Simple Ghost Question

[spoma]

If I have a pc with a C and a D drive and C has the operating system (XP) and D has data. Now say that both drives are NTFS. When I ghost an image is it just of the C drive? Can I load it back onto the machine without disturbing the D drive at all. Will I still be able to access this data even though it is NTFS.

 

[zzzz]

<< When I ghost an image is it just of the C drive? >>


Ghost gives you option of making of image of individual partitions or the entire HD.

And yes, you can just make an image of C:, reload the image on C: if something goes wrong with it and still access the data on D:
The only scenario it would not work is if you have the D: encrypted and don't have the key to read it back. If you don't use encryption, it shuld be fine.

Also you have to note that if you are not directly burning the image to CDR, you need a fat partition to store the image. Ghost does not allow storing the image on a NTFS drive.

 

[bsobel]

> Ghost does not allow storing the image on a NTFS drive

Just clarification (theres been a bunch of confusion over this). Ghost won't store the image to a local NTFS drive from the dos extended more client (currently). If you putting this over the network, you can definately write to an NTFS volume from the server component.

Bill

 

[Muse]

<< > Ghost does not allow storing the image on a NTFS drive

Just clarification (theres been a bunch of confusion over this). Ghost won't store the image to a local NTFS drive from the dos extended more client (currently). If you putting this over the network, you can definately write to an NTFS volume from the server component.

Bill >>

I think it depends on what version of Ghost you are using. I'm using Ghost 2001 and it will not write to NTFS partitions. That doesn't mean you can't Ghost NTFS partitions and restore to them. It just means that you can't go into Ghost and ask it to write to an NTFS partition an image of another partition or drive. It also means (and this is even more important) that you can't go into Ghost (and this means in DOS), and expect Ghost to see any Ghost images that reside on an NTFS partition. Ghost can't interpret files on an NTFS partition. At least, not Ghost 2001. Now someone told me that Ghost 2002 doesn't have this limitation. I can't say if this is true or not. Now, the Enterprise version is the version that they market to systems administrators and that can, I believe, write to and read from NTFS partitions.

Now, an example. My C: partition on my first HD is NTFS. I can make a Ghost image of it and store it on any of my FAT32 partitions, and do this in Ghost, booting either from a floppy, or VERY PREFERABLY a Ghost CDR (much faster). I can go into Ghost later and restore that image file to my C: partition.

 

[Rob G.]

>> "At least, not Ghost 2001. Now someone told me that Ghost 2002 doesn't have this limitation."

They were incorrect. Ghost 2002 cannot store an image file on an NTFS partition.

 

[Muse]

<< >> "At least, not Ghost 2001. Now someone told me that Ghost 2002 doesn't have this limitation."

They were incorrect. Ghost 2002 cannot store an image file on an NTFS partition. >>

That doesn't surprise me at all. Bogarting that feature (for a "professional" version) puts a lot of money in their pocket. Companies like Symantec do that kind of thing. They also make it all but impossible to run Ghost from batch files unattended, which is possible in the Enterprise version. There's workarounds, but the average user is not going to be using a workaround for that one. It means you have to be sitting there to answer "Yes" when prompted if you _really_ want to do it... LOL

So, might I ask if anyone knows what Ghost 2002 has over Ghost 2001 as long as we are talking about Ghost?

 

[Bglad]

So, might I ask if anyone knows what Ghost 2002 has over Ghost 2

Not a whole lot. It has drivers for common network setups, automatic boot disk maker and handles NTFS in the disk to disk copy mode. As said however, limitations remain in using image files under NTFS volumes. You also have to manually enter the software serial number every time you restore an image which can get a bit annoying. There are a few more options available in the option menu so you don't have to use as many command line switches. bsobel may know of more improvements under the hood as he used to work for Symantec. If you don't need NTFS support, there is probably no reason to upgrade. And (sorry bsobel) if you do need NTFS support, Drive Image does not have any of the NTFS limitations with imaging.

 

[bsobel]

> as he used to work for Symantec.

Still do

> And (sorry bsobel) if you do need NTFS support, Drive Image does not have any of the NTFS limitations with imaging.

No reason to be sorry, I just like to make the clarificaiton regarding the NTFS limitations from dos mode vs over the network (e.g. you can store images over the network onto an NTFS client, it is just the local dos extended mode client which can not currently access NTFS drives locally). Your sure gonna make me glad when that gets addressed

Bill

 

[Bglad]

Question:

Why does it have no problems over a network. You still use Ghost with a dos boot disk at both ends. Dos does not have NTFS support, so how is it supported over the network?

[edit]
Your sure gonna make me glad when that gets addressed

Don't mean to be a thorn in your side. This issue seems to be the cause of the more confusion in this forum than almost any other these days. I guess this is a negative tribute to the size of the error (or its feature description between the home and corp. version) and a positive tribute to how popular the software has become.

 

[Muse]

<< So, might I ask if anyone knows what Ghost 2002 has over Ghost 2

Not a whole lot. It has drivers for common network setups, automatic boot disk maker and handles NTFS in the disk to disk copy mode. As said however, limitations remain in using image files under NTFS volumes. You also have to manually enter the software serial number every time you restore an image which can get a bit annoying. There are a few more options available in the option menu so you don't have to use as many command line switches. bsobel may know of more improvements under the hood as he used to work for Symantec. If you don't need NTFS support, there is probably no reason to upgrade. And (sorry bsobel) if you do need NTFS support, Drive Image does not have any of the NTFS limitations with imaging. >>

Manually enter the product serial number every time you restore an image?? Are you kidding?? Ghost 2001 doesn't make me do that. Are you sure? That's ridiculous. Not sure what you mean by handling NTFS in the disk to disk copy mode. I've never done a disk to disk, and maybe that's why I don't understand. I have made disk images to an image file of a disk that has some NTFS partitions, writing to a FAT32 partition on another HD, no problem in Ghost 2001. When you say that "...Drive Image does not have any of the NTFS limitations with imaging..." are you suggesting that you can write image files in Drive Image to NTFS volumes and restore from NTFS volumes, something that Ghost 2001 and 2001 can't do?

 

[Bglad]

Manually enter the product serial number every time you restore an image?? Are you kidding??
No I'm not kidding.

Are you sure?
Absolutely positive. I only give my opinions about products that I actually own and have experience with.

writing to a FAT32
Precisely. You were writing to FAT32 so you had no trouble.

are you suggesting that you can write image files in Drive Image to NTFS volumes and restore from NTFS volumes, something that Ghost 2001 and 2001 can't do?
Yes.

 

[Muse]

<< Manually enter the product serial number every time you restore an image?? Are you kidding??
No I'm not kidding.

Are you sure?
Absolutely positive. I only give my opinions about products that I actually own and have experience with.

writing to a FAT32
Precisely. You were writing to FAT32 so you had no trouble.

are you suggesting that you can write image files in Drive Image to NTFS volumes and restore from NTFS volumes, something that Ghost 2001 and 2001 can't do?
Yes. >>

That clinches it. I wouldn't buy another version of Ghost. Drive Image is the one. I bought Systemworks 2001 online for < $25, and it included Ghost 2001. Sounds to me like it's a few times better than Ghost 2002. Hard to image how Symantec survives like that. I got Systemworks for:

1. NAV
2. Ghost

I guess I'll look elsewhere for antivirus in the future, and get Drive Image if I need another imaging software.

 

[Bglad]

Actually, I still think NAV is a good product. A bit resource hungry but on newer faster machines with a lot of ram it doesn't matter and it seems to do its job well.

 

[RalfHutter]

Muse - I also have hands-on experience with Drive Image and Ghost 2002. Bglad is 100% correct in his statements regarding the limitations of Ghost 2002. I use Drive Image almost daily for my backups. In a home situation I thinks it kicks Ghosts' ass. I really do like NAV 2002, though.

 

[Muse]

<< Muse - I also have hands-on experience with Drive Image and Ghost 2002. Bglad is 100% correct in his statements regarding the limitations of Ghost 2002. I use Drive Image almost daily for my backups. In a home situation I thinks it kicks Ghosts' ass. I really do like NAV 2002, though. >>

Well, to my knowledge, NAV 2001 is working for me, and the Liveupdates seem to function. Is there a limitation on Liveupdate?

 

[JackBurton]

<< So, might I ask if anyone knows what Ghost 2002 has over Ghost 2001 as long as we are talking about Ghost? >>


Ghost 2001 will not image a Windows XP partition nor will it image an ext2 partition; whereas, Ghost 2002 will.

 

[Muse]

<<

<< So, might I ask if anyone knows what Ghost 2002 has over Ghost 2001 as long as we are talking about Ghost? >>


Ghost 2001 will not image a Windows XP partition nor will it image an ext2 partition; whereas, Ghost 2002 will. >>

Why would Ghost 2001 have a problem imagine a Windows XP partition? It's not a matter of OSs but of file formats. XP has no changes in file formats that I'm aware of. It's possible it uses a new wrinkle of NTFS that Ghost 2001 can't deal with but that would be news to me. What is an ext2 partition?

 

[bsobel]

> It's possible it uses a new wrinkle of NTFS that Ghost 2001 can't deal with but that would be news to me

XP uses NTFS 5.1 vs 5.0 which is used on 2k, so the structure did indeed change.

Bill