[Public Beta] Returnil Virtual System 2008

Thanks for the log and check your mail for an updated build

Mike

 

This version is immune to my test with low level disk access, well done.

 

Hi Pete,
Thanks for the confirmation and will get this uploaded as soon as possible for general download.

When you run out of available space in the disk cache, you will recieve an unable to write to disk error from Windows. To clear this, you will need to restart the system. This is why it is important to set the cache appropriately for the space you will be using.

Mike

 

New Build Available

Returnil Virtual System 2008 Premium Edition

Build 2.0.0.4064

http://www.majorgeeks.com/Returnil_Virtual_System_2008_Premium_Edition_Beta_d5841.html

Updated

* Virtual Partition and Disk cache size can now be entered manually

Corrected

* Added a correction to an automated maintenance function for systems that do not support or allow that function

Mike

 

That,s very nice indeed.

 

I am late to enter in this thread( did not read it all). Sorry if it has been asked before:

Is there any plan to add features of:

1- Complete shadow mode( for all partitions/ hard disks) and

2- Keeping the shadow changes after a reboot like SU

Thanks

 

Hi,
These are on the roadmap but will not be part of this Beta series.

Mike

 

hi coldmoon

does returnil 1.7.7502 protection against the stuff returnil 2 Build 2.0.0.4064
are the same? (disk editting and other MBR tools access)

cheers

 

Thanks Coldmoon!

 

We can get a serial for this to test?

THANKS

 

Hi DasFox,
Please use the contact us form on our website and make your subject RVS 2.0 Beta.


Beta reports and requests for testing licenses:
http://www.returnilvirtualsystem.com/index_files/contactus_tech.htm

Thanks
Mike

 

THANKS, email sent...

 

Hi,

Yes

Mike

 

But the Beta has far more advance features then the standard one.

 

yes it does , but i just droped DF coz its got some problem with sandboxie. i need only to get solid protection on my c:\ only. so important the 1.7 is advence in its protection


cheers

 

Hello, I am using 1.7 now for 6 mnd or so,very pleased with it,am using no diskcache but a second int. drive to save stuff. my question is,is there any benefit in using diskcache as compared to using external destination ?

 

Hi Huupi,
Do not confuse the Disk Cache with the Virtual Partition as they serve different purposes.

The Disk Cache (and Memory Cache) stores and maintains the clone of the changes to your System Partition.

Mike

 

Thanks Mike bit confused,but if i understand you right is this a great stride toward keeping changes[a boot to complete install] after reboot or am i missing something ?

 

At this stage, no. Think of it as a disk equivalent to the same function provided by the Memory cache. It may have structual elements however that will be used as building blocks toward that particular RVS development branch.

Mike

 

I guess for some using latest 2008 ,memory and diskcache is a convenience option but not real essential.Used to use with 1.7 a second int.disk for session storage that simple,no figure/configure these options !
My initial question has to do with this where i asked you[sorry for my misconception]if there is any benefit in storing sessiondata '' internal '' as compared to do it ''external '' ?

thanks, Huub.

 

It is not a convenience feature other than the fact that you can commit changes to disk. We have added this for the following reasons:

1) There is call for additional flexibility (Ref: Change commit to disk)
2) Disk caching is most reliable when committing extremely large files or a large number of concurrent change commits
3) Memory caching has much better performance
4) Flexibility opens potential for vulnerability

So to address flexibility which also requires reliability and still maintain the same level of security in the product, we have provided two methods depending on the need of the customer.

the Memory cache method has better performance but we do not support change committing while using it. This design then allows the user to have best performance and most secure configuration at the same time.

The Disk cache method supports change commit to disk so is by default less secure than the Memory cache method due to this flexibility. So this design allows the user to have the best reliability for saving operations but is less secure than Memory caching.

Could we have eliminated the use of the Disk cache and still allowed change commit to disk? Yes, but testing showed that there was an unacceptable potential for data and file damage when working with extremely large files, very large number of concurrent changes, or having minimal amounts of available memory.

Mike