Convictions about the minimum of Ti-use

Hello all,

I have been reading here your threads for some times.

I'm amazing about the many different opinions what is the best way to use TrueImage from Acronis.

The intention of this thread is to explore how you use the Ti and what are the reasons to use it so.

(If the mods think that this thread is mindless please close it )

I want to start to explain my intention to use Ti in the following way:

First I consider about my system when it crashes.
What do I lose then? Data, the installation, private documents, etc...
What do I need to predict the 'greatest accident'?
What equipment I need when everything is 'dead'?

Therefore I am thinking about the minimum requirement of the image-software.
Here they are:
- to be able to create fullbackups included the MBR
- Validation of created images
- split images in smaller parts (CD-size/DVD-size)
- a bootable disk to restore the image reliable

Thats all...

All following features of Ti are optional for me and not used:
- SecureZone
- Startup Recovery Manager
- Backup-Memory
- Snap Restore
- Try&Decide
- Drive Cleanser
- Using under Windows


You see: I use approximate 15% of the benefits of Ti.
The result is: Also the bugs touch me only in this 15%

Next question is:
Is Ti sustainable for the future?
Answer: No!
But this requirement no company can promise...

For me TrueImage is the perfect solution for my security. Now.


I appreciated for other meanings

 

I beleive running under windows is neccessary for use of scheduler and explorer and/or mounting for quick recovery of a file

 

I find no perfect forum for this question/suggestion, but this thread about usage of TI seems the closest.

I backup C: system disk images regularly (and so far successfully).

I back up my data (always on disks different from system) and in past used BackUpMyPC. Since TI has data file backup, I decided to switch to it for data also.

Now observations: 1. differential and incremental are not very noticeable faster than full (TI does compares instead of using archive bit?). 2. Since I always want to back up entire data disk(s), I can do either Data File backups or Disk Image backups of data disks. Both will do what I want.

Somehow, I'm forming an opinion that the image method is better (mountable images, etc.). Any comments regarding merits of either strategy?

-Ev Merritt

 

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is unless it's to suggest that certain features be included/excluded, in which case this really belongs in the Wish List thread.

 

The purpose of this thread is to 'find out' how and what the forum members are using from Acronis Ti.
And (perhaps) what the reason is to use it so.

(For example: I don't use SZ. I think that there is no reason to use it. But: May be there are good points to convince me to use SZ. And that I hope to experience here.)

 

There's been a few threads about this before. They usually occur very soon after a new release hits the street. Some folks like added features, some don't. Some prefer bare bones; some like dressing.

Some folks find the in-Secure Zone useful, including one of the more frequent and helpful posters on this forum. Hard to do a meaningful poll since the only folks that visit the forum are those with problems and a few of us (perhaps misguided) souls that try to answer some of the questions.

I don't think anyone finds the "have no Backup" alert useful since it's designed to tell you you have no schedule backups and, normally, a person scehdules backups so that they don't have to manually open the program (which is the only way one can see the alert). Otoh, every that does manual backups sees the alert and it's no use to them. This has been written about many times, buts it's so funny, I always enjoy it.

But all seem to agree that's what's in the program should work and hopefully, that will be the case with ATI12 since ATI11 sure missed that mark. ;-)

The Wish List is a good place to look to find out what those that have bothered to post do and don't want included in ATI.

 

Hello Mr Morse,

I note that you are not using the once exclusive bit of technology that has put True Image Head and shoulders above the competition for years, that is the ability to create a backup image of a complete drive while Windows is still loaded and running. It is also possible to continue working even when a backup is being created if there is a pressing need to complete a particular task.

This is the very feature that converted me to TI some years ago. Because of this feature it is easy to set up a backup schedule just once and then backup images are created and managed automatically with no further user intervention being needed at all.

I use an Acronis secure zone on a secondary internal drive. I use this because it is a more secure than a file,folder or drive that is acessable to Windows and possible malware. It manages backup images on the FIFO basis with no further user input.

The only other feature I use is the recovery CD to make restores. This is after all what one would have to use if the main drive failed so I keep in practice.

Note I never run validations. Instead I swap out the main drive and replace it with a one of a previous generation and then run a restore. 100% safe and secure.

Xpilot

 

@xpilot
Thank you for the comprehensive explanation.
Great points. I can follow you.

But only one word to "...is the ability to create a backup image of a complete drive while Windows is still loaded and running...":
Please imagine following:
Windows is runing, many files are open. The TrueImage starts and want to create a full image from the boot partition.
All files are allocated 'exclusive' with the exception of the open files.
Here Ti reads with 'share' (no other way).

And now imagine that there is a little software installation (i.e. IrfanView) running. This setup of IrfanView creates some registry entries.
These entries are changing the ntuser.dat and system(.dat) sequentially.

What happens when Ti-backup read the registry when ntuser.dat is just updated but not system(.dat)?
Right, you aren't consistent further more. And TrueImage doesn't notice that. The validation of the image was ok, too. Also the restore finishes successfully. But IrfanView doesn't work...

=> You see the imaging with a running windows can be dangerous.
But: This case is very constructed by myself and the chance that this happens is very close to NULL.
But I wanted to say 'only one word' to the reliability of such case.

 

Yadda yadda yadda. Periodically people like you post here, telling us how backup from Windows is unreliable. The fact is that it works. Thousands of ATI users can attest to that. Acronis found a method that works.

Naturally the backup image is a "snapshot" of a point in time, in this case of the drive at the start of the backup process. If you make changes to the drive after the snapshot is taken, but before the backup process has completed, then those changes won't be reflected in the backup.

Running ATI backups from within Windows works very well and is reliable.

 

The first thing ATI to make a backup of apartition/disk is make a bitmap of the sectors in use; writes are then filtered. So you can keep changing bits on the drive but the backup will only contain what was on the drive when the bitmap was created.

To capture subsquent changes, one must do subsequent backups.

 

Is it the same as 'laber-rhabarber' in Geman? (ok, I understand)

WRONG!
That's not what I'm talking about.
Please notice the special important restrictiveness I mentioned: I talked about the "boot"-partition where the OS is installed.
And ONLY from the boot partition.

But I don't want splitting hairs

FYI:
In a friendly company I support the little PC farm (only 1 Server). There we use Ti11 exclusive with fullbackups under Windows for the data partitions(Ti-Tasks).
It works reliable. Every month I copy a set of fullimages and restore them on a test-server. It works for 100%.

And: If I think that Ti is not reliable I wouldn't have bought it.

Please excuse me, I don't want to upset you.

 

I am not upset. It just gets tiring seeing people arrive here and tell us that ATI can't be reliable when run from Windows. They all have their own theories as to why it can't be reliable, and are often unwilling to accept what much more experienced users tell them.

Fair enough, they can believe what they want and can use the rescue CD or use a different tool entirely. They should just stop trying to convince us of their superior insight, in the face of overwhelming evidence that they're wrong.