Introducing AX64 Time Machine - hybrid imaging/snapshot software

Discussion in 'backup, imaging & disk mgmt' started by Isso, Jan 18, 2013.

  1. demoneye

    demoneye Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Posts:
    1,356
    Location:
    ISRHell
    got it . 10x frogger :argh:


    also i see i cant continue using my version 1 chain of inc backup with version 2... is that true?
     
  2. TheRollbackFrog

    TheRollbackFrog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Posts:
    4,384
    Location:
    The Pond - USA
    Yep, you need to start a new chain... but save the ol' chain if you think there's something useful there... for a while, anyway. You can always restore to it.
     
  3. demoneye

    demoneye Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Posts:
    1,356
    Location:
    ISRHell
    Yep ... is there any other bugs in version 2 that never present in ver 1 i should know?

    10x :)
     
  4. TheRollbackFrog

    TheRollbackFrog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Posts:
    4,384
    Location:
    The Pond - USA
    If you're using Build #439 you should be in pretty good shape. There seems to be a few "anomalies" with some special system configurations but generally, all is pretty well.

    If you experience something strange, and it can't be answered by users on this forum, I would send a copy of your problem LOGs to <info@ax64.com> and explain what you're experiencing. That SOURCE is much more responsive, from the dev team at least, than this forum is.
     
  5. demoneye

    demoneye Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Posts:
    1,356
    Location:
    ISRHell
    oww 10x for your concern frogger , with version 1 all went smooth , i just read some ppl here having terrifying experience with version 2 , now i understand they obviously drug it from version 1.... :D
     
  6. ratchet

    ratchet Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Posts:
    1,988
    Well I'm up and running v2 and sent my logs off with this information concerning the missing MS 5000 mouse's cursor: "To whom it may concern, I didn't even bother building boot media. I just added AX to the startup manager. It rendered perfectly with the current image listed, however, as always in v1 and the few times I've tried v2, there is no cursor visible. I can use a PS/2 or another cordless USB mouse and a cursor is visible. This is not the case with W7's, Macrium's or Paragon's media. Good luck folks and thank you! Larry"
    I hope they realize I meant in those other programs the Microsoft mouse functions normally. I should have proof read my email!
     
  7. manolito

    manolito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2013
    Posts:
    407
    I agree with Peter2150 that the ability to recover from a disaster and restore images to a completely wiped HDD is essential for an image based backup software. Having to reinstall Windows first is a joke. And like Froggie pointed out it does not even work in most cases...

    This inability of AX64 was the main reason that I went back to Acronis (or Aomei) and Rollback RX. If I must use a separate image backupper anyways, then I can just as well use Rollback as a snapshot software, because it is way faster than AX64.

    My question now is if this AX64 shortcoming can be remedied by putting BootICE on the AX64 recovery media. BootICE is portable so it will run from a stick, and it can backup the MBR and PBR of a HDD. In theory restoring the MBR / PBR of a totally wiped HDD before restoring an AX64 image should provide the HDD layout which AX64 expects. Anyone tried this?


    Cheers
    manolito
     
  8. oliverjia

    oliverjia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Posts:
    1,888
    I might be wrong, but I vaguely remember that Rollback RX will mess around with the file system and/or MBR, therefore it has much larger potential to hose your system.
    AX64 is supposed to be a strictly imaging program that does not modify your file system/MBR, therefore in theory it's much cleaner.

    Although AX64 has great potential, the recent development does not look very promising IMHO. For example, in today's computing world, I really anticipate the baseline imaging include all the necessary partitions in a GPT/UEFI system, because it is well know that if you mess up with these partitions, i.e., fail/ignore to back up any of these partitions (Recovery, EFI, MSR and C:\), the system will not boot. It appears the last version of V2, as a stable release, make exactly this mistake. IMO, this is not a bug problem that is inevitable; but rather, its a demonstration of lousy QC of the team, which should have been avoided.

    Granted, AX64 is a small team, we might have to give more patience to their progress.


     
  9. Keith Weisshar

    Keith Weisshar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Posts:
    73
    Location:
    Hazlet, NJ
    How do I restore the AX64 v2 backup if I wipe the hard drive with DBAN and if the machine is an OEM system without a Windows installation DVD but has a factory recovery partition instead in which DBAN will wipe also?
     
  10. Brian K

    Brian K Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Posts:
    11,031
    Location:
    NSW, Australia
    Keith,

    Good test. Your test is the same as what you would do if the HD failed and you had to restore to a new HD.
     
  11. demoneye

    demoneye Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Posts:
    1,356
    Location:
    ISRHell
    I have to disagree with you partly , well yes , imaging software should do all of that , but if ax64 doesn't capable to do so but can deliver a faster restore when the system is up and running , i can live with that !.
    like some others point out before , most of us uses 2 backup software , so we can restore windows from a bare metal position using 1 software (drive snapshot for example) and than using ax64 to restore to latest working point before the HD failure.
    we are talking on extream situation here , lets think about how many time we ended with dead hd on OS drive ? for me it was (10x god) more than 8 years ago...
    also what matter is not the software (eg office , autocad ,etc`)only the data. if we are smart and cautious , we surely put it on a cloud based server or on ext hd/dok.

    BTW , it takes about 1 -2 mints using drive snapshot to restore a naked untocuch windows....
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2014
  12. Keith Weisshar

    Keith Weisshar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Posts:
    73
    Location:
    Hazlet, NJ
    Can AX64 v2 do bare metal restore from the existing v1 backups even though v2 is unable to create a new hidden partition backup? The advanced restore settings have options to restore hidden partitions checked by default.
     
  13. Keith Weisshar

    Keith Weisshar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Posts:
    73
    Location:
    Hazlet, NJ
    Peter from Live Chat said Bare Metal Restore is not available and it would take two months. Would upgrading from v2 to v3 lose bare metal recovery again?
     
  14. TheRollbackFrog

    TheRollbackFrog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Posts:
    4,384
    Location:
    The Pond - USA
    Manolito... BOOTice works just fine under the WinRE base of the AXTM recovery media... as long as you have a place to store those BOOT records when you save them. The PBR isn't required as that is saved (according to Isso) in the partition image taken by AXTM. BUT... you clearly need all those partitions when running an UEFI system (EFI System, M$ SRP and C:\Windows) restored for a successful Bare Metal restore if you need to BOOT from it when finished. If AXTM is not imaging them, you really can't put "Humpty" back together again.
     
  15. TheRollbackFrog

    TheRollbackFrog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Posts:
    4,384
    Location:
    The Pond - USA
    I seem to be getting more and more bothered by what we are seeing.

    This from the HOME PAGE of the new product web site...

    Bare-Metal Restore
    If your hard drive fails, you can easily restore a backup onto a new one, recovering your system exactly as it was before.


    With what we seem to be experiencing, especially with non-MBR UEFI-based systems (there's a lot of them out there folks), that claim appears to be a bit misleading if not patently FALSE. Can the product Devs stop by and "clarify" what's really meant by that statement, and if it really isn't quite true, when do they plan on it being true?
     
  16. demoneye

    demoneye Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Posts:
    1,356
    Location:
    ISRHell
    Just made my first HOT restore in version 2.439 and it went smooth like i experience in version 1.
    i just wounder what kind of restore it doses if i didn't check "HOT RESTORE" anyone can clarify that point?


    10x :)
     
  17. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    I have remained quiet as I made the decision, not to go on with the release version, but revert back to my old standby Macrium,IFW, SP and Raxco's Instant Recovery. While TM Beta 2 never once failed on a warm restore, I never felt comfortable trusting just it, and always took a Macrium Incremental to go with it.

    A while back I stated I thought TM was a good rollback solution, but was in no way an imaging program. Tests with Perfect Disk is what convinced me. Back then I did a test. I took clean images with Macrium,IFW,SP and TM. Then created an incremental with each. I followed this with a complete defrag with PD, both off and online. I then took new incrementals with each. Not surprisingly TM's took longest as it had to redo the tracking file. That's fine. I then did the following with each program. Restored the image prior to defrag, and then restored again after the defrag. Macrium,IFW,SP all did fine on both restores. TM, restore to the before defrag state, but the after restored, failed and left the system unbootable. That is unacceptable.

    Just before the release, I did another test, but didn't bother reporting it. Shadowprotect in conjunction with it's add on ImageManager runs something called Continuous Incrementals. It's automatic, and collapses the images on a user schedule. Using hourly time frame for the incrementals the average time for an incremental, was around 35 seconds. Like TM it uses a tracking file. So when the kinds of things that cause TM, to take the time of a full image to repair the tracking file, the same is true with the SP Continuous incrementals. No surprise.

    I test I ran was to set up the SP job, and wait until it had taken two incrementals. Between their run I take a base TM image, and one incremental. Then I tested these to make sure there was no conflict that would invalidate the test. All images and incrementals were fine, and restored fine.

    I then repeated the test, and between one set of the tests, I did the full Perfect Disk defrag. Again I took a TM incremental which took time. SP's next incremental also took time. I then did the test restores, before and after the defrag. SP restored both just fine. Again TM failed the after restore. Unacceptable.

    While in part I can agree with what Demoneye said, my problem is I've lost faith in what is being said and what is delivered.

    What I am now seeing is what was released and what we are being ask to pay for wasn't even good enough to be a release candidate, but should have been beta 3.

    So with what Froggie said, I would add MBR systems to his statement.

    Pete
     
  18. manolito

    manolito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2013
    Posts:
    407
    OK, I see...
    So far I did not have the time to test the current V.2, but I was under the impression that these partitions will be backed up automatically together with the system partition, as it was in V.1.

    Reading a few posts back I realized that V.2 has lost this ability. That's plain stupid.

    I am more and more concerned that the new devs lack a clear understanding what this software is about. Trashing an essential feature which worked perfectly well in the older versions is something I have a hard time to understand.

    Whatever, my license for V.1 will not expire, there are a few features missing, but for me the old version beats the current version by a huge margin.


    Cheers
    manolito
     
  19. guest

    guest Guest

    same here, i have uninstalled v2 and now look for another solution.
     
  20. Kit1cat

    Kit1cat Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Posts:
    148
    Location:
    Plymouth, UK
    A warm Restore.
     
  21. demoneye

    demoneye Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Posts:
    1,356
    Location:
    ISRHell
    meaning i will need a boot cd ? or it will ask me for making boot manager ?

    10x
     
  22. TheRollbackFrog

    TheRollbackFrog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Posts:
    4,384
    Location:
    The Pond - USA
    DemonEye, when you unSELECT the HOT restore option, Time Machine will do a WARM restore. The way it performs a WARM restore is to temporarily install a scripted version (the script will automatically run a WARM restore upon reBOOT) of the RECOVERY MEDIA into your system's BOOT manager, restart your system which will automatically enter that temporary RECOVERY MEDIA, will run a WARM restore for you, then reBOOT your system into the selected restore point.

    This is a much safer restore method because it doesn't use the LIVE Windows system for the restore, it uses the RECOVERY MEDIA Windows RE OS to do the restore instead. This operating environment is not subject to extraneous task operations that run under LIVE Windows. During the WARM restore, the same restore method is used as is used under the HOT restore in LIVE Windows... i.e., only the differences between the current system state and your selected system state will be restored, which of course is much different than a COLD restore which restores everything from the BASELINE to the selected system state (way less data being restored = much faster restore).

    Hope this clarifies things a bit.
     
  23. TheRollbackFrog

    TheRollbackFrog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Posts:
    4,384
    Location:
    The Pond - USA
    Hi Pete! In reading your missive I basically hear the following...

    1. AXTM continues to fail you as an imager when Perfect Disk (PD) has completed on "off-line" (BOOT time) defrag prior to its snapshot... otherwise it appears to work as advertised (imaging and snapshottiing).

    2. The comparisons of "claims" vs "deliverables" seem to be widely variable.

    The PD anomaly has been mentioned since the apps inception... my question, has something "new" occurred in that area since v2 was released as far as your testing is concerned? And can you possibly elaborate on the missiing deliverables vs what they say they can do?

    I'm just trying to get a handle on what experienced testers are finding here... thanks!
     
  24. wajamus

    wajamus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2013
    Posts:
    321
    Location:
    Australia
    Dear Mano,

    Restoring to a blank disk was a feature since v1. It's called 'bare metal restore'. It continues to work that way in v1. V2 also has this function as well - though we've discovered it does not work all all system configurations. We are working to solve this problem hopefully in the next build.

    Regards,

    Waj
     
  25. demoneye

    demoneye Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Posts:
    1,356
    Location:
    ISRHell
    10x frogger as always you clear all my questions with great deal of knowledge :)
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.