A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Storage (alternative)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Making two partition copies in turn



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 10th 15, 09:28 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
Ian Jackson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Making two partition copies in turn

In message , micky
writes


So with all the extra empty space, I put more
partitions on each drive. A backup of my laptop, etc.


Understood. I've done similar (for experimentation). There's no point in
using the whole of a 1TB external disk for a 100GB backup.

However, if the external disk fails, you've lost several backups, so
maybe this isn't too good an idea.

Like 'gfretwel', I have a collection of 'old soldiers' to use for
backups and generally play around with, and it's probably best to do one
backup per disk.

If the 'old soldiers' are smaller than you present C-drive (which
they're likely to be), you can always temporarily resize (shrink) the
C-drive partition before doing the backup. However, I suppose that there
is the a chance that the resizing process might fail, and screw up your
C-drive data. Maybe here is a case for first doing a full-size backup,
and then a 'spare' reduced-size one (maybe to a multi-partition disk).
It really all depends how much spare time you have!
--
Ian
  #12  
Old August 10th 15, 03:18 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
Mark F[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 164
Default Making two partition copies in turn

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 08:33:45 -0400, micky
wrote:

I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive.

I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking,
maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H.

It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every
single file (except the ones I don't copy.)

Any reason not to do it this indirect way?

I typically do something like
C to F, then F to G then compare C and G

This saves some time versus comparing C and F.
It assumes that the process is reliable enough to that
the C versus G compare only has explainable differences.

Another advantage besides the time saving is that you have 2
backups that may match and didn't have to keep your system down
while both copies were made. (I say "may" match since I have
found that some backup programs give slightly different results
for what should would seem to be the same backup due to
what seems to be something to do with NTFS journal ling, even though
the systems was initially shutdown normally and completely. I
have only seen the problem with NTFS partitions and the system
partition. The issue happened with Windows XP. I don't know if
it happens with Windows Vista or later.)


Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive?

What say ye?

  #13  
Old August 11th 15, 05:05 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
micky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 439
Default Making two partition copies in turn

In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:18:31
-0400, Mark F wrote:

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 08:33:45 -0400, micky
wrote:

I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive.

I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking,
maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H.

It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every
single file (except the ones I don't copy.)

Any reason not to do it this indirect way?

I typically do something like
C to F, then F to G then compare C and G


So that finds errors in both copy steps at the same time. It doesnt'
tell you which step made the error but I suppose that usually there are
no errors.

What do you use to compare?

I have /v for verify when I'm running. I thnk you mean more than that.

This saves some time versus comparing C and F.
It assumes that the process is reliable enough to that
the C versus G compare only has explainable differences.

Another advantage besides the time saving is that you have 2
backups that may match and didn't have to keep your system down
while both copies were made.


Yeah, I hadn't thought about that. I'm still living in the mental world
where I made backups while running Windows.

Using your drive letters:
Also, I could make the first version of G: from scratch and make it an
exact copy of F with no exclusions etc. Then perhaps subsequent
updates could come straigtht from C:

(I say "may" match since I have
found that some backup programs give slightly different results
for what should would seem to be the same backup due to
what seems to be something to do with NTFS journal ling, even though
the systems was initially shutdown normally and completely. I
have only seen the problem with NTFS partitions and the system


I knew I should have stuck with FAT32. If it was good enough for my
grandmother, it should have been good enough for me**.

partition. The issue happened with Windows XP. I don't know if
it happens with Windows Vista or later.)


Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive?

What say ye?


**My grandmother used to say "By cracky, FAT thirty two is the only way
to go. Now where is my cider?"
  #14  
Old August 12th 15, 12:41 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
Mark F[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 164
Default Making two partition copies in turn

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 00:05:20 -0400, micky
wrote:

In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:18:31
-0400, Mark F wrote:

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 08:33:45 -0400, micky
wrote:

I'm maintaining two (maybe even 3) copies of my C: drive.

I've been copying everything from C to F and to H, but I'm thinking,
maybe it would be better to copy C to F and then F to H.

It would lessen the wear on the C drive, especially when I copy every
single file (except the ones I don't copy.)

Any reason not to do it this indirect way?

I typically do something like
C to F, then F to G then compare C and G


So that finds errors in both copy steps at the same time. It doesnt'
tell you which step made the error but I suppose that usually there are
no errors.

What do you use to compare?

I use Syncovery www.syncovery.com.
Before that I used
FolderMatch from Salty Brine Software www.foldermatch.com

Syncovery runs faster and doesn't skip as many files as FolderMatch.
(A few files are not compared by either in Symantec AntiVirus's areas
and a few other areas because of access rights issues.)

FolderMatch is a bit easier to use for ad hoc operations.

Both programs find all of the files for data partitions and I haven't
seen any differences in cloned images on data partitions. I take
steps to avoid having paging files in data partitions when cloning.

I usually don't boot from another device and compare the
clones, so there could be some issues with the page file, swap file,
and a couple of other files that the booted from operating system
changes and so therefore don't match when compared, so on any
given clone operation might not have been copied correctly.

To validate the cloning programs I have used 2 different
cloning programs on the system device and compared both on another
system using forensic write blockers
(http://www.cru-inc.com/products/wiebetech/
that don't allow writes and the only unchecked
files with those with access rights issues. (Note I didn't use
what are now current www.cru-inc write blockers)

When I validated my procedures, which was perhaps 5 years ago,
I did many other tests to make sure that everything matched
in partitions that normally are not mounted, and except for
what I think are issues in the journaling areas of NTFS partitions
there were no differences. Since then I have trusted the
cloning programs to complain if the operations didn't
work correctly on the files that are expected not to match.

The most recent cloning operations that I did were for new
Samsung SSD's and I used the included software to compare
during the clone operation and compared using Syncovery
using the newly cloned disk as the system disk. For
these operations the cloning compare operation didn't find
any issues and the Syncovery compare only had the expected
access issues and differences in files where differences
were expected. (I didn't see any differences in the journaling
areas, but Syncovery wouldn't see them when running on
one of the partitions being compared.)


I have /v for verify when I'm running. I thnk you mean more than that.

This saves some time versus comparing C and F.
It assumes that the process is reliable enough to that
the C versus G compare only has explainable differences.

Another advantage besides the time saving is that you have 2
backups that may match and didn't have to keep your system down
while both copies were made.


Yeah, I hadn't thought about that. I'm still living in the mental world
where I made backups while running Windows.

Using your drive letters:
Also, I could make the first version of G: from scratch and make it an
exact copy of F with no exclusions etc. Then perhaps subsequent
updates could come straigtht from C:

(I say "may" match since I have
found that some backup programs give slightly different results
for what should would seem to be the same backup due to
what seems to be something to do with NTFS journal ling, even though
the systems was initially shutdown normally and completely. I
have only seen the problem with NTFS partitions and the system


I knew I should have stuck with FAT32. If it was good enough for my
grandmother, it should have been good enough for me**.

partition. The issue happened with Windows XP. I don't know if
it happens with Windows Vista or later.)


Any reason to do it besides saving wear on the C: drive?

What say ye?


**My grandmother used to say "By cracky, FAT thirty two is the only way
to go. Now where is my cider?"

  #15  
Old August 21st 15, 02:13 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
Ed Light
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 924
Default Making two partition copies in turn

On 8/10/2015 1:28 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:


Like 'gfretwel', I have a collection of 'old soldiers' to use for
backups and generally play around with, and it's probably best to do one
backup per disk.

If the 'old soldiers' are smaller than you present C-drive (which


You could use Image for DOS (on a CD or thumb drive) to make a system
image. It will probably be half the size of the data. You should set it
to ignore the page and hibernation files. Next time you can just backup
the changes. That's at

http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/image-for-dos.htm

I'd also turn on byte-for-byte verify. Then you know you got everything
safely.

--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.
  #16  
Old August 21st 15, 02:16 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
Ed Light
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 924
Default Making two partition copies in turn

On 8/10/2015 9:05 PM, micky wrote:


I knew I should have stuck with FAT32.


When Win 98 was using that, any crash would make a bunch of errors that
chkdsk would find. Now, it doesn't happen much at all. Also, you're
limited to 2 Gig maximum file size.

--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.
  #17  
Old August 21st 15, 01:19 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
Mark Perkins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Making two partition copies in turn

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 18:16:24 -0700, Ed Light wrote:

On 8/10/2015 9:05 PM, micky wrote:


I knew I should have stuck with FAT32.


When Win 98 was using that, any crash would make a bunch of errors that
chkdsk would find. Now, it doesn't happen much at all. Also, you're
limited to 2 Gig maximum file size.


That was FAT16 that had a 2GB file size limit. FAT32 has a 4GB file size
limit. In both cases, minus 1 byte, but who's counting.

I agree with your observation on the frailty of FAT32. NTFS is much better
in that regard.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Macrium Reflect is THE tool for making backup copies of Windows XP John Doe Storage (alternative) 10 November 1st 10 11:16 PM
Fishface recommends Macrium Reflect for making backup copies of Windows John Doe Storage (alternative) 9 December 16th 09 08:05 AM
Partition Magic 8 kill my partition making fusion Eduardo Sandino (MadMad) Storage (alternative) 2 April 29th 07 11:16 AM
Making One Partition? Arthur Pratz Homebuilt PC's 2 December 29th 04 08:06 AM
Making copies of software CD-ROM Howard Kaikow Cdr 6 August 24th 03 08:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.