Re: Setting up an external hard drive - partioning and sharing issues



"Anna" <myname@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Ot9LvkvtJHA.5836@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
EM:
I was under the impression that in my previous posts re this thread I had
explained in some detail the *significant* advantage of the Casper 5
program (in my opinion, of course) over other disk-cloning (as well as
disk-imaging) programs in connection with Casper's so-called "SmartClone"
technology and how it (favorably) impacts on disk-to-disk (or
partition-to-partition) cloning speed when the program is used routinely
& frequently.

I trust you're *not* now asking me to provide you with some technical
treatise on how the program accomplishes this from a programming/design
point of view, but your question is really of the rhetorical kind, yes?

So let me try to answer this way based upon my experience with the
program involving some hundreds of disk (partition)-cloning operations...

The basic point of a disk-cloning program such as the one we highly
recommend - Casper 5 - is that by "cloning" the contents of one's
day-to-day working HDD to another HDD (internal or external), the user
creates a precise copy of his or her "source" HDD. Thus, a comprehensive
backup of one's system has been accomplished in one fell swoop, i.e., the
user has backed up his/her system including the operating system, all
programs & applications, and of course, all user-created data. In short -
*everything* that's on the "source" HDD. What better backup system can
one have?

While there are other disk-cloning programs (Acronis True Image is one)
that can perform this operation, Casper has a rather extroardinary
ability to create "incremental clones", using what Casper refers to as
its "SmartClone" technology. Understand that the "incremental clone" is a
complete clone of the source disk, not an "incremental file". The result
of this incremental clone process is that it takes the user only a
fraction of the time to create subsequent clones of the source HDD than
it would otherwise take using the typical disk-cloning methodology.

As an example...

When a typical disk-cloning program undertakes its disk-to-disk cloning
process it does so without regard that the "source" and "destination"
HDDs involved in the disk-cloning operation are the *identical* drives
that had been involved when a prior disk-cloning operation had been
undertaken. It doesn't matter to the disk-cloning program whether the HDD
now being cloned was cloned an hour ago, or a day ago, or whenever. The
"now" disk-cloning operation will proceed as if the HDD recipient of the
clone, i.e., the destination HDD is bare of data, even if that same
destination HDD was the recipient of a prior clone from the same source
HDD 10 minutes ago.

As a result...

The disk-cloning operation will take a substantial amount of time to "do
its work" each time the disk-cloning operation is undertaken, without
regard to the fact that perhaps only a relatively few changes involving
the source HDD's data has changed since the last disk-cloning operation.
So, as an example, let's say it takes about 30 minutes or so to clone the
contents of a HDD containing 40 GB of data to another HDD. Two days later
the user decides to again back up his or her system by undertaking
another disk-cloning operation. Presumably the data changes over those
two days haven't been especially large. But with the typical disk-cloning
program, e.g., Acronis True Image, it will take the disk-cloning program
just about the *same* period of time to perform current the disk-cloning
operation as it did originally, i.e., 30 minutes in the preceding
example. And so on and so on in the following days.

But with the Casper 5 program, the program has the capability of
recognizing *only* the change in data that has occurred from its last
disk-cloning operation and will proceed to "do its work" on that basis.
Thus, given the example above it will probably take less than 3 or 4
minutes to complete the disk-cloning operation. And so on and so forth.

So you can see what a valuable incentive this is for users to
systematically & routinely backup their systems with the Casper 5
program - knowing that the expenditure of time to complete the
disk-cloning operation will be relatively slight. Surely this is a strong
incentive for a user to maintain his/her complete system in a reasonably
up-to-date fashion. Obviously the amount of time it will take to complete
this "incremental" disk-cloning operation with Casper will be dependent
upon the total volume of data being cloned as well as the additions,
deletions, configuration changes, etc. that had been made since the
previous disk-cloning operation. So the user is encouraged to perform
these disk-cloning operations on a relatively frequent basis since by
doing so the expenditure of time in completing the operation will be
relatively trifling. This last point is crucial. The program works best
when it is used with a fairly high degree of frequency - perhaps not less
than once a week or even on a daily or two or three times a week basis .
When it is used in that manner, the expenditure of time in completing the
disk (partition)-cloning operation comes close to being trifling.

A quick example based upon one of my PCs HDDs containing total data of
about 50 GB. Note this is *total* data - including the OS, all programs &
applications, all my user-created data - in short, *everything* that's on
that "source" HDD.

I last used the Casper 5 program to clone the contents of that drive four
days ago. Naturally, like most users, I've made changes of various kinds
over that four-day period. Added, deleted, modified some programs,
manipulated this or that configuration, etc., etc. More or less the
typical kinds of changes made by most users over a period of time.
Earlier today I again cloned the contents of that source HDD to one of my
internal HDDs. It took just about four (4) minutes. Four minutes.

And keep in mind that the recipient of that clone - the destination HDD -
will be a precise copy of the source HDD with all its data immediately
accessible in exactly the same way one would access data from their
source HDD - their day-to-day working HDD in most cases. And the
destination HDD, should it be an internal HDD or installed as a internal
HDD from an exterior enclosure will be immediately bootable without the
need of any recovery process.

So that if my source HDD becomes dysfunctional for any reason - I have at
hand a bootable HDD that will return my system to a functional state in
virtually no time at all. Had I cloned the contents of my source HDD to a
USB external HDD (instead of an internal HDD), I could restore my system
in reasonably short order by cloning the contents of the USBEHD back to
an internal HDD or, should the hard drive itself be removed from the
external enclosure it could then be installed as the system's internal
HDD - fully bootable & functional.

Again, what better backup system can one have?
Anna


"Enquiring Mind" <Enquiring.Mind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OY3gAB3tJHA.3848@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anna,

Thank you for explaining in further detail how Casper accomplishes the
task of creating disk clones, how it achieves relatively quick
performance, and the rationale for using it.

Without any hands-on experience of any disk imaging or disk cloning
program, other than tools that ship with the operating system, I can see
that both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. This my assessment
based on the information provided in this thread:

A. Disc imaging approach
1. Since the disk image is a single file, we can back up multiple disks to
a single disk without having to partition the disk. The disk will simply
contain one image file for each source disk.
2, The size of the disk image file generated is approximately equal to the
volume of data on the source disk. Thus if the source disk has a capacity
of 80 GB but only contains 3 GB of data, then the image file will be in
the region of 3GB in size. On the other hand, a disk clone must be created
to accommodate the full size of the source disk, in this case 80 GB.
3. The disk image file can be encrypted and/or compressed.
4. The disk image file is a file, not a bootable disk, so in the event of
the death of the source disk more work needs to be done to recover the
data from the image file to a bootable disk.
5. Multiple image files for a succession of back-ups can be accommodated
in a single disk/partition (of sufficient size).

B. Disk cloning approach
1. We need a separate disk or partition for each source disk or partition
that we wish to backup. Not suitable for maintaining a succession of
backups.
2. The disk clone, if on an external hard drive, may make private files
public, but cannot be easily encrypted.
3. The disk clone makes system restoration a breeze if on an internal HD.
4. Backup to a disk clone is very simple, because there are few choices to
be made.

I shall need to weigh up the pros and cons as they have a number of
implications! But the disk cloning approach does sound like an attractive
option!

Regards,

EM


EM:
By & large I think you've covered the basic differences between disk-cloning
& disk-imaging as they apply to creating a comprehensive backup system for
one's PC.

Just a few comments...

With respect to the disk-imaging approach (referring to your numbered items
above)...
1. Keep in mind that while the *original* disk-image (Acronis refers to it
as an "archive") created by the user is a single file, presumably the user
will be subsequently creating *incremental* files ("archives") necessary to
maintain up-to-date backups of one's system. Both the original file
(archive) and subsequent incremental files will ordinarily be retained until
either they're used for recovery purposes or the user decides the sheer
number of them is too unwieldy to continue and simply "starts over" by
creating a new "original" disk-image backup, deleting the existing
files/archives in the process.

While there's no need to create multiple partitions on the "destination"
drive to serve as the recipient of these disk-images, folders would
ordinarily be created to house the images from different "source" HDDs.

In any event, please do not attach too much importance to the issue of
creating partitions on the destination HDD either in terms of difficulty or
amount of time needed to do so. This is a very simple operation that can be
easily achieved through XP's Disk Management snap-in or using the Casper 5
program during its disk-cloning operation.

2. With respect to the disk-image, there will (usually) be a certain amount
of compression provided by the program so that the resultant file/archive
will be somewhat smaller than the actual size of the contents that are
imaged. In the case of the Acronis program we have generally found that this
reduction via compression is somewhat in the order of 20% - 25%. So, taking
your example, of 3 GB of contents being "imaged", the resultant file/image
would be about 2.5 GB or so.

But you've misunderstood this situation with respect to the disk-cloning
process. (Again, my comments refer specifically to the Casper 5 program)...

Again, using your example of an 80 GB HDD (or partition) that contains 3 GB
of data, as I previously explained, the user could easily create a partition
on the destination drive *equal* to the size of the data being cloned - in
this case, 3 GB. Or, he or she could create a larger size to anticipate
future increases in the size of data subsequently cloned. The choice of the
size of the partition rests with the user, the *only* limitation being that
the partition must be of sufficient size to contain the cloned contents.

And, of course, there is no compression of data using the disk-cloning
process. A clone is a clone is a clone.

It is true that in the usual scenario - where a user has a single day-to-day
working HDD (which probably represents the overwhelming number of cases) -
that user will employ the "destination" drive (internal or external) as the
dedicated recipient of the cloned contents of their source HDD and simply
create disk-to-disk clones and not be concerned in any way with partition
manipulation. In your situation where you're working with two different PCs
and apparently desire a single USBEHD to serve as the recipient of the data
from each of those two PCs, obviously the creation/manipulation of
partitions is important.

In many cases we find that where a user is working with both a
laptop/notebook and a desktop machine they simply use two separate drives to
serve as recipients of the clones from each machine. Given the dramatic
decreases in costs for these devices over the past few years it's not a
terribly expensive proposition for many users to go that route.

3. See above re the compression issue.

4. Yes, you have it right. There's a "recovery" process that is necessary,
but it's not particularly onerous or too terribly time-demanding. In any
event, what is important is that the process be *effective*, not the amount
of time it takes to return the system to a bootable, functional state. As I
have tried to point out in my previous posts, it is the routine *backup*
operation that's important from an expenditure of (user) time point-of-view.
Presumably, in the vast bulk of cases, the user will be performing scores,
if not hundreds, of backup operations before a recovery of the system will
become necessary. It's this extroardinary speed of the backup operation
(cloning) that makes the Casper 5 program so superior in my view. But as I
have emphasized the program must be used with reasonable frequency to
achieve this advantage.

5. Yes, I'm assuming you're referring to incremental disk-image files
(archives) here.

With respect to your observations re the disk-cloning process...

Yes, as I've previously indicated, should a user be primarily interested in
maintaining "generational" copies of his/her system at various
points-in-time, a disk-imaging program lends itself better to that goal.
While relatively few home PC users are interested in that objective, in that
they are exclusively interested in maintaining an up-to-date backup of their
system(s), many commercial entities require that capability for obvious
reasons.

While a disk-cloning program could be used to some extent for that purpose,
it would depend upon the volume of data to be cloned together with the size
(disk-space) of the destination drive(s). For example, we know of a number
of Casper 5 users who are interested in retaining 2, 3, or 4 previous clones
of their systems and in many cases this can be easily accommodated given the
enormous capacity of today's HDDs - both internal & external.

May I again suggest, as I've done throughout this entire thread, the only
*real* way to determine which program best meets your needs is to experiment
with them. In the final analysis, only a "hands-on" approach will determine
what's best for you. Fortunately, many of these programs have demo or trial
versions available so you can gain at least some understanding as to whether
this one or that one will best serve you. And, as you have discovered, there
are a number of freely available programs you can test out as well.

What I'm trying to impress upon you (and others) is simply this...

Don't rely on theoretical explanations (from me or anyone else) of what this
program or that program or this approach or that approach can do or not do
for you. Work with these different programs as best you can so that you -
and only you - will determine the appropriate approach/program needed in
your unique situation.
Anna


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ghost/Clone Hard Drive?
    ... I used Spotmau Clone Genius but while the clone did ... problem trying to clone Vista from my HDD to an OCZ SSD using Norton ... I would strongly second Gene's suggestion to take a look at the Casper 5 ... But the truly significant advantage of the Casper 5.0 disk cloning program ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.general)
  • Re: Seagate(Acronis) cloning not working right.
    ... I am trying to clone my Disk ... Maxtor or Seagate HDD. ... The next screen will indicate the source and destination drives. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware)
  • Re: Ghost/Clone Hard Drive?
    ... I used Spotmau Clone Genius but while the clone did ... problem trying to clone Vista from my HDD to an OCZ SSD using Norton ... I would strongly second Gene's suggestion to take a look at the Casper 5 ... But the truly significant advantage of the Casper 5.0 disk cloning program ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.general)
  • Re: second HD with drive image
    ... make a clone - a byte-for-byte copy of the partition. ... Casper 4.0 handles Vista as well. ... We've been working with the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program for about three ... HDD so that if the recipient of the clone is an internal HDD, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Windows XP Function After Hard Drive Upgrade
    ... how does one clone the hard drive? ... perform the disk-cloning operation - transferring the complete contents of ... your 80 GB HDD to your new WD HDD. ... disk-cloning operation. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)