Rollback rx question

Is there any way to only rollback system c and not other partitions?
I can't find any settings that says anything about choosing partitions

 

That can only be accomplished during the installation process via the Custom Install option, so you will have to uninstall* and then reinstall RB. Within Custom Install RB requests which partitions you wish to protect.

*when uninstalling, make sure to select the Current Snapshot!

Aaron

PS. Welcome to Wilders!

 

In your opinion, should most users protect other partitions or opt out and only protect system?

 

Not to answer for Aaron (whom I highly regard), I just protect C: with RB. However, I backup my entire system on a regular basis with Drive Snapshot.

Scott

 

Thanks, now if I get this defragging issue figured out i'm good.

If I run the shieldcmd /defrag command I then can defrag with my auslogics or no?
What exactly does that command do?

 

Yes you can, but I would suggest uninstalling RB if you think you need to run your Auslogics defragger because (imho) it's a 'pia' to defrag using that command.

It allows a disk defragger to actually execute while RB is installed. Otherwise RB blocks the execution of any disk-defragger.

Scott

 

How is it a pita? lol
Also if I may...what is the proper way of un-installing RBRX incase one wants to simply not use it for awhile or defrag normally then re-install?

 

The first pita is having to first run the switch command using Run. Then after running your defragger you must run Update Snapshot (which blows away all of your snapshot history) so imho you might as well uninstall to the Current Snapshot, do your PC housekeeping-defragging and then reinstall RB (you have to reactivate RB upon reinstalling).

RB's uninstall program works for me...

Scott

 

Well a small price to pay for security I suppose, thanks for your help

 

Just don't lose sight that RB is but one layer of a total security implementation!

Scott

 

Well I'm pretty set, Other than RBRX I have CIS, emsisoft anti-malware,shadow defender and sandboxie

 

I do not know about anyone else, but I have never been able to get that command line switch to work with defragging. I have tried on two different systems and different installs, all with no luck. So for this reason I have always used the uninstall method.

 

It does? I thought you got large snaps if you defragged with Rx installed since Rx would record the locations of the moved data. Also Rx will protect (reserve) the original location of the moved data on the drive thereby potentially dramatically reducing the free space available.

Are you sure it blocks the execution?

 

I have tried running a defragger to see exactly what happens with RBRx. I used O & O Defrag. It appears with the defragger that it is actually defragging but no files are being moved. The analysis of my drive stays exactly the same before and after the defrag. When I have tried to do the command line switch, it always has given me an error saying the command was unsuccessful. But as you asked, RBRx definitely blocks at least O & O, Perfect Disk, and Windows Defrag as I have experienced and saw it happen.

 

Very odd, if Rx is blocking defrag from running then it should make no diff if auto defrag is on or off,,,,but we are told its bad to leave it on.

Very odd indeed.

 

Yes it does (as of v9). It is true that defragging with RB installed will result in a very large subsequent snapshot. That is why the developers decided to block the defragger's actions in v9 unless you ran the special command. But even if you run a defragger using the special command, you will note {in post #8} that I said...

Scott

 

Scott is correct in that RB v9.1 blocks the action of any disk-defragmenter. See the release notes below and in particular, the very last bullet point.

I also agree with Scott's suggestion that it's best to uninstall RB in order to run a disk-defrag when the drive/partition is appreciably fragmented.

Aaron

 

Thanks for the info guys, I was basing my belief on version 8 info. I did not notice the change in 9s.

 

No problem bg - it was just a v9.1 'precautionary enhancement'.

 

Everyone, including vendors have to know the importance of routine defragmenting is essential. So IMO a simple remedy/suggestion for makers of RollbackRx might be to fashion it (improvement) with it's own built-in defragment feature (if possible) since it's current design prohibits use of them for normal RollbackRx operation.

Regards EASTER

 

I second that. The best improvement that could be made to RB Rx and its cousin Drive Vaccine, is to include a built-in defragmenter. That way, you can have your snapshots in place and, at the same time keep your hard disk fragmentation to a minimum.


Carlos

 

Hi EASTER/Zyrtec,

First let me respond to EASTER's statement "the importance of routine defragmentating is essential". Actually that's only true when there are a lot of fragmented 'chunks' that are relatively large in size. Otherwize there is little to be gained by routine defragging (and actually more to be lost in terms of the resulting disk I/O).

Secondly, RB doesn't change Windows current state or it's file-layout, it just takes snapshots of various system states. RB's built-in defragger is very capable of defragging and optimizing those snapshots but there is no way it can (or should) mess with the current system state!

Regards,
Aaron

 

I understand that Logic.....only to a point that you expressed. However, keep in mind that it is inevitable that over both the short term and long, that it's a sure given, especially where a lot of file activity is involved which for most is daily, that a drive is definitely going to fragment at some point, be it little or lot and when it does become fragmented, that progression is going to lead to slow-downs & errors eventually requiring a comprehensive defrag in order to return data balance back to a more acceptable level again.

Hope this helps.

Regards EASTER

 

I've had RBRx installed for over a month, and there has been no change in terms of speed. I use Puran Defrag to analyse C: which at the moment reads for 'Fragmentation Percentage By Size'=3% and 'Fragmentation Percentage By Count'=0%. These values were the same 2 weeks ago, therefore hopefully in my case the defragmentation seems to remain under control (some people have reported using RBRx for more than a year without apparently any slowdown).

I've also noticed that by updating the baseline snapshot (which I do every other day) 'Fragmentation Percentage By Count' drops to 2%. At this stage I can't say for sure, but it looks like that the defragmentation level seems to be under control by RBRx own tools.

I suspect that the degree of fragmentation might vary according to the OS in use, XP needs to be defragmented often compared to Vista and Win7. With Vista I have never seen any performance improvement after defragmentation (I'm talking obviously before installing RBRx) actually the opposite was true.