ACronis True IMAGE 9 and backup corrupt message

Discussion in 'Acronis True Image Product Line' started by Emolle, Dec 7, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rop

    Rop Guest

    Pardon the fatty fingers. Instead of "not consistently gives good backup images" it should read "now consistently gives good backup images".

    -Rob-
     
  2. Tech1

    Tech1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Posts:
    38
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    As Info -
    I use "@Backup" (www.backup.com)
    Software to backup a select few files to their offsite facilities. The program was scheduled to run before the local Acronis 9 backup. When the program completes, there is always a status message on the screen, indicating success or failure.
    Every other day (nearly) I would check the Acronis log to see that the image verification would not be succesful. I decided to schedule the AtBackup backup AFTER the acronis backup and found that now my images are always good...
    Interesting to think that a simple dialog box displayed on the screen could cause a problem, but perhaps it did. Yes, I am relatively certain that both backups were not occuring at the same time, though that supposedly should not make a difference.
     
  3. kuba

    kuba Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    Posts:
    81
    I agree, Im looking for other options and going for the refund.
    I'm disapoointed in this product.
    Tried boot cd in safe version and still corrupt, forget it.
    Not worth risking.
     
  4. MSprecher

    MSprecher Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Posts:
    40
    I am very glad to say that in my case there was a final solution of the above problem:

    Two weeks ago for several reasons I decided to replace "Norton Internet Security Professional" which I had used for years by "F-Secure Anti-Virus 2006".
    After having uninstalled NIS PROF the problems with TI 9 (all builds) have disappeared.

    Yours
    Matthias Sprecher
     
  5. NickWhitehead

    NickWhitehead Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Posts:
    25
    Location:
    Cambridge UK
    I do not think this is a hardware fault of any sort. I have it as well, and I know that
    - I have no 'overclocked CPU' issues
    - No IO conflicts
    - No RAM faults (I've run RAM tests for hours)
    - No disk errors, either filing system errors or low level sector errors

    The boot partition is W2K, SP4, InCD 4 (for UDF) and TI 9.0 (2337) only - nothing else is installed.

    However, unlike one poster, I can not get verify to work even with a verify done independently after the backup completes. However - somes days I don't get it, some (most actually) days I do. Sounds like some random condition caused by uninitialised variables to me.

    It is a very serious issue. I'd love to know the answer. Until resolved, I cannot rely on TI for system backup. I am in contact with support, but no resolution so far.
     
  6. Menorcaman

    Menorcaman Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Posts:
    4,661
    Location:
    Menorca (Balearic Islands) Spain
    Hi Nick,

    You appear to have checked most things but have you carried out a straightforward MD5 checksum comparison as detailed in Post #39 on Page 2 of this thread? If you have then I guess we can assume that it passed?

    Regards
     
  7. NickWhitehead

    NickWhitehead Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Posts:
    25
    Location:
    Cambridge UK
    I haven't, because I'm not actually copying files around. I'm creating a backup of my 15GB boot partition into a root folder in a partition on disk 2, and checking it directly there. To show you the extent of the problem, this is what I did to-day:

    - Booted into the boot CD, created the backup, ran check, no problems.
    - Restored it to spare space on disk 2, no problems.
    - Did it all again, no problems.
    - Booted into my main W2K installation, ran check (on the same file), error - usual report: "... partition 0-0 ... " etc, err 0x70020.
    - Booted back into the boot CD. Created new backup, ran check, failed, same errors.
    - Booted into Seagate toolset, checked drive, checked controller. No controller problems, no bad sectors reported. (chkdsk had anyway been run yesterday, as had memtest86+).
    - Booted back into boot CD. Created new backup, ran check, passed.
    - Booted back into main installation. Got MD5 checksum of file. Ran check, failed with usual report, Got MD5 for file again, no difference (ie check isn't altering the file).

    The key thing here is that the SAME file passed one check and failed the next, yet MD5 shows it to be unchanged.

    I suspect therefore:
    * The backup creation probably works.
    * Check is unreliable (less so from boot CD, but still not right).
    * Recovery doesn't tend to work because it does a quick check first, which (probably erroneously) fails.

    But it's all a guess. The only thing I am certain of right now is that I don't trust it as my backup tool.

    I am in touch with support.
     
  8. seekforever

    seekforever Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Posts:
    4,751
    Very intriguing, but probably not your current view of the problem.

    What follows is in the category of nothing makes sense so let's try this!

    This is based on the steps you reported in the above message. What about considering you have a thermal problem or perhaps a marginal power supply? Reason I say this is that you ran OK on the boot disk but when you started up W2K you had a problem. [cool]

    You went back to boot disk, still a problem but then you ran Seagate, booted into TI and all was fine. [cooled off]

    Back into W2K and you got errors again. [heated up]

    What about, assuming you shut the machine off at night, booting up the TI CD first thing and continually do a Verify of a good archive and see if it will fail and how long it takes. If it fails, shut off the machine and let it cool to ambient and then repeat the process again and see if it is the same time.

    If you think there might be something to the thermal theory another thing to try is to take the side off the PC and blow air into it with a large fan.
     
  9. NickWhitehead

    NickWhitehead Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Posts:
    25
    Location:
    Cambridge UK
    Yes, I've thought on similar lines. I had already tried on/off heat type tests, but got no repeatable pattern. I've also had the sides off for the same reason. However, I have just tried your suggestion above, plus a bit more:

    - Booted into the TI boot CD environment, and over a period of two hours di ~10 checks on yesterday's previously saved (good) TIB file. Every single one passed.
    - Recreated the archive file, ran a check, still OK.
    - Rebooted into main W2K environment, ran TI, checked the same file. Also passed.
    - Closed down TI, opened it again, ran the same check and it failed.

    Very interesting are the date stamps on the file. The new back completed ~ 12:00, the (two) checks finished ~12:30. The time stamps are as follows:
    - created : 12:32
    - accessed : 12:04
    - modified : 12:50
    That is bizarre. Accessed 12:04 looks about right - that's around when the backup finished and the check started. Created 12:32o_O Hardly. And we haven't even got to 12:50 yet!

    How about that, then? (The PC clock is correct).
     
  10. NickWhitehead

    NickWhitehead Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Posts:
    25
    Location:
    Cambridge UK
    Actually, thinking about it, the times are probably caused by daylight savings time that the CD is not aware of. Ie 12:32=11:32, 12:50=11:50 (both set by CD) and 12:04 truly is 12:04 (set by main installed system).

    Nonetheless, the failure to check is definite, and the archive is good.
     
  11. seekforever

    seekforever Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Posts:
    4,751
    I think you said it failed whether in W2K or TI CD mode but it seems to me the W2K environment is the (bigger) problem.

    You have run Memtest86+ with no problem but I wonder if the problem might be memory related. Memtest86+ is very good but it still is not the actual environment. In my previous life as a System Manager we used to say that the only real diagnostic was the operating system; if it ran then everything was fine. Different locations are used for different things obviously in the 2 environments. Do you have some memory you can substitute or perhaps you have 2 sticks and you can run with just one or the other?

    You can also fall back, if you haven't done so, on the PC builder's trick of just starting with the bare bones PC by physically removing all unneccessary hardware and seeing if that fixes it. If it does, then add the next piece and keep going until if fails. These days removing unneccessary hardware may mean disabling in BIOS which isn't as good but all you can do.
     
  12. como

    como Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Posts:
    498
    I too have had problems with corrupt images made under windows, however I have found that if I disable Windows Defender and the "Standard Shield" of my Avast anti virus software then I can get images that are not corrupt.

    In the past I had Diskeeper Lite on my computer with the constant checking option enabled, this also produced corrupt images.

    Like MSprecher reported above, I also found that closing down Nortons Internet Security whilst creating an image resulted in images that are not corrupt.

    It appears to me that programs which are constantly checking hardrives can also be a cause of corrupt images
     
  13. NickWhitehead

    NickWhitehead Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Posts:
    25
    Location:
    Cambridge UK
    Lost reply, so here it is again. Thanks for your help here 'seekforever'. I've tried removing memory - all modules have been out singly at one time or another. No effect.

    I do not feel this is my hardware, to be honest. The PC is bulletproof the rest of the time, and is heavily used (s/w development, big image processing etc). Not only that, but Ghost 10.0 is perfectly reliable for backups. (Unfriendly to use with CD/DVD and feature poor compared to TI, but reliable). Also - too many others seem to have the same problem.

    I don't think it is s/w installation, as whilst the main working boot partition has a ton of stuff installed, I also have an 'archive only' one with W2K/SP4/InCD 4/TI only installed, and I get the same problems there.

    It is possibly a system configuration issue, but what is physically fitted, I need, being Matrox G400 display, basic 100baseT card, M-Audio multi-input audio card, PCI128 audio card, USB 2 port card. That, with a floppy, 768MB memory, and two 80GB disks, one DVD-ROM and one DVDR on one disk controller, is it.

    But, my money's on a bug. It smells of something uninitialised or similar. With that sort of thing, sometimes you get lucky, and sometimes you don't. It does not mean it is easy to fix though. I've been there.
     
  14. Menorcaman

    Menorcaman Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Posts:
    4,661
    Location:
    Menorca (Balearic Islands) Spain
    I agree that a number of users have reported problems with corrupt images in this forum but I bet there are a heck of a lot more out there who don't have a problem (myself included!).

    Viewing the postings over the past couple of years it's clear that not all motherboards are born equal, including different samples of the same make/model (component tolerances?). What frontside bus speed are you using Nick? Some users have previously reported complete success after reducing their bus speed from 400Mhz to 333Mhz or 333Mhz to 200Mhz. Easy to do and certainly worth a shot.

    Regards
     
  15. Leslie2

    Leslie2 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Posts:
    1
    Hi. I was planning on buying True Image and have been following this thread. I'd like to back up the 80 gig hard drive of my SFF PC, which is partitioned into two, to an external firwire drive (not purchased yet). I'd like to do incremental back ups as well as image the entire drive. I'm having doubts about whether or not True Image will work on my machine and am asking for advice considering any "red flags" the users of this forum might see concerning compatibility with my system, which is as follows:

    Mini Q SFF with Intel motherboard
    Onboard USB, Firewire, and sound
    Running Win98se, fully updated (I was using some legacy software which didn't like XP when I purchased this computer so I had Win96se installed instead), so no native USB support, I think
    Nvidia FX5600 graphics
    Western Digital HD
    Logitech Wireless Keyboard and Mouse - USB
    Norton Antivirus (not pro)
    Sygate Personal Firewall

    I'm not very tech savy and would really appreciate any advice which would help me get reliable backups to restore my system when the HD fails. Thanks in advance...
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2006
  16. Acronis Support

    Acronis Support Acronis Support Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Posts:
    25,885
    Hello Leslie2,

    Thank you for your interest in Acronis Disk Backup Software.

    Please note that we do not expect any problems with your hardware configuration. However, we recommend you to download and install Acronis True Image 9.0 Home trial version in order to see how the product works on your computer.

    You can also find more information on how to use Acronis True Image 9.0 Home in the respective User's Guide.

    Please visit Acronis online store to purchase the full version of the product.

    Thank you.
    --
    Tatyana Tsyngaeva
     
  17. NickWhitehead

    NickWhitehead Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Posts:
    25
    Location:
    Cambridge UK
    Well, this is quite an old slow PC in modern terms. It's PCI133 (SDRAM), not DDR. It's an AMD Athlon 1800+, actually running at 133MHz FSB, and 11.5x CPU, ie ~1533MHz. Quite slow, therefore, really. I might try slowing it down still more, say 100 times X, but I'll be depressed if that's the cause. Also just tried backing up to a FAT32 partition instead of NTFS. No different.

    I suppose the real problem is unpredictability. If it always failed in a certain way, and there was a workround, that would be OK. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

    I am waiting hopefully on Acronis support ...
     
  18. NickWhitehead

    NickWhitehead Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Posts:
    25
    Location:
    Cambridge UK
    Unfortunately, you could be right. I've reduced it to 100MHz and 13x from 133MHz and 11.5x, and have done two backups so far, both of which have checked. Not conclusive yet, but hopeful.

    It is alarming as the PC was supposedly running within its specifications anyway.

    Thanks.
     
  19. Cat-21

    Cat-21 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2005
    Posts:
    60
    I have been testing TI 9.1 WS and also have the restore issues all you guys have. For myself the failure to restore is not attributed to the media type as I have written an image to every possible available format (DVD, Internal HD, USB HD, NETWORK, etc.).

    When I create backups they run and verify successfully. I demoed TI 8.0 WS over a year ago and had similar unresolvable issues with restore and authentication. <snip>

    I have stated before and again 1,000 times, Acronis has got to get their act together and start supporting users. I know the guys here who work the help forum are concerned and care. However, Acronis dropping the ball like this makes you guys (Acronis Support Reps and Forum Reps) look ignorant as if you don't know how to support your product. Enough talk Acronis, let's see fixes in place ASAP and let's see user's applaud your efforts as all they're looking for is a working product.

    P.S. - On a bright note I was able to at least "see" an image in a network share which is an improvement over v8.0 which couldn't authenticate a user to any share.

    edited to remove competitor "plug" - Detox
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 29, 2006
  20. x=y+z

    x=y+z Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Posts:
    13
    Location:
    USA
    If you need to see how stable a stock/overclocked PC is (after it passes memtest86+), run prime95 (http://www.mersenne.org/freesoft.htm) to stress out CPU and memory in the Window environment. For a stable PC, prime95 should continue running for at least 8 hours. If there are any hardware problems such as CPU-memory timing, and/or CPU overheat, then prime95 would terminate prematurely with errors. For a PC that is so unstable, prime95 will terminate fairly quick.
     
  21. NickWhitehead

    NickWhitehead Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Posts:
    25
    Location:
    Cambridge UK
    I am now pretty sure my 'check archive' problems have been solved by slowing down the PC clocks.

    Not sure why TI had a problem whereas other apps did not, but still.

    Thanks for everyone's comments.
     
  22. Menorcaman

    Menorcaman Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Posts:
    4,661
    Location:
    Menorca (Balearic Islands) Spain
    Hi again Nick,

    Glad you managed to isolate the root cause of the problem. One thing for sure - True Image reveals weaknesses in the hardware like few other programs that I know of.

    Short of upgrading your motherboard and CPU, have you checked the motherboard manufacturer's website for an updated BIOS? Updating your BIOS can often rectify system timing/IO problems.

    Regards
     
  23. dog

    dog Guest

    A few OT posts have been removed ... Please do focus on the topic at hand. :)

    Regards;

    Steve
     
  24. Cat-21

    Cat-21 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2005
    Posts:
    60
    I have read alot of posts in this thread pertaining to the "image corrupt" error being a hardware failure or Windows issue, rather than TI 9 having bugs. I also have had the issue as well when testing with multiple computers. I see people doing or considering changing motherboards, RAM, Reinstall Windows, etc. Before going on a hunch and upgrading your hardware, wait for some updated versions of the TI 9 Series to be released.

    I have a feeling you will see many users saying how their hardware was actually good and spent $$$$ for nothing on new hardware they didn't need. I just can't accept that most people generating image corruption errors have bad hardware as their are too many users having this problem. Wait for updates and save your money, the fix lies with Acronis, not "bad hardware".
     
  25. seekforever

    seekforever Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Posts:
    4,751
    The short answer is "who knows for sure" and your advice about trying the new version when released is not a bad idea.

    However, I doubt if there are "too many users having this problem". How many users have posted about this problem - easily less than 100? How many people are using the software and not reporting problems? I would imagine many times more than 100, after all this forum is where you go when you have a problem not to report all is just fine.

    It certainly seems that TI stretches the system when doing a verify for whatever reason. It is also well known that PCs come with components that are of widely varying quality and age so suspecting hardware is not off the wall. There are lots of PCs with 512MB+ of RAM and I doubt if most users access all of it. I could be doing a video editing session on my PC and if a bit or two got dropped in the data I wouldn't even notice it. One bit flipped in an image is total disaster when verifying.

    When MS made available disk compression in Windows (3.1?) way back in the dark ages there were numerous complaints about it. The next release incorporated a much more time-consuming start-up memory test. Why? Because the problems with the disk compression were mostly related to bad memory not the disk compression/system.

    Unfortunately, a bad area in memory can be present and unknown for long periods of time if it is in an unimportant or unaccessed area. Put some critical data into it, and all of a sudden you have what appears to be a new problem.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.