Anyone heard from HDS - re Rollback?

That is actually only managing the snapshot index and snapshots lookup tables itself.

 

I think there seems to be a disproportionate hit on performance with RollbackRx on certain machines which I'm not sure has been fully explored.

My HP laptop takes 40 sweeps of the boot screen with rollback versus 8 without it and HDS suggest an estimated doubling of boot screen time with certain machines (email from Andrew Shen) .
However on my desktop PC there was no perceptible performance hit. Strange....
I have read this thread completely and have learnt a huge amount about eaz-Fix/RollbackRx, disc imaging etc. but still am left with 2 frustrations:
1. There still seems to be no reliable way to image Rollback- protected systems and reliably retain each snaphot.
This has to be solved by the manufacturers if they fully understand their market. The people who will use Rollback/eaz-Fix use it in many cases to test programs and will occasionally need a 'clean' restore as a result of boot corruption from beta softwares (e.g. KIS betas for Peter2150).
2. The need/ suggestion that fundamental changes are made to our systems to accomodate a quick restore software- e.g. use of FAT32.
Whilst in no way seeking to disparage the incredible efforts wilbertnl amongst others has put into getting this software right (and this is really beginning to show results). It cannot seriously be reasonable for what is essentially a back-up tool to determine how we configure our systems and what other software we use.
eaz-Fix is fascinating, innovative and so nearly there it hurts but at the moment it doesn't fulfill essential criteria for me which means that it stays on my laptop (despite the biggish performance hit) but is off my desktop in favour of FD-ISR which does all that I need it to do and co-operates with my software and doesn't require a fundamental set up change to function optimally.

 

To paraphrase, EAZ-fix/Rollback Rx is a 'diamond in the rough' with some very good features (eg., ease of use and speed of snapshots) and with still some undesirable qualities (e.g., does not coexist well with some disk-imaging and defrager utilities).

Some day...

 

Lets's not forget that most forum members who use eazFix/Rollback RX or FD-ISR, use it in a way that was never imagined by the developers.
We do use the software beyond it's design and we expect the developers to run ahead of us.

I understand you reasoning with regards to FD-ISR vs. eazFix/Rollback RX, L Bainbridge, and it looks like you make your decission with identical reasoning: You won't change your system setup to accommodate eazFix/Rollback RX and you won't change your hardware setup (larger hard disk in your laptop) to accommodate FD-ISR.

In both cases you feel that you make a valid decission, and you are right.
I'm glad that this forum is offering information and ideas, I've learned a lot too.

 

This is something that bugs me:
If I understand you right, then KAV determines by modification time or perhaps last access time if a file requires a rescan. Correct?
It seems to me that this determination takes place by looking up the information in the MFT when NTFS is installed (and the last access information is not available in FAT32 systems).

Would that mean that the filesystem scan is not done at all if nothing changed?

 

I've just seen the release notes page of Rollback Rx for Version 7.2.1 Build 2691291147 - October 5th 2006 which mentions (under the What's New section):

- Integrated Rollback driver support with disk defragmenter utilities.


Does this mean that it is now safe to defragment drives/partitions with defragmentation software like PerfectDisk, mstDefrag, Diskkeeper ?

 

No, it uses a proprietary system (which can include things like file hash). However, it does use NTFS features when available which can make this lookup process quicker.

 

No it doesn't (or shouldn't) mean that. As I've indicated before, Rollback (latest build) and PerfectDisk (latest build) are incompatible! In the very short time since my prior post (above), I attempted a defrag using PD 8.0.35 (I had just updated PD) and this time it totally crashed my system! Fortunately, upon restarting Rollback had no problem restoring my system to the snapshot I had made before attempting the defrag. I wanted to prove this wasn't a fluke, so I again attempted a PD defrag and again the system crashed, removing any doubt. Rollback again restored the system without a hitch.

I believe the statement you quoted means that they corrected previously reported problems which occured when using Rollback's defragger from within Windows. That operation now seems to be working ok.

 

@wilbertnl.. respect to you for persisting with what would be a GREAT solution for laptops with limited space vs FDISR in particular, but a working laptop on the road has to perhaps be even more stable than test bed at home .
You raised FDISR..

Heh, thats true: cunning devil's at the wilders: support queries must have driven the resellers mad Heh: prhaps a reason Raxco has not released new version: too scared of what Peter,E-A, starfish, silver and Lbainbridge might do LOL

Yes, but one of these has expanded the boundaries and realistically proven to be steel, while the other wobbles about, is apparently easily broken, has immense problems with imaging softs, apparent multiple conflicts with other utilities and does not support "off disc" storage of itself: really which would you go for ?

Credit to the users who have stuck with what was really a very buggy release.
The exact business model is not clear to me and implications for support are a bit cloudy. By rushing this, users were put off.
Not lost some interest mind but just put off.

Out of interest, if I purchased a license back before FDISR and Terabyte and never really used it, am I eligible for updates/updrades to now for maybe a second look. Purchase date 30-3-06.
( damn cant believe I paid $50 for this and never used it)

 

In which way we do use FDISR that was never intented to ? I never noticed that.
I always used FDISR within the limits of its possibilities and all its functions are working fine until now.

Maybe that remark counts for RollbackRx/EazFix, but not for FDISR, which isn't so FRAGILE as RollbackRx/EazFix.
As far I noticed RollbackRx/EazFix has always been a trouble and it still is for some users. If it isn't RollbackRx/EazFix itself, than you have troubles with the image backup software.
How many posts did we already spent on RollbackRx/EazFix ? Hundreds.

Don't compare FDISR with RollbackRx/EazFix and certainly don't blame FDISR for the vulnerabilities of RollbackRx/EazFix.
I'm not a fan of FDISR, because it still can be improved, but every function of FDISR works and keeps on working during 6 months.

 

eeek

afanboy post from E-A lol

 

Thanks for testing and clarification pvsurfer.

 

My 'pleasure' (LOL). I guess for some strange reason (which goes well beyond my investment in RB) I'm intrigued with the product to the extent that I continue to 'beta-test' it!

Btw, even though RB and PD are (without any question) incompatible, I'm not saying other 3rd party defraggers are also incompatible with RB (although I would presume that until proven otherwise)!!!

 

I also use FDISR as a second backup, because it's the fastest backup I've ever seen, but I never considered this as an excessive usage of FDISR.
It works in both ways : archive and restore. So there is no problem.

 

And they were wrong, because it works. It's not the first that Raxco is too prudent. They were prudent also regarding frozen snapshots.

 

What we forget in all this RollbackRx/EAZ-Fix vs. FD-ISR is that Rollback is already way ahead of the competition (e.g. Ghost, RestoreIt) and that FD-ISR is a completely different beast entirely.
Sometimes I feel that its a bit like us comparing apples and oranges as in my view FD-ISR is used by us as a rapid restore plus beta-testing tool plus 'virtualisation' tool whatever its intended original remit whereas I see Rollback/eazFix as principally an instant restore tool that supercedes system restore.
Whatever your views on the relative pros and cons eazFix is always going to be the answer where HD space is at a premium and I guess FD-ISR is going to be the choice for those of us who value solidity because of its less complex approach to 'snapshots'.
I'd rather we cherish the fact that we have 2 innovative products that are being actively developed not only by the manufacturers but are being used in entirely new and exciting ways by people on this forum.
However, to return to my endless moan I want to be able to image Rollback and I'm gonna spit my dummy soon if they don't make it work

 

Rollback does handle RAID Although it might not be supported I run RAID 0 with Rollback. Maybe Rollback developers too prudent too

Thanks,

Chris

 

I made my choices, paid for it and it works properly during 6 months.
If I change all that, I'm back to zero and start all over again.
Let each user decide for himself what is good for him : FDISR, RB, EF, ... it doesn't matter.
Let each user convince other users to use his combination, these discussions are good for many posts.
If I ever get bored, I will play with RB, EF and other image backup softwares.
Meanwhile I stick to my plan and read the good and bad news regarding all these softwares.
Everybody happy.

 

I successfully image Rollback using Drive Snapshot.

DS saves all the snapshots and they can all be subsequently restored.
DS doesn't need to image the whole drive to do this.
DS also performs differential backups if required.
DS can do all this from within Windows and has never let me down in 2 years of use.
DS makes a good cup of tea if you know the right command switch

I have absolutely no connection with the writers of DS!