Page 62 - Ingeniantes 511 interactivo

Revista Ingeniantes 2018 Año 5 No. 1 Vol. 1
was at the moment to restore a computer, although the
disk image was cloning correctly, at the moment of res-
toring, it marked an error at the end of the process. The
installation an operational experience for both software
was easy to handle. As shown in Table 7
Table 7 Acronis results
Acronis
Block ID Input Operator R Score
Installation WeightSymbol
52.4 25 13.10
.5Usability 95.6 25 A 23.9
Performance 59 40 70.54
23.54
Maintainability 100 10 10
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS.
Clonezilla SE is a software that does not present an at-
tractive environment for users. Even though its interface
is not graphical the command line describes a group of
instructions that each option that represent. This indica-
tes that it is not a good choice for users that are used
to graphical environments. However, its process of disk
cloning and computer restoration connected to an in-
tranet of organization where the number of computers
is significantly in a short time and efficiently supporting 2014.
different operative systems sticks out over Acronis and
Ghost.
Acronis has almost features that we need in a computer
lab, inclusive it supports both operative systems Win-
dows© and Linux, and it has support for mac solutions.
One disadvantage of this tool is the compatibility, in some ternational journal of approximate reasoning, vol.
cases we have problems with other programs installed in
the target machine.
Symantec Ghost Solution Suite on the other hand is a
good solution for persons who needs clone his disks only
for backup its data. The main disadvantage is that only
permit clone and restore Windows© Operative System.
Although the cost is not part of our study and it is not
affect the performance of the tool, we consider the cost
at the moment to choose one of them.
In conclusion, when you need to make a disk cloning with
one or two operating systems, indeed, Clonezilla SE it is
the best option. Nevertheless, both Acronis and Ghost
are very good tools especially for those that like gra-
phical environment and, as mentioned at the beginning
of the document, the decision of getting a software de-
pends of the type of end-user and the possibilities of the
organizations.
In future works we will compare software at different [12]
work environments using the indicators and criteria esta- selection of complex hardware and software sys-
blished in this document to observe behavior.
58
BIBLIOGRAFÍA
[1] J. van Bon, “Fundamentos de Gestión de
Servicios TI, basado en ITIL®,” ed: Van Haren Pu-
blishing, Reino Unido, 2008.
[2] B. P. Gautam and D. R. Paudel, “A NE-
TWORK LAB EXPERIMENT OF MULTI-CLONING
OF OS BY USING CLONEZILLA, 稚内北星学園大
学紀要”, pp. 51-58, 2012.
[3] B. W. Boehm, J. R. Brown, and M. Lipow,
“Quantitative evaluation of software quality,” in
Proceedings of the 2nd international conference
on Software engineering, 1976, pp. 592-605.
[4] J. A. McCall, P. K. Richards, and G. F. Wal-
ters, “Factors in software quality. volume i. con-
cepts and definitions of software quality,” DTIC
Document1977.
[5] P. Antonellis, D. Antoniou, Y. Kanellopou-
los, C. Makris, E. Theodoridis, C. Tjortjis, et al.,
“A data mining methodology for evaluating main-
tainability according to ISO/IEC-9126 software
engineering–product quality standard,” Special
Session on System Quality and Maintainabili-
ty-SQM2007, 2007.
[6] S. Trudel, J.-M. Lavoie, M.-C. Paré, and
W. Suryn, “PEM: The small company-dedicated
software process quality evaluation method com-
bining CMMI SM and ISO/IEC 14598,” Software
Quality Journal, vol. 14, pp. 7-23, 2006.
[7] N. Fenton and J. Bieman, Software metrics:
a rigorous and practical approach: CRC Press,
[8] J. Dujmović and H. Bai, “Evaluation and
comparison of search engines using the LSP me-
thod,” Computer Science and Information Sys-
tems, vol. 3, pp. 31-56, 2006.
[9] J. J. Dujmović and H. Nagashima, “LSP
method and its use for evaluation of Java IDEs,” In-
41, pp. 3-22, 2006.
[10] L. Olsina and G. Rossi, “A quantitative me-
thod for quality evaluation of web sites and appli-
cations,” IEEE multimedia, vol. 9, pp. 20-29, 2002.
[11] H. Q. Yu and S. Reiff-Marganiec, “A me-
thod for automated web service selection,” in Ser-
vices-Part I, 2008. IEEE Congress on, 2008, pp.
513-520.
J. Dujmovi’c, “A method for evaluation and
tems,” in CMG 96 Proceedings, 1996.