EAZ-fix/Rollback RX and disk imaging

I meant the RAID configuration.

 

My experience with ATI and Rollback rx.

Took image of drive from ATI bootup cd (outside of windows) that had 6 RBrx snapshots on it. Rebooted, deleted 4 snapshots but left base snapshot and most recent snapshot (taken just before imaging). Rebooted and went into RBrx pre-windows to confirm deleted shots were gone. Rebooted with ATI boot cd and restored image with 6 snapshots.

Result? The two undeleted images remained in snapshot management but the image loaded was in fact the baseline image. So I attempted restoring into the the second snapshot (the one taken before ATI image), as RBrx indicated it was still available. It once again rebooted into the baseline image. Strange.

 

Removed due to personal comments.

 

I was a bit concerned when I read this as I had carried out a similar test previously using Drive Snapshot and was happy that the snapshots had beeen saved correctly and that I was able to restore them. I couldn't say for certain, however, that the snapshots I'd restored weren't all the same snapshot

I've repeated the test and saved three snapshots that were obviously different on booting. I can now confirm that Drive Snapshot does save all the snapshots and when you boot into each of them they are all the correct snapshots.

So, RollBack + Drive Snapshot, thankfully, works fine

 

Did you image just the partition or the whole disk?
I imaged the whole disk and got successful restores of all snapshots.

@erikalbert:
FD-ISR works for you, I'm glad.
I have a request:
Would you please unsubscribe from all threads that have eazFix/Rollback RX as topic and refrain from remarks that don't contribute in a positive way?
Obviously, you can't control yourself whenever you receive an email that confirms how wrong we are and how right you are.
And when someone holds you accountable for your statements, you usually don't respond.
Please manage your forum subscriptions in a way that makes sense to you and us.

 

Now it seems a fight between EAZ-FIX and FDISR lovers. I like both. FDISR for my working PC and EAZ-FIX for my test PC. It,s very simple for me.

 

The whole disk. Restored using whole disk option well.

 

Hm, In this message I share my experience.
Your restore from the image is obviously unsuccessful, but I wonder what I did different?

 

There is no argument, there is just one forum member that continues with making remarks that don't add anything to most of the threads.
I agree with you that both FD-ISR and eazFix/Rollback RX are excellent snapshot solutions.

 

Has anyone tried with latest builds of RollBack Pro and ShadowProtect? Shadowprotect does allow restoring of MBR even if you only image and restore your C partition only. In other words, I don't think you have to image the whole disk to get this functionality. Thanks for the good information on this thread folks.

Gary

 

Well, Acronis TrueImage 9.x has an option called MBR and first track.
I noticed that when I was testing, but I have no idea if that is something special that helps with the eazFix/Rollback RX snapshots.

 

ShadowProtect has similar options also so it will restore both MBR and hiden first sector of disk if desired. Again, have not tested yet but I might try soon just to see. Convenince of Rollback always was appealing to me in getting a quick restore of my system partition.

Gary

 

I only normally image the C partition with Drive Snapshot and that saves and restores the MBR automatically.

 

Has the chkdsk problem been fixed in RollbackRx yet?

 

Expect the fix in the next release, really soon.

 

I'm at a loss to undestand why there is 'a fight' over FD-ISR and Rollback/EAZ-Fix.
Personally I have found FD-ISR largely bullet proof but Rollback/EAZ-Fix will be close to what the average user needs for rapid system restoring/ snapshots if (and it is a big if) the following problems can be ironed out.
1. The loss of snapshots each time you uninstall to upgrade or the requirement to uninstall to upgrade.
2. The failure to co-operate with imaging programs consistently and reliably - conserving all available snapshots.
It should not be the users job to find a imaging program that co-operates with EAZ-Fix - the manufacturers should get this resolved asap especially in light of problem 1. being unresolved.
3. chk.dsk problems (which sound like they might be addressed in the next release).

My feeling is that FD-ISR is the finished article and does what it says reliably and consistently and plays nicely with all imaging solutions.
EAZ-Fix still remains a work in progress that has enormous potential but its different approach to rapid system restoring leads to its problems with imaging programs which will undermine its useability for large numbers of us.

 

I totally agree with you, L Bainbridge.

There are eazFix/Rollback RX customers, who use the software in a way that fullfills their needs without problems.
There are customers who put some effort in technical improvements by providing information to customer support.
And there are customers who anticipate a flawless functioning product, which might be the next build.
Version 8 will provide upgrades while retaining the snapshot structure.

In any case, in this forum are members who have a valid preference for this product, regardless of the current technical issues.

It's only the behaviour of a certain forum member, who has a strong need to proof message after message how wrong we are and how right his own preferences are. He is a content customer of FD-ISR, let he use his knowledge and experience in that area with a positive attitude.

Again, L Bainbridge, you are right. But this thread is not about right/wrong preferences, it's about the software that we like.

 

Thanks for that.
I use both Rollback and FD-ISR.
They have different roles for me.
My laptop (where disc space is a issue) is the perfect candidate for Rollback (and I do use Rollback for this -despite its faults- because the pluses outweigh the negatives) but I do need it to co-operate with an imaging solution. Maybe I'm lazy but I don't want to work too hard to find a solution -which seems to be the case at present.
For my desktop PC I use FD-ISR because space isn't an issue and I need greater reliability than eaz-Fix/ Rollback can offer at present.
I think HDS have consistently shown real efforts to improve this product and I've given them plenty of feedback but I do think withdrawing their free imaging solution does not send the right message that they are as keen to resolve these problems as we are....

 

I too like Rollback rx because I use laptops and space is an issue. However, speed and reliability are also important. Therefore I use FD-ISR on my work laptop and Rollback on my home laptop. I've had too many problems with chkdsk errors and corrupted images with RB to chance it again on my work machine. I also found it slowed my laptop down as compared to FD-ISR (is this just me?). Nevertheless the space requirements and quick restore of Rollback are compelling. Therefore, I am waiting with baited breath for the next version of RB. If they can provide/recommend a reliable imaging solution and improve its reliability, I'll be a complete "convert".

Another issue I wish to raise is ATI's snap restore and Rollback (assuming you were one of the fortunate that can reliably image RB snapshots with ATI). Given that Windows is loaded first while a restore is still in progress with snap restore, would this affect the restoration of RB indexes as the sectors they are stored in may be restored last due to being marked as unused?

 

Since a few weeks I'm running a build of eazFix to verify that the problem of the defect snapshots is solved. Since I installed that build I never had one single problem.
On NTFS there is a lot of overhead with regards to the snapshot software, for no good reason I decided to see how much of that is effecting performance by installing eazFix on FAT32. I created a 15 GB FAT32 system partition maintained by eazFix and the data partitions are still NTFS.
My experience is that my system runs significant faster and smoother. FAT32 is 'simple' and requires much less overhead.
[I would almost advice to install eazFix on FAT32. ]

Well, I want to keep things reliable, I would not take chances with snap restore.
Actually, my experience is that since I installed eazFix, I hardly use imaging software anymore.

 

I also tried RollbackRx. If it worked as advertised, it would be a fantastic program, however, it was very unreliable. Lots of crashes.

I switched to FD-ISR, and have had rock solid performance, except for once which was taken care of by restoring an Acronis image.

 

Silver0066, we already know that.

 

By migrating from NTFS to FAT 32, what u may loose?