Brian K wrote:
> B00ze wrote:
> > Live backups; good, I don't use that - I've
> > been burned before, I only do offline.
>
> I've been using IFW (Live backups) for almost 10 years without an issue. What burned
> you?
I used to be very nervous about it. Eventually, I took the plunge. I don't remember exactly when. I've never had a problem (which I suppose doesn't mean I never will).
totally reliability or speed or?
Re: totally reliability or speed or?
Bob Coleman wrote:
>
> I used to be very nervous about it. Eventually, I took the plunge.
Yes, it's a fear of the unknown. But the superiority of cold imaging is a delusion.
>
> I used to be very nervous about it. Eventually, I took the plunge.
Yes, it's a fear of the unknown. But the superiority of cold imaging is a delusion.
-
- Posts: 785
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:24 am
Re: totally reliability or speed or?
I rarely use anything other than IFW to image.
And I have restored several times with no problems.
Mary
On 12/18/2015 3:26 PM, Bob Coleman wrote:
> Brian K wrote:
>> B00ze wrote:
>>> Live backups; good, I don't use that - I've
>>> been burned before, I only do offline.
>>
>> I've been using IFW (Live backups) for almost 10 years without an issue. What burned
>> you?
>
> I used to be very nervous about it. Eventually, I took the plunge. I don't remember exactly when. I've never had a problem (which I suppose doesn't mean I never will).
>
>
And I have restored several times with no problems.
Mary
On 12/18/2015 3:26 PM, Bob Coleman wrote:
> Brian K wrote:
>> B00ze wrote:
>>> Live backups; good, I don't use that - I've
>>> been burned before, I only do offline.
>>
>> I've been using IFW (Live backups) for almost 10 years without an issue. What burned
>> you?
>
> I used to be very nervous about it. Eventually, I took the plunge. I don't remember exactly when. I've never had a problem (which I suppose doesn't mean I never will).
>
>
Re: totally reliability or speed or?
Brian K wrote:
> B00ze wrote:
> > Live backups; good, I don't use that - I've
> > been burned before, I only do offline.
>
> I've been using IFW (Live backups) for almost 10 years without an issue.
> What burned you?
I was test-driving IFW; did a Live incremental with VSS. Restored it 2 weeks later, and Windows Update had "reset" (it had forgotten all the updates that I've ever applied, was saying it had never run, etc). It's a simple matter to "break" things with a live backup: (1) Start a program that writes (and closes) a file to disk to indicate that it's running; this file is deleted when the program ends. (2) Do a live backup while the program is running. (3) Restore later. That file will be there in the restore, even tho the program is not running - leading to an inconsistent state. It gets much more complicated when we include several opened databases while the backup is running...
It's ok, I don't mind being paranoid and doing only offline backups.
I did mind before, with Ghost taking 40 minutes to do an image, but with IFW/IFL being so fast, it's ok.
Best Regards,
> B00ze wrote:
> > Live backups; good, I don't use that - I've
> > been burned before, I only do offline.
>
> I've been using IFW (Live backups) for almost 10 years without an issue.
> What burned you?
I was test-driving IFW; did a Live incremental with VSS. Restored it 2 weeks later, and Windows Update had "reset" (it had forgotten all the updates that I've ever applied, was saying it had never run, etc). It's a simple matter to "break" things with a live backup: (1) Start a program that writes (and closes) a file to disk to indicate that it's running; this file is deleted when the program ends. (2) Do a live backup while the program is running. (3) Restore later. That file will be there in the restore, even tho the program is not running - leading to an inconsistent state. It gets much more complicated when we include several opened databases while the backup is running...
It's ok, I don't mind being paranoid and doing only offline backups.
I did mind before, with Ghost taking 40 minutes to do an image, but with IFW/IFL being so fast, it's ok.
Best Regards,
Re: totally reliability or speed or?
B00ze,
I've performed thousands of restores (from IFW hot backups) and never seen an issue. But I don't have databases. These were restores, not image backups.
I've performed thousands of restores (from IFW hot backups) and never seen an issue. But I don't have databases. These were restores, not image backups.
Re: totally reliability or speed or?
Total reliability. I'm very paranoid about keeping my computer performance bulletproof and not so much about image/backup/restore times. In fact when I did switch from the well-known brand to TeraByte it took me about a year of decision-making. Of course I wish now I had just taken the plunge but the thought of trying to reinstall all the 1's and 0's as I had placed them the first time caused profuse sweating on my part.
Re: totally reliability or speed or?
I prefer reliability for obvious reasonss. However, a feature/option to select an image in windows and choose to restore to the same system partition during boot process would be a great benefit to IFW (and IFL/IFD if it's sos relevant). i.e. When booted in Windows, I open IFW, select and image to resotre and restore to system partition (ie. C: partition). IFW then prompts for reboot, and if accepted, reboots and restores selected image during boot process.
This is my number 1 feature request for IFW vc 3.
Second on my list is improved file backup (but using sector backup technology!)
This is my number 1 feature request for IFW vc 3.
Second on my list is improved file backup (but using sector backup technology!)
Re: totally reliability or speed or?
I would also like to know about downsides to restore-during-boot process, so I'm fully informed.
-
- Posts: 3616
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 10:37 pm
Re: totally reliability or speed or?
If your hard drive dies, that isn't going to work, if windows is corrupt,
that isn't going to work. But you already do have options, you have
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/howto/howto-ifl-bootfile.htm or
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/howto/howto-ifd-bootfile.htm. You also
can put IFW in the Windows recovery environment as an option in this
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/howto/tbwinre_tutorial.htm with a full GUI.
"Mrx" wrote in message news:11131@public.image...
I prefer reliability for obvious reasonss. However, a feature/option to
select an image in windows and choose to restore to the same system
partition during boot process would be a great benefit to IFW (and IFL/IFD
if it's sos relevant). i.e. When booted in Windows, I open IFW, select and
image to resotre and restore to system partition (ie. C: partition). IFW
then prompts for reboot, and if accepted, reboots and restores selected
image during boot process.
This is my number 1 feature request for IFW vc 3.
Second on my list is improved file backup (but using sector backup
technology!)
that isn't going to work. But you already do have options, you have
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/howto/howto-ifl-bootfile.htm or
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/howto/howto-ifd-bootfile.htm. You also
can put IFW in the Windows recovery environment as an option in this
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/howto/tbwinre_tutorial.htm with a full GUI.
"Mrx" wrote in message news:11131@public.image...
I prefer reliability for obvious reasonss. However, a feature/option to
select an image in windows and choose to restore to the same system
partition during boot process would be a great benefit to IFW (and IFL/IFD
if it's sos relevant). i.e. When booted in Windows, I open IFW, select and
image to resotre and restore to system partition (ie. C: partition). IFW
then prompts for reboot, and if accepted, reboots and restores selected
image during boot process.
This is my number 1 feature request for IFW vc 3.
Second on my list is improved file backup (but using sector backup
technology!)
-
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:28 pm
Re: totally reliability or speed or?
Hope I'm not to late in the thread.
The strong points of terabyte products are reliability and customization.
As long as the existing features will continue to exist in the new version and the backup/restore using metadata is not enabled by default, I 'd love to see them implemented. 8-) :D
And for not compromising much the reliability when enabled it would be nice to autoperform a chkdsk or (fsck in linux) before executing both the backup and the restore. If the partition results dirty during the backup, it shouldn't execute the backup until the user fixes it. If it is found dirty before restoring it should give the option to preform a full restore or a changed sector only restore or to abort altogether, based on the settings (aborting should be the default option).
Panagiotis
The strong points of terabyte products are reliability and customization.
As long as the existing features will continue to exist in the new version and the backup/restore using metadata is not enabled by default, I 'd love to see them implemented. 8-) :D
And for not compromising much the reliability when enabled it would be nice to autoperform a chkdsk or (fsck in linux) before executing both the backup and the restore. If the partition results dirty during the backup, it shouldn't execute the backup until the user fixes it. If it is found dirty before restoring it should give the option to preform a full restore or a changed sector only restore or to abort altogether, based on the settings (aborting should be the default option).
Panagiotis