Just curious about the consensus as to running a validation upon completion of backup. Do any of you consider that a waste of time?
I sure don't. If it's bad after the image is taken, you sure don't want to know that when you go to use it for an important, if not absolutely necessary, restoration. Sure, the image may "decay" over time (some call it bitrot, etc.) but the chance of that happening is pretty slim depending on where you keep your images. ...and who's time is it wasting? It's not like you can't continue to work while the validation is ongoing.
Not a waste for me, ever. No one knows if an image got corrupt for a common issue, namely bad sectors on HDDs.
I agree as I ALWAYS do this. It does not take long and have had one program in particular that did NOT pass the validation after the image was created. Never had this issue with Macrium Reflect however.
Validation is more a test of whether your hardware will allow a successful restore. For example, bad RAM may cause frequent Validation failures. http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/kb/article.php?id=350
I gotta jump in here. Between my testing on Macrium and Shadowprotect, the number of images and restores I've done is over a couple of thousand. Some of my findings were confirmed by my mentor Nate Bushman who used to be at Storagecraft. He was the daddy of all imaging stuff. He confirmed what I saw, that the only value of verifying an image lay in getting the checksum file so over a long period of time you could tell if the image changed. I found if I wanted to be sure an image was good, I would mount the image and the open a video file. If the video file played from within the image the image always would restore. On the other hand I remember one image where I couldn't mount it. The image verified fine, but failed on restore. Personally I never waste my time on a verify. T he analogy I was given was this. You get a package from a delivery company. If the package is severely damaged up can suspect the contents are damaged. But if the package is fine, that doesn't mean the contents are damaged. Verify is testing the package.
@Peter2150 -- Very interesting observation. I've always set my Reflect defaults to verify backups automatically on completion and that does add significantly to the total operation time. Mounting the image and running a video within would certainly be quicker if it can safely be regarded as equivalent to verifying the complete image at that operational stage.
Tell the truth I don't even bother with that any more. When I first considered changing from Shadowprotect to Macrium I took the 30 day trial. During that 30 days, I did 3 images and 3 restores a day. When I saw flawless performance I purchased it. WHen we had the opportunity to do the unofficial beta on v6, I beat the daylights out of it. Did some stuff you should never do. Also did a couple of hundred restores on it. Never had a failure of any kind on restores. Even now in playing around I will sometimes do a couple of restores a day. I don't bother with any kind of test on the images other than an actual restore. Also when I fool with any new imaging software first thing I do is build RE. 2nd thing is take an image. Third thing is try a restore. I've had some other programs fail at restores. Macrium always bails me out. That is the ultimate test.
I've stopped using Image for Linux, I restore IFW images with windows IFW running in a win 10 pese environment. Never had a failure there either. I've have IFW,DS,AOMEI. Have never had any failure with any of them. Don't run verify's on any of them. On this topic. If I take an image and I need to know it will protect me, I do verify it, but not with image verify, I restore it before doing what I am going to do . That is the only real verify
Interesting. Now I wonder how do you restore it knowing it can trash system partition if image file is bad. Or do you restore it to a spare hdd/ssd?
Just do the restores. I do have some fall backs in case an image fails, but never had it happen with the imaging programs I use.
I always validate backups after the backup job is run. Actyally I set Macrium Reflect to automatically verify them for me, so I don't waste time
Pete, so far you are the only one here who doesn't validate your backup image - because in your opinion validation success is no assurance that the backup image will restore successfully. Even if that is correct wouldn't you want to know if the validation failed? Seems to me that be valuable info and likely prompt a follow-up backup attempt?
Hi Cruise They probably won't fail, but their success doesn't guarantee a restore. It to is a feel good effort. I probably do more restores then most do validates. The restore is all I need to tell. If I were to validate every image that would be hours wasted for nothing, in my opinion. Curious Cruise, how often do you restore? Pete
Using IFW v3.xx I include the validate option when creating a system image, whether full or incremental. I don't image often nor restore often, so I don't mind the extra time it takes. It just gives me some peace of mind.
Pete, I only restore to recover from some 'bad episode', never for validation purposes. Since you do the latter, I'd be interested in knowing how often you restore?
