Live imaging of a machine in operation - pros, cons, experience?

Whether you do "cold" or "hot" imaging things can still go wrong. An image may have been made but only days or weeks later do you find something doesn't work on your computer the way it should and can't be fixed (this happened to me) maybe a virus you can't get rid of - then what ?

When I did a completely clean install I installed just the OS and my imaging software (in my case Macrium Reflect - paid version).
On the 2nd harddrive I create a folder called "Image - Original" Then I created a full image. I first added all current OS updates, did an incremental backup, then as I added applications (and new OS updates etc) I made incremental backups in to the "Image - Original" folder roughly every 1-2 hours or so until everything is reinstalled on my computer.
In fact I create a text file that I save in the same folder which briefly describes the changes I made to the computer from one incremental to the next. When finished I also create a full image, save it in the same folder but I keep the original full backup with all its increments. In my case the space used is about 50Gb for everything.

If I found out later that something went wrong during the re-instal which couldn't be fixed then I don't have to start from scratch again but I could just go back in time (as it were) until I am clear of the problem

Once its finished I make a folder where I create a full image and from then on do the procedure I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread.

This may sound like a lot of work but it really isn't. If months later I cant use the current images because they were imaged with a unfixable problem then I can restore from the `Image - Original ' folder - sure there are lots of updates to do but there is a huge saving in hours

Works for me

 

Yeah, I do something very similar on the occasions when a true clean install is either a necessity or just something I choose to do (I'm weird, I'll reinstall just for the hell of it sometimes, go figure). I make the installation "clean" without anything installed, not even updates - in fact, since I've installed Windows so many times over the years (well over 75,000 times total on thousands of machines, not only my own) I know the process by heart so I actually do an image after the installation is truly finished but before the first full official boot to the Desktop - that's my "pure" image, untouched and not even booted fully yet.

Then I'll do some updates, image it, more updates, image it (Windows 7 needs an SP2, seriously, and soon), then repeat till everything is fine, and yes the images after the pure one are incremental - I may have a lot of free time as a retired fellow but even I'm not that wasteful.

Anyway, I don't have any issues with doing what you just suggested, buckshee, been doing it for many years now, just not by the live imaging method, so that's the change here.

Ok, I did some testing and it looks like Macrium Reflect is going to be my choice. IFW is ok but a bit quirky and has entirely too many options not that I'd ever use them, but the point is the interface is just... well, ugh. Not to my liking.

I tested Macrium Reflect just after IFW and the first time I started the app I knew this was the winner, and after doing a test image it won in terms of speed faster than IFW to create the image to an external drive, faster to restore it, even faster than TI it seems because I installed that as well earlier, the actual Windows app and used it for the first time basically ever.

Will do more testing and other things but, so far it looks like Macrium Reflect is just the clear choice for me.

Again, thanks for all the input - hopefully anyone else in the same situation as me or thinking about live imaging will find the info just as useful as I have.

 

Hi Brian,

My personal opinion (considering the 'dynamics' of both scenarios, it just seems logical to me). Afaik, there are no objective studies on this subject, the benefits of defragging, registry cleaners, etc. Believe what makes the most sense to you.

Scott

 

Scott,

I agree about the absence of studies. I don't think the studies will ever be done as you would probably need millions of events to get statistical significance.

 

that's why i restore an image as soon as after i finished creating it.
to make sure it's ok.
so far, Terabyte IFW/IFS/IFl have never failed so far.

in my case, restoring the image is as fast as validating it.