Bug still there in latest build

Hi. I started a thread on this subject some time ago, but even in the latest build there is still a problem.

When I go to restore an image and point Acronis to a differential file, the folder tree where I then select which parts of the image I wish to restore still shows files and folders that I have deleted since making the original image. This is of course confusing, as it is not always possible to recall exactly which files have been deleted since the main image was made and which have not.

In the end, if you select a folder to restore which had been deleted between making the original and the differential image, it is not in fact restored, but it would be far less confusing if deleted folders & files did not show up in the selection folder tree in the first place.

Maybe this could be fixed for the next build?

Thanks,

Martin

 

Martin,

As far as I know, ATI currently requires that all differential backups made after a full backup are present, in the same folder, for either validation or restoration to occur.

So, if you have deleted a differential mid-chain, and are still able to restore from a later differential, I would be very interested in knowing this.

This is, of course, not the normally accepted protocol for managing Full and Differential backups. But, per Acronis Support, this is the current state of ATI. My build is 9.3677. Which build do you use?

By the way, are these disk/partition Images, or Files & Folders archives?

Regards

 

Hi. These are Files & Folders archives - not tested a partition restore for this. I have had this problem with all builds I have downloaded and installed - my current build is 3677.

No, the files are not restored (I only ever have one differential - I delete the previous one before I make a fresh one), but it is confusing that when I select the differential file all the folders I had deleted between making the original, base image and the differential file all appear there.

So in a sense, it's cosmetic, but it would be better I think if I wasn't seeing the deleted folders showing up in the tree for restore.

 

"As far as I know, ATI currently requires that all differential backups made after a full backup are present, in the same folder, for either validation or restoration to occur."

That is only true for validation.

 

Hmmm, so, to summarize, it keeps a record of all of them, even the deleted ones but it doesn't need the deleted ones to be able to restore a not-deleted one but it does need all of them (all made since the full backup) to be able to verify any of them?

I suppose the programmer that wrote that part of the code didn't get a raise this year. ;-)

sh

 

Yes. It's not until you actually restore your folders that you realise that not everything in the folder tree has been restored. As far as I can see, deleted folders are left out.

 

Hello again Martin,

For the benefit of other users, here is the <previous thread that you referred to in #1 above>.

I haven't checked it out myself yet but are you saying that, despite Acronis Support's assurance provided in <Post #45 of that previous thread>, the same anomaly is still present in Build 3677? If that's the case, then it's very disappointing to say the least.

Regards

 

Yes, I thought this had been cleared up. Well, at least Acronis does not actually restore the delete files - that would be a disaster, certainly in respect of my PC setup. It is a bit confusing though when you see folders you deleted before a differential showing up as about to be restored when you select that differential in the folder tree, if you see what I mean!!

As I say, I think the problem is really just cosmetic. More problematic is that I am unable to restore my partition images at all at the moment - I get 'completed with erros'; but I have posted this under a new topic.

Martin

 

'with erroRS', 'with Eros' Me and my typos.......

 

Maybe even "with erros" .

Seriously though, I will check this out on my own system as before and report back.

Regards

 

O.K. have checked it out and, yes, you're absolutely right. Despite Acronis Support's statement in the earlier thread, the previously reported anomaly is still present in Build 3677.

Ahem!! Acronis Support - what gives?

Regards

 

Should just say that, in spite of any problems with Acronis TI itself, I do think that on the whole their support, often via this forum, is really very good - quite the opposite of a number of other bits of software I have bought. I am sure they will respond and get to grips with the problem.

Martin

 

but will they fix it by an update to version 9 or will we have to buy version 10?

 

It is getting to seem more and more like the only way to use Acronis with confidence, is to make a completely new image, be it file and folder, or full, or just one partition. But just forget the options of differential and incremental backups as they are untrustworthy.

Seems I recall one of our very frequent posters, (can't recall for sure) but I think it was The Quest, uses this approach. Well from now on, count me into that group, as of this morning, from present day forward, I'll *only* be using full backups of my OS (active partition), and full backup of my data by file and folder. But only full, no more differentials, no more incrementals.

As another of the posters of the group we all respect, Menorcaman, states, but doesn't say it directly, this method of using the Acronis incremental, or differential backup (either F&F or Full) is full of serious flaws that make them both untrustworthy.

To simi-quote Menorcaman "...what about this Acronis "

Allen

 

I often wonder why some users need many days or even months of backups. I also wonder how they used to manage before TI came along.

I thought long and hard about how big a time span I really needed my backups to cover. Seven days seemed to be a sensible minimum. It turned out that the hard drive I use for backups can hold between ten and eleven whole drive images. So that is what I settled on. There is room for a lot of further expansion and I could always buy a bigger drive in the future.

I am not sure there is really any particular weakness in using incremental or differential backups. They are however a lot more fiddly than whole images. They are more difficult to schedule and manage. Restore times can become very slow indeed as also can verifications if you use that add on extra.

Xpilot

 

I agree with Allen. I only make differential backups when I am in a hurry - I make a new backup every few weeks. The only possible disadvantage is that if you discover corrupt files on your PC and you dispose of your main backup regularly, you are not going to be able to recover a working copy, as you'll have made an ATI image containing the bad files. Small risk I suppose ...

 

I always save a compete image of my OS Partition when I know it is in good shape, free of flaws, etc. Any other *full* images I make of my active OS I also try my best to make sure things are in the same shape. I always retain 2 images.

With data partitions, if you make full file and folder backups, and have used a good AV on the data files, they 'should' be 'clean'. So no problem there, but keep maybe one on another internal HD and 1 on an external HD.

I can backup my active OS partition and all programs to an image file with verification, in about 4 minutes to my internal HD, about 6 or 7 minutes to my external HD. I can spare that much time at just about any time. The data partition takes longer, but only a few minutes more. As I consider that the most important image file of the two, I may make 3 images in three separate locations.

Who among us, can't spare 15 minutes or so, or even longer, per day, per week, whatever to be secure. Why use the other options and face failure to save a few minutes??

Allen

 

Well, in essence Allen I do the same. I have older image files kept on DVD-Rs, so I dare say I could find files as and when I ever needed them.

 

Hi, Allen I agree with your sentiments entirely.

In one sense my daily imaging of the whole of my hard drive takes no time at all. Well at least none of my time as TI runs automatically from within Windows while I am having lunch. FWIW the last time I looked the process completed in 34 minutes.

I don't actually get off Scot-free time wise. Every day or so I restore the latest image to a removable hard drive. This process I do have to attend to. The swap over and restore takes at worst 15 minutes.
A real emergency, which I have practised, takes two minutes to swap drives and re-boot.

It would be dull if we were all the same .


Xpilot

 

Hi all,

I would like to make it clear where I stand in this debate on Full/Differential/Incremental Disk & Partition or Files & Folders imaging .

When backing up in anger (as opposed to merely testing) I generally create a twice-weekly Full Disk/Partiton image, with the odd single incremental thrown in prior to installing any new software. The Full images are created alternatively to dedicated internal and external hard drives. About once a month or so I will also create a full Disk image of one of the dedicated backup drives to the other and vice versa.

My "normal" backup regime does not encompass Differential Disk/Partition imaging nor Files/Folder imaging, be it Differential or Incremental. However, I do use these features (along with imaging to DVD) when testing a newer version/build of True Image or when attempting to assist other users.

Regards

 

And it is a great job you do helping out in the selfless way that you do. Psst.. how is masochist spelt, is that near enough ?

 

"Crazy" would probably be closer!! .

Regards

 

Just by way of a a postscript ..

Having talked about making fresh full images every time, above, the advantage of course of incremental images is that you can select which one you want to go back to. ATI works a bit like system restore that way (only far better!). If I only make new full images each time, I lose that capability of course.

So I've gone back to incremental backups in the end, noting what changes I made since the last one; that if problems occur, I can go back in stages until I resolve the problem. It's a lot quicker too!

M.

 

Though not necesarily extensibly quicker. If you have a very long chain and you want to validate an incremental, ATI would presumably have to wade through all files in between that one and the base one.

F.

 

I just made a first incremental backup: the main backup is about 10GBs and the incremental 84MBs. The verification says it will take about 44 minutes to complete, so presumably ATI has to go back and include the main image file in any verification, not just the incremental additions.

Far quicker than verifying an image is to try restoring a few files. If they work, can I assume the image is valid? I may post that to Acronis here as a separate question; it would be useful to have confirmed.

M.