Snapshots, Archives & Images - I need a plan

Unlike the excellent prevention measure used by wilbertnl, i instead choose to make my duplicate Secondary or fallback snapshot an archive which due to the Raw Force of First-Defense! serves as my 2nd snapshot. Whereas my real Secondary is totally DIFFERENT! then the first.

Therein lies exceptional versatility and no limits to your own creativity. As i see it FD-ISR's archives are the Main Core for me since they can be safely set aside on another isolated (unplugged) internal disk untill wanted or needed.

This very unique technology of Leapfrog's expands well beyond the basic trappings of limited dependency.

EASTER

 

Easter, care to expound upon that? While I see the obvious benefit of keeping one's main snapshot archived, why don't you also keep a duplicate snapshot of that main useage snapshot? Seems you'd want to do any sort of testing on the duplicate, and if the changes were beneficial, youd want to update that duplicate to your main.

Thanks,

Chrome

 

Say Chrome

From my experience theres no need to.

That archive remains an archive even after it's been loaded over a snapshot.

So irregardless of useage or purpose, the snapshot in which that particular archive was made in the first place, is preserved. Be that First, Second, Third, so on and so forth.

It's just too easy. In fact, i can even treat that archive as an image backup and have many times before.

That's the beauty of FD-ISR!!! So many possibilities, so many uses, and just like in the same manner that ErikAlbert LOVES to brag so stately & repeatedly on his failess Boot-To-Restore courtesy FD's FreezeStorage which removes ALL/ANY changes to his disk, i take the same pride that NOTHING! and NO APP, not even a total drive failure or file infector virus can defeat FD-ISR so long as your installer is still in great shape and your archives are safely deposited and resting OFF-LINE and isolated in storage.

The perfection of it's programming is not so much a secret in some respects when you look at it from all sides.
FD-ISR can be likened to an image app and in fact it drastically reduces my dependency on them. (Dare i say replace?)

 

you can say replace, if you dont mind that extra step of first installing an operating system, then installing fdisr, then importing your snapshots. too bad fdisr doesnt include boot disc functionality, then it truly would be a replacement far more powerful than any traditional imaging app

 

FDISR OWNZ THEM ALL

 

Its a pity that FD-ISR Rescue does not have the archive function as it would make the program much more appealing for those of us unlucky not to have the the original FD-ISR.

 

I concur with Easter, that the power of FD-ISR is beyond our imagination.

The archiving feature takes away any limit. You can fill up a datacenter with archives of any kind of installations or setups, even different operating systems if they are installed in a NT file system (NTFS).
You can create a new archive every day, so you can restore your system to any time. (I'm not making a functional suggestion, but merely demonstrating the unlimited power)

And I still think that creating and booting into a empty snapshot is almost magical. Offering the posibility to reinstall any NTFS supporting operating system without losing data!
Think of it: running Windows 2000, Windows XP-sp2, Windows XP-sp3 and more all in the same partition...

 

I don't need an empty snapshot, I create an image first, then an archive, then a snapshot. I'm doing this since September 2007 and it WORKS. This way I can also re-create an archive + snapshot over and over again, even when they are corrupted. Images are #1, then archives and snapshots.
I also don't backup my actual system partition anymore, too long online and possibly infected. Restoring an infected image is not a solution. Instead of that : I restore a clean image, upgrade it, do a backup and use it as my new actual system partition.

The reason why I don't like an empty snapshot, is that it is often created in a system partition, that has been online too long and might be infected.
If you have a malware on board, that infects all snapshots, it might infect the contents of an empty snapshot as well.

This has nothing to do with paranoia, pure logical reasoning and doing things in the right sequence.

 

Which demonstrates that each FD-ISR user develops their own preferred way of using this software.

You may be right about the empty snapshot, Erik-Albert, I thought that when you install Windows XP, it overwrites MBR and PBR (that is the reason why you need to reinstall FD-ISR in an empty snapshot) and the empty snapshot is reinstalled from a CD. The chance that an infection survives this rigid action is probably zero.

 

That is absolutely correct. Everything I did with FDISR is IMPOSSIBLE with any other ISR-software. You can understand why I'm so angry that FDISR is terminated and what do I get in return ? The Unreliable RollbackRx

This can be correct, but I prefer to do it my way, like you already mentioned in your first paragraph.

 

I think it's a matter of not only preference, but also neccessity. There comes a point when a person has to come to some kind of a compromise between going to possibly overzealous lengths to "ensure" total 100% security and the time and extra effort it takes to maintain such a setup/ and having more time to get other necessary things done in other aspects of life, yet having a slighty less "airtight' security setup.

The way this balance falls, would depend ultimately on the needs and then the wants of the user.

For instance, i'm studying for my security+ exam. For this studying I need to be able to work with different operating systems such as windows server 2000, windows server 2003, xp, and to an extent vista. The empty snapshot function allows me the ability to do this - it's only a matter of a couple minutes to boot between snapshots. This gives me a great advantage with my studying, as I can follow along with my texts concerning the different operating systems firsthand.

While this may somehow or other not be as secure as other system configs, It's a trade-off i'm willing to accept, as the benefits of having the various operating systems to work with ultimately far outweigh the negatives.

In my case it's like so: slightly tighter security & less risk of infection, no empty snapshot os installs. advantages=less chance of having to do a format in event of infection (which i'd never have to do anyway because I keep an acronis image offline) vs. slightly lesser security, with ability to work/study with different operating systems. advantages= security+ certification, better understanding of differing operating systems, and ultimately, a better paying job. So as is obvious, the choice in my case is clear.

Fdisr keeps me learning and contributes to my understanding of the microsoft operating systems, and with linux and bsd, I am using good old fashioned partitioning to have those at my disposal to work with as well.

I must admit, I am contented with my setup and booting around working with different systems keeps things interesting.

But point being, it all depends on the users needs, then preferences, as well as a consideration of effort and time needed, regarded with risk level in relation to other productivity endeavors.

Thanks,
Chrome

 

In your situation i would go for VM solutions,switching between OS's is faster,also safer, security wise.

But admit FDISR is a real gem,always sparkling from whatever side you look at it. LOL

 

Huupi, thanks for the advice, but I don't use virtual machines to work with different operating systems, I only use them to evaluate whether or not I want to keep and use the operating system on a more permanent level. Once I test an operating system in a virtual machine and I decide I want to keep it and continue working with it, the virtual machine gets deleted and the operating system gets it's own proper partition.

Thanks,
Chrome