Example: 320g ssd, 240g free space. How do I configure things to only image the 80g data/OS files, and not include the unused space? Or would I be better off shrinking to an OS partition just over 80g?
The smaller the backup image file, the better.
I think by default it backs up used sectors only. There is probably an option somewhere if anybody wants to back up all sectors.
Since way back I think I've misled myself about cloning vs. image/backup. I was unsure of incremental and differential. For one thing, I wondered "will that include settings changes"? I ran across this explanation;
"Disk cloning entails creating an exact, uncompressed replica of an entire drive or specific partitions. Since disk clones are uncompressed, they can be immediately replicated to a target backup drive or the cloud, resulting in an up-to-date, identical copy of the data. The critical advantage of cloning over disk imaging is speed. In the event of a hard drive failure, the cloned drive can be quickly replaced, minimizing downtime"
These are my current settings.
Medium compression
I'm not looking to copy the entire disk, just the OS partiition and the other partiitons associated with it, tho I understand that I could probably just do the C\: partition, unless something changes along the way, such as altering the recovery partition that occurred for some users with KB5034441.
So, aside from compression, what is the difference between what I do as an Image backup, and a clone? Since I'm using compression, won't that make the image smaller?
If I clone, with no compression, will that make the backup and restore operations faster?
Last edited by kitpzyxmsir; 2 Weeks Ago at 14:33.
You are confusing cloning with imaging.Since way back I think I've misled myself about cloning vs. image/backup. I was unsure of incremental and differential. For one thing, I wondered "will that include settings changes"? I ran across this explanation;
"Disk cloning entails creating an exact, uncompressed replica of an entire drive or specific partitions. Since disk clones are uncompressed, they can be immediately replicated to a target backup drive or the cloud, resulting in an up-to-date, identical copy of the data. The critical advantage of cloning over disk imaging is speed. In the event of a hard drive failure, the cloned drive can be quickly replaced, minimizing downtime"
These are my current settings.
Medium compression
I'm not looking to copy the entire disk, just the OS partiition and the other partiitons associated with it, tho I understand that I could probably just do the C\: partition, unless something changes along the way, such as altering the recovery partition wtat occurred for some users with KB5034441.
So, aside from compression, what is the difference between what I do as an Image backup, and a clone? Since I'm using compression, won't that make the image smaller?
If I clone, with no compression, will that make the backup and restore operations faster?
With cloning, you make a copy of existing disk to another so if source disk fails, it can be swapped for cloned disk.
An image is a copy of the selected partitions on source drive in a (usually) compressed format (basically like a zip file).
You have to use recovery software to restore (a bit like using winzip) to restore image usually to existing source drive. You can have multiple images but only one clone.
When you create a image, by default it only images used space, and compresses as well.
As a minimum, you need to image C drive, and EFI partition but good to image MSR and Recovery Partition as well. Imaging data partitions is optional.
I want to make sure I'm interpreting things accurately. Are the terms "copy", "image", and "backup" interchangeable? If we wish, we we can just clone a partition, instead of an "entire" disk, correct? Is there a difference between cloning or imaging a partition, aside from using compression for the image?
Let's say it this way. What is the fastest/most eficient way to create a copy of and restore these selected partitions? Will that method also create the smallest image/clone file?
Can't you make additional clones if there are changes to the source drive, and restore the latest clone to the destination?
I do not know how much easier to explain things but you are really overthinking things.I want to make sure I'm interpreting things accurately. Are the terms "copy", "image", and "backup" interchangeable? If we wish, we we can just clone a partition, instead of an "entire" disk, correct? Is there a difference between cloning or imaging a partition, aside from using compression for the image?
Let's say it this way. What is the fastest/most eficient way to create a copy of and restore these selected partitions? Will that method also create the smallest image/clone file?
Can't you make additional clones if there are changes to the source drive, and restore the latest clone to the destination?
A clone is a copy of original drive. That drive can be swapped for original drive.
An image is a copy of source drive but put into a single file (just how a zip file works).
You can only have one clone on a target drive - always the last one made
You can have multiple images at different points. You need to restore image backups (unzipping in effect)
The two functions are similar BUT not the same.
For most users wanting backups (generic term), image backups are the preferred solution.
Cloning is really only useful if you want to hot swap a drive.
You are a Champion!
Compare it with disk 0 and disk 1 from your January post
That was a CLONE!
ok, but I've never "cloned" a drive. I image those 4 partitions, and since I have multiple internal drives with OS partitions, I can "restore" from from either one of them to any one of the others drives.
I know I'm probably overthinking this, but I'm trying to help out a friend with an empty hard drive he wants to add to another machine, The OS partition he wants to use has over 80mgb of data, and just want to know which is the simplest and quickest way to do it. Basically, do you install a clone the same way you restore an image?
Quote
