1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Restoring an image after repartitioning the image restore drive?

Discussion in 'Windows XP' started by Bill in Co., Feb 11, 2010.

  1. Bill in Co.

    Bill in Co. Flightless Bird

    I'm a little confused about this:

    I save several (different-dated) system images on my backup drive, with a
    pretty large partition reserved just for storing those system drive (C: )
    images (the rest of the space on that drive is still unallocated).

    Now suppose I increase the size of the partition on the backup drive (which
    stores those images) to make more room for more of them, and subsequently
    save a few more backup images. Ok, no problem so far.

    But now if decide to restore a much earlier image (where the partition size
    on the backup drive was previously allocated as being much smaller), will I
    then lose the ability to access the newer and later image,s where I had
    later expanded the partition?

    I'm guessing it won't be a problem, and after the system reboots to restore
    the system drive backup, BIOS will report the new partition size to windows,
    and there won't be an issue, but I'm not sure of this.
     
  2. Pegasus [MVP]

    Pegasus [MVP] Flightless Bird

    "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> said this in news item
    news:u$6qml1qKHA.5896@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
    > I'm a little confused about this:
    >
    > I save several (different-dated) system images on my backup drive, with a
    > pretty large partition reserved just for storing those system drive (C: )
    > images (the rest of the space on that drive is still unallocated).
    >
    > Now suppose I increase the size of the partition on the backup drive
    > (which stores those images) to make more room for more of them, and
    > subsequently save a few more backup images. Ok, no problem so far.
    >
    > But now if decide to restore a much earlier image (where the partition
    > size on the backup drive was previously allocated as being much smaller),
    > will I then lose the ability to access the newer and later image,s where I
    > had later expanded the partition?
    >
    > I'm guessing it won't be a problem, and after the system reboots to
    > restore the system drive backup, BIOS will report the new partition size
    > to windows, and there won't be an issue, but I'm not sure of this.


    The answer hinges on the program used to create the image (which you never
    mention). Good programs, e.g. Acronis True Image, will restore any image to
    any partition, as long as it is sufficiently large to hold the data. Bad
    ones will require a target partition that is the same size as the original
    partition.

    Your question implies that you never tested your imaging facility. This
    greatly reduces its value. Any backup process is only worth its name if it
    gets tested at setup time and then again once or twice each year. I have
    seen numerous instances of people backing up their data religiously for
    months or years, only to find that the backups were unusable because of some
    setup error.
     
  3. Bill in Co.

    Bill in Co. Flightless Bird

    Pegasus [MVP] wrote:
    > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> said this in news item
    > news:u$6qml1qKHA.5896@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
    >> I'm a little confused about this:
    >>
    >> I save several (different-dated) system images on my backup drive, with a
    >> pretty large partition reserved just for storing those system drive (C: )
    >> images (the rest of the space on that drive is still unallocated).
    >>
    >> Now suppose I increase the size of the partition on the backup drive
    >> (which stores those images) to make more room for more of them, and
    >> subsequently save a few more backup images. Ok, no problem so far.
    >>
    >> But now if decide to restore a much earlier image (where the partition
    >> size on the backup drive was previously allocated as being much smaller),
    >> will I then lose the ability to access the newer and later image,s where
    >> I
    >> had later expanded the partition?
    >>
    >> I'm guessing it won't be a problem, and after the system reboots to
    >> restore the system drive backup, BIOS will report the new partition size
    >> to windows, and there won't be an issue, but I'm not sure of this.

    >
    > The answer hinges on the program used to create the image (which you never
    > mention). Good programs, e.g. Acronis True Image, will restore any image
    > to
    > any partition, as long as it is sufficiently large to hold the data. Bad
    > ones will require a target partition that is the same size as the original
    > partition.


    I'm not sure if we're on the same page on this, but I think so. But just
    to be sure:
    The problem I'm mentioning may come about due to the recorded size of the
    partition as it was specified within the system image backup itself, and
    what happens if you restore an image which has embedded within it a
    different allocation size, since that information is stored within each of
    the image backups. Maybe we're saying the same thing though, and it's not
    an issue (with Acronis).

    > Your question implies that you never tested your imaging facility. This
    > greatly reduces its value. Any backup process is only worth its name if it
    > gets tested at setup time and then again once or twice each year. I have
    > seen numerous instances of people backing up their data religiously for
    > months or years, only to find that the backups were unusable because of
    > some
    > setup error.


    I'm using Acronis True Image.

    No, I've tested the restore capability on numerous times, and it's been
    working great, but I have not done the specific test mentioned above.

    That is, I haven't yet enlarged my system backup's partition size, stored
    some more images, and then tried restoring an earlier system backup image
    (where the recorded partition size was much smaller).

    Since the backup drive's partition size info is stored within each image, I
    can see how it might be a problem, and perhaps render unobtainable any
    images stored beyond the original partition size (as recorded in that
    image). Does that explain it?
     
  4. Bill in Co.

    Bill in Co. Flightless Bird

    Pegasus, let me ask again, since I'm still not clear about this, and I'd
    rather find out here than after the fact:

    Pegasus [MVP] wrote:
    > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> said this in news item
    > news:u$6qml1qKHA.5896@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
    >> I'm a little confused about this:
    >>
    >> I save several (different-dated) system images on my backup drive, with a
    >> pretty large partition reserved just for storing those system drive (C: )
    >> images (the rest of the space on that drive is still unallocated).
    >>
    >> Now suppose I increase the size of the partition on the backup drive
    >> (which stores those images) to make more room for more of them, and
    >> subsequently save a few more backup images. Ok, no problem so far.
    >>
    >> But now if decide to restore a much earlier image (where the partition
    >> size on the backup drive was previously allocated as being much smaller),
    >> will I then lose the ability to access the newer and later image,s where
    >> I had later expanded the partition?
    >>
    >> I'm guessing it won't be a problem, and after the system reboots to
    >> restore the system drive backup, BIOS will report the new partition size
    >> to windows, and there won't be an issue, but I'm not sure of this.

    >
    > The answer hinges on the program used to create the image (which you never
    > mention). Good programs, e.g. Acronis True Image, will restore any image
    > to any partition, as long as it is sufficiently large to hold the data.
    > Bad
    > ones will require a target partition that is the same size as the original
    > partition.


    The problem I'm thinking of may come about due to the recorded size of the
    system partition *as specified within the system image backup itself*, and
    what happens if you restore an image which has embedded within it a
    different partition allocation size (since that information is stored within
    each of
    the image backups). Keep in mind I'm restoring my system drive C:, so it's
    critical what exactly related to this was stored in that restored image (at
    the time it was taken). More on that below.

    > Your question implies that you never tested your imaging facility. This
    > greatly reduces its value. Any backup process is only worth its name if it
    > gets tested at setup time and then again once or twice each year. I have
    > seen numerous instances of people backing up their data religiously for
    > months or years, only to find that the backups were unusable because of
    > some setup error.


    I'm using Acronis True Image.
    No, I've tested the system restore capability on numerous times, and it's
    been
    working great, BUT I have not done the specific test mentioned above.
    That is, I haven't yet enlarged my system backup's partition size, stored
    some more images, and then tried restoring an earlier system backup image
    where the recorded backup partition size was smaller, so that any
    information beyond that partition size may be unavailable now.

    In other words, since the backup drive's partition size is stored within
    each image, I can see how it might be a problem, and perhaps render
    unobtainable any
    images stored beyond the original partition size (as recorded in that
    image).

    That is, after rebooting to restore the system drive image, the backup drive
    will now show the original partition size (since that was stored in its
    image), and not the newly enlarged one, so that any images stored after that
    are effectively unavailable, since the partition size is set back to the
    original (smaller) size as far as windows is concerned. Does that explain
    it?
     
  5. Pegasus [MVP]

    Pegasus [MVP] Flightless Bird

    "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> said this in news item
    news:#nMWS3DrKHA.3536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    > Pegasus, let me ask again, since I'm still not clear about this, and I'd
    > rather find out here than after the fact:
    >
    > Pegasus [MVP] wrote:
    >> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> said this in news item
    >> news:u$6qml1qKHA.5896@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
    >>> I'm a little confused about this:
    >>>
    >>> I save several (different-dated) system images on my backup drive, with
    >>> a
    >>> pretty large partition reserved just for storing those system drive
    >>> (C: )
    >>> images (the rest of the space on that drive is still unallocated).
    >>>
    >>> Now suppose I increase the size of the partition on the backup drive
    >>> (which stores those images) to make more room for more of them, and
    >>> subsequently save a few more backup images. Ok, no problem so far.
    >>>
    >>> But now if decide to restore a much earlier image (where the partition
    >>> size on the backup drive was previously allocated as being much
    >>> smaller),
    >>> will I then lose the ability to access the newer and later image,s where
    >>> I had later expanded the partition?
    >>>
    >>> I'm guessing it won't be a problem, and after the system reboots to
    >>> restore the system drive backup, BIOS will report the new partition size
    >>> to windows, and there won't be an issue, but I'm not sure of this.

    >>
    >> The answer hinges on the program used to create the image (which you
    >> never
    >> mention). Good programs, e.g. Acronis True Image, will restore any image
    >> to any partition, as long as it is sufficiently large to hold the data.
    >> Bad
    >> ones will require a target partition that is the same size as the
    >> original
    >> partition.

    >
    > The problem I'm thinking of may come about due to the recorded size of the
    > system partition *as specified within the system image backup itself*, and
    > what happens if you restore an image which has embedded within it a
    > different partition allocation size (since that information is stored
    > within each of
    > the image backups). Keep in mind I'm restoring my system drive C:, so
    > it's critical what exactly related to this was stored in that restored
    > image (at the time it was taken). More on that below.
    >
    >> Your question implies that you never tested your imaging facility. This
    >> greatly reduces its value. Any backup process is only worth its name if
    >> it
    >> gets tested at setup time and then again once or twice each year. I have
    >> seen numerous instances of people backing up their data religiously for
    >> months or years, only to find that the backups were unusable because of
    >> some setup error.

    >
    > I'm using Acronis True Image.
    > No, I've tested the system restore capability on numerous times, and it's
    > been
    > working great, BUT I have not done the specific test mentioned above.
    > That is, I haven't yet enlarged my system backup's partition size, stored
    > some more images, and then tried restoring an earlier system backup image
    > where the recorded backup partition size was smaller, so that any
    > information beyond that partition size may be unavailable now.
    >
    > In other words, since the backup drive's partition size is stored within
    > each image, I can see how it might be a problem, and perhaps render
    > unobtainable any
    > images stored beyond the original partition size (as recorded in that
    > image).
    >
    > That is, after rebooting to restore the system drive image, the backup
    > drive will now show the original partition size (since that was stored in
    > its image), and not the newly enlarged one, so that any images stored
    > after that are effectively unavailable, since the partition size is set
    > back to the original (smaller) size as far as windows is concerned. Does
    > that explain it?


    Early versions of PQ Magic (from PowerQuest) would restore images to a
    partition that would be the same size as the original partition. Restoring
    to a smaller partition was impossible, even if the amount of data would have
    allowed it. Later versions of the product overcame this limitation, as did
    all versions of Acronis Drive Image. However, if you need to be sure without
    a trace of doubt then you must test this claim yourself rather than relying
    on the advice given by a stranger.
     
  6. Bill in Co.

    Bill in Co. Flightless Bird

    Pegasus [MVP] wrote:
    > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> said this in news item
    > news:#nMWS3DrKHA.3536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    >> Pegasus, let me ask again, since I'm still not clear about this, and I'd
    >> rather find out here than after the fact:


    OR anyone else if they can understand what I'm asking about. More
    below...

    >> Pegasus [MVP] wrote:
    >>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> said this in news item
    >>> news:u$6qml1qKHA.5896@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
    >>>> I'm a little confused about this:
    >>>>
    >>>> I save several (different-dated) system images on my backup drive, with
    >>>> a pretty large partition reserved just for storing those system drive
    >>>> (C: ) images (the rest of the space on that drive is still
    >>>> unallocated).
    >>>>
    >>>> Now suppose I increase the size of the partition on the backup drive
    >>>> (which stores those images) to make more room for more of them, and
    >>>> subsequently save a few more backup images. Ok, no problem so far.
    >>>>
    >>>> But now if decide to restore a much earlier image (where the partition
    >>>> size on the backup drive was previously allocated as being much
    >>>> smaller),
    >>>> will I then lose the ability to access the newer and later image,s
    >>>> where
    >>>> I had later expanded the partition?
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm guessing it won't be a problem, and after the system reboots to
    >>>> restore the system drive backup, BIOS will report the new partition
    >>>> size
    >>>> to windows, and there won't be an issue, but I'm not sure of this.
    >>>
    >>> The answer hinges on the program used to create the image (which you
    >>> never
    >>> mention). Good programs, e.g. Acronis True Image, will restore any image
    >>> to any partition, as long as it is sufficiently large to hold the data.
    >>> Bad ones will require a target partition that is the same size as the
    >>> original partition.

    >>
    >> The problem I'm thinking of may come about due to the recorded size of
    >> the
    >> system partition *as specified within the system image backup itself*,
    >> and
    >> what happens if you restore an image which has embedded within it a
    >> different partition allocation size (since that information is stored
    >> within each of
    >> the image backups). Keep in mind I'm restoring my system drive C:, so
    >> it's critical what exactly related to this was stored in that restored
    >> image (at the time it was taken). More on that below.
    >>
    >>> Your question implies that you never tested your imaging facility. This
    >>> greatly reduces its value. Any backup process is only worth its name if
    >>> it
    >>> gets tested at setup time and then again once or twice each year. I have
    >>> seen numerous instances of people backing up their data religiously for
    >>> months or years, only to find that the backups were unusable because of
    >>> some setup error.

    >>
    >> I'm using Acronis True Image.
    >> No, I've tested the system restore capability on numerous times, and it's
    >> been
    >> working great, BUT I have not done the specific test mentioned above.
    >> That is, I haven't yet enlarged my system backup's partition size, stored
    >> some more images, and then tried restoring an earlier system backup image
    >> where the recorded backup partition size was smaller, so that any
    >> information beyond that partition size may be unavailable now.
    >>
    >> In other words, since the backup drive's partition size is stored within
    >> each image, I can see how it might be a problem, and perhaps render
    >> unobtainable any
    >> images stored beyond the original partition size (as recorded in that
    >> image).
    >>
    >> That is, after rebooting to restore the system drive image, the backup
    >> drive will now show the original partition size (since that was stored in
    >> its image), and not the newly enlarged one, so that any images stored
    >> after that are effectively unavailable, since the partition size is set
    >> back to the original (smaller) size as far as windows is concerned.
    >> Does
    >> that explain it?

    >
    > Early versions of PQ Magic (from PowerQuest) would restore images to a
    > partition that would be the same size as the original partition. Restoring
    > to a smaller partition was impossible, even if the amount of data would
    > have
    > allowed it.


    But that's not what I was asking about, Pegasus. My C: source drive is -
    and has remained - unchanged in its partition allocations. I'm not talking
    about that drive.

    The ONLY thing I would have changed would be the size of the partition
    allocated on the BACKUP drive used to store the images to make more room.
    So it's not a question of restoring to a drive with insufficient room.

    But again, I thought this operation might be problematic, as every time you
    restore an image, it also (presumably) restores the information on the
    partition sizes of all drives, and as far as windows is concerned, the
    backup partition size may then look as small as it originally was after
    restoring an earlier image, thus rendering any subsequent images stored on
    the backup drive, inaccessible. Does that clarify what I'm asking? I
    just am trying to understand this better.

    OR - maybe the partition size of the backup drive is completely immaterial
    after restoring any image from any other drive, as BIOS, and then windows,
    automatically takes care of the changes after the system drive reboots to
    complete the restore operation, so that the larger partition recently
    created on the backup drive will be recognized (and the later images
    accessible).
     
  7. Anna

    Anna Flightless Bird

    "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:u$6qml1qKHA.5896@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
    > I'm a little confused about this:
    >
    > I save several (different-dated) system images on my backup drive, with a
    > pretty large partition reserved just for storing those system drive (C: )
    > images (the rest of the space on that drive is still unallocated).
    >
    > Now suppose I increase the size of the partition on the backup drive
    > (which stores those images) to make more room for more of them, and
    > subsequently save a few more backup images. Ok, no problem so far.
    >
    > But now if decide to restore a much earlier image (where the partition
    > size on the backup drive was previously allocated as being much smaller),
    > will I then lose the ability to access the newer and later image,s where I
    > had later expanded the partition?
    >
    > I'm guessing it won't be a problem, and after the system reboots to
    > restore the system drive backup, BIOS will report the new partition size
    > to windows, and there won't be an issue, but I'm not sure of this.


    (Bill adds...)
    > The problem I'm mentioning may come about due to the recorded size of the
    > partition as it was specified within the system image backup itself, and
    > what happens if you restore an image which has embedded within it a
    > different allocation size, since that information is stored within each of
    > the image backups. Maybe we're saying the same thing though, and it's
    > not an issue (with Acronis).


    > I'm using Acronis True Image.
    >
    > No, I've tested the restore capability on numerous times, and it's been
    > working great, but I have not done the specific test mentioned above.
    >
    > That is, I haven't yet enlarged my system backup's partition size, stored
    > some more images, and then tried restoring an earlier system backup image
    > (where the recorded partition size was much smaller).
    >
    > Since the backup drive's partition size info is stored within each image,
    > I can see how it might be a problem, and perhaps render unobtainable any
    > images stored beyond the original partition size (as recorded in that
    > image). Does that explain it?


    > My C: source drive is - and has remained - unchanged in its partition
    > allocations. I'm not talking about that drive.
    >
    > The ONLY thing I would have changed would be the size of the partition
    > allocated on the BACKUP drive used to store the images to make more room.
    > So it's not a question of restoring to a drive with insufficient room.
    >
    > But again, I thought this operation might be problematic, as every time
    > you restore an image, it also (presumably) restores the information on the
    > partition sizes of all drives, and as far as windows is concerned, the
    > backup partition size may then look as small as it originally was after
    > restoring an earlier image, thus rendering any subsequent images stored on
    > the backup drive, inaccessible. Does that clarify what I'm asking? I
    > just am trying to understand this better.
    >
    > OR - maybe the partition size of the backup drive is completely immaterial
    > after restoring any image from any other drive, as BIOS, and then windows,
    > automatically takes care of the changes after the system drive reboots to
    > complete the restore operation, so that the larger partition recently
    > created on the backup drive will be recognized (and the later images
    > accessible).



    Bill:
    Based on previous posts between us re this general subject of
    disk-cloning/disk-imaging issues I'm pretty sure you're aware that I use the
    disk-imaging capability of the Acronis True Image program on a very
    infrequent basis (more for experimentation and resolving user problems for
    the most part). Again, as I think you know, I much prefer the Casper
    disk-cloning program as a vehicle for the great majority of PC users in
    establishing & maintaining a comprehensive backup program of their systems.
    I only mention the preceding because while I believe my following comments
    are factual as they relate to the ATI program in general, take into account
    the fact that I haven't had extensive experience with recent versions of the
    ATI program.

    Obviously you're maintaining "generational" copies (backups) of your
    day-to-day working HDD. (As an aside this is the one particular area (in our
    view) where generally speaking a disk-imaging program will serve the user's
    needs better than a disk-cloning program.)

    It's hard to imagine that the size of the partition you established on your
    "destination" HDD serving to contain the various disk-images
    (files/archives) will have any relevance (impact) bearing on the potential
    problem/issue you've raised. Obviously all that's required re the size of
    the partition you create on the external HDD is that it be large enough to
    contain the disk-image files/archives you've created over a period of time.
    And if & when it becomes necessary to increase the size of that partition to
    contain add'l disk-image files/archives it's relatively simple to do so as
    you know. And the additional size of the partition should have no impact on
    the already-contained disk-image files/archives stored on the partition in
    terms of any future restoration process involving *any* of those
    disk-images.

    Thus the size of the destination partition is really of no consequence as
    related to the restoration operation (as I believe you suspect). The fact
    that you may have increased the size of the partition following any number
    of previous disk-image files/archives stored on the previous smaller-sized
    partition is of no relevance as it pertains to any future restoration
    process.

    It simply doesn't matter which one of the "x" number of disk-image
    files/archives residing on the external drive's partition you select for
    restoration purposes. Obviously all that is necessary is that recipient HDD
    to be restored has sufficient disk space to accommodate the restoration
    process, the size of the destination drive's partition notwithstanding
    (regardless of whether it had been changed in size along the way).

    While I'm assuming my above comments are correct, again, I haven't worked in
    any extensive way with recent versions of the Acronis program so it's
    conceivable I may be "off-base" as they pertain to the issue you raised. If
    so, hopefully, someone more familiar with the program (including yourself!)
    will correct me.
    Anna
     
  8. Bill in Co.

    Bill in Co. Flightless Bird

    nna wrote:
    > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:u$6qml1qKHA.5896@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
    >> I'm a little confused about this:
    >>
    >> I save several (different-dated) system images on my backup drive, with a
    >> pretty large partition reserved just for storing those system drive (C: )
    >> images (the rest of the space on that drive is still unallocated).
    >>
    >> Now suppose I increase the size of the partition on the backup drive
    >> (which stores those images) to make more room for more of them, and
    >> subsequently save a few more backup images. Ok, no problem so far.
    >>
    >> But now if decide to restore a much earlier image (where the partition
    >> size on the backup drive was previously allocated as being much smaller),
    >> will I then lose the ability to access the newer and later image,s where
    >> I
    >> had later expanded the partition?
    >>
    >> I'm guessing it won't be a problem, and after the system reboots to
    >> restore the system drive backup, BIOS will report the new partition size
    >> to windows, and there won't be an issue, but I'm not sure of this.

    >
    > (Bill adds...)
    >> The problem I'm mentioning may come about due to the recorded size of the
    >> partition as it was specified within the system image backup itself, and
    >> what happens if you restore an image which has embedded within it a
    >> different allocation size, since that information is stored within each
    >> of
    >> the image backups. Maybe we're saying the same thing though, and it's
    >> not an issue (with Acronis).

    >
    >> I'm using Acronis True Image.
    >>
    >> No, I've tested the restore capability on numerous times, and it's been
    >> working great, but I have not done the specific test mentioned above.
    >>
    >> That is, I haven't yet enlarged my system backup's partition size, stored
    >> some more images, and then tried restoring an earlier system backup image
    >> (where the recorded partition size was much smaller).
    >>
    >> Since the backup drive's partition size info is stored within each image,
    >> I can see how it might be a problem, and perhaps render unobtainable any
    >> images stored beyond the original partition size (as recorded in that
    >> image). Does that explain it?

    >
    >> My C: source drive is - and has remained - unchanged in its partition
    >> allocations. I'm not talking about that drive.
    >>
    >> The ONLY thing I would have changed would be the size of the partition
    >> allocated on the BACKUP drive used to store the images to make more room.
    >> So it's not a question of restoring to a drive with insufficient room.
    >>
    >> But again, I thought this operation might be problematic, as every time
    >> you restore an image, it also (presumably) restores the information on
    >> the
    >> partition sizes of all drives, and as far as windows is concerned, the
    >> backup partition size may then look as small as it originally was after
    >> restoring an earlier image, thus rendering any subsequent images stored
    >> on
    >> the backup drive, inaccessible. Does that clarify what I'm asking? I
    >> just am trying to understand this better.
    >>
    >> OR - maybe the partition size of the backup drive is completely
    >> immaterial
    >> after restoring any image from any other drive, as BIOS, and then
    >> windows,
    >> automatically takes care of the changes after the system drive reboots to
    >> complete the restore operation, so that the larger partition recently
    >> created on the backup drive will be recognized (and the later images
    >> accessible).

    >
    >
    > Bill:
    > Based on previous posts between us re this general subject of
    > disk-cloning/disk-imaging issues I'm pretty sure you're aware that I use
    > the
    > disk-imaging capability of the Acronis True Image program on a very
    > infrequent basis (more for experimentation and resolving user problems for
    > the most part). Again, as I think you know, I much prefer the Casper
    > disk-cloning program as a vehicle for the great majority of PC users in
    > establishing & maintaining a comprehensive backup program of their
    > systems.
    > I only mention the preceding because while I believe my following comments
    > are factual as they relate to the ATI program in general, take into
    > account
    > the fact that I haven't had extensive experience with recent versions of
    > the
    > ATI program.
    >
    > Obviously you're maintaining "generational" copies (backups) of your
    > day-to-day working HDD. (As an aside this is the one particular area (in
    > our
    > view) where generally speaking a disk-imaging program will serve the
    > user's
    > needs better than a disk-cloning program.)
    >
    > It's hard to imagine that the size of the partition you established on
    > your
    > "destination" HDD serving to contain the various disk-images
    > (files/archives) will have any relevance (impact) bearing on the potential
    > problem/issue you've raised. Obviously all that's required re the size of
    > the partition you create on the external HDD is that it be large enough to
    > contain the disk-image files/archives you've created over a period of
    > time.
    > And if & when it becomes necessary to increase the size of that partition
    > to
    > contain add'l disk-image files/archives it's relatively simple to do so as
    > you know. And the additional size of the partition should have no impact
    > on
    > the already-contained disk-image files/archives stored on the partition in
    > terms of any future restoration process involving *any* of those
    > disk-images.
    >
    > Thus the size of the destination partition is really of no consequence as
    > related to the restoration operation (as I believe you suspect). The fact
    > that you may have increased the size of the partition following any number
    > of previous disk-image files/archives stored on the previous smaller-sized
    > partition is of no relevance as it pertains to any future restoration
    > process.
    >
    > It simply doesn't matter which one of the "x" number of disk-image
    > files/archives residing on the external drive's partition you select for
    > restoration purposes. Obviously all that is necessary is that recipient
    > HDD
    > to be restored has sufficient disk space to accommodate the restoration
    > process, the size of the destination drive's partition notwithstanding
    > (regardless of whether it had been changed in size along the way).
    >
    > While I'm assuming my above comments are correct, again, I haven't worked
    > in
    > any extensive way with recent versions of the Acronis program so it's
    > conceivable I may be "off-base" as they pertain to the issue you raised.
    > If
    > so, hopefully, someone more familiar with the program (including
    > yourself!)
    > will correct me.
    > Anna


    Hi Anna, thanks for the reply. But I think I'm having difficulty getting
    my point across. The issue I'm getting at is not a matter of insufficient
    disk space for storing the images, but that seems to be what I am having a
    hard time getting across.

    The issue is this:
    When one restores an image of their system drive partition (C:), also
    included within that image I presume is the previously stored information
    about the backup drive's partition size *as it was at the time that image
    was taken*, which in my mind may present a problem:

    Let me give a specific example. Suppose the backup drive originally has a
    100 GB partition reserved to store my system drive image backups. And I
    keep saving generational images of my system drive to that 100 GB partition.
    Naturally after a few backups, it fills up (keep in mind these images are of
    the entire C: partition of my source drive which stores all programs, etc.
    Typically the image size is around 15 GB per image).

    OK, it gets full now, so I now decide to expand the backup partition size to
    150 GB to make room for more generational images. So far, so good, and I
    can safely store more generational backup images.

    Now suppose I decide to restore a very early system drive image, which had
    been stored when the backup partition size *was recorded as being 100 GB*.

    OK, that image should be restored successfully (after rebooting), I expect -
    no problems so far.

    BUT - now if I look at the backup drive in windows explorer, will it appear
    to be only 100 GB in size (since THAT was the backup partition size
    information that was originally "recorded" in its image), OR will the backup
    drive correctly appear to be 150 GB (which is what it should be), and allow
    thus access to all the later images? Remember, strictly speaking, if I
    restore an earlier system drive image, at that time the backup drive
    partition size was onlt set at 100 GB in size, so that's what windows may
    now think it is, after restoring that image.

    IOW, I'm assuming that restoring an image can impact partition size
    information, but that may be an incorrect assumptionm
     
  9. Anna

    Anna Flightless Bird


    >> Anna wrote:
    >> Bill:
    >> Based on previous posts between us re this general subject of
    >> disk-cloning/disk-imaging issues I'm pretty sure you're aware that I use
    >> the disk-imaging capability of the Acronis True Image program on a very
    >> infrequent basis (more for experimentation and resolving user problems
    >> for
    >> the most part). Again, as I think you know, I much prefer the Casper
    >> disk-cloning program as a vehicle for the great majority of PC users in
    >> establishing & maintaining a comprehensive backup program of their
    >> systems. I only mention the preceding because while I believe my
    >> following comments
    >> are factual as they relate to the ATI program in general, take into
    >> account the fact that I haven't had extensive experience with recent
    >> versions of the ATI program.
    >>
    >> Obviously you're maintaining "generational" copies (backups) of your
    >> day-to-day working HDD. (As an aside this is the one particular area (in
    >> our view) where generally speaking a disk-imaging program will serve the
    >> user's needs better than a disk-cloning program.)
    >>
    >> It's hard to imagine that the size of the partition you established on
    >> your "destination" HDD serving to contain the various disk-images
    >> (files/archives) will have any relevance (impact) bearing on the
    >> potential
    >> problem/issue you've raised. Obviously all that's required re the size of
    >> the partition you create on the external HDD is that it be large enough
    >> to
    >> contain the disk-image files/archives you've created over a period of
    >> time. And if & when it becomes necessary to increase the size of that
    >> partition to contain add'l disk-image files/archives it's relatively
    >> simple to do so as
    >> you know. And the additional size of the partition should have no impact
    >> on the already-contained disk-image files/archives stored on the
    >> partition in
    >> terms of any future restoration process involving *any* of those
    >> disk-images.
    >>
    >> Thus the size of the destination partition is really of no consequence as
    >> related to the restoration operation (as I believe you suspect). The fact
    >> that you may have increased the size of the partition following any
    >> number
    >> of previous disk-image files/archives stored on the previous
    >> smaller-sized
    >> partition is of no relevance as it pertains to any future restoration
    >> process.
    >>
    >> It simply doesn't matter which one of the "x" number of disk-image
    >> files/archives residing on the external drive's partition you select for
    >> restoration purposes. Obviously all that is necessary is that recipient
    >> HDD to be restored has sufficient disk space to accommodate the
    >> restoration
    >> process, the size of the destination drive's partition notwithstanding
    >> (regardless of whether it had been changed in size along the way).
    >>
    >> While I'm assuming my above comments are correct, again, I haven't worked
    >> in any extensive way with recent versions of the Acronis program so it's
    >> conceivable I may be "off-base" as they pertain to the issue you raised.
    >> If so, hopefully, someone more familiar with the program (including
    >> yourself!) will correct me.



    "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:%23Xt45hbrKHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    >> Anna

    >
    > Hi Anna, thanks for the reply. But I think I'm having difficulty
    > getting my point across. The issue I'm getting at is not a matter of
    > insufficient disk space for storing the images, but that seems to be what
    > I am having a hard time getting across.
    >
    > The issue is this:
    > When one restores an image of their system drive partition (C:), also
    > included within that image I presume is the previously stored information
    > about the backup drive's partition size *as it was at the time that image
    > was taken*, which in my mind may present a problem:
    >
    > Let me give a specific example. Suppose the backup drive originally has
    > a 100 GB partition reserved to store my system drive image backups. And
    > I keep saving generational images of my system drive to that 100 GB
    > partition. Naturally after a few backups, it fills up (keep in mind these
    > images are of the entire C: partition of my source drive which stores all
    > programs, etc. Typically the image size is around 15 GB per image).
    >
    > OK, it gets full now, so I now decide to expand the backup partition size
    > to 150 GB to make room for more generational images. So far, so good,
    > and I can safely store more generational backup images.
    >
    > Now suppose I decide to restore a very early system drive image, which had
    > been stored when the backup partition size *was recorded as being 100 GB*.
    >
    > OK, that image should be restored successfully (after rebooting), I
    > expect - no problems so far.
    >
    > BUT - now if I look at the backup drive in windows explorer, will it
    > appear to be only 100 GB in size (since THAT was the backup partition size
    > information that was originally "recorded" in its image), OR will the
    > backup drive correctly appear to be 150 GB (which is what it should be),
    > and allow thus access to all the later images? Remember, strictly
    > speaking, if I restore an earlier system drive image, at that time the
    > backup drive partition size was onlt set at 100 GB in size, so that's what
    > windows may now think it is, after restoring that image.
    >
    > IOW, I'm assuming that restoring an image can impact partition size
    > information, but that may be an incorrect assumptionm



    Bill:
    The size of the partition on your destination HDD will not change unless you
    specifically create the change through a disk management type of program.
    Given your example, if the original size of that partition was 100 GB and
    you later expanded the partition to 150 GB to accommodate more disk-images
    (or for *any* reason), the size of that partition - now 150 GB will remain
    the same regardless that you've used one of the disk-images for restoration
    purposes. After all the disk-images are only files (or "archives") as
    Acronis defines them, yes? The fact that you may be using (for restoration
    purposes) one of those disk-images created at the time the destination
    partition was 100 GB is of no consequence, i.e., it does not impact the size
    of the partition that contains the disk-image file (archive).
    Anna
     
  10. Bill in Co.

    Bill in Co. Flightless Bird

    Anna wrote:
    >>> Anna wrote:
    >>> Bill:
    >>> Based on previous posts between us re this general subject of
    >>> disk-cloning/disk-imaging issues I'm pretty sure you're aware that I use
    >>> the disk-imaging capability of the Acronis True Image program on a very
    >>> infrequent basis (more for experimentation and resolving user problems
    >>> for
    >>> the most part). Again, as I think you know, I much prefer the Casper
    >>> disk-cloning program as a vehicle for the great majority of PC users in
    >>> establishing & maintaining a comprehensive backup program of their
    >>> systems. I only mention the preceding because while I believe my
    >>> following comments
    >>> are factual as they relate to the ATI program in general, take into
    >>> account the fact that I haven't had extensive experience with recent
    >>> versions of the ATI program.
    >>>
    >>> Obviously you're maintaining "generational" copies (backups) of your
    >>> day-to-day working HDD. (As an aside this is the one particular area (in
    >>> our view) where generally speaking a disk-imaging program will serve the
    >>> user's needs better than a disk-cloning program.)
    >>>
    >>> It's hard to imagine that the size of the partition you established on
    >>> your "destination" HDD serving to contain the various disk-images
    >>> (files/archives) will have any relevance (impact) bearing on the
    >>> potential
    >>> problem/issue you've raised. Obviously all that's required re the size
    >>> of
    >>> the partition you create on the external HDD is that it be large enough
    >>> to
    >>> contain the disk-image files/archives you've created over a period of
    >>> time. And if & when it becomes necessary to increase the size of that
    >>> partition to contain add'l disk-image files/archives it's relatively
    >>> simple to do so as
    >>> you know. And the additional size of the partition should have no impact
    >>> on the already-contained disk-image files/archives stored on the
    >>> partition in
    >>> terms of any future restoration process involving *any* of those
    >>> disk-images.
    >>>
    >>> Thus the size of the destination partition is really of no consequence
    >>> as
    >>> related to the restoration operation (as I believe you suspect). The
    >>> fact
    >>> that you may have increased the size of the partition following any
    >>> number
    >>> of previous disk-image files/archives stored on the previous
    >>> smaller-sized
    >>> partition is of no relevance as it pertains to any future restoration
    >>> process.
    >>>
    >>> It simply doesn't matter which one of the "x" number of disk-image
    >>> files/archives residing on the external drive's partition you select for
    >>> restoration purposes. Obviously all that is necessary is that recipient
    >>> HDD to be restored has sufficient disk space to accommodate the
    >>> restoration
    >>> process, the size of the destination drive's partition notwithstanding
    >>> (regardless of whether it had been changed in size along the way).
    >>>
    >>> While I'm assuming my above comments are correct, again, I haven't
    >>> worked
    >>> in any extensive way with recent versions of the Acronis program so it's
    >>> conceivable I may be "off-base" as they pertain to the issue you raised.
    >>> If so, hopefully, someone more familiar with the program (including
    >>> yourself!) will correct me.

    >
    >
    > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:%23Xt45hbrKHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    >>> Anna

    >>
    >> Hi Anna, thanks for the reply. But I think I'm having difficulty
    >> getting my point across. The issue I'm getting at is not a matter of
    >> insufficient disk space for storing the images, but that seems to be what
    >> I am having a hard time getting across.
    >>
    >> The issue is this:
    >> When one restores an image of their system drive partition (C:), also
    >> included within that image I presume is the previously stored information
    >> about the backup drive's partition size *as it was at the time that image
    >> was taken*, which in my mind may present a problem:
    >>
    >> Let me give a specific example. Suppose the backup drive originally has
    >> a 100 GB partition reserved to store my system drive image backups. And
    >> I keep saving generational images of my system drive to that 100 GB
    >> partition. Naturally after a few backups, it fills up (keep in mind these
    >> images are of the entire C: partition of my source drive which stores all
    >> programs, etc. Typically the image size is around 15 GB per image).
    >>
    >> OK, it gets full now, so I now decide to expand the backup partition size
    >> to 150 GB to make room for more generational images. So far, so good,
    >> and I can safely store more generational backup images.
    >>
    >> Now suppose I decide to restore a very early system drive image, which
    >> had
    >> been stored when the backup partition size *was recorded as being 100
    >> GB*.
    >>
    >> OK, that image should be restored successfully (after rebooting), I
    >> expect - no problems so far.
    >>
    >> BUT - now if I look at the backup drive in windows explorer, will it
    >> appear to be only 100 GB in size (since THAT was the backup partition
    >> size
    >> information that was originally "recorded" in its image), OR will the
    >> backup drive correctly appear to be 150 GB (which is what it should be),
    >> and allow thus access to all the later images? Remember, strictly
    >> speaking, if I restore an earlier system drive image, at that time the
    >> backup drive partition size was onlt set at 100 GB in size, so that's
    >> what
    >> windows may now think it is, after restoring that image.
    >>
    >> IOW, I'm assuming that restoring an image can impact partition size
    >> information, but that may be an incorrect assumptionm

    >
    >
    > Bill:
    > The size of the partition on your destination HDD will not change unless
    > you
    > specifically create the change through a disk management type of program.
    > Given your example, if the original size of that partition was 100 GB and
    > you later expanded the partition to 150 GB to accommodate more disk-images
    > (or for *any* reason), the size of that partition - now 150 GB will remain
    > the same regardless that you've used one of the disk-images for
    > restoration
    > purposes. After all the disk-images are only files (or "archives") as
    > Acronis defines them, yes? The fact that you may be using (for restoration
    > purposes) one of those disk-images created at the time the destination
    > partition was 100 GB is of no consequence, i.e., it does not impact the
    > size
    > of the partition that contains the disk-image file (archive).
    > Anna


    OK, I was thinking that the partition size is saved and recorded in the
    windows registry, which in turn is specified (its size) within the image
    backup, so that restoring an older image would reset the apparent size of
    the partition. Does that make sense?

    After all, the partition size of any drive is stored as a sequence of bytes
    somewhere (like in the registry, too, and THAT information was stored and
    recorded in the backup image). But maybe that partition size and
    allocation information is reread after rebooting (as it is reported *by BIOS
    into windows*), which then overrides any recordings of size in the old
    registry within the image backup.
     
  11. Pegasus [MVP]

    Pegasus [MVP] Flightless Bird

    "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> said this in news item
    news:#Xt45hbrKHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    <snip>
    > Hi Anna, thanks for the reply. But I think I'm having difficulty
    > getting my point across. The issue I'm getting at is not a matter of
    > insufficient disk space for storing the images, but that seems to be what
    > I am having a hard time getting across.
    >
    > The issue is this:
    > When one restores an image of their system drive partition (C:), also
    > included within that image I presume is the previously stored information
    > about the backup drive's partition size *as it was at the time that image
    > was taken*, which in my mind may present a problem:
    >
    > Let me give a specific example. Suppose the backup drive originally has
    > a 100 GB partition reserved to store my system drive image backups. And
    > I keep saving generational images of my system drive to that 100 GB
    > partition. Naturally after a few backups, it fills up (keep in mind these
    > images are of the entire C: partition of my source drive which stores all
    > programs, etc. Typically the image size is around 15 GB per image).
    >
    > OK, it gets full now, so I now decide to expand the backup partition size
    > to 150 GB to make room for more generational images. So far, so good,
    > and I can safely store more generational backup images.
    >
    > Now suppose I decide to restore a very early system drive image, which had
    > been stored when the backup partition size *was recorded as being 100 GB*.
    >
    > OK, that image should be restored successfully (after rebooting), I
    > expect - no problems so far.
    >
    > BUT - now if I look at the backup drive in windows explorer, will it
    > appear to be only 100 GB in size (since THAT was the backup partition size
    > information that was originally "recorded" in its image), OR will the
    > backup drive correctly appear to be 150 GB (which is what it should be),
    > and allow thus access to all the later images? Remember, strictly
    > speaking, if I restore an earlier system drive image, at that time the
    > backup drive partition size was onlt set at 100 GB in size, so that's what
    > windows may now think it is, after restoring that image.
    >
    > IOW, I'm assuming that restoring an image can impact partition size
    > information, but that may be an incorrect assumptionm


    Have you ever done any restorations from an image file? With Acronis you get
    the option of nominating the empty space to be used for the restored image,
    and the size of the resulting partition. I urge you to try this for
    yourself - it will answer most if not all of your questions.
     
  12. Bill in Co.

    Bill in Co. Flightless Bird

    Pegasus [MVP] wrote:
    > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> said this in news item
    > news:#Xt45hbrKHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    > <snip>
    >> Hi Anna, thanks for the reply. But I think I'm having difficulty
    >> getting my point across. The issue I'm getting at is not a matter of
    >> insufficient disk space for storing the images, but that seems to be what
    >> I am having a hard time getting across.
    >>
    >> The issue is this:
    >> When one restores an image of their system drive partition (C:), also
    >> included within that image I presume is the previously stored information
    >> about the backup drive's partition size *as it was at the time that image
    >> was taken*, which in my mind may present a problem:
    >>
    >> Let me give a specific example. Suppose the backup drive originally has
    >> a 100 GB partition reserved to store my system drive image backups. And
    >> I keep saving generational images of my system drive to that 100 GB
    >> partition. Naturally after a few backups, it fills up (keep in mind these
    >> images are of the entire C: partition of my source drive which stores all
    >> programs, etc. Typically the image size is around 15 GB per image).
    >>
    >> OK, it gets full now, so I now decide to expand the backup partition size
    >> to 150 GB to make room for more generational images. So far, so good,
    >> and I can safely store more generational backup images.
    >>
    >> Now suppose I decide to restore a very early system drive image, which
    >> had
    >> been stored when the backup partition size *was recorded as being 100
    >> GB*.
    >>
    >> OK, that image should be restored successfully (after rebooting), I
    >> expect - no problems so far.
    >>
    >> BUT - now if I look at the backup drive in windows explorer, will it
    >> appear to be only 100 GB in size (since THAT was the backup partition
    >> size
    >> information that was originally "recorded" in its image), OR will the
    >> backup drive correctly appear to be 150 GB (which is what it should be),
    >> and allow thus access to all the later images? Remember, strictly
    >> speaking, if I restore an earlier system drive image, at that time the
    >> backup drive partition size was only set at 100 GB in size, so that's
    >> what
    >> windows may now think it is, after restoring that image.
    >>
    >> IOW, I'm assuming that restoring an image can impact partition size
    >> information, but that may be an incorrect assumptionm

    >
    > Have you ever done any restorations from an image file?


    Very often. In fact, recently it's been weekly, due to all the tests I do.
    BUT I have not changed the backup partition allocation size as I haven't run
    out of room yet, but it may be getting close.

    > With Acronis you get
    > the option of nominating the empty space to be used for the restored
    > image,
    > and the size of the resulting partition.


    The "empty space to be used for the restored image"? I'm restoring my
    bootup drive partition (C:) *from* an image of that stored on my backup
    drive, which is NOT changing, so that wasn't in question here.

    What I *was* talking about was the (image recorded) partition size of the
    backup drive after rebooting, and not the source drive, which is receiving
    the restored image. The source drive partition (C:) is, and has remained,
    fixed at 40 GB, throughout all of this. That was never in debate.
     
  13. Twayne

    Twayne Flightless Bird

    In news:uvZXXUerKHA.3800@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
    Bill in Co. <not_really_here@earthlink.net> typed:
    > Pegasus [MVP] wrote:
    >> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> said this in news item
    >> news:#Xt45hbrKHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    >> <snip>
    >>> Hi Anna, thanks for the reply. But I think I'm having difficulty
    >>> getting my point across. The issue I'm getting at is not a matter
    >>> of insufficient disk space for storing the images, but that seems
    >>> to be what I am having a hard time getting across.
    >>>
    >>> The issue is this:
    >>> When one restores an image of their system drive partition (C:),
    >>> also included within that image I presume is the previously stored
    >>> information about the backup drive's partition size *as it was at
    >>> the time that image was taken*, which in my mind may present a
    >>> problem: Let me give a specific example. Suppose the backup drive
    >>> originally has a 100 GB partition reserved to store my system drive
    >>> image backups. And I keep saving generational images of my system
    >>> drive to that 100 GB partition. Naturally after a few backups, it
    >>> fills up (keep in mind these images are of the entire C: partition
    >>> of my source drive which stores all programs, etc. Typically the
    >>> image size is around 15 GB per image). OK, it gets full now, so I now
    >>> decide to expand the backup
    >>> partition size to 150 GB to make room for more generational images.
    >>> So far, so good, and I can safely store more generational backup
    >>> images. Now suppose I decide to restore a very early system drive image,
    >>> which had
    >>> been stored when the backup partition size *was recorded as being
    >>> 100 GB*.
    >>>
    >>> OK, that image should be restored successfully (after rebooting), I
    >>> expect - no problems so far.
    >>>
    >>> BUT - now if I look at the backup drive in windows explorer, will it
    >>> appear to be only 100 GB in size (since THAT was the backup
    >>> partition size
    >>> information that was originally "recorded" in its image), OR will
    >>> the backup drive correctly appear to be 150 GB (which is what it
    >>> should be), and allow thus access to all the later images? Remember,
    >>> strictly speaking, if I restore an earlier system drive
    >>> image, at that time the backup drive partition size was only set at
    >>> 100 GB in size, so that's what
    >>> windows may now think it is, after restoring that image.
    >>>
    >>> IOW, I'm assuming that restoring an image can impact partition size
    >>> information, but that may be an incorrect assumptionm

    >>
    >> Have you ever done any restorations from an image file?

    >
    > Very often. In fact, recently it's been weekly, due to all the
    > tests I do. BUT I have not changed the backup partition allocation
    > size as I haven't run out of room yet, but it may be getting close.
    >
    >> With Acronis you get
    >> the option of nominating the empty space to be used for the restored
    >> image,
    >> and the size of the resulting partition.

    >
    > The "empty space to be used for the restored image"? I'm restoring
    > my bootup drive partition (C:) *from* an image of that stored on my
    > backup drive, which is NOT changing, so that wasn't in question here.
    >
    > What I *was* talking about was the (image recorded) partition size of
    > the backup drive after rebooting, and not the source drive, which is
    > receiving the restored image. The source drive partition (C:) is,
    > and has remained, fixed at 40 GB, throughout all of this. That was
    > never in debate.


    See if this helps any:
    - You can restore TO a larger sized partition on a drive.
    - You can restore TO the same sized partition on a drive.
    - You can NOT restore to a smaller drive than the original data occupied.
    - The size of the drive holding the backups is not relevant. Anything
    relevant is contained within the backups and then only concerns the drive to
    restore TO.

    As for whether the existing partition can be resized during the Restore,
    etc., check the documentation that came with the imaging software. Some can,
    some can't. Some will, some won't. Most do not. All they care about is
    whether there is enough room at the destination to put all the data back. So
    that drifts into whether you only backed up data or included the blank areas
    of the disk in the backup. Again, program dependent; check the docs.

    HTH,

    Twayne





    --
    --
    Life is the only real counselor; wisdom unfiltered
    through personal experience does not become a
    part of the moral tissue.
     
  14. Bill in Co.

    Bill in Co. Flightless Bird

    In retrospect, I think I didn't explain my thoughts very clearly in regards
    to this query, and perhaps (probably?) I'm mistaken in one of my
    assumptions. So, please let me restate it better, in the hopes that I can
    understand this correctly:
    I'll try to restate it more succinctly, as follows:

    When you make an image backup of your system drive C: partition (to another
    drive), also included within that stored image is information on the current
    partition sizes of all your existing hard drives.

    Hence, if you restore any particular system image backup, the information on
    all existing partition sizes will also be restored, based on that image's
    stored information about such, correct?

    So, for example, if you had previously (or subsequentally) made any changes
    to any drive partitions, including one used to store your image backups, and
    then restored an earlier (or later) backup image, it could potentially be
    problematic, since all partition sizes *would be reported just as they were
    recorded when that image was made*.

    But maybe this assumption is totally incorrect, and, after rebooting from
    any image restore, the actual hard drive partition sizes for all drives are
    properly retrieved from BIOS (after bootup), and those true values are
    passed back into Windows after bootup (potentially correcting any older
    stored information on partition sizes that as recorded in the restored
    image).

    Does that explain it better?
     

Share This Page