Replacing C: Drive - Again

[Dave]

Two weeks ago I posted a question about how to replace my C: drive with a
larger one. I got many good replies (thank you), one of which was to go to
the mfg's website and download cloning software.

Since I wanted to install a Western Digital (which I already have, and have
been using it for external storage), I went to the WD website and downloaded
their Data Lifeguard Tools. After unzipping and reading the tutorial/info,
I'm not sure this is what I want. It never uses the word 'clone', the
nearest thing is 'Drive-to-Drive Data Copy'

It would seem I need to do a little more than just 'copy' my current C:
drive onto another HD. Am I missing something - obviously I am

What to do ?

Dave

 

[Bill in Co.]

Either get a disk cloning or disk imaging program. Examples are Casper,
and Acronis True Image.

 

[MAP]

Hi, about six weeks ago I replaced my HD with a larger one as well, I used
the WD
Data Lifeguard Tools to clone it. All I can say is that it works just fine
so I would use it if I were you.
The only thing that I thought was odd and most likely it was the programs
themselfs was that several programs that I brought were no longer
registered,meaning that they reverted to the free trial mode and I had to
re-enter my registration codes,but like XP the programs most likely scanned
my system during the original install and noted the change it might have
happened using another cloning program as well.

Good Luck

 

[Paul Montgomery]

Two weeks ago I posted a question about how to replace my C: drive with a
larger one.  I got many good replies (thank you), one of which was to go to
the mfg's website and download cloning software.

Since I wanted to install a Western Digital (which I already have, and have
been using it for external storage), I went to the WD website and downloaded
their Data Lifeguard Tools.  After unzipping and reading the tutorial/info,
I'm not sure this is what I want.  It never uses the word 'clone', the
nearest thing is 'Drive-to-Drive Data Copy'

It would seem I need to do a little more than just 'copy' my current C:
drive onto another HD.  Am I missing something - obviously I am  

What to do ?

Bill in Co. is right... get one or the other that he lists.

I use both in their most recent versions, and I would strongly suggest
that you get Acronis True Image because it does more than just clone
and that will make it very useful after you've installed your new
drive.

Casper is a cloning tool par excellence, but it won't image your drive
and it won't permit you to do selective backup/images of data files
and directories.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Bill in Co. is right... get one or the other that he lists.

I use both in their most recent versions, and I would strongly suggest
that you get Acronis True Image because it does more than just clone
and that will make it very useful after you've installed your new
drive.

Casper is a cloning tool par excellence, but it won't image your drive
and it won't permit you to do selective backup/images of data files
and directories.

But isn't it at least theoretically possible to use Casper to store separate
and selective backups *in separate partitions* on the same backup drive?
(I've asked about this before, but can't recall). (But I don't think it's
a fantastic idea, and still prefer imaging for keeping multiple backups in
ONE partition on the backup drive)

 

[Paul Montgomery]

But isn't it at least theoretically possible to use Casper to store separate
and selective backups *in separate partitions* on the same backup drive?
(I've asked about this before, but can't recall).    (But I don't think it's
a fantastic idea, and still prefer imaging for keeping multiple backups in
ONE partition on the backup drive)

Casper clones. A clone is a full-disk-to-full-disk exact copy
resulting in the clone being bootable and indistinguishable (except
for possibly its size) from the original.

I use it to maintain a clone of my system drive to be used in case the
system drive fails. Casper can clone from within Windows, and once a
clone has been made, it can be updated at will from within Windows as
well. Updates are "incremental" and take a fraction of the time
needed to make a full clone.

To do the same with Acronis True Image requires a full clone be made
every time, and it also requires rebooting because the cloning must be
accomplished outside of the Windows environment. I found that to be a
PITA.

 

[Paul Montgomery]

But isn't it at least theoretically possible to use Casper to store separate
and selective backups *in separate partitions* on the same backup drive?

Forgot to add:

Casper can clone either a disk or a partition, and it can put the
clone on a partition. Note that the receiving partition must be at
least as large as the original, because there is no compression during
cloning. It is an exact copy of the original. One would do this so
that one could use the clone to restore the original.

I see no need for such a function on my system.

 

[John John (MVP)]

That is what you want to use, it will work just fine. Read the manual
for more help:
http://www.wdc.com/en/library/eide/2779-001005.pdf

John

 

[Dave]

Thank you all again -

One last (hopefully) amateur question. Given that I have several additional
HDs (some partitioned) for backup, is there any point/benefit to
partitioning my (newer & larger) main HD?

Thx

Dave

 

[dadiOH]

Two weeks ago I posted a question about how to replace my C: drive
with a larger one. I got many good replies (thank you), one of which
was to go to the mfg's website and download cloning software.

Since I wanted to install a Western Digital (which I already have,
and have been using it for external storage), I went to the WD
website and downloaded their Data Lifeguard Tools. After unzipping
and reading the tutorial/info, I'm not sure this is what I want. It
never uses the word 'clone', the nearest thing is 'Drive-to-Drive
Data Copy'
It would seem I need to do a little more than just 'copy' my current
C: drive onto another HD. Am I missing something - obviously I am
What to do ?

Use what you downloaded, it does the job just fine.

BTW, the words "clone" and "image" imply a sector by sector copy of a
drive - of all sectors, used or not. Programs that clone or image may or
may not copy unused sectors but even copying used sectors sector by sector
is not needed. One can simply copy all files and folders to a drive as long
as that drive has a valid boot sector and the program doing the copying will
copy all files/folders.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

 

[Bill in Co.]

Forgot to add:

Casper can clone either a disk or a partition, and it can put the
clone on a partition. Note that the receiving partition must be at
least as large as the original, because there is no compression during
cloning. It is an exact copy of the original. One would do this so
that one could use the clone to restore the original.

I see no need for such a function on my system.

OK, thanks, Paul. I think for my needs (if I understand this) then ATI is
then better, since I'm NOT trying to make a bootable backup drive, but I
*am* trying to keep a few multiple and dated system partition backups on the
backup drive that I can restore at will.

And - if I tried to use Casper to do this (by cloning the source drive
partition):

1) there would be no compression,

2) the "Smart Cloning" feature of Casper might be inapplicable here(??),
since a new and complete clone would be created each time in its own unique
partition, and

3) a separate lettered drive partition would need to be created each time on
the backup drive.

Not sure about #2 above.

And in any case, to use this (for my purposes) I would have to RECLONE back
the desired backup clone - which is similar to what I am doing now with ATI
(except I'm restoring an image).

 

[Paul Montgomery]

OK, thanks, Paul.    I think for my needs (if I understand this) thenATI is
then better, since I'm NOT trying to make a bootable backup drive, but I
*am* trying to keep a few multiple and dated system partition backups on the
backup drive that I can restore at will.

And - if I tried to use Casper to do this (by cloning the source drive
partition):

1) there would be no compression,

2) the "Smart Cloning" feature of Casper might be inapplicable here(??),
since a new and complete clone would be created each time in its own unique
partition, and

Smart Cloning is like an incremental backup. Casper looks at both
drives and only updates the clone where needed, resulting in a
significant time saving.

3) a separate lettered drive partition would need to be created each timeon
the backup drive.

Not sure about #2 above.

And in any case, to use this (for my purposes) I would have to RECLONE back
the desired backup clone - which is similar to what I am doing now with ATI
(except I'm restoring an image).

Correct. I think you've finally got the difference between the two
down pat. It certainly took you long enough <G> (I'm not new here).

 

[Paul Montgomery]

OK, thanks, Paul.    I think for my needs (if I understand this) thenATI is
then better, since I'm NOT trying to make a bootable backup drive, but I
*am* trying to keep a few multiple and dated system partition backups on the
backup drive that I can restore at will.

Just a thought on that: do you make a new image every time you are
about to install a new program or to try "going under the hood" to
play with your setup?

I would make ONE image, and do incremental images periodically,
keeping a string of them running. To backup two days, all you would
have to do is cut any incrementals more recent than the point you want
to backup to, and temporarily put them somewhere else and then restore
from the remainder.

Doing periodic incrementals would save you having to make multiple
full backups, and would save you a lot of time making the images. You
could keep written notes telling you why you made each incremental
image making the choice of which to restore to easier.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Smart Cloning is like an incremental backup. Casper looks at both
drives and only updates the clone where needed, resulting in a
significant time saving.

But what about the case I mentioned, where one desires to several new clones
(of the source drive partition C in different partitions on the same
backup drive, so that one could have a collection to choose from, IF one
wanted to reclone it back to the source drive (and yes, I know that's not
it's main design function)? (instead of using ATI and imaging, I mean, or
as an alternative)

Correct. I think you've finally got the difference between the two
down pat.

Ummm, not quite - per my above comment. (So there is still a bit of
confusion there on my part)

It certainly took you long enough <G> (I'm not new here).

I'm not quite "there" yet, but gettin close (I hope).

 

[Bill in Co.]

Just a thought on that: do you make a new image every time you are
about to install a new program or to try "going under the hood" to
play with your setup?

Not quite every time, but pretty close, yes. Any time I think it could be
potentially problematic (and actually HAS been, on several occasions,
especially with the larger and/or "more invasive" programs)

I would make ONE image, and do incremental images periodically,
keeping a string of them running. To backup two days, all you would
have to do is cut any incrementals more recent than the point you want
to backup to, and temporarily put them somewhere else and then restore
from the remainder.

I don't like incrementals (they are a bit of a PIA), because you always have
to keep track of the increments and use them all, when necessary (for a
restore operation).

But that is NEVER needed - and it is MUCH simpler, to simply make a brand
new FULL image backup. It only takes me now about 10 minutes to make a
full system backup of my C: partition (I'm using a second internal SATA
drive, which really helps in that regard! - but I also have a USB external
enclosure backup drive, which, of course, is noticeably slower for backups
and restores)

Doing periodic incrementals would save you having to make multiple
full backups, and would save you a lot of time making the images.

It's faster, of course, but has the disadvantage I mentioned above.

You could keep written notes telling you why you made each incremental
image making the choice of which to restore to easier.

But see the above. As it is now, I simply have about 4 complete image
backups, each identified with a single, but different numbered, file name
(and a short comment in each since ATI lets you put a comment in there when
you create the image backup (and you can also see it when you open ATI as
needbe)

 

[Daave]

I don't like incrementals (they are a bit of a PIA), because you
always have to keep track of the increments and use them all, when
necessary (for a restore operation).

What do you mean "you always have to keep track of the increments and
use them all?" When was the last time you restored from the initial full
backup *plus* any susequent incremental backups? From the User Guide
(mine is Version 9):

<quote>
p. 30

3. If you are to restore a disk/partition from an incremental backup,
Acronis True Image will suggest that you select one of successive
incremental archives by date/time of its creation. Thus, you can return
the disk/partition to a certain moment, often called "a point of
restore."

To restore data from an incremental backup, you must have all previous
incremental backup files and the initial full backup. If any of
successive backups is missing, restoration is impossible.

To restore data from a differential backup, you must have the initial
full backup as well.
</quote>

So, if you want to restore your system to a particulat point in time,
you merely select the appropriate archive in order to return to the
"point of restore." As long as you haven't deleted the initial full
backup or any of the subsequent incremental backups, the procedure is as
easy as pie. Try it again.

Regarding cloning, if the goal does not include creating something
that's bootable, I'd say you're just wasting your time. It's like
forcing a square peg into a round hole!

 

[Bill in Co.]

What do you mean "you always have to keep track of the increments and
use them all?"

Well, I didn't mean it quite so literally that "I" had to keep track, but
rather, ATI does. More below.

When was the last time you restored from the initial full
backup *plus* any susequent incremental backups?

Never, nor do I want to, for the reasons below.

From the User Guide
(mine is Version 9):

<quote>
p. 30

3. If you are to restore a disk/partition from an incremental backup,
Acronis True Image will suggest that you select one of successive
incremental archives by date/time of its creation. Thus, you can return
the disk/partition to a certain moment, often called "a point of
restore."

To restore data from an incremental backup, you must have all previous
incremental backup files and the initial full backup. If any of
successive backups is missing, restoration is impossible.

To restore data from a differential backup, you must have the initial
full backup as well.
</quote>

So, if you want to restore your system to a particulat point in time,
you merely select the appropriate archive in order to return to the
"point of restore." As long as you haven't deleted the initial full
backup or any of the subsequent incremental backups, the procedure is as
easy as pie. Try it again.

No, I don't want that. I want the simplicity and reliability of having
just ONE *composite and full* backup image that *stands on its own*.

PLUS: sometimes I use Windows Explorer to copy a file or two out of that
backed up image file.

Regarding cloning, if the goal does not include creating something
that's bootable, I'd say you're just wasting your time. It's like
forcing a square peg into a round hole!

So it seems!

 

[Daave]

Well, I didn't mean it quite so literally that "I" had to keep track,
but rather, ATI does. More below.


Never, nor do I want to, for the reasons below.


No, I don't want that. I want the simplicity and reliability of
having just ONE *composite and full* backup image that *stands on its
own*.

Why? The other method is equally simple and reliable.

PLUS: sometimes I use Windows Explorer to copy a file or two out of
that backed up image file.

You would still be able to do this.

It's your choice, obviously. If you only want to deal exclusively with
full backup images, that's your prerogative. It's not necessary and will
actually take you a bit longer, but if that's what makes you happy, go
for it. After all, the really important point is that you have a regular
and reliable backup strategy, so that's good.