On 2/27/2014 5:03 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Dr. Backup writes:
>>> I clone the boot drive since everything involving the system software
>>> needs to be in sync. Cloning the boot drive makes a static image of
>>> everything that's there... but at the cost of copying the entirety of
>>> the drive when, perhaps, you only needed to copy 10%...
> Aaaah, but Shadowprotect allows for "incremental clones" that only
> looks for changes. It is linked to the full cloning file or the
> previous incremental file.
One of us is misreading this. I see 'backup' all over their site. Neither page
searches nor a site search finds 'clone'
This is a backup application - for $100.
> I usually only like to have 3 or so incremental files and then just
> reclone the whole thing as the later approach seems to take up more
> space then I
> would have thought and still isn't super fast. Shadowprotect is
> apparently quite snappy compared to some esp at USB3 speeds. I don't
> believe any full
> resoration on win 7 can be done at USB3 speed as the recovery
> environment doesn't support that. I suspect win 8 fixed that, but I
> don't know for sure.
> Suspect incremental backups of non boot drive may be faster.
This misses Chuck's point. With a clone, one simply swaps drives* and boots up.
No Windoze restore, no third party
restore, no USB. It's a different approach.
It's also the most practical way to swap in a new boot drive.
> Incremental cloner, Mike
Incremental backupper, I think?
Back Up Moose
* Or put the clone in a toaster and boot from there.
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|