Images - Verification or Testing for Backup

SP users seem to regard verifying their images as a personal insult. Or an insult to SP. Not at all. Nate has indicated that you should verify regularly. Just because an image restores today, that doesn't mean it will restore next week. Hardware errors can intervene. As evidenced by a long thread in this forum on SP images failing to verify and failing to restore.

Verifying takes "no time". It can run in the background on a schedule.

 

I don't do any verification anymore, SP is reliable enough and it never failed until now.
That was not my main worry regarding backup/restore.
Backing up an infected system partition and restoring an infected image over and over again, that was my biggest worry.
Not anymore because I fixed it.

 

Erik, verify is testing your hardware, not looking for errors with SP.

 

My hardware is fine until it breaks and then I have to replace it. I don't need SP to figure that out. I better use my disk tools to verify my HDD's.

 

Me neither and it doesn't make any difference, if you really think about it.
I use SP only and ATI is stored as reserve, because I paid for it.

 

Agreed on testing your hardware.

If the hard drive or the memory develops minor errors but everything seems to be in order. the image can go corrupt in an instant but you be none the wiser without verify. with the verify you have to be concious of waiting until it's finished and then forget or not bother.

with an auto verify you dont even have to remember to do it. it done in the background as you continue on .

 

I've read posts at the Acronis forums, where even VERIFIED images couldn't be restored.
So verification isn't really THE solution either to detect HDD/Memory problems.

 

ErikAlbert

Well judging by the amount of Acronis users posting of failed images and due to the sheer high volume of True Image sold, we don't know what percentages is faulty TI, hardware or user error. Users who have the sense to take a backup usually look after there images, so we can say more errors are happening due to the software plus i have own experience of failed Acronis image restore.

The image can go bad taking the image or later on by the above. The verify varies from software to software. IFW does a byte by byte verify. I believe that's goes further than other image softwares. although it takes longer but as it on auto that's fine. At least taking a verify right after alerts you to bad hardware at that moment instead of finding out 2 months later the image is bad. You then you left wondering what has caused it and blame the software. Anything extra to make sure your data is ok is a good thing.

 

I had that exact problem with Acronis. I used to verify EVERY image but had many problems with restores. Since switching to ShadowProtect I have had no problems with lots of restores. I periodically verify or explore the image...no problems.

 

I used ATI for a year and I was one of the lucky ATI-users, not a single backup/restore failed during that year. I didn't like the bloat part in the end.
Instead of paying $30 for the upgrade to ATI10, I bought SP and it was worth the money.
Using ATI, I verified all my images during backup and restore.
Using SP, I stopped verifying images, no problems whatsover.
I use SP much less than ATI, because I don't backup my actual system partition anymore.

 

Being a long time Acronis user and a more recent SP user I'm not really sure if SP users regard verifying their images as a personal insult. My view, if I'm allowed a view is that verifying is unnecessary. Have no idea who Nate is or what he has said about verifying.

Now the confusing bit: "Just because an image restores today, that doesn't mean it will restore next week". My experience of literally thousands of restores is that they have restored every time. But taking what you are saying on face value - I can validate when the image is made and when the image is restored. If I understand you correctly verification at the time an image is made is of no use because it may not work next week. If I verify just before trying to restore I will discover the problem which stops me wasting my time trying to restore a corrupt image. In my case I would try to restore image A - it would fail and I would then restore image B.

"Hardware errors can intervene" Yes - but so what. If I make a good image and then use a bad usb cable I will get an error message. Replace the bad cable and my image which would not verify now restores. Not sure what point you are trying to make about bad hardware.

 

Fair enough. I don't see the need to test restore every image. when did one last fail. My guess for you is that for either Acronis or SP the answer is never.

As I have Acronis and SP I would rather make most of my images with SP and the odd one with Acronis than mess about with validation or test restores. Perhaps if I every so often a restore failed I would agree but then on further reflection if either program were that unstable I would simply buy another program.

 

On reliable image software which, which we know the ones that are, you can not bother to do an verify and it be ok every time. What if your Windows has gone corrupt or hardware not working right that day then having the verify is another failsafe. I can understand if you take regular images clicking on the verify can become a drag and think 'the image will be ok. i won't bother.' and becomes a habit not to bother. This is where Drive Snapshot and Image for Windows surpass. Once you setup auto verify you can forget about it as there no prompts.

Does SP verify the data after it's been restored or just the option to verify the image? I say that because Drive Snapshot and Image for Windows can automatically do that too . In fact they both can auto verify the image and then auto verify the restored data after.

Well its good to have confidence in your Windows and hardware but if to think it's invincible when it's your precious data at stake then that is not the best philosophy.

 

Sorry. I assumed everyone knew Nate. He's from StorageCraft.

 

Peter there is an interesting point here - I think ? Although I don't defrag my images it is because I can see no benefit not because it does them any harm. I have , however, quite frequently moved images with no problem - from a partition to an external drive or to DVD and then back to a partition or drive.

For some reason users seem to "feel" that images are delicate special things that will dissolve if not treated with kid gloves. Imaging is seen as almost being one of the black arts. I have heard that some even delete their drives before restoring

 

I will zero my system harddisk/partition, if I ever meet
- the killdisk trojan
- a rootkit
- the Rustock.C
- one of Joanna's Invisible Things.
and then I will restore my system partition.

 

me too - but I find it difficult to find even a slightly stale cookie - so I don't think I'll be zeroing anytime soon.

 

As regards SP,

Storage Craft say;

.

A verify is the best way of testing-a test restore could itself conceivably become a problem, in case of a hardware or software issue.

SP has been so reliable,I dont even bother with a verify

 

Hairy Coo,

You were involved in that bad RAM thread with SP images failing to verify and restore. Periodic verify would have exposed that bad RAM. No-one is questioning SPs reliability when they verify. You are not insulting StorageCraft. As you can verify on a schedule, no effort on your part, none of your time used up, why not have an extra safeguard?

 

markymoo,

As SP says,the file system is very very good at detecting any type of write failures during a backup.
A successful backup or restore is announced in the log,at the end of the process and this is good enough for me-can be taken at its word.

 

Because I'm lazy
You are, of course, quite correct!
Actually its the gambler in me-in all seriousness,the chances of corruption are so remote in my experience,the time taken to verify seems hardly worthwhile.
This is different to ALL other ISR or imagers I have previously used!