backup method with rollback ?

i have successfully created a sector by sector image and it restores complete with any snapshots created present and working.

after i have created the first image can i then do a differential or incremental backup, or do i need to recreate the image from new ?. also if its possible would a file backup work or image ?

Gazzer

 

Without knowing which backup program you're using, I believe the answer is yes - and since you made a full raw image you would need to also make a raw (sector-by-sector) diff/incr image - using your boot disk of course.

File backups will not work with RB.

Scott

 

i am using acronis true image 2012 build 7119. i understand that the for the image to work with rb it needs to be a sector by sector image, i think you may have misunderstood my question so here goes :-

i have created an image with ati 2012 and it works with rb. i intend to keep this image and use as the baseline for future backups. when i add more programs or updates, do i need to reimage the entire drive again or is it possible to do incremental or differential backups and just add to the existing image or do i need to create another raw image of the entire drive again. my understanding is that rb and its snapshots are contained in the mbr, so altering a working image might corrupt any mbr data and render rb useless. if i was to do a differential backup then the original would remain untouched and rb would still work but simply add the existing data.

 

Garry, I don't believe I misunderstood your question, but you may have misunderstood my answer!

Not all image backup programs provide for raw diff/incr images, even when they allow raw full images. As I'm not familiar with ATI 2012, I don't know if it permits raw diff/incr images. If it does, that will work for making diff/incr backups of your RB partition in concert with your raw full image - understood?

Scott

PS. Fwiw, RB's snapshots are not contained within the MBR.

 

And, especially it should be done COLD (outside Windows) for all the snapshots to be captured.

Best regards,

KOR!

 

@Scott, where are Rollback's snapshots?

@KOR, do you use Rollback? - I'm just curious...

>>> I'm wondering if Rollback is really worth all of the extra effort that it takes to image, defrag, etc.

 

Hey Cruise,

RB's snapshots are contained in raw sectors, which are invisible to Windows.

It's completely a personal preference as to whether or not RB is worth that extra effort. I can't speak for KOR, but as I am an RB user I obviously believe it is. However, just don't take that to mean RB is a substitute for image-backups!

Scott

 

I used to, but I don't anymore!

You seems to have bought MagiCure, which is a real, real old version of Rollback Rx.

1. Imaging is very easy with Rollback Rx, if you just use HOT (within Windows) imaging.

a. You don't need to save the snapshot of Rollback Rx in the image.
b. You don't need incremental/deferential imaging, as Rollback Rx snapshots will serve as incremental/deferential until you perform the HOT image next time.

2. Defrag is no longer necessary as far I am concerned. The hard disk are different these days, than they used to be. All my four personal computers have SSD as "System Drive".

Best regards,

KOR!

 

sorry i misread your answer and just skimmed through it .......lol

 

KOR, may I know why you no longer use Rollback?

 

I thought that doing this was dangerous, seems to me to keep all snaps you would, at least with IFW, do a hot sector by sector and to do cold could lead to serious issues.

Very confusing but it may simply be my age leading to an increasing mental confusion. I am def having a problem keeping this stuff straight.

 

1. With any imaging program one can do COLD (outside Windows) imaging on a sector to sector basis and preserve all the Rollback Rx snapshot. This is not dangerous, but I don't know why one would do this.

2. I don't think under the above scenario, one can do incremental/deferential imaging.

3. However, if one does COLD (outside Windows) regular imaging, non sector to sector imaging, than this situation is dangerous. This will image only baseline snapshot, when Rollback Rx was installed and one will loose all changes since the installation of Rollback Rx.

4. Only Image For Windows (IFW) allows for preserving all snapshots under HOT (within Windows) imaging, if one does sector to sector imaging. No other program allows this.

Conclusion: The best thing to do if Rollback Rx is installed, is to use any imaging program to do HOT (within Windows) regular imaging, on a non sector to sector basis. Between regular imaging, any incremental/differential imaging is covered by taking regular snapshots of Rollback Rx.

LOL, we both need to upgrade to at least v2. Being sixty, I am usually dazed and confused. Before, I used to blame it on ......, now on old age.

Best regards,

KOR!

 

Dear Cruise,

I don't find HDS, the maker of Rollback Rx to be very ethical company. I believe Gazzer who started this thread bought MagiCure and you can ask him why?

I do regular imaging with Image For Windows (IFW), paid $30 and it allows me to legally use on 3 of my computers. And, as a second imaging program I use Macrium Reflect Free. I have them available as bootmenu with EasyBCD. On boot I can boot into either:

1. Windows 7
2. IFW
3. Macrium Reflect

After 3 seconds delay, it automatically boots into Windows 7.

Also, you will see that Rollback Rx will eat up your hard disk space in no time, unless one goes back to baseline snapshot on regular basis. This is both the strength and Achilles' heel of Rollback Rx.

Best regards,

KOR!

 

In order to save a history of RB snapshots on an external drive. Having done that you can re-baseline your local drive to regain the free space that was consumed by RB's incremental snapshots. I grant you that this may not be important to some users.

As I mentioned to the OP, that depends on the imaging program. For example, DS does cold raw diffs without any issues, but I was not able to accomplish that with IFW.

Definitely!

True, but only if you follow the procedure layed out by The Rollback Frog, exactly - otherwise it will fail.

That is the simplest approach, as long as it is not important for the user to retain RB's snapshot history.

Regards,
Scott

 

Hi KOR,

I believe that Gazzer may have bought Magicure because at the time it was cheaper than Rollback. But price (and ethics) aside, I'm still trying to decide whether Magicure's or Rollback's admittedly convenient snapshots are really worth its imaging and defragging inconveniences!

Btw, you already convinced me (in another thread) as to the benefits of IFW (I'm now trialling it). I am especially impressed with Terabyte's very informative knowledgebase (not to mention its knowledgebase here on Wilders)!

Cruise

 

Ahh, now I remember. Thanks for the jog to my memory.

And before I used to blame it on ......, too.

Desperately waiting for v2, hope its released sooner rather than later.

 

I have been thinking that if you did a defraq with Rx installed and then reset the baseline you would have essentially the same result as having uninstalled Rx, defragged, and then reinstalled.

This seems logical to me but I may be missing something here.

AS to imaging inconveniences,,,,I am not aware of any serious ones. I have a backup of my MBR that was made without Rx installed (just in case) and image with Rx installed weekly using Drive Cloner. Nothing special is nec to do this.

 

Hi Cruise,

1. It is very easy to do HOT regular imaging with Rollback Rx installed, this is what most people do when they don't have Rollback Rx. It doesn't make any difference to HOT regular imaging if Rollback Rx is installed or not.

2. Defrag is not necessary to the new hard drives, such as SSD and the ones which have very large cache. You will hardly gain any speed improvement.

3. As far as ethic is concerned, you have to buy a yearly maintenance contract to get minor updates to the current v9. Even if you have the yearly maintenance contract, you still have to buy the new v10, which is due with the new Windows 8.

4. MagiCure a partner of HDS offered their product for $24, which HDS usually offers for the same price, four time a year. But MagiCure promised free lifetime updates, including v10 without yearly contract. Lots of people bought it, but their version is about 2 years old than the latest version of Rollback Rx and doesn't support SSD. Where as Rollback Rx does. Of course, one can promise free lifetime updates, but if they don't have any intention to update, then it hardly matter or worth to the customers.

The question is why you need Rollback Rx. It is only good if you try lots of software in real environment. Beside that it is useless.

Here is how my four personal computers (two laptops and two desktops) are set up. All have Windows 7 x64 and 120GB SSDs plus HD (500GB or more).

1. All SSDs are in split in three primary partitions.

2. System Partition C: 70 GB.

3. MBR Protection Partition J: 10 GB. Firefox profile, IExplorer profile, Sandboxie, .temp files and .tmp files are all under this partition.

This is protected and under Shadow Defender virtual disk all times on boot. Shadow Defender protects the MBR and Rollback Rx doesn't. Once I reboot everything is gone, history and so forth.

4. DataDisk Partition Z: 31GB. All the current data and some static data is kept under this partition. The current data which I use on a daily basis is under Cloud under Dropbox. It syncs all my current data through the LAN on all my four computers automatically. For free users Dropbox site keeps the deleted data for 30 days, and it is kept in my computers for 3 days.

5. Any other data is on regular HDD and gets manually synced periodically on my two desktops. This I can access though my LAN on any computers, if need be.

My next post will be on the Rollback Rx technology, but first I want you to read the above and ask any questions, if you have so far.

These days 120GB (111GB formatted) SSDs are sold for about $100, and this includes free shipping.

If you do buy the above, then buy the whole package which is discounted to $50, and includes BootIt Bare Metals.

Best regards,

KOR!

 

Hi bg,

Cruise's observations are actually quite correct. It's just a matter of deciding whether RB's benefits outweigh its drawbacks.

Re using file-defraggers (as opposed to RB's snapshot defragger), RB prevents any file-defragger from executing unless you first run RB's special defrag command. While I love RB, this process is a real pita. You first have to run shieldcmd /defrag using Run and then you can run your file-defragger. But after running a file-defragger you must run Update Snapshot (which blows away all of your snapshot history)! Imho you might as well uninstall RB (to the Current System), do your PC housekeeping-defragging and then reinstall RB (that's why Cruise's point is well taken).

His point about imaging inconveniences is also valid. While creating a normal hot image of an RB partition is quite simple, restoring it brings about inconveniences in that you have to uninstall and then reinstall RB. The alternatives are to create a cold raw image or to uninstall RB before imaging, both of which are (undeniable) inconveniences.

I find RB is worth it, but not everyone does. Supposedly RB v10 will bring with it a more integrated imaging solution, but I'm not holding my breath.

Scott

 

Cruise,

Although I use and love Drive Snapshot, I believe that KOR has steered you in the right direction with Terabyte's products. While DS is a tiny and very reliable image-backup program, there isn't much ongoing support for it (other than sending an email to the developer). Their website doesn't keep up with (or even explain) each new release!

Terabyte, on the other hand, explains the changes of each new release of their products and it maintains a very informative knowledgebase. That and its relatively low price makes it hard to argue that IFW and its related programs are a top pick.

As to whether or not you should 'RB or not RB', I believe that the pros and cons have been spelled out and that you have a good grasp of them. Now you must decide for yourself...

Scott

 

As someone once pondered... 'decisions, decisions'.

 

If you really want to buy, then wait as very shortly v10 will be out with WIN8 and then you can buy it.

Best regards,

KOR!

 

Ah yes, my failing memory has struck yet again. I do now recall the discussion on Rx blocking conventional defrags,,,,I even took part in it,,,,I think.

I too think Rx is worth the cost and bit of inconvenience. To me its not too great an inconvenience. However I may set my PC up as KOR has suggested when I get a new one but I expect that Win 8 and Rx 10 will be out by then and if so I will probably stick with what has served me well until now. I have never reqreted purchasing Rx, it has worked flawlessly for me. I do agree its a bit of a pain to pay for annual maintenance when there is so little need for support, this may be seen as un-ethical or as a testament to the stability of the program,,,,or a bit of both. Well, maybe un-ethical is a bit strong, Horizon is not the only co to follow this business model. The key for me is that the program works as advertised (for the most part, some folks have run into problems) add to that its reliability and its easy for me to overlook the annual maintenance thing and the minor inconvenience regarding defragging.

 

KOR does have a secure setup. I certainly agree with KOR's comments about Shadow Defender's ability to protect the MBR (along with the entire partition which it is protecting). In fact, RB's real weakness is it's inadequate protection of the MBR, as well as its very own snapshots, from malware infection or corruption!

No one is forced to pay for their Gold/Platinum Level support - it's optional when buying the product (all paid licensees receive Silver Level support at no additional cost).


But we have digressed from the topic of this thread...

Scott

 

Nothing is absolutely bulletproof, I suspect components of KORs setup could conceivably be compromised, thats why we have backup measures in place. For me I am happy to have RX as a component of my protection regime. If it (Rx) is compromised I can use one of my other components to get me back up and running in fairly short order. In effect KOR has done the same thing as I have, he just choose a different group of tools to accomplish the same goal. Nothing wrong with that,,,,if we all did exactly the same thing we would all be the concentrated targets of those who attack PCs,,,,,and besides, the world would be awfully boring too.