[solved]: To clone or to image?

[mistermike]

Hello all!. Firstly, I'm an older member, not new as displayed, but am unable to sign in with previous credentials jfyi, so have created a new account. I'm mentioning this to clarify that Linux and I have been buds for about 10 years.

I have Mint solely on a laptop, a dual boot Win 10/ Unbuntu 18 on a newer desktop (both are running fine... no problems there). The problem is with my older machine that I am upgrading.

I am into some real dodo with this older one and have many questions about where-to-go-what-to-do as far as recovering some video files.

So, firstly, can someone please explain the diff between cloning and imaging? My backup software is Macrium (runs in Win), and gives me a choice to either clone or image. I have tried Linux backup software, but do not know how to or where to restore the multitude of duplicity 50mb files to., so discovered Macrium (not spamming) which is simple and intuitve. YET, it gives me a choice to clone or to image. ???.

Once I get this straightened, I'll start other threads concerning a boot problem on Linux machine. The underlying question here is I am wondering if the current glitch in ubuntu will replicate itself (once and if i need to at all - recover the old Linux files).
I'll get much deeper and to the root of my problem once the forum can settle the first bit.

thks a great big bunch..

 

[JasKinasis]

I'm not familiar with Macrium. But generally speaking - With cloning you end up copying everything on your hard drive - not just the files, but all of the data. The MBR and the allocation tables and partitions etc. Onto another hard drive.

So the second hard drive is an exact clone of the original. In the event that the first hard drive fails - you can simply pop in the cloned drive and boot up your PC.

With imaging, it's more like creating a massive zip archive containing all of the data on the original hard drive. And this massive archive is backed up as an "image" of the Original HD, onto a Separate backup drive. So what you get is a bitwise copy of the HD stored in a single archive file.

In the event of the original HD failing, you'd need to use something like dd (or your backup manager software) to "burn" the backup image file onto a new HD and then boot.

Or if the original HD became corrupt, you can use dd (or your backup manager) to overwrite the data on the original HD with your backup "image".

So they are both very similar operations, but which to choose is entirely up to you!

 

[atanere]

Use caution, and read your software instructions and warnings carefully. "Cloning" a hard drive to another hard drive may ERASE EVERYTHING on the destination drive. Many people have learned that lesson the hard way.

Making an image is usually the safer way, but still... you need to know your tools to prevent disasters with your data.

Good luck!

 

[Drizzit89]

Imaging could also be referring to the writing or putting the data, the reverse of cloning, to a hard drive and can make the previous data on the drive unavailable.

If the old computer's drive is not encrypted or the password for the drive is known, I would attach the drive to the Ubuntu computer and parse the files and copy them from the old drive to a new drive or Ubuntu.

There shouldn't be a need to use cloning/imaging software. That's one of the great things about Linux, it knows enough about most file systems to detect and parse the directories and files correctly.

 

[mistermike]

I'm not familiar with Macrium. But generally speaking - With cloning you end up copying everything on your hard drive - not just the files, but all of the data. The MBR and the allocation tables and partitions etc. Onto another hard drive.

So the second hard drive is an exact clone of the original. In the event that the first hard drive fails - you can simply pop in the cloned drive and boot up your PC.

With imaging, it's more like creating a massive zip archive containing all of the data on the original hard drive. And this massive archive is backed up as an "image" of the Original HD, onto a Separate backup drive. So what you get is a bitwise copy of the HD stored in a single archive file.

In the event of the original HD failing, you'd need to use something like dd (or your backup manager software) to "burn" the backup image file onto a new HD and then boot.

Or if the original HD became corrupt, you can use dd (or your backup manager) to overwrite the data on the original HD with your backup "image".

So they are both very similar operations, but which to choose is entirely up to you!

enlightening!

No hdd failure here, or corrupted drive. The goal was to copy my c drive in entirety to a new ssd. In which doing, i met with success. The funny thing in doing so, was that a new drive (letter ? was created, this being very small. I could send a screencap i suppose would clarify but for now, seems this very small new (virtual?) drive is responsible for keeping things sorted what with having now 2 drives running with same contents. interesting.
I unlugged my original cdrive sata and plugged in the new ssd drive in that slot on moboard and voila. spanky new fast s state c drive with all my stuff, including my unbootable ubuntu partition. happy happy happy. (I cloned, (twice) both to new ssd and to an external drive . clear skies! thanks for input all.

 

[mistermike]

Use caution, and read your software instructions and warnings carefully. "Cloning" a hard drive to another hard drive may ERASE EVERYTHING on the destination drive. Many people have learned that lesson the hard way.

Making an image is usually the safer way, but still... you need to know your tools to prevent disasters with your data.

Good luck!

oh i get it now. i see. yes. cloning would require formatting and erasure, unlike creating an iso . good point. but in my case, i was working with new blank empty drive to which i wanted to copy everything so didnt matter in this case. thanks for the input. everything honky dory now.