Cloning with TI 2011 - Sharing Experiences from a regular Cloner

Cloning is an "all or nothing" process. If something goes wrong, the user may end up with two unbootable drives and loss of data. Backup and recovery is a far safer method, and allows for multiple tries if the user is unfamiliar. And the reasons you mentioned. There is no advantage to cloning over backup/restore, other than some saved time but with considerable added risk.

An interesting discussion, I'd like to add my experiences and also ask some questions. It is my personal opinion that both HDD cloning and Imaging/Backup/Recovery are valid and valuable data protection tools. There seems to be two opinions out there regarding cloning, and I don't think either are necessarily right or wrong.

In my case, I also run two Dell PC's with 500Gb HDDs, each with hot swap racks installed, and have purchased a total of 4 spare 500Gb Western Digital Black series HDDs as my clone drives.

As with any backup operation, there's a learning curve involved. The first time I ever ran a disk image (some 10 years back) I was scared to death...Would it work? Would I screw up and image in reverse? How good are the instructions with the imaging software? But I printed everything out first, followed the directions to a tee, and got my first disk image without incident. After a while, it became routine, but here's where human error can creep in - it doesn't matter whether you're imaging, cloning, or doing any other read/write function - you need to be on your toes and check, double check, and check again that you're performing the operation correctly, every single time. I think a lot of disasters happen through one becoming too over-confident..."Ahhh I've got this..." and click right through something that isn't right staring them right in the face.

Such is cloning - which is my main form of data protection today, using ATI 2011, and always only off the bootable media. As Scoop does, I consider every possible way that I might screw up, and have precautions in place for each scenario.

1. I have a docking station whose only function is to wipe the partitions from the previously-cloned HDD so the difference between the target HDD and my machine's HDD is as obvious as can be. My Dells came with Seagate HDDS, and I intentionally purchased Western Digitals as an added check point - if my source disk doesn't show as "ST500", I know I'm about to reverse clone if I continue.

2. Before I ever click "clone a disk", I first select "Add a Disk" from the ATI Tools and Utilities menu. I don't use this function for anything other than to get a visual verification of which disk is unallocated, before I enter the cloning menu.

3. I never clone from the hard drive - I think this causes a lot of disasters when people fail to check the "shut down after operation is complete" box. Before I ever started cloning, I had reset my BIOS to boot to the optical drive first, making preparations for cloning a snap - load the Acronis CD in the optical drive, verify that Windows "see it" as a data source, shut down, pop an HDD in the hot swap rack and turn the rack power button on, and boot the computer. The Acronis CD is the first bootable media polled, and the machine boots to it instead of Windows.

On a bad day, I'm human enough to possibly miss the "shut down after operation is complete" step, so, I use a set of printed step by step instructions I created and use every single time I clone. My instructions have printed in big red letters to "check the shutdown when operation is complete" box. I always remove the CD from my optical drive as soon as ATI 2011 is loaded in RAM. I have never had a case where the machine rebooted itself after the cloning operation is complete, causing a disk signature conflict. Again, discipline is the key - I step-by-step through my instruction sheet every single time without fail.

3. Like Scoop, I always clone in Automatic mode - "custom mode" is an invitation to disaster, in my opinion - add variables, eventually, you'll click the wrong box.

4. Once the cloning operation is complete (only 10-12 minutes for the 200GB or so I have filled on my internal HDD) I can and always do immediately verify the integrity of the cloned drive with one simple step - while the machine is shut down, I pop the case and disconnect the internal HDD SATA cable and power supply cable...with no disk in the optical drive, Windows boots without fail to the only drive available, the newly cloned HDD in the hot swap rack. Check the operation of a few programs, usually open my e-mail, open my browser, etc. I occasionally will run off the clone for a day or two just as an added test, but I limit this as heat can be an issue in the hot swap rack enclosure.

My point here is that any operation of the magnitude of imaging, cloning, even just file backups, requires paying attention, having a step by step system written down and followed invariably, and recognizing that human error is always a possibility, no matter how many times you do the same operation.

I haven't been cloning as long as Scoop has, but I can say that I too have never had anything but success in creating a perfect clone that is fully operational and quickly and easily verifiable. To me, having two complete clones of each machine in my safe that can be swapped in literally seconds in a catastrophic situation is far better protection than having several huge image files stored on other devices that can also fail, are not easily verified as being useable until the time comes when you desperately need them, and the white-knuckle period of restoration that you hope is going smoothly.

Just my opinion, but I have already had a case where a less than competent ISP technician remotely completely corrupted my Outlook installation and several of my e-mail accounts. In the time it took to shut the machine down, swap the HDD, and reboot, I was back in business running a week-old clone. As problem-prone as Outlook is, I was so glad I did not have to go through an image restore or try to piece together .pst files and reconfigure all my e-mail accounts.

Obviously, I am in the group who feels that cloning is the best option, and Tuttle is in the other group. I am not interested in starting a battle, as I said, there are merits to both methods, but I am interested in listening to a bit of elaboration on a couple of your comments, Tuttle, in the interest of being more informed myself.

You mentioned "if something goes wrong, the user may end up with two unbootable drives and loss of data" Short of a power failure occurring during the cloning operation (what UPS's are made for), could you help me understand how it would be that both the source and the target drive would be rendered unusable? Cloning is simply a read/write operation, not at all unlike a file backup operation or even a disk imaging operation. I can understand how the target drive may become corrupted, but how could the source become corrupt when it is simply being read? If "something going wrong" is a human error issue (reverse cloning, for example) yes, maybe, but again due diligence is required in any such operation. And if one clones a minimum of two spare HDD's, even if both the source and target drives are totally destroyed, you still have a third that will boot up immediately. Again, planning ahead...

Given becoming fully familiar with one's method of choice is an absolute necessitywith either method, how is imaging, backup, recovery any "safer" than a single operation solution such as cloning?

"There is no advantage to cloning over backup/restore, other than some saved time but with considerable added risk."

I guess I have to respectfully disagree with both parts of this statement...both imaging/restore and backup/restore involve multiple software-driven operations, each with its own set of do's and don'ts that are all error potentials. Cloning, for all intents and purposes, is a one-operation function. Once a HDD clone is created, it is a solution in itself - a computer without the box, and requires no action on the part of the operator other than plugging it into the affected computer. Fewer operations = fewer chances for error.

File backups are limited to the data being backed up. A huge advantage to cloning is all of my software, all of my settings, all of my version updates, all of my passwords, etc. are part and parcel to the cloned HDD and are all there when a compromised drive is taken offline and replaced with the clone. Images come closer as snapshots, but require a protracted restoration process which sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't, and there's no quick way of knowing if one has successfully imaged.

"Considerable added risk" is a very relative term. File backups are pretty safe, as long as you know where you stored them, if all the incrementals are valid and you know how to properly retrieve them, you get the data back. If you are practicing due diligence, know exactly what you are doing at each step, and have and use the proper fail safe hardware, and have at least two spare HDDs in a cloning rotation the only risk is a clone that is corrupt and unusable, which you still have a verified replacement for.

To each his own, what works best for one may not be the right answer for the other, but cloning has cut my back-up time by 70%, and has offered me an unmatched peace of mind that I have never felt to this extent during 10+ years of imaging and file backups. I offer this only as my take on this discussion, for what it is worth, and with all respect to those who lean away from cloning - your choice, to be sure.

Sawdust,

Thanks for your post and experiences with Acronis Cloning

Well, it finally happened after 3 years of Cloning on 3 PC's, a total of 75 cloned HDD's without error.

I recently Cloned as usual, every 2 weeks. I don't test every Cloned HDD (don't boot up on the Cloned HDD) since I'd never encountered an issue when I used to test every Cloned HDD. They have all booted up without error during the last 3 years so I usually test 1 Cloned HDD after 4 periodic Cloning's.

I always clone with Acronis booted into RAM from the CD.

After I completed a routine Cloning (without any errors encountered during the process), I removed the newly-cloned HDD and restarted my PC with the Source HDD. I finally encountered the scenario that member "tuttle" and others have mentioned, my Source HDD failed to boot into Windows. The error was 0xc000000e at the boot screen.

I tried booting on my newly-cloned Target HDD and encountered the same error.

That error can be related to several issues but it's often referring to a problem with a corrupt Master Boot Sector and/or the Boot Manager and a required BCD rebuild.

I used "bootrec" with the /fixmbr option to repair the Source and Target HDD's. After running bootrec, both HDD's booted into Windows ok. The repair process took about 10 minutes from my "Windows System Repair" boot CD.

Until this issue, I had expected the Source HDD to be unaffected by a Cloning process as the "read-only" HDD.

The only thing I did notice when Acronis was completing the Cloning process, I didn't see the "copying MBR" message displayed on the cloning screen which usually is displayed (although very fast, hard to see) at the end of the cloning status bargraph at ~99% completed status.

I think that the process glitched during the MBR copying step or skipped that step which resulted in a missing or corrupt MBR.

So, "tuttle" and other volunteer members here, you guys were right about the potential risks associated with Cloning.

I guess it was something I needed to experience myself. I was surprised since it seems to be a rare occurrence after 3 years and 75 cloning's.

Since that error occurred, I've cloned my Mom's XP PC and my Win 7 Desktop PC without problems. Perhaps the "Gremlin" returned to his hole for another 3 years :d . I'll be curious to see if I encounter another issue with cloning 3 PC's.

Scoop wrote:

So, "tuttle" and other volunteer members here, you guys were right about the potential risks associated with Cloning.

Scoop,
Thanks for the detailed info on the problem you ran into while cloning. This was the information I was looking for, something specific. So, now I know it is in fact possible to end up with both a corrupt source and target HDD during cloning. I'm certainly no PC guru, but it sounds like you probably nailed down the cause, a glitch during the MBR partition copy.

This instance points out the importance of keeping at least two spare HDD's in your cloning rotation. I'm very glad I do that, especially now that this "gremlin" has surfaced. The best news though is that the HDD's weren't permanently damaged, easily fixed with bootrec/fixmbr.

This is the kind of information those of us who choose to clone really need. For myself, I'm relieved that the problem actually showed up for you and that you were able to work through a fix. At least for me, I'm even less deterred from cloning than before...while it's proven to not be 100% fool-proof, this particular known issue has a fix.

Thanks again for the detailed post and the fix - great info for those of us on the cloning side of the fence.

So now we know.

Sawdust wrote:

This instance points out the importance of keeping at least two spare HDD's in your cloning rotation.

Or, a better solution for most users: retain more than one full disk mode backup.

Sawdust

You're welcome for the info. I just finished cloning my 2 PC's for my 2-week cloning schedule. Both went ok. I looked closely when my Desktop PC was about complete cloning to see the "Copying MBR" fast message displayed on the status screen. Msg ok.

tuttle, Agree, best advice imo. There's no substitute for multiple backup strategies.