disk image or sector-by-sector.

Hello,
I run true image 11, build 8053, as a stand alone program. I backup the complete hard drive, two partitions, about once a month using the sector-by-sector method. This method is very time consuming for a 160gb hard drive. Is the sector-by-sector approach more reliable then the regular disk image backup or am I wasting my time? Will the restore points still work on the recovery partition if I don’t use the sector-by-sector method? Thanks.

 

A normal partition image is all that is needed by us mere mortals.
A sector-by-sector backup will be run automatically if the source is in a file system that Acronis does not recognise.
There is a forensic reason to run a sector-by -sector backup if there is a need to examine and possibly recover information from what is ostensibly free space.
Certainly not something I would get involved with ( I hope!)

Xpilot

 

That's normal because the empty sectors will read and store in the image.
That costs time.

No.
One exception:
You want to unerase deleted data after restoring the image.
But: who want this?

What do you mean with 'restore points'?


EDIT:
Ups, not fast enough

 

My HP has a partition on the hard drive used for restoring back to a point in time. Restore points.

 

Ok, I understand

Yes, why not.

Restore with a normal backup (without the sector-by-sector method) has a similar result as a restore with sector-by-sector method AND a following 'defrag'.

Only 'similar' because Acronis sector compression is not equal defrag compression.

There are no reasons that the HP-RestorePoints will fail.

 

Actually, that's a deficiency in True Image. I used to use Drive Image (many eons ago... ), the precursor to this product and Norton's Ghost product (and any other such current product), which did sector-by-sector copies, ignoring empty space, and obviously, any OS that resided on the disk. I'd love to use it again, it worked flawlessly, and I had absolute confidence in it (which I don't with True Image)... but it doesn't support current large hard disk drives...

 

What do you mean?
- the reading of all sectors independend of empty or filled?
or
- the passing of empty sectors?
Acronis TrueImage11 can both.

When sectors are ignored because they are empty then you cannot talk about a "sector-by-sector-copy".
And: any OS? Tell me what OS TrueImage cannot backup.
(BTW: it doesn't depend on OS but of filesystem.)

One wort to this:
I'd used PQ-Image until the hardware became too new for it. I choose Ghost9.0. Whats a party when I change from HDD 90GB to 320GB: The PC cannot start. It freezes. The reason: Ghost starts up with 'services'. These services cannot read HDDs greater than 250GB. I change to Ghost12.0: the same.
I evaluate the image software at the market.
My choice: True image from Acronis.

Please tell me a concrete case where you determine the unreliableness with Ti.

 

I really don't have as much time as some to talk about the topic, as I've my hands full at the moment, but if this is of further interest to you, might I suggest that you review SmartSector technology which was used by Drive Image. It might help shed some light onto what I was referring to, in case we were misunderstanding each other.

 

may be.
We talk about this when we meet in furure and you have time.
THX

 

By default, if it recognizes the file system, TI will only backup in-use sectors.
You can, in the latest versions, override that and opt to do a sector-by-sector backup. TI will then include every sector on the disk, in-use or not, in the backup image.
If TI cannot recognize the file system (and therefore has no idea what sectors contain live data) it will do a sector-by-sector backup.