What keeps users from using rollback/eazfix?

In all fairness to the RBx imager-if you only have a really small partition,then it may prove to be quite usable,

Nextstar has just reported a 1.7 gb backup in 6 minutes.

 

Pete
Are you saying you used SP or RBx for this imaging?

 

Well,in all fairness to Rbx/EF,I tested Drive Image in the current version of RBx with mixed feelings.

The speeds were better than previously and in fact only about 2-3 times slower than SP,which is not unacceptable I suppose.

The image size also was about the same as SP,so the compression is working.
The recovery disk which must be used, is attractive and works quite easily
The restore worked out OK,except RBx needed reinstalling.

Prior to booting into Windows,CHKDSK autoran with faults,a bit of a worry.

At this stage,would say the developers are definitely on the right track,with more work to do.

Obviously not as competent as a fully fledged imager,which was never the intention,but probably quite sufficient for some,as long as the reliability proves OK

 

You've just discovered the useful features of FD-ISR Workstation
- 10 full, independant, bootable snapshots.
- Offline archives of those snapshots.
- No frills with imaging.

 

Pete So you succeeded without problems-want to confirm my experiences.
Did you use any special settings?

 

Yes,to have full functional bootable archival snapshots were [are] key with FDISR,its dearly missing in RBX,EAZ-Fix and the recoded HorizonData stuff.

Consequence is that imaging has the highest priority,there is no fallback on archives if disaster strikes.

With SP installed and working as expected,then the need for FDISR is not that urgent,cause you stay current all the time.

 

That should be clear by now, but just in case it wasn't, i think that lucas1985 just made that once again abundantly clear by again bringing out that very IMPORTANT aspect of FD-ISR.

Of course only present owners of this previous masterpiece are at liberty to enjoy these great features. LoL

When diaster strikes, FD-ISR archives are as dependable as backup images bar none!

 

Before we go in fanboys talk about FDISR [its dead by now]its argued here in this thread why it hold some people back of using RBX. thanks to hairy's investigations we have by now a more clear picture of possible use or replacement for once beloved stuff.

For me there's no need for a change as i depend on my trusted setup,it never let me down.

 

I'm sure I read somewhere that if the third party imaging program has the ability to use a sector based backup option, it should work. You have to tell the imaging program to use the sectors instead of the file based format.

I found this knowledge base article: http://www.eazsolution.com/kb/article.php?id=172

There was a user on here (whose name I've forgotten) who tested with ATI, Drive Snapshot and Paragon HDM with their sector based backup options - and they confirmed this.

PS: It was appster - https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=1171506#post1171506

 

Haven't tried it but Acronis 11 has sector by sector option. Presumably slow and images are full size. would this approach allow imaging to keep say 10 snapshots ?

 

SP does sector by sector backup using VSS and i guess their own RSS also.

 

I think so.

 

Yes, FDISR gives you the choice,sorry about that !

 

This time I used Shadow Protect to backup Rollback using the desktop,rather than the CD and it worked normally without any problems.No special settings are required.

To repeat,what in fact is being backed up is an image of the Rx baseline,so it is essential to update the baseline before imaging, otherwise of course the image wont be current.

Previously my biggest problems with Rx/EF were the imaging one and the defrag question of only being able to use the Rx defragger after installing.

Initially,after having defragged using JK and then installing Rx,I uninstalled after a week,when an external defrag would normally have been required.

Was surprised that there was very little fragmentation present,which bears out the Rx point that using the Rx defragger is sufficient.

So my own two main objections have largely gone. There are still some limitations of course,as Peter pointed out.

A reinstall of Rx is necessary after a backup restore by SP,but the time for this is minimal.

 

Good point-have often thought about doing this-obviously no problems archiving specialised full images-except the image size would be about 3 times larger than a specialised snapshot using FDISR.

 

Just a curious question since everyone is talking about imaging and Rollback/Ez-fix.

1. If you stored all your important files daily that you needed to make sure you did not lose how long would it take you to reload your os and apps and the data you had backed up?

2. What do you think are the odds now that Rollback/Ez-fix is stable that you will have to reload everything listed above.

3. How often have you had to replace your hard drive because it crashed?

The reason I ask is because even if my drive crashed right now I could have vista reloaded, all my appz which are stored on a backup drive and adjust all my settings in about 2 hours or less. I can see business' not going this route but for people like us it doesn't seem that big of deal or does it? I have never had a hard drive crash but I upgrade every few years. I had one incident very early on with losing a snapshot with a rollback beta. So for me two hours is not to much time I guess.

Thanks,

Chris

 

in your scenario's,key is to have something that provide a '' bare metal recovery '' ,look at SP,ATI or Paragon,they make this possible.

Even since now that SP is happy with EAZ-Fix it makes for perfect solution,as Hairy can attest to that.

Many here has personal data on a second partion and backup from there to an external drive.

In case of a toasted drive,plug in a new one,let your favorite imaging do his job and your up and running in maybe 20 minutes,no fidling with reinstalls of any kind,just as nothing has happened.

 

1. agreed a few hours But as I can restore C: in minutes I use imaging rather than eazfix type. In any event having a bare installation image is just like having a personalised version of your OS
2. No idea - never tried
3. never lost a drive and have used 15 machines since 1990 ( 8 still in service)

 

Ok yes you can restore an image in a matter of minutes but to restore images as much I switch between snapshots would cost me way more time than the 2 hours it would take me once a year or two if at all if something happened that I did have to do a fresh install is what I am getting at.

Thanks,

Chris

 

all good points Chris, in the end there really wasnt a need for me for this type of software.