Another (short) Question about the size of the Images

Hi,

just joined this forum. I've got a question regarding the size of Acronis Image Files.
I just made an image of my system partition. Originally, the system partition's size is 16,9 GB. The image's size is only 6,8 GB. Is this correct, I did anything go wrong? I did not change any settings regarding this, I think I chose the default settings.

I would appreciate your help,
thx, Acronisato


Edit: The partition I made an image of mainly contains the Operating system and some computer applications. It only contains very, very few media data like pictures music.

 

How much of the partition is occupied? It doesn't matter how big the partition or disk is, TI will only image the used portion, (except if TI cannot read the partition when it will do a sector by sector backup)

 

Sorry, I expressed it a bit mistakable.

The part of the partition that is occupied is 16,9 GB big. So there are 16,9 GB of data.

 

That 6.8GB image equates to around 60 percent compression. Have you set TI's backup option to "High" compression?

Personally I would always recommend setting the default compression level to "Normal". In TI, select Tools > Options > Default backup options > Compression level and set it to "Normal". Whilst you are at it, I would also set the Backup priority to "Normal" as well.

Now create a new image of the 16.9GB of data. Provided it doesn't contain a lot of audio, video or picture files (these are already heavily compressed) TI should achieve somewhere between 40 and 30 percent compression i.e. an image size of around 10GB to 12GB.

Regards

 

Hm...I just looked it up: The compression level is "normal".
Do you think the image is somehow damaged?

And: I just made a second image of my media files, mainly consisting of music and videos. Original data: 13-14 GB, image: 11,8. This should be normal, shouldn't it?

 

If that 6.8GB image of your system partition was in fact a "Full" image rather than an "Incremental" then I would say it's definitely suspect.

Yes, that sounds about right for mainly multi-media files.

Regards

 

I just created another image of that partition, it it was about 6,90 GB large.
I checked the settings before starting the operation, and Acronis "predicted" a size of approximately 10,3 GB. There was written as well that this may vary, but 4 GB?!...I am confused. Is there any opportunity to check wether the image is correct...especially as the other image, the one I made of my media files seems to be correct.

 

Page and hibernation files are not included in backup images. That could account for a GB or two.

 

Ah...I know what's the problem:
When you look (with Windows Vista) at the partitions attributes, there is written: 16,9 GB used. That is as well what you can read in Acronis, when the programm analyzes the forthcoming operation.
But: When I look up the real size of all folders, visible as well as hidden ones, I can only count abou 9 GB. For a reason I don't know windows shows that there is more used space.

But, I suppose an image made of the data in the partition, that only includes the data that really can be seen in the partition suffices, doesn't it?

 

Not familiar with Windows Vista but does it use a swapfile/pagefile like Windows XP? If so what size is it because TI doesn't include either the swapfile or hyberfile in an image (it merely saves a few bytes of placeholder info for them)?

Regards

 

A way to determine whether the image has all the files is to use the following programs to compare the actual volume to the virtual volume mounted from the archive:

GetFileTypeDistribution
CompareDrives

 

What happens when you validate the image from ATI?

F.

 

Validation tells you only whether the image is self-consistent.
Does not mean that all files were backed up.

 

so why doesnt the OP mount the archive as a volume and compare the folders to the original?
all you need to do if say e..g right click documents and setting look at the amount of files and folders and compare the mounted archive to the original volume
lodore

 

I suspected that the file was broken and was aiming to prove it using validation-much better than an inconclusive or destructive restoration. If the file was self-consistent then it would be very unusual for it not to hold all the files it was meant to.

F.

 

THat's hy I posted https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=994130&postcount=11.

 

Yes, indeedy, but why take a chance?
A more reliable way is to use the programs I listed in https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=994130&postcount=11.

 

Sorry for the not getting back to you but I have been busy on other things and not had time to visit the forum.

You seem to have had a number of suggestions but I haven’t seen a reply from you that confirms that you have validated the image in any way, it will be too late if your system fails and your images are corrupt.

 

@Howard Kaikow: Thx for your help, but I haven't fully understood what to do with your programs, which one to take and how to use them. I would appreciate if you could give some further instructions.