What keeps users from using rollback/eazfix?

Several days or longer. This is based on setting up a new computer, installing apps and configuring to resemble the old computer.

Four times.
The Google study of 100,000 HDs suggests 8% die each year.

 

totally understandable. If people don't use the snapshots frequently then images will be the best for them but for people like me who switch between snapshots 3-4 times a day sometimes more it would take forever for me to keep restoring images.

That would be about 146 hours a year restoring images at 6 minutes a restore. WoW!! Or about 7 hours a year using snapshots using 15 seconds to load a snapshot which is actually way longer than it takes. Of course I am not including windows restarting with either of these and oh I almost forgot the restore bootdisk loading time for most imagers..ouch

Thanks,

Chris

 

Why would you setup a new computer because the drive crashed? Are you saying if your whole computer burned up?


Thanks,

Chris

 

Sorry, I worded that badly. If my HD died I'd just restore an image. If I didn't have an image (this is theoretical) it would take me several days to setup a new HD to my satisfaction.

 

Well I guess even if it crashed and took 4 days for you to fix it to your liking you would have still saved about 1 day if you would have been using snapshots instead of images... Thats not counting the time it takes to make the images either tack on about another 140 hours at least although some people go to bed when they image. In your case though If it really would take that long imaging sounds like a good option for you. Snapshots aren't for everyone I guess.

Edit: I say at least 140 hours this is just a guess my imaging took a little longer and i'm sure some of yours are shorter.

Thanks,

Chris

 

I think judging from discussions on Rx & EAZ-FIX they have some work cut out for them, and i don't see it as impossible since they've already taken steps in that direction.

The idea solution of course would be Rx + EAZ-FIZ to finally fashion a stable and reliable code that could serve as an alternative solution to any backup program by implimenting one themselves that can image + restore with complete confidence and be depended on with high percentages of success just like imaging/restore programs INCLUDING ALL SNAPSHOTS. I refuse to believe it's so far beyond their respective abilities. They are product developers and if need be they hopefully, if they find it within their means & resources, surely can find the right combination of NEW sharp engineers to carry out such a task. The delay is proving they are ATM lacking qualified personnel to bring it to light.

That would be the icing on the cake for these 2 ISR's.

 

Agreed!

Thanks,

Chris

 

This is the deal breaker for me. When people were saying that the image function is fixed, I assumed they meant that it's now able to image snapshots as well as just the baseline. The idea of going from FDISR to Rx/EAZ-FIX and giving up the ability to image all my snapshots (despite my keeping offline copies as well) is just unthinkable.

For me, the snapshots serve as a multi-boot system. I have one set up for games, one for music, one for general work, a base level install in XP, one to test Vista, etc. It's like having multiple customized PC's all available almost simultaneously. Having worked this way for a few years now, I just don't see Rx as coming close to being a replacement yet, sadly.

It is fast at making snapshots though, I'll grant you that. I'd much rather have the security FDISR provides than the speed though.

 

Chris, we're getting off topic but my images are created automatically while I work on the computer. So no time loss on my part. I now do unattended restores and I can walk away from the computer while the OS is being restored. It takes about 6 minutes from clicking a batch file until I'm at the "restored desktop".

 

I found out that you are corerect. The dumps are not there. It is very complicated issue which was described by andrew in email. At some point I hope this will be implemented. It will be helpful when using rollback to beta test.

Thanks,

Chris

 

Good guess Peter! It is related to drivers but without quoting the whole email it is to difficult to explain.

Thanks,

Chris

 

Yea Peter in safe mode it is the current snapshot.

Thanks,

Chris

 

Well, without explaining all the bolts and nuts implicated, will they found a solution to this problem and solve it in there next version/build release?

Thanks,
Atomas31

 

I guess well have to wait and see but I think probably yes.

Thanks,

Chris

 

Sorry if this was already answered, but I didn't see it when doing a quick look at this thread.
Can Shadowprotect and Eaz-Fix be installed and used together or are there conflicts?
If there are conflicts are there any relatively simple solutions?
Thanks.
Hugger

 

As far as I know they can be used together.

Thanks,

Chris

 

Sorry I misread you I thought it said shadowdefender. My apologies. peter is correct I did read that raw image works but I can not find the thread.

Thanks,

Chris

 

Peter and Chris,
Thanks for the replies.
I think I understand that if I make an image from inside Windows I'll lose some of my images, which essentially are restore points.
If that's what happens, how do I get around it.
Or should I not use either of the products I mentioned?
Thanks.
Hugger

 

I'm doing some testing with this combination at the moment and it seems to work quite well .

If you image with almost all imaging software (including ShadowProtect) from within a Rollback/Eaz-Fix environment then you will get the current state of the system only and if you restore that image then you will need to re-install RB/EF.

The exception to this is Image For Windows. This has a utility called Phylock which allows IFW to 'get through' the RB/RF driver so that you can make an image which includes all the sectors on the disk (a RAW image) and which can be made while Windows is running. This will allow you to keep all your snapshots.

From outside of Windows (using a recovery CD) you can image the system using SP and many other imaging programs and you can get all your snapshots again by using the RAW mode. This doesn't have to be as onerous as it sounds if you keep your system partition at anything under 40GB. Also, most imaging software will compress the image so you don't end up with an image anywhere near the size of the partition.

The image will be larger and slower to make of course but, as your snapshots may be the equivalent of 4 or 5 completely different PC configurations then you could put it in the context of only having to make one backup for the lot.

Depending on your chosen software you may also need to have a copy of the MBR and Track 0 in case of total disaster. From the recovery CD, ShadowProtact does this automatically.

So, what I've been trying out is, having made an image with SP from outside of Windows, I then set it up to take regular incrementals to a second drive. In case of disaster, I can then restore the image which will have all but my most recent snapshots. I can then explore the SP incrementals from the newly restored system and recover any data files I need since that last external image was taken.

Next on my to-do list is to discover how rolling back (or forwards) the system messes up SP's incrementals .

Graham