Disk Partitioning

[Ed Cryer]

Exactly. I have a 1GB C partition. Windows shows it as having 87GB used.
The latest Paragon saved image is 74GB. I have several saved images.
I also take Windows images. The latest is 80GB.

Ed

The images cover all the recovery I could want.
1. They can be mounted as virtual drives; and then I can pick off any
file I like.
2. They can be restored in full; initiated either from within Windows or
from a boot disk.
This latter covers hard drive fail, malware infestation, OS corruption.

Ed

 

[Juan Wei]

Ed Cryer has written on 9/16/2013 5:17 PM:

Exactly. I have a 1GB C partition. Windows shows it as having 87GB used.
The latest Paragon saved image is 74GB. I have several saved images.
I also take Windows images. The latest is 80GB.

So if you restored it to a new HD, would you end up with a 1GB
partition? Would you have to have that partition in place before you did
the restore? What's the difference between a Paragon image and a Windows
image?

 

[Juan Wei]

Gene E. Bloch has written on 9/16/2013 4:40 PM:

And frequently the process compresses the data as well (Macrium
definitely does).

Note that an image is a file from which the original disc can be
reconstructed, It is *not* a bit for bit copy of the original drive or
partition. I.e., it is not a clone.

Innaresting! OED says that the computer definition of an image is "...an
exact copy of (a computer’s hard disk)

Now how do we define "an exact copy"?

 

[choro]

No; just the used parts.

Ed

Further to Ed's remark I'd like to add that...
You don't even copy the used parts. You are in fact doing nothing more
the equivalent of copying and pasting i.e. resaving the files in another
folder. If the original file is greatly defragged the copy may even be
smaller than the original as it will not be defragged in its new
location. That's what xcopy or xxcopy do. Only the copy this time is on
another drive. Imaging or cloning are something altogether different.

 

[choro]

Exactly. I have a 1GB C partition. Windows shows it as having 87GB used.
The latest Paragon saved image is 74GB. I have several saved images.
I also take Windows images. The latest is 80GB.

Ed

If I may just add...
An image file is already compressed, isn't it? So, it's got to be
smaller. Mind you the xcopy and xxcopy options I have mentioned in other
places on this thread are definitely NOT imaging. They are copies of the
original files but whereas the original might not be contiguous, the
pasted copy will be a contiguous file. And can therefore take up less
space on the HD. The more you add up something to a file and re-save it
the more defragged it can get.--
choro
*****

 

[Juan Wei]

choro has written on 9/16/2013 7:02 PM:

Further to Ed's remark I'd like to add that...
You don't even copy the used parts. You are in fact doing nothing more
the equivalent of copying and pasting i.e. resaving the files in another
folder.

Aren't we making bootable images here?

If the original file is greatly defragged the copy may even be
smaller than the original as it will not be defragged in its new
location. That's what xcopy or xxcopy do. Only the copy this time is on
another drive. Imaging or cloning are something altogether different.

xxcopy defrags? Really?

 

[choro]

The images cover all the recovery I could want.
1. They can be mounted as virtual drives; and then I can pick off any
file I like.
2. They can be restored in full; initiated either from within Windows or
from a boot disk.
This latter covers hard drive fail, malware infestation, OS corruption.

Ed

Why would you want to recover something from an image anyway IF you can
have a copy of the file sitting ready to work with on another HD as you
get with xcopy or xxcopy OR indeed Robocopy which has been mentioned
here before?

Imaging makes sense with your directory containing your OS and program
files. Most people that I know these days keep their user files on the
D, rather than the C Drive these days. --
choro
*****

 

[Robin Bignall]

The images cover all the recovery I could want.
1. They can be mounted as virtual drives; and then I can pick off any
file I like.
2. They can be restored in full; initiated either from within Windows or
from a boot disk.
This latter covers hard drive fail, malware infestation, OS corruption.

I've got ShadowProtect, which also does all of those things, plus
allowing me to add a file to a mounted image, automatically take
incrementals so I never have to think about backing up, and so on.
Although only a home user, a tool like this is worth its weight in gold.
I guess you'd agree.

 

[choro]

Gene E. Bloch has written on 9/16/2013 4:40 PM:

Innaresting! OED says that the computer definition of an image is "...an
exact copy of (a computer’s hard disk)

Now how do we define "an exact copy"?

Yes, but it is something aking to a Chinese answer to an English
question. The image has got to be re-interpreted back to what we know as
files (with an S) and folders. One image file is one file of the whole
partition or disk or what have you. You could create ONE image of FOUR
partitions or HDs etc. It is compressed and its got to be "translated"
back to the various components that were used in making that image.
That's what they mean. The image file will re-create an exact copy of
your dud partitions/drives etc.

 

[choro]

Hi, Bob.


Yes, you can. Just be sure you don't use a Label to rename a Drive
(partition) as a drive letter. That usually is a very confusing thing
to do!

As Paladin said, "You can name your foot a hand", too, but that serves
no real purpose that he (or I) can see.

But it reminds me of the famous Abraham Lincoln story:

Abe: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
Answer: Five.
Abe: No, four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

And calling Drive C:, "Drive F:" just invites confusion! A recent
conversation in another newsgroup concerned a user who was trying to
reorganize her partitions simply by Naming them D:, E:, etc., by using
Labels. She wound up with things like:
D:\Drive F:
or
D:\F:

Some people are just like that. They will complicate and mess up
everything they touch!

 

[Juan Wei]

choro has written on 9/16/2013 7:18 PM:

Yes, but it is something aking to a Chinese answer to an English
question. The image has got to be re-interpreted back to what we know as
files (with an S) and folders. One image file is one file of the whole
partition or disk or what have you.

So how is it that the image of a partition is smaller than the partition
itself?

That's what they mean. The image file will re-create an exact copy of
your dud partitions/drives etc.

"Dud"?

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Why would you want to recover something from an image anyway IF you can
have a copy of the file sitting ready to work with on another HD as you
get with xcopy or xxcopy OR indeed Robocopy which has been mentioned
here before?

I'll mention one reason.

A clone or an Xcopy, XXcopy, or RoboCopy backup will have one copy of
each file, the latest version.

A set of images will have several images of a file that has been changed
between incremental backups.

You can get the third one back if you have screwed things up in the last
two versions of a file.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

If I may just add...
An image file is already compressed, isn't it? So, it's got to be
smaller. Mind you the xcopy and xxcopy options I have mentioned in other
places on this thread are definitely NOT imaging. They are copies of the
original files but whereas the original might not be contiguous, the
pasted copy will be a contiguous file. And can therefore take up less
space on the HD. The more you add up something to a file and re-save it
the more defragged it can get.--
choro
*****

A non-contiguous file has the same size as the contiguous version of it.

A four volume book has the same total size whether or not it's put
contiguously on the shelf. The analogy is exact.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Aren't we making bootable images here?
No.


xxcopy defrags? Really?

A copy operation copies items to available sectors (duh!). If you start
out with an empty destination drive, the results will naturally be
defragged. Otherwise, it's anybody's guess.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

So how is it that the image of a partition is smaller than the partition
itself?

There are only two reasons, both major, one obvious, one already
explained upthread.

1. The unused sectors (allocation blocks) on the source drive are not
copied into the image.

2. Most imaging programs compress the resulting file.

"Dud"?

Broken, i.e., the ones you need to restore.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Gene E. Bloch has written on 9/16/2013 4:40 PM:

Innaresting! OED says that the computer definition of an image is "...an
exact copy of (a computer¢s hard disk)

Now how do we define "an exact copy"?

The OED is not a technical reference manual.

In one sense they are almost correct - it (sort of) has everything that
is on the source, and an exact copy can be reconstructed from the image
- but it is not a literal exact copy.

This has been explained many times, including a time or two upthread.

 

[choro]

I'll mention one reason.

A clone or an Xcopy, XXcopy, or RoboCopy backup will have one copy of
each file, the latest version.

A set of images will have several images of a file that has been changed
between incremental backups.

You can get the third one back if you have screwed things up in the last
two versions of a file.

I must admit you've got a point there. But is it worth all the bother
of having to restore one or several (!!!) just to be able to pick up the
right earlier version of a file?

Why not then use a much simpler method. Like I am editing a book right
now which is, as you might imagine pretty important and critical work.
Thus I have XXX.doc. Follow up files are named XXX_Edit-01.doc,
Edit-02.doc, Edit-03.doc. You must agree this is a far more elegant
solution than having to go to all the bother of recovering something
from not one but several images.

BTW, a stupid thing has just happened. What I am saying is actually
true. And the stupid software has just come up with notifying me that
it's found an Edit-02.doc and asking me to OK such an addition which
would in effect release right here the Edit-02 version of the English
translation of a book that has already been recently published in its
original language. As you can guess I am at the moment actually working
on the book's translation into English.

What a stupid idea! IF I wanted to add such an attachment I'd prefer to
do it knowingly and deliberately myself rather than do it accidentally
or absent mindedly by clicking a stupid button.

I've just had to alter the file names slightly in my response just so
that this stupid software does not keep pestering me to click the button
to attach the document!

 

[choro]

A non-contiguous file has the same size as the contiguous version of it.

A four volume book has the same total size whether or not it's put
contiguously on the shelf. The analogy is exact.

Not in MY experience. An original file saved umpteen times each time
with additions to the text may NOT be contiguous. Whereas if that file
is saved under another name and the original deleted it may well take up
less HD space EVEN THOUGH the actual file size might be the same.

This has got to do with wasted space with each addition or amendment to
the file. I always thought filesize and space taken on HD are two
different things though not necessarily all that far apart in space taken.

 

[choro]

choro has written on 9/16/2013 7:18 PM:

So how is it that the image of a partition is smaller than the partition
itself?


"Dud"?

Can't you guess it, man? I mean a partition that has gone dud, kaput!
Otherwise why would you want to image it and then restore it? Or are you
trying to be funny? OK, let me re-word it. To recreate the partition
onto the existing or new disk FROM an esisting image file/s! THERE!
Satisfied now?!

As to why an image file takes up less space than the individual files on
the partition, COMPRESSION is the answer as Gene has already explained,
as to why image files are smaller. You obviously haven't been following
the thread!

KOM-PRES-SIO(H)-NE(H)! (Said out loud and clear!)

Another reason is that in an image all the files are lumped into ONE
file and there isn't any wasted cluster/sector space which is part and
parcel of saving files. One dot that doesn't fit into a cluster/sector
uses up another whole cluster/sector. Even without compression an image
file would thus avoid all this wasted HD space and therefore occupy less
HD space.[/QUOTE]

 

[choro]

choro has written on 9/16/2013 7:02 PM:

Aren't we making bootable images here?


xxcopy defrags? Really?

Are you trying to be funny or are you just plain daft? Every time you
save a file onto another directory, it saves a pristine copy of it in
that new directory. It has not been saved upteen times like some
original copies of the original file where in subsequent saves the file
is saved in increments recording just the alterations to the file.