According to this website, Norton Ghost 14 “will be released on February 20, 2008.”

What does the forum community know about this edition of Norton Ghost?

http://www.google.com/search?q=norton+ghost+14

What happened to Ghost 13? (I would not buy a back-up program with the number 13.)

You always find the good stuff.

http://www.google.com/search?q=norton+ghost+14

Norton Ghost 14 is apparently out; you can download trial version from Softpedia.

Some more info:

http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/Back-Up-and-Recovery/Symantec-Norton-Ghost.shtml

Review: http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/Norton-Ghost--Review-78775.shtml

I noticed Norton Ghost 14 sits atop Softpedia's long list of "Week's best". Of course, the big question is .. are images ("restore points") created with Ghost 12/10/9 compatible with Ghost 14?

Re: http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/Norton-Ghost--Review-78775.shtml


Quote:

now supports NTFS partitions up to 16TB

uh, anything over 1TB seems useless, no? (For now, anyway.)


Quote:

new Offsite Copy feature adds an additional level of protection to your data by copying recovery points to a second hard disk drive.

copying to a 2nd hard drive is not new. I've done it with Ghost 12 .. plenty of times.

Quote:

The latest Symantec release for backing up your data preserves the same ease of use of its previous version but, despite the fact that they skipped a version, there are skimpy improvements and modifications.

Not surprised .. since I saw little need for improvement.


Quote:

the Offsite Copy function has been included in Backup Destinations dialog.

Not sure I follow them. Offsite? How do they know whether a particular destination is sitting beside the source, or truly located "off-site"? Now, if they had their own online storage facility .. that would be a different story.


Quote:

there are slightly more benefits in this version, but very important and useful ones nevertheless

I thought they just said "skimpy".

Here is clarification:


Quote:

Offsite Copy can be enabled at defining a new drive-based backup and is an additionally security measure for the created recovery point. Immediately after the backup job is finished, Offsite Copy kicks in (of course, this has to have been previously activated and a location defined) verifying the availability of the secondary location and starting the copying of the recovery point.

So, it's a *copy* of the imagen sent "off-site" .. uh, their use of the term "off-site" still throws me .. since it is unlikely they know whether (or not) the destination is truly "off-site".

Okay, it'sd becoming clearer. See here:


Quote:

As trivial as Offsite Copy may seem, it is completely automatic and makes for a very good precaution, should something happen to the backup files. The great part is that Offsite Copy is completely automatic and, if the secondary location is not available immediately after the backup process finishes creating a recovery point, the procedure will be re-scheduled for the time Offsite destination is available. This time, the operation is also automatic as recovery point process starts unattended and automatically.

They must be reading my guide:  [smiley=smiley.gif]

http://nortonghost.radified.com/norton_ghost_image_storage.html

Seems like they're trying to get the image off the source .. which is a good thing. Here's more:


Quote:

With the use of Offsite Copy, you ensure maximum protection of your files and create a safety net in case something happens to the original files and the restore point.

Uh, yeah .. like if the source drive dies. This is starting to sound like a subtle but very cool thing for those unfamilair with how cloning/imaging works. We have been saying to storage images off the source drive for eons.

Quote:

ThreatCon response is another new option sported by Norton Ghost 14 in order to automatically start the backup job if a user specific security level is reached or exceeded. It is a kind of malware detecting utility that triggers a backup operation whenever a certain level of threats is reached.

Automatically? Putting theory into practice here seems tricky. UPDATE > here's more from the end of the article. Seems my intuitions were right:


Quote:

ThreatCon integration is not exactly one of the best features sported by the application and its detecting threats caused frequent alerts about threat level being reached and starting backup job on various drives.

Quote:

Using more external drives for storing recovery points or as Offsite Copy destinations may become confusing at some point and you may lose track of the labels and drive letters assigned whenever they are connected to a system. Norton Ghost solves the problem by assigning aliases to any external drive you plug in.

Shows they're thinking ahead, but this feature is simply a local (Ghost-only internal) naming scheme ("alias") and I doubt it will be used by very many .. cuz few have more than 1 external drive (if that).


Quote:

This way, you can keep track of all recovery points and Offset Copies located on your external drives.

Again, cool. But unlikely to receive much use. "Offsite Copies" is capitalized? My, how imaging has come to embrace our fundamental tenets.

Quote:

Norton Ghost automatically detects the external drive the moment you plug it in and will launch the appropriate screen for making the necessary settings.

Ghost 12 does this now.


Quote:

Testing the application's response when backing up data either on an external drive or on one of the fix drives resulted only in success. However, on the downside, backing up a folder to a DVD showed all sorts of failure. This issue is a reminiscence of the previous version and it seems it has not been fixed in this edition.

Never heard of this problem .. but why would anybody use Ghost to back up a folder?


Quote:

Also, the application still cannot store recovery points on multiple CD/DVD media, and at one point or another chokes irremediably.

Can anybody confirm? Admittedly, I don't burn my images (preferring to go straight to external USB drive).


Quote:

However, recovering files and folders from hard disk turned out to be a pleasant surprise as the process was completed accurately and speedily. There were no glitches and everything worked just fine on both Vista and XP systems.

Seems they're saying backing-up folders/files to hard drive is cool, but problematic when going to optical drives.

Quote:

It turns out that Symantec's 14th Ghost does a very good job at backing up your data on various drives and recovery is also successful.

Here's the heart of any imagine/cloning program, and the reason why anybody would buy one.


Quote:

The application provides the safety net for creating an automatic backup to the created recovery point and everything is rolled in the background. In case your system feels a bit bloated and loses in speed, you can always adjust performance slider to improve on the overall responsiveness of the system. In this case, the backup will take longer to finish but you can do your work as well.

I would suggest running Ghost only after a fresh reboot, and after the disk activity light calms down, while doing nothing else. Multitasking adds to possibility that something else you're doing could generate a conflict.

Quote:

Bottom line is that version 14 of Norton Ghost did a pretty good job, although the changes are not too visible

Always nice to read the bottom line.


Quote:

The Good The application preserves the user friendly factor of the previous versions (even Casper is not as friendly as Norton Ghost) ..

I will admit I found Ghost 12 to be very user-friendly, well laid out. Intuitive.

Final words:


Quote:

The Truth All in all, the new Norton Ghost experience proved to be quite pleasant with minor exceptions. The latest version is not exactly revolutionary with regards to the features and options it introduces, but there are plenty of unseen fixes that may have been felt in anterior versions.

Unseen fixes? Like what? Seems like they're saying it shoulda been called Ghost v12.x

A few things I noticed in the Softpedia review about Norton Ghost 14 (NG14) . . .

• NG14 appears to now support differential backups, although it is not clear whether that is in reference to the image or to the file/folder backup functionality.
  
• The “Offsite Copy” feature, I suspect, is intended to be used for creating a second copy of the files/folders backed up by NG14 rather than images.  As described on Amazon, this feature “Copies recovery points to a FTP site for easier offsite backup management.”  Maybe NG14 includes a basic 2GB subscription to Symantec’s off-site storage capability, as is present in Norton 360?
  
• Although I hope a user could disable it, the “ThreatCon response” feature seems to launch a backup automatically whenever Symantec raises its ThreatCon level.  Personally, I wouldn’t want Symantec starting a backup on my PC, but would prefer to control it myself.

Hi Pleo.

What is a "differential" back-up? How does it differ from "incremental"? The dictionary seems to be of little help here.

Did you see this part (regarding ThreatCon):


Quote:

There are four levels you can choose from, depending on how sensitive you want it to be. ... while the last level will disable ThreatCon Response altogether.

Why do you say this:


Quote:

The “Offsite Copy” feature, I suspect, is intended to be used for creating a second copy of the files/folders backed up by NG14 rather than images.

... when a "Rocovery point" is another name for a back-up image? .. and Amazon says this:


Quote:

As described on Amazon, this feature “Copies recovery points to a FTP site for easier offsite backup management.”

What am I missing?

Quote:

… the last level will disable ThreatCon Response altogether

That’s good!  Others might disagree, but I certainly wouldn’t want to relinquish control of when an image is created to Symantec or any other firm.


Quote:

What is a "differential" back-up? How does it differ from "incremental"?

Wikipedia offers a nice explanation of the terms . . .

Quote:

Incremental A "normal" incremental backup will only back up files that have been changed since the last backup of any type. This provides the quickest means of backup, since it only makes copies of files that have not yet been backed up. For instance, following our full backup on Friday, Monday’s tape will contain only those files changed since Friday. Tuesday’s tape contains only those files changed since Monday, and so on. The downside to this is obviously that in order to perform a full restore, you need to restore the last full backup first, followed by each of the subsequent incremental backups to the present day in the correct order. Should any one of these backup copies be damaged (particularly the full backup), the restore will be incomplete. Differential A cumulative backup of all changes made after the last full backup. The advantage to this is the quicker recovery time, requiring only a full backup and the latest differential backup to restore the system. The disadvantage is that for each day elapsed since the last full backup, more data needs to be backed up, especially if a majority of the data has been changed.

Quote:

Why do you say this … when a "Recovery point" is another name for a back-up image?

Only because it makes no sense whatsoever to call a copy of a Recovery Point (aka .V2I file) an “offsite backup,” as you previously noted.  So, if the conclusion is suspect, then maybe too is the premise?  The only way I can see a justification for using the phrase “offsite backup” with Norton Ghost 14 is if the term is intended to be used in reference to the files/folders backup capability rather than the image backup functionality.  Also, remember that Norton 360 does have a true offsite backup capability, and so I am guessing that maybe that feature was ported into Norton Ghost 14.

Of course, Norton Ghost 14 hasn’t even been officially released yet, so it’s too early to say for sure, but based upon the Softpedia review, I don’t see (unfortunately) anything in version 14 that would provide a compelling reason to upgrade from version 12, other than perhaps the “plenty of unseen fixes” that have been implemented.

And, finally, one item from the Softpedia review that caused a chuckle or two . . .


Quote:

Total size of installation file {for Norton Ghost 14} does not exceed 90MB (so you can count bloatware out on this one)

“Bloat” is the eye of the beholder.  Some readers may be interested to note that, as a point of comparison, the installation file for ShadowProtect Desktop 3.1 is 13MB.

P.S.:  Anybody seen a download link for the Norton Ghost 14 User's Guide yet?

Rad, it appears that my guess about the “Offsite Backup” feature of Norton Ghost 14 is incorrect, based upon the description of the same feature within the new version of its ‘corporate’ equivalent:  Backup Exec System Recovery 8.


Quote:

Offsite Backup Copy Automatically copy recovery points (backups) to a remote server using FTP or to an external hard drive or network share to enhance your disaster recovery efforts.

Apparently, this feature is "offsite" within a corporate environment in the sense that the destination server may be located in a different building (or city).  Nonetheless, for a home user, it seems odd to refer to a simply copy of an image file (.V2I) as an "offsite backup."

Rad wrote on Feb 16^th, 2008 at 12:25pm:

Quote: This way, you can keep track of all recovery points and Offset Copies located on your external drives. Again, cool. But unlikely to receive much use. "Offsite Copies" is capitalized? My, how imaging has come to embrace our fundamental tenets.

You've forgotten the basic fundamentals of sales:

1. You've got trouble in River City, aka a problem: you need "Offsite Copy".
2. I'm selling a solution:  "Offsite Storage".

Stay tuned for Symantec's announcement that they will be providing Offsite Storage soon.

Marketing 101.   :)

The ‘corporate cousin’ of Norton Ghost 14 (i.e., Backup Exec System Recovery 8) was released on February, 19, 2008:


Quote:

CUPERTINO, Calif. – Feb. 19, 2008 – Symantec Corp. (Nasdaq: SYMC) today announced Symantec Backup Exec System Recovery 8, the latest version of its complete and rapid Windows system recovery solution—now with flexible offsite protection and enhanced recovery capabilities, integration with Symantec security and systems management solutions, and certified support for Windows Server 2008. With disk-based Backup Exec System Recovery, organizations can recover from system loss or disasters in minutes, even to dissimilar hardware, virtual environments or in remote, unattended locations. “Today’s mission-critical environments must be quickly recoverable in the event of a system failure or disaster to avoid the revenue and employee productivity losses that too often result from downtime,” said Pat Hanavan, vice president of product management, Symantec. “Backup Exec System Recovery 8 enables administrators to get their Windows systems back up and running fast so they can meet strict recovery time objectives with confidence and minimize the impact of system downtime.” To enhance an organization’s disaster recovery efforts, Backup Exec System Recovery 8 now includes flexible offsite protection that enables administrators to automatically copy recovery points to a remote server using FTP or to an external hard drive or network share. A new Granular Restore Option enables organizations to recover Microsoft Exchange mailboxes, folders, messages, and attachments; individual Microsoft SharePoint documents; and individual files or folders in minutes from a single, multi-tab interface. In addition, Backup Exec System Recovery 8 also includes integration with Symantec’s ThreatCon global security alerting system to enable system recovery points to be captured immediately and automatically in the event of an elevated Internet ThreatCon level. “Every hour of IT system downtime can represent revenue losses or other adverse effects on business. In fact, recent ESG Research reveals that 63 percent of organizations could tolerate no more than four hours of downtime,” said Lauren Whitehouse, analyst for Enterprise Strategy Group. “To minimize such costly business interruptions, organizations need solutions such as Symantec’s Backup Exec System Recovery that enable full system restoration in minutes—even to virtual, bare-metal or dissimilar hardware systems.” Integration of Backup Exec System Recovery 8 with the Altiris management platform enables administrators to control backup tasks from a familiar interface and database framework. In addition, Backup Exec System Recovery 8 can now intelligently and uniquely communicate to external USB drives and run backup jobs to the given device, even if Windows changes the drive letter for the device. “We pride ourselves on exceptional customer service, and ensuring the availability of our systems is essential to providing that service. In the past, Windows system recovery has been a time-consuming, manual process that could take days or even weeks, resulting in unnecessary downtime and loss of productivity,” said Curtis Kidd, information technology manager, Farmington Country Club. “Backup Exec System Recovery 8 eliminates these time consuming and tedious processes and enables us to restore entire systems in a fraction of the time of traditional methods – even to dissimilar hardware or virtual environments – allowing us to maintain the high level of service our members have come to expect.” Also new with Backup Exec System Recovery 8 is logo-certified support for Windows Server 2008, including Restore Anyware technology for dissimilar hardware and physical-to-virtual restoration. Backup Exec System Recovery 8 leverages the power of virtualization for seamless physical to virtual (P2V) and virtual to physical (V2P) conversions to VMware® ESX Server, VMware Server, VMware Workstation and Microsoft Virtual Server disk formats. Although Backup Exec System Recovery 8 is a standalone solution, it is complementary to Backup Exec for Windows Servers. Built on more than two decades of engineering, together Backup Exec 12 and Backup Exec System Recovery 8 deliver the ability to restore critical data and complete Windows systems in minutes.

Source:  Symantec Eases Disaster Recovery with Backup Exec System Recovery 8

The Desktop Edition is priced at $81 per license (includes 12 months of "basic support"), but it appears that a minimum of five licenses must be purchased.

Norton Ghost 14 has arrived.


Quote:

CUPERTINO, Calif. – Feb. 25, 2008 – Symantec Corp. (Nasdaq: SYMC), makers of Norton security software, today announced the release of Norton Ghost 14.0, its most advanced PC backup and recovery solution. Norton Ghost 14.0 backs up and restores a user’s entire PC computer system, including all of its data – applications, settings, folders and files – and offers exclusive remote backup management, industry-leading encryption and advanced compression features to ensure everything on the PC system is protected. Using Norton Ghost 14.0, users can quickly recover lost or damaged files and restore from system failures, even if their computer’s operating system does not start. Norton Ghost 14.0 leverages Symantec’s ThreatCon global security alerting system to identify threats, trigger automatic incremental backups and protect the user’s system even before an attack can occur. It also offers powerful protection and enhanced performance with new features, such as offsite backup to an FTP site or Network-Attached Storage (NAS) devices, in addition to long-standing features like remote management and LightsOut Restore capability. With Norton Ghost 14.0, users can backup an entire system or only specific files and folders. Incremental backups and enhanced compression help reduce the amount of required storage, while the product’s encryption technology helps keep all of the stored data safe and protected. Norton Ghost 14.0 also integrates with Google Desktop™, providing users with access to fully-searchable backup indexes. “PC users need complete protection from unforeseen threats to system data,” said Rowan Trollope, senior vice president, Symantec Corp. “Even if users diligently backup their systems, their PCs remain vulnerable to today’s most prevalent and potentially system-crippling threats. Norton Ghost 14.0 provides comprehensive protection from data loss by using the most advanced PC backup and recovery tools in the industry.” Norton Ghost 14.0 works with most storage drives, including external hard drives, networked drives, and recordable and rewritable CDs and DVDs.

Source:  Symantec’s Newest Norton Ghost Packs Powerful Detection and Threat Protection Punch

Downloaded the Ghost 14 trial version from the Symantec web site a few days ago and purchased a key for it yesterday.  

You have to purchase a product key to get the 170 MB or so .iso file that allows you to make a Recovery Environment boot CDR.

Made an image (Recovery Point) of my Vista system partition and another of one of my data partitions.  So far I like it. Very intuitive and easy to use.  Nice user interface. The real proof of the pudding will be next week when I try to restore the system partition image to an empty test drive to make sure all works as advertised.

But….. I ran into a small problem regarding the Ethernet drivers for the integrated Ethernet on my motherboard.  They are not included on the SRD (Symantec Recovery Disk) made from the .iso file.  I found a workaround, but it is a little cumbersome.  You have to boot from the SRD, then use one of the utilities there to load the Ethernet driver (.inf file) from the CD-ROM furnished with the motherboard, then start network services, run the built-in ipconfig utility to verify that all is well, map a drive letter to a remote system, and finally then you will have access to the remote system for restore or image browsing activities.  

My question is this.  According to page 29 of the user guide ( www.norton.com\ngh14guide ) you can make a custom boot CDR that includes drivers specific to your system. However, I cannot find the tabs/buttons etc in the user interface that allow me to do this.  Has anyone else been successful in making an SRD this way?  (In my instllation there is no "Create Recovery Disks" option under "Tasks" as the manual seems to state???)

BTW, I'm running off the trial installation which I activated with the purchased product key.  When I purchased the key, I was offered another installation file and I did download it, but it is the same size and name as the one I originally installed, so didn't bother with it.  

The About display states that I have version 14.0.1.24977

Ken

Quote:

In my instllation there is no "Create Recovery Disks" option under "Tasks" as the manual seems to state.

I don't have Ghost 14, but in Ghost 12 it is under File/Create Recovery Disk top left corner tab.

Thanks John.  I only have the "Exit" option under "Files".  

Will keep looking. Its probably here somewhere.

Jeb

k4kjf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2008 at 9:32am:

Thanks John.  I only have the "Exit" option under "Files".   Will keep looking. Its probably here somewhere. eb

I wonder if it's not there because you have the trial version, or need to install the full version.  If you don't find it, try the Symantec free livechat.

NG 14 has an advanced option when defining a backup to "Perform full VSS backup" - does anyone know what that means?  Was this option in earlier versions?  Its not documented by Norton in the help file and I can't find a reference in Google!  I thought that Ghost used VSS to create a consistent point in time backup of the disk(s) but now I wonder if this is true unless you select this option?

k4kjf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2008 at 8:22am:

Downloaded the Ghost 14 trial version from the Symantec web site a few days ago and purchased a key for it yesterday.   You have to purchase a product key to get the 170 MB or so .iso file that allows you to make a Recovery Environment boot CDR. ... My question is this.  According to page 29 of the user guide ( [url=www.norton.com]www.norton.com\ngh14guide[/url] ) you can make a custom boot CDR that includes drivers specific to your system. However, I cannot find the tabs/buttons etc in the user interface that allow me to do this.  Has anyone else been successful in making an SRD this way?  (In my instllation there is no "Create Recovery Disks" option under "Tasks" as the manual seems to state???) BTW, I'm running off the trial installation which I activated with the purchased product key.  When I purchased the key, I was offered another installation file and I did download it, but it is the same size and name as the one I originally installed, so didn't bother with it.   The About display states that I have version 14.0.1.24977 Ken

I have the same version as you, I do have the option under Tasks to Create Recovery Disk.

I purchased mine outright without using the trial.  The filename was NGH140_AllWin_EnglishTryBuy30.exe

Why don't you try uninstalling and reinstalling?

- Bill

Bill Wood wrote on Mar 1^st, 2008 at 10:30am:

NG 14 has an advanced option when defining a backup to "Perform full VSS backup" - does anyone know what that means?  Was this option in earlier versions?  Its not documented by Norton in the help file and I can't find a reference in Google!  I thought that Ghost used VSS to create a consistent point in time backup of the disk(s) but now I wonder if this is true unless you select this option?

That must be a new feature of Ghost 14 because VSS files are not included in Ghost 12 backups.  See this other thread also:

Size Difference (NG12)
http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1204311295

Having problems using Ghost 12
http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1203113321/0#7

Quote:

NG 14 has an advanced option when defining a backup to "Perform full VSS backup" - does anyone know what that means?

Interestingly, there is no mention whatsoever of a “full VSS backup” in the Norton Ghost 14 User's Guide.

I used "vssadmin list shadows" during backup to verify that VSS is being used even without "Perform full VSS backup" being selected (it defaults to off).  So that begs the question even more of what does it do?  I've tried Norton chat support but haven't gotten an answer.

Ok, here's my guess at what "Perform full VSS backup" means.  In Vista, System Restore is implemented by VSS, unlike XP where it is implemented by an archive mechanism.  VSS is also used for file versioning.  My bet is that "Perform full VSS backup" is for Vista only, and if selected will backup all your system restore points and previous file versions.

Bill Wood wrote on Mar 1^st, 2008 at 3:44pm:

Ok, here's my guess at what "Perform full VSS backup" means.  In Vista, System Restore is implemented by VSS, unlike XP where it is implemented by an archive mechanism.  VSS is also used for file versioning.  My bet is that "Perform full VSS backup" is for Vista only, and if selected will backup all your system restore points and previous file versions.

Bill, I agree with your conclusion.

If you would like to see what is in the Vista volume shadow storage, there is a nice free utility called ShadowStorage to show just that:

http://www.shadowexplorer.com/

On my Vista pc, ShadowExplorer shows vss restore points at least once a day (sometimes more) from 2/21/08 to today.  That's using 20gb of space.

Its odd that the option to back up the shadow storage is disabled by default.  One would think that by default your average user would want a complete backup including system restore points and file versions.

Using NG14, I tested compression on "standard", "medium", and "high".  The sweet spot was "medium" - compared to "standard", "medium" saved a few gig and shaved a 104 minute backup of my 3 drives down to 99 minutes, without overtaxing the CPU.  "High" pegged both my Core 2 Duo cpus while taking slightly longer than "standard", although it did save a few gig over "medium".  Since I like to keep working while backing up (that's why I bought V2i Protector originally and have been buying Ghost since Norton bought Powerquest), I'm going to use "medium".

Here are the figures for my "C" drive which contains 28,729,524 KB:
Standard: 24,454,xxx KB - 19 minutes
Medium: 23,835,593 KB - 17 minutes
High: 22,712,479 KB - 21 minutes

Bill Wood wrote on Mar 1^st, 2008 at 9:12pm:

Its odd that the option to back up the shadow storage is disabled by default.  One would think that by default your average user would want a complete backup including system restore points and file versions.

Its also odd that this option would even show up on an XP machine like mine where presumably there is no VSS storage to back up.

Bill Wood wrote on Mar 1^st, 2008 at 10:47pm:

Its odd that the option to back up the shadow storage is disabled by default.  One would think that by default your average user would want a complete backup including system restore points and file versions. Its also odd that this option would even show up on an XP machine like mine where presumably there is no VSS storage to back up.

Since the option doesn't exist in NG12, my guess is that is the reason it is off as a default in NG14.  Plus it saves considerable backup space.  In Vista, you might restore back to your last full image backup, but doubtful that you would then want to further restore to a Vista system-restore-point beyond that.

In XP, creating a restore point merely creates a backup of the registry fiiles which can then be rolled back to previous point.  Other files stay the same.

In Vista, restore points track critical system files as well, so rolling back to a previous restore point, may undo system file changes, driver changes, etc.  Very nice Vista enhancement.

Still my personal opinion is that backing up vss is beyond the need of most consumer users, but since it was added, I guess someone asked for the new (optional) feature.

NG14 seems to be heading into a general direction of lots of more complex options way beyond simple guaranteed system image backups.  In a way it is like dumbing it down with options that are complexed up in design.

John. wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 1:11am:

... In XP, creating a restore point merely creates a backup of the registry fiiles which can then be rolled back to previous point.  Other files stay the same. In Vista, restore points track critical system files as well, so rolling back to a previous restore point, may undo system file changes, driver changes, etc.  Very nice Vista enhancement. NG14 seems to be heading into a general direction of lots of more complex options way beyond simple guaranteed system image backups.  In a way it is like dumbing it down with options that are complexed up in design.

Agreed, NG seems to be getting more and more bloated.  My favorite version of this technology was V2i Protector - simple and to the point.

XP restore points do contain more than just registry backups though.  EXE, DLL, and other files are also backed up.  Its not nearly as robust as VSS though.  See http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490854.aspx

Could you please point me to any links on how NG tracks what to back up during an incremental backup?  It doesn't seem to use the archive bit.

I'm really seeing the effects of auto defrag in Diskeeper today - yesterday I disabled Diskeeper and backed up my C, I, and V drives, then re-enabled Diskeeper.  Now today the incremental backup of my C drive is about the same size as the original full backup!

Bill Wood wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 10:03am:

XP restore points do contain more than just registry backups though.  EXE, DLL, and other files are also backed up.  Its not nearly as robust as VSS though.  See http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490854.aspx Could you please point me to any links on how NG tracks what to back up during an incremental backup?  It doesn't seem to use the archive bit. I'm really seeing the effects of auto defrag in Diskeeper today - yesterday I disabled Diskeeper and backed up my C, I, and V drives, then re-enabled Diskeeper.  Now today the incremental backup of my C drive is about the same size as the original full backup!

Thanks for the correction re XP restore points.  

For Ghost, don't forget that it is an image backup program.  So, incrementals are based upon what sectors have changed, not what files have changed.  So if you took a Ghost full image backup, then did a full defrag and rearranged/moved all your sectors around, the next "incremental" backup of Ghost will be quite large.  Not sure about NG14, but all the previous versions (NG10,12,9) had a mind of their own with incrementals:  if enough sectors changed, then Ghost would take a "full" partition backup, even though you only asked for an incremental.  I assume that a full backup was over the threshold of changed sectors.

Bill Wood wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 10:03am:

Now today the incremental backup of my C drive is about the same size as the original full backup!

Is that backup a .v2i or .iv2i?

I never defrag during a Ghost series. I defrag before the weekly base recovery point but not while Ghost is doing daily incrementals. With Ghost 12, my incrementals are about 1 to 2% of the base size. If I defrag daily the incrementals are sometimes 4%. This is with WinXP.

I don't think you need to defrag daily. Subjectively, I've only seen defragging make a difference to computer speed on one occasion. And that computer hadn't been defragged for two years.

Its an iv2i file.

Diskeeper defrags automatically and rearranges the files on your partitions so the most accessed files are near the front for fastest speed.  I just leave it on automatic.  It used to take 20 seconds or so to open my folders in Documents and Settings - since I installed Diskeeper its instantaneous.  I'm very happy with it.  I have the "2008 Pro Premier" version.

How does Ghost determine which sectors have changed?  Does it somehow keep a bitmap of changed sectors?  Does it hook into the file system?  If so, what ensures it hooks in early enough to detect changed sectors on boot and stays late enough to detect changed sectors on shutdown?

Bill,

Out of interest could you keep an eye on your Diskeeper graphic of the C: drive. I think you can save .bmp images of the graphic. Is it much the same every day or does it change? Is all the data squashed to the start of the drive or are there areas of free space within the data?

Brian wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 4:34pm:

Bill, Out of interest could you keep an eye on your Diskeeper graphic of the C: drive. I think you can save .bmp images of the graphic. Is it much the same every day or does it change? Is all the data squashed to the start of the drive or are there areas of free space within the data?

It puts frequently used files at the front of the drive and infrequently used ones at the end.  So there's a gap in the middle.  On one of my drives it even puts some files in the middle so there are two gaps.

I think it saves information over the course of a week or so about file access patterns and then reorganizes the drive based on that.  So its not constantly reorganizing the drive.  It does constantly keep the drive defragged though.

Bill, could you estimate (roughly) the size of those gaps in GB? Do those gaps change over the course of a week?

OK here's a screen shot showing the file structure on each of my 3 partitions.  At the top you can see the size of each drive, then below are the C, I, and V drive file structures, in that order.  Its a 1400x1050 image so you may have to scroll to see it all.

I probably should do a boot-time defrag of the C drive to consolidate the paging file.

The structure of the drives does not change that often.  I think Diskeeper tweaks the file structure about once a week.  Why are you so interested?

- Bill

---

Bill, your graphic looks like my old Diskeeper graphic. Large areas of free space within the data. I didn't defrag between weekly Ghost images but I noticed that these spaces would change every few days and it wasn't Diskeeper that was doing it. Whenever there was a change, the next incremental image would be large. Changed sectors.

Could you check the Diskeeper help file. I recall Diskeeper needing at least 15% free-space for proper defragging. You have 12%.

I changed from Diskeeper to PerfectDisk and I no longer have the areas of free space. And I no longer get large incrementals. Just an observation.

Brian wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 9:16pm:

Bill, your graphic looks like my old Diskeeper graphic. Large areas of free space within the data. I didn't defrag between weekly Ghost images but I noticed that these spaces would change every few days and it wasn't Diskeeper that was doing it. Whenever there was a change, the next incremental image would be large. Changed sectors. Could you check the Diskeeper help file. I recall Diskeeper needing at least 15% free-space for proper defragging. You have 12%. I changed from Diskeeper to PerfectDisk and I no longer have the areas of free space. And I no longer get large incrementals. Just an observation.

I have 12% but its still defragging fine.  Diskeeper says in its recommendations for this disk, "Also, free space on this disk is running low.  Consider actions to free more disk space."

I believe that PerfectDisk operates on a different principle than Diskeeper.  PerfectDisk puts all files at the beginning of the disk.  New or changed files must go after existing files, even if they are frequently accessed, until the next time that PerfectDisk reorganizes the disk.  Diskeeper puts infrequently used files at the end of the disk (or in the middle), allowing new or changed files to be written in the gap(s) for better performance.  This makes a lot of sense to me, although it may lead to larger incrementals as you experienced.  Since I am not backing up that frequently, this isn't an issue for me, and I generally just do a full backup anyway.  I don't really trust incrementals because I don't understand how they work, and I saw a case in NG 10 where the incremental did not properly reflect my files.

- Bill

Bill, it is a matter of personal preference, but the approach I have adopted is the same as you describe:  use Diskeeper 2008 Pro Premier and only create full (base) image backups, avoiding the issues with incremental backups.  Running a full image backup is so quick on my system (about 4 minutes – even with AES 256-bit encryption and high compression) that the use of incremental backups isn’t especially attractive.


Quote:

I believe that PerfectDisk operates on a different principle than Diskeeper

You are correct.  Diskeeper actually optimizes the placement of frequently used files on the hard disk to speed performance, a function not performed by PerfectDisk.  On my old Windows XP system, this resulted in a noticeable and pleasant performance gain (about 18%).  On a Windows Vista PC with VSS enabled, however, the “Intelligent File Access Acceleration Sequencing Technology” doesn’t appear to be supported, unfortunately.

By the way, the 2008 edition of Diskeeper can defragment a volume that has as little as 1% free space.


Quote:

It used to take 20 seconds or so to open my folders in Documents and Settings - since I installed Diskeeper its instantaneous.

Yes, that was my experience, too.

Wow!  4 minutes to backup - must be a small system?  NG14 can write about 1300MB/minute (compressed backup files) to my Maxtor OneTouch external USB drive, so it takes about 100 minutes to back up my stuff.  Are you writing to a faster drive or do you just not have much to back up?

Pleonasm wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2008 at 11:41am:

Diskeeper actually optimizes the placement of frequently used files on the hard disk to speed performance, a function not performed by PerfectDisk.

I disagree. PerfectDisk separates files into groups of Rarely Modified, Occasionally Modified, and Recently Modified.  The frequently modified files are kept in the partition near the Master File Table (MFT) for better performance.

From the PerfectDisk 2008 Help:

Quote:

Patented File Placement Strategy - PerfectDisk has a patented file placement strategy called SMARTPlacement™ that is designed to slow down the rate of refragmentation and to speed up future defragmentation passes. PerfectDisk accomplishes this via consolidation of free space and by identifying both rarely modified and recently modified files, and grouping them together. SMARTPlacement of files results in your drive maintaining its peak performance longer and reduces the need to frequently run defragmentation passes.

Also see:
PerfectDisk's SMARTPlacement Optimization
http://www.raxco.com/whitepapers/PD_SMARTPlacement.pdf

Quote:

Are you writing to a faster drive or do you just not have much to back up?

I am using ShadowProtect Desktop for the image backup, reading/writing to 15K RPM SAS hard disks at 50MB/s or better.


Quote:

The frequently modified files are kept in the partition near the Master File Table (MFT) for better performance.

Actually, according to the PerfectDisk white paper you referenced, it is the ”rarely modified” files that are positioned at the front of the disk:  “Rarely Modified files are … defragmented and SMARTPlacement groups them together at the front of the disk … As a result, the Rarely Modified files do not need to be moved.”  Note that “Rarely Modified” files are not the same as “most often accessed (used)” files.

PerfectDisk is optimizing future free space consolidation; Diskeeper, in contrast, is optimizing the actual placement of the files on the parts of the disk platter that provide the fastest access.  As Raxco states, SMARTPlacement “is designed to slow down the rate of refragmentation” – not to speed file access.  Again, the objective of SMARTPlacement isn’t to optimize or accelerate file access, but to use fewer resources in a subsequent defragmentation.

Both Diskeeper and PerfectDisk appear to be excellent products, and each has their own unique advantages and disadvantages.  But, the SMARTPlacement strategy of PerfectDisk bears no resemblance to the IFAAST (“Intelligent File Access Acceleration Sequencing Technology”) technique of Diskeeper, despite the similar nomenclature.

You misread the Raxco whitepaper.  The recently/frequently modified files are relocated to the middle of the partition near the MFT for performance, not the front.

See page 4, Master File Table (MFT) / Reserved Zone
" Only PerfectDisk relocates the MFT and its Reserved Zone about 1/3 of the way into the volume in accordance with a Microsoft white paper which states this location delivers a 5-10% performance improvement..."

See page 5, Data Files
"...The Frequently Modified files are positioned between the Occasionally Modified files and the Directory files.  This ares is proximal to the contiguous free space..."

Pleonasm wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2008 at 6:35pm:

Quote: Are you writing to a faster drive or do you just not have much to back up? I am using ShadowProtect Desktop for the image backup, reading/writing to 15K RPM SAS hard disks at 50MB/s or better.

So why do you like ShadowProtect better than NG?

John. wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2008 at 7:28pm:

You misread the Raxco whitepaper.  The recently/frequently modified files are relocated to the middle of the partition near the MFT for performance, not the front. See page 4, Master File Table (MFT) / Reserved Zone " Only PerfectDisk relocates the MFT and its Reserved Zone about 1/3 of the way into the volume in accordance with a Microsoft white paper which states this location delivers a 5-10% performance improvement..." See page 5, Data Files "...The Frequently Modified files are positioned between the Occasionally Modified files and the Directory files.  This ares is proximal to the contiguous free space..."

Diskeeper actually estimates and then measures the speedups it achieves.  It doesn't use a strategy of putting files at the beginning, middle, or end of the disk - it measures where the fastest spots on the disk are before placing the files for fastest access.  Attached are the results for my disks.  Note the C drive was too small to gain any benefit from IFAAST so Diskeeper disabled IFAAST on the C drive.

The chart shows the estimated and actual performance gains from using IFAAST, as well as the slowest and fastest measured access times on the disk.

Since my 3 partitions are all on the same physical disk, you can see that my Hitachi 7200rpm 200gb Travelstar disk does have better performance at the front of the disk.  The C: drive performs significantly faster than the V drive which is at the end of the disk.

---

Ghost4me, your comments in Reply #47 appear to be based upon the assumption that the Frequently Modified Files are the same files that are most often accessed, and that by positioning those Frequently Modified Files appropriately on the disk, a performance gain will be realized.  But the assumption is not necessarily correct.

For example, a user may often launch Excel, but the EXCEL.EXE file is almost never modified.  In this common scenario, PerfectDisk will not optimize the placement of the executable and the user will see no change in performance when using Excel.  Diskeeper, however, will detect that EXCEL.EXE is frequently used, and move that file to the section of the disk that is empirically determined to be the fastest.  See the difference?


Quote:

Diskeeper actually estimates and then measures the speedups it achieves.  It doesn't use a strategy of putting files at the beginning, middle, or end of the disk - it measures where the fastest spots on the disk are before placing the files for fastest access.

Excellent point, Bill.  No two disks behave the same, and Diskeeper wisely determines the areas of the disk that are fastest based upon an empirical examination of an individual disk's performance.  That is the area into which the most frequently used files (applications and/or data) are moved, resulting in the greatest performance gain for the user.  Strictly speaking, this IFAAST approach used by Diskeeper isn’t about defragmentation at all – it is completely about performance; whereas, in contrast, the SMARTPlacement approach by Raxco is all about minimizing fragmentation (and thereby, only indirectly, addresses performance).  It’s a major distinction between the two products.


Quote:

So why do you like ShadowProtect better than NG?

Please see this thread:  http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1190053581

Pleonasm wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2008 at 6:35pm:

Quote: Are you writing to a faster drive or do you just not have much to back up? I am using ShadowProtect Desktop for the image backup, reading/writing to 15K RPM SAS hard disks at 50MB/s or better.

I'm running a trial version of ShadowProtect and the MB/sec figure it reports is not based on actual MB written to disk (ie the compressed backup size) - its based on the number of MB that are backed up.  I may test NG10 on the same backup to compare speeds of actual MB written to disk with ShadowProtect.

This is bit off-topic, but . . .

From reading the PerfectDisk 2008 user manual, it seems clear to me that the objective of SMARTPlacement is not to increase disk access performance, but to “slow down the rate of refragmentation and to speed up future defragmentation passes” (page 26) and thereby “minimize refragmentation” (page 86) and “maximizes the speed of subsequent defragmentation passes” (page 202).  There is nothing wrong with that objective, of course; but one shouldn’t confuse it with what Diskeeper seeks to accomplish with its IFAAST technology.

Interestingly, the default SMARTPlacement setting “may leave small blocks of free space” (page 94), which is what occurs with Diskeeper, too.  Apparently, Raxco is beginning to alter its previous position that any block of free space is detrimental to performance, and thereby appears to be migrating closer to the perspective that has been argued by Diskeeper for quite some time:


Quote:

Why doesn't Diskeeper move all of the files into one place on the volume? Our primary philosophy with Diskeeper is improving and maintaining the performance of  our computer. The disk drives are the primary bottleneck in your computer's performance. Diskeeper restores the disks to top speed by eliminating fragmentation. It is a common misconception that a defragmented disk should look very neat and tidy in the Volume Map map…. Clearly, the speed of the volume (meaning how fast you can access the data on it) is more important than the prettiness of the display or the consolidation of all the free space into one place. Free space consolidation might be important if the next file that you plan to create needs to be one gigantic contiguous file, but it has no effect on performance. In fact, the operating system may or may not write the next file into a contiguous location—even if there is a large enough space. Because of this, when using the Quick or Recommended defragmentation methods, Diskeeper uses algorithms that achieve the highest speed from your volumes regardless of the arrangement of the free spaces on the disk and on the screen—and it does so without wasting time on excessive consolidation of free space. We simply go for the fastest possible file access times and then stop. Even so, you might ask why we don't continue and rearrange the files further to get a neat display? Because it takes computer power to do so. We long ago decided that it would be wrong for Diskeeper to consume more of your computer's performance than it gives back. So Diskeeper defragments until the disk is in top shape performance-wise and then stops.

Quote:

I may test NG10 on the same backup to compare speeds of actual MB written to disk with ShadowProtect.

Bill, I have not run any speed comparisons of Norton Ghost versus ShadowProtect Desktop myself, but one reviewer said:  “I prefer it over all the alternatives {including Norton Ghost}, because it does what it's designed to do with unparalleled speed and reliability.”  The same review states:  “ShadowProtect Desktop performs the same basic functions as True Image Home and Paragon Drive Backup, but it's breathtakingly fast compared with its rivals.”

I’ll be interested to learn what you discover in your own comparative speed tests.

P.S.:  Of course, speed is important - but it is certainly not the only consideration in selecting an image backup solution.

Bill Wood wrote on Mar 1^st, 2008 at 10:36am:

k4kjf wrote on Mar 1st, 2008 at 8:22am: Downloaded the Ghost 14 trial version from the Symantec web site a few days ago and purchased a key for it yesterday.   You have to purchase a product key to get the 170 MB or so .iso file that allows you to make a Recovery Environment boot CDR. ... My question is this.  According to page 29 of the user guide ( [url=www.norton.com]www.norton.com\ngh14guide[/url] ) you can make a custom boot CDR that includes drivers specific to your system. However, I cannot find the tabs/buttons etc in the user interface that allow me to do this.  Has anyone else been successful in making an SRD this way?  (In my instllation there is no "Create Recovery Disks" option under "Tasks" as the manual seems to state???) BTW, I'm running off the trial installation which I activated with the purchased product key.  When I purchased the key, I was offered another installation file and I did download it, but it is the same size and name as the one I originally installed, so didn't bother with it.   The About display states that I have version 14.0.1.24977 Ken I have the same version as you, I do have the option under Tasks to Create Recovery Disk. I purchased mine outright without using the trial.  The filename was NGH140_AllWin_EnglishTryBuy30.exe Why don't you try uninstalling and reinstalling? - Bill

I just discovered, you cannot create the recovery disk from the "Advanced" tab.  Go to one of the other tabs then the option to create a recovery disk should be under the Tasks menu.

Pleonasm wrote on Mar 6^th, 2008 at 4:44pm:

Interestingly, the default SMARTPlacement setting “may leave small blocks of free space” (page 94), which is what occurs with Diskeeper, too.  Apparently, Raxco is beginning to alter its previous position that any block of free space is detrimental to performance, and thereby appears to be migrating closer to the perspective that has been argued by Diskeeper for quite some time

I disagree.  That feature (leaving small blocks of free space to enhance performance) was added quite some time ago by Raxco in PerfectDisk -- at least 5+ years ago.  I've forgotten which release number.  But, I think it was sometime between when Windows 2000 Pro and XP were released.  I used/evaluated  both Diskeeper and PerfectDisk in 2000 with both Windows 98 and Windows 2000 pc's.  PerfectDisk won the Ghost4me-Editor's-Choice award!

Maybe Diskeeper "borrowed" the PerfectDisk algorithm, not the other way around.   :)

Bill Wood wrote on Mar 7^th, 2008 at 8:15am:

I just discovered, you cannot create the recovery disk from the "Advanced" tab.  Go to one of the other tabs then the option to create a recovery disk should be under the Tasks menu.

Thanks.  I ended up uninstalling the trial version I had downloaded and activated a day later, and instead installed the version offered when I bought the product key.

Now the Create Recovery Disk IS present under the Tasks menu item.  

Not sure if I just missed it in my initial installation, or if it is really not available in the downloaded trial version.  

Anyway, it is OK now.

Thanks

Pleonasm wrote on Mar 4^th, 2008 at 5:57pm:

Quote: So why do you like ShadowProtect better than NG? Please see this thread:  http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1190053581

I've done some research.  This thread (http://forums.storagecraft.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=353 - see the second post) is particularly interesting because it reviews the history of Norton Ghost, ShadowProtect, and Acronis.  NG (and the original Powerquest V2i product) licensed volume shadowing technology from Storagecraft (makers of ShadowProtect), they didn't develop their own.  The thread is out of date with respect to NG14 when it claims that "Symantec Ghost/LiveState do use an older version of StorageCraft's volume snapshot device driver which doesn't fully support VSS", as NG14 has licensed updated technology from Storagecraft.  I checked the symsnap.sys file in NG14, and its made by Storagecraft, version 7.0.1.24397, Copyright 2001-2008.

Pleonasm, can you check the version of *snap.sys in c:\windows\system32\drivers?  Volsnap.sys is the MS version, symsnap.sys is Symantec's licensed Storagecraft version.  I don't know what the filename is in the Storagecraft version.

Well, I'm a happy camper - just used the NG14 recovery disk to restore an NG10 disk image.  It was odd, the recovery disk didn't find the recovery point in the default "Date" view, I had to go into the "File" or the other view (can't remember the name - its the one where it views by complete recovery point set (.sv2i files) rather than .v2i, which the "File" view uses).

Anyway, everything's running smoothly, I'm typing this on the recovered machine.  :-)

Quote:

I'm running a trial version of ShadowProtect and the MB/sec figure it reports is not based on actual MB written to disk (ie the compressed backup size) - its based on the number of MB that are backed up.

Bill, you are correct – please see this thread.

Also, what did you discover when running a speed comparison of Norton Ghost 14 versus ShadowProtect Desktop 3.1?

Hello, its good to see that there are still friendly forums out there. Anyway, so I used to have NG 2003 when all you had to do was burn a DVD with the .gho file and make it bootable. Very easy, quite fast. (I even made a bootable with a copy of HL:2 on it.) But then I got a new computer and sold my old one, the bootables I had didn't work at all with my hardware; NG 2003 just froze during boot process. So when NG 14 came around, I expected the same easy interface, medium-to-advanced options etc. But to my dismay, this was not the case at all. I find the interface clunky and the advanced view should always be the first screen you see, even on first run.

I heard people saying that NG 12 is the same as 14 but I wanted the newest version.

The system rescue disc failed to boot on both my laptop and desktop. I had to create a custom SRD for my desktop, so I am guessing that will be the same for the laptop. Something I didn't like was when I already had a recovery point (One-Time Backup) I couldn't restore my PC because the SRD wouldn't load. If I just assumed that I was protected with the SRD wouldn't I have to find identical hardware to create a custom one, or completely reinstall Windows, or dual-boot to be able to write to the other OS? I know I'm being stupid here, but shouldn't the point of an SRD be that it actually boots in an emergency? Anyway, I set-up my OS, defragged, RegistryFix, bla, bla, got rid of my page file used Standard compression and made an image!

Now, when the SRD loads I always get an error message, as follows.

-SreShell.exe - Application Error
-The instruction at 0x73cf4af2 referenced memory at 0x00000058.
-The memory could not be read.
-Click on OK to terminate the program.

Ok, whatever, so I just drag this out of the way and the SRD program works fine. If I click OK SRD closes. I have 2GB dual-channel PC-5300 DIMMs. (Don't you all think its funny when the Vista load screen appears? Well, if you still have XP?)

When the SRD, and NG itself, actually works its quite amazing. The performance is second to none, and I think the recovery options available at boot are very useful, bearing in mind that my last Ghost experience was 2003! My image file is 929MB on a 2GB stick, it actually takes longer to verify the file than to throw it back on my hard drive. Around 3 minutes and my PC is fixed from whatever situation/state. I love Ghost. (When it works - otherwise we are fatal enemies.)

When I made my boot image, I had Ghost installed on an external drive so that my recovery point contained only the operating system and no trace of Ghost. Ha ha.

Specs.
Desktop
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750
Asus P5B-e Plus
2GB 667MHz (2 x 1GB)
250GB Seagate Barracuda x 3
nVidia 8800GTS 320MB

I know that Ghost 2003 should have worked using this computer because I made new images from my new hard drives not just old images. I read somewhere on this forum that .gho files would just fill any extra space on a HDD with just blank formatted data, so old and new images should have worked. Thanks for listening.

Pleonasm wrote on Mar 7^th, 2008 at 11:19am:

Quote: I'm running a trial version of ShadowProtect and the MB/sec figure it reports is not based on actual MB written to disk (ie the compressed backup size) - its based on the number of MB that are backed up. Bill, you are correct – please see this thread. Also, what did you discover when running a speed comparison of Norton Ghost 14 versus ShadowProtect Desktop 3.1?

I ran one test, not much to go on really.  Norton Ghost 10 vs ShadowProtect 3.1, standard compression.

NG backed up 12,325MB in approximately 8 minutes producing a file size of 9,197MB.  This represents a compression factor of 1.34 and 19.16MB/sec write speed (actual bytes written to disk).

ShadowProtect backed up 12,073MB in 7min 44secs producing a file size of 8,347MB.  This represents a compression factor of 1.45 and 17.99MB/sec write speed (actual bytes written to disk).

In an effort to prevent long threads such as these from generating large file sizes (which seem be problematic for the server, at least at our OLD server), I have started a NEW thread (of the same name) here:

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1205071186 (Norton Ghost 14 - continued)

Bill Wood wrote on Mar 1^st, 2008 at 3:44pm:

Ok, here's my guess at what "Perform full VSS backup" means.  In Vista, System Restore is implemented by VSS, unlike XP where it is implemented by an archive mechanism.  VSS is also used for file versioning.  My bet is that "Perform full VSS backup" is for Vista only, and if selected will backup all your system restore points and previous file versions.

I purchased ghost 14 (version 14.0.1.24977) and installed it on a vista ultimate system.  I ran two seperate full backups (not incremental) with the "Perform full VSS backup" switch off.  For the second backup I removed all system restore points except for the last one.  The second backup was 12GB smaller.
It thus appears that the undocumented "Perform full VSS backup" switch does something other than choosing whether or not to back up the restore points.

What happens when you turn the "Full VSS Backup" switch on?

In an effort to prevent long threads such as these from generating large file sizes (which seem be problematic for the server, at least at our OLD server), I have started a NEW thread (of the same name) here:

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1205071186 (Norton Ghost 14 - continued)

Thread locked.