Bought a new SSD, have some questions about cloning

[PP Mguire]

Because making an image of your drive then flashing outside of Windows alleviates any possible write/read protection problems with Windows having those files open or accessed while cloning. Plus if the clone procedure goes bad you have a backup image just in case.

 

[strollin]

Oh brother, not this again. If there are "possible write/read protection problems with Windows having those files open or accessed while cloning", those exact same possible issues would also be present while creating an image. The process is exactly the same, only difference is one process writes to a file while the other writes to the disk.

Either way will work fine, it's just that some people get a warm fuzzy feeling by saving an image first.

 

[carnageX]

Oh brother, not this again. If there are "possible write/read protection problems with Windows having those files open or accessed while cloning", those same possible issues would also be present while creating an image. The process is exactly the same, only difference is one process writes to a file while the other writes to the disk.

Doing in Windows CAN cause issues because Windows protects system files, especially ones that are in-use by the system (i.e. have an open file handle). A file that already has an open file handle is locked from read/write, and cannot be read from. So yes, doing it in Windows vs in a boot-environment can be a big difference. PP isn't talking about creating an image vs direct disk-to-disk clone, which is what you're talking about.

Plus, both PP and I have had experience with disk-to-disk going bad, and doing disk-to-image then image-to-disk is SAFER in terms of no possibility of messing up the original drive's partition tables/boot sector info.

 

[PP Mguire]

Oh brother, not this again. If there are "possible write/read protection problems with Windows having those files open or accessed while cloning", those exact same possible issues would also be present while creating an image. The process is exactly the same, only difference is one process writes to a file while the other writes to the disk.

Either way will work fine, it's just that some people get a warm fuzzy feeling by saving an image first.

I'll allow a moment of derp for this one.

It's impossible to have those issues while in Clonezilla which is a live element, not within Windows. The exact reason we tell people to do this. Maybe before trying to start flaming you should read exactly what we are telling people AND the reason why we tell them. We've already had a couple of issues where an image would have prevented problems since the last time you decided to diss our ways. It's precautionary. If you don't like taking precautionary steps then that's your thing and you can do as you please. If I'm telling another member how to do something like this I'm going to spell out the safest way and the easiest way and they can do whatever they please. Copying from C: to D: while you're logged into Windows can cause issues just like how AVs can't access and delete certain infected files due to them being accessed by Windows. It's why AVs like Avast do boot scans to delete those files that were previously accessed from within Windows. The same thing can be said for trying to copy and paste a whole drive to another.

 

[strollin]

If the OP uses Clonezilla or a different cloning software, it doesn't matter since they will reboot into another environment in order to read the files. The way you use scare tactics to convince others that if they don't create an image file first they will somehow hose their system is what I'm trying to get you to stop spreading around. Again, cloning directly to a disk is no more dangerous than cloning to an image file as the process is EXACTLY THE SAME! In both cases the original disk is only READ FROM, not written to, so how can the original disk be less safe one way than the other?

You may consider it flaming but I don't since I am just trying to correct falsehoods that you post again and again as fact. Suggesting that someone make an image file first is fine, telling them that they are somehow endangering their original disk if they don't is plain baloney.

 

[carnageX]

You may consider it flaming but I don't since I am just trying to correct falsehoods that you post again and again as fact. Suggesting that someone make an image file first is fine, telling them that they are somehow endangering their original disk if they don't is plain baloney.

We're not saying that it WILL happen. We're saying it CAN happen.

I gave specific examples as to what happened when I once did a direct disk-to-disk clone (yes, I've done disk-to-disk before without any problem at all even, with several different kinds of software) in our previous discussion. Please go back and read those since you are still apparently failing to understand the reasoning behind why PP and I suggest the image method vs direct disk-to-disk. Since it messed up on me once, I'd rather take the safe way of doing it, and suggest people do the same so that we don't have to spend HOURS trying different things to fix something that went wrong.

It's one thing to clone HDD's when you know what you're doing in IT - it's another thing to do it when you don't know as much and have to ask how to do it. For the latter, then I DEFINITELY suggest doing the image method.

So we're not spreading "falsehoods" or saying "if you don't create an image your computer will blow up and your HDD will spontaneously combust". We're saying what CAN happen, and give advise to people who are unfamiliar with the technology to do it the "safest" way possible.

You do it your way, we'll keep doing it our way. If you want to suggest the direct disk-to-disk method - go ahead. PP and I however will keep suggesting our way. However, claiming we're spreading falsehoods is NOT true.

 

[strollin]

... I gave specific examples as to what happened when I once did a direct disk-to-disk clone ...

I've asked before but never got an answer. What makes you think that writing the image first would be safer? I keep pointing out that whatever happened during that disk-to-disk clone would be just as likely to happen during a disk-to-image backup since the process is exactly the same.

 

[carnageX]

I've asked before but never got an answer. What makes you think that writing the image first would be safer? I keep pointing out that whatever happened during that disk-to-disk clone would be just as likely to happen during a disk-to-image backup since the process is exactly the same.

Ok... I'll post it again...

The way the cloning software works, is when you do a disk-to-disk, is it moves the boot sector/partition/info/etc. over to the new disk right away. Thus, it is removed from the original drive, and put on the new drive.

Now, if something goes wrong during the clone (like what happened to me - something errored out and the clone wouldn't continue - can't remember what it was at the moment - either way, the entire clone wasn't finished). So, I decided to restart, but tried to boot into Windows first off of the original drive - no dice. Wouldn't boot into Windows because the bootloader was moved. Even with both drives in, and the bootloader on the new drive. Tried booting off of the new drive - and guess what? No boot! So, I decided, "well hey, I have a Win7 disc, I'll just write the bootloader/sector back to the original drive!" Which I figured would work... but for some reason it wasn't working. Tried everything I could think of, and googled extensively. Eventually, after rebuilding the bootloader several times through bcdedit, messing with GUID's and such... I finally got it to boot. However, somehow during this the boot drive letter also got changed, so I had to dive into the registry to change this back - took several hours for all of this. Now, you may be asking yourself "why didn't you just reformat and reinstall Windows?" Because he had software installed that he didn't have install discs for anymore that was licensed and such.

Disk-To-Image it does NOT remove this information, but only READS it and saves it to the image, leaving the source drive UNTOUCHED.

Now, this is how CloneZilla works - I don't know if Ghost works this way, nor Acronis. However, I use CloneZilla because it's free, and has advanced settings that I use from time-to-time.

Now you see why I suggest using Disk-To-Image? Because if something goes wrong, and the boot info is moved, you could be stuck between a rock and a hard place in trying to rebuild the boot info / get Windows back up and running. Essentially. LESS RISK INVOLVED.

 

[strollin]

If that's the way Clonezilla actually works then I would never recommend it to someone for cloning. There is no reason for the Boot record info to be moved to the new drive, only copied. Cloning should not make any changes to the source drive, it should always remain bootable. Can you point me to somewhere that describes that Clonezilla works this way? I looked around on the Clonezilla website but didn't find anything to confirm or deny that it works that way.

For the very reason you state as to why you recommend to do an image first:
It's one thing to clone HDD's when you know what you're doing in IT - it's another thing to do it when you don't know as much and have to ask how to do it. For the latter, then I DEFINITELY suggest doing the image method., I would not recommend Clonezilla. It's a very powerful program but entirely too complex with too many options for a less knowledgeable person to use.

 

[carnageX]

If that's the way Clonezilla actually works then I would never recommend it to someone for cloning. There is no reason for the Boot record info to be moved to the new drive, only copied. Cloning should not make any changes to the source drive, it should always remain bootable. Can you point me to somewhere that describes that Clonezilla works this way? I looked around on the Clonezilla website but didn't find anything to confirm or deny that it works that way.

The version I used did it - it asked me, so I said "Yes move it" because why not? I'm cloning the disk over. I didn't know it was going to do that up until it was already about to clone - they may have changed this and removed the functionality - I'm not sure.

For the very reason you state as to why you recommend to do an image first:
It's one thing to clone HDD's when you know what you're doing in IT - it's another thing to do it when you don't know as much and have to ask how to do it. For the latter, then I DEFINITELY suggest doing the image method., I would not recommend Clonezilla. It's a very powerful program but entirely too complex with too many options for a less knowledgeable person to use.

Those advanced, powerful options are only available if you select the advanced mode - otherwise it's selecting source disk, destination disk, what clone mode, and a few other optional parameters that don't really matter unless you're running Linux on the source drive.

I'm still going to recommend CloneZilla because of this, as well as it being free/open source, and still powerful. It's not the fault of the program - it's the fault of the user. And, no matter the cloning software, I'm going to continue suggest creating an image. You can hound me all you want and continue to scream blasphemy at me... but I'm still going to do it because there's nothing wrong with EITHER method. The way PP and I suggest is merely an extra layer.