Backup & Recovery 10 - MAJOR FLAW - doesn't overwrite archives in disk rotation

Will Acronis even acknowledge this major design flaw?

I've sold easily $30,000 worth of licenses for True Image. I could easily
of sold $30,000 more. The problem is, the new version is useless for people
rotating external drives (which majority of people use nowadays!!) Did
anyone at Acronis even consider this?! It's a shame, they used to be top
on the list for backup software.

ps. It does seem like a Symantec move as Jason says... take something good
and destroy it.

I'd appreciate a response from Acronis regarding this. And not a generic robotic cloned 'We appreciate your understanding' type of response.

A) WILL this be addressed or not?
B) If so, when?

Does anyone have any authority to give some realistic answers?

Simply, I want the software to generate image files on backup drives that are rotated and want them to overwrite. I also want the naming back under my control. I want the simplicity of the older True Image product back. I also don't understand the need to complicate something that worked so easily in the past.

I need to know if any of this will be addressed or not so if not I can start hunting for another backup solution.

If you feel the need to continue with this new software model, can you at least continue developing and supporting the old system as an alternate solution for people, it worked flawlessly (for the most part anyways).

PLEASE will someone from Acronis acknowledge if this is it for the future of the software or not, I can't sit around waiting and getting no answers.

You are absolutely right Jack and Jason. Exactly like Symantec. That is the very reason I don't use Backup Exec or their virus products any more. They turned them in to pieces of crap just like what Acronis has done with ABR 10 and now they aren't even acknowledging the problem. What a total waste of a company!

Still waiting for a response from Acronis......

I'll continue to post every day or 2 until I get a response, so you may as well address the issue Acronis instead of ignoring it.

Hi Jack. This is pretty funny. I posted a new topic asking if there were ever going to reply to this thread. They deleted it :) You keep posting here and I'll keep posting new topics asking them to address this thread :)

Hey Jim, I don't understand why they are ignoring such a major design flaw. They won't even acknowledge the problem, and its a big one... I'm extremely disappointed.

It is amazing! I have been in chat with them several times and as soon as I mention the flaw or ask them when they are going to fix it they immediately duck the issue. Their first response is "well ... try these work arounds..". I cut them short and tell them their work arounds don't work and ask them to focus and respond to the specfic question. They say they can't tell me where the overwrite issue stands. They duck or ignore the issue completely.

I have a bad feeling about this one. It obviously isn't a simple fix and might require a major re-write of the program. I think they know it is a major issue and I think their sales have suffered greatly because of it. They haven't figured out yet that comming clean and talking straight about it to their resellers and customers is the best approach. They are "shady characters" all the way around and their support is absolutly non-existant. This could be the downfall of Acronis ...

I think you are right, they redesigned the way the software works and it most probably requires a major re-write as you said, which is why they are ducking us. It's just so frustrating, the True Image software did what I needed it to do. It wasn't perfect, it had some glitches like any software does but I was able to get it working for all my clients so I was happy with it. They have over complicated things with this new version and now the functionality is gone. I think we are banging our heads against a brick wall here trying to get answers, but I wish I would at least get a response on if they are going to do anything about it or not. I was so unhappy with Backup Exec for years, and when I found True Image I was literally saying 'Thank god, a piece of backup software that does what I want it to do' and I sold it for years. Now I'm back to square one again.

My path has followed yours identically. I remmember when they first came out with Echo Server. They had some problems but at least it was functional. They seem to be in no big hurry to fix their problems. Even the big one. The difference is that at least with Echo Server you could truely fine a work around.

Echo Server has its bugs. It would be nice if Acronis would at least get one rock solid version put out before comming out with a total disaster in ABR 10 but I guess it isn't their style :)

Here is the way I look at it. Echo Server works and it appears to work with the 2008 Server series. I am not buying or reselling any new Acronis software until they get this huge flaw fixed with ABR 10 and if somehow, magically, Echo Server shows up on new installs without being licensed then so be it. Echo Server will work until one of two things happen. Either they fix ABR 10 or something better (Shadow Protect) comes along. Until than I am going to keep harping on them and spreading the word that their ABR 10 is a total waste. Hopefully one of two things will happen again. They will either fix it or go out of business and right now going out of business might be their best approach :)

I'm not asking for the world here....just give me a checkbox somewhere in the user interface that says "Always Overwrite Existing Backup file" or "Use legacy file naming for backups". That's all I want. Give me the option to use the product the way I always have.

The whole idea of creating unique backup names and storing metadata info for each one is fine assuming you always use the same backup media, but it falls on its face when you swap drives, or if you backup multiple machines to the same media.

I like to be able to look at my backup media and see:

Server1_Full_Monday.tib
Exchange_Server_Full_Monday.tib
etc, etc....

Not,

RecreatedArchive_{BIGLONGSTRINGOFRANDOMASCIITHATMEANSNOTHINGTOME}.tib
RecreatedArchive_{ANOTHERBIGLONGSTRINGOFMEANINGLESSASCIICHARS1234}.tib
etc.....

Well put Mike, it's such a trivial thing, how about it Acronis - care to comment?

Acronis isn't commenting. To make a sad, sad story even worse a couple of weeks ago (and I think this is mentioned above) I sad down and created a batch file to delete everything on the USB hard drive. It worked fine from withing Windows. I put it as a pre-job command in ABR10 and if failed with a Invalid Parameter error.

This would have solved the problem with the overwrite but .... today I chatted with them about this error. I was told that yep .. that is a know problem with the latest release. Pre-job commands don't work. I am not worried though because .... the tech told me it would be fixed in the next release :) Whew. They had me worried for a minute ... :) Lies, lies, lies...

Well my client just switched back to an old version of Ghost they already had. The Acronis licenses they paid for will sit and collect dust.

I give up this company will not even RESPOND. I will never suggest or sell this software to anyone again since they flat out ignore our concerns.

You know what Jim, I was on a support chat for a 'Philips' product and
I got the same generic responses as on here.

I have a feeling the chat and support forums here are not even AT Acronis,
it's some third party company that doesn't have a clue and they probably
support 100 products and are located overseas. Check this out, it's the same
place I swear...

Marshall : I apologize for the inconvenience.
Jack Black: I'm asking for a firmware to fix the problem
Marshall : I am sorry, we do not have information about the programming.
Marshall : However, I can provide you a link to download the latest firmware.
Jack Black: yes that firmware does not resolve the issue
Marshall : Jack, as we have tried all the possible troubleshooting steps, I
would like to forward this issue to our Consumer Care Manager.
Marshall : Please provide me your e-mail ID, telephone number and your residence
address.
Jack Black: I've already spoken to them
Marshall : I apologize for the inconvenience this has caused you.

Their support software probably has a button that automatically generates
that last line eh.

A bit off topic but this demonstrates why we are getting nowhere HERE.

I'll make some phone calls soon and see if I can get someone with any
sort of authority or brains. These forums are a lost cause.

Hey guys. I've seen a few posts about batch files not working with ABR10. I wanted to show what I've found to work around that issue. Hopefully it'll help someone since Acronis isn't helping people. =^D

Let's say your batch file creates a directory for you. The normal DOS/cmd command for that is:

md backup1

Now, if that directory already exists, the cmd prompt echoes back the following:
"A subdirectory or file test1 already exists."

If the directory exists already when issuing the command from the cmd prompt or a .bat file ran from ATI9, they don't care much and go on about their business.

ABR10 however, sees "A subdirectory or file test1 already exists." as an error and aborts the .bat file! Stupid.

You have to use IF statements to make sure no errors crop up.

Here's the batch file I use to keep retention for customers. The cool thing is I can add extra lines if they need to retain say a months worth of backups (most of our customers backup to 5 external HDs and sometimes one monthly external HD). I'm sure this batch file could be made better.

====CODE - ATI9 backup.bat====
@echo off
REM **
REM ** THIS BATCH FILE WILL CREATE DIRECTORIES AND MOVE ACRONIS BACKUPS AROUND
REM ** SO THAT 4 BACKUPS ARE RETAINED ON EACH DRIVE. MODIFY THE EXTERNAL DRIVE
REM ** LETTER AS NECESSARY. THIS ONLY WORKS IF THE *.TIB FILES ARE LOCATED IN
REM ** THE ROOT DIRECTORY OF THE EXTERNAL DRIVE(S). SET THE ACRONIS JOB TO RUN
REM ** THIS BATCH FILE *BEFORE* THE BACKUPS RUN. THE ROOT DIRECTORY WILL HAVE
REM ** THE LATEST BACKUP FILE. BACKUP1 WILL CONTAIN THE 2ND OLDEST FILE, BACKUP2
REM ** THE 3RD OLDEST, AND BACKUP3 THE OLDEST FILE ON THAT PARTICULAR DRIVE.
REM ** GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, ALL DRIVES THAT A CUSTOMER HAS WILL CONTAIN ONE MONTHS
REM ** WORTH OF BACKUPS. ***MAKE SURE THE EXTERNAL DRIVE HAS ROOM FOR *ALL* OF
REM ** THE BACKUPS!*** YOU CAN REMOVE THE ENTRIES FOR BACKUP3 TO ALLOW FOR 3
REM ** WEEKS OF BACKUPS, ETC.
REM **

cls
c:
cd\
REM **BELOW IS THE DRIVE LETTER OF THE EXTERNAL DRIVE**
G:
cd\
MD BACKUP1
MD BACKUP2
IF EXIST g:\backup2\*.tib del .\BACKUP2\*.TIB /q
IF EXIST g:\backup1\*.tib move g:\backup1\*.tib g:\backup2
IF EXIST g:\*.tib move g:\*.tib g:\backup1
exit
====END CODE====

Here's what I had to do to make it work in ABR10:

====CODE - ABR10backup.bat====
@echo off
REM **
REM ** THIS BATCH FILE WILL CREATE DIRECTORIES AND MOVE ACRONIS BACKUPS AROUND
REM ** SO THAT 4 BACKUPS ARE RETAINED ON EACH DRIVE. MODIFY THE EXTERNAL DRIVE
REM ** LETTER AS NECESSARY. THIS ONLY WORKS IF THE *.TIB FILES ARE LOCATED IN
REM ** THE ROOT DIRECTORY OF THE EXTERNAL DRIVE(S). SET THE ACRONIS JOB TO RUN
REM ** THIS BATCH FILE *BEFORE* THE BACKUPS RUN. THE ROOT DIRECTORY WILL HAVE
REM ** THE LATEST BACKUP FILE. BACKUP1 WILL CONTAIN THE 2ND OLDEST FILE, BACKUP2
REM ** THE 3RD OLDEST, AND BACKUP3 THE OLDEST FILE ON THAT PARTICULAR DRIVE.
REM ** GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, ALL DRIVES THAT A CUSTOMER HAS WILL CONTAIN ONE MONTHS
REM ** WORTH OF BACKUPS. ***MAKE SURE THE EXTERNAL DRIVE HAS ROOM FOR *ALL* OF
REM ** THE BACKUPS!*** YOU CAN REMOVE THE ENTRIES FOR BACKUP3 TO ALLOW FOR 3
REM ** WEEKS OF BACKUPS, ETC.
REM **

cls
c:
cd\
REM **BELOW IS THE DRIVE LETTER OF THE EXTERNAL DRIVE**
X:
cd\
IF NOT EXIST .\BACKUP1 MD BACKUP1
IF NOT EXIST .\BACKUP2 MD BACKUP2
IF NOT EXIST .\BACKUP3 MD BACKUP3
IF NOT EXIST .\BACKUP4 MD BACKUP4
IF EXIST .\backup4\*.tib del .\backup4\*.tib /q
IF EXIST .\backup3\*.tib move .\backup3\*.tib .\backup4
IF EXIST .\backup2\*.tib move .\backup2\*.tib .\backup3
IF EXIST .\backup1\*.tib move .\backup1\*.tib .\backup2
IF EXIST .\*.tib move .\*.tib .\backup1
exit
====END CODE====

So, basically, you have to make sure your DOS commands don't echo back anything for them to work in ABR10.

While I'm here. Has anyone used ShadowProtect? Do you like it? Recommended it yet?

Bump!

Well well well, what a complete disaster this has turned out to be for our clients.. Here is what I emailed to Acronis support on the 14th November:
-----
Problem #1 - backups have a date appended to the filename so all our post backup scripts now fail. How do you stop the date being added to the backup filename?

Problem #2 - when the usb disks are swapped, the backup filename becomes "recreated archive" instead of just writing the simple filename. Days the disks are swapped are random so we CANNOT set multiple jobs in Acronis for each disk!
-----

And the Acronis reply on the 26th November (over 2 weeks later):
-----
To take up your issue, I can relate to the issues that you are facing currently. Unfortunately, with the current build, you do not have the option to remove the appended date and file extension to the file name. The second issue is a bug. Let me assure you that this is being currently worked upon and it is expected to be resolved in the ensuing builds. A new build is expected to be released in the very near future.
-----

Sorry Acronis, we cannot wait for this unknown build. Also, in the two weeks you took to reply we have been forced to switch all our Windows Server 2008 clients to the built in Windows Server backup.

Hello all,

I carefully over viewed all posts and will do everything possible from my side to give you a clear explanation of the situation.

Every case of the software malfunction requires a separate attention, because the reasons of the encountered issue can be different in spite of the similar symptoms: The program doesn't overwrite archives in disk rotation. 

For example, if the backup filename contains "recreated archive" string. This is already fixed and the fix will be available in Update 1. We have also fixed in Update 1 the following issue: retention rule to remove old backups doesn’t get applied before the new backup starts when it was scheduled to do so, but gets applied only after the new backup is created. We have already fixed several issues with using batch files as a pre-post command.

Therefore, I can propose you the following:

Let's wait for the next build release, Update 1 is at the final stage of testing. After the release please update the program and check the functionality. 

If the software still doesn't work as expected, I will create a special task and will collect all requests concerning the current malfunction, after that I will report about it to the respective supervisor. Anyway, most of the issues described in this thread will be fixed by updating the program. 

I will submit a request about the backup name converting option to the appropriate department, probably, this option will be added to the future releases. 

Thank you for your understanding.

Hi Oleg,

I appreciate your response. I only wish you or someone had responded sooner before many people started to become angry! I know I have a client that was looking to purchase the Acronis software but I have had to hold off on selling it to them because of the issues mentioned. I hope the update resolves things, but these things should have been addressed much sooner or even better before the product was even released in the first place.

Many of us want a simple solution to create daily backup images to external drives. The interval of swapping these drives varies per user and per situation. I know I have some clients that simply alternate drives weekly, whereas others do it every day and there are other variations as well. True Image worked well for this, the new software does not. I thankfully have only had one client purchase the new version so far, and I've honestly had other potential sales that Acronis did not get because of the issues.

I will wait and see what the update does, (by the way, do we have any idea of the time frame of release?) and take you up on your offer to 'create a special task' as well.

I'm trying really hard to hold on here, but whoever is in charge made a big mistake releasing this completely revamped system prematurely... it may have cost the company considerably in lost revenue and not to mention a loss of faith in the name Acronis. The clock is ticking, I hope this update will redeem Acronis before it's too late!

Thanks, and please keep me/everyone posted.

ps. Completely unrelated but the new name isn't very impressive either, 'True Image' sounded much more elegant and professional than the generic 'Backup & Recovery' name which a ton of other companies also use for their software. Just my 2 cents :) Out of curiosity, was there a change in ownership or management over there recently to coincide with all these changes?

Nice input Gumbo. I tied messing with it a little and got nowhere. My batch file was down to Echo Off and CLS. Still failed with "The Parameter Is Incorrect".

Unbelieveable isn't ti Jack? How long was this thread going until we finally got a response? Even though the response was lies and promises is was still a response :)

I think my dismay is with the fact that they obviously didn't even attempt to beta test the product. Major, major flaws all over the place. The overwrite issue could have been resolved by using a pre-job batch file but Oops! pre-job batch files don't work either. As for their support and response times? That hasn't changed a bit. It always has sucked. I still can't believe they put out such a total piece of junk...

Jim Becher wrote:

I think my dismay is with the fact that they obviously didn't even attempt to beta test the product.

I could be wrong, but I think ABR10 was advertised as a public beta on the Wilders forum.

One annoying problem with some betas is that what is tested doesn't always appear in the final released version. It can only be hoped that Acronis have internal beta testers (not the programming team hopefully) as well as the external testers, public or otherwise.

It could have been out for Beta. I really couldn't say. All that would do is change my dismay to one of two things:

1) Acronis didn't listen to their Beta Testers

or

2) The Beta Testers missed a lot of major flaws

I guess either way my dismay is simply that Acronis has put out a pretty disfunctional product with major, major flaws right out of the chute. I guess wether it was beta tested or not is kind of a moot point :)

Hi Jack. Want to know where the overwite issue stands?

__

Content has been removed. 

__

Oleg you and your support team are the biggest bunch of LIARS I have ever seen!

Hey, Jim, maybe it is time to stop yelling at Support? What's wrong with you, they are responsible for SUPPORT, not for the products, and if you could pay a little more attantion on how it goes in the big companies, it is the Product Management you need to complaint on! I have contacted the support via phone, and they were really helpful and polite - and yes, they said, that it is not the bug, but is the lack of feature, and they DO NOT KNOW the timeframes whether it will be added - that is the question to the product management. How can a person lie about what he even doesn't know? They are themselves promised the updates, but given no timeframes - that is the developer's question! C'mon, guys, what's wrong with you?
I know they are at the moment struggling for that feature to get added and sending the requests, but they are responsible to help you only with what the product is. And i'm sure they suffer from the lack of the feature as well as you do - due to the guys like you. I have nothing against you and I'm also upset with the situation, but that's not the cause to be rude and ignorant as you are showing to be. Very upsetting to read.

Concerning the support - the best I received via phone. The chat is little help, especially after there appreared these strange names which I beleive to be Indian. Though Khup was a big help once. So right now you need some luck to talk with the good trained support person. And I do beleive it will get fixed one day. Anyway, in case the product stops fitting us, we will swich to another solution - without any "holywars". That's business, make things with it as simply as it can be.

Hello all,

No problem Karen. Why don't you just post a phone number or e-mail address of the develoment team for me and I'll ask them the question directly. You get my drift?

The way Acronis plays it is that support is the go-between to the development team. Support talks to the development team and the development team talks to support. At least that is the way it is SUPPOSED to work. It doesn't.

Oleg your response to Jack is totally incorrect. After all these months and all these posts the overwrite problem has still not been addresses by Acronis. Two simple questions. 1) Do to consider the inability to overwrite a previous backup to be a problem? and if so 2) Do you intent to fix it?

You are right Karen. If your would like to leave me a phone number or an e-mail address for the development team I would be happy to quit bugging support and ask those two questions directly to the development team. I will await the post :)

I find it hard to believe IT Professionals have such a problem with a thing like a filename - and i'm talking about people complaining about it, not the software.
Would it be nice to have more control over this? Sure.
Is it necessary? nope. There are plenty of ways to discern what's in a backup archive.

Spend some time on secure systems where you can't name the file anything relative to what its contents or source is, and you'll understand how trivial this complaint is.

I sympathize, a little bit, with the inability to destroy the current backup prior to creating the next one but i never do this in a DR method even if the prior backup has been copied off to other media. Unless we're dealing with dozens of terabytes (in which case we're using replication tech, not OS bound software) I don't ever tell a customer 1x the source is all they need for their backups - it's always 2.5x so you always have a point-in-time restore capability from your online media. There are of course lots of ways to skin this cat, but in the context of rolling full/diff/inc backup images that's the "right" way to consult IMHO.

Let's say for the sake of argument my backup takes 0.5 seconds.
If anyone here can guarantee me I'll never, ever have a failure during those 0.5 seconds after I've destroyed the prior backup and before the new one completes, I'll consider using that method.

I think you missed the starting senario. Only one backup will fit on any given external USB hard drive. The issue was the job failing because the media became full because there was no way to delete the existing backup already on the external USB hard drive....

Right I got that part I think. I guess I'm saying I would not advise that strategy. What happens when the system fails while a new backup image is being written, but incomplete?
In that scenario I'd be looking for a larger backup disk no matter what software I was using.

I too have been having the issues with 2 removable drives for the backups, and no guarantee that the drives will be swopped sequentially every time. The recreated archive name (and normally corrupt archives) have been a big problem for me. I'm hoping that i can just create a simple full backup daily with a 7 day retention and happily swop the drives whenever i like. If that works then i'll be happy.

If not i will put the problem down to the file naming convention.

using the previous system in ti9, i had a simple backup set to differential for 3 days and then move or delete the set. Inserting another hard drive only resulted in the full backup being created again and the backups carrying on as normal. Sets would be created on both drives every day and there were no problems.

The sector 63 problem forced me to use BR10. Like many, i am disappointed with the fact there is no option to use the previous simple naming system in ti9 if i want.

Quote:
1) Does Acronis consider this to be a problem or issue?
2) If Acronis does conside this to be an issue do you intend to fix it?

Forgive me Alexander but there is a common issue with the naming convention. It does not need to be handled in a individual case. The common issue is that you have no control over the image archive name. I am just amazed. The above two questions have been unanswered for months and months. Thread after thread. Two very simple questions that Acronis has yet to address. After all the replies from Acronis. They have danced, ducked, weaved and bobed but have yet to address the above two question. Absolutely amazing ...

Hello all,

Thank you for posting, I will be happy to help.

We created a special article that is related to the initial issue, if you want to create a backup plan which will create backups onto multiple USB disks that you can swap around on a daily or weekly basis. This article describes the steps you should perform to manage the desired backup plan. Please note that you should use not less than build #11345 of Acronis Backup & Recovery 10. We have tested the provided solution in several environments, and it should work. Please try it, any feedback concerning this issue is greatly appreciated. 

We are looking forward to hearing back from you.

The response concerning the naming convention has been posted in this  thread.

Thank you.

This works for full backups, but what about differentials?

Here's my scenario.

I have a server that takes 32 hours to perform a full backup. Full backups are stored on a seperate drive (Z: Drive)

Each morning, I run a script that makes a copy of the Full Backup to the Daily Drive (F: Drive)

With the old version of acronis (version 9) it ran flawlessly. The new version doesn't seem to try to look at the full .tib file thats located on the daily drive.

Is there a way to get this to work?

Hello Jason,

Could you please clarify what do you want to do exactly? How many differential backup archived do you want to keep.

Additionally, please provide us with your script.

We are looking forward to hearing back from you at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.