We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Tech Helproom


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

Backup size query!


Housten

Likes # 0

Good afternoon,

Some may recognise that I had a problem over the weekend with an external USB drive that I have. Having resolved this last evening, I did a backup today using the two programmes that I have found to be reasonable at this – or so I thought, as I am now confused and I hope that someone can end this for me.

Because of the trouble I had had I was keeping a beady eye – some may say too beady – on my drive and this caused me to note the differences these programmes have in their results. I must emphasise that I wasn’t trying to get one over the other or anything like that; it is just the result that is causing me this confusion!! As far as I am aware I gave both of them the same thing to do which was a simple backup of ‘C:\’ – which is about 47 GB - with no compression. One programme has produced a pair of files, of which one is 48,897,042 KB and the other 589 KB, whilst the other programme has a single file of 40,158,237 KB.

My confusion is that as these are both non-compressed files why is there such a difference? On ‘C:\’ there is a ‘Recovery’ partition, but as this was on there when I got the machine originally with XP and having had Vista and now Windows 7 I don’t really think it is any use as a ‘Recovery’ partition, and both programmes had this included but I don’t know if both actually backed it up. Even so it is only just over 4 GB and there is over 8 GB between the two programmes. The reason I am asking this forum is that if I ask the firms concerned – and assuming I get a reply – all they will tell me is that their programme does a full and proper backup but are unable to comment on a different programme [ Am I being too cynical about their replies? Probably, but I think I am also being realistic!! ]

So if anyone has any ideas as to the cause of this difference – one programme does a full back including the system, whereas the other one doesn’t for instance – I would really like to hear your ideas. I look at it this way: if I have a back up and need to restore the whole disk – maybe on to a new disk, because the first has gone completely – then what is the use of having only a partial backup, if indeed that is what the smaller file is!!

Many thanks in advance for any ideas/advice/information that you can give me

Like this post
Fruit Bat /\0/\

Likes # 0

Backup (straight copy of files)

Image (copy of the partition structure)

Clone (copy of the drive structure)

Like this post
Housten

Likes # 0

Fruit Bat /\0/\

Many thanks for your reply. But as far as I know I was doing a backup with both programmes and I got te [ very ] different results I listed, so what I wanted to know is which is the safer/better/more complete backup of the two! With the size differential I find it quite worrying!!!

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Best Christmas 2014 UK tech deals, Boxing Day 2014 UK tech deals & January sales 2015 UK tech...

IDG UK Sites

LED vs Halogen: Why now could be the right time to invest in LED bulbs

IDG UK Sites

Christmas' best ads: See great festive spots studios have created to promote themselves and clients

IDG UK Sites

Stop running out of cellular data on your iPhone, see which apps use the most data