HD space used by RollbackRx

Discussion in 'backup, imaging & disk mgmt' started by aigle, Apr 29, 2006.

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

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Re: Rollback rx

    I just want to discuss about the HD space used by RollbackRx.
    I have 40 GB HD on my system. I was never in need for a big HD( no games, no big data, just some softwares and minimal data). Just few days back I checked my HD and was shocked to see that about 80% of it was used already. According to my expectations it should have been the reverse( 20% used and 80% empty).
    Later I found out that the RollbackRx and its snapshots are taking all this space. I have remove some of my snapshots and also defragmenter the rest of snapshots.
    Now look at the data I collected from RollbackRx. I have total 5 snapshots.( PLs see the attachment down.)

    According to my knowledge, space occupied on my HD should be equal to --

    0.07% of HD for snapshots data+ "additional" contents of different snapshots( contents added to basic snapshot's contents)+ space taken by RollbackRx installation itself

    Plus

    Space taken by my Basic Snapshot


    Am I right?
    I am not able to understand why my snapshot 4 and 5 are taking such a big space while their size is basically the same as my first snapshot with addition of few GB data, especially 4th snapshot is taking such a big space.
    I remember while discussing RollbackRx and FDISR one of the big plus point of Rollback was small space taken by it but I don't think it takes a small space. I never used FDISR but I think FDISR must be taking almost similar space, not more.
    Moreover I feel it the claimed 0.07% space taken for 30,000 snapshots is misleading for customers. It gives a false impression and reality is quite different.
    Anybody has some idea about this data. May be I am missing some thing here.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2006
  2. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,740
    Location:
    Texas
    More discussion on this topic here.
     
  3. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Thanks Ronjor. Great help by u.
     
  4. Acadia

    Acadia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Posts:
    4,048
    Location:
    SouthCentral PA
    Good grief, I somehow totally missed this thread. I've always told folks that RB and FD each had advantages over the other. One of the advantages that RB had over FD was the hard drive space usage, or so I thought; think I'll have to stop saying that, but continue to recommend it for the other reasons, or reason. :doubt: (That's at least one nice thing about FD: the math makes sense! :D )

    Acadia
     
  5. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Rollback takes 0.07% of HD for 30,000 snapshots ( not the exact words)-- they are really deceiving the new customers by such statements. Really bad business practice.
     
  6. Franklin

    Franklin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,517
    Location:
    West Aussie
    Aigle,have you contacted the vendors and had any response in regards to the disk space issue.
     
  7. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Will post to them, but wanted to know what is the opinion of other users. IS this an issue only with me( in that case it might not be due to RollbackRX) or all users find similar data about their system.
     
  8. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,042
    Aigle

    Read my response to Mike in the thread I started FDISR v Rollback. WHen you read the website in detail, they do say the 30000 snapshots using .07% doesn't include data. I do agree, and have told them, that I feel that this is misleading. With a smaller drive you may have to be a bit more conservative about the number of snapshots in them. It should be apparent if you are using 25g of space, and you take a snapshot and uninstall a 1 gig program and replace it with another 1 gig program, that you are now using 26gig of space. Think about it.

    Pete
     
  9. Longboard

    Longboard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Posts:
    3,187
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Apropos of this thread:

    I have used Eraser v5.7
    for regular "Erase unused disc space" in the past as part of regular tidyup and was duefor one now:

    What will this fuction do to the snapshot data?
    Will Eraser recognise the storage system for the snapshots or just wipe them?

    Regards.
     
  10. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Thanks Peter! I do understand this and agree with u.
    About the spaece issue also not a big problem even with 40 GB disk.
    The only main concern now is that my used space jumped from 9 GB to 23 GB from snapshot 3 to 4, that,s very strange for me. It should not jump more than a few Giga. It is even more than 100 % increase in the size of snapshot!
    Currently I can,t delete the snapshot 3 and 4. After few weeks I will do it and see what,s the result.
     
  11. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,042
    Hi Longboard

    I used a secure delete function in another piece of software. I securely deleted files and a folder and saw no issue using Rollback

    Pete
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.