length of backup

I did my first backup to an external drive and it took hours.
My hard drive is 500G.
Will it take less time as it does the next backups?

thewiz wrote:
> I did my first backup to an external drive and it took hours.
> My hard drive is 500G.
> Will it take less time as it does the next backups?
full backup will always take hour

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:01:59 GMT, thewiz <> wrote:

>I did my first backup to an external drive and it took hours.
>My hard drive is 500G.
>Will it take less time as it does the next backups?

It all depends on what kind of backup you make. There are 3 different
kinds of backups differential, incremental, and full. A full backup
will always take the longest to perform as it is making a backup copy
of every file on the drive. Differential and Incremental backups both
require that you make a full backup first, then what they backup
differs slightly.

A differential backup will backup any files that have been changed
since the last full backup. This gives you an advantage when
restoring files in that you only need 2 archives, the full backup and
the differential backup. It won't matter if your differential backup
is the first one created, or the 30th one, which ever one you use your
system will be restored to the state the PC was in when that backup
was created.

An incremental backup makes a backup of any files that were changed
since the last full or incremental backup. This has the advantage of
taking less time to create a backup and are smaller in size than a
full backup. The disadvantage is that when restoring your system with
an incremental backup you'll need the full backup and all the
incremental backups in between. So for example let's say you wanted
to restore from your 5th incremental backup, you'd need the full
backup and incremental backups 1, 2, 3 and 4 as well. This brings in
the possibility of having one of your archive files being corrupted
and causing the restoration to fail. So it's a good idea to verify
the integrity of your backups especially when using this method.

--

Roy Smith
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit
Agent 6.00/32.1186

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 16:48:47 -0500, Roy Smith <>
wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:01:59 GMT, thewiz <> wrote:
>
>>I did my first backup to an external drive and it took hours.
>>My hard drive is 500G.
>>Will it take less time as it does the next backups?
>
>It all depends on what kind of backup you make. There are 3 different
>kinds of backups differential, incremental, and full. A full backup
>will always take the longest to perform as it is making a backup copy
>of every file on the drive. Differential and Incremental backups both
>require that you make a full backup first, then what they backup
>differs slightly.
>
>A differential backup will backup any files that have been changed
>since the last full backup. This gives you an advantage when
>restoring files in that you only need 2 archives, the full backup and
>the differential backup. It won't matter if your differential backup
>is the first one created, or the 30th one, which ever one you use your
>system will be restored to the state the PC was in when that backup
>was created.
>
>An incremental backup makes a backup of any files that were changed
>since the last full or incremental backup. This has the advantage of
>taking less time to create a backup and are smaller in size than a
>full backup. The disadvantage is that when restoring your system with
>an incremental backup you'll need the full backup and all the
>incremental backups in between. So for example let's say you wanted
>to restore from your 5th incremental backup, you'd need the full
>backup and incremental backups 1, 2, 3 and 4 as well. This brings in
>the possibility of having one of your archive files being corrupted
>and causing the restoration to fail. So it's a good idea to verify
>the integrity of your backups especially when using this method.


Thanks for the explanation of the different types of backup.

Which would be fastest, a full backup or a clone of the drive.

I was thinking that if the drive isn't full then a clone might be
faster.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:19:04 -0500, wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 16:48:47 -0500, Roy Smith <>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:01:59 GMT, thewiz <> wrote:
>>
>>>I did my first backup to an external drive and it took hours.
>>>My hard drive is 500G.
>>>Will it take less time as it does the next backups?
>>
>>It all depends on what kind of backup you make. There are 3 different
>>kinds of backups differential, incremental, and full. A full backup
>>will always take the longest to perform as it is making a backup copy
>>of every file on the drive. Differential and Incremental backups both
>>require that you make a full backup first, then what they backup
>>differs slightly.
>>
>>A differential backup will backup any files that have been changed
>>since the last full backup. This gives you an advantage when
>>restoring files in that you only need 2 archives, the full backup and
>>the differential backup. It won't matter if your differential backup
>>is the first one created, or the 30th one, which ever one you use your
>>system will be restored to the state the PC was in when that backup
>>was created.
>>
>>An incremental backup makes a backup of any files that were changed
>>since the last full or incremental backup. This has the advantage of
>>taking less time to create a backup and are smaller in size than a
>>full backup. The disadvantage is that when restoring your system with
>>an incremental backup you'll need the full backup and all the
>>incremental backups in between. So for example let's say you wanted
>>to restore from your 5th incremental backup, you'd need the full
>>backup and incremental backups 1, 2, 3 and 4 as well. This brings in
>>the possibility of having one of your archive files being corrupted
>>and causing the restoration to fail. So it's a good idea to verify
>>the integrity of your backups especially when using this method.
>
> Thanks for the explanation of the different types of backup.
>
> Which would be fastest, a full backup or a clone of the drive.
>
> I was thinking that if the drive isn't full then a clone might be
> faster.

Or slower.

A full backup only writes the actual files that are on the drive, and
most imaging programs compress the data (Macrium & Acronis do this), so
less data is written.

A clone does not (can not) compress the data, and besides, it might
write every sector of the drive, so it would take longer, even a lot
longer. Some clone programs don't write the unused sectors, but they
still don't compress.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:24:49 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
<not-> wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:19:04 -0500, wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 16:48:47 -0500, Roy Smith <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:01:59 GMT, thewiz <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I did my first backup to an external drive and it took hours.
>>>>My hard drive is 500G.
>>>>Will it take less time as it does the next backups?
>>>
>>>It all depends on what kind of backup you make. There are 3 different
>>>kinds of backups differential, incremental, and full. A full backup
>>>will always take the longest to perform as it is making a backup copy
>>>of every file on the drive. Differential and Incremental backups both
>>>require that you make a full backup first, then what they backup
>>>differs slightly.
>>>
>>>A differential backup will backup any files that have been changed
>>>since the last full backup. This gives you an advantage when
>>>restoring files in that you only need 2 archives, the full backup and
>>>the differential backup. It won't matter if your differential backup
>>>is the first one created, or the 30th one, which ever one you use your
>>>system will be restored to the state the PC was in when that backup
>>>was created.
>>>
>>>An incremental backup makes a backup of any files that were changed
>>>since the last full or incremental backup. This has the advantage of
>>>taking less time to create a backup and are smaller in size than a
>>>full backup. The disadvantage is that when restoring your system with
>>>an incremental backup you'll need the full backup and all the
>>>incremental backups in between. So for example let's say you wanted
>>>to restore from your 5th incremental backup, you'd need the full
>>>backup and incremental backups 1, 2, 3 and 4 as well. This brings in
>>>the possibility of having one of your archive files being corrupted
>>>and causing the restoration to fail. So it's a good idea to verify
>>>the integrity of your backups especially when using this method.
>>
>> Thanks for the explanation of the different types of backup.
>>
>> Which would be fastest, a full backup or a clone of the drive.
>>
>> I was thinking that if the drive isn't full then a clone might be
>> faster.
>
>Or slower.
>
>A full backup only writes the actual files that are on the drive, and
>most imaging programs compress the data (Macrium & Acronis do this), so
>less data is written.
>
>A clone does not (can not) compress the data, and besides, it might
>write every sector of the drive, so it would take longer, even a lot
>longer. Some clone programs don't write the unused sectors, but they
>still don't compress.

Casper doesn't compress and the initial backup takes 30-60 minutes, give
or take.

Backups after that are very fast and just mirror the changes made to the
primary drive.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 00:01:17 -0400, WaIIy <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:24:49 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
><not-> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:19:04 -0500, wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 16:48:47 -0500, Roy Smith <>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:01:59 GMT, thewiz <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I did my first backup to an external drive and it took hours.
>>>>>My hard drive is 500G.
>>>>>Will it take less time as it does the next backups?
>>>>
>>>>It all depends on what kind of backup you make. There are 3 different
>>>>kinds of backups differential, incremental, and full. A full backup
>>>>will always take the longest to perform as it is making a backup copy
>>>>of every file on the drive. Differential and Incremental backups both
>>>>require that you make a full backup first, then what they backup
>>>>differs slightly.
>>>>
>>>>A differential backup will backup any files that have been changed
>>>>since the last full backup. This gives you an advantage when
>>>>restoring files in that you only need 2 archives, the full backup and
>>>>the differential backup. It won't matter if your differential backup
>>>>is the first one created, or the 30th one, which ever one you use your
>>>>system will be restored to the state the PC was in when that backup
>>>>was created.
>>>>
>>>>An incremental backup makes a backup of any files that were changed
>>>>since the last full or incremental backup. This has the advantage of
>>>>taking less time to create a backup and are smaller in size than a
>>>>full backup. The disadvantage is that when restoring your system with
>>>>an incremental backup you'll need the full backup and all the
>>>>incremental backups in between. So for example let's say you wanted
>>>>to restore from your 5th incremental backup, you'd need the full
>>>>backup and incremental backups 1, 2, 3 and 4 as well. This brings in
>>>>the possibility of having one of your archive files being corrupted
>>>>and causing the restoration to fail. So it's a good idea to verify
>>>>the integrity of your backups especially when using this method.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the explanation of the different types of backup.
>>>
>>> Which would be fastest, a full backup or a clone of the drive.
>>>
>>> I was thinking that if the drive isn't full then a clone might be
>>> faster.
>>
>>Or slower.
>>
>>A full backup only writes the actual files that are on the drive, and
>>most imaging programs compress the data (Macrium & Acronis do this), so
>>less data is written.
>>
>>A clone does not (can not) compress the data, and besides, it might
>>write every sector of the drive, so it would take longer, even a lot
>>longer. Some clone programs don't write the unused sectors, but they
>>still don't compress.
>
>Casper doesn't compress and the initial backup takes 30-60 minutes, give
>or take.

The amount of time it takes is affected by the amount of data (or the
size of the drive) to be backed up, among other things. The fact that
it takes 30-60 minutes on your system doesn't say much about the time
it would take on another system.

>Backups after that are very fast and just mirror the changes made to the
>primary drive.

What you're describing are either incremental or differential backups.
They were described above.

--

Char Jackson

wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 16:48:47 -0500, Roy Smith <>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:01:59 GMT, thewiz <> wrote:
>>
>>> I did my first backup to an external drive and it took hours.
>>> My hard drive is 500G.
>>> Will it take less time as it does the next backups?
>> It all depends on what kind of backup you make. There are 3 different
>> kinds of backups differential, incremental, and full. A full backup
>> will always take the longest to perform as it is making a backup copy
>> of every file on the drive. Differential and Incremental backups both
>> require that you make a full backup first, then what they backup
>> differs slightly.
>>
>> A differential backup will backup any files that have been changed
>> since the last full backup. This gives you an advantage when
>> restoring files in that you only need 2 archives, the full backup and
>> the differential backup. It won't matter if your differential backup
>> is the first one created, or the 30th one, which ever one you use your
>> system will be restored to the state the PC was in when that backup
>> was created.
>>
>> An incremental backup makes a backup of any files that were changed
>> since the last full or incremental backup. This has the advantage of
>> taking less time to create a backup and are smaller in size than a
>> full backup. The disadvantage is that when restoring your system with
>> an incremental backup you'll need the full backup and all the
>> incremental backups in between. So for example let's say you wanted
>> to restore from your 5th incremental backup, you'd need the full
>> backup and incremental backups 1, 2, 3 and 4 as well. This brings in
>> the possibility of having one of your archive files being corrupted
>> and causing the restoration to fail. So it's a good idea to verify
>> the integrity of your backups especially when using this method.
>
>
> Thanks for the explanation of the different types of backup.
>
> Which would be fastest, a full backup or a clone of the drive.
>
> I was thinking that if the drive isn't full then a clone might be
> faster.

Sector by sector backup, transfers 500GB of data in your case.
All the sectors would be copied, even the empty ones, as the
tool doing the sector copy, doesn't care about the contents.

File by file backup (which is what a lot of backup utilities will do),
transfers only as much data as is present in the partition as files.
If you've used 20% of the available space, then 100GB of stuff
would be backed up from your 500GB C: partition. The tool doing the
file by file backup, has to understand the file system, and in Windows
that would be FAT32 or NTFS amongst others. If there is a "foreign
file system" on the hard drive (like UFS), your Windows backup program
may not be able to back it up. But a sector by sector backup, could
capture it, because sector by sector is "blind" to the file systems
used. It doesn't care.

Sector by sector is normally discouraged, due to the time and space
it takes. But if your disk is broken, and you need a "forensic" copy
of the disk (to guarantee nothing gets lost), that's when sector by sector
is the thing to use. For most "normal" "I'm not broken" situations,
file by file is the way to go.

(Example of scavenging a disk, sector by sector... Doing the best
you can, when a disk is physically broken and has bad spots.)

http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/Damaged_Hard_Disk

./ddrescue -n /dev/old_disk /dev/new_disk rescued.log
./ddrescue -r 1 /dev/old_disk /dev/new_disk rescued.log

HTH,
Paul

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:01:59 GMT, thewiz wrote:
>
> I did my first backup to an external drive and it took hours.
> My hard drive is 500G.
> Will it take less time as it does the next backups?

It would help if you told us which backup software you're using,
and how much of that 500 GB is actually used.

If you have an option to do a differential or incremental backup
next time, that would capture only the new and changed files.
(Different software uses "differential" and "incremental" to mean
slightly different things.) But if what you're doing is a disk
image backup, it's always going to take about the same time.

You might check the backup software and see if it has an option
to adjust priority. You could give it a higher priority, at a
time when you don't want to use your computer for anything else,
and that should make it run faster.


--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

Don't backup anything, wait until your first hard drive fails which
could be never so don't backup anything.

thewiz wrote:

> I did my first backup to an external drive and it took hours.
> My hard drive is 500G.
> Will it take less time as it does the next backups?

--
The Grandmaster of the CyberFROG

Come get your ticket to CyberFROG city

Nay, Art thou decideth playeth ye simpleton games. *Some* of us know
proper manners

Very few. I used to take calls from *rank* noobs but got fired the first
day on the job for potty mouth,

Bur-ring, i'll get this one: WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM JERK!!? We're here to
help you dickweed, ok, ok give the power cord the jiggily piggily
wiggily all the while pushing the power button repeatedly now take
everything out of your computer except the power supply and *one* stick
of ram. Ok get the next sucker on the phone.

Deirdre Straughan (Roxio) is a LIAR (Deirdre McFibber)

There's the employer and the employee and the FROGGER and the FROGEE,
which one are you?

Hamster isn't a newsreader it's a mistake!

El-Gonzo Jackson FROGS both me and Chuckcar (I just got EL-FROG-OED!!)

I hate them both, With useless bogus bullshit you need at least *three*
fulltime jobs to afford either one of them

I'm a fulltime text *only* man on usenet now. The rest of the world
downloads the binary files not me i can't afford thousands of dollars a
month

UBB = User based bullFROGGING

Master Juba was a black man imitating a white man imitating a black man

Using my technical prowess and computer abilities to answer questions
beyond the realm of understandability

Regards Tony... Making usenet better for everyone everyday

This sig file was compiled via my journeys through usenet