Aconis 11 shows 60% complete with HD showing 90% complete for initial backup
Acronis HOme 2011 Plus Pack WinXP
Why does Aconis show 60% complete for an initial full back up from one (data only) 3TB USB HD to another 3TB USB HD drive. (No sector by sector back up...normal compression)
BUT
The XP hard drive properties shows that 2.49 TB of space used with 235 GB free space (both are 2.72 TB capacity drives)... which is roughly 90% of the original data to be copied being completed.
I am backing up 2.70 TB of data using acronis to a 2.72 TB size HD.
This is what I thought would be a simple full copy of data from one drive to another drive using Acronis... apparently, Acronis doesn't see the simplicity and is showing a huge difference between the percent completion by Acronis and what is actually been copied to the drive.
This is my first attempt to back up this large amount of data using Acronis...which has taken about 3+ days. The backup is not complete-yet... and, I will be unhappy camper if Acronis goes at the way to then of the backup and decideds it doesn't want to complete the backup because it doesn't have enought space...or, some other reason.
- Anmelden, um Kommentare verfassen zu können
Not sure if what your post is totally correct...or... I read it correctly.
At the end of a 3.5+ days long backup, I got a "The disk is full" error on a drive who has more room than the original drive.
Acronis may always reach 100 completion if that 100% happens to be the maximum space available on the drive... but, it seems this does NOT necessarily mean Aconis will complete the backup 100%... at least that is what seems to have happened with my initial full disk backup of a 3T non-OS HD.
As it stands, Acronis shows the full backup of a non-system drive to be 66% complete...BUT... if you look at the HD properties with XP its has completed the backup 100% when compared to the original HD Data source space used. Meaning? There is more data needed on the backup HD than the original data HD contained?
I have/had (seems Acronis deleted the file or at least I can no longer see the tib file) a 1.9 TB of a 2.72 TB amount of data needed for conversion (aprox. 66%). Is this the compressed value for the tib file... if so, then why am I out of disk space? Acronis must use the additional HD space for compression. Is this correct?
In fact, from what I can tell... you need at least 35% more HD space available on the destination drive to make a simple initial full backup of a non-OS source drive. That's crazy if you are trying to back up HUGE amounts of data onto what are already large backup Drives. You would need a 3 TB of HD space to back up 2 TBs of data... that is a LOT of wasted HD space to do a simple full data backup. Am I missing something?
As best I can tell, Acronis is not a practical application to make simple backups...however, it seems to be useful for OS Raid drive backups....IF... you use much larger backup drive locations than the OS drive. Acronis seems to be a good one trick pony.
Thanks for the suggesion using syncback... since I am using data source drive that is primarally compressed data, syncback looks much more likely to actually be able to make a basic full backup. Unfortunately, I am going to chalk this up as a learning experience and big waste of time with Acronis.
- Anmelden, um Kommentare verfassen zu können
Joe Moya wrote:As it stands, Acronis shows the full backup of a non-system drive to be 66% complete...BUT... if you look at the HD properties with XP its has completed the backup 100% when compared to the original HD Data source space used. Meaning? There is more data needed on the backup HD than the original data HD contained?
If ATI says it is 66% complete, it is because it expects to do some tasks to complete the backup, even if the data it saved on the disk suggest the backup is complete. I am not sure what these tasks might be, and I never rely on this percentage of completion because, in general, ATI is not very good at estimating the amount of time it takes to do any task :-)
I have/had (seems Acronis deleted the file or at least I can no longer see the tib file) a 1.9 TB of a 2.72 TB amount of data needed for conversion (aprox. 66%). Is this the compressed value for the tib file... if so, then why am I out of disk space? Acronis must use the additional HD space for compression. Is this correct?
If most of the data is made of compressed file formats, the backup data should be about the same size as the original data: ATI adds data to the data, because it inserts checksum within the archive file. In general, normal compression compensates for this additional data and you get back to about the same size.
Although it is not your case here, note that ATI will always *first* try to complete a new full backup *before* it deletes anything from older backups.
In fact, from what I can tell... you need at least 35% more HD space available on the destination drive to make a simple initial full backup of a non-OS source drive. That's crazy if you are trying to back up HUGE amounts of data onto what are already large backup Drives. You would need a 3 TB of HD space to back up 2 TBs of data... that is a LOT of wasted HD space to do a simple full data backup. Am I missing something?
I don't think you are missing anything...
As best I can tell, Acronis is not a practical application to make simple backups...however, it seems to be useful for OS Raid drive backups....IF... you use much larger backup drive locations than the OS drive. Acronis seems to be a good one trick pony.
I'd agree with that. The core imaging/restore technology is robust with ATI, in particular outside Windows, although hardware support remains an issue with the Linux-based recovery CD.
Thanks for the suggesion using syncback... since I am using data source drive that is primarally compressed data, syncback looks much more likely to actually be able to make a basic full backup. Unfortunately, I am going to chalk this up as a learning experience and big waste of time with Acronis.
You are welcome. I have experimented with a variety of file backup software since most of my personal content is in compressed file formats. I absolutely wanted that the software doesn't require a proprietary container. I settled with SyncBack SE last year and I am very happy with it. I double that with online backups of irreplaceable content (anything I cannot buy again, or recreate).
- Anmelden, um Kommentare verfassen zu können