Can Rollback Rx Protect 2-HDDs?

I have 2 fixed HDDs in my PC. When I setup Rollback Rx Pro, I chose the Default option. Is Rollback protecting both of my fixed drives or just the C-drive? I don't see anything that indicates one or the other... If it's just the C-drive, is Rollback even capable of protecting both physical drives?

Thanks, pv

 

No, RB does not protect two physical drives. It only protects C and other partitions on the drive where C: is located.
I have no experience on how many partitions it can protect tho. I have two partitions only, but my guess is that RB protects all partitions on the main drive.

 

The User Manual, doesn't really talk about several harddisks. It always talks about the local harddisk.
So I assume that it works only on ONE harddisk, the bootable harddisk, which is often partition C:

Keep also in mind that RB is NOT a backup software.

Straight from the RB User Manual

So you need also an Image Backup software or File Backup software.
If you have more than one physical harddisk, you need an Image/File Backup software to backup each harddisk.
The last word "encouraged" should be "necessary" or even "absolutely necessary".

 

I asked this question because the user manual is rather vague on this issue and the FAQs do not address it. I sent an email asking the same question to Rollback support 3-days ago, but so far they haven't replied. Actually, I've sent them a few emails asking different questions and none have been answered - so far, I don't have a high regard for their tech-support.

Fwiw, I do not partition my fixed drives (I don't see any benefit in doing that), so each physical drive consists of one logical unit.

Erik, as you should have observed in my sig., as well as from my many posts in this forum, I do complement Rollback with disk-imaging (TI). However, the jury is still out as to what will happen if and when I have to restore my image (with a Rollback-modified MBR) to a virgin HDD!

 

I can recommend the Knowledgebase. It gives answers to many questions. http://www.rollbacksoftware.com/kb/categories/RollBack-Rx/

This answer is about protecting additional physical drives: rollbacksoftware.com

 

I hope you get an answer and tell me about it. I agree with you that the manual is rather vague.
For the moment I assume that Rollback is only working on partition C:. I can't try it due to circumstances.

For testing and choosing new softwares, I will have two internal harddisks with only one partition to keep it simple.
C: = System Partition.
D: = Personal Partition.
So I will try to move the folder "Documents and Settings" to partition D: and hopefully without troubles sooner or later.
I don't want any personal files on my system partition. That's the plan and intention.

IMO you can't live without an Image or File Backup software, if you want to cover the worst scenarios.
The worst scenario is that my external harddisk will fail.
Personally I will test my backup AND restore over and over again, until I'm sure it works for partition C: and D:
Image Backup is my priority #1, because that's my very last hope.
Most probably I will choose Terrabyte's BootIt NG on condition that it works.
ATI was my original choice, but I changed my mind since the many problems of ATI9.
I'm not really interested in other Image Backup Software.
If BootIT NG fails, ATI will probably my second choice.

After that I will try several snapshot softwares, like Rollback, FDISR, DeepFreeze, ... and ShadowUser. I don't have any preference right now. I read about them as much I can and I will try them one by one until the trial expires. So this will take months.
I don't see any connection between Image BackUp and these snapshots.
They both have to work independently and must be able to restore my system without difficulties.
I've read about fixing the MBR, I don't want that kind of trouble and certainly not when I do it right according the manual.

 

Thanks for the link - somehow I missed that one... I would add that to my new-feature wish list, but so far my emails to them haven't gotten any attention!

 

This will answer the question concerning 2 harddisks.

 

Yes Erik, that was what sukarof's 2nd link referenced ...and that's a 'bummer' as some other System Restorers (such as GoBack) will protect every fixed HDD on the system! ....but as I've used both of them, I can say that RollBack is much better than GoBack in all other functionality. ~pv

 

From sukarof's 2nd link (thank you too sukarof )
This is even harder to accept for me, than the issue of 2 HDD's.

I have one Partition C without personal data to keep it simple.

1. I do a backup of partition C: with ATI on my external harddisk.
At that moment, I don't have Rollback (RB) on my system. So my MBR has no RB.

2. One month later, I decide to install and use RB and my MBR will be changed by RB.

3. One month later, I restore the backup on my external harddisk to partition C: again with ATI.

What I expect from ATI is that my backup is restored byte-by-byte on my partition C: including the MBR, which means that the MBR with RB will be overwritten by the MBR without RB and that is correct, because my restore didn't include RB.

ATI doesn't do that, why not ? Too lazy ?

Because of ATI, I can't do a simple restore from my external harddisk anymore, unless I uninstall RB and run FDISK /MBR first.
Which less-knowledgeable user knows the command FDISK /MBR ?
Sorry but that's unacceptable.

 

That question is unnecessary. If the image backup contains what I need at that moment, while all the other snapshots don't have that, I like to restore that image from my external harddisk.
Why making such a difference between image backup and snapshot when it comes to restore your system. Restore is restore and where you get it shouldn't be a problem.

 

Right. I learned two things today.
1. The combination ATI and Rollback doesn't work for me.
2. I have to be very carefull which Image/File Backup and which Snapshot software, I will use in the future.

 

While different, there are risks associated with both methods - I must admit to holding my breath during my first Rollback restore - but even puting aside the possibility of a disk-crash, having TI 'backing up' Rollback gives me a greater sense of security ...and I'm sure I sleep better by using both products!

~pv

 

Erik, would you elaborate as to why TI would not work (with Rollback) for you? ...I realize you mentioned it was an MBR issue, but I truthfully do not understand what your specific issue is.

 

I changed the original quote a little bit, I removed what isn't important.

First of all, I'm able to do these actions like anyone else who learned how to do it. So that's not the issue.

My issues are :
1. I don't like to do and remember this, because these actions aren't normal and are not a part of the software RB or ATI.
2. I don't like to memorize these actions or write them down either
3. Uninstalling RB and run FDISK /MBR for just a simple restore from my external harddisk ? Does that sound normal to you,
when you know in advance that your internal harddisk will be overwritten completely.
4. Although I know how to do it, many users don't and my favorite audience is the less-knowledgeable user.
5. I expect that each software :
- restores an image from my external harddisk without anything special, in case of ATI.
- restores a snapshot from my internal harddisk without anything special, in case of RB.
And I like to choose one of both at any moment, for any reason.
Both softwares put my internal harddisk back in a state, I want and I only ask to do their job in a normal way.
That's what I'm paying for.

I don't say ATI or RB is bad, but the combination isn't what I expected.
I understand that some members at Wilders love all these workarounds, tricks, whatever you call them in English, but I'm not one of them.

 

Erik~ Clearly, you are a not a man of few words. ...no disrespect intended. Seriously though - to the best of my knowledge, no one has established any of those ATI issues (in red) to be a fact. Furthermore, no one (here) knows what issues will surface when attempting to restore a disk-image from any other disk-imaging product if Rollback was enabled during the creation of the image!

If I knew for a fact that there was a better or easier disk-imaging product than ATI (while using Rollback), I would switch to it in a heartbeat -- but like I've been implying, at this point it's all conjecture and nothing else! ~pv

 

pvsurfer,
You asked for an explanation, so I gave it to you based on what I've read, not what I've tested and it's true, I'm a man of many words and you are lucky, I'm not talking in Dutch.

Once my new computer is ready, I will test all these things MYSELF, no matter what is written or said.
In spite of all my troubles at home, I will be in a pretty good position to do all these tests.
My new computer is fast, empty and I have 2 internal harddisks and 1 external harddisk.
I can reinstall my computer from scratch over and over again.
I can try anything I want without losing anything.
And last but not least I can share my experiences with other members and do even tests based on suggestions from other members.

 

Erik~ Perhaps then we will all know the facts of the matter - I certainly hope so.

The ironic thing about this issue is that the RollBack knowledgebase statement on this issue is based on an erroneous assumption - that ATI modifies the MBR when creating a full disk-image. That is simply not true when the image is created (by TI) from within Windows. It may have merit if the image is created within Linux (i.e., when using TI's Emergency Boot CD)!

Regards, pv

Btw, I wouldn't mind at all learning to speak Dutch.

 

Go Erik

Looking forward to your testing results.

That's a lot of hardware!

LBD

 

pvsurfer,
Regarding my new computer, I still need to know something.
I will have a second internal harddisk (probably partition "D:" ).
I know how to create partitions and how to format this harddisk (NTFS) and I will keep my personal files on that harddisk.

Does this harddisk have to be a bootable one or not and an explanation why, if possible ?
Suppose my system partition ("C:") is in trouble and I can't access my personal partition anymore.
Isn't it better to have a bootable harddisk in that case to have more possibilities or something ?
I know, I'm just guessing, but I want the best option in this case.

 

That's essentially what I do. My C-drive contains WinXP and all application programs. My D-drive contains all of the data-files and photo-files (associated with my application software) - within an appropriate folder system.

If I understand you correctly here, no Windows O/S permits more than one bootable (system) drive. Of course there are programs to facilitate a multi (O/S) boot environment, but those programs require control the MBR and I don't imagine Rollback would like that.

If your C-drive is problematic to the point where it won't spin, or if neither Windows or Rollback's 'intercept' program will execute (for whatever reason), that's the time to rely on a emergency recovery CD together with a backup disk-image (to restore the original C-drive if it still spins, or to restore to a replacement C-drive if your original C-drive doesn't spin)!

~pv

 

No it's not necessary because you only need one partition/drive C: for booting into windows.

You could certainly do it. Just unplug your first HDD and setup your second HDD as master and install windows again. Then reinstall the first HDD as master and the second HDD as slave. Windows will just sit there dormant on the second HDD with your personal files. If your C: drive craps out, disconnect the first drive and make the second drive the master and cable it properly and now you can boot into that drive.

Since you're not actively using both windows installs, it's probably legal but I could not say for sure.

HTH