TrueImage 8 vs. Ghost 9?

Discussion in 'backup, imaging & disk mgmt' started by LuckMan212, Sep 7, 2004.

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

    iain Guest

    Dear all

    thanks for the further comments.

    like planetbill i have built PCs (including the present one), and similarly, just can't see what I'd be doing wrong.

    i have a 120gb sata seagate drive in the computer which is meant to back up to a 160gb lacie (maxtor) usb2 external drive.

    at one point i set up a new partition on the internal drive and installed *only* xp sp1 and ghost (plus the necessary .net update) and found that it worked maybe 4 times out of 5. on other setups it varies from working about one occasion in ten to 50% of the time. it's a total mystery as to why this should be - i have scrutinised the system to ensure that *nothing* different is running on each occasion, but still ghost behaves apparently in an entirely arbitrary way!

    just to clarify the problem: it can almost always create the image successfully, but when it verifies the image (either as part of the job or when I verify it manually in the image browser later), it says the image is invalid. if it tries to verify it as part of the job, but is unsuccessful in this way, it deletes the image it's made - planetbill, this might explain the vanishing images you described.

    however -- and here the plot thickens even more -- on every occasion, without fail, that it tells me the backup image is invalid, I am able to mount, browse and extract files from the offending image with NO problem at all. Now whether the image would be good for a system restore, I don't know, and I am reluctant to count on it!

    planetbill, you are right about the symantec tech support - it's a fiasco. i strongly resent having to pay to talk to them.

    no13, I'm not sure how useful GoBack is in the case of a total system failure. Presumably to be on the safe side it is good to have an image of the entire drive that you can access without windows, right?

    Oh and one last rant about the incremental backups: it seems that if you get one bad incremental, you have to scrub all of them and re-do the baseline image. This is because it keeps increasing the number of the incremental file name - a missing incremental causes it to apparently "skip" one, which then confuses it. AGH!

    What is SOOO frustrating is that in principle it is a GREAT idea to be able to back up like this within Windows. When it HAS worked, it's been swift. But of course, what is the use of a backup prog if you can't rely on it?

    Final question: planetbill, do you have special SATA controller drivers..?
     
  2. no13

    no13 Retired Major Resident Nutcase

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Posts:
    1,327
    Location:
    Wouldn't YOU like to know?
    Would you be willing to try Digital Dolly (download.com)?
    They recommend it, and I believe it solves your purpose...plus its free...Do give it a look (41MB - SMALL, iso for 1 cd I believe)
     
  3. iain

    iain Guest

    Digital Dolly could be good - I haven't heard of it before - but do you know if it is genuinely free from spyware, adware etc.?

    Thanks.
     
  4. no13

    no13 Retired Major Resident Nutcase

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Posts:
    1,327
    Location:
    Wouldn't YOU like to know?
    Download.com says its free, i've seen its an ISO image... but that's it. I dn have CD Writer, so I can't be sure of the details, but DO read user opinions on download.com, one or two may actually be users instead of developers promoting their own product or competitors badmouthing it.
     
  5. iain

    iain Guest

    Alright, thank you for the suggestion. I will check it out later and report back here!

    I have an iso burning tool which is free and fantastic so if I do download the program it should be quite straightforward.
     
  6. no13

    no13 Retired Major Resident Nutcase

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Posts:
    1,327
    Location:
    Wouldn't YOU like to know?
  7. planetbill

    planetbill Guest

    This is a very similar setup to what I am doing. I too have the 120gb Seagate Barracuda to an external maxtor USB2 drive.

    Yes, I suppose they are special SATA drivers. At least I had to load them off of a floppy by hitting F6 during the XP install. However Ghost seems to see all the drives with no problem.

    Bill
     
  8. iain

    iain Guest

    How funny that we have the very same disks!

    Yes, I've heard about people needing to install SATA or SCSI drivers during XP setup. What's very strange is that I didn't need to; and I've never had any other problems as a result. The "Intel 82801EB Ultra ATA Storage Controllers" which are automatically configured by Windows after the intel INF update work fine. But maybe I should be using some other controller?

    The intel site -- needless to say! -- is nigh on useless, prattling on as it does about RAID accellorators etc., but making no mention of single SATA setups.

    Any ideas?
     
  9. nwb

    nwb Guest

    I have had the same Ghost 9.0 experience as a previous post, which stated that every time a backup is created, the image is reported as being successful, followed immediately by a report stating the PQI file is invalid or unsupported. This occurs if you have the option checked to validate the backup image after creation. If you turn this option off, you do not receive the error.

    Additionally, the user manual states that if you can view the individual files in the image browser then it is just as good as using the software validation. Therefore, since I could browse the image, I thought everything was fine.

    This is NOT the case. When I lost my drive and had to do a restore, Ghost 9.0 validated the image file and proceeded to copy data. About 5% into the job, I recieved an error, "EA39070A Internal Structure of PQI File Invalid or Unsupported". This happens EVERY time.

    As also previously mentioned, there is no "Knowledge Base" (probably because the product is new). I have submitted a ticket to Symantec Support services and am waiting for a reply...
     
  10. iain

    iain Guest

    Hi nwb, and thanks for posting your experience.

    Like you, I can browse (and extract files from) even the 'invalid' images... but of course this is no use when it comes to doing a system restore, as you unfortunately found.

    It would be interesting to see if you have any of the same components in your PC as me. In particular are you using an Intel D865 motherboard? And are you using a SATA disk?

    Do please let me know if you get any useful info back from Symantec!

    Thanks
    iain
     
  11. nwb

    nwb Guest

    Hello iain,

    Interestingly, my hardware configuration is quite different. I have a MSI motherboard with a SIS chipset, and two Western Digital IDE hard drives.

    I am also backing up to an external Seagate USB 2.0 hard drive, in addition to the internal drives.

    I will certainly let you know what I hear from Symantec.

    Best Regards
     
  12. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    Anyone considering disk imaging software should also check out Drive Snapshot. It's a small (140KB) application that can take backups in Windows without affecting other applications, should work with all RAID setups and can also be run in DOS to restore an image (i.e. you can use a boot floppy to do a restore - all you need are NTFS drivers if the image backup file is on an NTFS partition).
     
  13. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    Among others I use Drive Snapshot. Very quick, and easy to use. Haven't done a restore, but the explorer options works great, and I can use the dos disk to verify the image. Also the author will respond to E-Mails within 24 hours.

    Also have been trying Paragon's Exact Image. Imaging was painless, but can't access image from recovery disk. Emailed Techsupport SUnday and am still waiting.
     
  14. iain

    iain Guest

    nwb - ok so it's not the motherboard! Interesting that you are backing up to USB 2.0 also. I had wondered whether it was a problem with the external drive or its connection to the PC, but experienced the same problems with Ghost when backing up from the internal hard drive to itself (or from one partition of it to another). I also tried varying the USB port setup in the BIOS (from full to hi speed, etc) but that made no difference.

    Paranoid2000, thank you for the tip. However as I think I mentioned earlier in the thread I am reluctant to spend more on another backup product. I know this sounds a bit stubborn (especially with something as important as backups!) but I am thinking that 'sod's law' will mean I find a Ghost fix the very day after I've bought another product. :-S
     
  15. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    Drive Snapshot can be downloaded on a trial basis (the download has time-limited backup and unlimited restore functionality) so you can test it out without purchasing. But if you feel you've spent enough for the time being then that's your call to make. :) Hope you do find a fix.
     
  16. Can anyone tell me if there is a good basic easy to use (that actually works) image program (for a newbie) that can be used without disabling Symantec's Go-Back? I am not going to disable Go-back, it has just saved my backside too many times and there's no way I would be without it. So are there any good Image programs that will still work with Go-back left on? Thanks in advance.
     
  17. nod32_9

    nod32_9 Guest

    The image software must "LOCK" the partition before it can capture the data. The same with image restoration. Since there are no identically configured PCs, you may encounter an image software that CANNOT function properly IN windows. That's why good vendors provide a $ back guaratee. Even if you can achieve a "LOCK", you run the risk of corrupting the image file if you continue to work with windows in a locked/semi-locked state!

    The fool-proof method of drive imaging is to run the image program OUTSIDE of windows (DOS or Caldera DOS), when the image software can access/lock all data in the hard drive. It takes 30 seconds to reboot the PC. The image software will also be able to process data at a faster rate (600 to 800MB/min) since there is no OS overhead load.

    Bootit ng is probably the most robust drive image software that would meet these requirements.
     
  18. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    Not all imaging software has to do this. Drive Snapshot uses a driver hook in the Windows file access routine when doing a backup - when an application attempts to write to a file, Snapshot intercepts this and checks to see if the file has been backed up - if it has not, it backs it up before allowing the write to proceed. Anti-virus background scanners use a similar technique to scan every file before other programs can access them.
    The problem with this approach is that the PC is effectively unusable while the image backup is being taken - and this is going to take a great deal longer than just 30 seconds. This is therefore unsuitable for systems that are constantly in use, and makes backing up more of a chore that it should be.

    As for speed, in practice DOS is going to be far slower than Windows because it does not use DMA for high-speed disk access (relying on PIO instead, limiting maximum speed to about 8MB/sec). This can reduce the speed to a fraction of that possible on a properly setup Windows system. However a Linux based boot disk should be able to handle DMA - and there are some FreeDOS UDMA drivers now available.
     
  19. iain

    iain Guest

    Indeed, I used to use Ghost 2003 (which does its work in DOS), but the speed -- even with USB 2.0 -- was just excrutiatingly slow. It needs to stay in DOS to verify the image too, so in total the computer was unusable for about four hours. Given that my PC is in my bedroom I didn't want to sleep with it clattering away, so I kept having to go for four hour walks while it backed up!!

    This was, ironically, the reason why I switched to Ghost 9.0 - because it claims to be able to back up in Windows. And on the rare occasions when it does mysteriously work, it's much faster.


    With regards to "still looking"'s request for a program that can work alongside GoBack, it's true that Ghost 9.0 requires you to turn off GoBack, but I would suggest that if you can get Ghost 9.0 to work correctly, and you set it to make incremetal backups every hour (for instance), you may find it an acceptable alternative to GoBack. It is very easy to use (when it works!).
     
  20. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    Hi Still looking.

    I suspect the answer to your question may be no. Problem is that Goback modifies the MBR, and most imaging software prefers that that isn't done. I faced the same issue and finally resolved it by switching from GoBack to Raxco's First Defense-ISR. This program uses more diskspace the Goback, because it essentially takes a complete snapshot of your disk, so the snapshot uses the same space as you already use. HOWEVER, the two big advantages are 1) nothing you do can affect the snapshot. Unlock Goback which can loose history with lots of disk activity. 2). You can actually disable the preboot in FD-ISR take a disk image and then turn the preboot back on. No loss of history. Only potential drawback is image is bigger.

    Finally to switch to the snapshot just takes a reboot. On my system where my disk content is about 7 gig, to make an initial snapshot takes about 30 minutes. After that a copy/refresh takes about 2 minutes.

    Check it out www.raxco.com
     
  21. nod32_9

    nod32_9 Guest

    Lock/hook...the principle is still the same. To achieve the highest possibility of image file stability during the restoration process, the image software must copy the data when it is not in use. If windows is NOT 100% static during the entire imaging process (and it won't be if you are working in windows), then a very small change in configuration can corrupt the restored image file. Remember that the image software cannot copy EVERYTHING at one time. A good software designer will force the user to boot out of windows if he/she attempts to image the primary active partition containing the OS.

    I only said that rebooting will cost 30 seconds. I encourage those with a modern PC to compare the read/write speed of DriveImage 5 or Bootit ng (non-windows image software) to ANY windows-based image software. Note that NT machines do not use DOS. Four hours is about right if you're trying to image 100GB of data.

    Okay, so you are willing to sacrifice data corruption and CPU overhead load just to save 30 seconds of reboot time? Not a problem. I prefer to automate this task late at night when the PC is not in use. Task scheduler...the ultimate in simplicity and automation. I suppose those who MUST USE the PC 24/7 can say that rebooting is a chore.
     
  22. nod32_9

    nod32_9 Guest

    I take it that First Defense-ISR runs in windows. Based on your post, this program can process the initial data at a rate of 230MB/min. This is much slower than Drive Image 5 with Caldera DOS (Dell 4600, P4 2.4GHz, 1GB RAM, WXP Home). DI 5 creates data at a speed of 530MB/min (HIGH compression). Image restoration is north of 780MB/min (HIGH compression).

    The image creation speed of my old 600MHz PIII (Drive Image 5, 384MB RAM, WXP Pro) is 260MB/min. This PC has a FSB speed of 133MHz.
     
  23. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    Sorry, but this is not the same at all. A hook changes the way the operating system behaves. As such, this method does not require the monopolisation of resources that a lock does. As long as applications use the "standard" Windows file-access mechanisms there is no risk of corruption (if you are using badly-behaved applications that write to the disk directly, then all bets are off - and not just for backups either).
    The problem with this approach is that it makes backups a more difficult task - and impossible for machines that cannot be taken offline for the time needed. Backups need to be done regularly and frequently, and a program that can make this process as painless as possible will serve most users better.
    I can archive 30GB of data in 40 minutes with Drive Snapshot (at over 600MB/min on a 1GHz PIII laptop with a 5400rpm hard drive, most desktops should manage better). That means just over 2 hours for 100GB - and while being able to use the PC for other things (though data intensive work will slow down the backup).
    Drive Snapshot includes an option to verify the backup afterwards and allows you to mount it as a virtual drive if you wish to check individual files/folders. I've tested restoring an active boot partition and (aside from running a chkdsk on startup) it worked perfectly.
    There are those of us who have to stay online all the time... ;) *quickly checks and adjusts catheter and feeding tube*
     
  24. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    Hi Paranoid2000

    Being the curious person i am (and looking for backup software that actually work's), downloaded Drive Snapshot and after having done the first backup i am simply shocked. Just over one minute to backup 4.5 gb, i just couldn't believe it, so i used the virtualdrive option to check it and everything is there, quite amazing!

    I have couple of question's if that's ok. :)

    1. Is the restoring speed anything like the backup speed, or o_O

    2. Is a scenario this possible: Burn the image to dvd > erase the harddisk (using Killdisk) > use the "disaster recovery diskette" to boot and install the image from the dvd. o_O

    I guess what i am asking is if i have malware infection that my av/at can't clean/delete, is question nr.2 possible/necessary, or will "normal" restoring mode take care (erase) of the malware infection. o_O :)

    Regards
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2004
  25. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    Hi Nod32_9

    Yes FD-ISR runs in windows, in fact it only runs in windows. I do it offline as I do shut down my virus scanner. One thing that slows an initial scan is you are reading and writing to the same drive. Data transfer rates are higher and my time estimates were an estimate. But after the first initial creation of the snapshot there is really no reason to do it again, unless you want to create another snapshot(you can have 10 if you have the diskspace). Additional copies to refresh the snapshot is only 1 to 3 minutes on average.

    To give you an example, my system froze while I was cleaning my registry, and I had to do a cold reboot. Trashed the registry. System did reboot, but it was a mess. Recovery consisted of rebooting in the backup snapshot, a 2 minute copy, and a reboot back into primary snapshot. Much quicker than any solution.

    BUT like GoBack this doesn't help you a bit for a total drive failure. For that you do need a disk imaging program.

    Pete
     
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.