ANY IMAGE SOFTWARE : POINT TO THINK OFF

HI ALL

i just want to share with you my thinking on any image software out there...

if you need to make a backup (apart from OS) its be very foolish using any of thoos image software and i will explain why

if you have lets says 1 giga of docs (or what ever) and u are backup this with any image program , it make it 1 big size file...
from here its very clear... the disk scratch or cant be read completely your in trouble.

none using any image progy and burn the files as it is using your favorite burnning software will always keep you the opportunity to copy file by file ; loose leess data.
also if the bigs backeuped files kept on HD it can get cross link and other hds "disease" and u loose it all.

also if u want to restore the backup u made (date backup like docs mp3s etc) you have to make sure to pc got any of this image program install in order to to that ( very limiting)

conclusion

using any image program is best using (only) for backup your os in order to get back to work fast running the os coz there is no other way, and it be wise to leave all other backups method to your favorite burning software..

cheers

 

i am sorry, i disagree on every argument you present.

firstly, cd/dvd are really bad for storing valuable stuff on for ever and ever. i think we've all had a visually ok cd without scratches or anything, that just cant be read.

plus, both acronis and ghost (the only ones i've used for 'serious business') can compress the images, text files are highly compressable. and the funny thing? error correction. by sacrificing a couple of % of potential saved space you can save stuff.

IBM is (as usually) laughing all the way to the bank, when they're going to pick up the money major corporations give them in boatloads for using their Tivoli backup suite.

and well. when backing up you're supposed to keep at least two separate copies of the backup, on separate physical locations, in case of fire and so on.

but on a 1:1 comparison, i would trust a hard drive or tape more than a cd/dvd.
then add SCSI/SAS redundant arrays storing said image, and i am indeed a happy camper.

dvd's are fine for storing stuff cheaply that you can afford to loose.
many of my clients have their "daily backup" on hard drives, and the really old backup goes on dvd's and then put in the cellar, because they don't think they'll ever have to restore somthing from it.

 

exthernal hi there.

ppl make money from lots of thing....selling ice to the eskimos its called.
there be always new suckers out there.

and for the point. u should read some of ppl problem here which are the edge of the ice and think again of your saftey backup method.coz u can use RAID5 + BACK SERVER DOMAIN and u are done..... we are talking on home users pal...top a little office not IBM MAINFrame COMPUTER LABS facility lol

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=198874

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=198885

cheers

 

I actually agree with you. I only use true image to backup my c: system partition, which I keep small enough to fit in one dvd. The program works great for that and have it used to many times to recover my hard drive.

Everything else I backup with "no compression" to another hard drive. I prefer it that way, so I don't have to worry about a backup file getting corrupted etc. I only put my most valuable data on high quality dvd media.

Using imaging to backup a 300gb hard drive, besides taking hours to backup and restore. I've read too many horror stories in these forums to have confidence that it will be succesful everytime.

 

It's very unlikely that one backup technique or strategy will be the best fit for everyone's needs.