Delete Image?

Hello,
Question. Is there any way to delete a "full image backup" in the secure zone with out also deleting the secure zone itself ?I would rather do this than do an incremental back up (takes less disk space) I know that i can delete the "Secure zone" and perform another full image, but it would be a lot easier to be able to "delete" and re-do. Regards Plain Fred

 

Even though your secure zone may be full or nearly so you can create a new full image to the Secure Zone.
The oldest image will be automatically deleted.
The FIFO method of backup management is used by the Zone so there is no need to delete any of the images.

Xpilot

 

Personally, I would suggest deleting the Secure Zone altogether as it is impossible to manage. I run two backups one locally to the C:\ drive and one remotely to a network drive. This arrangement works the best for me as at least you can delete backups when they're on your c:\ drive. I found that the Acronis software just filled my Secure Zone and then stopped working - it didn't delete old backups as the documentation suggested. I don't really see what the point of the Secure Zone is - it makes life harder and when you've got hundreds of machines to manage that is no fun!

 

One of the features of the Secrure Zone is that its management is completely automatic with no manual intervention being necessary.
It is however a good idea to understand how it works and to follow a few basic rules.
For FIFO management to start to run one has to have more than one base image. One full base image followed by a series of incrementals will eventually give rise to a full Zone situation. This is recoverable by the simple step of creating a second base image. FIFO will then run as designed.
It is however better to plan ahead rather than wait for the error message. A typical plan would be to set up two backup schedules. A base image to be run once a week and increments to be run on the other days.
I have used a Secure zone for several years for all my backup images. These are automatically created and no user input is required. The images just happen and the system does not need me to remember to create them.

I have tried other backup storage methods that do not use a secure zone. To be able to get things running smoothly and reliably can be quite complex to set up and manage and most of them involve an amount of user effort.
As a result I just let TI get on with it and save backup images to the secure zone that is located on a secondary HDD.

Xpilot

 

I set my backups up exactly as you suggested but it didn't work for me and I experimented with it a lot. I still prefer saving the backup to C:\ as the file is much easier to deal with, but if iSecure Zone works well for you - great!

 

Assuming your C:\ drive is the system drive and it dies you will have no means of restoring the image to a new drive. It is recommended that images are stored on a second or external drive.

 

Hello,
I'm not sure that i understand, Are you saying that a new "Full Image Backup" will erase or over-write the old image? Regards plain Fred

 

If there is not enough space for another full image it will overwrite the first image.

It is sensible to have the storage zone of sufficient size to take at least two full images so that when a third is created you will still have one older one left in your archive.

FWIW my secure zone is large enough to take nine full uncompressed backup images.

Xpilot

 

That is the right strategy

But the prerequisite is that you detach OS, data and programs.
Many people don't do this and are wondering about images > 60 GB

 

I do not entirely agree with you there. At the rate of 1GB per minute minimum it does not take that long to backup say 100GB.
However I do agree that data should be on a seperate partition and be subject to its own backup strategy.
Installed programs should always be included with the OS backup. Because of the intimate relationship between them and the registry it would be only create problems to back them up seperate from the OS.

Xpilot

 

If one is mucking about with the in-Secure Zone, one is gambling a bit anyway. The same basic file management techology was used for Backup Locations so users could get the benefits without having to deal with special hidden partitions. So that's one thing to consider --using Backup Locations instead of the in-Secure Zone. Also note that with Backup locations you can copy or delete backup fiels all you want if you feel the need although you can let ATI take care of the file management. You need one backup's worth of extra space just as with the in-Secure Zone.

 

I will say it one more time. A Secure Zone is more secure than any other open backup location.
I would not use the "backup locations" feature with all its many and varied problems some of which have been inherited from the secure zone and more have been added such as consolidations which really are a waste of time and space.
To refer to a secure zone as an in-secure zone is as childish as some who refer to Windows as Windoze or even Micro$oft.
Such comments can hardly be of any help to users who are seeking to get the best out of True Image and are actually using a Secure Zone.
Provided a Secure Zone is set up on a drive seperate from the one being backed up the concept has a lot going for it in terms of ease of use and extra security.

BTW you do NOT have to provide one backups worth of extra space when using a secure zone. However anyone who only has room for one backup at a time is riding near the cliff edge.

Xpilot ( Its my short fuse day)

 

And you are right because with 'programs' I meant basically games and similar software.

 

There's nothing magical or mysterious about the ASZ so I don't know why you mock it in this way. It's a very simple & easy method, if you are using ATI exclusively to do your backups, to lessen the chance that a User (or Windows) Error might result in an accidental file deletion or corruption or other problem with the partition one's backups are stored in.

The key, as I think Xpilot has said before, is first to create it on a different hard disk than the C: drive, and then to make it large enough to hold 3 or more complete backups.

I would not use the F11 feature (what, Recovery Mgr?) as it messes with MBR, but a Secure Zone (simply a special partition) is a fine idea, especially if one has others (spouse, kids, employees, whomever) using the PC as well.

 

Hello everyone,
Thanks for all the information. Along the same thought, If you "mount " the "image" in the "read and write" mode do you then have access to the delete function? Haven't tried it yet (chicken) and have enough of "Problems" without trying this. Regards Plain Fred.

 

The short answer is no.
Read/write mode leaves the original image intact and creates an incremental to record the changes made. The idea being that even if there is user error there is still the original image to fall back on.
In your particular case you would probably get an out of space error as before.

It is a false economy to stint oneself to insufficient backup storage space regardless where this may be. Anything less that two full images is a disaster waiting to happen.
Furthermore having only one place to store backups still leaves an element of risk. There are many combinations of external storage that are used.
My own choice is a set of backup images on an internal hard drive and the current image is used to refresh exchangable main drives. The route to backup Heaven is not paved with software alone.

Xpilot

 

It's not really more secure overall than not using it. While there is some increased security from having backups in a hidden partition -- harder for the PC unsilled to muck the files, anyone that wants to see the files can without much trouble -- it's like a cheap padlock. The partition itself casues problems for some folks so that creates some risks that sort of offset the cheap padlock benefit. Also, it's more of a pain to use the files in the zone than ones that are not.

If you need file management, you can get that without a hidden partition. If you really need to keep files protected, put them on an external drive an lock the drive up in a safe place. If you only have one harddisk but want o do backups, I'd recommend getting another drive but if that isn't possible, then the zone is duct-tape way of having backups.

I guess my view is, what's not to mock? It's a not a very good way to accomlish any of the things it supposedly is good for. I view the zone as sort of like a brick -- yes, it's a door stop and a paper weight and and automobile brake, and a trivet, and a writing implement, but it pretty much sucks at all those tasks.


I realize diff persons can have diff needs and some, like Xpilot, have their ssomewhat specialised and, for him, highly satisfying application for the zone. I do not doubt Xpilot. I do not mock Xpilot. I have great respect for him. I think he's put a brick to pretty good use. But for most folks, I'd recommend a real door stop, a lighter paper weight, an actual vehicle brake, a shallower trivet, a pen or pencil, etc.

 

Xpilot,
Hello, and thanks for your input. Question: If i have two full backup images,or more as you suggest, when it comes time to "do a recovery" how does "TI" decide which one to use? (or do i get to make that call somehow?) Regards Plain Fred.

 

You make the decision. If you want to restore to the latest image and that happens to be on an external drive choose that one. If on the other hand a secure zone image is the most up to date pick that one. There are also some scenarios where restoring an older image could be a better choice. For example a malware infestation may be best removed in some circumstances by restoring an image made before the infection happened.
Remember there are no hard and fast rules. Just make sure you have more than one option to cope with whatever problem that may arise.

Xpilot

 

Xpilot,
Hello, Guess that i didn't state my question clearly, i'll rephrase. If all my backups are in the secure zone (Separate internal Hard drive) and i only do "full backups" can you choose which one you want to run the recovery from? Or does "TI" modify (write over) the first full back up? so that you have only one full backup at a time? Regards Plain Fred

 

The backup images in a secure zone are automatically named with the date and time of their creation.
One of the early restore wizard's srceens lists these with the latest one at the foot of the list. It is there the selection is made as to which one to restore.

If the zone is only big enough for only one full image it will be overwritten when a new image is added. Proper automatic FIFO management only kicks in after there are more than two images in the zone.
It therefore makes sense that the SZ should at least be large enough for two or more images.

Xpilot

 

Xpilot,
Thanks again for clearing that up. Is there any point at which "try and decide" will not work (due to lack of SZ space ) because of many backups using the "SZ" space, or will TI leave enough room in "SZ" to run "try and decide"and eliminate some previous backups? Regards Plain Fred

 

I have no idea how space conflicts between T&D and images are resolved. I also have no intention of finding out because I consider T&D to be literally a waste of space.
For example the contents of the test area will not survive a re-boot so T&D is pretty useless for trialing a program which has to be installed and re-booted.
TI itself can be used as a perfectly good T&D engine. If you don't like what you have installed just recover from a previous backup image. Or even run Windows system restore and then clean up any leftovers.

Xpilot

 

Xpilot,
Hello, and that's a good point (re-boot trial software problem) For "stuff" that does not have to be re-booted it has worked fine (so far ). As for my answer to my problem, i have combined all of the advise given in this thread. I now backup to the "SZ" and to an accessible area on the same drive so i can manually delete images at my discretion, and do incremental backups to the "SZ" Thanks to All Regards Plain Fred.