Alternative to True Image (nervous nellie)

[screamer]

@grnxnm,

When do you anticipate the next release of SP and will it include the nVidia Raid solution? I'm using nForce 4.

tia,

...screamer

[grnxnm]

Originally Posted by screamer

When do you anticipate the next release of SP and will it include the nVidia Raid solution? I'm using nForce 4.

Well, we finished the Beta for some feature enhancements (such as our new P2P feature) as well as for the nForce fixes (resolved all of the nForce network and storage controller issues for all nFroce platforms under WinPE), however right at the end of this successful Beta we finished another project which was basically a complete overhaul of the entire WinPE environment, and so we're basically going back into Beta with this new enhanced WinPE (I believe the ISO is going out to beta testers early next week). It's one of those two steps forward one step back things. We feel that the enhanced WinPE is definitely worth it though. It boots in half the time, has far greater device coverage, and has some other nifty features as well. And of course it also supports your nForce hardware. Hopefully the beta will be short.

[aigle]

Hi grnxnm, I have few Qs.

1- ATI has an option to boot and restore from within windows without the need of Boot CD and without any permanat alteration of MBR. Does SP has such an option?

2- U have said that ur company does ot earn any profit from home users market. Then why the price of SP is much hiher than other companies?

3- Is there an option for an invisible secure recovery zone like ATI?

4- Can SP image and restore linux partitions ( esp ext2, 3 etc) aswell.

Thanks.

[grnxnm]

Originally Posted by aigle

1- ATI has an option to boot and restore from within windows without the need of Boot CD and without any permanat alteration of MBR. Does SP has such an option?

We're adding that particular feature (on-harddisk recovery environment) to ShadowProtect version 3. It's actually amazingly simple to implement. It does not require any alterations to your MBR. We consider this to be a minor feature among the many new additions being made for version 3. It is pretty convenient though. The on-disk recovery environment boot time is fantastic.

Originally Posted by aigle

2- U have said that ur company does ot earn any profit from home users market. Then why the price of SP is much hiher than other companies?

I don't know. I'm an engineer, not a bean counter. I couldn't tell you why the price is set where it is.

Originally Posted by aigle

3- Is there an option for an invisible secure recovery zone like ATI?

We discussed this particular feature but our feeling is that it's a bit misleading to pitch it to customers as a "secure" zone. Any virus/malware that gains system rights has the ability to trash anything on your disk, including anything in a so-called "secure" zone. The only thing this protects against, truly, is user error. There is something to be said for that, I suppose. We have no plans to implement a feature like this.

Originally Posted by aigle

4- Can SP image and restore linux partitions ( esp ext2, 3 etc) aswell.

Yes. However there's a caveat with linux backup under ShadowProtect. ShadowProtect doesn't currently support excluding free space from the backup of linux partitions. This feature is on our to-do list.

[Peter2150]

Hooray on no number 3. Right now as I type, I am watching desktop no. one apply the Vista Business Upgrade. I also just threw on Office 2007 for a quick look see. By tonight my machine will be back to where I started today. Later Office 2007 will be permenantly installed, Vista no.

I play like this because I am totally confident that the image I took with Shadow Protect(and which I tested by restoring) will restore my system back like it was this morning.

This is fantastic, but is only a secondary function. My primary function is to be able to recover from disk failure. Even the restore within Windows might give me a false sense of security. I like to restore, for testing, and secondary purposes the same way I'd do it if there was a failure. That way I have confidence the restore will work.

As to the "secure" zone, personally I think it is a dumb idea. Storing images on the same physical drive as you are imaging, means you have in essence, eliminated the possibilty of recoverying from a hardware failure.

Pete

[grnxnm]

Originally Posted by Peter2150

As to the "secure" zone, personally I think it is a dumb idea. Storing images on the same physical drive as you are imaging, means you have in essence, eliminated the possibilty of recoverying from a hardware failure.

Wow, that's a very good point.

[Longboard]

As to the "secure" zone, personally I think it is a dumb idea.

LOL, secure zone = oxymoron.

Storing images on the same physical drive as you are imaging, means you have in essence, eliminated the possibilty of recoverying from a hardware failure.

Exactly Pete.
No brainer there, well put.

SP v3 is sounding better and better.
Get the "bean boys" here and maybe there might be a little profit from home users.

[aigle]

Thanks for the rpelies.

Originally Posted by grnxnm

We're adding that particular feature (on-harddisk recovery environment) to ShadowProtect version 3. It's actually amazingly simple to implement. It does not require any alterations to your MBR. We consider this to be a minor feature among the many new additions being made for version 3. It is pretty convenient though. The on-disk recovery environment boot time is fantastic.

It,s really a nice feature, u avoid the hassle of CD.

Originally Posted by grnxnm

I don't know. I'm an engineer, not a bean counter. I couldn't tell you why the price is set where it is.

Yes but this is obvious Q that comes in mind from ur statement. I wonder why u never think of it.

Originally Posted by grnxnm

We discussed this particular feature but our feeling is that it's a bit misleading to pitch it to customers as a "secure" zone. Any virus/malware that gains system rights has the ability to trash anything on your disk, including anything in a so-called "secure" zone. The only thing this protects against, truly, is user error. There is something to be said for that, I suppose. We have no plans to implement a feature like this.

Not an imp feature for me, never used it. Some may like.

Originally Posted by grnxnm

Yes. However there's a caveat with linux backup under ShadowProtect. ShadowProtect doesn't currently support excluding free space from the backup of linux partitions. This feature is on our to-do list.

Good linux support witll be a big plus for SP.

BTW, do u take part on other products also or only SP?

Thanks.

[screamer]

repeat of Post On ShadowCraft Forum:020307

Is there any foreseeable issues w/ SP for this installation:

C: ext USB
E: Main Drive
F: ext USB

notice that E: is the primary drive. My impatience during a re-install, I left a USB drive connected therefore Win adopted the next available drive letter.

On this drive I have FD-ISR using VSS as the copy engine. I cannot use Raxcos proprietary RSS engine since it requires RSS set up on C drive.
Also on this drive is ATI.

your thought's?

...screamer

[Pedro]

Originally Posted by aigle

Good linux support witll be a big plus for SP.

Yes, a big plus. Can/will SP create an image from within Linux?

And a general Q: If i image the HD with Windows, save it to external HD, then format and install Linux (Ubuntu if need an example), image that and save to ext., now can i load any of them when i want to, or do i have to format the HD accordingly before? Does restoring also restore the format? If i understand the process right, it does, but i'm juggling with concepts here, and need to understand this.

This way i could really try Linux, and return to XP if i need to. No VM's.

Also, linux is FAT32, am i right? Isn't FAT32 inferior? Isn't NTFS more capable of handling bigger files, like GB's? So isn't that a weakness of linux, or FAT32 is not the only choice for Linux??
I assume i can copy files from NTFS to FAT32 and back, no prob.

[grnxnm]

@aigle

StorageCraft currently has two product lines, our sandbox products (ShadowUser/ShadowSurfer/ShadowServer) and our snapshot image-based backup/disaster-recovery products (ShadowProtect Desktop/Server/IT Edition). I generally only deal with the ShadowProtect products. The sandbox app was developed before I joined StorageCraft so I'm not intimitely familiar with it.

As far as the price goes, it's far more cost-effective for us to sell 40,000 licenses to an enterprise, and provide a high level of support to the few IT staffers for those machines, than it is for us to sell 40,000 licenses to individual home users, and provide good support to each of these 40,000 users. The cost/benefit divide between these groups (home user vs enterprise) is so large that, in my mind, it's a miracle that we even offer ShadowProtect to home users.

ShadowProtect has always supported backing up linux partitions from within the booted recovery environment. You don't have to wait for the next release for this functionality, it's been there from the first release.

@screamer

As I mentioned in the PM, I don't forsee any problems arising due to your particular configuration. No software is perfect, and problems do arise now and then, but for the situation you specified, I know for a fact that we've written the code to handle just such a situation and I've tested this myself. If you experience a failure (it's at restore time, with the post-restore boot.ini/HIR/P2P patching code that failures due to your configuration could occur) then it's my fault and I'll do everything I can to fix it.

@someone

To backup a linux partition you need to boot the recovery enviornment CD and take the backup from there.

ShadowProtect is an image-based backup/restore product. This means that when it backs things up, it does not backup individual files, but rather the entire volume (file system metadata included). This means that when you restore an image, you *never* have to format the target partition prior to the restore. The image itself includes the entirety of the file system structures.

There are several differences between FAT32 and NTFS. The primary difference is that FAT32 is not a journaled file system, whereas NTFS is. This means that FAT32 file systems will need to be repaired (using a tool such as chkdsk) if the machine is powered off ungracefully, or crashes. NTFS journaling enables it to automatically roll back any transactions that aren't complete, so NTFS is self-healing after crashes. FAT32 files can only be 2^32 bytes in size (4GB). File size limitations for NTFS are 2^64 bytes in size.

Linux can use a variety of file systems, such as FAT32, ext2, ext3, reiser, and more.

Using an image-based backup program to switch out OSs is one of the easier ways to accomplish this task, so yes, ShadowProtect is ideal for this.

[aigle]

Hi grxnm, thanks for ur replies. Can u please tell me if ATI differs from SP in these two regards or not? Thanks a lot.

Originally Posted by grnxnm

ShadowProtect is an image-based backup/restore product. This means that when it backs things up, it does not backup individual files, but rather the entire volume (file system metadata included). This means that when you restore an image, you *never* have to format the target partition prior to the restore. The image itself includes the entirety of the file system structures.

Originally Posted by grnxnm

However there's a caveat with linux backup under ShadowProtect. ShadowProtect doesn't currently support excluding free space from the backup of linux partitions. This feature is on our to-do list.

[grnxnm]

Yes, True Image and ShadowProtect are both snapshot image-based backup products. Backup images captured using either of these applications will contain all of the file system metadata from the source volume as well as all file data. This means that for both ShadowProtect and True Image, when you restore an image, there is no need to format the target volume prior to the restore.

I don't know if True Image supports free-space-exclusion when backing up linux (ext2, ext3, reiser, etc) volumes. My hunch is that it probably does. Anyone?

[aigle]

Thanks a lot for the reply. I really appreciate. Will wait for anyone to comment on second Q? Can,t u guess it by snapshot size while imaging linux partition?

Thanks

[aigle]

I really like the disk mounting and exploring function in ATI. Does SP has a similar function and how good it is as compared to ATI?

Thanks

[Peter2150]

Originally Posted by aigle

I really like the disk mounting and exploring function in ATI. Does SP has a similar function and how good it is as compared to ATI?

Thanks

Better, you can even do it in the recovery environment.

[grnxnm]

Originally Posted by aigle

I really like the disk mounting and exploring function in ATI. Does SP has a similar function and how good it is as compared to ATI?

Absolutely, with ShadowProtect you can mount your base and/or incremental images to both drive letters or to NTFS mount points (meaning you can optionally mount your image to an empty NTFS directory - this enables you to mount many more than 26 concurrent points-in-time). ShadowProtect supports mounting of full and/or incremental backup images from within the recovery environment as well as within the live installed system.

When you mount a ShadowProtect image, you can specify if you want the mount to be read-only or writeable. If you mount writeable, and make changes, you can specify, at dismount time, if you want the changes you made to be saved in a new incremental image. The mounter will *never* make changes to your original image files.

ShadowProtect's mounter is highly-optimized for speed when mounting many concurrent images as well as for mounts of multi-terabyte volumes.

The ShadowProtect mounter is designed such that its core image-file manipulation code is actually shared directly with three other projects. This technique ensures that this particular code (which is the heart of this driver) has a very high degree of exposure and hence is very solid. It also ensures that the driver itself is fully capable of handling all I/O sent to the virtual volumes that it creates (there's no need for an inefficient inverted-I/O model as is found in other similar image-mount drivers which must hand off I/O requests to a user-mode component) in order to maximize performance and stability.

[aigle]

Thanks Peter and grnxnm, that sounds nice.
BTW I don,t have knowlege of MBR, EMBR etc and disk sectors but I want to ask that like some other imaging programmes does SP has option to image MBR/ track zero etc while imaging a partition.

Thanks

[Peter2150]

Originally Posted by aigle

Thanks Peter and grnxnm, that sounds nice.
BTW I don,t have knowlege of MBR, EMBR etc and disk sectors but I want to ask that like some other imaging programmes does SP has option to image MBR/ track zero etc while imaging a partition.

Thanks

Hi Aigle

It sure does, and during restore, you can chose to either restore MBR or not, and you can also chose whether to restore the MBR that is in the image or restore a standard one. You also have the option of whether or not to restore track 0.

From one of my posts in the FDISR forum

"ShadowProtect has been rock solid, and I've done some torture testing with my disks and it has come thru fine. For example I shrank the partition size in half and inadvertandly left the partition at the end of the disk, with the unallocated space at the front. This was with FDISR installed. System wouldn't boot. Gee, what a surprise. Did a restore with SP and all was well and working, including FDISR. I've done other stuff equally bad."

The key is you can delete the volume before the restore, then let the SP repartition from the image, and then restore.

Pete

[sukarof]

I have just downloaded the full evaluation and done a full backup with shadowprotect. Really impressed with the speed of the backup. 9 minutes for my 26GB (=14.8GB image) including 4 Firstdefense snapshots, one being Vista ultimate the rest Win XP Pro.
= No problems. It was really simple to do and it felt very comfortable and trustworthy. I love the real time log.
I did a incremental, 33Mb big, but that took almost ten minutes, Surely incremental should be faster?
Not sure that I dare to use incremental if I buy it, I have read enough horror stories with another known image backup software in this forum when doing such. I am happy with the full image backups if they work rock solid and are as fast as Shadowprotect.

The key for me is that I can trust my image software in any weather and if the restore is as good (reliable) as claimed here I am definitely gonna buy it when it hits version 3. For me Image for Windows has set the standard in reliability but if I can find a software that gives the same reliability plus some "bells and whistles" (incremental and differential backups) and Vista compatibility along with it - I am interested.

[Peter2150]

Originally Posted by sukarof

I have just downloaded the full evaluation and done a full backup with shadowprotect. Really impressed with the speed of the backup. 9 minutes for my 26GB (=14.8GB image) including 4 Firstdefense snapshots, one being Vista ultimate the rest Win XP Pro.
= No problems. It was really simple to do and it felt very comfortable and trustworthy. I love the real time log.
I did a incremental, 33Mb big, but that took almost ten minutes, Surely incremental should be faster?
Not sure that I dare to use incremental if I buy it, I have read enough horror stories with another known image backup software in this forum when doing such. I am happy with the full image backups if they work rock solid and are as fast as Shadowprotect.

The key for me is that I can trust my image software in any weather and if the restore is as good (reliable) as claimed here I am definitely gonna buy it when it hits version 3. For me Image for Windows has set the standard in reliability but if I can find a software that gives the same reliability plus some "bells and whistles" (incremental and differential backups) and Vista compatibility along with it - I am interested.

HI Sukarof

I found the same thing on the time of incrementals. I think the real gain might be on disk space. Since that isn't an issue for me, but time is, I just do full images.

I have had excellent results with SP. I in most cases prefer imaging from the Recovery type environment. I've probably restored a good 100 images with no issues. Once you gain confidence, I like the fact you can delete the volume, and then SP repartitions based on the image. I've done some wild stuff and then restored with no problem.

Pete

[grnxnm]

To have fast incrementals, the StorageCraft Volume Snapshot Manager (stcvsm.sys) device driver has to be installed. It is installed by default when you install ShadowProtect Desktop or ShadowProtect Server editions. Also, in the current release versions, fast incrementals are only available when you schedule backup jobs. The incremental tracking feature of stcvsm.sys is not turned on if you only do manual backups. If you do a manual backup, and then do a manual incremental, the manual incremental compares the current point-in-time snapshot against all of the data in the image file(s) upon which you specified that the new incremental will be dependent. This means that it is opening and reading the data from the previous files, so an automatic CRC32 verify is performed on all your older images (in the same chain) at the time this new manual incremental is created. If you schedule a weekly/monthly backup job, whenever incrementals are made they will use stcvsm.sys's incremental tracking feature which make it possible to create the new incremental in matter of (usually) seconds.

If you backup by booting to the Recovery Environment CD, then there is no fast-incremental capability in that environment.

[sukarof]

Thanks for explaining grnxnm. It´s always nice to know a bit about what happens beneath the obvious. Like Peter2150 I usually do full image backups since I have plenty of space on my USB drive.

[grnxnm]

Originally Posted by sukarof

Thanks for explaining grnxnm. It´s always nice to know a bit about what happens beneath the obvious. Like Peter2150 I usually do full image backups since I have plenty of space on my USB drive.

In that case (where you like taking full images), if you do manual incrementals you are extremely safe with the incremental file because when it is created the process compares all of the data on the live volume's snapshot against all of the data in the previous image files (performing CRC-32 verification on these files in the process). It makes a lot of sense for you to use manual incrementals. Although they take as long as a base to create, they take much less disk space, and in the process they also ensure that your previous dependent files are good.

[Peter2150]

Does Defragging impact the time it takes to do incrementals?