Disk Cloning Good For Backup Strategy?
I am thinking of adding a second disk drive of the same size as the first, 1 T drive, and to use this second drive to create a clone of the fist, and then use this as my back up strategy. Does this sound like a good idea, or will I have problems down the road? If I leave the second disk installed in the computer, will this prevent me from booting? Any ideas or suggestions on this strategy?
Thanks!
I'll add some comments to what Pat has mentioned:
Is it good? It depends on what you want. Fro most folks it's not an efficient use of diskspace and is a backup protocol that provides minimum security.
There's only two advantages to doing a disk clone instead of a backup. To recover, you simply swap hard disks -- so it's faster that restoring from a backup file. However, recovery is something you will do only once in a blue moon so that's not much of an advantage, especially if there are disadvantages. The other advantage is you can install the hard disk, but only after having booted and copy files directly to another disk without using ati -- although you can accomplish the same thing from backups using windows explorer with ati if ati is installed. So are those worth the disadvantages? --- let's see what the disadvantages are:
- a clone takes up an entire hard disk with a single image, even if most of it is empty space! With backups you can have multiple backups on one target disk so you have extra insurance that you have a good backup -- plus, sometimes software goes wonky and you want to recover a disk image to a time before the wonk happened. So having some older backups is sometimes handy too. [I usually keep as many backups as can fit on the target; often this might be 10 or 20 backups. I've had situations where I kept a rolling 30 days of backups and those was very useful on a security system where being able to review 30-day old data was critical.]
- When you recover, it's possible to clone in the wrong direction and be left with only empty disks!
- You cannot keep a clone of a disk with an active (system) partition on a drive that already has a disk with such a partition -- Windows will make one of them no longer a bootable disk--which defeats the whole purpose of a cloned system disk.
If recovery speed is more important than those other things, then your probably want to clone instead of doing regular backups.
To add more weight to what Pat and Scott said, don't use Clone! Clone is rarely required. In almost all situations, you are far better to use Backup and Restore.
If your disk is a system disk, cloning it and leaving the source and clone in the computer will produce problems. If you disk is a data disk, using cloning to create a mirror is inefficent: just use sync software.
For backup, well, use a backup! Remember that a clone is exactly like a disk/partition backup + restore in a single operation. With a backup, you will be able to store different images with different versions of files, etc. Much more flexible, less risky...
If your disk is a system disk, cloning it and leaving the source and clone in the computer will produce problems.
Pls also explain why?
If you disk is a data disk, using cloning to create a mirror is inefficent: just use sync software.
I beg to differ. I have myself tried and can say that cloning is so fast for even data backup whereas synch software takes huge amount of time...(i am talking about say 200 GBs of data)...Any reason why u think cloning is inefficient in such cases?
, etc. Much more flexible, less risky...
I trust when you say flexibility - you mean ability to store multiple images, and move them like normal file...and use less disk space...
But what else?
However the downside is I am still dependent on acronis software for restore...whereas in cloning I am not dependent on any software
The "less risky" part seems totally not tenable...any definite case where this can be illlustrated?
Appreciate your time and help.
Is it good? It depends on what you want. Fro most folks it's not an efficient use of diskspace and is a backup protocol that provides minimum security
Pls specify how it provides minimum security?
The other advantage is you can install the hard disk, but only after having booted and copy files directly to another disk without using ati -- although you can accomplish the same thing from backups using windows explorer with ati if ati is installed.
Pls explain...I am unable to follow...read many times...
a clone takes up an entire hard disk with a single image, even if most of it is empty space!
Agree
To add more weight to what Pat and Scott said, don't use Clone! Clone is rarely required. In almost all situations, you are far better to use Backup and Restore.
With due respect to ur knowledge; unless any valid further points are added how more weight is provided in favour of backup and restore than cloning? You need to substantiate.
You are free to use whatever method you want. We are providing our opinion of what's safest and best for most users, based on our extensive experience with ATI.
This topic often generates discussion (i.e., controversy). Keep in mind that the program offers both options, imaging or cloning, and you are free to choose whichever method you prefer.
To me, the biggest argument in favor of using imaging as a backup strategy is to have multiple backups taken at different points in time. I used to have a RAID 1 backup (two mirrored disks) that I thought would offer some protection against disk failure. It does. However, it does not protect against software problems since a software glitch that corrupts a file or files will happily be duplicated on both disks of the RAID array by the RAID controller. In my experience, software problems are many times more likely to occur than disk hardware problems, so the effectiveness of having mirrored disks is questionable. So I eventually gave up on that and converted the mirrored disk to a single disk to hold multiple backups.
A similar argument can be made for having a single clone of a disk. This scheme sets you up for a single-point failure. The clone will be an exact duplicate of the disk at the time that it was made, but the problem with this is that bad things frequently happen that may not be detected until much later in time, after you have cloned a system with a latent problem. These can be things like deleting a file that you later discover that you needed, or a disk developing bad sectors that corrupt a file that you haven't looked at in a long time, or a virus infecting your system and going undetected for a while. When you then make a clone of the disk, the clone contains the problem and you have no way to go back to a time when things were working correctly.
I prefer to have 20 or more images stored on backup disks going back over a year or more, since this only requires one disk to hold the images. If you implement this strategy with clones you're going to need 20 disks.
The one advantage to cloning is that when your disk crashes you can restore by merely swapping disks without having to restore a backup file. Mind you, a restore is a very rare event so the time savings occurs only rarely. Against this you have the trouble of swapping disks before doing each cloning (systems disks should be cloned with the target disk in place)--this extra time, compared to doing a backup occurs with every cloning. Plus you get only one image per target disk, an unnecessary expense of disk space, plus, you have are likely to have far fewer images than if you did backups (are you really going to buy loads of disks so you can have multiple backups?
For this reason is generally consider a false economy and a fools errand to make only clones instead of backups. If your system disk or data are not valuable and if you saving time is not important, then do clones, otherwise it is not a prudent endeavor.
The one advantage to cloning is that when your disk crashes you can restore by merely swapping disks without having to restore a backup file. Mind you, a restore is a very rare event so the time savings occurs only rarely. Against this you have the trouble of swapping disks before doing each cloning (systems disks should be cloned with the target disk in place)--this extra time, compared to doing a backup occurs with every cloning. Plus you get only one image per target disk, an unnecessary expense of disk space, plus, you have are likely to have far fewer images than if you did backups (are you really going to buy loads of disks so you can have multiple backups?
For this reason is generally consider a false economy and a fools errand to make only clones instead of backups. If your system disk or data are not valuable and if you saving time is not important, then do clones, otherwise it is not a prudent endeavor.
Excellent explanation indeed... thank u
This topic often generates discussion (i.e., controversy). Keep in mind that the program offers both options, imaging or cloning, and you are free to choose whichever method you prefer.
To me, the biggest argument in favor of using imaging as a backup strategy is to have multiple backups taken at different points in time. I used to have a RAID 1 backup (two mirrored disks) that I thought would offer some protection against disk failure. It does. However, it does not protect against software problems since a software glitch that corrupts a file or files will happily be duplicated on both disks of the RAID array by the RAID controller. In my experience, software problems are many times more likely to occur than disk hardware problems, so the effectiveness of having mirrored disks is questionable. So I eventually gave up on that and converted the mirrored disk to a single disk to hold multiple backups.
A similar argument can be made for having a single clone of a disk. This scheme sets you up for a single-point failure. The clone will be an exact duplicate of the disk at the time that it was made, but the problem with this is that bad things frequently happen that may not be detected until much later in time, after you have cloned a system with a latent problem. These can be things like deleting a file that you later discover that you needed, or a disk developing bad sectors that corrupt a file that you haven't looked at in a long time, or a virus infecting your system and going undetected for a while. When you then make a clone of the disk, the clone contains the problem and you have no way to go back to a time when things were working correctly.
I prefer to have 20 or more images stored on backup disks going back over a year or more, since this only requires one disk to hold the images. If you implement this strategy with clones you're going to need 20 disks.
very explanatory and helpful in forming an informed decision...thank u for detailed explanation
You are free to use whatever method you want. We are providing our opinion of what's safest and best for most users, based on our extensive experience with ATI.
Agreed...however elaborating the thought process like other posters did does help a lot in understanding and then accepting...i respect sharing of best practices but a little explanation and justification does help.
It has been explained many, many times in great detail in this forum. A little searching would find much for you to read.
If your disk is a system disk, cloning it and leaving the source and clone in the computer will produce problems. If you disk is a data disk, using cloning to create a mirror is inefficent: just use sync software.
For backup, well, use a backup! Remember that a clone is exactly like a disk/partition backup + restore in a single operation. With a backup, you will be able to store different images with different versions of files, etc. Much more flexible, less risky...
If your disk is a system disk, cloning it and leaving the source and clone in the computer will produce problems.
Pls also explain why?
A clone is an exact copy of a disk. When Windows boots it can get confused and this can render the disks unbootable. I think it has to do with SID confusion, but I am not sure. What I know is that many users in this forum learnt it the hard way.
If you disk is a data disk, using cloning to create a mirror is inefficent: just use sync software.
I beg to differ. I have myself tried and can say that cloning is so fast for even data backup whereas synch software takes huge amount of time...(i am talking about say 200 GBs of data)...Any reason why u think cloning is inefficient in such cases?
Well, look at it this way. You clone a data disk, you change one file. In the clone process, you have to clone the entire drive, in the sync process you just copy one file.
, etc. Much more flexible, less risky...
I trust when you say flexibility - you mean ability to store multiple images, and move them like normal file...and use less disk space...
But what else?
That's pretty much it. Add to this that cloning is an operation that takes place with the source and the destination in place. If the cloning process gets interrupted, it is unclear what impact the interruption might have both on the source and the destination.
However the downside is I am still dependent on acronis software for restore...whereas in cloning I am not dependent on any software
That is right, you depend on proprietary software to restore your image.
The "less risky" part seems totally not tenable...any definite case where this can be illlustrated?
Plenty of issues with cloning on this forum! That illustrates the risk part. Combination of technology, hardware support, user errors, lack of luck... Again, since a cloning process can impact your source disk, why take the risk if you don't have to. I personally cannot come up with a case where cloning is absolutely necessary. To me, it boils down to the trade off of risk vs the additional cost of a third disk for backup storage and longer time to complete the same result (a clone is done is one operation, a disk and partition backup + restore takes double the time).
Windows IDs disks and for machines that came with windows, the OS iis not transferable to another machine. So having the disk in place when you clone to it is necessary in some cases.
You can clone if you want but all the reasons not to have been given. You have to think about the kinds of things that can go wrong and what you would be able to do in those circumstances. some of the folks on this forums have many years of experience with the various circumstances and do not make their recommendations like armchair quarterbacks, it is actual practical experience being voiced.
Probably the most common problem with cloning is erasing the source disk during the cloning operation. Next is probably failure to have a bootable clone for any of a variety of reason, usually an error during cloning operation. If a clone is bad there is usually no saving it. It you erase your source disk; there is no paddle unless you already have successful clones on hand or backups.
why someone would want to run those risks just to save a little time at restoration is beyond me, but some ill initially favor such methods until they gain some experience.
Probably the most common problem with cloning is erasing the source disk during the cloning operation. Next is probably failure to have a bootable clone for any of a variety of reason, usually an error during cloning operation. If a clone is bad there is usually no saving it. It you erase your source disk; there is no paddle unless you already have successful clones on hand or backups.
why someone would want to run those risks just to save a little time at restoration is beyond me, but some ill initially favor such methods until they gain some experience.