|
Home > Archive > Backup Software > October 2007 > whats the difference between a BackUp and an Image
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 |
whats the difference between a BackUp and an Image
|
|
| Michael Kicak 2007-09-29, 1:12 pm |
| At present I back up only my spreadsheets, music, pixs and images that I
scan each month onto a CD... I don't backup the hard drive at all, though I
have created a Restore point.
I really don't know what the difference is between creating an IMAGE vs a
BACKUP.
Second question... is there any way to back up the software on my hard
drive... some of the programs are old and I like using them, but have lost
the Original software CDs
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide me...
MJK
| |
| Gerard Bok 2007-09-29, 1:12 pm |
| On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:21:43 -0400, "Michael Kicak"
<kicakm@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>At present I back up only my spreadsheets, music, pixs and images that I
>scan each month onto a CD... I don't backup the hard drive at all, though I
>have created a Restore point.
>I really don't know what the difference is between creating an IMAGE vs a
>BACKUP.
An image is a type of backup.
An imaging program takes a kind of 'snapshot' of what is on your
PC's harddisk.
And allows you to put that image back, if required.
Other types of backup copy each and every file.
Or just the files that have changed since the previous backup.
Or several variations on this schema :-)
>Second question... is there any way to back up the software on my hard
>drive... some of the programs are old and I like using them, but have lost
>the Original software CDs
In that case, you will need an Image type backup.
Most programs require some settings in the registry. If you just
create a backup of the files involved, the program will likely
not run as it lacks the required registry settings.
And just a copy of a registry won't do you much good, as such a
copy is only valid for exactly the installation it came from :-)
Creating an image makes sure you have both the required
programfiles and the required registry-content to run.
--
Kind regards,
Gerard Bok
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2007-09-30, 7:15 am |
| I no longer see any use for file based backup programs.
They are very, very, slow.
Do not work for multiboot systems.
Can anyone come up with a justification for using a file based backup, other
than for reading old file based backup archives?
| |
| meerkat 2007-09-30, 7:15 am |
|
"Howard Kaikow" <kaikow@standards.com> wrote in message
news:fdo2cn$ou2$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>I no longer see any use for file based backup programs.
> They are very, very, slow.
> Do not work for multiboot systems.
>
> Can anyone come up with a justification for using a file based
> backup, other
> than for reading old file based backup archives?
>
A file is a collection of letters, numbers and special characters: it
may be a program, a database, a dissertation, a reading list, a simple
letter etc.
From that description, you can see there are many reasons for
backing up `files`.
| |
| Bob Willard 2007-09-30, 1:14 pm |
| Howard Kaikow wrote:
> I no longer see any use for file based backup programs.
> They are very, very, slow.
> Do not work for multiboot systems.
>
> Can anyone come up with a justification for using a file based backup, other
> than for reading old file based backup archives?
>
>
An image backup won't help if you have to replace the PC with a new PC which
is different from the old one: you will then have a new OS, and you will
want to restore your old data files *without* overwriting the OS.
Yes, there are cases where image backups work with PC replacement, but for
the typical single-partition PC, you will be screwed unless your backup app
knows how to extract individual files from a backup image.
--
Cheers, Bob
| |
|
| Here's my take on it.
The absolute most important thing to backup is your files, your data.
Your OS can be reloaded, your programs can be reloaded. Your files
are unique to your computer and if they're lost, you're screwed.
The absolute most important thing is that you backup your data, and
you do it consistently. Everything else is just fluff.
| |
| Gerard Bok 2007-09-30, 1:14 pm |
| On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 07:48:36 -0400, "Howard Kaikow"
<kaikow@standards.com> wrote:
>I no longer see any use for file based backup programs.
>They are very, very, slow.
>Do not work for multiboot systems.
>
>Can anyone come up with a justification for using a file based backup, other
>than for reading old file based backup archives?
- Version control :-)
- Easy single file retreival
- Fast and efficient use of bandwidth (either on the local backup
medium or on the network)
- Pure necessity, sometimes (Say: a 3 TB array where only some
600 MB gets changed on an average day. Gee, am I glad there is
CDR :-)
- Audit purposes
- Security flagging (E.g. a file that is not supposed to change,
ever, turns up in a differential backup set)
Need I go on ?
--
Kind regards,
Gerard Bok
| |
| Wandering 2007-09-30, 1:14 pm |
| I have recently had to restore two separate systems.
A PC which went up in smoke with a Win98SE operating system with a new Vista
PC, and a MAC where I had to wipe the disk, and replace the operating system
from scratch. In neither case did the image offer any value at all. I was
able to rescue virtually all the user data by having a file back up for each
system on an external flash drive. Once they were up and running again, I
loaded the files, and we were off and on our way.
Image backups are best for bullet proofing the system you have against
problem software installs, or malware. Both are part of our regimen.
"Howard Kaikow" <kaikow@standards.com> wrote in message
news:fdo2cn$ou2$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>I no longer see any use for file based backup programs.
> They are very, very, slow.
> Do not work for multiboot systems.
>
> Can anyone come up with a justification for using a file based backup,
> other
> than for reading old file based backup archives?
>
>
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2007-10-01, 1:16 pm |
| "meerkat" <man@cov.com> wrote in message
news:qoMLi.19004$aN2.1595@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> A file is a collection of letters, numbers and special characters: it
> may be a program, a database, a dissertation, a reading list, a simple
> letter etc.
>
> From that description, you can see there are many reasons for
> backing up `files`.
The question was image-based vs. file-based backup.
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2007-10-01, 1:16 pm |
| "Bob Willard" <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Sp-dnS782NTmCmLbnZ2dnUVZ_ournZ2d@comcast.com...
> An image backup won't help if you have to replace the PC with a new PC
which
> is different from the old one: you will then have a new OS, and you will
> want to restore your old data files *without* overwriting the OS.
>
> Yes, there are cases where image backups work with PC replacement, but for
> the typical single-partition PC, you will be screwed unless your backup
app
> knows how to extract individual files from a backup image.
All "decent" image-based backups allow retrival of files, not just an image,
No reason to use file-based for this purpose.
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2007-10-01, 1:16 pm |
| "Gerard Bok" <bok118@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:46ffb18b.14406210@News.Individual.NET...
> - Version control :-)
image based programs also have this.
> - Easy single file retreival
image based programs also have this.
> - Fast and efficient use of bandwidth (either on the local backup
> medium or on the network)
image based programs are far faster than file-based.
For network backup, you can still use an image based program, but it
operates in file based mode.
> - Pure necessity, sometimes (Say: a 3 TB array where only some
> 600 MB gets changed on an average day. Gee, am I glad there is
> CDR :-)
The better image based backups have incremental and differential backup
capabilitues.
> - Audit purposes
Please clarify.
> - Security flagging (E.g. a file that is not supposed to change,
> ever, turns up in a differential backup set)
If a file has not changed it would not be included in a proper
incremental/differential backup.
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2007-10-01, 1:16 pm |
| "Wandering" <amore.dei@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fdohsr$96p$1@news.mixmin.net...
> I have recently had to restore two separate systems.
>
> A PC which went up in smoke with a Win98SE operating system with a new
Vista
> PC, and a MAC where I had to wipe the disk, and replace the operating
system
> from scratch. In neither case did the image offer any value at all. I was
> able to rescue virtually all the user data by having a file back up for
each
> system on an external flash drive. Once they were up and running again, I
> loaded the files, and we were off and on our way.
>
> Image backups are best for bullet proofing the system you have against
> problem software installs, or malware. Both are part of our regimen.
The decent image based backups allow for file retrieval
| |
| Gerard Bok 2007-10-01, 1:16 pm |
| On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:01:57 -0400, "Howard Kaikow"
<kaikow@standards.com> wrote:
>"Gerard Bok" <bok118@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>news:46ffb18b.14406210@News.Individual.NET...
>image based programs also have this.
No, they don't. They may offer file based features.
An image is a dump of the entire volume, regardless of its
contents. Basically even without regard to whether or not the
sector is in use.
Most imaging products peek at the OS's usage table and only
backup portions of the disk that are flagged 'in use'.
Or even skip sectors that belong to the swap area, the hibernate
area, the waste bin, etc.
Which disqualifies their output as a proper images :-)
>image based programs also have this.
The emphasis here was on 'easy' :-)
>image based programs are far faster than file-based.
Please clarify. How could they be 'far faster' ?
>For network backup, you can still use an image based program, but it
>operates in file based mode.
Well, it's clear we disagree about what 'imaging' means :-)
The fact that some imaging products implement non-imaging
functions (like version control, differential, incremental) imho
actually illustrates the indispensability of 'classic file based
backup' :-)
>Please clarify.
Create an image. Seal it. You have evidence of a situation,
frosen in time.
--
Kind regards,
Gerard Bok
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2007-10-02, 1:15 pm |
| "Gerard Bok" <bok118@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:47012b2a.27574815@News.Individual.NET...
>
> No, they don't. They may offer file based features.
> An image is a dump of the entire volume, regardless of its
> contents. Basically even without regard to whether or not the
> sector is in use.
What do you mean by version control?
If u mean the ability to recover particulatr versions of particular files,
then the better inmage programs can do this.
> Most imaging products peek at the OS's usage table and only
> backup portions of the disk that are flagged 'in use'.
Yes, but so do file based programs.
> Or even skip sectors that belong to the swap area, the hibernate
> area, the waste bin, etc.
> Which disqualifies their output as a proper images :-)
There is no reason to backup the swap files, and the better programs do
backup the recycle bin.
I do not use hib sp I do not know hat they do.
In any case, there are image backup programs that do backup ALL sectors as
an option.
>
> The emphasis here was on 'easy' :-)
File retrieval is no more difficult with an image based backup.
>
> Please clarify. How could they be 'far faster' ?
Opening a file is slow. Image based programs do not Open files,
Image based programs are much faster.
> The fact that some imaging products implement non-imaging
> functions (like version control, differential, incremental) imho
> actually illustrates the indispensability of 'classic file based
> backup' :-)
Not so.
Retrieval of files is similar for both types of backup
But image backups are much faster in creating the archive.
>
> Create an image. Seal it. You have evidence of a situation,
> frosen in time.
ALL backups, be they image or file based, are backups at a point in time.
Try an image bqckup program, you will see the difference.
| |
| BBC_GRIM_REAPER 2007-10-03, 1:15 pm |
|
"Howard Kaikow" <kaikow@standards.com> wrote in message
news:fdo2cn$ou2$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>
> Can anyone come up with a justification for using a file based backup,
> other
> than for reading old file based backup archives?
>
>
| |
| Gerard Bok 2007-10-04, 1:15 pm |
| On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 12:00:33 -0500, "BBC_GRIM_REAPER"
<BBC_GRIM_REAPER@FA.spamzz.us> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>"Howard Kaikow" <kaikow@standards.com> wrote in message
>news:fdo2cn$ou2$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>
There is no such thing as a golden egg in Backup country.
You need to set your target(s), apply a proper strategy and
select the appropriate software for the job at hand.
Today, the vast majority of backups running in practical
operations are just file based.
They hide under obscure names as 'file replication service',
'shadow copy', 'remote file audit', mirror, etc.
But basically: they are backups :-)
--
Kind regards,
Gerard Bok
|
|
|
|
|