TrueImage 8 vs. Ghost 9?

Yes, as I understand it, it's certainly possible to backup without corruption in Windows (otherwise many backup programs would just be plain lying!). But this comment makes me wonder whether I have been suffering from a 'badly-behaved app'.

Since I tried Ghost 9 on a machine with NO other apps, I wonder if one of my drivers could be the culprit. Now this is pushing the limits of my knowledge, but Paranoid2000: do you think this is at least theoretically possible? Can drivers be badly bahaved in the way you're describing?

This was exactly the choice I made; I'd rather make the backups more frequently in Windows than be forced to make them less often because I could only spare the DOS downtime once a week.

Just to note, the reason I was having to set aside four hours for the Ghost 2003 backups (well, maybe about 3.5hrs) was because it has to remain in DOS while it verifies the image. And indeed, I just have a lot of data!

 

4.5GB in a minute?! I want that system!

If doing the restore in Windows, the speed should be similar. Via a DOS bootdisk, it is likely to be slower - though the UDMA drivers mentioned above may change matters considerably.

It should be possible - the key issue here is whether your DVD drive is accessible after starting with a DOS bootdisk. I would advise trialling this (with a different hard disk obviously) since this sort of thing can be affected by your system configuration (not to mention the type of DVD drive used).

The problem in this scenario is at what point you found out about this infection - most (non-adware) malware tries to keep a low profile so if undiscovered long enough, it could have affected backups by the time you do find it. However if you are burning to DVD and keeping every backup made indefinitely, this should be less of a concern.

I don't know enough about how Ghost functions to be able to comment authoritatively here - but if it has to run as a Windows service, it is quite likely to be using some other method of backing up data. It should however be worthwhile checking for updated drivers for your motherboard chipset - bugs here can cover a multitude of sins...

Verifying backups in Snapshot requires extra time also - but the verify is twice as fast as the backup so 100GB could come in at 3 hours (though some people seem to get much faster results...).

 

Let's use a concrete example to illustrate one of the problem behind imaging in windows. You start the image software at 9 am. The procedure takes two hours. During this period, you continue to work in windows by making changes to various programs like antivirus, firewall, JPEGs, office documents, windows, etc. No image software is capable of updating ALL these changes on-the-fly, from start to finish. Even if this is possible in the future, the program would constantly have to write/delete data in the image file, to stay current with the changes. This will take more time and CPU power.

I'm also interested in checking out the system that could image a 4.5GB chunk of data in one minute. That's 3x faster than non-windows imaging software (on a high end PC). The throughput speed should be higher during image restoration (no need to interpret and compress data).

The argument about not being able to take down windows to backup data is a valid one. However, this only applies to manufacturing equipments running 24/7. People do sleep/rest. Nothing is EASIER and more CONSISTENT than SCHEDULED TASK. Just setup the system to image your data when you sleep. Totally hands-off approach without slowing down your work!

Just remember that you will experience PC slowdown when you work in windows and run the image program at the same time. Some of the programs/tasks may not be accessible during this period. To me, this is an UNACCEPTABLE solution to data backup.

 

Imaging software does not need to keep up to date with the changes you subsequently make on a system - it just needs to create a consistent image based on your system at a specific point in time. That's the beauty of Drive Snapshot's approach - when you start it, it will intercept any attempted changes and backup the data if it has not already done so, giving you an image of the system at the time you started Snapshot.

There are other reasons for needing a PC up all the time like background processing (Seti@Home, Distributed.net), serving data (either as an ad-hoc webserver or a P2P node) or providing services (e.g. a private IRC server).

May I respectfully suggest you try Drive Snapshot first (a free trial is available with time-limited backup and unlimited restore capability) before making this judgement? It runs at low priority so does not interfere with other processes - unless they have the pathological need to overwrite your whole hard disk. Doing tasks on your system will slow down the backup, but should have little noticeable affect otherwise.

 

Yes, it does run as a Windows Service rather than an executable, but I'm not entirely sure what that means. Interestingly the manual is at pains to point out that it is unconnected to the native Windows 'volume shadow copy' service. At any rate, when I have an opportunity I'll see if I can change (or roll back) the drivers for the chipset etc.

Isn't this precisely what Ghost (and other in-Windows image progs) does?

Additional incremental backups really do take just a few minutes once the baseline image is created. I gather that programs which make differential backups are even faster than Ghost. But NB that I'm not saying 'Ghost is so great, and you are wrong' - after all, it doesn't work properly for me! But when it does work, I found it to be very efficient.

Woah, please, let's chill. I work all day on my PC, and unfortunately sleep just a few feet away from it. The sound of the fans and disk, together with the heat it gives out, keeps me awake. Trust me I've tried. Anyway, I shouldn't have to justify this... it's just my personal arrangement, so I need a backup prog that will suit my setup.

It's absolutely true that it does slow the machine down. But because my work is mainly word processing, the impact is negligable. I don't deny that it would cause more serious slowdowns if, for instance, you were designing 3-D graphics, etc. Nevertheless, Ghost 9 doesn't prevent the user accessing any programs, tasks etc.

 

Not anything special (Athlon XP 3200, 1gb ram), i think it's the harddisk-Western Digital Raptor s-ata (not raid), because i've noticed that my av scanning-times are faster than than similar setup's with a more "normal" 7200 rpm hd (a full scan with Kav only takes 10 minutes), or perhaps i have missed something, which is entirely possible.

EDIT: It turns out that i did miss something, at least i think so my hd is 35,291 gb, freespace is 28,5 gb, the snapshot says 2267mb read and 1287mb written, yet if i check through virtualdrive then everything is there, i am confused.

I will try this when my trial is running out then, if it works, well then Mr. Ehlert has found a new customer.

 

Snapshot compresses data as it images it - this won't do much for already compressed data (zip files, etc) but can make a useful impact on other data. If the 2267MB read was the final figure given, then it suggests you have mutliple partitions on your disk (each would need to be backed up separately).

 

Ah, i did look the website, but missed the part about compressing data.

Thank you Paranoid2000, you have as usual been a big help.

Regards

 

A modern high-end HD has a maximum continuous throughput speed of about 3.6GB/min. The real-world transfer speed is closer to 2.7GB/min. Add the processing time of the imaging software and you can expect to see somewhere between 1.2 and 1.8GB/min on a high-end PC. It is possible to hit a speed of 2.4GB/min during image restoration.

I'm not a fan of incremental backup. If something goes wrong with your original baseline image file, then you could be in big trouble. I prefer to work smart by keeping the OS as small as possible. My C WXP partition is only 700MB. Critical data reside in partition D (currently 450MB). The rest go in partition E. I only back up partitions C and D. Total imaging time for both partitions is less than 4 minutes. My 47GB imaging partition can store up to 80 days worth of back-up data.

 

I've tested Snapshot vs. DI 5. Snapshot can image the 700MB partition in 2min 23sec (346MB). Drive Image's time is 2:35 (343MB). With DI 5, I have the ability to create and restore image files from any one of my three C primary partitions. Snapshot can only create image file from the primary ACTIVE C partition. The other two inactive primary C partitions are not visible for selection. Furthermore, when restoring the image file of the the primary active C partition BACK to the primary active C partition, Snapshot said that it cannot run because the volume is in use. The other option is to dismount the volume. An attempt was made to dismount the volume but Snapshot generated an "error unmounting volume-fault windows error:5-access denied".

I suspect an attempt to reload the Snapshot image file outside of windows will work. But then we are back running the imaging software OUTSIDE of windows!

Snapshot is not a bad program. But it is not as powerful as a pure non-windows imaging software.

 

Two other points about Snapshot.

1.My CPU load remains at 100% when Snapshot is creating the image file. I can still open files, but any attempt to run a CPU intensive application such as DVD ripping or DVD playback it not acceptable.

2.To restore Snapshot data to an active primary partition containing Windows, the user must use a DOS boot disk! I don't need to insert a DOS boot disk with Drive Image 5 and Bootit ng when restoring image files.

 

Here is what Symantec said, even though their manual states the image file is not corrupt if you can browse it:
"Welcome to Symantec Online Technical Support.

I understand from your message that you have concerns with Norton Ghost.

Please note that we are experiencing higher than normal message volumes. We apologize for any inconvenience this issue may have caused you and thank you for your patience.

This error is reported if the image file is damaged or corrupted. Damage can occur when creating an image over a network if there is significant packet loss during the image creation process. Symantec recommends that you verify images after they are created to ensure their integrity.

As a workaround, create a new image file in a different location, or create a new image file with a different file name in the same location.

At times, the image file may be fine, but there may be a conflict with spyware detection software (such as Pest Control or Spybot), which may be either causing the image file to appear to be corrupted or causing the corruption.

While using Norton Ghost,disable spyware detection software.

This error can also occur if you copy an image file from one FireWire drive to another FireWire drive that is connected to a FireWire expansion card that uses a Via chipset (such as the Kouwell card).

To work around this issue, replace your Via-based FireWire expansion card with a card that uses a non-Via chipset (such as the Adaptec 4300 Fireconnect, which uses a TI chipset).

If these fixes do not correct the problem, run diagnostic tests or switch out your system RAM.

Please let us know if the issue is resolved or if we can be of further assistance.

Regards,

Symantec Authorized Technical Support"

 

OMG is this the advice they asked you to *pay* for?! This is a transcription of part of the manual. I distinctly remember reading the suggestion that you 'swap out your system RAM' and thinking to myself 'not on your nelly, mate!'. Oh dear. But thank you for posting it. Have any of their suggestions been helpful to you?

I believe I tried restoring an image that was reported as corrupt but was nonetheless browsable (and from which files could be extracted) and it didn't work. (

 

An interesting point - thanks for posting your findings here.

If you know of anything that can restore to an active Windows boot partition while using it, I'd like to hear about it. You need to either start a separate copy of Windows or use a bootdisk/CD/DVD.

Sorry - but you are talking about restoring images now. My previous posts were about backing up images - this is going to be the more common task for most and it is being able to do this without having to shut down your system which is the main benefit of programs like Snapshot.

As powerful? Arguably not. But more convenient? Yes.

Since Snapshot compresses the data, CPU utilisation does appear to vary according to the data itself. I find I can run "standard" tasks in the foreground with little slowdown but time-critical stuff could well be a no-no.

You can restore from Windows also as mentioned above - just use another copy (I keep a vanilla Win2K setup for this). Are you saying that Drive Image and BootIt can restore/overwrite the active boot partition from within Windows while it is in use?

 

DI 5 and Bootit ng do not run in Windows.

So the big hype is the ability to image the partition without having to wait 30 seconds to reboot? Snapshot is faster only if the image verification option is unchecked. It cannot image/restore a hidden primary partition. It requires a boot disc when restoring an active primary partition. DI5 and Bootit ng do not have these limitations. I believe most people would prefer the REBOOT key over a boot disc! There is no need to maintain "a vanilla Win2K setup" with DI5 and Bootit ng.

Most people don't have the know-how to configure "a vanilla Win2K setup". But they can hit the reboot key. A simple reboot will permit the user to create AND restore the image file. That's the beauty of non-windows imaging software. It's simple, robust, and powerful.

Another selling point of Snapshot is the ability to work in windows while the software creates the image file. Again, my test shows that the user can only do light PC work during this time. Honestly, how may PC users must keep their PCs ON 365 days/year? Even NT machines benefit from a reboot.

 

I don't have experience of DI5 and Boot It so won't comment on those issues, but...

With respect, I would reiterate my earlier point about the need to find a backup solution that is convenient to my particular setup and work pattern.

It's not that you're 'wrong' about this, and that I'm 'right', but that the variability of users and systems means there *is no* absolutely right or wrong way to back up.

It's true that most people don't keep their PCs on 24/7, but that indicates nothing about whether a DOS backup solution would actually be appropriate in any given situation.

 

Personal preference can be a HUGE factor in determining which software is right for you. I can only provide scientific data about the PROS and CONS of various imaging software.

BTW, NT machines cannot process DOS. DI5 and Bootit ng support DOS, but they also work outside the DOS environment (W2K, WXP). Bootit ng, for example, relies on your BIOS and MBR for many of its functions.

 

No - the "big hype" is being able to take a backup while doing work on your system as opposed to having to leave your PC for x hours to take an image using DOS-based software.

Important if you use hidden partitions - but most people don't.

A boot disk is one method but as I have explained, a separate Windows install is another. Of course, partitions other than the active boot one can be restored within Windows quite easily.

I'm not going to ask you to explain how doing a reboot with DI5 is any more or less convenient than doing a reboot with a bootdisk - the point of my previous posts is that Drive Snapshot is more convenient for taking backups. If you cannot (or will not) understand this then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Well I've just done a backup with Snapshot while checking email, browsing web pages, running 2 Java applets, a firewall, Proxomitron and editing some HTML help pages - with no perceptible effects other than the cooling fans spinning a bit faster. That is more than light work in my view and this is on a (by today's standard) modest 1GHz PIII system.

If BootItNG/DI 5 is better for your situation then fine - however DOS-based backup has disadvantages than can be more significant for others.

 

Here are the facts. I don't have FULL use of my PC when Snapshot is running in the background. The CPU load is at 100%! The HD is working at full capacity. Try DVD playback and tell me that you don't see this as a problem. I refuse work on a crippled PC, even for 3 seconds. I believe more people would prefer hitting the IMAGE icon at the end of the day to backup their data.

For those who are not searching for "ETs" 24/7, then just use the TASK SCHEDULER for 100% hands-off approach to data backup. You can run the program during dinner time. This shouldn't interfere with your beauty sleep.

With Snapshot, I must USE a boot disc if I want to restore an active primary partition. This applies to most mainstream PCs with ONE active primary C partition. Unlike Bootit ng, Snapshot does NOT come with a partition software. So we are talking about spending more $ to create additional extended logical partition(s) to make Snapshot as user-friendly as DI 5 or Bootit ng.

There is no need to use "a separate Windows install" with DI 5 or Bootit ng. Reboot the PC and you can image/restore ANY partition on your hard drive. You don't need to keep a copy of the boot disc. You can still restore data even if your floppy and/or optical drive(s) are DEAD. How's that for flexibility and convenience?

If you want to backup data, but CANNOT take windows off-line, then Snapshot will fit the bill. Just be aware of the limitations of windows-based imaging software.

 

That's why I put WXP in the C partition (700MB), important data in the D partition (450MB), and EVERYTHING else in the E partition. Imaging the C and D partitions takes less than 4 minutes. The stuffs in the E partition can be reloaded, so I don't waste time backing up E.

 

Sounds like you need to do a nightly backup to a large slave HD.

 

Could someone tell me if Raxco's First Defense is capable of reverting your hard drive like Symantec's Goback?

Right now I can go back 13 days with Goback (could be more) and on average about 10-12 different times for each day (sometimes more, it also depends how many times you restart your computer in each day).

Does Raxco's FD have the same ability to revert your hard drive as far back as Goback (at least 12 days) and is it capable of having as many possible times, in each day, that you could revert to (at least 10)? Thanks for any replies.