Re: beating a dead horse - was "Disk defragmentation - is it worth it?"
- From: "Jonny" <spamyourself@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 04:19:44 GMT
"Curious George" <cg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:vok4029mhac8jdrjm8eqsrh11q8kj4tm8t@xxxxxxxxxx
Yes the imager "debate" is a joke but I think it's good to discuss the
behavior of 3rd party PC tools, esp of benefit of those looking to
buy.
Since some seem to have found the topic interesting, the following
wintel disk imaging utilities pass the "defrag test" cited in the
above mentioned thread. They are clear-cut sector imagers whose
default behavior on unresized restore result in original file
positions, original fragmentation, and no space consolidation. They
also all come with utilities to view and extract individual files from
their sector-based images. Testing was with NTFS Partitions.
- Drive Snapshot 1.3
http://www.drivesnapshot.de/en/index.htm
- PowerQuest Drive Image vers 3,4,5,6 (2002), & 7
http://www.driveimage.com/
- Powerquest/Symantec V2i Protector (AFAIK Uses DI7 engine)
http://www.driveimage.com/
- R-Drive Image 3.0 (Has "Sector by Sector backup" or "Backup Actual
Data" options however "Backup Actual Data" results in a sector backup,
i.e. no defrag, same file positions)
http://www.r-tt.com
- Terabyte Image for Windows 1.61
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/
Acronis Trueimage is another major sector imager that has been beaten
to death her ein the last week. Tests reveal it restores original
fragmentation but consolidates space even if you are restoring to an
identical sized partition. It also can see & extract individual files
from images. My testing was on almost all releases of 6x, 7x, & 8x.
According to Acronis nothing low-level has changed for 9 Home ed.
Symantec Ghost is different. Ghost is by default a file-level tool
that _interprets_ boot track & partition information. Yes it can do a
sector backup, but basically it can only do _either_ a sector backup
of the boot sector _or_ the whole disk. If you want to do a sector
backup of a data area - you can neither backup individual partitions
nor (I believe) resize the restore. Furthermore when using the -IA,
-ID, or -IR, the resultant images are not accessible in Ghost
Explorer. Therefore this is a restricted, troubleshooting mode only.
It's slower and not really how you normally want to use it.
I'd be interested in feedback on how the following tools work:
Paragon Drive Backup 7.0 Server Edition
http://www.drive-backup.com/
the related Paragon Exact Image
http://www.exact-image.com/
& Active@ Disk Image
http://www.disk-image.net/
as well as any further feedback from anyone whose used the tools
mentioned here or other similar apps.
Of course we all expect Roddie won't be able to resist the urge to act
juvenile and make a fool of himself while trying to hijack the topic-
but that's a matter of routine & has been for quite some time.
Well, just gotta say from the outset, this appears to be a farce. I've
owned all but version 5.0 of DI. The link is a joke and link to brokenware
(Symantec).
Gotta agree with Rod if he's talking XP regarding any need of defragmenting.
Other OSes not sure about. Prior MS OSes, depends. Which leads the
question, which OS are you speaking of, and which of 3 versions of NTFS are
you referring to?
--
Jonny
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: beating a dead horse - was "Disk defragmentation - is it worth it?"
- From: Curious George
- Re: beating a dead horse - was "Disk defragmentation - is it worth it?"
- References:
- beating a dead horse - was "Disk defragmentation - is it worth it?"
- From: Curious George
- beating a dead horse - was "Disk defragmentation - is it worth it?"
- Prev by Date: Re: USB PCI card require OS drivers?
- Next by Date: Re: TrueImage 9 makes sector images - was "Disk defragmentation - is it worth it?"
- Previous by thread: Re: beating a dead horse - was "Disk defragmentation - is it worth it?"
- Next by thread: Re: beating a dead horse - was "Disk defragmentation - is it worth it?"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
