I have some more good (if not exciting
) news for everyone, especially for those of us who dont really want to part with Rollback Rx and would like the best of both.
Dont faint or go running out the house screaming....but.... I've just spent the last 2 hours testing AXTM with Rollback RX v10 and the verdict is in.
IT WORKS.......conditions apply
Sorry conditions apply you say. What do i mean?
Here it is.
Firstly, let me be clear. I tested this in VMWARE Workstation virtual machine running W7x64. I wasnt game to test this out on my only working computer at home. However there's no reason for this setup not to work on a real system (famous last words!
Also I've just installed a brand new Samsung 840 Pro SSD. Sweet!
I already had AXTM v1.0.800 installed in a VM and i decided that I'd be the first to really test Rollback and AX together. So i went ahead and also installed Rollback v10 only protecting drive C:. Since Rollback can only protect one physical drive, i dont have to mention that it's not a good idea to protect the AX backup drive for obvious reasons. (i think)
It passed the first test. Rollback installed successfully. I havent tested this in reverse ie. installing AX then Rollback but i would think their wouldnt be an issue. Also before i had installed Rollback i had already been using AX for a couple of days and had about 3 snapshots before Rollback was installed. I know that its not exactly a very controlled way to start testing but I think that my starting condition will make no difference to the results. (and if it does then at least we all know how to set it up so that it does work..right?)
Moving on, to my delight, Rollback was rock solid bar one problem. I'll tell you soon.
AXTM also had a problem. Making a backup and restore with AXTM worked perfectly with Rollback RX except when rolling back(or forth) to a snapshot using Rollback RX. The first backup or restore with AX took a while (between 4 and 5 min). Whats worse the AXTM restore restored the WHOLE drive. So now comes the Rollback problem. What does Rollback do so efficiently....track every single sector change. I took a snapshot from Rollback. Crap! 15.5Gb snapshot (roughly the size of my W7 install). Running the Rollback defrag changed little. I was very disillusioned as you might expect. I thought then that these 2 are not going to get along.
But i persevered. I did some more rollback and restores with both programs and after a while i noticed something wonderful. When i rolled back(or forth) to a snapshot with Rollback and did a restore with AX, it was a full drive restore. The same was true for a backup.....or so i thought. For some unknown reason i hadnt checked the file size of the backup of AX that appeared to be imaging the whole drive, allbeit in 5 min?? So i looked. File size 23mb
. Whats going on?
Who cares. I suddenly had a brain storm. I ran the following test. After I rolled back(or forth) using Rollback RX, I'll do a backup first with AX (which would take a little longer but crucially use less space...15.477gb less in fact) then take a Rollback snapshot (by the way, taking a snapshot with Rollback has no effect on the performance of AX, Hooray!) and see what size the Rollback snapshot is. Unbelievable. Rollback snapshot size = 80mb. Basically the file changes of the boot up process i"m guessing. This was a cause for celebration but i thought i'd put it on hold so i could relay the good news to everybody. Of coarse i tested many Rollback and AX snapshots and both programs performed flawlessly bar the first slow backup of AX.
For the Rollback users out there, i found it strangely amusing that throughout all of the AX restores, Rollback's snapshot marker (the green arrow) always stayed pointed at the same snapshot no matter which restore point in AX I chose. Further to Rollbacks credit taking a snapshot would dutifully branch from this point and all Rollback restore points restored faithfully what AX restored or removed and vice versa.
Even though this is about AX it needs to be said that Rollback V10 actually performed perfectly in all of this, even the 15.5gb snapshot is not a fault of Rollback but rather the result of what restoring a full drive does. The fact that Rollback survived and even recorded the change is amazing IMHO.
This has really become long winded and i apologize but i think that it was important to tell my experience so that the match made in heaven can be apprecaited.
1. After rolling back (or forth) to a Rollback Snapshot, immediately perform a backup with AX so that subsequent backups and restores using AX occur at normal speed. DO NOT DO A RESTORE FIRST WITH AX UNLESS YOU WANT ROLLBACK RX TO FILL YOUR HD REALLY FAST. This is the conditions apply bit.
2. If you install Rollback after you've taken some snapshots with AX, DO NOT RESTORE WITH AX TO A SNAPSHOT BEFORE ROLLBACK RX WAS INSTALLED.This is something i just thought of and i think it would be the one thing to undo Rollback RX. So perhaps its a good idea to install Rollback Rx first and then AX second so that the first AX image will have Rollback Rx already there.
3. Just in case some clever nutter finds a way around this, DO NOT ALLOW ROLLBACK RX TO PROTECT THE DRIVE THAT CONTAINS THE AX BACKUPS. Doing so will render AX pointless because everytime you roll back in Rollback RX, you also Rollback the AX snapshots. (it had to be said)
Thats it. Now you can all cry with joy like i have been.
Isso, i hope you dont miss this after all of my rambling. I would like to make a request and ask if you would be willing to look into the issue of after rolling back to a snapshot with Rollback RX, AX suffers from a long FIRST backup time or a long/large restore time (which ever one one chooses to do first).
Thankyou everyone for reading.