how to back up windows, not the whole drive?

[Doc]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

How could I backup windows XP so that I could restore it to the exact
settings I have in place without having to backup the entire drive?

Thanks

 

[peter]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

It all depends what you mean by "exact settings".

"Doc" <docsavage20@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Eyumd.1138$Qh3.525@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> How could I backup windows XP so that I could restore it to the exact
> settings I have in place without having to backup the entire drive?
>
> Thanks
>
>

 

[Doc]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

> It all depends what you mean by "exact settings".

In other words, Windows crashes. Instead of using the install disc, just
wipe the drive and recopy the backup of windows back to the drive.

 

[peter]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

> In other words, Windows crashes. Instead of using the install disc, just
> wipe the drive and recopy the backup of windows back to the drive.

Think differently. Install Windows on empty hard drive, perform basic
configuration. Take a disk image and store it on medium from which you could
easily restore it. Test restore. Done.

 

[Jo]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

"Doc" <docsavage20@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in news:T7xmd.1320
$Qh3.749@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> just
> wipe the drive and recopy the backup of windows back to the drive.
>

Sounds feasible. Shame about the user settings, user data and
applications that would be lost though.

 

[Doc]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

"Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:2vvrlfF2q6uamU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > In other words, Windows crashes. Instead of using the install disc, just
> > wipe the drive and recopy the backup of windows back to the drive.
>
> Think differently. Install Windows on empty hard drive, perform basic
> configuration. Take a disk image and store it on medium from which you
could
> easily restore it. Test restore. Done.

What's the difference between a disc image and backing up the harddrive?

 

[peter]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

> What's the difference between a disc image and backing up the harddrive?

What difference aspect are you interested in?
Backup is a broad term to duplicate selected portions of your file system to
another storage media.
Disk image reduces selection criteria to a disk as a whole. It preserves
file system properties.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

Peter wrote:

>> What's the difference between a disc image and backing up the harddrive?
>
> What difference aspect are you interested in?
> Backup is a broad term to duplicate selected portions of your file system
> to another storage media.
> Disk image reduces selection criteria to a disk as a whole. It preserves
> file system properties.

Actually, the latest and greatest enterprise solution from Symantec (which
is what I suspect they were _really_ after when then bought out PowerQuest)
can do incremental images, just imaging the parts that were changed since
the previous image.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[peter]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> > What difference aspect are you interested in?
> > Backup is a broad term to duplicate selected portions of your file
system
> > to another storage media.
> > Disk image reduces selection criteria to a disk as a whole. It preserves
> > file system properties.
>
> Actually, the latest and greatest enterprise solution from Symantec (which
> is what I suspect they were _really_ after when then bought out
PowerQuest)
> can do incremental images, just imaging the parts that were changed since
> the previous image.

Yes, they can do incremental disk images (Acronis TI can also) but they are
based on data changes on disk sectors, not file content changes. I consider
that approach flawed due to disk defragmentation issue.
Not recommended, unless you never defragment disk or copy your files.

I consider disk images for disaster recovery, while data backups for data
archiving and recovery.
Restoring OS falls into a disaster recovery scenario.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:46:12 GMT, "Doc"
<docsavage20@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

>How could I backup windows XP so that I could restore it to the exact
>settings I have in place without having to backup the entire drive?
>
>Thanks
>


Use ghost to create an image of the partition instead of the whole
drive if XP goes dead the just use ghost to restore the partion

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Peter wrote:

>> > What difference aspect are you interested in?
>> > Backup is a broad term to duplicate selected portions of your file
> system
>> > to another storage media.
>> > Disk image reduces selection criteria to a disk as a whole. It
>> > preserves file system properties.
>>
>> Actually, the latest and greatest enterprise solution from Symantec
>> (which is what I suspect they were _really_ after when then bought out
> PowerQuest)
>> can do incremental images, just imaging the parts that were changed since
>> the previous image.
>
> Yes, they can do incremental disk images (Acronis TI can also) but they
> are based on data changes on disk sectors, not file content changes. I
> consider that approach flawed due to disk defragmentation issue.
> Not recommended, unless you never defragment disk or copy your files.
>

Pardon me if I sound disrespectful, but that's a bit nonsensical, isn't it?
Why would this be a problem? Do you mean that disk defragmentation would
cause unnecessary updating? If so I agree that it could be considered
ineffective, but it wouldn't result in excessive data, just a longer
backup.

> I consider disk images for disaster recovery, while data backups for data
> archiving and recovery.
> Restoring OS falls into a disaster recovery scenario.

--
I win!

 

[peter]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> Pardon me if I sound disrespectful, but that's a bit nonsensical, isn't
it?
> Why would this be a problem? Do you mean that disk defragmentation would
> cause unnecessary updating? If so I agree that it could be considered
> ineffective, but it wouldn't result in excessive data, just a longer
> backup.

I have performed a quick test. 8GB partition, 5GB used. Performed a base
image, resulting in 1.74GB image file. Performed a quick defragmentation, no
files were added. Incremental image produced another image file of 390MB. So
if you have a bigger drive and more fragmentation, expect a hefty
incremental image file if you defragment your disk after taking a base
image. And the size of it is very hard to predict. So is the time to take an
incremental image. That is the part I don't like.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:22:39 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Peter wrote:
>
>>> What's the difference between a disc image and backing up the harddrive?
>>
>> What difference aspect are you interested in?
>> Backup is a broad term to duplicate selected portions of your file system
>> to another storage media.
>> Disk image reduces selection criteria to a disk as a whole. It preserves
>> file system properties.
>
>Actually, the latest and greatest enterprise solution from Symantec (which
>is what I suspect they were _really_ after when then bought out PowerQuest)
>can do incremental images, just imaging the parts that were changed since
>the previous image.

Solaris calls this FlashBackup, and it rocks. Basically you take a FB
of a system as it sits now. If that system barfs you can netboot it
drop that same image back. Takes alot less time since you're
transferring data blocks instead of installing software.

Images are exactly that. Think of it like a picture of your system
that you can put back in place as a whole picture if it goes away. No
installs, just data transfers.

Ghost works similarly, which is the FB of Windows last time I worked
with that stuff. There might be some freeware out that will do what
you need. If so I'd be interested to hear about it.

~F

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Peter wrote:

>> Pardon me if I sound disrespectful, but that's a bit nonsensical, isn't
> it?
>> Why would this be a problem? Do you mean that disk defragmentation would
>> cause unnecessary updating? If so I agree that it could be considered
>> ineffective, but it wouldn't result in excessive data, just a longer
>> backup.
>
> I have performed a quick test. 8GB partition, 5GB used. Performed a base
> image, resulting in 1.74GB image file. Performed a quick defragmentation,
> no files were added. Incremental image produced another image file of
> 390MB. So if you have a bigger drive and more fragmentation, expect a
> hefty incremental image file if you defragment your disk after taking a
> base image. And the size of it is very hard to predict. So is the time to
> take an incremental image. That is the part I don't like.

I stand corrected then - that is indeed a flaw! But I don't really
understand why they made it like this... Are they trying to make it into
some kind of versioning system so that you can restore a previous state or
have they just erred? Interesting...

--
I win!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

Start out with System Preparation (Sysprep) tool included in Windows XP.

"Doc" <docsavage20@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Eyumd.1138$Qh3.525@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> How could I backup windows XP so that I could restore it to the exact
> settings I have in place without having to backup the entire drive?
>
> Thanks
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:53:57 GMT, Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Snip!

>Ghost works similarly, which is the FB of Windows last time I worked
>with that stuff. There might be some freeware out that will do what
>you need. If so I'd be interested to hear about it.

François Dupoux's Partition Image program partimage worked just fine
for me. http://www.partimage.org/

At http://www.sysresccd.org/ there is a 100MB CD image that can be
written to a bootable CD, includes partimage and several other useful
programs.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

Find a spare partition on the existing drive or a second drive, install
XP on it. Then boot to the new XP. Run the built-in backup program to
back up your old XP files to a .bkf file. Restore later to the exact
same settings.

This is completely free. No need to spend money on imaging software.

..cs

Doc wrote:
> How could I backup windows XP so that I could restore it to the exact
> settings I have in place without having to backup the entire drive?
>
> Thanks
>
>