Which is the better backup approach?

Discussion in 'Acronis True Image Product Line' started by pvsurfer, Sep 7, 2004.

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

    pvsurfer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,400
    Location:
    California - USA
    I have 2 fixed physical HDDs (C & D) in my PC... C: contains WinXP + my apps, and D: contains my data files. I also have a very large removable HDD for storing my (true) images.

    When I create images of C & D, is it best to create a separate image file for each of these fixed drives, or just simply check the boxes for both drives and image both of them at the same time?
     
  2. wdormann

    wdormann Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Posts:
    480
    I would recommend doing them separate. On the off chance that one of your image files gets corrupt (due to bad sectors on your backup drive or whatnot), would you rather have two drives worth of backup images lost, or just one?
     
  3. pvsurfer

    pvsurfer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,400
    Location:
    California - USA
    That makes sense, but speaking of corrupted images, I must admit concern with all of the threads in this forum about that subject, how can one trust that their backup images will work when needed?

    Thanks!
     
  4. leehigdon3

    leehigdon3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Posts:
    132
    Location:
    Plano, TX USA
    Using the Acronis Boot CD, cold boot into the Linux shell and do an image verification (integrity) scan.
     
  5. KraXed112

    KraXed112 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Posts:
    15
    What you gonna do if it wont even pick up the file? cos thats the problem i have rite now.. it works in windows .. but once booted into linux it doesn't work ... its odd cos there the same versions
     
  6. pvsurfer

    pvsurfer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,400
    Location:
    California - USA
    I should have stated that I'm using Windows XP. :eek:

    Sorry!
     
  7. leehigdon3

    leehigdon3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Posts:
    132
    Location:
    Plano, TX USA
    When you say boot, are we talking a *cold boot* after system shut down, no power on for at least a minute, or *restarting* from Windows with the boot CD in the drive? Based on my experience, there is a huge difference. Now, I'm running version 7, not 8, so maybe your problem is different than mine.
     
  8. Devinco

    Devinco Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,524
    It is good to verify the integrity of the image, but it is no guarantee that it will work when you need it. Just look at some of the many posts here. People would verify the images only to have them be corrupt or fail when doing an actual restore. The only way to be 100% sure that it will work is to actually do a restore. The best time to do this is right after you make an image. Then you know it will work when you need it. Otherwise, what is the point of a backup? I have experienced this type of failure in the past (not with ATI) and it is not fun realizing all your data is gone. Test the restore or else play russian roulette.
    Here is a thread discussing this.
     
  9. pvsurfer

    pvsurfer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,400
    Location:
    California - USA
    Thanks for the link, I'll be sure to read it... But as I indicated previously, with all of the threads here that complain about corrupted images, it's kind of hard to place confidence in TI8.

    And imho, having to attempt an actual restore after every backup (to be sure that the image is good), implies an unreliable backup product... :'(
     
  10. KraXed112

    KraXed112 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Posts:
    15
    i kinda wished there was a command that lets u uncompress it to something.. that way u can at least salvage something instead of it all.. my problem has been goin on for 2 days now.. still no cure
     
  11. wdormann

    wdormann Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Posts:
    480
    That is totally unnecessary. A "Dry run" should be attempted once to make sure that the bootable media works, can access your devices, and can read from the image file properly.

    Once you have completed those steps, you should feel comfortable that your emergency restore procedure will work. At this point, as long as the backup media you are writing to is not flawed, you should be fine. (And this can be verified using the built-in image verification if you must use questionable media for whatever reason)

    The above described process holds true for any backup process. It is in no way specific to Acronis TrueImage. An untested backup process is no backup process.

    Also, FWIW, I have never experienced a corrupt TrueImage backup. I have done quite a few "bare-metal" restores from images on secondary hard drives, external USB2 hard drives, and network (samba) shares.
     
  12. KraXed112

    KraXed112 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Posts:
    15
    Well thats not exactly true.. my problem at the moment is i made the 5.5gig image verified it.. even explored it .. rebooted a couple times just to make sure.. then i decide to try out some new stuff registry stuff kinda.. and it just gets slower.. so i reboot... thinkin the image was good.. but in the boot up it says the image is not complete. so why can the same version in windows work.. but not in the rescue cd which is the same version
     
  13. pvsurfer

    pvsurfer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,400
    Location:
    California - USA
    Having been there myself, I truly feel for you. As for me, until the 'Unable to Restore' type of threads diminish around here, I sure don't feel that I can count on this product in the event of a system disaster...
     
  14. KraXed112

    KraXed112 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Posts:
    15
    lol which is what my problem is.. i have made multi images with diff versions.. and even when i try to restore those ... it restores fine.. but does not boot.. just stops rite b4 where the windows logo should show
     
  15. pvsurfer

    pvsurfer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,400
    Location:
    California - USA
    Just curious, can you give us a break-down of your equipment and OS...
     
  16. KraXed112

    KraXed112 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Posts:
    15
    p4 intel 3.06, 512 RDRAM pc-4200
    3 x 200 wd jb's
    2 x 120 wd jb's

    so far the assorted images i got are from diffrent versions.. but so far 8.0 has not been able to do one good restore and the image i really want to restore was made with 8, i can see and explore in windows.. just not from the boot cd
     
  17. wdormann

    wdormann Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Posts:
    480
    It is not the same version. It's a different application, running under a different OS, running with different drivers. If you haven't tested both, then you haven't tested.
     
  18. pvsurfer

    pvsurfer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,400
    Location:
    California - USA
    WinXP?
    SP2?
     
  19. KraXed112

    KraXed112 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Posts:
    15
    sorry yeah.. winxp first was sp1.. then i imaged it.. then made sure it would work.. BUT.. didn't check with bootup.. then i upgraded to sp2. .adn tried out a bunch of tweaks.. failed at that .. then wanted to restore but then the image was corrupt..
    i'm back at sp1 now.. and still corrupt.. i'm thinkin it could be a certain kind of mix in the diff versions.. cos now i got 8.0 768 and its corrupt as well..
    theres still hope!! hehe.. i think.. either way.. i still use it cos it works better for me then ghost does..
    and finally being accepted into beta testing should really give me a chance to test it out at some lan arcades
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.