Image on same drive as I want to restore to

HI,

I have created an image in an external drive F, made the boot CD then checked to see if I could see the image and it was there.

I put the F Drive into my laptop and booted to the CD.

I chose to recover but it just hung there. I just thought that maybe I have goofed, and not put the image on the same drive partition I want to recover to.

I am recovery the whole shebang XP and os and all.

Is there a way I can get out of this without having to take the HD out of the laptop to move the image to another partition?

Thansk

oz

 

Well ,some say to clean out your temp files, internet files, etc + wastebasket too. Might or might not help but good luck!

 

You can't recover an image to the same partition where it is stored.

In the restore process, the first step is to wipe the partition clean. That would delete the image, so no restore would be possible. Therefore, TI won't let you do that.

You could partition the "F" drive into two partitions and put the image on the second partition. Then you could restore it to the first partition.

 

If the original laptop drive is good, put it into the external case, transfer the Backup Image to it and then do the restore.

 

One of the main reasons for creating a back up image is to recover in case of drive failure. For that reason it makes no sense whatsoever to have your back up image on the same drive, even if it's on a separate partition. You need a dedicated drive for your back up images.

~Dave

 

I have restored no end of Ghost and ATI images for various reasons but not yet, fortunately, because of a drive failure.

While it is obviously preferable to store images on a different drive, it certainly isn't true to say there is no point otherwise.

 

I respectfully disagree. Storing back up images on the same drive you are backing up is just asking, no begging, for trouble.

~Dave

 

I suppose this depends on the purpose of the backup. If one is wanting to recover from a disaster, storing backups on the same filesystem is indeed a bad thing.

If someone wants to use incremental backups for some sort of file versioning, then I don't see a problem. I can imagine some cases where the main backups are performed by an IT department and are inconvenient to access. Having local incrementals of a folder or two could be worthwhile: fast access to prior versions of a file without bugging IT, while at the same time having full coverage for major disasters.

It doesn't sound like the situation the original poster was describing. I just wanted to suggest a case where storing backups on the same volume wasn't such a horrible thing.

 

I guess you have a point. But if your HDD dies (however remote the possibility), it will make any other concern moot. Better to plan for the worst and hope for the best. If what you are backing up is crucial to you, better get it off the main system.

~Dave

 

A lot of home users, interested in little more than emailing, browsing and storing their photos just have an over-the-counter system, with a single drive, and no backup situation at all. I always try to persuade them at least to use Vista to create a separate partition, and get ATI so that they have some protection should problems develop or if they should accidentally erase something.

Surely you can't deny the sense in that? And how can such an approach be 'asking for trouble'? It's nonsense.

 

I have replaced drives for people like that. Wouldn't have done them a bit of good to have a back up on a separate partition. *edit* When you lose a drive, you don't lose all except for the partition the back up image is on. Wasted time and money.

~Dave

 

You seem to be saying that a failed drive is the primary or even only risk you have to cater for. I would say a failed drive accounts for about 1 in 50 restores at most.

Looking at your previous posts I wouldn't expect you to agree of course

 

Well, once again, it depends on how important the stuff in the image is.

Give you an extreme example. Say you have a bottle with 50 pills in it. 49 are sugar pills, and one is cyanide. They are all identical. Would you shake the bottle and then take one of the pills? There's only a 1 in 50 chance you would suffer a "system" failure.

So it is with your HDD. If it's worth backing up, it's worth considering all the ways you can lose your data. It's an insurance policy. But it does not cover suicide.

*edit* It all boils down to this. If you talk someone into buying Acronis TI, and imaging their HDD to a partition on the same HDD, and they suffer a drive failure, you can explain to them the percentages of why that was a good idea. I do not choose to take that chance.

~Dave

 

I alsways keep a backup image on my notebook's second partition and have a TI boot disk in the case (I don't like the Secure Zone and the F11 Recovery Agent for personal reasons, but others might prefer that approach.) I never have my external drives with me because they are left safely at home.

If I have a virus, bad install, corrupted boot partition or just want to go back to the earlier state, I can always restore the image from the second partition. I'm not protected against a drive failure, but it's great insurance against lots of other problems. Backing up and restoring from a second partition is also faster than using external USB drives.

So, there are lots of good reasons to use a partition on the same drive for backups. However, it would be stupid to have that as the only location for backups if there is data on the drive that you don't want to risk losing, or if there is a lot of time involved is setting up the system that you don't want to repeat or can't afford the delay in repeating.

Dave49 clearly considers all systems to fit one of those cases. So, accepting that assumption, he's right.

Earthling considers that the way some people use their computers doesn't fit those cases. I think he is also assuming that most computers are discarded with the original drive they came with still working. That fits my observations in twenty plus years of computer consulting also. So, accepting those assumptions, he's right.

See, you are both right, and that's why you don't agree.