I want a complete recovery/backup solution

Programs like Rollback RX and FD-ISR are very interesting to me. I like the ability to instantly recover from a malware attack or simply a major screw up.
However, as I understand it, neither has true bare metal recovery capability (though I believe it is claimed that V8 of Rollback does).

So if you were going to go with a solution that provides for immediate system recovery as well as disk imaging, what combo would you use?

From my research thus far, I like:

1. Shadow Protect coupled with
2. Rollback RX

Good combo?

 

very good combo.
dont know if there are any problems with them together thou so i would wait for replys about that.
lodore

 

Hi BeSafe,

To be safe you should also get am enternal hard drive, there very cheap now.

Take Care
Rico

 

So with an external Hard drive, no imaging SW is necessary?

 

The external HDD is for storing your images.

 

Probably so (although I don't use Shadow Protect, I've read good things about it). I use Acronis True Image with Rollback Rx which serves me well enough.

However, whichever combo you use (and there are several viable combos), you have the right idea in getting both an instant restore product and a disk-imaging product. You will wind up using the former type of program far more often than the latter type (because of the convenience factor), but if/when you face a 'disaster-recovery' situation, you will be very grateful you have (and use) a disk-imaging program. Getting an external (USB) harddrive to store your disk-images is good advice. I can tell you from first-hand experience that CD/DVD drives are painfully slow for creating/restoring disk-images (and they are also less reliable).

 

Each to their own, of course...

But to date, I've decided to go with only imaging software. I based my decision on how often I make significant changes and how much I would need/use an instant recovery. Add to those considerations that running as lean and mean as I can was/is very important to me (the less installed software the better.) To date, I have not had any reason to regret my decision.

(FWIW, I purchased 2 copies of ShadowProtect Desktop and only run them from the boot CDs. (SP is not installed on my systems.))

 

ShadowProtect and RollbackRx are only a good combo, if ShadowProtect restores ALL snapshots of RBRx. If that is NOT the case and please verify it first, you have a very bad combo, no matter what other people will tell you.

ShadowProtect and FDISR is an excellent combo and you need only TWO snapshots to get it done.

 

I go about it a bit differently i think but nonetheless affords equal results. Instead of investing in External disks i invest in "used" Internal Hard Drives from various computer repair shops and set the jumpers first to boot as a Primary with the machine of choice since XP Pro is Hardware dependent from install.

I couple a Secondary as Slave and away i go. I store my IMAGES on that Secondary (OffLine) and then pull the plug and stash it with my other PC hardware collections for safekeeping. The advantages of this for me is that i can at anytime use that same drive to boot up as MASTER and work with fashioning it to my preferences or else simply move the Jumper Pin again & plug it in as Secondary/Slave and do a restore in that manner. Either, Or, it gives me Freedom & Confidence plus makes for other interesting uses.

 

Of course Erik is entitled to the opinion he expresses above, but frankly I don't see much foundation for his 'hangup' on having to restore ALL snapshots.

As mentioned above, I use Acronis True Image with Rollback Rx and although I could capture and restore all of Rollback's snapshots if I wanted to do that, I choose not to do it because of the additional time and storage required for a Raw backup. My rationale is that I will only perform an ATI restore if I suffer a disk-crash (or the like). In that event, I will be very happy indeed to just recover my most current Rollback snapshot (i.e., my system's state before the disaster).

 

Hi Pvsurfer,

That was my thinking also, & when I used ATI to restore to the new drive, ATI sucked. I would have been better off starting scratch. Way too many errors in almost all apps.. Next SP 3 for me. Also ATI's support was the pits. Seems like to much attention is given to backup, while restore is the lowly stepchild.

Peter - Sounds wonderful & your so brave, not sure I understand fully your last post, sounds like you like SP though. SP 3 is taking too long

Take Care
Rico

 

Rico, I'm sorry to hear that ATI didn't do the job for you (btw, was it a new drive in the same PC, or another PC?). While that has never been my experience with ATI, I certainly accept that you had problems. But the point of my prior post was that (contrary to Erik's belief) I do not find it at all necessary to image all of Rollback's snapshots, regardless of the disk-imaging program used (be it ATI, DS, Paragon, ShadowProtect, or whatever).

 

http://www.storagecraft.com/products/ShadowProtectIT/
How might this differ from home use ?

 

Pete~ First of all, be assured that I didn't take Erik's comments (or yours) as a personal attack; as a 'seasoned' Rollback Rx user, I'm just expressing my counter-point on that issue. ...and in that regard, why does it even matter how many snapshots RB is (theoretically) capable of creating? The only thing that should really matter is whether or not the software accomplishes the job in the manner one wishes to use it. When I first started using (in truth, beta-testing) RB, I would take about 30 - 50 snapshots just to see how that 'stressed RB', but after RB's bugs were finally found and fixed I settled into a normal routine consisting of 7 to 10 snapshots between images.

As you know, RB can take snapshots of the entire (physical) C-drive, but not of any other installed physical drives. My C-drive hosts only my OS and Programs so based on my system use I find performing a weekly disk-image of my C-drive works out very well. My 2nd hard drive hosts my data, docs, photos, etc., which changes too frequently for weekly imaging (and is unprotected by RB) so I image my D-drive every day.

When I image my C-drive my current RB snapshot is in a stable state, so all that matters (to me) is to capture an image of that system-state. The prior 6 to 9 RB snapshots (which I lose when imaging) are of little consequence to my computing at the time of imaging. If I felt that any of them represented a system-state that I wanted to preserve, I would simply create a disk-image of that RB snapshot (At any one time, I typically have 3 to 6 disk-image backups of my C-drive on my large removable E-drive). So that's why I fail to see any big deal in losing old RB snapshots when imaging! ~pv

 

Another great combo is Rollback, FD-ISR and ATI or StorageCraft for imaging.

Rollback for quick snapshots, 2 to 3 seconds, FD-ISR for archive to external disk, 1 to 3 minutes after first archive, and ATI or StorageCraft for imaging for bare metal restore.

Silver

 

I agreed with Silver0066 that FD-ISR + Rollback Rx + ShadowProtect (Storage craft) are an excellent trio wich combine the strenght of all three products...

Atomas31

 

Very well put. I have a similar setup. I also beta tested RollbackRx a year ago and had several chkdsk problems and I returned it. After following it in these forums and trialing it, I re-purchased it just before V8 came out a month or so ago. I have had no problems with it. It is stable and uses very few resources.

I have been using it in combination with FD-ISR and ATI and these together have enhanced my computing experience immensly.

Silver

 

Hello besafe.

Back in January I was in the same decision-making quandry as you find yourself. After reading everything I could find and 'digest' on instant-restore programs, it came down to FD-ISR or Rollback together with ATI which I already owned at the time.

pvsurfer was instrumental in my final decision to buy Rollback to go along with my ATI (although I might add that he never 'pushed' Rollback as a superior solution to FD-ISR). It was purely a matter of my embracing his backup methodology, which works great for me as well.

As pvsurfer initially told me and has stated in this thread, it's extremely relevant to consider how you will likely want to use those programs and then select the programs which best fit your intended use. With all due respect for ErikAlbert and Peter, I don't find their requirement that an imaging product be capable of restoring all of Rollback's snapshots to be at all important to my way of computing (and it may not be to yours)!

PS. One thing that Erik and pvsurfer do agree on (judging from their past posts) is that disk-imaging is the final 'fail-safe' method, so fully test-out your disk-imaging program (and that means actually doing a restore!) and don't ever allow the convenience of your instant-restore program to lull you into not doing your image backups on a regular basis.

 

That's because you don't use snapshots as permanent snapshots, you use snapshots as throw away snapshots and you don't even care if they are all gone after restore, except one.

FDISR users keep at least two snapshots permanent.
Each time I restore I want those two snapshots back, not one, but TWO and if I have THREE snapshots I want all three snapshots back, not one, not two, but THREE.
If I was a RBRx-user, I would expect the same thing.

 

Erik, that represents your way of computing, not everyone's. I fully appreciate the differences you stated and you are correct in that the only things important for me to save are my current snapshot and my disk-images (of which I keep several).

It's just that your comments on this subject often come across as dogma rather than one person's preferencial way of computing. But I always find your posts interesting.

 

The job of an Image Backup software is to take an image of your harddisk and to give that same image back, when you need it. Not 25%, not 50%, not 75% but 100%, anything else is UNACCEPTABLE.
RBRx has nothing to do with it, but you don't seem to understand that.
Maybe it's because I work in a computer department and believe me these people wouldn't accept this.

The question is : which software is in trouble ? Acronis True Image/... or RollbackRx ?
IMO Acronis True Image and each Image Backup software that can't backup/restore RollbackRx completely is GUILTY.

 

Erik, there you go again with those categorical-like comments. If there's anyone here who refuses to understand another person's viewpoint it's your unwillingness to acknowledge that there are degrees of flexibility in the manner in which one uses their programs.

You (apparently) have not understood pvsurfer's remarks in this thread and other threads to the effect that while ATI is capable of performing a Raw image (thereby capturing all of Rollback's snapshots), he chooses not to do that (as I also have).

Peace!