Welcome, Guest. Please Login
 
  HomeHelpSearchLogin FAQ Radified Ghost.Classic Ghost.New Bootable CD Blog  
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
original files vs image files size (Read 7140 times)
ollie90680
Gnarly
*
Offline


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 44
Stanton, CA


Back to top
original files vs image files size
Mar 9th, 2007 at 8:06pm
 
If I had a 20GB drive with 10GB of files and did a backup using Norton Ghost 10 what would I expect the image size to be? It would certainly be larger than the 484MB that I got wouldn't it?



 
 
IP Logged
 

John.
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 2072


Back to top
Re: original files vs image files size
Reply #1 - Mar 9th, 2007 at 9:08pm
 
If you selected standard compression (the default) the rule of thumb is about half the size.  I just backed up 11gb of c drive used and result was 6 gb file.  (page file is skipped)

Check your Ghost 10 definition to be sure you said Independent Recovery Point backup, and not Recovery Point Set (base + incrementals).  If you chose base plus incrementals, then the first backup is a full one, but subsequent ones are the changes only.

I like independent backups which I take weekly.  But some people take backups every day and like the base plus incrementals approach.
 

Ghost4me  Ghost 9, 10, 12, 14, 15.  Windows XP, Vista, Windows 7
 
IP Logged
 
ollie90680
Gnarly
*
Offline


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 44
Stanton, CA


Back to top
Re: original files vs image files size
Reply #2 - Mar 9th, 2007 at 11:22pm
 
It was a scheduled backup with incrimentals to follow so therefore this was to be the full backup to start. It was normal compression. Therefore wouldn't it be the same 50% you were talking about? So I should have expected about a 5GB image file! Therefore it doesn't make sense to me that I got a 484mb file. Guess I will give it another try and see what happens.

On another note I ordered a 500GB USB2 drive from LaCie. This will not have the embedded linux system in it that the NAS drives have and therefore not the problems that we talked about in the other posts.
 
 
IP Logged
 
John.
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 2072


Back to top
Re: original files vs image files size
Reply #3 - Mar 10th, 2007 at 8:06am
 
ollie90680 wrote on Mar 9th, 2007 at 11:22pm:
It was a scheduled backup with incrimentals to follow so therefore this was to be the full backup to start. It was normal compression. Therefore wouldn't it be the same 50% you were talking about?

It is probably a holdover from the errors you had earlier.  When you select Recovery Point with Incrementals, you never actually get to choose whether Ghost will take an incremental or a full backup.

My suggestion is to delete the backup definition you currently have and define a new one from scratch.

(I'm surprised you chose LaCie again after the problems you had.)
 

Ghost4me  Ghost 9, 10, 12, 14, 15.  Windows XP, Vista, Windows 7
 
IP Logged
 
ollie90680
Gnarly
*
Offline


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 44
Stanton, CA


Back to top
Re: original files vs image files size
Reply #4 - Mar 10th, 2007 at 1:10pm
 
Well the problems with LaCie were determined to be as a result of the management system of the Ethernet Drive (NAS). Once we knew the reason I did a work around and Acronis was ok. Norton did not work and I really haven't determined what other problems may be associated with that.  A USB2 interface doesn't have the Linux management and therefore will not have the problems associated with the NAS. The LaCie USB2 will be just like any other USB2 and I had some long talks with LaCie. The only problem I have had with the LaCie is the FS discrepancy; otherwise it has worked flawlessly.

Anyways bottom line is I got the LaCie USB2 500GB disk for $130 as it was refurbished. It comes with a 6 month warranty and was $100 below the price of a new one. I figure I took a good chance.

I was thinking the same as you about just deleting everything on the NG 10 backup and starting again from scratch. So I will do so and let you know if it is successful.
 
 
IP Logged
 
John.
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 2072


Back to top
Re: original files vs image files size
Reply #5 - Mar 10th, 2007 at 1:20pm
 
Sounds like a good plan to me.  Ghost 9/10 sometimes gets confused after an error during one of its backups or its database catalogue gets messed up.

Assuming that the USB2 drive will be connected to your Windows XP computer, the first thing I would suggest doing is a quick-format of the drive to NTFS (my computer/right click/manage/disk management/then select the usb2 drive, etc).  Some vendors pre-format their usb2 drives as fat32, so unless you need fat32 for portability to some other non-xp computer, I recommend NTFS.

Then create a folder on the USB2 drive, such as G10Backups to contain your backup images.
 

Ghost4me  Ghost 9, 10, 12, 14, 15.  Windows XP, Vista, Windows 7
 
IP Logged
 

Pleonasm
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1619


Back to top
Re: original files vs image files size
Reply #6 - Mar 10th, 2007 at 3:10pm
 
Ollie90680, you may find this thread on Ghost compression to be of interest.
 

ple • o • nasm n. “The use of more words than are required to express an idea”
 
IP Logged
 
ollie90680
Gnarly
*
Offline


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 44
Stanton, CA


Back to top
Re: original files vs image files size
Reply #7 - Mar 10th, 2007 at 10:39pm
 
Ghost4Me, I am definately have some problems with NG10. I have made several attempts to backup F: to G: where G: is an 18GB FAT32 hd.   F: is 10GB.  I have tried it as USB2 and Firewire only to have it not be able to complete. It seems to say that it has a problem with F but chkdsk on F seems ok. Partition Magic said that F had some open files and to use the OS check utility. I assumed that meant Chkdsk as I don't know of any other.  Still no change.  I kind of long for the days of being able to check the entire surface of the HD, something I believe we cannot do now although maybe Steve Gibson does have some software.

Oh well, I expect the Big Drive to be deliverd Monday and that should elimate whether drive G has problems. Still I will need to get answers on F:

I will do as you suggest on the Big drive when I get it.

 
 
IP Logged
 
ollie90680
Gnarly
*
Offline


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 44
Stanton, CA


Back to top
Re: original files vs image files size
Reply #8 - Mar 10th, 2007 at 10:41pm
 
Pleonasm, Thank you for that thread. It does appear to answer my question about compression rates of NG 10.
 
 
IP Logged
 
John.
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 2072


Back to top
Re: original files vs image files size
Reply #9 - Mar 10th, 2007 at 11:43pm
 
ollie90680 wrote on Mar 10th, 2007 at 10:39pm:
I kind of long for the days of being able to check the entire surface of the HD, something I believe we cannot do now although maybe Steve Gibson does have some software.


chkdsk x: /r will do the check followed by a full surface verify and relocate and fix (substitute your drive letter for x)
Run both:
chkdsk f: /r
chkdsk g: /r

It also helps if the drives are defragmented before creating a backup image with Ghost.  PerfectDisk (www.raxco.com) and Diskeeper (www.diskeeper.com) are the two most popular commercial defraggers.  Both are good.
 

Ghost4me  Ghost 9, 10, 12, 14, 15.  Windows XP, Vista, Windows 7
 
IP Logged
 
El_Pescador
Übermensch
*****
Offline


Thumbs Up!

Posts: 1605
Bayou Country, USA


Back to top
Re: original files vs image files size
Reply #10 - Mar 11th, 2007 at 10:48am
 
Quote:
"... On another note I ordered a 500GB USB2 drive from LaCie. This will not have the embedded linux system in it that the NAS drives have and therefore not the problems that we talked about in the other posts..."

For "schitz-und-giggles" while waiting for the USB2 external drive to arive, consider this:  Since you already have Norton Ghost 10, you could boot up with the installation CD to immediately engage the legacy Backup/Restore "cold-imaging" procedures by following the path
'Recover > Recover Data on My Computer > Recover using a legacy Ghost image'
.  Doing so will yield the side benefit of bypassing both USB mass-storage device and - most, if not all - SATA HDD glitches frequently encountered with DOS-dependent Norton Ghost 2003.  In essence, this procedure uses
restoreghost.exe
(an alternate name for
ghost32.exe
) to allow both immediate creation of Ghost Backup images or the converse Recovery of such images that are in fact totally compatible and interchangeable with those *.gho/*.ghs files created with the
ghost.exe
of Norton Ghost 2003 -
but not with those files created with Norton Ghost 9, Norton Ghost 10.0, or Norton Save & Restore during "hot-imaging".


If you really wanted to get fancy, you could even go so far as to incorporate the essential components of the "cold-imaging" Norton Ghost Ver 8.2 while generating a bootable BartPE or Reatogo-X-PE CD to run in the Windows XP Preinstalled Environment (see below).

...

EP
Cry
 

...
WWW  
IP Logged
 

ollie90680
Gnarly
*
Offline


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 44
Stanton, CA


Back to top
Re: original files vs image files size
Reply #11 - Mar 11th, 2007 at 11:13am
 
El_Pescador, I appreciate your entering into the conversation and the knowledge that you are trying to impart to me. I am not completely sure that I understand what you are suggesting.
   The NG 10 I purchased had both NG10 and NG2003 CD's in the package. I installed NG10. I guess that you are telling me that Norton 8.2 is also available on the NG10 CD and you are telling me that I can use it to restore my system. Problem is I haven't been able yet to backup anything using NG10. There have been problems with the LaCie NAS so I tried a USB2 HD with a limited  backup. It has not been successful either as USB2 or FW400. There may be problems with the receiving HD or the source HD. I am still trying to determine this. Unfortunately I do not have any testing which indicates either one has problems. I intend to move the files off of source F: and remove this HD from the system. I will replace receiving G: with the new Big HD (USB2)  that I receive tomorrow from LaCie. Then I plan to do a Acronis backup followed by a NG backup. Hopefully the NG will then perform as expected. If not then I will have to find another way to make NG10 or N2003 work. I do know that I have never been so frustrated by any software or received so little support from the mfr as I have trying to us NG10.  Thank god for you guys in the forums. You have been a godsend. I will need to study your suggestions more to understand what you are telling me. I am sorry that I am so slow.
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pleonasm
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1619


Back to top
Re: original files vs image files size
Reply #12 - Mar 11th, 2007 at 12:06pm
 
Ollie90680, concerning the comment, "you are telling me that Norton 8.2 is also available on the NG10 CD and you are telling me that I can use it to restore my system," I believe that El_Pescador is recommending that you test Ghost 8.2 (on the Norton Ghost 10 recovery CD) to create a backup image – not to restore one that was previously created by Norton Ghost 10 (which, in fact, Ghost 8.2 cannot do since it uses the .GHO rather than the .V2I format).  Ghost 8.2 is the Windows PE equivalent of the Ghost 2003 product that was designed to run in DOS.

Thank you for your very kind comments about the Rad Forum.  You are welcome here.
 

ple • o • nasm n. “The use of more words than are required to express an idea”
 
IP Logged
 
El_Pescador
Übermensch
*****
Offline


Thumbs Up!

Posts: 1605
Bayou Country, USA


Back to top
Re: original files vs image files size
Reply #13 - Mar 11th, 2007 at 7:40pm
 
Pleonasm wrote on Mar 11th, 2007 at 12:06pm:
"... Ghost 8.2 is the Windows PE equivalent of the Ghost 2003 product that was designed to run in DOS..."

After my experience of making a "(whole)disk-to-image" legacy Norton Ghost Backup of a Compaq Presario MN1650NX desktop PC in its dying throes, I came to the conclusion that Ver 8.2 was indeed a robust product as it achieved the task without a qualm in WIN PE whereas a previous attempt with v2003 running in DOS was riddled with error messages.

EP
Cry
 

...
WWW  
IP Logged
 
ollie90680
Gnarly
*
Offline


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 44
Stanton, CA


Back to top
Re: original files vs image files size
Reply #14 - Mar 11th, 2007 at 9:41pm
 
Ghost4ME, I missed your post about using chkdisk until I was just perusing again. Thanks for the input. I thought that chkdisk did a full check but somehow it looked like it was just related to the volumes, dirs and files when I ran it. Now I see that there is much more to it.

Thanks also for the commercial programs that are useful.

I am going to post another thread about defrag because I don't want to take us off target on this one.

Again Thanks.
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print