Backup Software Alternatives

I think the problem was that the images were created in a corrupt state due to the bad RAM, and when I verified them straight after creating them, the RAM returned the same corrupt value(s) at the same location(s) in the backup image causing SPD to think it was OK. However, when I later verified in Windows the RAM returned different value(s) causing SPD to think it was corrupt.

When I tested some of the corrupt images with known good RAM, they also verified as being corrupt, so the images were definitely corrupt.

I now run Memtest86+ on a reasonably regular basis to ensure my RAM is still good. A single complete pass of all tests is sufficient and only takes about 30 minutes on my 4GB machine, so it's quite feasible to run it regularly. If I still suspect a problem, I will run it overnight for several hours. As you mention, verifying all images on a regular basis is also a good idea.

 

The other disadvantage is restoring to a partition smaller than the original partition imaged.

Just save checksums of your image files in a text file

 

Hello, Sorry to hear about the corrupt backup images. I sympathise and know how distressing it can be. I have always insisted on doing image backups with auto verify at the same time which i heard from a few they dont care or don't believe it's necessary. This kind of unforseen error is another reason to use the verify. I know some believe in a reliable SP image without verify but if the disk is faulty and not run a chkdsk on it in some time or whatever reason it can be bad, corrupt. This is one of many reasons why i use IFD/IFW with the auto byte for byte verify and this also gives a good confidence boost that the backups are good an a exact copy. In SP there is a verify but manual which you can forget to use. On a drive with plenty of space it good to make a copy of this backup again so you have 2 copies also. Months can go by before you run chkdsk again, so always try to run chkdsk often as any corrupt data can deteriorate until unfixable the longer you leave it. I recommend you use a stabilty test program such as OCCT or Prime95 to test the stability of your hardware. If it fails then it not stable to make or keep backups. This test will push you machine more than you would ever do running applications and is still safe for your pc. If there any memory errors they would soon show themselves. Another plus with IFW/IFD is verify can be ran before the restore goes back on also. I suggest you run Memtest86 which comes on a bootable cd to identify the bad ram stick. IFD/IFW will detect RAID. If you value your data do the verify.

 

The fact that faulty memory caused a corrupt SP image raises the old question about how many checks and safeguards are necessary.

Rather than verifying the SP image,Pete's method of immediately restoring seems the most sensible -it takes no longer than a verify.
I dont carry out any checks ,relying on SPs reliability,but also have a duplicate image archive of a different date on an external disk.
If the main up to date image is corrupt,the chances hopefully would be the duplicate is OK-plus an update of the current data backups.

In my experience,a hard disk is more likely to fail than memory.
However,this does reinforce the necessity of hardware maintenance and checks.
Just carried out chkdsk-the complete 5 step check(My Computer-properties)-took two hours!

 

Defenestration,

Just to get this straight in my mind.

You created images in the SP recovery environment.
These images verified in the recovery environment and mounted in Windows. You didn't try to verify them in Windows.

At a later time, these images failed to verify in the recovery environment and failed to restore. (So they verified initially but not later) These images failed to verify in Windows as well.

After installing good RAM, the images that failed to verify, still failed to verify.

And new SP images are verifying OK? ? ?

Is that correct?

 

Hmm I've been reading the posts, (thanks for the numerus replies peeps ) and it seems Shadow Protect and Image for Windows seems to be the main favs so I'll have a look into these.

And the only problems recorded on here with Shadow Protect were due to bad memory ya? As said I believe mine is fine at least since I bought 4 1gb sticks of Crucial Ballistix and they tested fine in memtest and so on.

So yeah as said I just want a nice STABLE program that has a higher working percentage than ATI (which I've now uninstalled through reading the tech support thread about removing all the registry values and so on).

Validating whether manual or auto is no problem to me, I always like to make sure something works after I've done it so I'll always remember to validate my backups.

Its the "It backs up and validates on the day, but when I come to restore from it, then theres problems" kinda thing that worries me though lol, any idea whether SP or IFW has the higher success rates with that sorta thing?

 

I only now use SP from the recovery CD ,but from what i have used included IFD.Only ATI failed. but thats just me.

 

Yes

Yes. They verified successfully straight after the creation of the image.

No, I mounted them in the recovery environment, after the verify stage above, and they mounted successfully.

No, I did try to verify in Windows, after exiting the recovery environment and booting into Windows, and it failed the verify.

That's correct

Correct

Yes, since replacing the RAM and verifying the RAM was good with MemTest86+ overnight (ie. for about 8 hours), I have had no problems with corrupt SP images. The corruption was solely down to the bad RAM (one bad 1GB stick out of four 1GB sticks)

 

I'm afraid there is no scientific answer to that question. Only anecdotal evidence. In Defenestration's experience, ShadowProtect failed when IFW didn't. In my experience, I've never had an image or restore process fail and I've used most of the apps. If you look at the Acronis True Image forum you wonder if anyone has had a success. That's what you are up against with making your decision. I'd certainly be happy to recommend either SP or IFW. Try both. Your choice.

 

Defenestration,

Thanks. I'm clear now.

 

Read HERE.

The reliability of SP has always been 100% for me as regards restoration.
If you are concerned ,the best idea as previously mentioned is to immediately restore the image you have just backed up-this takes no longer than a validation and gives satisfying visual proof.
I never even bother to validate.

ShadowProtect was developed for the corporate sector where failure cant be tolerated-its industrial strength.

Its really misleading and irrelevant to take into account the fact that an SP image became corrupt,as acknowledged by Defenestration,because of faulty RAM-that is completely to be expected,but it seems an issue is being made of it.

 

Heh yeah everyone seems to be obsessed with RAM problems round here, which granted it can be a cause of failure but still ain't the only one.

But anyways thanks for the info, I've had a look at the article and I'll have a look into SPD a lil deeper if that seems the most reliable.

As far as I understand, the 30 day trial is like all others in that it is the actual program and gives you full capability for all its features, as in if I download the trial I'd be able to use it to conduct backups as if I'd bought it until the trial runs out, and then I simply pay them and unlock it fully? (While downloading and burning the Boot CD of course) As I'm from the UK and nowhere (including Amazon) seems to sell it over here so I don't want stupidly priced shipping costs, however from looking at the site it seems to be fully runnable from the download version.

Also with restoring a backup as soon as its saved to test it, doesn't it format the drives first or whatever? As in if it fails in the middle of the restore, wouldn't it nuke the computer?

And yeah, as long as it works with XP Pro and RAID 0, and my 500gb Freecom USB external HD, all should be fine, (hopefully) lol.

 

Thanks for the replies.

Also aye I always make sure to validate everything I do like that, I guess as long as it validates after backup then I'll just cross my fingers and hope it will be ok if I ever have to restore from them. As said I don't like the idea of it fudging up at the time when doing a restore straight after backup to test it.

But yeah otherwise I'll put my hope in ShadowProtect then since Acronis refuses to create a non-corrupt backup or even state what the heck is causing it.

I'll have a look into it as soon as possible since I'm sorting a few other issues out for the mo, but I'll post back and let ya know how I get on when I try it.

Thanks for the help dudes, feel free to discuss the programs as the issue I had seems to be very common so I assume a lot of other users will be looking to threads like this for ideas.

 

True, but won't I just be in the same trouble if I try to test the restore and it DOES fudge? If theres some kinda safety device in that it won't try to restore until it KNOWS its not going to fail, and therefore won't wipe the HD's and then fail, then I can understand that testing method lol.

Otherwise seems just as risky, unless theres somethin I'm not gettin. :S

 

If SP cant restore for any reason-it will tell you-it wont restore a corrupt image.
The reason for a bad image most probably would not be the fault of SP and it would be as well to know sooner rather than later, by attempting a test restore, so you can rectify-for example by doing a repair reinstall of Windows.
You have to work out your own system but a simple safeguard would be to keep a good full backup in archives .That way if a current image is faulty,no great harm is done,as long as you have backed up your data independently.
Anyway,the chances of a faulty SP image seems very remote as I said I dont even validate-thats how much I trust it.

 

I like verifying although I've never seen it fail. I verify every image after it has been created and before it is restored. I now intend to verify all stored images regularly. Nate recommends that we verify regularly.

I've restored a few thousand images. Never a failure. Not even with True Image. The reason I verify is to check for hardware issues. Verifying images told Defenestration that there was a problem. This prevented the continued creation of bad images. It makes me want to verify more often.

 

To a certain degree verifying give some trust in your images,mounting your image and see if files can open and copy to your desktop is another way but ultimate test is a restore.With SP a had never problems with restores,never verified or mounted the image after creation.
Any image i created is restored immediatily,it overrules any mounting or verify,afterall its the the ultimate verify so to speak.

With time your media can go bad and so your images,solution would be to spread the same images on different media.

 

Sure. A successful restore doesn't guarantee that the image will restore successfully next week. Although we all know the odds are excellent that it will restore.

 

Really? Let's suppose the SP image is corrupt and you try to restore the corrupt image over an existing partition - would SP leave your existing partition in-tact, or what?

 

What Aaron is sayng if the image is damaged and he trys to restore it back to his system partition, will it inform him first that it's damaged? or will it try to restore back even if it's damaged and only inform him when it gets to the damaged part? and by that time his system partition is ruined too.

It should inform you it is damaged, corrupt. I never had a corrupt image and a rare user of SP. It would be pretty poor software if it didn't as it ruined all your data. I'm sure it would but cannot confirm.