yantisr
January 27th, 2006, 03:08 PM
Incremental images are LARGER than the original, full base images since I recently upgraded to v9.0. I have been using True Image since version 6.0, and in al previous versions True Image has behaved in the expected, standard manner - I create a full image of a partition (or disk). Then I create incremental images, the first based upon the original full, and subsequent incrementals based upon the immediately preceding one. Each incremental is smaller than the original full base - size depending upon the changes occuring since the last backup.
But now, I have the strange phnomenon that the incremental is actually larger than the original, full image. For example: I made a full image of my C: partition (NTFS -- XP-SP2+latest 'fixes') on 01-26-06 of 16,852,799 KB. On 01-27-06 (today) at 10:10, I made an incremental -- it's size is 16,879,641 KB. I just made another incremental at 13:34 (after doing little else on this PC except reading this forum) that is 16,897,062 KB. The orignal full image took 22 minutes via USB 2.0 to external Maxtor 200 GB. The 1st incremental took 29 minutes. And the last one took 27 minutes. (based upon times shown in Windows explorer's 'Created' and 'Modified' file characteristics).
I have tried several approaches over the last couple of weeks, as time permitted, to resolve this or at least find out the cause. I tried deleting the incrementals and recreating them, but had the same results. I checked my various settings to see if I'd set any incorrectly, or if a default setting was causing this -- they all appear fine to me. Not having much time to play with this, I finally just began creating full images each time, before making significant changes or installing a new app or MS update, something I always try to do. But as I now have a little bit of time to research this, I searched Acronis' site and existing threads in this forum for answers -- I did not find any.
Could some one point out where I may be overlooking something, or perhaps have any suggestions? Should I upgrade v9.0, build 2245 to 2337? Or, uninstall v9.0 and reinstall 8.0 Enterprise Workstation? I really would like to make use of the purpose and advantages of incrementals - smaller files and image times - for more frequent backup protection. Right now this does not seem possible for me.
Any ideas or help would be appreciated.
-Robert
But now, I have the strange phnomenon that the incremental is actually larger than the original, full image. For example: I made a full image of my C: partition (NTFS -- XP-SP2+latest 'fixes') on 01-26-06 of 16,852,799 KB. On 01-27-06 (today) at 10:10, I made an incremental -- it's size is 16,879,641 KB. I just made another incremental at 13:34 (after doing little else on this PC except reading this forum) that is 16,897,062 KB. The orignal full image took 22 minutes via USB 2.0 to external Maxtor 200 GB. The 1st incremental took 29 minutes. And the last one took 27 minutes. (based upon times shown in Windows explorer's 'Created' and 'Modified' file characteristics).
I have tried several approaches over the last couple of weeks, as time permitted, to resolve this or at least find out the cause. I tried deleting the incrementals and recreating them, but had the same results. I checked my various settings to see if I'd set any incorrectly, or if a default setting was causing this -- they all appear fine to me. Not having much time to play with this, I finally just began creating full images each time, before making significant changes or installing a new app or MS update, something I always try to do. But as I now have a little bit of time to research this, I searched Acronis' site and existing threads in this forum for answers -- I did not find any.
Could some one point out where I may be overlooking something, or perhaps have any suggestions? Should I upgrade v9.0, build 2245 to 2337? Or, uninstall v9.0 and reinstall 8.0 Enterprise Workstation? I really would like to make use of the purpose and advantages of incrementals - smaller files and image times - for more frequent backup protection. Right now this does not seem possible for me.
Any ideas or help would be appreciated.
-Robert