>How does a system disc restore respect the increments numbering of its own current backup chain?
I am running ATI 2018 under Windows 10.
On my PC drive C: is saved once a month according to a pattern of one full backup and 5 increments.
Last week I had to restore my sytem partition using a full backup version (different from my monthly backup) dating back a few days before the 5th increment of the monthly task.
Today my programmed backup took place and I noticed that a 6th increment had been added to the montly chain.
I suppose that since the registry was restored to a date before the fifth backup increment, this increment is not taken into account against the total number of increments in the chain. However the progression in the naming of he increment gives a different impression : ....inc_b1_s7_v1.tib (it is the 7th element in the chain, one backup and 6 increments).
Is this Ok?
What would happen if I wished to restore my disc to a state corresponding to the 5th increment (i.e. inc_b1_s6_v1)?
Thanks a lot in advance
:-)


- Log in to post comments

Hi Steve,
Thank you very much for this advice. I'll do that.
I understand that I should have deleted the 5th increment file (or renamed it) just after the restore to keep the chain coherence. However this does not explain why the numbering seems to be based on the increment filenames and not on the Acronis database.
This is confusing and I don't remember Acronis drawing its users' attention to this point.
Thank you !
PS: Strange enough when I pretend to restore my drive using the monthly chain Acronis offers me to restore every stage of the chain including the 5th and 6th increments dates.
Is this really reliable ? Acronis comments welcome.
- Log in to post comments

The whole monthly backup version chain upto the 5th incremental file should be good for restore if you needed it. I would check the size of the 6th incremental file as I suspect that this will be significantly larger than the others due to the restore that you did after making the 5th file.
Any restore of the OS drive should always be performed using the Acronis bootable Rescue Media, when the Acronis Database is not involved or used.
- Log in to post comments
In reply to The whole monthly backup… by truwrikodrorow…

Steve,
Your point is valid. The 6th backup is significantly larger: 26 Gb compared to 6-10 Gb for the previous ones.
I do not understand how a restore with the bootable Media would have made a difference regarding the Acronis database.
- Log in to post comments

Sorry Marcepa, the comment about using bootable media was simply with regard to your query about restoring your monthly backup with the 5 / 6 incrementals. It doesn't change the original comments about the information held in the database being restored back to an earlier time - only that the Rescue Media doesn't care about what is in the database - it is only looking at the files on your backup drive that you point it at to be used.
Any restore of the C:\ProgramData\Acronis folder path will impact on the Acronis Database files which are stored further down this path.
If you start any restore from within the Windows ATI application, then the Database is involved and may throw errors if the information does not match the reality of the files stored on your backup drive.
- Log in to post comments

Thank you for explaining. I got it now!
And thank you for your advice to start a new chain when restoring the system disc.
I had many problems in the past when the subsequent increment names became weird with verion numbers like (1) added because the increment to be created already existed. ATI seems now to skip over the extra increments, while keeping them usable like in my case (at least apparently).
:-)
- Log in to post comments