RollBack Rx and TrueImage Home

Discussion in 'backup, imaging & disk mgmt' started by Kapiti, Aug 21, 2006.

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

    Kapiti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Posts:
    270
    Location:
    Paraparaumu NZ
    Just emailed the folk at RollBack Rx to ask about the compatibility with RollBack and TrueImage and received this message back;

    “There are a couple of things that you need to know. Firstly, when you take a image with ATI you will only have an image of the current snapshot (configuration). Therefore, the other snapshots will not be contained within the image.

    We recommend uninstalling RollBack Rx prior to taking an image with ATI. During uninstall you have the choice of which snapshot you would like to uninstall to.”

    Reading Wilders Forums regarding RollBack Rx I seem to recall that the programme needs to be reactivated after a reinstall, is this correct?
    Is uninstalling and reinstalling a lengthy process?
    Does “current snapshot” mean the original base snapshot or the last snapshot?
    I’m aware that some posters have had difficulty using RB and TI together but is there anyone using the two programmes together without a problem?

    At this stage I haven’t installed RollBack Rx just trying to get answers to questions first.

    John.
     
  2. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    That is one of the reasons, why I refuse to use RollbackRx. For a simple backup, I have to uninstall RollbackRx, that is an unacceptable solution for me, because that is absurd.
    I don't have that problem with FDISR and ATI. All my snapshots are included in the backup and restored without MBR problems. That is what I call NORMAL.
     
  3. pvsurfer

    pvsurfer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,400
    Location:
    California - USA
    It is not necessary to uninstall RB in order to use TI successfully. If you create your TI backup from within Windows, you will capture the current snapshot (which is what I would want for purposes of disaster recovery).

    If you choose to first uninstall RB, your TI disk-image will contain a standard MBR as well as the snapshot of your choice (which in my situations, have always been the current snapshot), so that's the way to go if you don't want to continue using RB. If you do not uninstall RB (I don't), the resulting disk-image will include the RB-modified MBR, which is what you want if you wish to continue using RB. If you choose not to uninstall RB, be sure to make your backup using TI within Windows, and not from TI's Recovery CD (as that will capture your baseline snapshot)!

    Hth, pv
     
  4. Kapiti

    Kapiti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Posts:
    270
    Location:
    Paraparaumu NZ
    I can see I'll need to bite the bullet and install the evaluation copies of both RollBack and FirstDense:-*

    At this stage the thing concerning me in regards FirstDefense is the time taken to make a snapshot. Reading the the FD forum it seems the time taken to make a snapshot can be from 10 minutes to 30 minutes. I suppose this depends on the machine used - I run AMD Athlon64 3700+ with 2GB memory and Sata drives, data around the 7GB mark. In your opinion what time span would I be looking at to make a snapshot?

    John.
     
  5. Kapiti

    Kapiti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Posts:
    270
    Location:
    Paraparaumu NZ
    Thanks PVSurfer,
    That is much easier to understand than the official response, thank you:-*

    John.
     
  6. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    I have another CPU, but I have also 2GB RAM and SATA drives.
    I created yesterday a 2.93GB snapshot in 5-6 minutes in my off-line snapshot and in 8-9 minutes in my on-line snapshot, but the speed isn't always the same.
    My data is on another harddisk (not C, but D), but I assume that most FDISR users anchor their data in the system partition, which means that their data isn't included in the snapshots.
     
  7. Kapiti

    Kapiti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Posts:
    270
    Location:
    Paraparaumu NZ
    Thanks ErikAlbert, The situation is coming clearer with each answer I get:-*

    The time has come to give both FD and RB a trial and see for myself.

    Again, thanks for the information.

    John.
     
  8. pvsurfer

    pvsurfer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,400
    Location:
    California - USA
    You are most welcome. After using the latest version of RB (v7.2.1 build 2691131407) ever since it was released last month, I have found it to be quite stable (previous builds were extremely unstable),

    However, I strongly recommend not using any disk defraggers other than RB's snapshot defragger. I have experienced very strange behavior when running Perfect Disk with RB installed.

    ~pv
     
  9. Kapiti

    Kapiti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Posts:
    270
    Location:
    Paraparaumu NZ
    Hello PV,

    At this rate I'll an expert on both RB and FD before installing either programme:-*

    John
     
  10. pvsurfer

    pvsurfer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,400
    Location:
    California - USA
    While I'm not an FDISR user, I would say that assuming RB has fixed the bug in their prior builds (and after extensive testing it looks that way), the primary advantage of FDISR is that it is more versatile than RB as to where you can save/copy snapshots. With RB, you can only save snapshots to the C-drive that it is protecting. On RB's + side, snapshots are created in just a matter of seconds, and they consume less disk space than FDISR snapshots.
     
  11. incursari

    incursari Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Posts:
    153
    Location:
    SG
    Hi pvsurfer, during my previous testing with RB Rx, I used Diskeeper to do defragmentation job, and also do boot time defragmentation job, readjust the MFT size without any problem or error. And also manually defrag using RB Rx. Use it about a week, try to restore from a few snapshot and all successful.
    I believe there is no conflict between RB Rx and Diskeeper.
     
  12. sukarof

    sukarof Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Posts:
    1,714
    Location:
    Stockholm Sweden
    Just for info. Even though you can run external defraggers with Rollback, they will not work as intended. Here´s some read from the Knowledgebase:

    http://horizondatasys.helpdeskconnect.com/?cmd=faq&sid=&topid=65
     
  13. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    I can assure you that, when you install FD for testing, you will have a good idea in no time, how fast FDISR is and how much space it needs.
    Right after installing FDISR, it will ask you to create the second snapshot.
    After that you can create upto maximum 10 snapshots. Watch the time and the volume.
    After that you uninstall FDISR and try RollbackRx or one of its clones.
     
  14. incursari

    incursari Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Posts:
    153
    Location:
    SG
    Thanks for the link and I read about it. Maybe just my luck I didn’t get any error during the test.
     
  15. Get

    Get Guest

    Can you please elaborate on that in the sense of : What went wrong? Damage done? Irreversible? Reason without a doubt the interaction or better the lack of it between PD and RB?
     
  16. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    Now, tell me please.
    How is this reply answering any of the questions in the original posting?
     
  17. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    I'm not a registered user, but from the information I read I understand that activation is automated when you are online. The registration key depends on the volume ID of your system partition. So when you format the disk you need a new key. That process takes an email.
    I assume that editing the volume ID with the free volumeID by Sysinterals (http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/VolumeId.html might prevend that problem.
     
  18. pvsurfer

    pvsurfer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,400
    Location:
    California - USA
    By way of answering you, first let me say that with this latest build, there was no resulting system problem after PD's strange behavior. However, I'm not ruling out that running PD with RB installed may very well have been one of the causes for the serious system problems I experienced with previous builds!

    As a PD user (on the same PC) over the past few years, I have a very good feel for it's operation. With RB installed, I noticed the following anomalies:

    PD would take a much longer time to complete the defrag, during which the defrag progress bar never moves beyond about 10% of the distance. After the defrag presumably finishes, PD's reported results indicate a great many fragmented clusters!

    As a test, I first used RB's snapshot defragger, followed by the PD defragger. After the PD defragger finally completed, I again ran the RB snapshot defragger. Normally, when running the RB snapshot defragger shortly after it has already been run (with no added snapshots in the interim), the 2nd RB defrag goes very quickly, as one might expect. But after running the PD defragger between RB defragmentations, I could see the RB defragger taking a longer time to analyze the sector mapping and then (seemingly) undo whatever sector changes PD's defrag invoked.

    As far as I'm concerned, the bottom-line here is that no '3rd party' defragger (and I include the Windows defragger here) serves any good purpose whatsoever when using RB, and may precipitate system chaos!

    ~pv
     
  19. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    I get the same understanding from the knowledge base. It is recommended to only use the EAZ-fix/Rollback RX snapshot defragmenter.
     
  20. Get

    Get Guest

    @pvsurfer: thx for the info. It looks pretty logical and to be expected what you described apart from the serious system problems that is, because that's not something horizon datasys warns for. Despite the fact you can't tell for sure what caused them, it's a reason for caution. :ninja: Even with the latest build.
     
  21. pvsurfer

    pvsurfer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,400
    Location:
    California - USA
    Caution is always a good idea - that's why I use and depend on Acronis True Image (just in case)!

    However, I have been testing ('torturing' would actually be a better word) the latest July build of RB ever since it was released and it has been working perfectly regardless of what I did to try and 'break' it! Most of my RB-testing is reported in this thread...
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=139120&page=6
     
  22. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    That is great news, pvsurfer.
    I still feel like a starter with EAZ-fix. :) Regardless of all warnings I received from other forum members, I do feel really comfortable with this snapshot solution.
    Do you also have experience with EAZ-clone? I made a modification that resulted in a 75% performance improvement. Creating an image takes now only 5 minutes and restoring is done in 2 minutes.
     
  23. pvsurfer

    pvsurfer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,400
    Location:
    California - USA
    I never even heard of EAZ-fix until a few days ago when you brought it to our attention! Until then I thought that Rollback Rx was developed by (and the proprietary product of) HDS. It's still rather confusing to me as to who is the actual developer, as well as the oem'ing of this product, but in any case it seems to me that the latest build (and I can only speak for the RB build) is stable - but you will hear me screaming if it breaks! ;)
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2006
  24. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,054
    Have either of these guys indicated how their Kernel driver will play in Vista, where Microsoft is trying to lock people out of Kernel mode?
     
  25. pvsurfer

    pvsurfer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,400
    Location:
    California - USA
    I don't know anything about that nor am I concerned - Vista is not in my near-future (2007) plans.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.