Is there a difference between cloning and imaging?

[Arkitech]

I've been trying to google the difference between the two and it appears the meaning varies from vendor to vendor. Basically what I would like to achieve is a "copy" of my current install of Vista (about 50 gigs) so that I can re-image drive should the need arise. However I don't want to take up an entire target drive to hold the copy. I'd like to be able to basically have a 50gb image residing on a backup drive along with other data, ready for whenever I need to use it. I thought Clonezilla would be the right option, but it appears that it needs the entire target drive to write an image. What software options should I look into?

 

[FishAk]

Is the partition 50GB, or the used space?

Macrium Reflect will both clone (a bit for bit exact copy including empty space) or image a partition. By default, an image will only include the actual data in the partition, and it will compress it by about 50 percent. It won't include restore points, or page file, and I'm not sure, but I think it also excludes hibernation file. When the OS is restored from the image, it will function exactly the same as the point the image was created.

If your install is actually 50GB, I suggest downloading GetFolderSize (free) and see what is consuming all the room. If you remove all data to another partition, the OS used space will shrink by an equal amount, resulting in images that take less room to store.

I have a good program set (including several large programs) installed on W7, and it takes less than 21GB. I keep 4-5 images representing progressive stages of my build stored in a dedicated 50GB partition for protection. If a problem sneaks into my build, I can revert back one, two, or more images to eradicate it. One 7GB image is a fresh install of W7 SP1 with only a few tools installed, useful for troubleshooting.

 

[Arkitech]

Thanks for the advice, I'm running RunDirStat right now to look into my files. I just reloaded Vista yesterday so a little surprised at the amount of disk usage so far. Once I trim the size the down I'll give the Macrium Reflect a go.

 

[SimMike2]

I think imaging refers to making an image of your drive, whereas cloning refers to installing the image to another drive. You can image to your hearts content, but you don't start cloning until you install the image.

 

[JackMDS]

Image means making an Image file of a drive and storing it somewhere.

The Stored inmate file can be used to restore the drive on any Drive with adequate space.

Cloning means putting a source drive in one HD channel and an empty drive on a second channel and making an exact clone of the functional drive to HD on the second drive.

Cloning is actually a form of copying that copies the whole drive partition system, Boot OS, and files.

 

[corkyg]

Jack has it right. I would add - imaging requires restoration. An image file can be proprietary to the imaging software. Cloning is a bit-by-bit duplication of a drive and is immediately useful with no restoration.

 

[Emulex]

yeah you want to skip empty sectors because they might contain uncompressable data (like your deleted pr0n stash)- everyone does this now- with VSS to help deal with open files. norton ghost 15 is a very competent program (now based off BESR 2010). it can skip bad sectors too - which is nice - better to have a backup than to abort the backup imo

 

[SimMike2]

I would rather image a drive and then copy it than straight cloning. I like having the backup, in addition to the old drive still being intact.

 

[corkyg]

I would rather image a drive and then copy it than straight cloning. I like having the backup, in addition to the old drive still being intact.

I have 4 computers, 2 laptops and 2 "floortops." Each has two duplicate drives achieved through cloning. They are rotated weekly or whenever significant changes occur. A reserve drive (duplicate) is always ready to go simply by selecting a power switch.

A backup drive is useless until it is restored. Duplicate drives can be accessed any time. A drive image takes longer to create and even longer to be made usable. It is a personal choice, but I prefer to simply power down, switch one drive off and the other on, reboot and continue to march.

But OP's question was, is there a difference. This has been answered.

 

[stevech]

I would rather image a drive and then copy it than straight cloning. I like having the backup, in addition to the old drive still being intact.

Funny, I prefer the opposite! I can just boot the clone.

 

[JackMDS]

There are some pros and cons to both methods it depends on the Chipsets and some other factors.

E.g.. if moved to the different chipset, Imaging with Universal Restore (As can be done by Acronis TrueImage Plus) yields more functional results than cloning.

If the process is around one computer Cloning is faster and less inclined to errors.

 

[spikespiegal]

Another distinction between the two is that a live 'clone' can typically be verified immiediately while 'imaging' typically involves an intermediate file. However, 'imaging' is often just a clone process that writes the disk map to an intermediate file as opposed to another physical device.

IMHO, Operating System / disk / partition 'images' are worthless until they've been restored and verified they work. Also realize there's some degree of monkeying around with the file system after a straight clone process that the software usually performs, aka Ghost or Acronis or Paragon. Consequently I've found freeware / open source cloning tools to be extremely unreliable with Windows because they often don't do this.

While most people have experience doing this at workstation level, I started 'cloning' Citrix servers back in the late 90's because of the enormous resources that went into tweaking and installing a single box. Using Ghost on production Servers at the time was pretty radical, if not controversial, and it involved building DOS based boot diskettes with manual packet drivers and the hair pulling process of finding DOS friendly RAID controller drivers. Once you had it working though you had a in-state disaster recovery mechanism that was light years ahead of conventional tape or file level back-ups. While data centers today are heavily virtualized and cloning is a couple-click process, I still run into mission critical servers that only have a file level back-up in place because the resident engineer has never had to restore an Exchange box from a file only back up. Try nailing an icecube to a wall - it's an easier process.

JackMDS makes some good points about hardware differences fouling the back-up process, and I blame this entirely on the boys at Redmond. Win98 could be imaged, and deployed to an insane variety of hardware with just a bit of post tweaking. Newer MS operating systems however trip up on the chipset / drive boot process, and even Sysprep can't fix this. Sure is a lot nicer just sticking a hypervisor between it all and not worrying about stupid chip-sets. That's the direction the industry is likely going.

 

[Lifted]

Sure is a lot nicer just sticking a hypervisor between it all and not worrying about stupid chip-sets. That's the direction the industry is likely going.

Doesn't the hypervisor still requires a driver for that chipset?

 

[Vic Vega]

Block level copy > file system level copy.