System Image Backup Strategies/Thoughts

[Brds7t7]

I was wondering why not just clone the entire drive C to a separate internal HDD.......

...and then re-clone it every month.....?

This way you do not need the rescue/boot disc and the spare HDD is ready to go any time.

I assume imaging/restore process is faster because it creates images incrementally every time.....?

But are there any other advantages...?

Thanks,
BBDS

You could do that if you wanted to. The only reason I choose to use an external is I can disconnect it whenever I want. I usually disconnect it before installing any new unknown software I want to try in case I did get a virus.

Unless your pc has hot swap capabilities, then you can disconnect an internal drive whenever you want. Or first test the software in a virtual machine first.

That's probably a different thread though.

 

[F5ing]

I was wondering why not just clone the entire drive C to a separate internal HDD.......

...and then re-clone it every month.....?

This way you do not need the rescue/boot disc and the spare HDD is ready to go any time.

That can work, but:

• it means you can only go back to the one and only clone you've got.
• if something goes wrong electrically both drives could get fried.
• if the cloned drive is accessible during normal running there's still a chance it can get corrupted.
• what happens if the clone actually contains the same malware you may be trying to recover from (in other words, you've been infected longer than you thought).

I'm sure there are more issues than just that. You've just got to try to think of any possible way you could lose it. I had done that before for a while after cloning to a larger drive. But I disabled the drive in the BIOS so the OS had no access, and I still made images to other externals. I eventually repurposed the drive to data backup duty and a temporary holding area for OS/app images.

I've got multiple copies of the primary imaging/cloning app I use on CD's and USB flash drives because I also use it when fixing other's computers, so I'm not really worried about having to find a copy of it to do a restore. And the restores don't take that long anyway.

I assume imaging/restore process is faster because it creates images incrementally every time.....?

I cannot really answer that as I only do full images. That way there's no real thought that goes into a restore. Just find the single full image I want to use then let her rip!

 

[kado897]

I was wondering why not just clone the entire drive C to a separate internal HDD.......

...and then re-clone it every month.....?

This way you do not need the rescue/boot disc and the spare HDD is ready to go any time.

That can work, but:

• it means you can only go back to the one and only clone you've got.
• if something goes wrong electrically both drives could get fried.
• if the cloned drive is accessible during normal running there's still a chance it can get corrupted.
• what happens if the clone actually contains the same malware you may be trying to recover from (in other words, you've been infected longer than you thought).

I'm sure there are more issues than just that. You've just got to try to think of any possible way you could lose it. I had done that before for a while after cloning to a larger drive. But I disabled the drive in the BIOS so the OS had no access, and I still made images to other externals. I eventually repurposed the drive to data backup duty and a temporary holding area for OS/app images.

I've got multiple copies of the primary imaging/cloning app I use on CD's and USB flash drives because I also use it when fixing other's computers, so I'm not really worried about having to find a copy of it to do a restore. And the restores don't take that long anyway.

I assume imaging/restore process is faster because it creates images incrementally every time.....?

I cannot really answer that as I only do full images. That way there's no real thought that goes into a restore. Just find the single full image I want to use then let her rip!

Incremental images are faster but also dangerous. It takes only one corruption to break the chain and make everything following that useless. Differentials are better but should only be used to fill in the gaps between full images.

 

[boyboyds]

I was wondering why not just clone the entire drive C to a separate internal HDD.......

...and then re-clone it every month.....?

This way you do not need the rescue/boot disc and the spare HDD is ready to go any time.

I assume imaging/restore process is faster because it creates images incrementally every time.....?

But are there any other advantages...?

Thanks,
BBDS

You could do that if you wanted to. The only reason I choose to use an external is I can disconnect it whenever I want. I usually disconnect it before installing any new unknown software I want to try in case I did get a virus.

Unless your pc has hot swap capabilities, then you can disconnect an internal drive whenever you want. Or first test the software in a virtual machine first.

That's probably a different thread though.

The way I imagine it is to connect a regular second internal HDD externally to PC through USB using a HDD enclosure. After cloning I disconnect the second HDD and put it away. If my first main HDD fails, I can easily replace it with the second one.
I can repeat this cloning every other month to have my second HDD up to date.

Would this work, or I am missing something.....?

My drive C is small so it would not take long to clone, and my data is saved separately.

Thanks,
BBDS.

 

[F5ing]

The way I imagine it is to connect a regular second internal HDD externally to PC through USB using a HDD enclosure. After cloning I disconnect the second HDD and put it away. If my first main HDD fails, I can easily replace it with the second one.
I can repeat this cloning every other month to have my second HDD up to date.

Would this work, or I am missing something.....?

That would work, but see my previous post on possible pitfalls (some pitfalls negated as you would be detaching from the system, but others remain).

Other than doing imaging over cloning, I do basically the same thing except I just plug the bare HD into a dock rather than an enclosure. It doesn't really matter as long as you can consider the backup media is reliable.

 

[F5ing]

Incremental images are faster but also dangerous. It takes only one corruption to break the chain and make everything following that useless. Differentials are better but should only be used to fill in the gaps between full images.

Am I correct thinking that if you do incremental that in order to do a restore you have to apply the last full image and then each successive incremental that you've made?

But to restore a differential you need only the last full and the last differential?

IOW, exactly the same terminology/functionality as standard data backup?

A long time ago I settled on going full for imaging rather than bothering with either incremental or differential. For data it's a different story.

 

[Brds7t7]

Incremental images are faster but also dangerous. It takes only one corruption to break the chain and make everything following that useless. Differentials are better but should only be used to fill in the gaps between full images.

Am I correct thinking that if you do incremental that in order to do a restore you have to apply the last full image and then each successive incremental that you've made?

But to restore a differential you need only the last full and the last differential?

IOW, exactly the same terminology/functionality as standard data backup?

A long time ago I settled on going full for imaging rather than bothering with either incremental or differential. For data it's a different story.

That's right F5ing, to restore an incremental backup you need ALL the backups in the chain. Differential you only need the Full backup and the Differential you need to restore from.

I use Differential over Incremental. Takes a little longer to do a backup and takes up more storage but I'd trust it more over Incremental. With incremental, if one gets damaged in the chain then the backup is useless. At least with differentials if one is damaged you can still restore from another (provided the full backup hasn't been damaged too of course!).

 

[F5ing]

Thanks Burdus77. I guess I settled on only full images because I never saw the need to do them more often than once or twice a month, and they go quick enough that it doesn't bother me such that I want or need it to go any quicker. After I've gotten a machine loaded up with everything I want and customized the way I like it I may even go two or three months without bothering as it would be quick and easy enough to just reapply updates after any restore.

But I do have to ask another question (it's been a long time since I looked into this and I just have to know):

Suppose you start off making your full image and then over the course of time make 10 incrementals. Then you decide you want to restore. So you restore your full and then start restoring each of the 10 incrementals, but you find the 5th one is corrupt and cannot be restored. Doesn't that mean you've at least gotten your system back to the state it was in when you made the 4th incremental (although you may need to start over again and just stop at the 4th)?

 

[Brds7t7]

Hmmm not sure on that one if I'm honest!

It was my understanding that if one of the incrementals was corrupt the whole backup would fail. I could be wrong though.

In theory I can't see why the incrementals before the corrupt version wouldn't work. Better wait for someone else to confirm that though

I've never actually tried incrementals as the whole 'if one goes, they all go' scenario always put me off. I've just always stuck with differentials with a couple of full backups in between.

 

[kado897]

Thanks Burdus77. I guess I settled on only full images because I never saw the need to do them more often than once or twice a month, and they go quick enough that it doesn't bother me such that I want or need it to go any quicker. After I've gotten a machine loaded up with everything I want and customized the way I like it I may even go two or three months without bothering as it would be quick and easy enough to just reapply updates after any restore.

But I do have to ask another question (it's been a long time since I looked into this and I just have to know):

Suppose you start off making your full image and then over the course of time make 10 incrementals. Then you decide you want to restore. So you restore your full and then start restoring each of the 10 incrementals, but you find the 5th one is corrupt and cannot be restored. Doesn't that mean you've at least gotten your system back to the state it was in when you made the 4th incremental (although you may need to start over again and just stop at the 4th)?

With Macrium you point the restore at the last incremental and it sorts out for itself what it needs to do.

 

[F5ing]

Thanks Burdus77. I guess I settled on only full images because I never saw the need to do them more often than once or twice a month, and they go quick enough that it doesn't bother me such that I want or need it to go any quicker. After I've gotten a machine loaded up with everything I want and customized the way I like it I may even go two or three months without bothering as it would be quick and easy enough to just reapply updates after any restore.

But I do have to ask another question (it's been a long time since I looked into this and I just have to know):

Suppose you start off making your full image and then over the course of time make 10 incrementals. Then you decide you want to restore. So you restore your full and then start restoring each of the 10 incrementals, but you find the 5th one is corrupt and cannot be restored. Doesn't that mean you've at least gotten your system back to the state it was in when you made the 4th incremental (although you may need to start over again and just stop at the 4th)?

With Macrium you point the restore at the last incremental and it sorts out for itself what it needs to do.

Wow, that sounds pretty cool. I might have to check out its other capabilities.

In the scenario I mentioned, I take it that Macrium would bring you back to the state you were in when you made the 4th incremental, and then notify you that it can go no futher. Does that sound right?

 

[kado897]

What you would do in that case is point Macrium at the 4th or earlier incremental.

 

[F5ing]

What you would do in that case is point Macrium at the 4th or earlier incremental.

Thanks for that! Good to know.

 

[Brds7t7]

What you would do in that case is point Macrium at the 4th or earlier incremental.

That is good to know, thanks Kado. Which do you use? Incremental or Differential? I know some people even use a mixture of all 3.

I'm really glad I bought Macrium Pro. Most of my software is free software but that's one I'm happy about buying.

 

[kado897]

What you would do in that case is point Macrium at the 4th or earlier incremental.

That is good to know, thanks Kado. Which do you use? Incremental or Differential? I know some people even use a mixture of all 3.

I'm really glad I bought Macrium Pro. Most of my software is free software but that's one I'm happy about buying.

I use differentials Lee. That way there is less opportunity for failure.

 

[F5ing]

I knew this would be great thread to follow.

I think I've got the difference between the perils of differentials vs. incrementals via Macrium. (I realize I should just research this myself but there's so much experience available by members of this forum.)

Say you've made a full image via Macrium. You then come by later and make 10 partials (may not be likely one would wait that long before another full, but for discussion only). But consider two cases: one is you're doing incrementals, the other is you're doing differentials). In each case it turns out the 4th and 8th come out corrupt. If you restore via differentials you can get back to the state you were in as of the 10th differential (the last one). But if you restore via incrementals you can only get back to the 3rd, as the corrupted 4th spoils the rest of the chain.

After typing all that out it gave me the chance to think through it and I "think" I know the answer, but I'll post it anyway. If I remember correctly, that's the one difference when using the "incremental" term when referring to images vs. individual file backups.

 

[kado897]

It depends what you are using to do you incremental File and Folder backup. If you are using Macrium to do it then you are in the same position as it does in incremental changes at the sector level not the file level. Others may be different.

 

[F5ing]

It depends what you are using to do you incremental File and Folder backup. If you are using Macrium to do it then you are in the same position as it does in incremental changes at the sector level not the file level. Others may be different.

Gotcha, thanks. I forgot that that really holds true for a lot of those "data backup" apps. That's one of the reasons I've not spent too much time considering many of them for standard data file backup; never really realized any true benefits of doing it any other way than standard file based (other than maybe speed), even back in the DOS days. On top of that it's got to store data in an open format, nothing proprietary.

It always pays to research the app you use for standard backup as well as your imaging/cloning app. Double or triple up on them as you go through your "proving" stage.

Thanks for the clarification kado897.

 

[kado897]

I used the Macrium file and folder backup for a while but have now moved to a more conventional folder backup solution. I use FreeFileSync using the mirroring option with versions which has the advantages of incremental backups but few of the disadvantages. FreeFileSync | Free Security & Utilities software downloads at SourceForge.net. I made a tutorial video about it if anyone is interested. Backup With FreeFileSync - YouTube

 

[F5ing]

I'll definitely check that out. I "must" have incrementals for data as I like to be able to depend on that if I screw something up. The more versions the better. I don't really screw up that often, but I feel much more comfortable knowing I have backups, as I also know how easy it is to screw something up and not realize it until much later (if not paying close attention).