Re: Partition size
- From: "Twayne" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:20:25 -0500
The date and time was Friday, January 02, 2009 1:55:50 PM, and on a
whim, Twayne pounded out on the keyboard:
The date and time was Wednesday, December 31, 2008 10:29:02 AM, and
on a whim, olfart pounded out on the keyboard:
"Terry R." <F1Com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageMy backup method works fine for me. I have 3 hard drives; 1 for
news:ew737f2aJHA.4660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The date and time was Wednesday, December 31, 2008 8:19:45 AM, andTry cloning instead of imaging. www.fssdev.com and check out
on a whim, Daave pounded out on the keyboard:
It should take about fifteen minutes for your initial imaging ofYou've got a heck of a system to image 250 gig in 15 minutes...
a 250GB hard drive. Subsequent incremental images will take less
time.
--
Terry R.
Casper. Cone your drive to an external drive. If you have a
problem or drive failure in your compute just remove it and
install the cloned drive in it's place and you are good to go.
I have 2 - 250gb SATA drives in my computer. After the initial copy
it now takes me about 7 minutes to clone each drive.to externals. I
do it at least once a week so I stay pretty much up to date.
OS's, 1 for data, 1 for programs. Data is backed up to a different
drive each day. I create backup partitions of the OS's & program
partitions alternating between the other 2 drives. I use Partition
Magic to copy the partitions to the other drives, and also have
images of each once per month on 2 external drives.
But I still don't see someone imaging/cloning/whatever a full 250
gig in 15 minutes...
I think it's probably an OK number. I have a fairly large, not huge,
amount of data on my system drive on this machine and it takes
about 37 minutes to create an image, about 23 minutes to bring an
image back. I use Ghost 14. On my other production machine, using
a different imaging program, it takes MUCH longer to do the backup,
and similar for the Restore of an image.
How long it takes is going to depend on how much data there is to
move in the faster programs. Also remember that many programs will
default to ignore things like restore points, recycler, recycle bin,
etc. so the amount of data drops again. The unused portions of a
disk aren't really copied; they're only verified to be empty and
created all at once in the backup (which I always turn OFF), so it
isn't a full 250 Gig or whatever that actually gets moved anyway;
only the actual data and its locating tables, less whatever was
defaulted to not back up. An application such as cloning, etc.,
however may very well copy every sector and track, in order, and will
thus take a lot longer. It depends on how the app handles the job.
AFAIK, anyway.
Personally I don't care as long as the "image" is a true "image",
how it was made. It's more important that it do what it advertises
and does it well. Twayne
"Fairly large" doesn't mean anything. There isn't any
hardware/software out there I know of that can back up 250 gigs in 15
minutes, whether it's tape, hard drives, or whatever.
All relative; and the points aren't based on 250 Gig of data but rather
an unspecified amount of data on a 250 Gig "drive".
I don't believe the claim was that 250 Gig of data was backed up, was
it? It was stated to be a 250 Gig drive, I thought. There wasn't any
indication of the amount of data so unless it was a sector by sector,
track by track backup of the entire disk surface, regardless of any data
being in it, the time to backup would be considerable shorter. All the
words were about "backing up a 250 Gig hard drive" not 250 Gig of data.
Most software doesn't actually copy unused sectors; it simply creates
unused sectors at the destination via tables. In addition, I don't think
the words "Full" or incremental or partial or any other types were ever
used to define what was backed up, unfortunately. Thus it has led to a
lot of assumptions here.
I backed up my workstation partitions earlier today to external USB2
hard drive using ATI. 50 gig of data on the partition took 30
minutes.
Sounds good, a little better than mine, probably. It doesn't sound like
it'd make a huge difference, but 7200 rpm disks vs the older 5400 rpm
makes a rather noticeable time difference too. The old Dell Dual Xeon
behind me takes a lot longer to back up than this computer does and it
has a much lighter sofware install; basically 2k server & not much else,
with 2 80 Gig WDs, one compressed.
At the network I was at today, I did a differential backup of the
Exchange mail store. 40 gigs took 28 minutes, w/verification. That's
with a fast IBM Ultrium 3 LTO-3 drive (80 MB/s). The last data backup
performed was 266 gig that took 5 hrs.
Sounds a bit long, but with verification & other probably differences,
it's probably right on the money. Well, it is on the money since that's
what you said<g>. My own Full/Incrementals all run at night here so
unless I look at the logs I don't notice how much time they take but I'd
imagine mine would be around 4 hours & that's just two approx 50%
occupied drives of 160 & 360 Gig, and to an external 500 Gig WD USB
drive and compressed. It's usually a little under 250 Gig of data total
IIRC. Full backups only happen once a month & the rest are
incrementals.
Cheers,
Twayne
.
- References:
- Re: Partition size
- From: Twayne
- Re: Partition size
- From: Terry R.
- Re: Partition size
- Prev by Date: Repair console administrator password conundrum
- Next by Date: RE: erratic memory stick
- Previous by thread: Re: Partition size
- Next by thread: Re: Toy Stylin Studio
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
