Which is Best Image or Clone

[richc46]

I have just begun using Macrium Reflect. I notice that there is an option to clone or to image. I have used System Image in the past, to restore to the same hard drive.
In the event that I have a hard drive failure and want to restore my OS to another hard drive, most likely larger than the original, would Image or Clone be the best option?

 

[seekermeister]

Maybe this will be of some help:

Cloning or Imaging a HDD

 

[mjf]

I think there is a bit of semantic debate around the two words.
For me:
1) Cloning = a true sector by sector or bit image copy from one physical device to another. You can use it when you have the final physical disk available that you want to make the bit copy to.
2) Imaging = stores intermediate files (vhd, mrimg ...) on another HDD keeping that HDDs file system in tact. The images can also be compressed saving space. You can delete the images and reuse the space. Also have multiple images for different configurations.
Or, when you are ready, transfer the images to a new physical HDD.

So to answer your question. If you want simplicity and are ready to to go now - cloning may be the option.
Otherwise go for imaging. Personally I'd use this even if I was ready to go with a new HDD in my hand.

 

[whs]

I would image all partitions. Then you can restore them individually on an as needed basis. Usually you only restore the C: partition because the 100MB active partion and the recovery partition never change.

In the event of a failure of the HDD or if you decide to upgrade your HDD to a larger model, you can still restore all partitions into predifined partitions - predefine e.g. with Partition Wizard bootable CD (last entry on this webpage).

 

[seekermeister]

One thing that throws me, is that True Image has the option to create a sector by sector image included in a regular backup image, yet has a cloning function apart from that.

 

[mjf]

Macrium V5 also has a cloning option. It is possible that it is using imaging as an intermediate step?? But you do need and get a bootable physical 2nd HDD.
I now consider "cloning" is an umbrella term for the immediate creation of a bootable copied HDD.

 

[pparks1]

I usually think of a "clone" as when i have the ability to have both the original HDD and a second HDD and I want to move one to the other. I think of an "image" more as a backup where I work with 1 hard drive and simply put it back to the way it was.

Both "terms" can be used to accomplish the same task. i don't think that 1 in inherently better than the other across the board.

 

[richc46]

I usually think of a "clone" as when i have the ability to have both the original HDD and a second HDD and I want to move one to the other. I think of an "image" more as a backup where I work with 1 hard drive and simply put it back to the way it was.

Both "terms" can be used to accomplish the same task. i don't think that 1 in inherently better than the other across the board.

That is what I thought, but wanted a confirmation
My appreciaton extends to all, who have taken the time to answer. Rep to all.

 

[seekermeister]

This topic caught my eye, because I'm soon going to have to reorganize my drives and partitions, because I've about run out of space on one of my video archive drives. The drive that I intend to use for it is the one that is currently being used for the OS, and some other types of archive volumes, which means that at least the OS volume needs to be moved to another drive that I have in mind.

In the past, I would have simply used a backup image to restore everything on that drive, while all other drives are disconnected, so that no boot menu would be created (I use the BIOS boot menu instead). However when doing so, I have found that there is some minor differences in the restored volume that I would prefer to eliminate. If I understand correctly, cloning should do exactly that.

The confusing part for me is that I only want to clone a partition, not the entire drive...can that be done?

 

[Wishmaster]

Cloning I believe is an entire drive type operation.
So a partition Image may be the best way to go, if your only wanting to keep that partiiton.


Overall, I too prefer the Partion or Full disk Image method over cloning.

For 1 reason, its faster.
And secondly, I find it much easier and simpler moving a system Image to a dis-similar drive. (either smaller or larger)


In regards to sector-by-sector, I never use that option myself.
But according to Acronis:

What is a sector-by-sector backup (raw image)?

The sector-by-sector backup allows you to create an image of all sectors of the selected partition. This image will contain not only sectors with data but also sectors that are free. As a result, this image will be equal in size to the disk being imaged

Source: FAQ: What is a sector-by-sector backup (raw image)?



Which is odd, because I have found restoring a image with Acronis to a smaller or larger drive, forces it into sector-by-sector restore -- with resize options, even though the original image was not created with the sector-by-sector option.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

I think the ability to clone only a partition varies from product to product. O & O Disk Image is supposed to be able to do it, but I'm not sure about Acronis.

What are these "minor differences in the restored volume" to which you refer?

 

[MilesAhead]

I have just begun using Macrium Reflect. I notice that there is an option to clone or to image. I have used System Image in the past, to restore to the same hard drive.
In the event that I have a hard drive failure and want to restore my OS to another hard drive, most likely larger than the original, would Image or Clone be the best option?

I don't know exactly what software was used, but on another board a regular poster is a system builder. Periodically he inserts an internal drive in a docking station, and makes a duplicate of his system HD. Since he built the system I assume R&R of the HD is a couple minute operation. If he gets a HD failure, opens the box, R&R drive, close box.. boot.

 

[mjf]

Both "terms" can be used to accomplish the same task. i don't think that 1 in inherently better than the other across the board.

The purpose of cloning is to make a new HDD and you need a dedicated physical HDD to do it. You wouldn't use it as a substitute for reimaging your existing HDD. You'd need a physical HDD for every "image".

With imaging you can image to a new HDD if you need to or most of the time reimage to you existing installed HDD.
Images can be smaller with compression and can be stored on any general purpose external HDD.
Every image of an OS partition can make a new HDD. That's the way I make new HDDs. The cold standby sitting in my PC disconnected was made this way.

So they are not equally capable and if you want to pick one it would have to be imaging.

Edit: went away when typing. Agreed some products (inc Macrium 5 I think) allow cloning at the partition level. But the above still stands by my thinking.

 

[seekermeister]

As I mentioned previously, True Image has a sector-by-sector option when doing a partition image. The resultant file size is considerably larger than when done without using that option. If the trait that defines cloning is it's sector-by-sector handling of data, I'm thinking that doing an image sector-by-sector is equivalent to cloning, except that it uses an image for the purpose, rather than direct transfer of data. Since this is done on a selected partition, rather than the entire drive, I would think that it would be a more perfect copy of the original, than if a regular image were used.

I'm only stating my thoughts, rather than facts, so if I'm wrong, please correct me.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Since this is done on a selected partition, rather than the entire drive, I would think that it would be a more perfect copy of the original, than if a regular image were used.

Suppose that is true.

Would it be preferable and why?

 

[seekermeister]

I'm not saying that it would necessarily preferable, but it has been too long since the last time that I used an image to recover the OS to be totally clear on the differences. The only thing that sticks in my mind, is that a number of games lost their play history. Obviously, that is minor, but if one piece of data can be lost, others can also. The only cost to doing a sector-by-sector image, rather than a regular one, is the extra time and space it would require. It isn't worth the expenditure to do this on a regular basis, but when one is creating an image with definite plans on using it to restore/move the OS, it seems to make sense to me. Due to it's size, I would be unlikely to store the image after having used it.

 

[whs]

seekermeister, if you want to make your life real easy, use this program (works HDD to HDD too) Paragon Paragon Migrate OS to SSD - Overview

 

[mjf]

I reimage quite regularly using Windows most of the time and Macrium some of the time. Macrium compresses ~40% I think. It seems to clean up some temporary junk but never anything of importance. I tend to get confident when things work on a regular basis.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

A sector by sector image might include the page file or restore points and can be preferable if you were, for instance, a law enforcement officer interested in data recovery at a forensic level---where you had an interest in deleted files. But I can't recall reading of any reasons it might otherwise be preferable. I don't know why one method or the other would be less likely to lose game history.

 

[seekermeister]

seekermeister, if you want to make your life real easy, use this program (works HDD to HDD too) Paragon Paragon Migrate OS to SSD - Overview

Thanks, but I'm fairly happy with True Image. What is there about this program that makes you feel it is easier?