RollBack Rx and TrueImage Home

[Kapiti]

Just emailed the folk at RollBack Rx to ask about the compatibility with RollBack and TrueImage and received this message back;

“There are a couple of things that you need to know. Firstly, when you take a image with ATI you will only have an image of the current snapshot (configuration). Therefore, the other snapshots will not be contained within the image.

We recommend uninstalling RollBack Rx prior to taking an image with ATI. During uninstall you have the choice of which snapshot you would like to uninstall to.”

Reading Wilders Forums regarding RollBack Rx I seem to recall that the programme needs to be reactivated after a reinstall, is this correct?
Is uninstalling and reinstalling a lengthy process?
Does “current snapshot” mean the original base snapshot or the last snapshot?
I’m aware that some posters have had difficulty using RB and TI together but is there anyone using the two programmes together without a problem?

At this stage I haven’t installed RollBack Rx just trying to get answers to questions first.

John.

[ErikAlbert]

-{ Quote: "“There are a couple of things that you need to know. Firstly, when you take a image with ATI you will only have an image of the current snapshot (configuration). Therefore, the other snapshots will not be contained within the image.

We recommend uninstalling RollBack Rx prior to taking an image with ATI. During uninstall you have the choice of which snapshot you would like to uninstall to.”" }-
That is one of the reasons, why I refuse to use RollbackRx. For a simple backup, I have to uninstall RollbackRx, that is an unacceptable solution for me, because that is absurd.
I don't have that problem with FDISR and ATI. All my snapshots are included in the backup and restored without MBR problems. That is what I call NORMAL.

[pvsurfer]

-{ Quote: "Just emailed the folk at RollBack Rx to ask about the compatibility with RollBack and TrueImage and received this message back;

“There are a couple of things that you need to know. Firstly, when you take a image with ATI you will only have an image of the current snapshot (configuration). Therefore, the other snapshots will not be contained within the image.

We recommend uninstalling RollBack Rx prior to taking an image with ATI. During uninstall you have the choice of which snapshot you would like to uninstall to.”

Reading Wilders Forums regarding RollBack Rx I seem to recall that the programme needs to be reactivated after a reinstall, is this correct?
Is uninstalling and reinstalling a lengthy process?
Does “current snapshot” mean the original base snapshot or the last snapshot?
I’m aware that some posters have had difficulty using RB and TI together but is there anyone using the two programmes together without a problem?

At this stage I haven’t installed RollBack Rx just trying to get answers to questions first.

John." }-
It is not necessary to uninstall RB in order to use TI successfully. If you create your TI backup from within Windows, you will capture the current snapshot (which is what I would want for purposes of disaster recovery).

If you choose to first uninstall RB, your TI disk-image will contain a standard MBR as well as the snapshot of your choice (which in my situations, have always been the current snapshot), so that's the way to go if you don't want to continue using RB. If you do not uninstall RB (I don't), the resulting disk-image will include the RB-modified MBR, which is what you want if you wish to continue using RB. If you choose not to uninstall RB, be sure to make your backup using TI within Windows, and not from TI's Recovery CD (as that will capture your baseline snapshot)!

Hth, pv

[Kapiti]

-{ Quote: "That is one of the reasons, why I refuse to use RollbackRx. For a simple backup, I have to uninstall RollbackRx, that is an unacceptable solution for me, because that is absurd.
I don't have that problem with FDISR and ATI. All my snapshots are included in the backup and restored without MBR problems. That is what I call NORMAL." }-

I can see I'll need to bite the bullet and install the evaluation copies of both RollBack and FirstDense:-*

At this stage the thing concerning me in regards FirstDefense is the time taken to make a snapshot. Reading the the FD forum it seems the time taken to make a snapshot can be from 10 minutes to 30 minutes. I suppose this depends on the machine used - I run AMD Athlon64 3700+ with 2GB memory and Sata drives, data around the 7GB mark. In your opinion what time span would I be looking at to make a snapshot?

John.

[Kapiti]

-{ Quote: "It is not necessary to uninstall RB in order to use TI successfully. If you create your TI backup from within Windows, you will capture the current snapshot (which is what I would want for purposes of disaster recovery).

If you choose to first uninstall RB, your TI disk-image will contain a standard MBR as well as the snapshot of your choice (which in my situations, have always been the current snapshot), so that's the way to go if you don't want to continue using RB. If you do not uninstall RB (I don't), the resulting disk-image will include the RB-modified MBR, which is what you want if you wish to continue using RB. If you choose not to uninstall RB, be sure to make your backup using TI within Windows, and not from TI's Recovery CD (as that will capture your baseline snapshot)!

Hth, pv" }-

Thanks PVSurfer,
That is much easier to understand than the official response, thank you:-*

John.

[ErikAlbert]

-{ Quote: "I can see I'll need to bite the bullet and install the evaluation copies of both RollBack and FirstDense:-*

At this stage the thing concerning me in regards FirstDefense is the time taken to make a snapshot. Reading the the FD forum it seems the time taken to make a snapshot can be from 10 minutes to 30 minutes. I suppose this depends on the machine used - I run AMD Athlon64 3700+ with 2GB memory and Sata drives, data around the 7GB mark. In your opinion what time span would I be looking at to make a snapshot?

John." }-
I have another CPU, but I have also 2GB RAM and SATA drives.
I created yesterday a 2.93GB snapshot in 5-6 minutes in my off-line snapshot and in 8-9 minutes in my on-line snapshot, but the speed isn't always the same.
My data is on another harddisk (not C, but D), but I assume that most FDISR users anchor their data in the system partition, which means that their data isn't included in the snapshots.

[Kapiti]

-{ Quote: "I have another CPU, but I have also 2GB RAM and SATA drives.
I created yesterday a 2.93GB snapshot in 5-6 minutes in my off-line snapshot and in 8-9 minutes in my on-line snapshot, but the speed isn't always the same.
My data is on another harddisk (not C, but D), but I assume that most FDISR users anchor their data in the system partition, which means that their data isn't included in the snapshots." }-

Thanks ErikAlbert, The situation is coming clearer with each answer I get:-*

The time has come to give both FD and RB a trial and see for myself.

Again, thanks for the information.

John.

[pvsurfer]

-{ Quote: "Thanks PVSurfer,
That is much easier to understand than the official response, thank you:-*

John." }-
You are most welcome. After using the latest version of RB (v7.2.1 build 2691131407) ever since it was released last month, I have found it to be quite stable (previous builds were extremely unstable),

However, I strongly recommend not using any disk defraggers other than RB's snapshot defragger. I have experienced very strange behavior when running Perfect Disk with RB installed.

~pv

[Kapiti]

-{ Quote: "You are most welcome. After using the latest version of RB (v7.2.1 build 2691131407) ever since it was released last month, I have found it to be quite stable (previous builds were extremely unstable),

However, I strongly recommend not using any disk defraggers other than RB's snapshot defragger. I have experienced very strange behavior when running Perfect Disk with RB installed.

~pv" }-

Hello PV,

At this rate I'll an expert on both RB and FD before installing either programme:-*

John

[pvsurfer]

-{ Quote: "Hello PV,

At this rate I'll an expert on both RB and FD before installing either programme:-*

John" }-
While I'm not an FDISR user, I would say that assuming RB has fixed the bug in their prior builds (and after extensive testing it looks that way), the primary advantage of FDISR is that it is more versatile than RB as to where you can save/copy snapshots. With RB, you can only save snapshots to the C-drive that it is protecting. On RB's + side, snapshots are created in just a matter of seconds, and they consume less disk space than FDISR snapshots.

[incursari]

-{ Quote: "However, I strongly recommend not using any disk defraggers other than RB's snapshot defragger. I have experienced very strange behavior when running Perfect Disk with RB installed." }-

Hi pvsurfer, during my previous testing with RB Rx, I used Diskeeper to do defragmentation job, and also do boot time defragmentation job, readjust the MFT size without any problem or error. And also manually defrag using RB Rx. Use it about a week, try to restore from a few snapshot and all successful.
I believe there is no conflict between RB Rx and Diskeeper.

[sukarof]

-{ Quote: "Hi pvsurfer, during my previous testing with RB Rx, I used Diskeeper to do defragmentation job, and also do boot time defragmentation job, readjust the MFT size without any problem or error. And also manually defrag using RB Rx. Use it about a week, try to restore from a few snapshot and all successful.
I believe there is no conflict between RB Rx and Diskeeper." }-

Just for info. Even though you can run external defraggers with Rollback, they will not work as intended. Here´s some read from the Knowledgebase:

http://horizondatasys.helpdeskconnect.com/?cmd=faq&sid=&topid=65

[ErikAlbert]

-{ Quote: "Thanks ErikAlbert, The situation is coming clearer with each answer I get:-*

The time has come to give both FD and RB a trial and see for myself.

Again, thanks for the information.

John." }-
I can assure you that, when you install FD for testing, you will have a good idea in no time, how fast FDISR is and how much space it needs.
Right after installing FDISR, it will ask you to create the second snapshot.
After that you can create upto maximum 10 snapshots. Watch the time and the volume.
After that you uninstall FDISR and try RollbackRx or one of its clones.

[incursari]

-{ Quote: "Just for info. Even though you can run external defraggers with Rollback, they will not work as intended. Here´s some read from the Knowledgebase:

http://horizondatasys.helpdeskconnect.com/?cmd=faq&sid=&topid=65" }-

Thanks for the link and I read about it. Maybe just my luck I didn’t get any error during the test.

[Get]

-{ Quote: "I have experienced very strange behavior when running Perfect Disk with RB installed." }-
Can you please elaborate on that in the sense of : What went wrong? Damage done? Irreversible? Reason without a doubt the interaction or better the lack of it between PD and RB?

[wilbertnl]

-{ Quote: "That is one of the reasons, why I refuse to use RollbackRx. For a simple backup, I have to uninstall RollbackRx, that is an unacceptable solution for me, because that is absurd.
I don't have that problem with FDISR and ATI. All my snapshots are included in the backup and restored without MBR problems. That is what I call NORMAL." }-
Now, tell me please.
How is this reply answering any of the questions in the original posting?

[wilbertnl]

-{ Quote: "Reading Wilders Forums regarding RollBack Rx I seem to recall that the programme needs to be reactivated after a reinstall, is this correct?" }-
I'm not a registered user, but from the information I read I understand that activation is automated when you are online. The registration key depends on the volume ID of your system partition. So when you format the disk you need a new key. That process takes an email.
I assume that editing the volume ID with the free volumeID by Sysinterals (http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/VolumeId.html might prevend that problem.

[pvsurfer]

-{ Quote: "Can you please elaborate on that in the sense of : What went wrong? Damage done? Irreversible? Reason without a doubt the interaction or better the lack of it between PD and RB?" }-
By way of answering you, first let me say that with this latest build, there was no resulting system problem after PD's strange behavior. However, I'm not ruling out that running PD with RB installed may very well have been one of the causes for the serious system problems I experienced with previous builds!

As a PD user (on the same PC) over the past few years, I have a very good feel for it's operation. With RB installed, I noticed the following anomalies:

PD would take a much longer time to complete the defrag, during which the defrag progress bar never moves beyond about 10% of the distance. After the defrag presumably finishes, PD's reported results indicate a great many fragmented clusters!

As a test, I first used RB's snapshot defragger, followed by the PD defragger. After the PD defragger finally completed, I again ran the RB snapshot defragger. Normally, when running the RB snapshot defragger shortly after it has already been run (with no added snapshots in the interim), the 2nd RB defrag goes very quickly, as one might expect. But after running the PD defragger between RB defragmentations, I could see the RB defragger taking a longer time to analyze the sector mapping and then (seemingly) undo whatever sector changes PD's defrag invoked.

As far as I'm concerned, the bottom-line here is that no '3rd party' defragger (and I include the Windows defragger here) serves any good purpose whatsoever when using RB, and may precipitate system chaos!

~pv

[wilbertnl]

-{ Quote: "As far as I'm concerned, the bottom-line here is that no '3rd party' defragger (and I include the Windows defragger here) serves any good purpose whatsoever when using RB, and may precipitate system chaos!" }-
I get the same understanding from the knowledge base. It is recommended to only use the EAZ-fix/Rollback RX snapshot defragmenter.

[Get]

@pvsurfer: thx for the info. It looks pretty logical and to be expected what you described apart from the serious system problems that is, because that's not something horizon datasys warns for. Despite the fact you can't tell for sure what caused them, it's a reason for caution. :lurking: Even with the latest build.

[pvsurfer]

-{ Quote: "@pvsurfer: thx for the info. It looks pretty logical and to be expected what you described apart from the serious system problems that is, because that's not something horizon datasys warns for. Despite the fact you can't tell for sure what caused them, it's a reason for caution. :lurking: Even with the latest build." }-
Caution is always a good idea - that's why I use and depend on Acronis True Image (just in case)!

However, I have been testing ('torturing' would actually be a better word) the latest July build of RB ever since it was released and it has been working perfectly regardless of what I did to try and 'break' it! Most of my RB-testing is reported in this thread...
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=139120&page=6

[wilbertnl]

-{ Quote: "However, I have been testing ('torturing' would actually be a better word) the latest July build of RB ever since it was released and it has been working perfectly regardless of what I did to try and 'break' it!" }-
That is great news, pvsurfer.
I still feel like a starter with EAZ-fix. :) Regardless of all warnings I received from other forum members, I do feel really comfortable with this snapshot solution.
Do you also have experience with EAZ-clone? I made a modification that resulted in a 75% performance improvement. Creating an image takes now only 5 minutes and restoring is done in 2 minutes.

[pvsurfer]

-{ Quote: "That is great news, pvsurfer.
I still feel like a starter with EAZ-fix. :) Regardless of all warnings I received from other forum members, I do feel really comfortable with this snapshot solution.
Do you also have experience with EAZ-clone? I made a modification that resulted in a 75% performance improvement. Creating an image takes now only 5 minutes and restoring is done in 2 minutes." }-
I never even heard of EAZ-fix until a few days ago when you brought it to our attention! Until then I thought that Rollback Rx was developed by (and the proprietary product of) HDS. It's still rather confusing to me as to who is the actual developer, as well as the oem'ing of this product, but in any case it seems to me that the latest build (and I can only speak for the RB build) is stable - but you will hear me screaming if it breaks! ;)

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "I never even heard of EAZ-fix until a few days ago when you brought it to our attention! Until then I thought that Rollback Rx was developed by (and the proprietary product of) HDS. It's still rather confusing to me as to who is the actual developer, as well as the oem'ing of this product, but in any case it seems to me that the latest build (and I can only speak for the RB build) is stable - but you will hear me screaming if it breaks! ;)" }-

Have either of these guys indicated how their Kernel driver will play in Vista, where Microsoft is trying to lock people out of Kernel mode?

[pvsurfer]

-{ Quote: "Have either of these guys indicated how their Kernel driver will play in Vista, where Microsoft is trying to lock people out of Kernel mode?" }-
I don't know anything about that nor am I concerned - Vista is not in my near-future (2007) plans.

[wilbertnl]

-{ Quote: "Have either of these guys indicated how their Kernel driver will play in Vista, where Microsoft is trying to lock people out of Kernel mode?" }-
Hey, Peter, aren't you the guy that is bothered by the 0.0007% disk space commercial? Your continued interest is baffling. ??? ;D ???

[Peter2150]

Hi PVsurfer

On a totally different note. Have you tried Rollback on Raid 0. Last thing I was told was it wasn't officially supported, but "should" work.

Pete

[pvsurfer]

-{ Quote: "Hi PVsurfer

On a totally different note. Have you tried Rollback on Raid 0. Last thing I was told was it wasn't officially supported, but "should" work.

Pete" }-
Sorry, but I can't help you there Pete - I don't (and wouldn't) use RAID 0.

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "Sorry, but I can't help you there Pete - I don't (and wouldn't) use RAID 0." }-

Okay. I've had it now on two machines, and it works like a champ. But anyway, I'd almost be tempted to give Rollback another shot except for the raid issue.

Pete

[pvsurfer]

-{ Quote: "Okay. I've had it now on two machines, and it works like a champ. But anyway, I'd almost be tempted to give Rollback another shot except for the raid issue.

Pete" }-
Pete, you might check with EAZ support (since they seem to be more responsive to email inquiries than HDS).

support@njanyue.com (support@njanyue.com)

~pv

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "Hey, Peter, aren't you the guy that is bothered by the 0.0007% disk space commercial? Your continued interest is baffling. ??? ;D ???" }-

My continued interest is based on owning 2 licenses for Rollback. If PVSurfer is right, then they may have solved the stability issue. Thats good.

But there are still 3 issues that make a bit nervous.

1. Raid 0. I am using it, so it needs to work with that.
2. Imaging
3. The general concept of a Kernel driver for disk access. Just a bigger opportunity to have conflicts.

And yes the disk space commercial is a bit troubling. They don't need to do that.

[pvsurfer]

-{ Quote: "Hey, Peter, aren't you the guy that is bothered by the 0.0007% disk space commercial? Your continued interest is baffling. ??? ;D ???" }-
Come on Wil, get your facts straight - it's .07%, not .0007% ...LOL :P

Fwiw, EAZ explains this claim (in their KB) to mean EAZ-FIX's overhead resource requirements:
-{ Quote: "
The 0.07% of space is for creating all the snapshot indexes. It's required by EAZ-FIX for creating the Index for up to 60,000 snapshots. To make this simple to understand - let's put it into an analogy:

Let's say you open a stock trading account with a company (EAZ-FIX). They will charge you $7 dollars for 60,000 transactions. This $7 dollars is the fee (overhead) for doing all 60K transactions (It's like the 0.07% of disk space EAZ-FIX requires to create all the snapshot indexes). But how much money you will need for each transaction really depends on the stock you buy (how much disk space each snapshot takes). If you buy 100 Microsoft shares, it's $2500 (if you install MS office 2003, the snapshot will take 800MB). That money is not required by the stock trading company (EAZ-FIX) - it's not "overhead".
" }-

[wilbertnl]

Yesterday I received a free registration for my suggested improvement. ;D :thumb:

[pvsurfer]

-{ Quote: "Yesterday I received a free registration for my suggested improvement. ;D :thumb:" }-
What was your suggestion; was it the EAZ-Clone modification?

[wilbertnl]

-{ Quote: "What was your suggestion; was it the EAZ-Clone modification?" }-
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=822729&postcount=22
I modified eazclone060710.iso by adding a UDMA driver. The development team takes time to test the modification, so it's not available from their website yet.

[Get]

@ pvsurfer: good to hear it works out good so far, but i've stopped testing it...can't really miss PD. I kept PD installed and sometimes analysed with it and it's heartbreaking to see the fragmentation :'( and because I would only need RB maybe once a year or so PD is the "winner" on my pc. Btw defragging with PD with RB installed looked strange indeed, but didn't mess things up as far as I could tell.

[pvsurfer]

-{ Quote: "@ pvsurfer: good to hear it works out good so far, but i've stopped testing it...can't really miss PD. I kept PD installed and sometimes analysed with it and it's heartbreaking to see the fragmentation :'( and because I would only need RB maybe once a year or so PD is the "winner" on my pc. Btw defragging with PD with RB installed looked strange indeed, but didn't mess things up as far as I could tell." }-
Yeah, I miss using PD (old habits are hard to break). However, while each defragger has its own unique defragging scheme and algorithm (including RB's defragger), they all wind up doing the job well enough.

As long as I'm using RB I will be content using its snapshot defragger - which won't be difficult as long as RB continues to serve its principal purpose (protecting my system) without introducing system problems! ;)

~pv

[Get]

-{ Quote: "they all wind up doing the job well enough." }-

Well, PD certainly always has, but RB never used much time for a defrag, so I'm not really convinced about it's "well enough job". When each defragger has its own unique defragging scheme and algorithm then it must be RB and PD have the same...or am I missing something here? :wacko:

[pvsurfer]

-{ Quote: "Well, PD certainly always has, but RB never used much time for a defrag, so I'm not really convinced about it's "well enough job". When each defragger has its own unique defragging scheme and algorithm then it must be RB and PD have the same...or am I missing something here? :wacko:" }-
I doubt that very much (I don't see why you came to that conclusion), but then again, it is possible.

[Get]

-{ Quote: "I don't see why you came to that conclusion" }-

Well, I guess that when I have defragged my partition with PD and then install RB and let it defrag that it would put everything in another order and it would take some time. More then a few seconds I would guess, but again maybe i'm missing something here.

[pvsurfer]

-{ Quote: "Well, I guess that when I have defragged my partition with PD and then install RB and let it defrag that it would put everything in another order and it would take some time. More then a few seconds I would guess, but again maybe i'm missing something here." }-
It's my guess (wil or someone else may know better) that RB's snapshot defragger just optimizes its 'pointers' to the disk-sectors contained within each snapshot.

[Get]

Yes, I think so too, but then it's a strange thing to compare the defrag of PD with that of RB. Horizon Datasys says :"RollBack Rx has a build-in snapshot defragmenter, use that to defrag your system. It's fast and it works with RollBack Rx. "... Indeed, it's fast, but defrag your SYSTEM with RB..?? You only defrag the miniature snapshots and not your disk/partition. Let's say I install RB , leave PD installed and install/uninstall softwares and just work with the pc as always and make snapshots now and again...wouldn't the disk be awfully fragmented after a not even so long time (you can see that with PD then) and get slower? Then you can uninstall RB, defrag with PD and install RB again, but will the snapshots still be available..?.. and, if so, when you go back to one of them there is the fragmentation again. (I think the only possible way to reinstal is with a new baseline btw, correct me if i'm wrong). Just a little to much hassle for me, because I defrag quite often. When you don't, ok, then it's not a big problem.

[wilbertnl]

I defragged the system partition with Perfect Disk before installing EAZ-fix, including the offline defrag, that moves the MFT to the middle of the partition.
Now EAZ-fix is installed I still can defrag my second disk with my personal data (isn't that the area with most changes?) with Perfect Disk.
I defrag the snapshots with EAZ-fix whenever I delete a snapshot.

[pvsurfer]

Well as an fyi, someone here said that Diskeeper works harmoniously with RB... But in defense of RB's defragger, I too install/uninstall quite a few progs weekly and my system seems as 'snappy' as always (and RB is the only defragger I've used over the last month)!

[Get]

-{ Quote: "and my system seems as 'snappy' as always" }-

My system became a bit more "snappier" (loosened up) after RB was uninstalled while I had it installed a very short time and in that time I had only 1 program uninstalled, but according to your experience it will be systemrelated. Diskeeper I only liked in the win 98-days btw, have trialled it sometimes since then, but it always was slow on my pc so I won't ditch PD.

[pvsurfer]

Well you gotta feel 'comfy' with what your doing, so whatever you decide to do, good luck to you. ~pv

[Get]

-{ Quote: "isn't that the area with most changes?" }-

I almost never defrag my other partitions, only C. Biggest part (4/5) of D isn't fragmented at all while it's months ago that i've defragmented. I defragmented C two days ago and it looks almost as "bad". A fragmented C has the biggest impact on my system, the others I don't notice.

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "My system became a bit more "snappier" (loosened up) after RB was uninstalled while I had it installed a very short time and in that time I had only 1 program uninstalled, but according to your experience it will be systemrelated. Diskeeper I only liked in the win 98-days btw, have trialled it sometimes since then, but it always was slow on my pc so I won't ditch PD." }-

Couple of things from my experience with Rollback

1. There is a slight overhead from Rollback/EazFix. Only makes sense since the regular Windows disk reads and writes now have to be passed thru the driver of RB/EF before they get written.

2. On the defrag, I found it interesting. I would defrag and then install Rollback. Adding deleting stuff, running Rollback's defrag, and when it worked it worked well. When I finally uninstalled Rollback, either for an image, or finally, I would check the disk status with Perfect Disk. Interestingly it really didn't change much.

Pete

[Get]

-{ Quote: "Well you gotta feel 'comfy' with what your doing" }-

Couldn't have said it better. :)

[incursari]

-{ Quote: "Well as an fyi, someone here said that Diskeeper works harmoniously with RB... But in defense of RB's defragger, I too install/uninstall quite a few progs weekly and my system seems as 'snappy' as always (and RB is the only defragger I've used over the last month)!" }-


Yes during my testing with RB Rx for a week, I had Diskeeper running too. I do online/offline defragmentation. Adjust the FragShield setting, and let Diskeeper running in smart scheduling. Do rollback from a few snapshot without any problem.

Just for info about my system setting during those tests, I have two hard disk:
1. Disk 0 - “C:\” drive. ( Windows XP )
2. Disk 1 - “D:\” drive ( Backup )
- “E:\” drive ( Page files )

[wilbertnl]

-{ Quote: "@ pvsurfer: good to hear it works out good so far, but i've stopped testing it...can't really miss PD. I kept PD installed and sometimes analysed with it and it's heartbreaking to see the fragmentation :'( and because I would only need RB maybe once a year or so PD is the "winner" on my pc. Btw defragging with PD with RB installed looked strange indeed, but didn't mess things up as far as I could tell." }-
I wonder if it would make a difference when you tick 'disable direct disk IO' under program settings -> advanced settings in eazFix?

[Get]

@wilbertnl: I don't think there's anything that can be done about the impossibility for PD to write to spaces allocated to RB/Eazfix's snapshots.