Searching \ for '[ot]:Ghost?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=ghost
Search entire site for: 'Ghost?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[ot]:Ghost?'
2006\09\13@172359 by John Ferrell

face picon face
I asked a while back and was not comfortable with the answers, I thought I would try again....

My Windows XP Pro C: drive is getting a little tight on space. It is a 60G drive with 8.3G free at the moment. I would like to Clone it to a larger drive. Regening the system always results in a few losses.

Norton Ghost is supposed to do it as I read the advertising.

Would anyone care to share any related experiences?

John Ferrell    W8CCW
"My Competition is not my enemy"
http://DixieNC.US

2006\09\13@173556 by Stef Mientki

flavicon
face


John Ferrell wrote:
> I asked a while back and was not comfortable with the answers, I thought I would try again....
>
> My Windows XP Pro C: drive is getting a little tight on space. It is a 60G drive with 8.3G free at the moment. I would like to Clone it to a larger drive. Regening the system always results in a few losses.
>
> Norton Ghost is supposed to do it as I read the advertising.
>
> Would anyone care to share any related experiences?
>  
Acronis "true image" is much easier,
and free if you clone to a larger drive.
Stef

2006\09\13@174813 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
If you use the other drive as a secondary 'data' drive then just copy your
files over and leave all apps in the priginal drive. Norton Ghost is mainly
for making image backups so that you can 'reghost' your machine to the very
same state as it was at the moment you took the ghost image. It just
happenes that Ghost is capable of doing a mirror into another partition /
hard drive. It is good if you do not want to use your old drive, or when you
made a ghost image backup and you hard drive chrashed and you buy a larger
drive and restore (reghost) your partition to that drive. The big difference
is between normal backups and Ghost is that it looks after everything, so
that the partition will be bootable, and also the WinXP certificates or how
does it called will be updated so will not ask for activating your Windows
again.

You do backups, don't you? :-)

Tamas


On 13/09/06, John Ferrell <spam_OUTjohnferrellTakeThisOuTspamearthlink.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\09\13@175126 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
John Ferrell wrote:
> I asked a while back and was not comfortable with the answers, I thought I would try again....
>
> My Windows XP Pro C: drive is getting a little tight on space. It is a 60G drive with 8.3G free at the moment. I would like to Clone it to a larger drive. Regening the system always results in a few losses.
>
> Norton Ghost is supposed to do it as I read the advertising.
>
> Would anyone care to share any related experiences?
>
> John Ferrell    W8CCW
> "My Competition is not my enemy"
> http://DixieNC.US
>  
Maybe so, but _I_ was never able to make it work.

--Bob

2006\09\13@182421 by alan smith

picon face
There is some freeware out on the net...I'd have to go back and find it...but it will do exactly that...if you are going from a smaller drive to a larger drive...cant be the same size.  I've used it several times in the past.  Its kinda like a DOS program, you need to boot off a floppy, so if no floppy, thats an issue.
 
 Now, my computer wholesaler/builder will do that for me for about $15....I asked him the other day because I am having the same issue with my laptop drive...have a 40G but have a spare 60G.
 
 So, just ask your neighborhood shop, if you have one you can trust?
 
 
Bob Axtell <.....engineerKILLspamspam@spam@neomailbox.com> wrote:
 John Ferrell wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Maybe so, but _I_ was never able to make it work.

--Bob

2006\09\13@183414 by Philip Pemberton

face
flavicon
face
Bob Axtell wrote:
> John Ferrell wrote:
>> Norton Ghost is supposed to do it as I read the advertising.
>> Would anyone care to share any related experiences?

> Maybe so, but _I_ was never able to make it work.

Me neither. I've seen Ghost fail silently, i.e. go half way through a clone
operation and die without even popping up an error box. On the other hand,
I've never had Acronis TrueImage fail during a backup or restore operation -
it just works. That's based on my experience with TI9 Home - YMMV.

--
Phil.                         |  (\_/)  This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny
piclistspamKILLspamphilpem.me.uk         | (='.'=) into your signature to help him gain
http://www.philpem.me.uk/     | (")_(") world domination.

2006\09\13@184220 by Harold Hallikainen

face picon face
I've used Norton Ghost years ago (I still use it to do a monthly image
backup of the one remaining Windoze machine at home, but I've never tried
a restore). I also use G4L (ghost for linux) to back up my laptop and
server. In each case, I put the image on a USB hard drive. I've tried
doing a restore to a same sized drive as the one in my server (Fedora Core
4), and it worked fine.

If these programs indeed make an image of the drive, sector by sector (or
LBA by LBA), what exactly happens when you restore to a larger drive? It
seems that the partition table will still point to a particular sector for
the start of partition and indicate the partition is the same size. The
file system (FAT or ext3 or whatever) will still say this file starts
here, uses these sectors, etc. How do they deal with the extra space on
the new larger drive? If it's a true drive image, it SEEMS that it would
just be invisible...

Harold

--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2006\09\13@184633 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
I am using Norton Ghost daily basis, every day I make at least 10
reghostings -- never died for me. But it does not mean anything of course,
crash depends on millions of factors as we know.

Tamas


On 13/09/06, Philip Pemberton <.....piclistKILLspamspam.....philpem.me.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\09\13@191137 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bouncesspamspam_OUTmit.edu On Behalf Of John Ferrell
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:27 PM
>
> I asked a while back and was not comfortable with the answers, I
> thought I would try again....
>
> My Windows XP Pro C: drive is getting a little tight on space. It
> is a 60G drive with 8.3G free at the moment. I would like to
> Clone it to a larger drive. Regening the system always results in
> a few losses.
>
> Norton Ghost is supposed to do it as I read the advertising.

While Ghost can do this, IMHO it is overkill for what you want to do.

If you buy the retail package version of a major brand hard drive it will
include software and instructions for cloning the old drive to the new
drive. I've used MaxBlast (Maxtor), DiscWizard (Seagate) and Data Lifeguard
(Western digital) at various times in the past and each did the job well.
You may also be able to download the manufacturers software from the web if
you buy an oem packaged drive.

Paul

>
> Would anyone care to share any related experiences?
>
> John Ferrell    W8CCW

2006\09\13@194439 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 17:26 -0400, John Ferrell wrote:
> I asked a while back and was not comfortable with the answers, I thought I would try again....
>
> My Windows XP Pro C: drive is getting a little tight on space. It is a 60G drive with 8.3G free at the moment. I would like to Clone it to a larger drive. Regening the system always results in a few losses.
>
> Norton Ghost is supposed to do it as I read the advertising.
>
> Would anyone care to share any related experiences?

Norton Ghost works very well. I've only ever used it in "dos" mode
though, never tried doing anything in windows itself.

Now, with that said, I don't recommend doing it. Windows needs to be
reinstalled every once in a while IMHO.

TTYL

2006\09\13@200042 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
Ghost was great for the kind of work I did several years ago, but the
first time I tried it on Win XP it didn't work, and I've never tried
it since.  I imagine that problem is resolved now (this was just after
the introduction of WinXP).

However, I just purchased a new drive for my laptop from NewEgg and
purchased a HD upgrade kit for another $50 (apricorn EZ-UP-Universal
with EZ Gig II software).  It's overkill, but I just didn't want to
fuss with finding a good program and dealing with it.

I did have to fiddle with it - the automatic settings increased the
size of all the partitions, and I wanted to keep the two DELL
partitions the same size as the original and give the increase all to
my main partition.

However it worked flawlessly - I put the new drive in the provided USB
enclosure, booted off the CD, and hour later swapped the drives, and
everything has been fine ever since.  I'll probably be using the
software on my wife's computer soon.

Ghost is overkill for this type of operation, but it should work fine.
When it does fail, it can be really frustrating, but so far I've
never had it damage the original data - at worst it stops with an
error message.  As a point of reference, I've used Ghost, Drive Image,
and Partition magic.

For those that are curious, Ghost does a sector by sector copy only
when it does not understand the file system.  Otherwise it can resize
the partitions.  I used to do this quite often with Netware 3 servers,
which had a dos partition and a netware volume.  It would offer to
resize the FAT32 partition, but would always do a sector by sector
copy of the netware volume.  Further, you can copy and restore
individual partitions.  It wouldn't resize partitions in place though.

-Adam

On 9/13/06, John Ferrell <@spam@johnferrellKILLspamspamearthlink.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\09\13@202017 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
What you can do with the Windows version of Ghost is to reimage the drive
through network. Basically you can do it by your own (selecting pre-defined
sets and the rest is done automatically) or you can have a server and an
administrator who can do it for you from distance. Also you can define
certain backup tasks so that you just click on a predefined task and your
drive backed up while you can continue working. You can do it incrementally
or as a whole induvidual set. In case of incremental backup of course you
will have several stages so that you can restore earlier stage than the
newest backup if you want. In addition if you need you can pick up files /
directories that you want to restore so do not even need to ruin the entire
partitiion. It can create CD/DVD as well (creates a bootable CD including
all necessary software to do the restore).

Tamas


On 14/09/06, M. Adam Davis <KILLspamstienmanKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2006\09\14@012631 by Mike Singer

picon face
John Ferrell wrote:

> My Windows XP Pro C: drive is getting a little tight on space.
> It is a 60G drive with 8.3G free at the moment. I would like to
> Clone it to a larger drive. Regening the system always results
> in a few losses.

John,

If you were serious about your data, you wouldn't rely only on HDD. I
this case you would backup all your data. So reinstalling the system
on a new drive would not harm you.

If you were not serious about your data, few data loses on the
reinstalling would not harm you too.

Good Luck,
MS

2006\09\14@071951 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Mike Singer wrote:

>> Regening the system always results in a few losses.
>
> If you were serious about your data, you wouldn't rely only on HDD.

Not sure where you get this from. HDD is IMO one of the best backup media
around.

> I this case you would backup all your data. So reinstalling the system on
> a new drive would not harm you.

I've done reinstalls with complete backups available, and even the old disk
running in parallel. No data loss in the backup sense, but it still
"harmed" me. I'm not sure what losses John was writing about, but until
everything works as before is a long way. Some things only come up months
later -- when you use /these/ three applications together and realize that
/something/ doesn't work as before. I, like the vast majority of computer
users, don't have a complete set of test cases for my system configuration
:)  And with reasonably complex system and application configurations,
that's more or less independent of the particular OS.

I'm also reasonably sure that John knows he can have both drives in the
computer (arguably necessary for the copy process he inquired about),
independently of whether he copies the system or regenerates it, so he's
probably not talking about losing a few schematics files (which would
continue to be available on the old disk).

Gerhard

2006\09\14@075001 by Buehler, Martin

picon face
ghost works ok for that with pata drives.
it crashed with sata - no idea why.

************************************************************************
******************************


>{Original Message removed}

2006\09\14@123118 by Brooke Clarke

flavicon
face
Hi John:

I'm not sure if it's related to WIN XP no change, SP1 or SP2, but if WIN
XP "sees" more than one copy of itself it does bad things to your hard
drives.  There's a Symantec web page describing how to use Ghost 2003
(running under DOS, not windows) so that you do NOT have both drives
connected to the computer and allow WIN XP to boot.  Note that "Ghost"
has two modes.  In one you make an "Image" of your drive that is not
bootable and in the other you "Clone" or disk-to-disk copy the drive.

I believe that the only trustworthy backup is to clone the drive and
then use the clone as your main drive.  But it's a hassle to swap hard
drives since WIN XP sees the drive serial numbers and does not like the
new drive.

A close friend was using RAID just for backup and a few months ago had a
hard drive failure.  Since he makes heavy use of his computer for his
business this was not a good thing.  He had tried a data recovery
service with no luck.  I told him about http://www.drivesavers.com/ and
they recovered his drive for $ 4,500.  He is now using an on line backup
service since he is lucky enough to have a high speed internet connection.

Have Fun,

Brooke Clarke

w/Java http://www.PRC68.com
w/o Java www.pacificsites.com/~brooke/PRC68COM.shtml
http://www.precisionclock.com

2006\09\14@131525 by w d myrick

picon face

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ferrell"
<spamBeGonejohnferrellspamBeGonespamearthlink.net>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list -
Public." <TakeThisOuTpiclistEraseMEspamspam_OUTmit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:26
PM
Subject: [ot]:Ghost?
<snip>
>
> Would anyone care to share any related
experiences?
John,

Acronis "true image" is the best I have
seen.  It will work with large to small
disk or small to large disk.  It will
make a bootable image  from the one you
are reading at the time and allow you to
keep the original drive as is.  I will
automatically set the sectors to the
size disk you are writing to.

You will like it. Cost is in the range
of  $35.00.

Derward Myrick

2006\09\14@142117 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 08:18 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Mike Singer wrote:
>
> >> Regening the system always results in a few losses.
> >
> > If you were serious about your data, you wouldn't rely only on HDD.
>
> Not sure where you get this from. HDD is IMO one of the best backup media
> around.

Agreed, out of all options a HDD seems to last longest. I usually have
an offline HDD with my data, and a "running" backup online. And of
course, every once in a while I write my data to DVD-Rs and store them
offsite.

However, I think what Mike means is NOT having a backup of some sort is
a bad idea.

Generally, when I start to run out of space on a drive in a major way I
buy a new larger drive, install a fresh OS, copy my data over, and then
store the old drive. In the long run it's probably one of the safest and
cheapest ways of preventing data loss.

TTYL

2006\09\14@145031 by Tim

picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:

> Generally, when I start to run out of space on a drive in a major way I
> buy a new larger drive, install a fresh OS, copy my data over, and then
> store the old drive. In the long run it's probably one of the safest and
> cheapest ways of preventing data loss.

I do not have any personal experience but I've read that regular
consumer quality hard drives (vs. enterprise class 24x7 rated drives)
can be fairly unreliable if they are not turned on and run frequently.
 The reports are that the bearings and other mechanical components
are more prone to sticking, etc. in the lesser quality drives. Has
anyone experienced a problem with this after you've pulled a drive off
the shelf after 6 months or a year?

Tim


2006\09\14@145529 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Brooke Clarke wrote:

> I'm not sure if it's related to WIN XP no change, SP1 or SP2, but if WIN
> XP "sees" more than one copy of itself it does bad things to your hard
> drives.  

Not sure what it is supposed to do, but whatever it is, it doesn't do that
here. I have a life mirrored copy of my system online, and WinXP sees both
copies without doing anything bad to any of them. (It's not XP itself that
does the mirroring.)

> A close friend was using RAID just for backup [...]

Bad idea. RAID is not a backup replacement.

> [...] and a few months ago had a hard drive failure.  Since he makes
> heavy use of his computer for his business this was not a good thing.  

But that's what RAID (at least RAID1) should have helped with. Why didn't
it?

Gerhard

2006\09\14@153308 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Gerhard,

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:54:39 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I had to read this a couple of times, because I made had the same misundestanding that you did: I think Brooke is saying that the RAID was used *only
for backup*, that is the live disk wasn't part of the RAID, so when it failed all was lost.  All that remained was a (presumably out of date) backup
copy on the RAID.

At least I think that's what he meant!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\14@160516 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 13:50 -0500, Tim wrote:
> Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> > Generally, when I start to run out of space on a drive in a major way I
> > buy a new larger drive, install a fresh OS, copy my data over, and then
> > store the old drive. In the long run it's probably one of the safest and
> > cheapest ways of preventing data loss.
>
> I do not have any personal experience but I've read that regular
> consumer quality hard drives (vs. enterprise class 24x7 rated drives)
> can be fairly unreliable if they are not turned on and run frequently.
>   The reports are that the bearings and other mechanical components
> are more prone to sticking, etc. in the lesser quality drives. Has
> anyone experienced a problem with this after you've pulled a drive off
> the shelf after 6 months or a year?

This used to be a big problem, but as is so common in the media, they
tend to get a story and stick to it, even if the story has changed LONG
ago.

I have a ~10 year old drive (340MB, man it was big in it's time) that I
powered up a few weeks ago, worked fine. Two 100MB laptop drives still
work fine (I use them from time to time in my "interface a PIC to IDE"
projects as a compatibility test).

My 2.1GB drive worked fine as of 8 months ago, and my 13GB drive worked
fine as of last week.

One of my 40GB drives is actually living in another running machine at
the moment.

In fact, in all my time, I've had TWO drives fail on me. The first was a
40MB stepper motor based MFM drive from the XT days, that one siezed up
a few years ago when I tried powering it up. The second drive that
failed was one of the IBM drives that was prone to failure about 5 years
ago. It failed in less then one year. I RMA'd it and sold the
replacement.

vs. other media hard drives, for me, have be VERY reliable. I've had CDs
go after a year. I don't know about DVD-Rs yet, but I do know one of my
DVD-RW disks doesn't read right anymore.

Aside from the disks, I've had HORRIBLE luck with optical DRIVES. My
first CD burner (a 2X writer, man it flew...) died after two years. A
Pioneer 10X CDROM died after 2 years. An LG DVD writer died after 1
year. I've actually started simply replacing the optical drive in my
system every year to avoid problems.

TTYL

2006\09\14@165858 by Tim

picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:

> This used to be a big problem, but as is so common in the media, they
> tend to get a story and stick to it, even if the story has changed LONG
> ago.

Thanks! It's good to hear of your success. I have reused old drives
quite a few times but I always started by reformatting them and didn't
try to read old data.

My experience with CD-ROM is similar to yours and the jury is still
out here on DVD as well.

We have a small network in our house. There's an older PC with a
dedicated data drive and we use it for backups of daily changes, etc.
My biggest concern is equipment failure and I think the chances of
both the main computer disk and the backup server disk going TU at the
same time is fairly slim. Important stuff gets sent to a computer at
my office periodically.

Tim

2006\09\14@174541 by peter green

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu [piclist-bouncesEraseMEspam.....mit.edu]On Behalf
> Of Gerhard Fiedler
> Sent: 14 September 2006 12:19
> To: EraseMEpiclistspammit.edu
> Subject: Re: [ot]:Ghost?
>
>
> Mike Singer wrote:
>
> >> Regening the system always results in a few losses.
> >
> > If you were serious about your data, you wouldn't rely only on HDD.
>
> Not sure where you get this from. HDD is IMO one of the best backup media
> around.
>
not really, a hard drive thats in a system is vulnerable to everything the
system is vulnerable to (fire,theft,power issues etc). one that is not in a
system is vulnerable to issues caused by long periods without a spinup
(though admittedly theese aren't as serious as they used to be).

they are also far more vulnerable to mechanical shock (e.g. your fire safe
dropping down through the floors of your building and getting burried under
rubble in the basement) than tapes and optical media.

imo the only secure way to do backups with hard drives is to have both spun
up regularlly but stored in different buildings or better still on different
sites. A grandfarther father son system with all the drives taking a share
of time as the main drive and at least one offsite at all times would
probablly be pretty secure.

2006\09\14@175646 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

> not really, a hard drive thats in a system is vulnerable to everything the
> system is vulnerable to (fire,theft,power issues etc). one that is not in
> a
> system is vulnerable to issues caused by long periods without a spinup
> (though admittedly theese aren't as serious as they used to be).
>
> they are also far more vulnerable to mechanical shock (e.g. your fire safe
> dropping down through the floors of your building and getting burried
> under
> rubble in the basement) than tapes and optical media.
>
> imo the only secure way to do backups with hard drives is to have both
> spun
> up regularlly but stored in different buildings or better still on
> different
> sites. A grandfarther father son system with all the drives taking a share
> of time as the main drive and at least one offsite at all times would
> probablly be pretty secure.


We do backups to a USB hard drive. Every night it backs up everything on
the network. It has a directory for each machine, then creates a
subdirectory based on the date. All drive contents are then copied into
that subdirectory. The USB drive can hold about 3 days of backups, so we
swap it out on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. When it's swapped out, the
boss takes it home so we have off site storage. In about 25 years, I've
never had a hard drive fail. I have had the OS write gargabe out to a
drive. That's why I really like an off-line backup as opposed to RAID or
some mirror system where the OS can also trash the "backup."

Harold


--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2006\09\14@191317 by Mike Singer

picon face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> Not sure where you get this from. HDD is IMO one of the
> best backup media around.

Gerhard,
ha-ha there is no such thing as "just best something" :-)

Talk to service (or sales) personal about HDD reliability on general.
They'll tell you horrible stories about some brands for some periods.
That's kind of magic; nobody could swear that a single HDD wouldn't
die next second, even non-powered one.
(I'd rephrase Elton John: "Sorry seems to be the harddisk word" :-)

And in contrast to, say, CDR you can't just place its plates into
another HDD, or buy just another dozen of them to make extra-copies.
If they were "reliable" there was not so much fuss about RAID, SMART,
File System reliability etc.

By the way, file system was not specified; the worst one for my apps,
I've ever bumped into, was FAT32. With that FS one should expect some
system files get corrupted eventually "by design". Regular clean
reinstalling was the only way to go.


>  I, like the vast majority of computer users, don't have a complete
> set of test cases for my system configuration :)

That's the point: the cost of validating (testing) of the new long-run
situation is much higher than the cost of just getting to the start
position once in a while, like for steppers. (Heck, talking like
Delphian Oracle, need to change the style :-)

Best Regards,
MS

2006\09\14@203918 by Richard Prosser

picon face
On 15/09/06, Tim <RemoveMEtim.n9puzEraseMEspamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:

snipped...
> We have a small network in our house. There's an older PC with a
> dedicated data drive and we use it for backups of daily changes, etc.
> My biggest concern is equipment failure and I think the chances of
> both the main computer disk and the backup server disk going TU at the
> same time is fairly slim. Important stuff gets sent to a computer at
> my office periodically.
>
> Tim


Unless you get a power surge / lightening hit etc.

RP

2006\09\14@225956 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
peter green wrote:

> they are also far more vulnerable to mechanical shock (e.g. your fire safe
> dropping down through the floors of your building and getting burried under
> rubble in the basement) than tapes and optical media.

Not sure your plastic-based optical media and tapes would survive the
temperature shock that comes with such a scenario :)

> imo the only secure way to do backups with hard drives is to have both spun
> up regularlly but stored in different buildings or better still on different
> sites.

Quite easy to do. I'd say easier as with DVD. And since it's not such a
pain, you can actually backup to HDD every day. (Almost) nobody does that
with DVD.

Gerhard

2006\09\14@231050 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Mike Singer wrote:

>> Not sure where you get this from. HDD is IMO one of the
>> best backup media around.
>
> ha-ha there is no such thing as "just best something" :-)

ho-ho, nobody claimed such a thing ?-)  But somebody claimed that HDD is
not a serious backup medium.

> Talk to service (or sales) personal about HDD reliability on general.
> They'll tell you horrible stories about some brands for some periods.
> That's kind of magic; nobody could swear that a single HDD wouldn't
> die next second, even non-powered one.

Same goes for DVD and others. You might swear that it wouldn't, but we all
know what that is worth, what with atheists, perjuring and all.

> And in contrast to, say, CDR you can't just place its plates into
> another HDD, or buy just another dozen of them to make extra-copies.

It doesn't help a lot to buy another dozen if the one copy you made
(because making those copies is such a pain) has gone bad. Which,
differently from HDDs, I would bet on that it does. And I'd probably win...
if not this year, then within the next few.

There's a chance of failure. But with two HDD copies you are probably safer
than with ten CD/DVD copies. And they are not only safer, but so much
easier to do and to check. (Ever checked 30GB of data on ten sets of CD or
DVD?) And cheaper (per GB) also.

> If they were "reliable" there was not so much fuss about RAID, SMART,
> File System reliability etc.

It seems you have been out of the loop of discussions about reliability of
optical media :)  

> That's the point: the cost of validating (testing) of the new long-run
> situation is much higher than the cost of just getting to the start
> position once in a while, like for steppers.

You missed the point. The starting position doesn't help me a lot, it's the
working position that I want. That's where the current system is. And it's
pretty far away from the starting position.

Gerhard

2006\09\14@234048 by Tim

picon face
Richard Prosser wrote:
> On 15/09/06, Tim <RemoveMEtim.n9puzspam_OUTspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
>
> snipped...
>> We have a small network in our house. There's an older PC with a
>> dedicated data drive and we use it for backups of daily changes, etc.
>> My biggest concern is equipment failure and I think the chances of
>> both the main computer disk and the backup server disk going TU at the
>> same time is fairly slim. Important stuff gets sent to a computer at
>> my office periodically.
>>
>> Tim
>
>
> Unless you get a power surge / lightening hit etc.

Agreed, it's not foolproof. The computers are on UPS and our Internet
connection is via Wireless DSL. The UPS help with the power surges and
normally if there are storms in the area everything is powered off and
unplugged.

Data itself does go off-site to another computer via Windows and Linux
versions of rsync each day. Thus far we've never had to retrieve
anything from either the local or remote backup storage.

Tim

2006\09\15@002651 by Richard Prosser

picon face
And the other problem I've experienced is capacitor failure on the
motherboard. Took out the the low voltage  regulator & the ram and
possibly a few other bits & pieces. The hard drive was OK though.
It's just something to keep an eye on. A PSU failure could cause a
hard drive fault regardless of UPS's and surege protection.
RP

On 15/09/06, Tim <RemoveMEtim.n9puzTakeThisOuTspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

And the other problem I've experienced is capacitor failure on the
motherboard. Took out the the low voltage  regulator & the ram and
possibly a few other bits & pieces. The hard drive was OK though.
It's just something to keep an eye on. A PSU failure could cause a
hard drive fault regardless of UPS's and surege protection.
RP

2006\09\15@145719 by Mike Singer

picon face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> > make extra-copies.
> It doesn't help a lot to buy another dozen if the one copy you
> made (because making those copies is such a pain) has
> gone bad.

Backup only user files or, even changed user files. Zip them before
back up. Do not backup system folders.
I don't see why you have to backup more than some Mbytes each time
under such scenario. With CDR under XP it takes a minute. When
zipping, split the big zip into reasonable number of smaller volumes
and store them according to your favorite redundancy algorithm among a
number of CDRs. Small 200 Mbytes CDRs are reliable mechanically and
could hold tenths of sessions.

> > That's the point: the cost of validating (testing) of the new long-run
> > situation is much higher than the cost of just getting to the start
> > position once in a while, like for steppers.
> You missed the point. The starting position doesn't help me a lot,
> it's the working position that I want. That's where the current system
>  is. And it's pretty far away from the starting position.

You can't enter twice the same river; you can't reproduce twice the
same set of hardware. So, in a strict meaning, there is no much sense
to backup working position, at least with Microsoft software. Setting
a snapshot of some process as starting point of another process is
out-of-specs business.

Regards,

2006\09\15@150705 by Dave Lag

picon face
Tim wrote:
> I do not have any personal experience but I've read that regular
> consumer quality hard drives (vs. enterprise class 24x7 rated drives)
> can be fairly unreliable if they are not turned on and run frequently.
>   The reports are that the bearings and other mechanical components
> are more prone to sticking, etc. in the lesser quality drives. Has
> anyone experienced a problem with this after you've pulled a drive off
> the shelf after 6 months or a year?
>
> Tim

Interesting, because I have only seen this in your "enterprise" class
product. Got a stack of 6Gig IBM SCSI out of servers, once removed from
service if you want them to spin up ya gotta give em a slap.
:(
Dave

2006\09\15@151719 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
The size of the data you would like to backup depends on your system
(software) and of course on you what you are doing etc. I can create a huge
Word doc for example with loads of high quality pics in it within a minute.
Or if you have a database app it could be quite high (depending how the
database serer stores the info, what are you storing etc etc etc). My father
for example had a small company with only three people in it, used AutoCad
for designing, and every week a whole CD filled up with just by the DWG
files. And he did not backed up the plotter files.

Tamas


On 15/09/06, Mike Singer <RemoveMEznatokKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\09\16@135933 by John Ferrell

face picon face
Ghost is ordered...I hope I can make it work!

John Ferrell    W8CCW
"My Competition is not my enemy"
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2006\09\20@155852 by John Ferrell

face picon face
Ghost has arrived.
The next hurtle is that in the preparation I decided to simply copy off to
another drive my extensive My Documents folder. I kept an offline copy of a
website that seems to have grown a series of folders which tend to crash
windows explorer. The folders can be renamed, they currently reside as a 12
deep nest of "bad". Intuition is telling me that it would be a bad idea to
try to clone this drive with the error in place. Command line or safe mode
will not allow a delete either. Scan Disk and Chkdsk don't appear to exist
with XP.

I am considering giving Knoppix a try but I don't want to do that until I
have a chunk of time to regenerate the system if needed.

Have I missed something?

John Ferrell    W8CCW
"My Competition is not my enemy"
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2006\09\20@165616 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bouncesSTOPspamspamspam_OUTmit.edu On Behalf Of John Ferrell
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 4:01 PM
>
> Ghost has arrived.
> The next hurtle is that in the preparation I decided to
> simply copy off to another drive my extensive My Documents
> folder. I kept an offline copy of a website that seems to
> have grown a series of folders which tend to crash windows
> explorer. The folders can be renamed, they currently reside
> as a 12 deep nest of "bad". Intuition is telling me that it
> would be a bad idea to try to clone this drive with the
> error in place. Command line or safe mode will not allow a
> delete either. Scan Disk and Chkdsk don't appear to exist
> with XP.

Right click the drive in explorer, choose properties, select the tool tab
and there is the XP version of scan disk.

Paul

{Quote hidden}

2006\09\20@181818 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Paul Hutchinson wrote:

>> Scan Disk and Chkdsk don't appear to exist with XP.
>
> Right click the drive in explorer, choose properties, select the tool tab
> and there is the XP version of scan disk.

Actually, that's a GUI wrapper around XP's chkdsk. chkdsk should also be
available at the command line on any XP system. It is also available in the
Recovery Console, into which you can boot when you boot from the CD. (You
can also install the Recovery Console on the disk and boot into it from the
XP boot menu -- sometimes quite handy, as it is much quicker than booting
and loading it from the CD.)

Gerhard

2006\09\20@185634 by Matt Pobursky

flavicon
face
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:01:06 -0400, John Ferrell wrote:
> Ghost has arrived.
> The next hurtle is that in the preparation I decided to simply copy
> off to another drive my extensive My Documents folder. I kept an
> offline copy of a website that seems to have grown a series of
> folders which tend to crash windows explorer. The folders can be
> renamed, they currently reside as a 12 deep nest of "bad".
> Intuition is telling me that it would be a bad idea to try to clone
> this drive with the error in place. Command line or safe mode will
> not allow a delete either. Scan Disk and Chkdsk don't appear to
> exist with XP.

Actually, most of the traditional DOS command line utilities are
still in Windows 2000 and XP. It's just that Users Are Too Stupid
(tm) for Microsoft to make that apparent.

I did Gargoyle a reference page on the Microsoft site though:

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/ntcmds.mspx?mfr=true

Matt Pobursky
Maximum Performance Systems




2006\09\20@193024 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
How did explorer crash? You mean crash (with popping up a window saying ther
ewas an app error?), or after a short silence the whole desktop restarts and
all explorer window disappears? Or just tell you that this and that file
coul dnot be accessed because of this and that? Did you try to copy the 'My
Documents' or the 'Documents and Settings\username\' directory that contains
many other things amongs 'My Documents'?

Tamas


On 20/09/06, John Ferrell <spamBeGonejohnferrellSTOPspamspamEraseMEearthlink.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2006\09\20@231908 by Matthew Fries

flavicon
face
At 04:01 PM 9/20/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>Ghost has arrived.
>The next hurtle is that in the preparation I decided to simply copy off to
>another drive my extensive My Documents folder. I kept an offline copy of a
>website that seems to have grown a series of folders which tend to crash
>windows explorer. The folders can be renamed, they currently reside as a 12
>deep nest of "bad". Intuition is telling me that it would be a bad idea to
>try to clone this drive with the error in place. Command line or safe mode
>will not allow a delete either. Scan Disk and Chkdsk don't appear to exist
>with XP.

CHKDSK does exist, but not quite the way you think.

Right-click on a drive letter, choose properties, and go to the TOOLS tab.
Use the Check Now button, and check the "automatically fix errors" box.

Remove the BALONEY from my email address.
-----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Fries       Minneapolis, MN    USA
KILLspamfreezespamBeGonespambaloneyvisi.com

"Quit eating all my *STUFF*!" - The Tick

2006\09\21@082722 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Matthew Fries wrote:

> CHKDSK does exist, but not quite the way you think.

I'm not sure how you think that one thinks that chkdsk would exist :)

Try pressing Windows-R (alternatively Start menu | Run...), then
"cmd<enter>", then "chkdsk /?<enter>".

Gerhard

2006\09\21@083633 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Matt Pobursky wrote:

> It's just that Users Are Too Stupid (tm) for Microsoft to make that
> apparent.

You mean there's no icon for each of the command line utilities? :)


> I did Gargoyle a reference page on the Microsoft site though:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/ntcmds.mspx?mfr=true

Enlightening might also be to have a peek at the section "Command
Reference" in Windows Help (also called "RTFM" :)  Or maybe open a command
line window and type "help<enter>". Then choose a command you're interested
in and type "<command> /?".

How more "apparent" can it be?

Gerhard

2006\09\21@135210 by John Ferrell

face picon face
It was a "Windows Explorer needs to close, send error report to
Microsoft..." kind of crash.

John Ferrell    W8CCW
"My Competition is not my enemy"
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2006\09\21@153917 by John Ferrell

face picon face
Lots of good answers.
The disk check in Win Explorer (no options) quit with "Windows was unable to
complete the disk check".
The CHKDSK from the command line was run in read only mode and revealed a
few errors before it advised that it could go no further in Read-only mode.
As soon as I get some real work done I will unleash it and hope for the
best. I expect it would be best to do that from a fresh start reboot to
command line.

I was not aware of the command line commands digest, I too was convinced it
was all but gone. I will spend some time there.

As far being too stupid to use windows goes, I am in good company. It must
be lonely on the other side!

Thanks to all. I will report back with results after I have something
worthwhile.

John Ferrell    W8CCW
"My Competition is not my enemy"
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2006\09\21@160939 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Copy all your stuff down, and when you finish, think it again if everything
has backed up, then boot up the system with an emergency disk, or recovery
console, or using another WinXP and check your driver like that.
Alternatively just format the drive... But make sure there is no hardware
error on the disk.

Tamas


On 21/09/06, John Ferrell <EraseMEjohnferrellspamEraseMEearthlink.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2006\09\21@172455 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
John Ferrell wrote:

> I was not aware of the command line commands digest, I too was convinced it
> was all but gone.

I don't know where this seemingly common belief comes from. Besides not
being gone, the command line in Win2k/XP is quite a bit better than the old
DOS box from Win9x times.

Helpful may be the "Cmd" link from the doc page Matt posted a link to:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/cmd.mspx?mfr=true

Scroll down to the sections about command extensions (by default enabled on
XP, but not on 2k) and name completion (by default not enabled, but quite
useful).


(Of course I won't try to compare cmd with any of the *x type shells... But
you can install most of them natively, with native builds of *x command
line tools, on Windows also.)

Gerhard

2006\09\21@185819 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
It is in the WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 directory...

I like the chkNTFS.exe that might be just a printf as it prints the results
too quick :-) It miight just jeck the dirty flag or something like that.

Tamas


On 21/09/06, Gerhard Fiedler <@spam@lists@spam@spamspam_OUTconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\09\21@210536 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Tamas Rudnai wrote:

> It is in the WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 directory...

Which doesn't really matter, because this directory is by default on the
execution path.

> I like the chkNTFS.exe that might be just a printf as it prints the results
> too quick :-) It miight just jeck the dirty flag or something like that.

Yup (some line breaking occurring):

--------------------------
e:\>chkntfs /?
Displays or modifies the checking of disk at boot time.

CHKNTFS volume [...]
CHKNTFS /D
CHKNTFS /T[:time]
CHKNTFS /X volume [...]
CHKNTFS /C volume [...]

 volume         Specifies the drive letter (followed by a colon),
                mount point, or volume name.
 /D             Restores the machine to the default behavior; all drives
are
                checked at boot time and chkdsk is run on those that are
                dirty.
 /T:time        Changes the AUTOCHK initiation countdown time to the
                specified amount of time in seconds.  If time is not
                specified, displays the current setting.
 /X             Excludes a drive from the default boot-time check.
Excluded
                drives are not accumulated between command invocations.
 /C             Schedules a drive to be checked at boot time; chkdsk will
run
                if the drive is dirty.

If no switches are specified, CHKNTFS will display if the specified drive
is
dirty or scheduled to be checked on next reboot.
--------------------------

As stated, chkntfs does not check the drive, it helps control the boot time
checking.

Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...