FDSIR/EAZ-FIX

Try imaging with heavy Video files as i mentioned, it requires aditional resources and time, but thats no issue here. Video files, especially of the FLV group consume a huge enough capacity that would slow down even SP.

Still as i mentioned, time is of no essence, quality overrrides any speed factor to imaging IMO.

Back OT, EAZ-FIX is a fantastic compliment for FD-ISR but ib now way is a logical alternative to the expert engineering thathas made even the FD-ISR workstation a prize to hand on to for the foreseeable future given it's genuine version once distributed by Raxco!!!

 

As I mentioned ,a proper imager wont be slowed by any sort of video files.
I told you that my backup includes all sorts of video files,but SP just charges on.
You say even SP would be slowed by them-how would you know ,you sneer at SP and havent ever used it!!

Then you say time is of no essence,quality overrides any speed factor-WHAT QUALITY,the imager has absolutely none-you have for example never restored one,so how would you have a clue.
It would have to be the very worst imager there is.

Apart from you,the average user isnt going to be happy backing up an image which takes hours to download daily,takes up a lot of space and for all practical purposes,cant be written onto DVDs because it would need so many every backup, then takes ages to restore,if succesful.

I think you are deluding yourself.

FDISR isnt a compliment to EF because they are both ISRs and arent designed to be used together.

 

I respectivefully submit the last 2 opinions are in error in those last two sentences. And here is why Hairy Coo

I delude nothing, i been involved in malware research longer than most recent ISR/Backup Programs applications analysis, so to your own favor theres reasonable ample room to contest at least some of my opinions regarding these, however i take them not at all for granted but on actual results that i i have experienced from them both locally in comparisons and is leads to my suggestions betwen the two.

On the other other hand depending on your own particular perspective and opinions, FD-ISR can in indirectly be said to compliment EAZ-FIX as an alternative and in case i didn't make myself plain enough by reply which i think you'll have a better degree at accepting then then the former, i disagree also.

And in contarary to what appears to you as a suggestion they are designed to be used together, you should take note i in no way support that they were ever designed to be used together and i reject any suggestion of supporting that they should or even recommend it be used in that manner at all, becuse as you rightly point out in those statements neither " are designed to be used together" what so ever and i also support that thinking wholeheartily myself.

My answer to that if you read the reply at all was a resounding "not at all" but only separate.

 

You answered this already and I did read the reply-I didn't ask again.

 

Pete,

In fact the the backup size was only 4gb-28gb was his disk size.

I quoted the SP speed conservatively at 2 minutes for this,should be even less in practice.

The backup speed is unusably slow, as is the restore speed,plus the large relative image size means a huge quantity of DVDs must be used on an ongoing basis,if you are thinking of writing to them.I tried this only once-5 DVDs where used.
The reliability is doubtful-and all in all-whereas the snapshot side is brilliant,the imaging is just not usable to ensure security-imagine doing all this every day.

 

It seems to me more for retired eldery people with oceans of time at their hands.

If you are looking for something good,pick it up from the corporate designed stuff,it has to be very good,otherwise a short livespan !!

 

Not really wishing to jump to the defence of the imaging part of RB/EF as I don't use it but, before it gets condemned totally, I just tried it on a particularly slow laptop and I imaged a 15GB partition which had 3.5GB of data. It produced a 1.7GB image in 6 minutes which is not fast I'll grant you, but I think Easter's PC must have nipped off for supper while he was asleep.

Hairy Coo, did you have compression turned on when you tried it as it seems to compress ok here on the 'Normal compression' setting?

Graham

 

Graham
Ok even with your example a proper imager like SP would backup about 20 times faster-I image 34gb in 12 minutes.
From memory did use compression,but its only limited to a rather small amount.
Possibly some users will be happy with it and it may be all they need if only really small partitions are used,as in your case.

Edit;based on your experience,just did an up to date test,which really wasnt too bad,except for two reliabilty glitches

"Well,in all fairness to Rbx/EF,I tested Drive Image in the current version of RBx with mixed feelings.

The speeds were better than previously and in fact only about 2-3 times slower than SP,which is not unacceptable I suppose.

The image size also was about the same as SP,so the compression is working.
The recovery disk which must be used, is attractive and works quite easily
The restore worked out OK,except RBx needed reinstalling.

Prior to booting into Windows,CHKDSK autoran with faults,a bit of a worry.

At this stage,would say the developers are definitely on the right track,with more work to do.

Obviously not as competent as a fully fledged imager,which was never the intention,but probably quite sufficient for some,as long as the reliability proves OK'

 

DriveSnapshot btw is been and continues to be my number 2 imager, and yes it is incredibly fast for such a small imager, restores are equally efficient and from my recent experiences 100% restore rate.

 

Hairy Coo,

How large is the image? Or is the image 34 GB?

 

Brian
The image size is actually 35.5gb which took less than 12 minutes using the slower desktop backup option as distinct from the recovery CD.

 

Every '' Luxury'' application may fail sometimes,its a small inconvenience as long as you have good images to fall back upon.Anything may destroy my system or drive,if the images are there, no panic,restore to same drive or a new one and up you go,in all cases for me it takes 5 or 6 min.and running again.

 

Exactly-I remember the bad old days circa Win 98,before discovering imaging, when it would regularly take a day to recover,but still lose all data.