Hi Brian,

I'm starting a new topic for this subject.

I just finished reading the first 35 pages of the online manual for Terabyte's  Image For Windows.
You've said that you highly recommend this software. And now I know why you said that you would help me set it up.
After just reading the first 35 pages, (out of 235) my head is spinning.
This software makes Ghost look like child's play (Ghost was easy to setup, and understand)
You also said I can use BBM to image C: drive.
I can buy IFW for $38.50 and that price doesn't include BBM which I already have.
I'm not concerned about the extra money if buying IFW is the better way to go.
So, I would like to hear your thoughts?

Thanks Bill.

Brian,

Thanks for clearing that up for me.
The fact that IFD comes with BBM, that is what I'll use.
One question I have, that I can't find a answer to, is there any problem with storing the image I create with IFD to my external HDD, then restoring that image back to a SSD?
That might sound like a beginners question, but with SSD I am new to them, and when were talking about backing up C: drive, it can't fail.
Is there a way to validate the image I create with IFD that comes with BBM? Or do I need to test it out with another drive?
Assuming that there's no difference using a HDD or a SSD, that only spare drives I have are HDD.
So with those questions out of the way, how do I set this up?

Thanks, Bill.

My external enclosure and my PC has a  eSATA connection, if that would work?
I used that connection with Ghost. (come to think about it, the last image I made with Ghost, I used USB)
But if not, I can add another drive inside.

Mr Moose

Mr Moose wrote on Jul 6^th, 2017 at 9:48pm:

Don't feel bad!  I had essentially the same reaction!

All those options--not for the faint of heart.

Sure points out all the information I could know about imaging of different types of systems that I don't have much knowledge about!

Brian offered to walk me through it--with his help, it was easy--so you're in good hands.

Mr Moose wrote on Jul 6^th, 2017 at 9:48pm:

What version of Boot It Bare Medal do you have?  You probably have v3.xx, so I suspect you have the option to update to the latest version available.

But, heck, for $11.50 more ($49.98), you can have the whole suite of TeraByte's imaging programs.  Image for Linux is amazing.

https://www.terabyteunlimited.com/purchase-image-for-windows.htm

I've never been a fan of imaging software that works from within Windows live--well, for example the Ghost problem you are having where you can no longer get the C:/ drive to show up!  But, I have not heard of similar problems with Image for Windows. 

What say you Brian?  Are there know issues using Image for Windows that causes it to choke from within Windows?

If you want that type of imaging software, then you might want to consider getting the TeraByte's suite--so you can do your imaging from within Windows like you have been doing with Ghost.

Brian

Brian wrote on Jul 8^th, 2017 at 2:59am:

Hey Brian, thanks ...... oh, hmmm, you're dissing me for being an old fuddy Luddite, aren't you?   

NightOwl wrote on Jul 8^th, 2017 at 1:15am:

Gee, I was encouraging Mr. Moose to get the full TeraByte Suite so he could do live imaging from Windows!

Brian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2017 at 2:02am:

You're encouraging him to use Image for DOS.  At least, I'm using Image for Linux!

Brian wrote on Jul 8^th, 2017 at 2:59am:

I think we need to have a discussion of what exactly *metadata* imaging is vs classic live imaging!  How does it work, what does it do, how is information saved and restored, etc. ?

I have not noted that new way of imaging.  I need to learn more ......

Maybe a new topic?

"For normal backups that don't use /usemd, you can continue to use either.
VSS is recommended for /usemd because of open files that stay open nearly
all the time that have only updates over existing data (no
additions/truncations) and which metadata is not updated until the file is
closed. In windows 10, there are a lot of these type of caching files which
are also set to not update any timestamp information even when the handle is
closed. For those files, the only metadata change may be the USN when the
USN Journal is enabled on the volume. Sticking with those type of files
(ones where there are no timestamp updates at all, and only a USN update
when the USN Journal is enabled); when VSS starts, it triggers the USN to
update on the open file. When PHYLock starts and even though requests both
locking and volume flush on the volume, Windows ignores and does not update
the USN on the files. The difference can be explained with an example:
Take file X that has no timestamp updates, file updates with no appending or
truncation, does have USN updates. Backup A includes file X, Backup B, C
the file X was not changed and therefore data used from A. Backup D, File
X is open and has been updated but the USN is still as it was in A, B, C.
The file data is backed up both using VSS and PHYLock, the difference is in
the VSS version USN is different than ABC, PHYlock the same as ABC. Now
file X is closed with no other updates other than what was already done
prior. Backup E VSS version would skip the data and use what is in D,
PHYLock version would see change and backup the data in to E. Now it's
time to restore, if we just booted and restored back to B, all fine in all
versions, however, if you first restored D version then right after that the
B version, the D restored with VSS version will have a USN different than B
so will restore file X data from B, PHYLock version has the same USN so
ignores restore file X data. So the PHYLock restored version of B has D's
data for file X. The byte-for-byte validation would confirm and fail since
it's done over the entire data. Of course these are special files, special
restores, but to ensure best metadata state, VSS should be used (If Windows
were changed to flush the metadata of open handles on lock or volume flush
request, then the difference goes away at the metadata level and either
would give the same metadata results)."

NightOwl

Metadata backup/restores are popular in the group who don't separate their data from the OS partition. A few minutes to restore the OS partition has advantages over a one hour restore. I also suspect that the dangers of metadata backup/restores are more theoretical than real. In the same way live backup/restores haven't caused practical issues in over ten years of use. TeraByte has introduced metadata backup/restores for those who are interested but classic backup/restores will remain the mainstay.

In my case I'm using metadata backup/restores on my test computer and classic backup/restores on my main computer. My OS partition is lean and mean and a classic restore takes 2 minutes as opposed to a metadata restore taking 1 minute. SSD to SSD. "So what" in time. But I'm experimenting with metadata backups on my data partition which contains 400 GB of used space. (I'm still using data backup software too)

Bill, good news. It works as expected. Out of interest, how long did Ghost take to create an image?