Image for Windows 3.07

User discussion and information resource forum for Image products.

Re: Image for Windows 3.07

Postby Bob Coleman » Tue May 30, 2017 12:07 pm

Walter B wrote:
> Does this all boil down to: if you are using Win 10 Pro X64, then use
> VSS?

To me, it boils down to "Don't use the "usemd" or "UseMetaData=1" option.
Bob Coleman
 
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Image for Windows 3.07

Postby DrTeeth » Tue May 30, 2017 1:07 pm

Okay, after doing some testing using VSS instead of PHYLock.

Incremental backup - 6.5 mins to start, completed in 21 mins (total,
includes the 6.5 mins). Size of backup 300MB.

Regular incremental backup using PHYLock, starts in a flash, say 10
secs. and lasted about an hour
--
Cheers,

DrT

"If you want to find out what is wrong
with democracy, spend five minutes with
the average voter." - Winston Churchill
DrTeeth
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:58 am

Re: Image for Windows 3.07

Postby Brian K » Wed May 31, 2017 12:43 am

Bob Coleman wrote:
>
> To me, it boils down to "Don't use the "usemd" or
> "UseMetaData=1" option.

Bob, we need a better understanding of when metadata restores can be a problem. I suspect problems are the exception rather than the rule.

Metadata backups are fast. I made a metadata differential image based on a 103 GB full image (data partition). The backup took 14 seconds. A non metadata differential backup took 77 times longer (18 minutes).

Metadata restores are fast. I restored the above metadata differential image. The restore using /usemd took 16 seconds. A non metadata restore took 68 times longer (18 minutes).
Brian K
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Image for Windows 3.07

Postby tas3086 » Wed May 31, 2017 11:45 am

I have stopped using metadata as there appear to be a lot of exceptions that I am not sure of either. I would appreciate some additional information on the RISKS of using it and the EFFECTS of doing a full system restore if an undetectable omission/loss happens.
tas3086
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:15 am

Re: Image for Windows 3.07

Postby DrTeeth » Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:10 am

On Wed, 31 May 2017 11:45:50 PDT, just as I was about to take a herb,
tas3086 disturbed my reverie and wrote:

>I have stopped using metadata as there appear to be a lot of exceptions that I am not sure of either. I would appreciate some additional information on the RISKS of using it and the EFFECTS of doing a full system restore if an undetectable omission/loss happens.

You have summed up my feelings on the matter perfectly. I am doing
some tests off forum with somebody. I think were are both interested
as to why my timings are so grossly different to his. I am backing up
the older way in parallel to the metadata way. Unless TBU can come out
with some sort of article explaining the metadata pros and cons, I
ain't happy to go there.
--
Cheers,

DrT

"If you want to find out what is wrong
with democracy, spend five minutes with
the average voter." - Winston Churchill
DrTeeth
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:58 am

Re: Image for Windows 3.07

Postby TeraByte Support » Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:58 pm

Just follow the recommendation.

But if you want to push the issue, as long as you never did a medata
restore, you can use vss or phylock.

But again, easier to just follow the recommendations.



"Brian K" wrote in message news:13858@public.image...

Bob Coleman wrote:
>
> To me, it boils down to "Don't use the "usemd" or
> "UseMetaData=1" option.

Bob, we need a better understanding of when metadata restores can be a
problem. I suspect problems are the exception rather than the rule.

Metadata backups are fast. I made a metadata differential image based on a
103 GB full image (data partition). The backup took 14 seconds. A non
metadata differential backup took 77 times longer (18 minutes).

Metadata restores are fast. I restored the above metadata differential
image. The restore using /usemd took 16 seconds. A non metadata restore took
68 times longer (18 minutes).

TeraByte Support
 
Posts: 2334
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 3:37 pm

Re: Image for Windows 3.07

Postby Brian K » Thu Jun 01, 2017 8:46 pm

If I do a VSS backup with "Use Metadata Hash Files" and then restore without using "Metadata Based Restore" are there any potential metadata issues with the restore?

In this situation does selecting "Use Metadata Hash Files" for the backup cause any potential concern.
Brian K
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Image for Windows 3.07

Postby TeraByte Support » Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:40 pm

no and as mentioned if you never do a metdata restore, you can use either
phylock or vss.

if you're ever going to do a metadata restore then follow the recommendation
of using vss.


"Brian K" wrote in message news:13869@public.image...

If I do a VSS backup with "Use Metadata Hash Files" and then restore without
using "Metadata Based Restore" are there any potential metadata issues with
the restore?

In this situation does selecting "Use Metadata Hash Files" for the backup
cause any potential concern.

TeraByte Support
 
Posts: 2334
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 3:37 pm

Re: Image for Windows 3.07

Postby Brian K » Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:29 pm

TeraByte Support wrote:
> no and as mentioned if you never do a metdata restore, you can use either
> phylock or vss.
>
> if you're ever going to do a metadata restore then follow the
> recommendation
> of using vss.
>

Ah, got it. I can use PHYLock or VSS with "Use Metadata Hash Files" for a Backup. But if I want to restore using "Metadata Based Restore" then the backup should have been made using VSS.

That makes me feel reassured.

So if I follow the recommendations as above and I don't suspect corruption. previous BSOD or abnormal shutdowns then I can be confident that a ver 3.07 "Metadata Based Restore" will be as good as a restore using ver 3.06a?
Brian K
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Image for Windows 3.07

Postby tas3086 » Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:41 pm

Brian K wrote:
> So if I follow the recommendations as above and I don't suspect corruption. previous
> BSOD or abnormal shutdowns then I can be confident that a ver 3.07 "Metadata
> Based Restore" will be as good as a restore using ver 3.06a?

While I am still uncomfortable, I understand, the options are:
- Incremental Backup with vss or Phylock
- Incremental Backup with HASH and Vss or Phylock
- Incremental Backup with HASH and METADATA and Vss

All produce the same backup restore.
No original data is lost, missing or corrupt, on restore. Restores are exact duplicates of the original active data.
The only difference is that each additional option decreased the backup time, and increases the potential for a failed, but documented backup increment.

If I run IFD and/or IFL with hash and metadata and no vss or phylock, are all the concerns removed, and the only benefit decreased backup time?

Unlike my previous backup restore tool, acroonis, in which restores failed repeatedly despite backup and validation successful completions, I want to be completely assured that a restore will work when it is needed. Which product combinations, IFD, IFL, IFW, hash, metadata, vss, phylock can do this?

Unlike Acronis, in all but 1 restore, Terabyte has been successful, and the 1 failure was quickly fixed by a support program change.
tas3086
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:15 am

Previous

Return to Image for DOS/Linux/Windows