What is the fastest image backup software from DOS? Ghost 2003,
Acronis True Image 9, or something else?

PowerQuest's Drive Image served me well for years with it's fast
sector-by-sector copying (quickly compressing them and skipping empty
sectors). I also liked its ability to restore individual files from
the sector-by-sector image backup. Unfortunately it doesn't seem able
to backup my new XP Pro laptop, and there's no updated version
(Symantec absorbed Drive Image into Ghost & eliminated its DOS mode.)

So I bought Ghost 10, only to discover it can't make a backup from DOS.
(It can only restore using DOS, not make backups, and I hear it is
painfully slow to start.)

Fortunately Ghost 2003 (included with Ghost 10) works from DOS, but I
think it defaulted to doing slow file-by-file backup since it displayed
the name of each file, one by one, and it took about an hour for a new
laptop (containing just MS Office and some other tools). It seems to
offer an option to do a sector-by-sector backup, but I don't think that
skips empty/unused sectors, so I'm not sure that'd be any faster. (Or
maybe I just don't understand those options.)

I hear Acronis True Image is good and works from DOS, but there isn't
enough info on their web site to help me know if it can do fast
sector-by-sector image copying that omits empty sectors, or whether it
is faster than Ghost 2003.

Craig in NJ

CraiginNJ <craig@uthe.net> wrote

TI doesnt use DOS, the bootable CD is linux.

I havent seen any real difference speed wise with standard
configs, internal hard drive to internal hard drive. Even less
with imaging over the lan where the lan limits the speed.

It does it the other way, does the compression last.

It isnt necessarily sector by sector either.

What is the problem ?

Ghost 9 and 10 are actually based on PowerQuest's V2i, not DI.

Correct, one of its major downsides.

It actually uses Win PE on the bootable CD, not DOS.

Certainly rather slower than a dos floppy.

DI just doesnt display the individual file names.

Where did you write the image file ?

Yes it does.

Correct.

Its basically correct.

Yes.

No it doesnt, it works from linux if you boot the rescue CD.

Thats better because the support for stuff like USB
drives and NICs etc is much better than with DOS.

You keep mangling that. Yes, it only copys the sectors that are used.

There's a free demo you can download to try that for yourself.

Rod,

Thank you for those answers. Very good food for thought. I should
probably do some more testing, incl. Ghost 2003 sector-by-sector mode
and the Acronis demo.

fyi 1 - My bias toward DOS-boot is based on the fact that I already
have things set up to backup over my home GigE LAN to a removable 3Gbps
eSATA2 HD on my desktop secured by a password, booting from a USB Flash
Drive instead of a floppy or CD. I wouldn't object to an equivalent
linux Acronis boot, but I don't have a clue of how to set up a linux
boot USB Flash Drive with all that.

fyi 2 - The Ghost 2003 49 minute file-by-file backup speed disappointed
me because when I first set up this solution for my old Win2k laptop
(to internal IDE drive inside the desktop over slower LAN) I seem to
remember the Drive Image backup of the then-new 2001 laptop only taking
about 15 minutes. Given that the individual file names are displayed,
I assumed this was a file-by-file vs. used sector-by-sector difference.
IIRC, the backup time when I started using DI was several times faster
(e.g., maybe 7x?) than the Windows file-by-file backup at the time
(many years ago).

fyi 3 - Trying DI with the new laptop produced an error message as the
backup was just getting started. Something about a bad sequence number
or something like that. (Successfully using the Ghost 2003's .exe on
that same USB Flash Drive demonstrated that the connection through to
the destination drive was working perfectly.) I read somewhere that
the last DI can't handle some current XP drives, so I gave up quickly.

Thanks again!

Craig in NJ

Rod Speed wrote:

CraiginNJ <craig@uthe.net> wrote

Yeah, that unusual config wouldnt necessarily be that easy to setup either.

Yeah, that's certainly possible. Not so much because of what is moved
across the lan, more because Ghost 2003 didnt appear to go anywhere
near saturating even a 100Mb lan when I tried it in that config. TI does
a lot better there and so may well be a lot faster for that reason alone.

Ghost32.exe is reputed to do quite a bit better there, but
I havent really tried that particular question with it myself.

Yeah, its just a different way the user interface is done.

Sure.

OK, never seen that with DI, so no idea what's producing it.
I did use it most of the time before changing to TI.

Thats always been one downside when doing things
from DOS, can be a bit fiddly to get it working reliably.

Yeah, I gave up on it mainly because it missing all the more
recent stuff like incremental images, doing them live, so you
can keep using the system while creating an image, and now
TI has file and folder backup as well as images too.

I find it very handy to be able to image a system over the
lan before doing any work on that system when its a foreign
system and TI is a hell of a lot more bulletproof than DI ever
was, particularly on bulletproof NIC support, just boot the
CD and start imaging the system over the lan.

No problem, thats what these technical groups are all about.

Thanks again, Rod.

BTW 1, the error message from DI was # 1527 "Bad update sequence
number." It only occurred on the NTFS partition -- other "hidden"
partition of type "Utility" (containing IBM boot utilities) could back
up fine. A web reference suggested that when NTFS evolved to a version
3.1, some Power Quest applications were still limited to NTFS version
3.0 and would need updating. That seems the likely explanation. . . .


.. . . oops! . . . I just noticed the Drive Image version I was trying
was from an old boot floppy I set up for the old laptop. That was
version 4. I also have DI 2002 here that I should try (i.e., version
6) before I give up on DI.

BTW2, I just noticed the Acronis TI FAQ says the "safe variant" of its
standalone version is DOS-based. Its limitations seem to relate the
the configuration of the DOS disk for special things like I already
sorted out (e.g., NIC, LAN drive login, etc.). So this might give me a
DOS boot version I can use when I need to move on to something
newer/better than the old DI.

Craig in NJ

Rod Speed wrote:
....<snip>...

CraiginNJ <craig@uthe.net> wrote:

Yeah, sounds plausible. I stopped using DI before I started using NTFS.

Dunno, it doesnt have any lan access.

The other point you may have overlooked is that with a modern
imager like TI, you dont actually need to boot from anything,
you can just install it on the laptop and create the image while
still at the XP etc level, and in fact can still use the laptop while
its being imaged too.

That also allows incremental and differential images which
drastically reduce the time required, because that means
that only what has changed since the last image needs to
be moved across the lan to where the image files are stored.

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:
Yes. Point taken. I haven't felt a compelling need for incremental /
differential backups nor background backup. I tend to have a spare
copy of my key working files every week if not every day, and I hear
that it can be a little risky making a backup of files that are
changing. TI sounds like a good choice when I next feel the urge to
move up to a modern, supported product.

Good news: I replaced the older DI with the DI 2002 on my bootable USB
Flash Drive and it does successfully work afterall.
Bad news: It took 46 minutes -- only slightly faster than Ghost 2003.
I'd probably get faster performance if I fix a bottleneck in my home
LAN, or even better if I use an eSATA2 ExpressCard54 and plug in the
backup drive directly into the laptop (except that DOS boots probably
can't inherently recognize ExpressCards).

Craig in NJ

CraiginNJ <craig@uthe.net> wrote:
It is with Ghost, not with TI.

Corse you dont have to do the image when files are
changing, just do differentials to get a much better speed.

I'd be changing now to get the speed myself.

In fact I did just that, to get the better speed and other
advantages, particularly quick incremental images that
I do just before doing anything substantial install or
update wise, in case everything goes pear shaped
and the system restore isnt enough. Doesnt happen
often, but saves a lot of time when it is necessary.

Not sure about that. One thing that struck me with both DI and Ghost
2003 was that neither of them even get close to saturating even a
100Mb lan, obvious from even just looking at the leds on the router.

Yeah, that might be faster than anything else.

Be interesting to test tho with TI, you might find that it can
get a higher thruput with the 1Gb lan than the Cardbus.

Sure, but its likely doable.

Yes, Acronis TI seems my best bet when I need something newer than the
old DI.

Thanks.

Craig in NJ

PS -- BTW, page 1 of the old DI 4.0 manual says: "Unlike file-by-file
copying utilities, Drive Image uses SmartSector imaging . . . . . . .
Because Drive Image uses SmartSector imaging, your Windows
optimizations are preserved when you restore an image." So you can see
why I believed Drive Image did sector copying rather than the
file-by-file copying Ghost 10 seemed to do.

CraiginNJ <craig@uthe.net> wrote:

You can make a case that you need it now if you care about
the speed of the backup, just because incremental and
differential images dramatically reduce the time required.

Its more complicated than that, most obviously when the image
is restored to a different sized partition than it was created from.

Its not as black and white as that sales speil suggests.