|
Home > Archive > Backup Software > October 2006 > Backup speed - Ghost 2003 vs Norton Save And Restore v11.01
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Backup speed - Ghost 2003 vs Norton Save And Restore v11.01
|
|
|
| Machine Used:
Pentium 4, 3.0GHz, 1.5GB RAM, Windows XP Home SP2
Drive 1 (Western Digital WD3000JD, SATA)
Partition 1 (C 240GB, NTFS
Partition 2 (F 39GB, FAT32
Test:
Image C: (17.8GB used) onto F:
Using High Compression:
Norton Save and Restore v11.01
Recovery Point (image) size: 13.1GB
Time Taken: 35:00
Ghost 2003
(GHOST.EXE booted form 3.5" floppy (PC-DOS))
Image size: 13.2GB
Time Taken: 37:17
Using No Compression:
Norton Save and Restore v11.01
Recovery Point (image) size: 16.5GB
Time Taken: 23:03
Ghost 2003
(GHOST.EXE booted form 3.5" floppy (PC-DOS))
Image size: 16.4GB
Time Taken: 20:32
--
Disclaimer: Your mileage may vary
| |
| Chuck U. Farley 2006-09-04, 1:14 pm |
| > Using High Compression:
>
> Norton Save and Restore v11.01
> Recovery Point (image) size: 13.1GB
> Time Taken: 35:00
>
> Ghost 2003
> (GHOST.EXE booted form 3.5" floppy (PC-DOS))
> Image size: 13.2GB
> Time Taken: 37:17
I still can't find a reason to use anything other than Ghost 2003. It's
minimally invasive, relatively fast and has been completely reliable on my
system for the last several years. It doesn't suck up resources, force you
to use Roxio products like Acronis, or try to back up from within Windows.
In short, it's absolutely the best product for me.
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2006-09-06, 1:17 am |
| "Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
news:R0YKg.12771$IM1.3632@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> I still can't find a reason to use anything other than Ghost 2003. It's
> minimally invasive, relatively fast and has been completely reliable on my
> system for the last several years. It doesn't suck up resources, force you
> to use Roxio products like Acronis, or try to back up from within Windows.
Roxio and Acronis have nothing to do with each other.
| |
| Chuck U. Farley 2006-09-06, 1:16 pm |
| > Roxio and Acronis have nothing to do with each other.
Several years ago they did. You could not use Windows built in CD burner
with True Image, you had to have Easy CD Creator installed to make a
bootable cd, period end of story. I know this for a fact, it's what made my
decision to use Ghost.
| |
|
| I use both Acronis 9 and Ghost 2003. Both have served me well the two
times when I had hard drive crashes. Ghost 2003 is the faster of the
two but either one should fill your needs.
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 10:37:26 -0400, "Chuck U. Farley"
<chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote:
>
>Several years ago they did. You could not use Windows built in CD burner
>with True Image, you had to have Easy CD Creator installed to make a
>bootable cd, period end of story. I know this for a fact, it's what made my
>decision to use Ghost.
>
| |
| Peter Wilkins 2006-09-06, 7:18 pm |
| On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 11:56:43 -0400, "Chuck U. Farley"
<chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote :
>I still can't find a reason to use anything other than Ghost 2003. It's
>minimally invasive, relatively fast and has been completely reliable on =
my
>system for the last several years. It doesn't suck up resources, force =
you
>to use Roxio products like Acronis, or try to back up from within =
Windows.
>
>In short, it's absolutely the best product for me.
>
I couldn't agree more - for me, for full system backups it is still
the best and most reliable, and I've tried many.
Main disadvantage is that you can't use your system during a backup.
So, for everyday use, I find Retrospect Express very convenient and
useful. It works away in the background, runs on a schedule, and I
can restore my system or individual files/folders to any particular
date. It's not so easy to restore a full system if a major fault
occurs, but that's what I have Ghost for.
So I automatically backup each night with Retrospect then do a full
system backup with Ghost 2003 whenever I have a significant system
change, or once every two weeks anyway.
I keep my backups on an external 300G HDD, but also copy the Ghost
backups to DVD and keep the DVDs at another location.
Works for me. =20
--=20
Regards,
Peter Wilkins
| |
|
| Peter Wilkins wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 11:56:43 -0400, "Chuck U. Farley"
> <chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote :
>
> I couldn't agree more - for me, for full system backups it is still
> the best and most reliable, and I've tried many.
>
> Main disadvantage is that you can't use your system during a backup.
> So, for everyday use, I find Retrospect Express very convenient and
> useful. It works away in the background, runs on a schedule, and I
> can restore my system or individual files/folders to any particular
> date. It's not so easy to restore a full system if a major fault
> occurs, but that's what I have Ghost for.
>
> So I automatically backup each night with Retrospect then do a full
> system backup with Ghost 2003 whenever I have a significant system
> change, or once every two weeks anyway.
>
> I keep my backups on an external 300G HDD, but also copy the Ghost
> backups to DVD and keep the DVDs at another location.
>
> Works for me.
Norton Save and Restore v11.01 does images and incremental backups.
If it wasn't free after rebates, I wouldn't have purchased it.
You can include/exclude certain files during the incremental backups
with v11.01 (IIRC, Ghost 9 couldn't do this on the incrementals).
I do a weekly image and daily incrementals using v11.01 now, and the PC
is not tied-up during the backup process.
Haven't tried a restore using v11.01 yet.
But there's nothing more convenient and minimal than a imaging program
(Ghost2003) that runs on PC-DOS from a 3.5" floppy.
| |
| Chuck U. Farley 2006-09-07, 1:14 pm |
| > You can include/exclude certain files during the incremental backups
> with v11.01 (IIRC, Ghost 9 couldn't do this on the incrementals).
I never have been one to use incrementals because time isn't really an issue
with me. I do a full image b/u every night, store the resultant files on a
secondary hd on my box and copy them to another box on my network. Once a
week I back up to DVD and, like Peter, keep it at another location.
> I do a weekly image and daily incrementals using v11.01 now, and the PC
> is not tied-up during the backup process.
> Haven't tried a restore using v11.01 yet.
How is it on system services and resources? Does it automatically load a
bunch of stuff at startup? That's what's kept me with Ghost 2003 and AV 2003
as well. They work just fine manually without the need for a bunch of stuff
loaded on startup.
> But there's nothing more convenient and minimal than a imaging program
> (Ghost2003) that runs on PC-DOS from a 3.5" floppy.
I just don't trust imaging programs that work from within Windows either. As
in most cases, simpler is often better.
| |
|
| > > You can include/exclude certain files during the incremental backups
>
> I never have been one to use incrementals because time isn't really an issue
> with me. I do a full image b/u every night, store the resultant files on a
> secondary hd on my box and copy them to another box on my network. Once a
> week I back up to DVD and, like Peter, keep it at another location.
A clarification to my previous posting. V11.01 appears to do
1. Independent Recovery Points (full-image backups)
2. Recovery Point Sets (base image + incremental images)
3. File and Folder backups (here's where you can include/exclude files)
Incrementals take up less space, especially if you have a system that
doesn't change too much too often.
>
> How is it on system services and resources? Does it automatically load a
> bunch of stuff at startup? That's what's kept me with Ghost 2003 and AV 2003
> as well. They work just fine manually without the need for a bunch of stuff
> loaded on startup.
Hard to tell.
High Compression backups use significant CPU resources.
Lowering compression appears to help.
I already had Norton SystemWorks installed, and Norton Save and Restore
found it plugged right into it's menu.
SystemWorks components can be a hog if one is not careful.
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2006-09-08, 7:14 am |
| "Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
news:u2BLg.146$yz4.40@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> Several years ago they did. You could not use Windows built in CD burner
> with True Image, you had to have Easy CD Creator installed to make a
> bootable cd, period end of story. I know this for a fact, it's what made
my
> decision to use Ghost.
That's an issue with the CD writing software being inconpatible, and the
built-in recorder in Win XP was brain dead.
You had stated "Roxio products like Acronis".
They are different companies.
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2006-09-08, 7:14 am |
| "NGT" <ngtestr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157647082.592368.211740@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> A clarification to my previous posting. V11.01 appears to do
> 1. Independent Recovery Points (full-image backups)
> 2. Recovery Point Sets (base image + incremental images)
> 3. File and Folder backups (here's where you can include/exclude files)
> Incrementals take up less space, especially if you have a system that
> doesn't change too much too often.
Beware of Recovery Point Sets. Not what users need,
See
http://forums.hardwareguys.com/ikon...ST;f=13;t=4573.
| |
| Chuck U. Farley 2006-09-08, 1:14 pm |
| > That's an issue with the CD writing software being inconpatible, and the
> built-in recorder in Win XP was brain dead.
Funny thing, I burn DVD's with Ghost 2003 with no need for _any_ additional
burning s/w, quite unlike the TI version of two years ago, so there's no
incompatibility possible. The ability to burn CD/DVD's is contained within
the Ghost s/w.
In it's current version, do you still have to have third party burning s/w
to burn a DVD with TI?
> You had stated "Roxio products like Acronis".
> They are different companies.
You parsed my statement incorrectly, I said "It (meaning Ghost) doesn't suck
up resources, force you
to use Roxio products like Acronis...," because two years ago you were
_required_ to have Roxio EasyCD Creator to burn a backup DVD with TI. TI was
_unable_ to burn CD/DVD's on it's own, or even use the admittedly brain-dead
XP app. Is that no longer the case? Does TI now allow you to burn a CD/DVD
with no additional third party s/w?
| |
|
| Howard Kaikow wrote:
> Beware of Recovery Point Sets. Not what users need,
> See
> http://forums.hardwareguys.com/ikon...ST;f=13;t=4573.
I took a look at your message about Ghost v10 on the Hardwareguys
message board.
Here's a dialog that appeared in the "Define Backup Wizard" from v11.01
on my machine:
"The recovery point set option is disabled because you have already
assigned a selected drive to an existing recovery point set. You can
only have one recovery point set defined for each drive."
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2006-09-23, 7:14 am |
| "NGT" <ngtestr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158688529.191571.228860@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Here's a dialog that appeared in the "Define Backup Wizard" from v11.01
> on my machine:
>
> "The recovery point set option is disabled because you have already
> assigned a selected drive to an existing recovery point set. You can
> only have one recovery point set defined for each drive."
>
Ayup, same stupidity in Ghost 10.
As I said in the article I posted, Ghost is still OK for FULL backups using
Independent Recovery Sets. You can have as many as you wish.
I ASSuME that Norton SAve and Restore still includes Independent Recovery
Sets.
I also use True Image, if only because it has no such silly restrictions.
| |
| Chuck U. Farley 2006-09-23, 1:12 pm |
| > I also use True Image, if only because it has no such silly restrictions.
You never did answer my question about whether you _still_ have to have
specific 3rd party burning s/w such as Easy CD Creator to use the latest
edition of TI in order to make a backup DVD/CD. Now that is a silly
restriction.
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2006-09-29, 7:29 pm |
| "Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
news:5SdRg.32226$KR1.12769@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
restrictions.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> You never did answer my question about whether you _still_ have to have
> specific 3rd party burning s/w such as Easy CD Creator to use the latest
> edition of TI in order to make a backup DVD/CD. Now that is a silly
> restriction.
I do not think so, but I would never backup directly to optical media, so
i've never checked/tested this feature.
| |
| Chuck U. Farley 2006-09-29, 7:29 pm |
| > > You never did answer my question about whether you _still_ have to have
>
> I do not think so, but I would never backup directly to optical media, so
> i've never checked/tested this feature.
If you _never_ backup to media that can be securely stored offsite, that
tells me all I need to know about your knowledge of effective backup
strategies, and the s/w to correctly accomplish this critical function.
Good luck, you'll eventually need it.
| |
| Peter Wilkins 2006-09-30, 1:21 am |
| On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:41:16 -0400, "Chuck U. Farley"
<chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote :
have[vbcol=seagreen]
latest[vbcol=seagreen]
so[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>If you _never_ backup to media that can be securely stored offsite, that
>tells me all I need to know about your knowledge of effective backup
>strategies, and the s/w to correctly accomplish this critical function.
>
>Good luck, you'll eventually need it.
>
You misread his post. He never DIRECTLY backs up to optical media.
Neither do I. I don't trust it.
I backup first to an external HDD. Then, when I have checked the
backup is OK, I copy it to DVD and take the DVD off site.
I use two backup systems: Retrospect for daily incremental's and
Ghost 2003 for full system backups, which I take whenever I have a
major system software change or fortnightly, whichever comes first.
I expect that's something like what he does too.
--=20
Regards,
Peter Wilkins
| |
| Chuck U. Farley 2006-09-30, 7:14 pm |
| >You misread his post. He never DIRECTLY backs up to optical media.
>Neither do I. I don't trust it.
>I backup first to an external HDD. Then, when I have checked the
>backup is OK, I copy it to DVD and take the DVD off site.
That makes more sense, I guess. Personally, I don't trust external hd's but
everyone's different. As I said earlier, in addition to daily image backups
to a hd, I backup to DVD once a week with a Ghost integrity check and then
restore from that image to test it. Can't get much better in testing the
integrity of the DVD image than doing a restore from it.
| |
|
| Chuck U. Farley wrote:
> Personally, I don't trust external hd's but everyone's different.
I've had some problems with USB drivers disconnecting spontaneously in
the past, so I'd be careful about some USB external harddisks.
I've had no problems (so far) with my FireWire (1394) external harddisk
(Oxford Chipset).
|
|
|
|
|