Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of disk cloning software

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Someday I'll convert this article to "Comparison"

[edit]

Someday I'll convert this article to "Comparison", but as for now it is still a "List". Sasha1024 (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be worthwhile adding Microsoft WHS, in its various incarnations. WHS can backup a boot disk and restore it to a different geometry disk flawlessly, IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.155.124 (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Marasmusine: please stop cutting the article:

  • First. It's still a stub. (External links may become links to articles later.)
  • Second. All of these (external) links are present in the Disk cloning article. I don't see the reason, that they can be present there but not here. If reason really exists -- just say, and I'll continue categorization/comparison right inside the Disk cloning (not in separate article) -- but don't do that silent cutting.
  • Third. Why don't to write to the discussion page first? I've already lost a piece of text because of that. Cutting the text that someone is working on don't make wikipedia better.

Sasha1024 (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are primarily used for navigation through Wikipedia (WP:LIST), and should not contain lists of external links (WP:EL); Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOT#DIRECTORY). Software listed here is subject to the same notability guidelines as elsewhere in the encyclopedia (WP:Notability); if it passes the notability guideline, a stub article can be started for it and listed here. Otherwise we should not list it at all. I hope that explains my removal of some of the links. Marasmusine (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that.
But on another hand:
  • Most of the software lists contain some "gaps". I mean that they do not consist entirely of links-to-existing-articles, most of them contain either "red" links, either external links, either "black" entries (unlinked names). (Just click on anithing inside Category:Lists of software: for example [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].)
  • Lists are not for navigation only, they can be a source of information themselves (and WP:List#Purposes of lists states that as one of list purposes).
Sasha1024 (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table does look better. Don't forget to cite where you got the information from, per WP:V. Marasmusine (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Groß (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC) I suggest, that there should also be a license column in the table.[reply]
License column added

Tables to be put into the article (stored here until finished)

[edit]

General

[edit]

Already there

Last column is cut off. - --KitchM (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supported filesystems

[edit]
Name Raw copying FAT32 NTFS Ext2 Ext3 ReiserFS xfs jfs HPFS UFS HFS
Clonezilla (live and server edition) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
g4u Yes No No No No No No No No No No
PING Yes
G4L
LRS
PartImage No Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Beta Beta
ntfsclone No No Yes No No No No No No No No
FOG
Mondo Rescue

Methods of storing image

[edit]
Name Local HDD Burning to CD/DVD FTP USB
Clonezilla live
Clonezilla server edition
g4u
PING
G4L
LRS
PartImage
ntfsclone
FOG
Mondo Rescue


Sasha1024 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging articles

[edit]

I think we should have both a list and a comparison of disk cloning software, Wikipedia usually has both a list and a comparison:

(and so on...).

I think it makes all sense to keep both a "pure list" and a comparison, both have advantages over the other one, so I think we should keep both. We also gain by having it all organised and easier to browse... SF007 (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splitted proprietary and free software

[edit]

My original idea was to write article about free disk cloning software. I am not interested on filling info about proprietary tools (I think they are wellknown enough). Of course, I am not anti if somebody else will fill it -- but imho it'll be better not to mix them. At least, until we will have a SORTABLE license column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha1024 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of having that separated and I merged them, now the we only need a "license" section. Having them separated is in my opinion "non-neutral". SF007 (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
License column added

Restored hidden and removed entries.

[edit]

IMHO, pure notability of some tools is a reason for removing articles on them (if they sometime appear), but not for removing any info about them from other articles (especially from comparisons). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha1024 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted "CLI" to "none"

[edit]

I am not sure that we can say that dd, ntfsclone and zsplit have command-line interface.

As I understand, CLI means that user can type some commands into the software tool. Like bash or psql.

In that sense, as far as I know, dd, ntfsclone and zsplit don't have CLI. User cannot type commands into them. User just can invoke them from bash (or from other unix shell) using some command -- but that is not dd's/ntfsclone's/zsplit's CLI, it's a CLI of the bash. (And dd, ntfsclone and zsplit don't have OWN command-line interface.)

Be bold to fix that in article, if I'm wrong, and if that tools are also said as having CLI. But, imho, there should be some other term, to distinguish bash/psql-like tools (with own CLI) from dd/ntfsclone-like tools.Sasha1024 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novell ZenWorks and PXE booting

[edit]

It would be nice to have an additional column for those disk cloning software that support booting from PXE. To that end, Novell ZenWorks could be included here (with the proprietary, of course) and it does support PXE booting. --Kickstart70TC 18:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


REQUESTS

[edit]

FSArchiver

[edit]

Please add FSArchiver to the comparison list. Thank you.

Clone/Restore to disk/partition of different size (smaller)

[edit]

And include in table if the tool can generates image of same size as the partition, same size as the data w/without compression, and if it can restore the image to a different disk/partition of different size (smaller, larger, both).

Please add a column indicating whether the cloning program can resize partitions on the fly and handle copying to different sized disks and properly handling the extra or reduced space. Ghost does this; I'd like a list of it's competitor's that can do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.77.102 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also wish the list to be completed by the cloning/restoring to a different sized disk/partition, especially a smaller one. Here the software found do do that:

  • Paragon Backup and Recovery (Advanced) Free [1]
  • Acronis True Image Home 2011 [2]
  • EASEUS Todo Backup [3]
  • Norton Ghost: only for older Windows systems?

Software that is not capable do do that:

  • Macrium Reflect - workaround with Robocopy/RoboRestore [4]
  • Clonezilla - workaround by shrinking source partition size with GParted (also possible with other Software)
  • DriveImage XML [5]

CR --87.14.1.28 (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EXT4

[edit]

It would be nice if someone could add which applications support EXT4 - it would have made this list much more informative and saved me a 15min google search.

Merging/Restore to different system

[edit]

This would also be a nice information on the table.

  • Paragon Backup & Recovery 11 Home - Restore your system to completely different hardware and boot it immediately [6]
  • Acronis Universal Restore - Restoring to Dissimilar Hardware [7]
  • EaseUS Todo Backup - Restore system to dissimilar hardware [8]
  • Macrium Reflect Pro - Restore to dissimilar hardware [9]

CR --79.21.106.13 (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC) [ (Source)][reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-drive-imaging-program.htm
  2. ^ http://kb.acronis.com/content/17540
  3. ^ http://forum.easeus.com/viewtopic.php?p=32711&sid=038c3ecfd84c69e4cfaf21d4389630c0
  4. ^ http://kb.macrium.com/KnowledgebaseArticle50012.aspx
  5. ^ http://www.runtime.org/driveimage_faq.htm#smaller
  6. ^ http://www.paragon-software.com/home/brh/
  7. ^ http://kb.acronis.com/content/1566
  8. ^ http://www.todo-backup.com/backup-resource/universal-restore/restore-system-to-dissimilar-hardware.htm
  9. ^ http://www.macrium.com/reflectfree.aspx

Merger proposal

[edit]
NO CONSENSUS
No consensus for merger was achieved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There seem to be three pages listing similar information. I propose that this is cut down to one or two (I've noticed above that someone prefers to keep a List article *and* a Comparison article).

Any ideas or suggestions? I realise that the Disk Imaging list includes imaging of floppies and DVDs etc. but the hard drive list seems repetitive. — SimonEast (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough one. Of course while they contain similar information, it doesn't make them the same thing. Software that can create a disk image and doesn't always clone disks while software for cloning disks can't always make a disk image. They are different things. --Hm2k (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge of all the 3 articles into 1, however, I don't have any particular objection of a merge of List of disk imaging software and List of disk cloning software. I oppose a merge of all because it is useful to have both a list and a comparison of subjects, there are also many examples:

(and so on...).

--SF007 (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that List of disk imaging software and List of disk cloning software should be merged. Not sure about merging those with this topic.

Chkrvrty (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree that List of disk imaging software and List of disk cloning software should be merged. For the comparison page however, imaging, cloning, and backing up are all similar operations. It would be useful for there to be one comparison page that itemizes all imaging, cloning, and backup software that identifies (a) which of imaging, cloning, and backing up the particular software does, (b) what the software license is, and (c) what operating systems the software will run in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.84.121 (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horrors no! Disk imaging, cloning, and backing up may be similar operations, but they are not the same. The salient characteristics of these functions are different. Combining them would require a tabulation with many more columns. Some columns would be relevant to one type of software, but irrelevant to others. Combining them would make the resulting table hard to read and hard to maintain (a death sentence for what is now a very useful tabulation). TPiwowar

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ddrescue

[edit]

to be added : ddrescue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Bin (talk • contribs) 14:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XXClone ?

[edit]

Any reason XXClone isn't in the list? It has some unique features.

I'd also like to see a column on which software the app runs on, or whether it is stand-alone only. Dmforcier (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies & Proposal

[edit]

This table is inaccurate. There is a technical question about "filesystem" support. I'm seeing many errors here, people who edit the table are not knowledgable on what they're editing.

Filesystem-agnostic tools such as dd and dcfldd don't work against filesystems.

I can understand if the software titles mentioned on this list would be merged to another.

I would suggest a revisit on the structural columns of this table as there would be a few software titles that are filesystem agnostic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swestlake (talk • contribs) 05:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


New Proposal

What many people maybe looking for at least I have been for a long time is comparison that shows which software's can compress and if have compression options to compress less medium or greater etc. What the compressed archive is such as Acronis (PUKE) is a .tib image that cannot be mounted to view or copy from the image without Acronis product installed on os desktop. This is something important that we all need to know since it make a clear choice which software to use. I.E. one that is locked is useless one that isn't locked is far better. For me companies that lock those images to their software without other mount options away from the software in fact lose potential customers and a great deal of revenue. Doesn't take an idiot to work that one out, though the companies obviously unknowing so better to forget about them.

Then there is roll back restore points are they lost when image is restored. I have read today the Marcrium Reflect loses previous restore points and so not available when image is restored, where as Acronis they are restored. Of course that is as expected to be there since a backup should a a 1:1 clone copy.

Also taking of compression can the software ignore drive space that isn't written to this matters. How does the software behave with bad sectors, does it have control to work with them. Does the software have features that clone software have for backing up the data such as option for time out in millisecond to spend on bad sector when it come across them. And whether allows to return to bad sectors later to try backup the data in forward or reverse head read mode. Or even to be able to select the head to read the data with in case of failing head. Yes I see data backup software should be built with cl0one software options since they do the same job. Although normal clone software compression is very poor and backup software can be hugely better why not have them merge to make better software for us.

Of course also need to know does the software have dos mode console fro backup, recover and other things that is needed.

Please also tell us if the software needs use have a recovery zone by default. This is frowned upon and should never be Acronis go (PUKE) yourself for doing that rubbish. Acronis users always deactivate it it is not healthy for your drive and never would be.

Mounting of the backup image on OS desktop when backup software is not installed, is the most needed aspect needed from any backup software image. Not enough to work in dos we need full access on all OS desktops at least windows XP and up for a start. This is why Acronis has failed for may people. Reason why we all still look for better options and need Wikipedia (Wiki) here to give us this information.

By the way finding this page was not very easy many other pages before this one and this one only found with search please make it easier to come here more so when you have the above informations added.

92.5.104.103 (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DiskUtility, dd, dcfldd rows

[edit]

Diskutility is available on OsX's installer DVD. OsX's Diskutility can copy an OSX installer to USB drive. So these two fields Live-usb and Live-cd are checkmarked to Yes

dd, and dcfldd do not do filesystem-based file copying, but clone strictly devices. I do not know if dcfldd is on Live-cd or live-usb but dd is ubiqutous as it's a UNIX standard file, compliancy to some posix. I'm setting dd with a checkmark for Live-cd and live-usb -- I know dd is out there on many live-cds, and live-cd's such as Gparted Live cd comes with instructions on its homepage site on how to transfer it's iso to usb in order to make a Live-usb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swestlake (talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gparted live cd can clone partitiongs

[edit]

Gparted live cd, is definitely also a disk cloning software, rather than just a partitioning tool primarily.. Not well known to be used as a "simplified" solution for cloning but the usage of Gparted live cd can easily be used to perform a partition cloning. Gparted can clone partitions, and cannot clone an entire disk. Even if the "target" partition is larger than the source, there wouldn't be a problem since the cloning operation would be filesystem-based.Cloning a partition with Gparted is mere copy & paste using the mouse (right context menus). The target partition does not need to be already formatted with a filesystem, whereby the partition's layout simply only needs to have been allocated it's space on the disk. If the partition is not formatted and there was a 'paste' for cloning, then a filesystem would first be created before cloning begins.
List of filesystems that can be cloned is indicated by the 'copy' field column from the table found on
http://gparted.sourceforge.net/features.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gparted

Description on top of article has "This is a comparison of disk cloning software, computer programs that can copy the contents of one disk into another disk or into a disk image." Partition cloning with gparted occurs only as partition-to-partition, and not partition-to-diskimage(known as dump). So if the rest of the tools require dumping to file, then gparted should be detracted..

Swestlake (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate data?

[edit]

I thought that dd and dcfldd images can be mounted.
Are the entries in the table false for these?
See http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/mounting-a-dd-image-file-95579/, for example.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex giusi tiri (talk • contribs) 18:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. "Can be mounted" is different from "dd/dcfldd can mount". In other words, yes, they can be mounted but not by dd or dcfldd; mount utility is required. It is not mentioned in the table because the fact is that every image made by the items in the table can mounted by another separate utility. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dd and dcfldd only copy bytes, so they're data/format-agnostic(they do not understand any data structures and as a result don't support any filesystems).
Swestlake (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CloneZilla and Linux

[edit]

It is written that CloneZilla is for Linux, but don't you think that this is confusing? It has a Live Image which can be used to clone NTFS as well. Wakeup12 (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CloneZilla and Windows

[edit]

It is written that CloneZilla is for Windows, but don't you think that this is confusing? It has a Live Image that is based on a Linux distribution, and although it can be used to clone NTFS partitions as well, that does not mean that it can be run from within Windows environment. Therefore none of CloneZilla flavors is able to access storage devices that require proprietary drivers only available for certain Windows versions. 81.88.210.197 (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comparison of disk cloning software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updating comparison tables about disk cloning and disk imaging

[edit]

Dear Flowing dreams & Steven Crossin, thank you for reversing my updates to clearly outdated and missing information. Please, do not put your efforts in reviewing the edits of others but in editing the tables yourself and I’ll review your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumbenis (talk • contribs) 09:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

The lists of disk cloning & backup software should be merged due to extreme overlap, with each list put in different sections. The table on Disk cloning should also be moved to the resulting merged article, since we don't need two copies out of sync in two different articles DFlhb (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DFlhb,
Disk cloning and backup are two separate operations. So, I do not think they should be merged.
I have transcluded the disk cloning table so it will update when this article is changed. We also need tables to be included in the Disk cloning article to prevent a Split attention effect. Hrbm14 (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the transclusion; that fixes the biggest problem. Thanks DFlhb (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking in. @DFlhb: and @Hrbm14: Are you both generally in agreement that the suggested merge is not necessary? If so, can we remove the "merge" tags from the articles? Joyous! | Talk 10:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's fine. DFlhb (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merge is not necessary. Merge tags may be removed please. Hrbm14 (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_disk_cloning_software&oldid=1244243644"