Several comments to counters of several points :)
1. Yup, theoretically a sector-by-sector copy would be slower, but in real world numbers we are talking at most 1-2 minutes for a typical O/S clone, so that doens't
bother me. The point of using sector-by-sector clones is that some A/V vendors use techniques similar to root kits in their software, rendering parts of their A/V engine
invisible to the system. So, if one uses a system based cloning util, these parts of the A/V engine could be let out on the cloned image. Of course Ghost includes the
Swap and everything when cloning by sectors, that's why it's still widely used by e.g the FBI and the UK Scotland Yard among other law enforcement agencies. Very useful
for forensics work. For normal b/u of single systems, though, precausions about the swap file must be taken, and that is either using a different mo in Ghost, or deleting
the swap before b/u. Also the disk spanning feature is brilliant. Optical media is nice to have as an arhcive restoring point, unless all back ups are streamed to a
mirrored RAID5 sys. For many smaller companies the cost of such a solution overshadowes the cost and ease of DVD-R. Maybe I also should point out that I find the full
install of NT Ghost quite a mess for single setups. The cli version ran directly from CDis it, should anyone care anymore :)
2. Heh, so you mean that if the user can't make a working clone, it's the
software's fault, even if the correct procedure is described in the manual?
Just teasing, I know what you mean. Software should be relatively easy to use, I agree, and Acronis seem to have a tight grip in the long straw at that point. Could you
please describe what you mean with "Acronis at a basic level works the way people expect it to work". It's the words 'at a basic level' that frightens me the most. If you
more detailed could describe what it does well and maybe does less well. I'm seriously considering buying Acronis, so a more hands-on description from an experiences
Acronis user would be really nice (who trusts manufacturers these days).
4. I hear you. To be more specific, cloning is usually referred to the method of imaging sector-by-sector, so I think we both got a little confused here. Seems like
Acronis also does cloning in its original sense, but with more granular options. And nope, file exclusions by default we don't want.
I looked into Acronis around v5 or v6, and the reports from different users on the net were image data corruption, so I decided to wait a few versions or three more,
before flashing the card. I'm happy to hear it works so well for you, sounds like they've solved the few issues that once were.
Symantec support? Do they have support? As a former retailer, I can tell you,
that they are only able to answer point-and-click questions, nothing else. Sad.
I've had data corruption with Ghost at one time, too, but that was on an o/c'ed system of my own. Never experienced it 'in the field'. Using different versions can also
mess things up big time. E.g. Plextor's CDResq is not compatiple with Ghost, even it's the same program. Different versions of Ghost doesn't always play, either.
Yep, you're absolutely right, different tools for different jobs. But I'd like
to hear more about your professional experiences with Acronis, anyways.
Good discussion, btw, thanks :)
//soren
Greg Sevart wrote:
Several counters to several points... :)
1. Of course speed is variable, but a sector by sector copy must necessarily
be slower in almost all cases. By examining the $MFT (or the equivalent in
other filesystems), you only have to copy sectors that actually have data
you care about, vs. each and every sector on the drive. The only way that a
sector-by-sector copy could be faster (or, rather, not slower) is if the
drive was completely full. For the record, most of the systems I work with
are Core 2 Quad/8GB/10k SATA or Core i7/12GB/15k SAS--certainly not slow. I
also never have need to image directly to optical media--again, it's too
slow.
2. Acronis isn't perfect either, and anyone that has half a clue will
readily admit that no software is perfect. However, Acronis at a basic level
works the way people expect it to work. While I will fully admit that you
have a firm understanding of Ghost, if the way that most people try to use
it doesn't function properly, that's a product problem, not a documentation
or end-user knowledge problem.
4. That's interesting, since your original point was that anything less than
an exact duplicate isn't properly cloning. I was actually trying to point
out that the ability to exclude some files makes a lot of sense and can be
valuable, which you now seem to agree with. I wouldn't want any files to be
excluded by default, however.
I never used Acronis prior to version 9, since I was happy with Ghost, so I
can't speak to any data corruption issues with older versions. I do know
that we haven't had any data integrity issues with it as an imaging solution
at work. It works exceptionally well for us, which I ultimately believe is
the only important thing about any solution. The extra things that Acronis
does, like Universal Restore, are truly superb features that have gotten me
out of trouble and/or saved me a tremendous amount of time many times. I
also use that technology to convert VMs from one solution to another, and
have had terrific success with it.
At least one user of Ghost 9 and 10 has had data corruption issues, and
Symantec Executive Support gave up and basically gave him the finger,
writing "Do not bother responding to this email as there is nothing else I
can help you with and it will not be responded to."
http://www.techsupportalert.com/drive-imaging-reviews.htm
Just one user, but it illustrates that problems like this are not global and
generic, but depend on a variety of factors and that it's likely that
neither application can handle all of them perfectly.
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Soren
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 5:02 AM
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: Re: [H] cloning drive
Several answers to several points:
1. This depends on a variety of factors, e.g. CPU speed, HDD speed, CD
burner speed, etc. The systems you work with must be really slow. In
Ghost there is no noticeable
difference, whatever method one uses (besides the compression rate, of
course).
Ghost can multicast an image within the same timeframe you mention, not
much difference there.
But, as I said, imaging to HDD suck big time since v6.0. Until v5.0
everything worked fine. Then something went wrong with their NTFS
implementation during imaging to
HDD. NTFS Imaging to CD/DVD works as a charm, though.
2. I'm not in any way defending Ghost, I'm only trying to be fair. As
you mention yourself, I'm beating the program for not supporting its
features correctly. Also I'm
beating some Ghost users a bit, because to my experience people that
can't make the program work are usually those who haven't read the
manual. Also, I'm pretty sure even
Acronis has some bugs/features built in ;)
3. What optional feature are you talking about?
My only comment about BartPE was a warning not to involve it (or
supported/similar progs) into serious, corporate business as a
secondary remark. Today
convenience/lazyness is taking more and more space at the cost of data
security. Some of those boot-CD proggies leave a pretty nasty
footprint, hence a sound corporate
policy would be to avoid them in general. That's all.
4. The reason for excluding e.g pagefile.sys in Ghost is that a win32
system won't boot if it's present - I don't know, but could be the same
thing with Acronis. Besides
that it's a space hog, as you mention. I don't know why Acronis include
those files by default, since the rational approach would be leaving
them out by default. These
files are rarely needed, anyway.
Yes, I use Ghost on a regular basis, because I know how it works (and
especially doesn't work! ;) I also use other programs.
My only claim is that before claiming that Ghost doesn't work, it might
be a good idea to read the manual. What it does, it actually does
pretty good. And this is burning
an image to CD/DVD flawlessly, time after time. Also, files can be
extracted individually from an image, if needed.
Acronis have a history of data corruption in some of their earlier
versions, which could indicate that the program is not yet fully
developed. Ghost is far past that
point, meaning that the features that work, they work flawlessly. Don't
get me wrong here, I'm actually very tempted to give Acronis a run for
the money on my personal
network. But as a quick and dirty on-the-spot back up solution, I
believe Ghost will still be my no. one for some time to come. Until
someone can show me a fast working
DOS util that does an even better job.
//soren
