True Image has let me down big time - Help.

Xpilot,

Pretty slick although my down time is zero for 5 computers. I assume you keep your backup images for a while because if you have a virus or a software problem it will be transferred to each restored HD.

Hard drive failures are relatively rare compared with software problems. I'd restore 50 images for software problems compared to a hard drive failure. But I have a low threshold for restoring.

Backup techniques are so personal. How differently we approach the issue.

 

Peter2150,

Just a few questions about First Defense. Where are the snapshots stored? The OS partition? How large are the snapshots? How many snapshots would you typically keep in your computer? Does it increase boot time? Is it similar to GoBack? (I haven't used GoBack either).

 

Pete, thanks for that.

 

Pete,

There are some very interesting opinions in this thread and it seems some folks have less than full confidence in TI. Even though you restore an image as a test do you have confidence that it will restore successfully in a months time when you may need it for the real thing. If you are worried about the first restore, why shouldn't you be worried about subsequent restores?

 

You jsut need to test a given ATI version/build on a particular hardware setup. That ensures that the Linux driveers will work on your machine all the way through a restore process.

Once it's known to work onthe hardware, file integrity should be the only concern and validation is probably adequate to test for that. I've hnever had tib show up as invalid so I stopped checking, but I still do the one-time restore test when I put a (new) version of ATI on a machine (or change the hardware (chipset or drive types)

 

On my PC I have had a failure rate of approx 1/2 percent of all restores undertaken. This is in a run of about 15 months of mostly daily restores. Because I am very risk averse any failure is one too many for me. So my rule is never restore over a current working hard drive so the odd failure from time to time is just not a problem, ever.

Xpilot

 

Xpilot and I have had our disagreements in the past, especially when it comes to the Acronis Secure Zone.... but don't lets go there....

There is however one thing on which we are in total agreement....

I think it is helpful if we remember that a large percentage of the members of this Forum have limited technical skill or experience. For many members the task of reinstalling Windows and all their software with all the problems that this entails is just too much of a challenge. Therefore Xpilot's over-cautious approach, is in my view, absolutely correct.

T.

 

That is a business model.. this is a home product. You should be able to put in the rescue disc and, barring a bad hard drive, restore your system to running order in almost a single step.

And never use caddies.. at least not the cheap ones. They restrict the flow of air and shorten the life of your hard drive considerably. Some have fans, but they don't move nearly enough air plus they have a lifespan of a year if you're lucky. The only caddies worth using are $100s of dollars and are meant for business purposes.

 

Must be nice.. I have 900GB of video. I'm not exactly going to restore that each backup..

 

That I am afraid is absolute utter and complete rubbish.
I do not have the receipt to hand but my rack with two fans built in and three drive drawers bought about about 15 months ago cost me less than 50 Uk pounds. That was with no shopping around I have since found they can be bought for considerably less.
When I pull out a drive to rotate in another one it is hard to feel any warmth above ambient temperature.
Get Real.

Xpilot

 

Many people separate their data from their OS and programs. To use TI to make images of already compressed Video is a complete waste of its capabilities.

I keep lots of video on PVR drives and where I feel the need to backup up I burn to DVDs which I keep under the TV where they belong. That way I can enjoy Video and commercial DVDs in glorious surround sound and on a big plasma screen with no PC whirring in the background.

Xpilot

 

Hi Crypto1701

Thanks for your feedback.

Unfortunately the information that you have provided is totally wrong. Please remember that many of the members of this Forum rely on us providing accurate and useful information. The information that you have provided is neither accurate nor useful and is totally misleading for inexperienced users.

Disk Caddies and particularly SATA Trayless Racks are very reliable. Disk Caddies have the same life expectancy as a PC and SATA Trayless Racks have an indefinate life expectancy because there are no electronic components.

Rather than hinder airflow, Disk Caddies and Racks in fact promote an improved airflow.

Your price quotation of hundreds of dollars is nonsense. RaidSonic, who are world leaders in the production of Caddies and Racks produce top quality products that retail for under US$35.

Your reply to Xpilot about 900GB of Video has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. The subject deals with the System and Programs disk/partition, not Data, Music or Video files.

It is important that information that is posted on this Forum is verified, validated, tested and backed up with real facts.

Opinions of the best way to do things will differ between members, but that is the way that we all learn. What is not optional is that we actually have tested our procedures many times so as to ensure that they are viable.

T.

 

Xpilot, thanks for that figure. I can understand your caution. Have you heard of an image restoring successfully on the first occasion but not restoring successfully at a later date? Thousands of restores would need to be done to test this possible scenario.

A restore failure rate of 1 in 200 is very concerning for those newbies with a single HD computer and for others unable to test their images.

 

Agreed totally here. But unlike Xpilot, I have my invoice for the five mobile racks I purchased in July 23rd, 1999, for $12 US a piece - that's almost 8 years ago. All are still working and they have one fan incorporated into the design. Haven't lost a drive that was mounted in them either.

 

Not unheard of and usually is because of a problem with a sector going bad on a HD either through a HW problem or something causing a corruption on the disk. I particularly don't trust optical media, especially RW, over the long term; you are free to disagree. This covers the situation where the actual archive file has gone bad. Other cases where you can't restore can be caused by other things such as bad RAM, motherboard or disk controller; in these cases no image is likely to restore.

I totally agree with the earlier post that says if you can do a successful restore you will be able to do subsequent restores successfully barring any HW problems as described above.

You are typically restoring several gigabytes of info and it only takes 1 bad bit to have TI reject the restore. Your hardware must be 100%!

Having only 1 copy of a backup archive is risky. Anything happens to it and you don't have a backup. Multiple copies should be kept even if they are dated and would require security updates and updating subsequently installed software. Backups should also be kept on different backup devices/locations. If you have 50 archives on your external drive and it dies on you, the 50 archives might as well have been one archive. I alternate my archives on 2 USB external drives but the archives are also on a second internal HD as the primary backup.

Pay extra attention to your data files since they are available nowhere else. You can always get another copy of Windows or Word, or Photoshop but the spreadsheets, jpgs, mpgs you made yourself are nowhere else. I always back them up by simple copies. I don't need the compression and I like to avoid stuffing them into a proprietary container file where an error in the wrong location can render the whole backup useless.

 

seekforever,

You and I have very similar backup strategies. The only area where we disagree is incremental images. I like them.

 

I have only once restored a previously restored image so cannot answer that one. I only did this after a restore failure to make sure that the process could work successfully from an earlier image and it did.

I was doubtful about giving a restore failure rate because I don't suppose that it is typical for other hardware but the fact that they can occur at all is a concern.

I am fairly sure that the failures would not have been detected before the event by running validations. This is because the restores failed well into the restore process and not at the start or very end which is where I would expect a validation checksum error to show up.

When I have one of my rare restore failures I now swap hard drives back again, re-image, put the now blank HDD back again and run a restore again. I could more easily just restore from an earlier image but for completeness I go through the swapping process.

My hardware passes all the usual tests such as CHKDSK and there are no reported errors at all. Having said that I feel certain that these random rare failures are hardware related. I suppose I owe it to the group to run run Mem test to check out my RAM. I have never done this before and I doubt that an anomaly which only occurs once in hundreds of days would be detected.

A link to an idiot's guide to downloading and making a Mem test CD? or whatever might spur me into action


Xpilot

 

Xpilot.

Thanks for that honest answer.

Here's a link to MemTest. I'm sure you know what to do. I've used it on friends' computers and it's spectacular when there is a memory problem.

http://www.memtest.org/

 

Why?
The way I do it is...
If my C drive is busted (not bootable for some reason) I first make an image of that to USB, then restore a verified backup image direct to the disk.
Can't think of an easier, safer way to do it.
That way you always have a copy of your latest work to mount if you need files that have changed since the last backup.
Lon