, what about the time that it takes to crawl under someone's desk, disconnect all of the cables, slave the drive, then close everything back up, reconnect the cables and reboot?? What are we saving here, 10 minutes?? Not yo mention the risks involved that I mentioned. What are your thoughts??

 

[Plato]

"crawl under someone's desk"

If you're good looking and in shape, you might just get a good sideshow
[g]

 

[Guest]

I am.....and I have

 

[CWatters]

Hello, my boss and I have an argument about cloning a PC over the

network vs. cloning a PC disk to disk.

Hand him the screwdriver while you hold the stop watch. Make sure it's his
bosses PC he works on, preferrably while his boss is in the office!

If he wants to do this regularly you will need to replace the drive cable
and power connectors regularly. These connectors aren't designed for more
than a few mating cycles. Some power connectors in particular are like
rubber these days.

What about the down time for that computer? I believe programs like
v2iprotector will image drives over a network while it's in use!

Colin

 

[sinbad]

If you do this frequently, consider installing a plug-in
bay such as those made by Antec. Cost prox $50. I clone
my primary HDD about once a week, 25gb in around 18 min's.
That way I have a bootable replacement 'on-the-shelf' and
you can't shut me down for more than about 30 seconds.
Use Norton Ghost, handles a mix of FAT32, NTFS, S-ATA.
sts -----------------------------------------------------

 

[Vagabond Software]

I would use the previous suggestion of removeable drive-bays if I, for some
reason, wanted to maintain a library of cloned drives. Maybe when I'm
running that sweat-shop software development company I've always dreamed of
and I'm continually having to fire disgruntled employees.

Anyway, another benefit to the "old-fashioned" way is that you can be
cloning multiple drives at a time. You're only going to get a little of 50%
of your theoretical network bandwidth due to overhead and such, and you
could only do one drive at a time; so I would reserve that for laptops.

- carl

Hello, my boss and I have an argument about cloning a PC over the

network vs. cloning a PC disk to disk. He says that he likes the old
fasioned way of "cracking the case" of the machine and slaving an internal
IDE hard drive that has the image, and cloning disk to disk. He says that it
is much faster and "cleaner" than imaging over the network. I agree that the
actual time that it takes to image the drive is faster, but what about the
time and risks involved of carrying around an internal IDE drive to each
machine, connecting it to the secondary channel, possibly having to change
jumper settings, possibly risking ESD or maybe even bending or breaking a
pin on the hard drive?? And how do you test which image is "cleaner"!!!???
Also, while the actual cloning time may be faster, what about the time that
it takes to crawl under someone's desk, disconnect all of the cables, slave
the drive, then close everything back up, reconnect the cables and reboot??
What are we saving here, 10 minutes?? Not yo mention the risks involved that
I mentioned. What are your thoughts??

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Every time you crack a case and make and break electrical
connections, you risk creating problems.

If you boss insists on imaging via hard drive, have him invest in
a USB external drive. Or better yet, purchase a partition imaging
application that can restore the image from a CD.


Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:




You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH

 

[NetNut]

Last time I won an argument with the boss, I lost my job.
Tread lightly.
The NetNut

 

[Bob Eyster]

The network way allows you to clone more than one PC. At work we can clone
three PC's at a time. We could do more if we had the space. Your boss' way,
you can only do one at a time. Not very productive.

Bob Eyster

Hello, my boss and I have an argument about cloning a PC over the

network vs. cloning a PC disk to disk. He says that he likes the old
fasioned way of "cracking the case" of the machine and slaving an internal
IDE hard drive that has the image, and cloning disk to disk. He says that it
is much faster and "cleaner" than imaging over the network. I agree that the
actual time that it takes to image the drive is faster, but what about the
time and risks involved of carrying around an internal IDE drive to each
machine, connecting it to the secondary channel, possibly having to change
jumper settings, possibly risking ESD or maybe even bending or breaking a
pin on the hard drive?? And how do you test which image is "cleaner"!!!???
Also, while the actual cloning time may be faster, what about the time that
it takes to crawl under someone's desk, disconnect all of the cables, slave
the drive, then close everything back up, reconnect the cables and reboot??
What are we saving here, 10 minutes?? Not yo mention the risks involved that
I mentioned. What are your thoughts??

 

[Bryce]

And thus why Joe here will never be the boss.

Last time I won an argument with the boss, I lost my job.
Tread lightly.
The NetNut