File names
In v10 Acronis removed the ability for us to choose our own filenames, instead opting to force date/time codes on files. This right was restored in a subsequent build after much dissent among users. In v12 it looks like Acronis has gone even further and is stamping a GUID to the filename and not even giving us the ability to name the first part of the file name, instead opting for the FQDN of the system.
Am I missing something, or is this how Acronis v12 is? If so, this is why we and our clients will leave Acronis for another vendor. If I'm missing something, please advise.
So we're to believe that after all the ruckus that this "oversight" caused in v10 and that took you like 1-2 years to fix is actually going to be fixed in the next 4½ months? Forgive my skepticism, but I'm not convinced Acronis is able to deliver on this promise. I hope I'm proven wrong.
Hi,
Below I will try to summ up and address all concerns that you have raised in different threads on the forum. Before getting to that I want to outline our general ideology as an intro:
We have Acronis Backup 12 which is a logical successor of Acronis Backup 11.7 non-Advanced edition and Acronis Backup for VMware 9. This means that we continue to sell/support/maintain Acronis Backup 11.7 Advanced until corresponding Advanced edition becomes ready in v12. Non-Advanced version (e.g. Acronis Backup 12) is optimized for environments with up to ~50 machines. Some features which are present in 11.7 Advanced edition and make sense only in this edition are not available in Acronis Backup 12 intentionally in order not to overcomplicate the product usage for such environments. Some of these features will be included into Acronis Backup 12 in feature - that's why we carefully listen to our customers feedback. We've tried to cut only relatively minor features from the initial Acronis Backup 12 release such as Tower of Hanoi backup scheme, file naming for archives, time format manual adjustments, etc. and these decisions are taken very carefully in order not to affect the core functionality and not to affect a lot of customers. Obviously in your case it didn't work well and caused frustration.
The significant redesign of the GUI (switching it to web) is a big challenge for us and it is a part of "single-code-base-platform" paradigm which we stick to. This paradigm means that all Acronis products in the nearest couple of years will be running on the same single code base and thus the fixes/new features we make will be applied to all products simultaneously. Then we won't need to re-implement the same fixes for different products as we do now. A good example of what's wrong today is Acronis Backup 11.7 Advanced vs Acronis Backup for VMware - 2 different products which both support VMware, but have quite different set of features which causes a lot of confusion. Now this confusion is slowly going away, but this can't happen immediately and we therefore move iteratively and validate the results of each small step we make.
Now back to the issues you've raised:
1) File names (this thread)
The feature to specify archive name when configuring backup plan (internal ID: ABR-90245) is scheduled for the next major update of Acronis Backup 12 which we're currently working on - to be done by the end of the year (Oct-Nov). Before that time we will be also releasing 1-2 hotfix builds to address most outstanding bugs.
Also please clarify the exact use case, i.e. why would you need to define the physical file names (archive names) manually? We know that people are using some scripts to implement manual clean up schemes or for files offsite migration which should not be broken assuming that all archive file names are user-friendly and contain at least machine names which can be used within script parameters. What is your particular scenario? We can follow the same use case in our QA lab when validating this feature to ensure that it will work in your scenario as well.
2) Files recovery slowness (https://forum.acronis.com/forum/124474)
For recovery of large amounts of files it is recommended to use Acronis Backup 12 Web Console interface in general and in our performance tests the file recovery from disk/image archives is better in v12 than in v11.7, but we've done it all through Web Console or via CLI, while recovery via Windows Explorer is quite different. Concerning this scenario of files recovery via Windows Explorer (double-click on archive) - we will check it and submit a bug if it doesn't work with reasonable performance. Looks like this workflow hasn't been tested thoroughly on our side (that's our bad indeed).
3) Time format setting (https://forum.acronis.com/forum/124325)
Currently the time format setting depends on the language of the interface you select in Web Console (in the right upper corner click on user icon -> Change language). For example for English we use US native time/date formats. As Ramil mentioned in that thread we're going to change this by adding specific option for GUI to show time in different format (internal ID: ABR-110421) or choose it automatically depending on the local machine (where AMS component is installed) settings.
4) Web Console GUI (https://forum.acronis.com/forum/124055)
There are no specific problems/items described in this thread I'm afraid, so I can only comment in general. With v12 we've tested the design and usability of the web console on multiple internal and external users and carefully listened to all the concerns in order to fix potential issues. We'd really like to hear what exactly is wrong with the GUI (which scenarios are hard to follow, which options are hard to find, etc.) - this way we can fix the problems and thus get rid of the frustration.
The v11.7 interface had a lot of problems which you might not notice since you used Acronis for quite a long time, but for new users it's completely nonsense in some places. For example a new user would never find how to backup/restore a disk rather than individual partition, since this selection of type of items to be backed up is hidden under unclear dropdown choice in a pop-up screen.
5) NFR keys for 11.7 removed for partners (http://forum.acronis.com/forum/123915#comment-384194)
As mentioned in the introduction we do not replace Acronis Backup 11.7 Advanced with Acronis Backup 12, so apparently replacing v11.7 keys with v12 doesn't make sense as well as enforcing transition to v12. I believe there were some communication issues here, so if you can send me details of this problem in a private message (who replaced the keys, where they are replaced, etc.) I will be able to track it down and address it.
6) Setting specific time for backup schedule (https://forum.acronis.com/forum/124466)
As Raphael mentioned in that thread you can manually type in the required values when clicking in the time field to the left from the drop-down arrow. See sample screen shot.
7) Stay logged in (https://forum.acronis.com/forum/124465)
There is a "Remember me" option which works similar to most other web clients, i.e. stores login info in Cookies until next system reboot.
For one of the next updates we're preparing a big single sign-on (SSO) support feature (internal ID: ABR-95034) which will support transparent login into the web console from machines in domain (there will be AD integration) or using Windows local credentials token.
8) Tray Backup Monitor (https://forum.acronis.com/forum/124503)
Indeed an option to temporarily disable Backup Monitor has not yet been implemented so the only viable option is to uninstall this component. It was originally implemented for cloud deployments where end-users have limited control over the machine. I will report this problem to our developers so that we can address this issue in one of the nearest updates.
9) The logs view (https://forum.acronis.com/forum/124563)
The details of what happened can be checked from Activities section in web console where we put all main info. For details you need to either download the log or alternatively you check them in raw text format in \ProgramData\Acronis\ServiceProcess\ folder - it lists all backup-realted events.
10) The link to KB from error messages (https://forum.acronis.com/forum/124566)
This functionality indeed was broken in 11.5/11.7 version and the KB articles were not always relevant when trying to get redirection from the product error message. After recent update of our KB site there is more intelligent search engine used and you've got 2 general troubleshooting articles for backup, which is adequate assuming that such error has not been reported before. After some time the links will come with more and more accurate results, since the accuracy depends on the amount of clicks on particular error (the error stack) which we track.
What concerns the error itself - it's unclear what was the actual operation which lead to this error, so getting the full log (download log link) should show us where the problem is.
11) Enforce full backups creation (https://forum.acronis.com/forum/124571)
It is possible already: choose "Always Full" scheme in scheduling options. See screen shot.
12) Changing encryption key for existing archive (https://forum.acronis.com/forum/124574)
The encryption key defined when the archive is being created is used to encrypt all the data which is saved to this archive. Changing the key would mean re-backup of all data which was saved into the archive before that (meaning TBs of data) and re-encrypt it with the new key. Therefore it is more practical to start a new archive when you need to change your encryption keys.
Thank you.
Vasily, first I'd like to thank you for this statement, it is sometimes confusing (standard vs. advanced edition), indeed.
11) Enforce full backups creation (https://forum.acronis.com/forum/124571)
It is possible already: choose "Always Full" scheme in scheduling options. See screen shot.
This seems only possible an newly created backup plans, it is not possible to modify existing plans.
Raphael,
The backup scheme cannot be changed only if there was "Always-incremental" scheme initially defined in the backup plan. If you create plan with "Always Full" or "Custom" scheme then it will be possible to change it while editing the plan.
The "Always-incremental' limitation is imposed by difference in archive format - this scheme implies that all backups are saved to single file-format (same as in Acronis Backup for VMware) which is optimized for quick backups retention, since there is no need to consolidate/merge incremental backups within this format.
Thank you.
Sorry Vasily but i not agree with some of your statement.
Some features which are present in 11.7 Advanced edition and make sense only in this edition are not available in Acronis Backup 12 intentionally in order not to overcomplicate the product usage for such environments. Some of these features will be included into Acronis Backup 12 in feature - that's why we carefully listen to our customers feedback.
Not some but lots of fetures are missing in Acronis Backup 12 that are already present in Acronis Backup for PC 11.7 (NOT Advanced Edition).
We've tried to cut only relatively minor features from the initial Acronis Backup 12 release such as Tower of Hanoi backup scheme, file naming for archives, time format manual adjustments, etc. and these decisions are taken very carefully in order not to affect the core functionality and not to affect a lot of customers.
I can understand that you have removed some fetures because are used by few costumers (I hope that your statistic are reliable).
But how can think that a complex feature such Tower of Hanoi is a minor feature?, Are you kidding???. Tower of hanoi is an advanced and great feature!
For file naming, I do not comment because I don't use it.
Time format, probably is a minor feature, but I thought it was an obvious feature that every software must support it.
The significant redesign of the GUI (switching it to web) is a big challenge for us and it is a part of "single-code-base-platform" paradigm which we stick to. This paradigm means that all Acronis products in the nearest couple of years will be running on the same single code base and thus the fixes/new features we make will be applied to all products simultaneously. Then we won't need to re-implement the same fixes for different products as we do now. A good example of what's wrong today is Acronis Backup 11.7 Advanced vs Acronis Backup for VMware - 2 different products which both support VMware, but have quite different set of features which causes a lot of confusion. Now this confusion is slowly going away, but this can't happen immediately and we therefore move iteratively and validate the results of each small step we make.
I'm a developer and I fully understand how is complex to maintain a software for different platform, I understand the challenge to migrate the code into the web, but you have lost some steps:
1) You cannot abandon the old version (11.7) until the new one is ready (12), last update of 11.7 it dates April 14, 2016, and it has never fully supported windows 10.
2) Before to release the new version that breaks the core, you must test all use cases, these must include regression test and user experience, over that of course the functional tests.
3)If is true that you will release lots of fix with the next release, probably you have notice that this release is not ready and probably must be a Beta version.
I recommend you review the roadmap, and at this point if you would be more transparent with customer, it would be nice if you publicly share the roadmap.
2) Files recovery slowness (https://forum.acronis.com/forum/124474)For recovery of large amounts of files it is recommended to use Acronis Backup 12 Web Console interface in general and in our performance tests the file recovery from disk/image archives is better in v12 than in v11.7, but we've done it all through Web Console or via CLI, while recovery via Windows Explorer is quite different. Concerning this scenario of files recovery via Windows Explorer (double-click on archive) - we will check it and submit a bug if it doesn't work with reasonable performance. Looks like this workflow hasn't been tested thoroughly on our side (that's our bad indeed)
Pesonally I noticed that sometimes it stukcs also with relative small backups (some Gbs), the issue can be worked around mounting the backup as a volume.
7) Stay logged in (https://forum.acronis.com/forum/124465)
There is a "Remember me" option which works similar to most other web clients, i.e. stores login info in Cookies until next system reboot.
For one of the next updates we're preparing a big single sign-on (SSO) support feature (internal ID: ABR-95034) which will support transparent login into the web console from machines in domain (there will be AD integration) or using Windows local credentials token.
This is true on web for security reasons, but it is really annoying if you work locally or in domain intranet.
I'll look forward for ABR-95034 update.
Stefano,
Thank you for the comments. Concerning the Tower of Hanoi scheme I can show you some internal statistics which this decision was based on. These stats are collected via Acronis Customer Experience Program (ACEP). According to it there are only 0.5% Acronis Backup installations which use this scheme (i.e. at least 1 plan with this scheme exists on AMS), while understanding how this scheme works is quite a tricky task for non-experienced user. See attached screen shot.
Also FYI there will be soon (approx. in the beginning of Sep.) an update for 11.7 version which will include newer Linux kernel support (to support NVMe devices) for bootable media + a fixes for other problems we've discovered since the previous update. Concerning Windows 10 support there will be newer ADK (for WinPE builder) supported in this update. Microsoft released new ADK along with Anniversary update (b. 1607) and obviously since our WinPE builder depends on Microsoft ADK/WAIK packages it didn't work right away, so we had to make adjustments.
Thank you for your lengthy reply. Let me address your replies.
First, the GUI redesign is a very dangerous one and I've addressed that in at least one thread. A single code change from a browser vendor could render your product DOA and Acronis' track record of releasing fixes in a reasonable time period is dismal at best. That's just a fact. There are oh so many vendors who've been bitten by browser-based apps. American Power Conversion and Symantec are just two of them and even years after implementation neither has gotten it exactly right yet. When you bet your company's future on the code of a 3rd party that's dangerous.
Now for the list:
1) It's really none of Acronis' business why we want to name our own files, but it's clear you don't believe we have a right to do so. That said, in our case we have extensive scripts that move and rename backups to different locations for many of our customers. For example, a client with multiple Acronis Server licenses has about 4 dozen client systems, each with 500GB+ HDDs that are using less than 10% of the client space. We have scripts that move backups from their primary location to many of those client systems every night so that we have years worth of backups distributed across the systems. These are encrypted backups so there's little danger of an unauthorized user accessing the data but it's a very efficient use of the ~16TB of otherwise unused storage around their network.
This was a major issue for many of us when you first forced date/time stamps on us and it took you a year or more to fix. The cardinal rule for upgrades is NEVER REDUCE FUNCTIONALITY. Go down the list of functionality and when every one of them is checked off in the new version it's ready to ship. Until then it's alpha build software. Don't make us test your product for you.
2) Your Windows Explorer integration has been terrible for years. It'd be about an hour of coding to create a popup that says, "Hey, you're trying to access data inside a large archive and we're not able to handle that here so please use the main application to restore your data." Honestly, it should be the same code used to access the archive in either situation, clearly it's not, but there's no excuse for this.
3) Again, this is a situation where someone at Acronis made a decision to set the date/time format how they wanted it not how the rest of the industry does it. To be blunt, that's arrogance. Just as with file naming, the assumption that Acronis knows better than everyone else will get you in trouble with customers. Never assume anything.
4) Actually I thought it was well written. I had my wife sit at my workstation and asked her to create a backup set, modify a backup, restore a file from a previous backup, etc... All rudimentary tasks. Oh, BTW, she's a senior systems analyst at a large corporation. She just shook her head. After, I connected to a client running 11.5 (the client hadn’t updated their system to 11.7 as yet) and she was able to do much more in far less time in 11.5. She said things were just illogical in 12. So your assumption that you’ve made things easier isn’t quite holding water in the real world.
5) Will PM you.
6) I replied to that. Your GUI doesn’t accept real times so when I enter 23:58, which is consistent with my time settings on my PC, it rejects it with a typical-to-Acronis non-descript red box (a popup that says “sorry, we don’t understand real time you have to enter 11:58 PM to get that time would take 10 minutes to code).
It should be Acronis policy that no programmer is allowed to use non-descript errors or warnings. 100% of errors/warnings should be clear, concise, and direct. 99% of your errors/warnings offer any help in solving issues.
7) Again, it appears you guys didn’t think this through and that you’ve had users beta test it in the wild to give you a list of problems to come back and fix.
8) See #7.
9) I was able to find the logs finally in the GUI hence my comment of “Perhaps "Details" isn't the right word. Perhaps "View Logs" would be the right term. Now that I can see them, when exactly does Acronis plan to actually document real problems? I see this more than anything else making the "Support" button useless at best:
https://kb.acronis.com/errorcode/bookmark/acronis-backup-12-error
(see #6 regarding the lack of actually helpful logging information)
10) Seriously? You think this was limited to 11.5/7? Helpful error reporting has NEVER been part of Acronis. This sums it up very well http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10-things/10-technologies-that-are-just-plain-broken/. I can show you tons of e-mails between me and your support staff, even Robert Frost back several years ago, that discuss this. I’ve never met an Acronis user who gets helpful information from error logs.
11) Thank you. It would much more logical to have a separate section that says “How to backup” rather than having that part of the time to backup.
BTW, I was able to modify an existing backup plan contrary to what Raphael said.
12) You’re mistaken. That’s not at all what would have to happen and your statement is simply not practical. Here’s how that would actually work:
1) Create backup plan, set encryption key.
2) Make backups, even different ones using the initial key.
3) Change encryption key, warn users that all previous backups will retain the previous key and that all future backups will use the new key. If the backup plan is anything but always full, then require the user create a new full backup with the new key before any new differential or incremental backups are made.
Simple, clean, and MUCH faster than building a new backup plan with complex selections. This is again a situation where Acronis has incorrectly assumed it knows better than the end user.
I’ve had customers do what you suggest and FORGET to include one or more folders or settings in a new backup plan that had been working properly for months or years and then data was LOST due to your assumptions. Acronis needs a new policy that disallows assumptions. Only facts.
In the end, 11.7 worked wonderfully, had a clean, fast, uncluttered, and logical GUI that didn't rely on 3rd party code that could be broken at any time and without notice. While not always logical, your vault management was always a disaster, it worked and was reliable. Until v12 does 100% of what v11.7 did and Acronis has a published plan to fix any issues that come up with browser updates I don't see many if any of our clients going to v12 from 11.7 and based on the reaction from a client two days ago who looked over v12 with me I'm not sure how well it will go over to those seeking a new backup system.
Stefano,
Thank you for the comments. Concerning the Tower of Hanoi scheme I can show you some internal statistics which this decision was based on. These stats are collected via Acronis Customer Experience Program (ACEP). According to it there are only 0.5% Acronis Backup installations which use this scheme (i.e. at least 1 plan with this scheme exists on AMS), while understanding how this scheme works is quite a tricky task for non-experienced user. See attached screen shot.
CEP stats are likely to only contain a small % of customers who choose to opt-in. What Acronis should do, but has never done, is create surveys for customers to take to see 1) what they use and 2) what they would like to see. Assumptions are all too common at Acronis and that would help to eliminate them.
Raphael,
The backup scheme cannot be changed only if there was "Always-incremental" scheme initially defined in the backup plan. If you create plan with "Always Full" or "Custom" scheme then it will be possible to change it while editing the plan.
The "Always-incremental' limitation is imposed by difference in archive format - this scheme implies that all backups are saved to single file-format (same as in Acronis Backup for VMware) which is optimized for quick backups retention, since there is no need to consolidate/merge incremental backups within this format.
Thank you.
Are you sure about this? I was able to modify a backup plan without any issue moving from "Weekly full, daily incremental" to "Always Full".
Honestly, incremental backups are VERY dangerous. You assume (there's that word again) that every backup is reliable and accurate. A single corrupt backup in an incremental scheme means the entire backup after that point is useless. With the massive amount of storage available for next to nothing to day, it is my belief that Acronis should recommend Always Full as the default scheme and let admins decide to do something different. Me, personally, I will buy more and/or faster storage before I ever go away from Always Full. I've seen too many incremental schemes fail for customers over the years. If anything "Weekly full, daily differential" is safer than anything that has the word incremental involved.
Are you sure about this? I was able to modify a backup plan without any issue moving from "Weekly full, daily incremental" to "Always Full".
Yes, this is possible. What you can't do is moving from "Always Incremental" scheme to anything else. Other transitions are possible.
Hi Vasily,
about statistic, if a user uses a custom Tower of Hanoi Plan, will be traked as Tower of Hanoi user or as Custom plan user?
For example, in 11.7 I used a Tower of Hanoi Plan but I customize the validation plan and some other settings, in statistic I count as TOH user (0.5%) or as Custom User (31.2%)??
Thanks.
Stefano,
ACEP statistics doesn't take into account other settings such as validation or other backup options. What matters is which scheme was selected originally in the plan.
Thank you.
Vasily,
This is yet another crazy problem with Acornis. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why a user shouldn't be able to swap between differen backup options (just like they should be able to change the encryption key). The 30 minutes of code necessary to say to a user, "You're changing from the unsafe backup system in Incremental to the safest solution in Full Backup so you'll need to execute a full backup now to complete the change" is just crazy that you guys don't allow it. Seriously, it's almost no code at all to do this. I'd love to hear Acronis' excuse for why it doesn't allow this.
Hi,
The "Always-incremental" scheme means that all backups will be saved into single file. Switching away from this scheme means changing the archive format to "multiple files" one. If we automate such switching then user will end up with new _full_ backup creation which is typically an unwanted scenario when user expects that backups will continue in incremental mode. Yes, it can be solved via adding warning that a new archive will be created. But now add to this scenario the retention rules: how are they going to be applied? To both old single-file archive and the new multi-files archive? If yes, then it adds a new unclear logic, where it is possible to remove any set of recovery points from single-file archive, while the multi-file archive has interdependencies between recovery points and there is no such flexibility in retentions. Therefore the easiest and straight-forward solution for such cases is to create a new backup plan which will produce new archive and will apply retention rules to it independently.
Thank you.
Seriously? That's the logic? Let's think about that for a moment.... If I switch from a very dangerous Incremental backup scheme to the safest method, Full Backup, you don't think I'm going to expect new backups to be full and in their own files? Sorry Vasily that is, simply put, the most illogical thing I've heard in many years. Of course I expect a change, because I MADE A CHANGE. In point of fact, if I have to create a new backup set to accomplish the switch from Incremental to Full guess what???? I is going to CREATE ALL NEW FILES anyway. This really sounds like you're trying to excuse away, to rationalize a poor design element and to blame it on what end-users want or expect without any real understanding of how the real world works.
As for the "easiest and straight-forward solution", you are again mistaken. Cloning every option, the encryption key, the backup location, and every other option set is time consuming and leaves the very real possibility that one will forget something or do something incorrectly (Acronis is very unforgiving if you have even a single option set incorrectly and you know it) only to accomplish what a SIMPLE drop down box could accomplish is absolutely NOT the "easiest and straight-forward solution" you claim it is.
The problem is not with switching to full or incremental - the root cause is the archive structure and appending/processing new recovery points to it. If the backup plan is changed, then it tries to apply changes to existing archive (which was produced by previous executions) in the same backup location. Until there is an option to define manual archive names it is impossible to append changes to existing single-file archive at the same time changing the format to multiple-files archive, because logically it will be 1 (single) archive. It's the limitation in the current architecture of the archive processing.
Assuming the above it is _possible_ to change the backup scheme from "Always Incremental" to "Always Full" under 1 additional condition: you have to change the backup location in the backup plan settings as well. So if I for example create a new folder under the same share which I used before, then point existing "Always Incremental" backup plan to this new folder (sub-folder), then I will be able to change the scheme to "Always Full" and thus preserve all other settings which were applied to this plan.
Still, that's an attempt to excuse away poor design code. There is ABSOLUTELY NO reason why the archive structure must be changed on existing archives when changing backup schemes. This is back to the absolutely unnecessary vaults that cause more problems than they solve. Corrupt storage vaults have caused more problems for more clients than ANYTHING else in the past few years. Just backup the data. Exactly no one cares about vaults if their data doesn't get backed up. They're useless. 100% of what you have rationalized can be fixed with simple code, but you don't want to so you're insisting on excusing it away.
Again, if your solution of manually creating a new backup set works, then it can be coded to modify the existing backup set, if and when you finally realize that your rationale is wrong and illogical.
Here's the outline of how you could fix this.
1. User changes from incremental (that you should warn against anyway) to full (which is what you should promote as the default method since it's the safest).
2. Acronis v12 says, "WARNING: You've changed from Incremental to Full backup scheme, to accomplish this change we will need to move your existing backup sets and vault to a folder called "Previous Incremental Backups" and a new Full backup needs to be created at the earliest possible time to ensure data integerity. Press OK to proceed with the move."
3. User presses OK and the Incremental data is moved.
4. User is then prompted with, "Would you like to execute a Full backup now or wait until the next scheduled backup time?" With a button for Now and Wait.
Bingo. Problem solved. 10 minutes of code. An hour of testing. Simple solution without all the garbage you said. BTW, this works PERFECTLY as well with changing the encryption key as well.
Tell me why this isn't a better solution to your solution of creating an entirely new backup set for either changing schemes or encryption keys??????
Thank you for the suggestion. We will consider it as a temporary solution before implementing the "archive name" feature which will also effectively solve both problems (inability to change the encryption key + inability to change the backup scheme from "Always incremental")
Thank you.
We've been using the Grandfather-Father-Son scheme for years, and would be very VERY disappointed if this was not present in 12.
Yes, I understand the issue about incremental vs full backups.
However, in our case (and going forward I expect this to be thee case for many users) we also have an additional SAFE option to backup our Acronis backups to the cloud. Even with our high-speed ISP there is no way we could upload a Full backup for our PCs nightly. We keep the upload backwidth down on the Acronis backups so we can still use our PCs, which can take a few days for a full backup. The weekly differential backups can take a day or two. The incremental backups can take just a couple of hours.
Hi Lester,
The GFS scheme didn't go anywhere - it's practically used by default. If you check the clean up settings in the backup plan you can separately define the rules for monthly (Grandfather), weekly (Father) and daily (Son) backup sets.
Concerning the initial upload of full backup to cloud - this feature (called "Initial seeding", internal ID: ABR-103283) is planned for the next major update of Acronis Backup 12 which is pending for the end of this year currently.
Thank you.
Vasily,
What's the status on OUR RIGHT to name files?
Given the plethora of other complaints about v12, perhaps the quesiton is when is v13 coming out with the 11.x GUI and functionality restored?
The "archives filename" feature is being implemented in the web console interface (ID: ABR-90245) and is included in plans for the next update which is currently planned for the end of this - beginning of the next year.
By v13 we'll have most (if not all) missing functionality from v11.7 re-implemented in v12 web console GUI so we should not need to get back to legacy GUI concepts (getting back is quite unlikely to happen).
Vasily,
You miss the point. The web GUI sucks. I'm sorry to be blunt, but it does. One cannot even click Start, and type Acronis to get to the launcher shortcut because shortcuts dont' show in the list of available programs in Windows 10 (or 2016 Server). Have you looked over at the other threads about this? I'm just not seeing anyone saying, "Oh wow, this is the best thing since sliced bread!" It even looks like users are joining the forums so they can tell you they hate it.
Furthermore, it seems clear Acronis doesn't understand or respect that a SINGLE line of code chagned from a browser vendor could literally disable your product. That is just beyond comprehension. That you would "bet the farm" as they say on 3rd part browsers that get updated constnatly is just unimaginable. Web GUIs for admin code died 5 or more years ago when a bunch of vendors got burned badly by code changes. Given Acronis' terrible track record at updates (that we're having to wait until year's end for basic functionality improvements proves this - not to mention a plethora of bugs that have taken months or years to be addressed in the past), I hoenstly hope one of these vendors will release an update that breaks Acronis v12 or whatever so you finally see the error of your ways. What needs to happen is Acronis needs to admit the http GUI was a bad idea and rerelease the 11.x GUI as v13. I'm betting if you'd bother to survey all yoru partners and customers, something I've NEVER seen Acronis do, the vast majority would vote to return to a real GUI and not a web-based one. Care to take that wager?