Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage > #2377 > unrolled thread

How to compare clone of a partition with source partition

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage

Contents

  How to compare clone of a partition with source partition AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-14 20:56 -0800
    Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-15 16:18 +1100
      Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-14 21:42 -0800
    Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-15 13:39 +0000
      Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-15 11:43 -0800
        Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-15 20:23 +0000
          Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-15 12:49 -0800
            Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-16 01:18 +0000
              Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-15 20:52 -0800
                Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-16 21:49 -0800
                  Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-17 19:50 +1100
                    Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition Mark F <mark53916@gmail.com> - 2012-01-17 15:27 -0500
                      Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-17 21:30 -0800
                    Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-17 21:19 -0800
                      Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-18 17:04 +1100
                        Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-17 22:46 -0800
                          Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-18 20:42 +1100
                            Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-18 21:28 -0800
                              Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-20 06:27 +1100
                                Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-19 21:07 -0800
      Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-17 04:00 -0500
        Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-17 21:33 -0800
          Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-19 11:37 -0500
            Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-20 06:34 +1100
            Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-19 21:17 -0800
              Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-25 10:53 -0500
                Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-26 06:16 +1100
            Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition willbill <postonNG@postonNG.net> - 2012-01-20 12:52 -0600
              Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-21 08:49 +1100
                Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-22 21:29 -0800
                  Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-24 05:32 +1100
                    Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-24 17:54 -0800
                  Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition willbill <postonNG@postonNG.net> - 2012-01-24 12:22 -0600
                    Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-24 18:05 -0800
                      Re: How to compare clone of a partition with source partition AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-24 18:57 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#2407

On 15/01/2012 8:39 AM, Arno wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage AndyHancock<andymhancock@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> I just cloned two partitions from a resident HDD to an auxiliary
>> Momentus XL HDD in an enclosure that is connected to the computer via
>> eSATA.  Is there a way to compare each cloned partition with its
>> original for integrity?  If this were just a file, I'd use a unix/
>> cygwin utility like diff or cmp.  However, it is a partition.
>
> If it is a bit-wise exact clone, cmp still works, but doing
> md5sum or sha1sum on the whole partitions is faster.
> On mimatch it tells you almost nothing though.
>
> Or you can mount both, and do a file-tree comparison.
> I do the following for that:
>
> cd<dir1>; tar cf - .| (cd<dir2>; tar df -)
>
> Arno

I use an utility called Duplicate Cleaner (http://is.gd/7XlwgM) for file 
comparisons. I like it because it offers a range of options for content 
comparison (byte-by-byte, MD5, SHA-1, & SHA-256). I find the fastest 
method is usually byte-by-byte, as it'll stop the comparison the moment 
it finds a mismatched byte and not bother with the rest of the 
comparison of those files. The other methods would involve taking a full 
reading the whole file and then generating a checksum at the end.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2419

On Jan 17, 4:00 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 15/01/2012 8:39 AM, Arno wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage AndyHancock<andymhanc...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> I just cloned two partitions from a resident HDD to an auxiliary
> >> Momentus XL HDD in an enclosure that is connected to the computer via
> >> eSATA.  Is there a way to compare each cloned partition with its
> >> original for integrity?  If this were just a file, I'd use a unix/
> >> cygwin utility like diff or cmp.  However, it is a partition.
>
> > If it is a bit-wise exact clone, cmp still works, but doing
> > md5sum or sha1sum on the whole partitions is faster.
> > On mimatch it tells you almost nothing though.
>
> > Or you can mount both, and do a file-tree comparison.
> > I do the following for that:
>
> > cd<dir1>; tar cf - .| (cd<dir2>; tar df -)
>
> > Arno
>
> I use an utility called Duplicate Cleaner (http://is.gd/7XlwgM) for file
> comparisons. I like it because it offers a range of options for content
> comparison (byte-by-byte, MD5, SHA-1, & SHA-256). I find the fastest
> method is usually byte-by-byte, as it'll stop the comparison the moment
> it finds a mismatched byte and not bother with the rest of the
> comparison of those files. The other methods would involve taking a full
> reading the whole file and then generating a checksum at the end.
>
>         Yousuf Khan

Thanks, Yousuf.

I believe that the concerns about the unknown partition type that I
describe in my reply to Mark F apply.  Would you be able to respond to
those?  Much appreciated.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2430

On 18/01/2012 12:33 AM, AndyHancock wrote:
> I believe that the concerns about the unknown partition type that I
> describe in my reply to Mark F apply.  Would you be able to respond to
> those?  Much appreciated.

Well, my experience with disk imaging comes from using Macrium Reflect, 
others are familiar with Acronis True Image, etc. For the most part, 
when imaging is done (rather than normal backup), it's because certain 
files are position dependent. There may only be one or two files in the 
entire file system that are position dependent (usually system boot 
files), and without some kind of an attribute saying a file is position 
dependent, the image makes all of them positional. The actual contents 
will remain identical whether you use traditional backup vs. imaging, 
but imaging saves the positional information.

Now, most imaging these days are "smart" meaning that they don't bother 
copying the contents of empty blocks or clusters, just ones with files 
on them. When the imager then copies the contents to its archive file, 
it stores them within its archive in its own internal format. When you 
mount the image as a virtual disk, it'll get mounted as the format the 
imager had saved it to. It may be NTFS, or FAT, or something else entire 
proprietary to the imager. It doesn't matter, the file contents will be 
identical. Positional information on the other hand would probably 
require the imager's own restore option to restore.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2432

Yousuf Khan wrote
> AndyHancock wrote

>> I believe that the concerns about the unknown partition type that I describe in my reply to Mark F apply.  Would you 
>> be able to respond to those?  Much appreciated.

> Well, my experience with disk imaging comes from using Macrium
> Reflect, others are familiar with Acronis True Image, etc. For the
> most part, when imaging is done (rather than normal backup), it's
> because certain files are position dependent. There may only be one4
> or two files in the entire file system that are position dependent
> (usually system boot files), and without some kind of an attribute
> saying a file is position dependent, the image makes all of them
> positional. The actual contents will remain identical whether you use
> traditional backup vs. imaging, but imaging saves the positional information.

It doesnt usually, actually. Essentially because its only possible when
the partition size does not change, and most systems use the one
approach for all cloning unless you specify a bit by bit clone be done,
just because that allows the single approach which works for both
when they partition size changes, and when it doesnt. There is no
point in handling the clone when the size doesnt change specially,
when you also offer a bit by bit clone as an option.

Most modern cloners allow allow compression of the image and file
ops on files in the image, and that isnt possible unless the cloner
understands the file system and doesnt do bit by bit clones by default.

> Now, most imaging these days are "smart" meaning that they don't
> bother copying the contents of empty blocks or clusters, just ones
> with files on them.

Yes, thats the other reason why they dont bother to preserve position.

> When the imager then copies the contents to its archive file, it stores them within its archive in its own internal 
> format. When you mount the image as a virtual disk, it'll get mounted as the format the imager had saved it to. It may 
> be NTFS, or FAT, or something else entire proprietary to the imager. It doesn't matter, the file contents will be 
> identical. Positional information on the other hand would probably require the imager's own restore option to restore.

Most dont even preserve file positions on a restore.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2434

Yousuf Khan wrote
> Well, my experience with disk imaging comes from using Macrium
> Reflect, others are familiar with Acronis True Image, etc. For the
> most part, when imaging is done (rather than normal backup), it's
> because certain files are position dependent. There may only be one4
> or two files in the entire file system that are position dependent
> (usually system boot files), and without some kind of an attribute
> saying a file is position dependent, the image makes all of them
> positional. The actual contents will remain identical whether you
> use traditional backup vs. imaging, but imaging saves the positional
> information.

I think I have to clarify that I meant cloning, not imaging.  I want
the clone to be a drop-in replacement for the resident HDD if the
latter fails.

> Now, most imaging these days are "smart" meaning that they don't
> bother copying the contents of empty blocks or clusters, just ones
> with files on them.  When the imager then copies the contents to its
> archive file, it stores them within its archive in its own internal
> format. When you mount the image as a virtual disk, it'll get
> mounted as the format the imager had saved it to. It may be NTFS, or
> FAT, or something else entire proprietary to the imager.  It doesn't
> matter, the file contents will be identical. Positional information
> on the other hand would probably require the imager's own restore
> option to restore.

I think this is where the biggest difference lies between images and
clones.  There is no codifying disk content in cloning because it has
to function without decoding or restoration.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2455

On 20/01/2012 12:17 AM, AndyHancock wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote
>> Well, my experience with disk imaging comes from using Macrium
>> Reflect, others are familiar with Acronis True Image, etc. For the
>> most part, when imaging is done (rather than normal backup), it's
>> because certain files are position dependent. There may only be one4
>> or two files in the entire file system that are position dependent
>> (usually system boot files), and without some kind of an attribute
>> saying a file is position dependent, the image makes all of them
>> positional. The actual contents will remain identical whether you
>> use traditional backup vs. imaging, but imaging saves the positional
>> information.
>
> I think I have to clarify that I meant cloning, not imaging.  I want
> the clone to be a drop-in replacement for the resident HDD if the
> latter fails.

I know, but cloning and imaging share a lot in common. Now one cloning 
program that I've used with great success is XXClone. It's not a 
traditional cloning program in that it works at the partition level, but 
it works at the filesystem level. This means that you can use it to copy 
between an NTFS source to a FAT32 destination, or vice-versa. However, 
it doesn't do incremental cloning (as far as I know), so everytime you 
clone, you're making a full reset. With imaging you can make the 
incrementals and differentials.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2456

Yousuf Khan wrote
> AndyHancock wrote
>> Yousuf Khan wrote

>>> Well, my experience with disk imaging comes from using Macrium
>>> Reflect, others are familiar with Acronis True Image, etc. For the
>>> most part, when imaging is done (rather than normal backup), it's
>>> because certain files are position dependent. There may only be one4
>>> or two files in the entire file system that are position dependent
>>> (usually system boot files), and without some kind of an attribute
>>> saying a file is position dependent, the image makes all of them
>>> positional. The actual contents will remain identical whether you
>>> use traditional backup vs. imaging, but imaging saves the positional
>>> information.

>> I think I have to clarify that I meant cloning, not imaging.  I want the clone to be a drop-in replacement for the 
>> resident HDD if the latter fails.

> I know, but cloning and imaging share a lot in common. Now one cloning
> program that I've used with great success is XXClone. It's not a
> traditional cloning program in that it works at the partition level,
> but it works at the filesystem level. This means that you can use it
> to copy between an NTFS source to a FAT32 destination, or vice-versa.
> However, it doesn't do incremental cloning (as far as I know),

It does actually and that is in fact one of its most dramatic advantages
which does help with its very fundamental prolem, its MUCH slower
than a mainstream cloner once you have done the original clone.

> so everytime you clone, you're making a full reset.

Fraid not.

> With imaging you can make the incrementals and differentials.

You can with xxclone too. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2436

Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:37:35 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> On 18/01/2012 12:33 AM, AndyHancock wrote:

>> I believe that the concerns about the unknown partition type that I
>> describe in my reply to Mark F apply.  Would you be able to respond to
>> those?  Much appreciated.
 

> Well, my experience with disk imaging comes from using Macrium Reflect, 
> others are familiar with Acronis True Image, etc. For the most part, 
> when imaging is done (rather than normal backup), it's because certain 
> files are position dependent. There may only be one or two files in the 
> entire file system that are position dependent (usually system boot 
> files), and without some kind of an attribute saying a file is position 
> dependent, the image makes all of them positional. The actual contents 
> will remain identical whether you use traditional backup vs. imaging, 
> but imaging saves the positional information.

I only boot Acronis True Image Home (ATIH) from 
it's bootable disc, and never load it into Windows.
And only use the clone option (from internal HDD
to temp HDD that I plug in at the side of the PC).

ATIH 2010 used to change the starting location of the 
partititions, But ATIH 2011 now keeps the starting 
location the same. And AFAIK ATIH 2012 also 
does this, but I have no 1st hand experience with 
the current 2012 version.

> Now, most imaging these days are "smart" meaning that they don't bother 
> copying the contents of empty blocks or clusters, just ones with files 
> on them. When the imager then copies the contents to its archive file, 
> it stores them within its archive in its own internal format. When you 
> mount the image as a virtual disk, it'll get mounted as the format the 
> imager had saved it to. It may be NTFS, or FAT, or something else entire 
> proprietary to the imager. It doesn't matter, the file contents will be 
> identical. Positional information on the other hand would probably 
> require the imager's own restore option to restore.

You might consider downloading the current free
Gparted at: http://www.gparted.org/

It permits one to easily turn on/off the active and boot flags
for partitions. :)

You might also reduce your internal HDD count by 1 and
see if that solves your boot problem. I mean having *6*
internal HDD (are they really all HDD? Or perhaps some
are optical disc drives?) 

Meaning it's not a smart thing with an ordinary 
desktop mobo.   it's the type of thing that is 
likely better done with a server type mobo.

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2437

willbill wrote:
> Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:37:35 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> On 18/01/2012 12:33 AM, AndyHancock wrote:
>
>>> I believe that the concerns about the unknown partition type that I
>>> describe in my reply to Mark F apply.  Would you be able to respond
>>> to those?  Much appreciated.
>
>
>> Well, my experience with disk imaging comes from using Macrium
>> Reflect, others are familiar with Acronis True Image, etc. For the
>> most part, when imaging is done (rather than normal backup), it's
>> because certain files are position dependent. There may only be one
>> or two files in the entire file system that are position dependent
>> (usually system boot files), and without some kind of an attribute
>> saying a file is position dependent, the image makes all of them
>> positional. The actual contents will remain identical whether you
>> use traditional backup vs. imaging, but imaging saves the positional
>> information.
>
> I only boot Acronis True Image Home (ATIH) from
> it's bootable disc, and never load it into Windows.
> And only use the clone option (from internal HDD
> to temp HDD that I plug in at the side of the PC).
>
> ATIH 2010 used to change the starting location of the
> partititions, But ATIH 2011 now keeps the starting
> location the same. And AFAIK ATIH 2012 also
> does this, but I have no 1st hand experience with
> the current 2012 version.
>
>> Now, most imaging these days are "smart" meaning that they don't
>> bother copying the contents of empty blocks or clusters, just ones
>> with files on them. When the imager then copies the contents to its
>> archive file, it stores them within its archive in its own internal
>> format. When you mount the image as a virtual disk, it'll get
>> mounted as the format the imager had saved it to. It may be NTFS, or
>> FAT, or something else entire proprietary to the imager. It doesn't
>> matter, the file contents will be identical. Positional information
>> on the other hand would probably require the imager's own restore
>> option to restore.
>
> You might consider downloading the current free
> Gparted at: http://www.gparted.org/
>
> It permits one to easily turn on/off the active and boot flags
> for partitions. :)
>
> You might also reduce your internal HDD count by 1 and
> see if that solves your boot problem. I mean having *6*
> internal HDD (are they really all HDD? Or perhaps some
> are optical disc drives?)

> Meaning it's not a smart thing with an ordinary desktop mobo.

Thats just plain wrong, it works fine with a properly implemented motherboard.

> it's the type of thing that is likely better done with a server type mobo.

Its nothing like that black and white with plenty having PCs with lots
of media on them, particularly recorded TV from FTA and pay TV etc.

I've got that many myself and deliberately chose a decent motherboard
that can handle them because I am too lazy to clean up the files from the
PVR because drives are now so cheap. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2445

On Jan 20, 4:49 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> willbill wrote:
>>
>> I only boot Acronis True Image Home (ATIH) from
>> it's bootable disc, and never load it into Windows.
>> And only use the clone option (from internal HDD
>> to temp HDD that I plug in at the side of the PC).
>
>> ATIH 2010 used to change the starting location of the
>> partititions, But ATIH 2011 now keeps the starting
>> location the same. And AFAIK ATIH 2012 also
>> does this, but I have no 1st hand experience with
>> the current 2012 version.

   <...snip...>

>> You might consider downloading the current free
>> Gparted at:http://www.gparted.org/
>
>> It permits one to easily turn on/off the active and boot flags
>> for partitions. :)
>>
>> You might also reduce your internal HDD count by 1 and
>> see if that solves your boot problem. I mean having *6*
>> internal HDD (are they really all HDD? Or perhaps some
>> are optical disc drives?)
>> Meaning it's not a smart thing with an ordinary desktop mobo.
>
> Thats just plain wrong, it works fine with a properly implemented motherboard.
>
>> it's the type of thing that is likely better done with a server type mobo.
>
> Its nothing like that black and white with plenty having PCs with lots
> of media on them, particularly recorded TV from FTA and pay TV etc.
>
> I've got that many myself and deliberately chose a decent motherboard
> that can handle them because I am too lazy to clean up the files from the
> PVR because drives are now so cheap.

When I surfed the web & asked for suggestions, ATIH & Norton Ghost 15
were the 2 contenders.  I had to choose one, and a friend has good
experience with Ghost (albeit many version ago), so I went with that.
I have to stick with one app cuz I keep flipping back and forth and
asking for refunds.

Thanks for the tip about gparted.  It's a good feature (turn on/off
active and boot flags).  Currently, I remove one of the drives (source
or clone) to prevent conflicts which could change the registry so that
one or both are unbootable.

I'm not sure where the count of 6 HDDs comes from.  I only have 2 --
the original HDD, which Toshiba puts 4 partitions on, and the clone
HDD, which resides in an enclosure that connects to the laptop via
eSATA.  I also got a DVD drive.  That's it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2447

AndyHancock wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> willbill wrote

>>> I only boot Acronis True Image Home (ATIH) from
>>> it's bootable disc, and never load it into Windows.
>>> And only use the clone option (from internal HDD
>>> to temp HDD that I plug in at the side of the PC).

>>> ATIH 2010 used to change the starting location of the
>>> partititions, But ATIH 2011 now keeps the starting
>>> location the same. And AFAIK ATIH 2012 also
>>> does this, but I have no 1st hand experience with
>>> the current 2012 version.

>   <...snip...>

>>> You might consider downloading the current free
>>> Gparted at:http://www.gparted.org/

>>> It permits one to easily turn on/off the active and boot flags for partitions. :)

>>> You might also reduce your internal HDD count by 1 and
>>> see if that solves your boot problem. I mean having *6*
>>> internal HDD (are they really all HDD? Or perhaps some
>>> are optical disc drives?)

>>> Meaning it's not a smart thing with an ordinary desktop mobo.

>> Thats just plain wrong, it works fine with a properly implemented motherboard.

>>> it's the type of thing that is likely better done with a server> type mobo.

>> Its nothing like that black and white with plenty having PCs with lots
>> of media on them, particularly recorded TV from FTA and pay TV etc.

>> I've got that many myself and deliberately chose a decent motherboard
>> that can handle them because I am too lazy to clean up the files
>> from the PVR because drives are now so cheap.

> When I surfed the web & asked for suggestions, ATIH & Norton
> Ghost 15 were the 2 contenders.  I had to choose one, and a
> friend has good experience with Ghost (albeit many version ago),
> so I went with that. I have to stick with one app cuz I keep flipping
> back and forth and asking for refunds.

IMO its a bit nutty to limit yourself so much for that reason.

> Thanks for the tip about gparted.  It's a good feature (turn on/off
> active and boot flags).  Currently, I remove one of the drives (source
> or clone) to prevent conflicts which could change the registry so that
> one or both are unbootable.

> I'm not sure where the count of 6 HDDs comes from.

That was Yousuf's system.

> I only have 2 -- the original HDD, which Toshiba puts 4 partitions on,
> and the clone HDD, which resides in an enclosure that connects to
> the laptop via eSATA.  I also got a DVD drive.  That's it. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2452

On Jan 23, 1:32 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> AndyHancock wrote
>> When I surfed the web & asked for suggestions, ATIH & Norton
>> Ghost 15 were the 2 contenders.  I had to choose one, and a
>> friend has good experience with Ghost (albeit many version ago),
>> so I went with that. I have to stick with one app cuz I keep flipping
>> back and forth and asking for refunds.
>
> IMO its a bit nutty to limit yourself so much for that reason.

It does seem that way, I have to admit.  But the online material seems
to have the two contenders neck-at-neck (or is that neck-to-neck --
nah, that's too much like...a bunch of things that are not really
suited to the topic at hand).  And I was tired of buying, trying, and
returning.  I figure that no matter what I choose, there will be pro's
and cons, as well as advocates and detractors.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2451

Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:29:42 -0800 (PST), AndyHancock wrote:

> When I surfed the web & asked for suggestions, ATIH & Norton Ghost 15
> were the 2 contenders.  I had to choose one, and a friend has good
> experience with Ghost (albeit many version ago), so I went with that.
> I have to stick with one app cuz I keep flipping back and forth and
> asking for refunds.

I see that this is your response to Rod Speed and not directly to me.
Rod Speed is one of the few that I have kill filed, but from what 
I see of his response (to me? snipped by you) it was decent.

Meaning he's at best annoying, and clearly got mental issue(s);
so his occasional good posts are lesser that the enormous
amount of 4 letter crud that he puts out.

Anyway, how have you liked Ghost 15? 

And do you boot the Ghost 15 from the disc 
to use it, or load it into Windows?

FWIW I've only booted ATIH 2010 and 2011 from the disc 
and never loaded it into Windows. It's been a long time
since I've used Ghost (again only booted from the disc
and not loaded into Windows).
 
> Thanks for the tip about gparted.  It's a good feature (turn on/off
> active and boot flags).  Currently, I remove one of the drives (source
> or clone) to prevent conflicts which could change the registry so that
> one or both are unbootable.

If I'm included in that thanks, then thanks in return.

Gparted (and other Linux based programs) are now
my preferred partitioning options. :)

> I'm not sure where the count of 6 HDDs comes from.  I only have 2 --
> the original HDD, which Toshiba puts 4 partitions on, and the clone
> HDD, which resides in an enclosure that connects to the laptop via
> eSATA.  I also got a DVD drive.  That's it.

The 6 HDDs was a comment that Yousuf Khan made,
but not directely from above posts.

I posted that comment to him (as well as the suggestion
to reduce his plugged in "HDD" device count by 1,
thinking that that might solve his bios/boot problem.

Still hoping to see a response from him on this. :)

As well as from you on Ghost 15. :)

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2453

On Jan 24, 1:22 pm, willbill <posto...@postonNG.net> wrote:
> Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:29:42 -0800 (PST), AndyHancock wrote:
>
>> When I surfed the web & asked for suggestions, ATIH & Norton Ghost 15
>> were the 2 contenders.  I had to choose one, and a friend has good
>> experience with Ghost (albeit many version ago), so I went with that.
>> I have to stick with one app cuz I keep flipping back and forth and
>> asking for refunds.
>
> I see that this is your response to Rod Speed and not directly to me.
> Rod Speed is one of the few that I have kill filed, but from what
> I see of his response (to me? snipped by you) it was decent.

I have no wish to be part of a usenet war.  If you don't mind, could
we please keep it professional and focused on the technical topic at
hand?  Thanks, appreciate it.

> Anyway, how have you liked Ghost 15?

Well, it cloned partitions 1 & 2 effortlessly.  I have yet to find the
time to shrink the C-drive partition so that I can clone partitions 3
& 4.  That's just a matter of Disk Management, though I have to ensure
4KB boundary alignment -- meaning doing the arithmetic carefully
because both Disk Management and PowerQuest Partition Table Editor
mean MiB and GiB when they say MB and GB.

After that, test of the cloned 4 partitions is still capable of making
recovery discs and also doing discless recovery.  If not, there is not
much point in keeping partitions 3 & 4.

Apart from that, I was also going to use my recovery discs to see if
recovery means also recovering partitions 3 & 4, but targeting the
clone HDD.  If so, then I'll see if *that* allows the clone to make
recovery discs and/or do discless recovery.

Another thread of activity is to simply run HDD diagnostics and memory
tests to deal with the original boot failures that led to this whole
cloning exercise.

> And do you boot the Ghost 15 from the disc
> to use it, or load it into Windows?

I install it in Windows.  I'm learning to crawl right now...nothing
fancy or out of the ordinary (yet).

>> Thanks for the tip about gparted.  It's a good feature (turn on/off
>> active and boot flags).  Currently, I remove one of the drives (source
>> or clone) to prevent conflicts which could change the registry so that
>> one or both are unbootable.
>
> If I'm included in that thanks, then thanks in return.

I believe it was your post!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2454

On Jan 24, 9:05 pm, AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, it cloned partitions 1 & 2 effortlessly.  I have yet to find the
> time to shrink the C-drive partition so that I can clone partitions 3
> & 4.  That's just a matter of Disk Management, though I have to ensure
> 4KB boundary alignment -- meaning doing the arithmetic carefully
> because both Disk Management and PowerQuest Partition Table Editor
> mean MiB and GiB when they say MB and GB.

Actually, Disk Managements specifies disk space and partition
shrinkage in terms of MiB, so as long as I specify an integer, it will
always be 4KiB aligned.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage

csiph-web