IFW 2.97e vs 2.97d

User discussion and information resource forum for Image products.
Post Reply
Jetstar1988
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2015 2:48 pm

IFW 2.97e vs 2.97d

Post by Jetstar1988 »

Currently on 2.97d, which is running good (thank you Terabyte Unlimited...great product!). Is there anything in "e" that is a substantial improvement?

I read the description, but nothing jumped out at me.
TeraByte Support
Posts: 3624
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 10:37 pm

Re: IFW 2.97e vs 2.97d

Post by TeraByte Support »

corrects some issues broken in 2.97c/d, if you're doing
differentials/incrementals then you should update.


"Jetstar1988" wrote in message news:10230@public.image...

Currently on 2.97d, which is running good (thank you Terabyte
Unlimited...great product!). Is there anything in "e" that is a substantial
improvement?

I read the description, but nothing jumped out at me.

Scott
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 11:17 am

Re: IFW 2.97e vs 2.97d

Post by Scott »

I've been having failures in e that I never had in d, so I'd suggest staying on d. About 1 out of every 3 attempts, when I start a backup, it immediately fails saying PHYLock could not get a lock. This is interesting given that I have PHYLock disabled in the settings and don't have PHYLock installed. Based on how quickly the error occurs, there's no way it gave VSS a chance to engage. I have too many things going on in life to figure out what's going on or if the idiots at Microsoft broke something in Win10.
TeraByte Support
Posts: 3624
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 10:37 pm

Re: IFW 2.97e vs 2.97d

Post by TeraByte Support »

reinstall after upgrading to 10.

also, you can look in the log for the vss error code. The message is
generic before vss existed.


"Scott" wrote in message news:10438@public.image...

I've been having failures in e that I never had in d, so I'd suggest staying
on d. About 1 out of every 3 attempts, when I start a backup, it immediately
fails saying PHYLock could not get a lock. This is interesting given that I
have PHYLock disabled in the settings and don't have PHYLock installed.
Based on how quickly the error occurs, there's no way it gave VSS a chance
to engage. I have too many things going on in life to figure out what's
going on or if the idiots at Microsoft broke something in Win10.

Scott
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 11:17 am

Re: IFW 2.97e vs 2.97d

Post by Scott »

I've reinstalled IFW already.

I just had this failure again. The relevant portion of the IFW log:

[10/20/2015 10:00:39 AM] Attempting to Create VSS Snapshot...
[10/20/2015 10:00:40 AM] Added \\?\Volume{a92317da-b66e-11e1-be74-806e6f6e6962} to snapshot.
[10/20/2015 10:00:40 AM] Added \\?\Volume{a92317db-b66e-11e1-be74-806e6f6e6962} (C:) to snapshot.
[10/20/2015 10:00:40 AM] Added \\?\Volume{36e4b540-0000-0000-0000-90336b000000} to snapshot.
[10/20/2015 10:00:40 AM] VSS Snapshot Creation Failed (80042316h)
[10/20/2015 10:00:40 AM] Unable to obtain a lock on drive C:

Can you please point me to an IFW 2.97d setup? I'm not sure it will help but it won't work any worse.
Attachments
ifw.png
ifw.png (65 KiB) Viewed 7835 times
TeraByte Support
Posts: 3624
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 10:37 pm

Re: IFW 2.97e vs 2.97d

Post by TeraByte Support »

That error is Microsofts error for snapshot creation in progress:
// MessageId: VSS_E_SNAPSHOT_SET_IN_PROGRESS
// Another shadow copy creation is already in progress. Wait a few moments
and try again.

Ensure you're not trying to run two things at the same time that use VSS.

Not sure if the eventlog will give you more details. Or you can try
enabling VSS debugging to get the file output with lots of details (which
may not mean anything except mainly for the MS programmers).


"Scott" wrote in message news:10457@public.image...

I've reinstalled IFW already.

I just had this failure again. The relevant portion of the IFW log:

[10/20/2015 10:00:39 AM] Attempting to Create VSS Snapshot...
[10/20/2015 10:00:40 AM] Added
\\?\Volume{a92317da-b66e-11e1-be74-806e6f6e6962} to snapshot.
[10/20/2015 10:00:40 AM] Added
\\?\Volume{a92317db-b66e-11e1-be74-806e6f6e6962} (C:) to snapshot.
[10/20/2015 10:00:40 AM] Added
\\?\Volume{36e4b540-0000-0000-0000-90336b000000} to snapshot.
[10/20/2015 10:00:40 AM] VSS Snapshot Creation Failed (80042316h)
[10/20/2015 10:00:40 AM] Unable to obtain a lock on drive C:

Can you please point me to an IFW 2.97d setup? I'm not sure it will help but
it won't work any worse.

Bob Coleman
Posts: 787
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:58 pm

Re: IFW 2.97e vs 2.97d

Post by Bob Coleman »

To Scott:

Just curious. Did you ever run 2.97d successfully on Windows 10?

Alternatively, did you ever run 2.97e successfully on whatever you used before Windows 10?
Scott
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 11:17 am

Re: IFW 2.97e vs 2.97d

Post by Scott »

I always image with few things running in the background. The problem could be the Syncovery VSS service. I'll stop that from running and see how it goes.

I believe I did run 2.97d under Win10. I honestly can't remember for sure though.

I did update Syncovery recently, so that could be the issue. In any case, IFW should fail more gracefully than it does; there's no way to actually retry. I have to go back to the IFW start window and start all over again, which is frankly a PITA I could do without.
Bob Coleman
Posts: 787
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:58 pm

Re: IFW 2.97e vs 2.97d

Post by Bob Coleman »

All that may be true.. My thought was that unless you know that 2.97d ran on Win 10, the issue could be with Win 10 rather than 2.97e.
Post Reply