Drive Clone 3 Pro & Norton Ghost 12

Discussion in 'backup, imaging & disk mgmt' started by Durad, May 31, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kennyboy

    kennyboy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Posts:
    431
    @ Jo Ann. Good point because I am certainly not an ATI fan at all. Guess we are just "lucky" with their boot disk.

    @ Peter. Yes I actually learnt from you to restore the image almost every time. It is slightly more reassuring when it is really needed then.

    Have actually just tried imaging and restoring with DSnapshot 1.38 trial version. Results below.

    Imaging External USB Drive to internal Drive. Size 38Gb.
    Imaging took 22mins and Image size 28Gb. Success.
    Restore took 38mins. Success.
    This was from within Windows, as I do not have boot disk.

    Incredibly simple procedure and just worked! Dont know how the times would compare when in dos, but seemed comparable with other mentioned programs.

    Astonishing results considering the installed program is about 2Mb and does not change the system or configuration
     
  2. Jo Ann

    Jo Ann Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Posts:
    619
    Holy Moley, Batman - you can't be serious! While I certainly believe in proving your imaging/restore procedure actually works (by doing a few 'real' restores), it seems to me you're taking this to a rediculous extreme!
     
  3. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    Don't forget that Peter has a fast computer and ShadowProtect which does backups and restores in less than 5 minutes. If you have all that, you can restore as many times as you backup. :D
     
  4. Jo Ann

    Jo Ann Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Posts:
    619
    It wouldn't change my mind even if he had a Cray XT4 Supercomputer - although he has every right to his beliefs (had to add that because he's a mod)! :p
     
  5. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    Actually, the way I verify any image I take is by restoring it. That way I know it works. Yes, maybe a bit extreme, and also I did get into beta testing ShadowProtect. But as a result of this, I give doing a restore about the same thought as say opening a word document. I've tested to the extreme. Things like live imaging in windows, incrementals. For example I left a job running on my business machine, taking a 15 minute incremental throught out the day. After 3 days I picked a point where I had almost 60 incrementals and did a restore. Worked fine.

    Bottom, line is I am totally confident that my imaging will enable me to recover from disaster, including those that are self induced.

    Let me ask a question. Assuming you use your computer for your livelihood, would be willing to wipe out the drive, and restore it 30 minutes before the start of business. I am confident enough I'd do it without a thought.
     
  6. Jo Ann

    Jo Ann Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Posts:
    619
    In all seriousness Pete, I just can't go along with that concept. The way I look at it there's always some risk (no matter how small) in performing a restore. So my position is that while you certainly should prove to yourself that it will work when needed, making restores a daily procedure is exposing yourself to unecessary risk. But as they say, "different folks, different strokes". :doubt:
     
  7. nexstar

    nexstar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Posts:
    371
    Location:
    Southampton, UK
    This got me wondering. I always do a verification of my backups (and any copies of backups) so that I _know_ that the image is ok (except in the case of previous versions of ATI I have used when it verified and then decided it was corrupt when needed....but that shouldn't be the norm).

    So I presume that the verification consists of some sort of checksum routine which determines that the sum of the bits read is the same as the sum of the bits written, or some other clever strategy.

    Is it possible in your scenario, Peter, that some corruption could take place on either saving or restoring the image which allows the system to operate but may come along and bite at some later stage? Or is there also some form of verification happening when the image is being written back? Just curious :) .

    I often do this without a thought. That's the problem! :)

    Graham
     
  8. nexstar

    nexstar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Posts:
    371
    Location:
    Southampton, UK
    Also consider going to the Ultimate Boot CD site and creating an extemely useful boot CD. It is not difficult and will give you a Windows environment to work in together with lots of useful tools :) . Also, as long as your external is connected on boot up then it will be detected.

    It does take longer to boot than the dos disc (4 minutes in total here with a fully-laden CD on a slow system) but you may find that the convenience compensates for the waiting time.

    Graham
     
  9. flinchlock

    flinchlock Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Posts:
    554
    Location:
    Michigan
    To answer your question, sure... maybe. ;)

    FYI, from the Ghost 2003 Ghost_Guide.pdf, page 63...
    (my red highlighting)

    I would "assume" all paid? imaging software, has a similar technique.

    Mike
     
  10. flinchlock

    flinchlock Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Posts:
    554
    Location:
    Michigan
    OK, I understand.

    Mike
     
  11. flinchlock

    flinchlock Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Posts:
    554
    Location:
    Michigan
    Since I have only used GHOST 2003 forever, and *nix for 10 times forever, and Paragon Drive Backup for a week, I will agree with you (for now :D).

    Well, if "sloppy" = "incomplete", OK.

    I did read your post, I just added that for other readers to stress how important labels are.

    "Hope this clarifies a bit." :D

    Mike
     
  12. flinchlock

    flinchlock Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Posts:
    554
    Location:
    Michigan
    WOW, I will also have to try it!

    Mike
     
  13. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    @nexstar

    i'd say the risk of corruption over time is small. I don't move or copy those files. I keep four sets of images, image every couple of days, and through out the oldest, so I'd say the risk is quite small.

    @Jo Ann

    You are absolutely right, there is that small risk, but it can reduced to a neglible point. First by experience, I have probably done several hundred restores on both my machines. Only two failures, and those weren't image problems but problems due to the invidia drives MS chose to put in VistaPe which I was testing. A failed image doesn't concern me because first thing I do before imaging, is refreshing/updating my FDISR off disk Archive. Thus if the image I just took fails, I simply restore an earlier one, or an earlier one until one works. I've now restored my system to an earlier date. But using the FDISR archive, I bring the system current. This has been tried and is tested. Works.

    Like security, backup is all about layers.

    Pete
     
  14. doctorow

    doctorow Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Posts:
    22
    I tried evaluation copies of all available image backup tools, and DriveSnapshot has been the most impressive. It's simple, doesn't require the installation (can be run directly from a single exe), worked great under Vista, and it's very fast.

    Only caveat: You must know how to create your own Windows PE disk with DriveSnapshot installed. The standard recommendation of using a dos disk sucks.
     
  15. flinchlock

    flinchlock Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Posts:
    554
    Location:
    Michigan
    like @Jo Ann said, "different folks, different strokes". ;)

    I grew up on DOS, my favorite "GUI" is attached. o_O

    Mike
     

    Attached Files:

    • dos.png
      dos.png
      File size:
      4.9 KB
      Views:
      206
  16. nexstar

    nexstar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Posts:
    371
    Location:
    Southampton, UK
    Thanks for the info. Looks good to me. I'll sleep easier now tonight ;)

    Yes, I'm sure you are right. Paranoia rules! (doesn't it? ;) ).

    Graham
     
  17. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    Hi Mike

    The only thing about the DOS mode of Drive snapshot, is disk designation. Running under windows(for real or Bartpe) you can see enough info to clearly identify the disks. Under the DS dos disk all you have is HDD0 and HDD1 etc. Awfully easy to make a mistake which would be disasterous.

    Also I wasn't sure if it was really imaging the mbr and track 0, and giving you the option to restore them from the image. I've come to realize that is really important, in some setups.

    Pete
     
  18. flinchlock

    flinchlock Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Posts:
    554
    Location:
    Michigan
    Hmm, you asked that same question July 22nd, 2006, Question for Drive Snapshot Users, post #18 & #20. :D

    You sort of got an answer in post #21
    So, we are way off topic! :eek:

    Mike
     
  19. Huupi

    Huupi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Posts:
    2,024
    ShadowProtect is still my favorite one, because of its speed and I'm waiting for v3, which will have a faster loading Recovery CD. The CD of v2 is a disaster. I wouldn't recommend SP to less-knowledgeable users.
    DC3Pro or Norton Ghost are userfriendly enough for less-knowledgeable users.
     
  20. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    I did try the second option, but it loaded so much longer, I cancel it. What is the benefit of a fast restore, if the long loading time takes that benefit away.
    The loading time of v3 will be 50% faster than v2 and why is that ? BETTER programming, nothing else and it will be still slower than the Linux CD of PHDM.
    At this moment both CD's are a disaster and remain a disaster until SKILLED programmers fix it or do you think that all programmers are equal ? :)
     
  21. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    My Bad:mad:
     
  22. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    Better programming only if you consider Vista better. Thats the difference, VistaPE vs WinPe
     
  23. huntnyc

    huntnyc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    1,014
    Location:
    Brooklyn, USA
    Regarding bootable CDs and lack of speed booting, I would have still been using ATI if their Linux CD worked speedily with my configuarion. SP CD works beautifully but takes a while to load. Next version may correct the booting speed but will see if it is compatible with my system when they go to VistaPE. I see the recovery CD interfacing with various hardware configurations as the biggest stumblingblock for the imaging software vendors to overcome at this point. Whoever comes through with the fastest loading, easiest to use and most widely compatable recovery environmeent will get a close look from me.

    Gary
     
  24. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,065
    @peter2150,
    I dont think restoring every image is extreme.
    I have made around 30 images with paragon on my test pc and restored everyone without a hitch.
    since my test pc only has IDE drives i have restored using the linux based cd and the winpe cd.
    but i mostly i start the restore wizard in windows then it does the restore in a bluescreen preboot mode.
    the advantage of paragon images on my test pc is that everytime i want to test a new bit of software i can restore a fresh windows installation before i test it.
    so i can test as much beta software i want on my test pc with no worry.
    if windows wont boot i just stick in the recovery cd and restore an image.
    i have D: partition which i store the .exe and .msi files for testing on.
    do you have a intel core duo 2.93 dual core or quad core?
    lodore
     
  25. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    Do you mean I have to use WinVISTA to get that faster load-time of the SPrecoveryCD of v3. o_O
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.