Backup file naming

Brian, the naming convention is explained in the ATIH 2016 User Guide

Backup file naming

A backup file name has the following attributes:

• Backup name.
• Backup method (full, inc, diff: full, incremental, differential).
• Number of backup chain (in the form of b#).
• Number of backup version (in the form of s#).
• Number of volume (in the form of v#).

  For example this attribute changes when you split a backup into several files. Refer to Backup splitting for details.

Thus a backup name may look the following way:

1. my_documents_full_b1_s1_v1.tib
2. my_documents_full_b2_s1_v1.tib
3. my_documents_inc_b2_s2_v1.tib
4. my_documents_inc_b2_s3_v1.tib

If you are creating a new backup, and there is already a file with the same name, the program does not delete the old file, but adds to the new file the "-number" suffix, for example, my_documents_inc_b2_s2_v1-2.tib.

That would suggest that on the last full backup, ATI initially attempted to create a full backup file named 256GB SSD_full_b2_s1_v1.tib (which already existed from an earlier backup).

I don't understand why it would do that. Why did it not increment the backup chain number (b#) and create a new file named 256GB SSD_full_b3_s1_v1.tib?

If you look at the second full backup, that worked as I would have expected:-

ATI chose the name 256GB SSD_full_b2_s1_v1.tib. It did not try and use 256GB SSD_full_b1_s1_v1.tib. That would have resulted in 256GB SSD_full_b1_s1_v1-2.tib.

I have checked the log files and can see no obvious error messages.

I did nothing different this time to the last time.

The only thing I can think of is that ATI updated itself to the latest version at some point. Could that have upset the backup chain?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the thing that I hate most about ATI 2016 is the lack of information provided by the user interface and the lack of visibility of the current backup chain. With True Image  11, you could tell exactly what you expect to happen before you initiate the backup operation. With ATI 2016, you blindly hit the 'go' button and hope for the best.

Brian, the presence of an existing file leading to the creation of a v1-2 file normally suggests that an issue was detected for the previous file with the same name.  The log files may show why this was so or it may just be that you have recreated this backup task since the original file with the same name was created such that the Acronis Database had no information stored for this task that such a file had been created previously.

Looking at your file listing again:

23/06/2016  16:31    29,134,572,544 256GB SSD_full_b1_s1_v1.tib
30/06/2016  18:01     7,635,867,648 256GB SSD_inc_b1_s2_v1.tib
28/08/2016  18:34    40,370,756,096 256GB SSD_full_b2_s1_v1.tib
13/09/2016  23:28     4,831,602,176 256GB SSD_inc_b2_s2_v1.tib
27/10/2016  10:06    18,148,963,840 256GB SSD_inc_b2_s3_v1.tib
30/10/2016  23:50     5,032,590,336 256GB SSD_inc_b2_s4_v1.tib

The files above look to have been created for a previous backup task with the name 256GB SSD, then the files below look as if you have started a new task when then restarted at the 2nd backup version chain (_b2_), so I would expect you will see the same for the s3 and s4 incremental files too.

07/11/2016  14:07    47,197,138,944 256GB SSD_full_b2_s1_v1-2.tib
10/12/2016  18:07    11,786,219,520 256GB SSD_inc_b2_s2_v1-2.tib

Looking further at the above files, it looks as if you changed the backup scheme options at some point as you only have 2 incremental files for your backup sequence b1, but then are creating 4 incremental files for backup sequence 2.

I would suggest taking the option to clone task settings for this 256GB SSD task which will create a duplicate task named (1) 256GB SSD with all the current settings.  Remove the original task settings (leaving the files in place).  Then either run the cloned task as is, or rename this to use a slightly different name so as not to conflict with the retained files from the original task, i.e. MY 256GB SSD.  This will establish new backup information for this new task in the Acronis Database and start a new backup chain on your backup drive.

I am still confused.

I expected that if I chose a Custom backup scheme that I could change a given backup task between full or incremental without having to worry about backup file names.

I assumed I could  use a workflow like this:-

* Create a backup task with a custom backup mode set to 'full' for the first backup.

* For subsequent backups, set the custom backup mode to 'incremental'.

* At some point when I decide that there has been a significant change to files on my system, set the custom backup mode to 'full' and carry out a full backup.

* Continue in this way, switching between full and incremental as required.

This seems like a reasonable way to work and is the way I used to use True Image 11 Home.

Are you saying that I should not operate in this way using ATI 2016 because of the way ATI choses it's backup file names?

Brian, it is not recommended to start changing the backup scheme for your tasks between different schemes.

All backup schemes must create an initial full backup file as this is the basis of every scheme.  After this depending on the scheme chosen, a number of either incremental, differential or even full backup files which then conform to the further setting that you configure with regards to automatic cleanup.

For example: 

Create an incremental backup scheme where a new full backup is created after 6 incremental backups have been created, then store no more than 2 recent backup chains.  You could set this backup scheme as a scheduled task which runs at a regular frequency such as once a week, or daily etc, or you could run this backup 'on demand' according to your own knowledge of your system changes or activity.

Ok, let's say I use the default ATI incremental scheme and carry out a full backup followed by a couple of incremental backups.

Suppose I then want to carry out a full backup rather than another incremental backup. i.e. I don't want to wait for the 6 incremental backups. What is the recommended method?

It seems that I can't simply change the backup mode from incremental to full without upsetting the backup chain in the database.

It sounds like I would have to delete the backup task and create a new one from scratch.

I am finding the user interface and lack of control in ATI 2016 to be very frustrating. In True Image 11, I could easily chose whether I wanted to do a full or incremental backup each time. It seems that Acronis have replaced something that worked pretty well and that most users were happy with to something that is almost unfit for purpose. I am not the only one unhappy with the changes from True Image 11 - just look at the user reviews in Amazon. I had hoped that at least some of the user interface issues would have been addressed in ATI 2017 but apparently not. It seems as if Acronis have concentrated their upgrade efforts on cloud backup functionality (which not many people actually want because of speed & security issues).

Like many disgruntled ATI 11 users I am considering switching from ATI 2016 to Macrium Reflect. The only reason I changed from ATI 11 in the first place is that it will not run on 64bit Windows 10.

Brian, if you click on the (V) option next to your backup task name, you will see an option there to clone task settings that can then be used when you want to create a new full backup using the same settings.  When you clone the task settings a new task is created with the same name but prefixed by (1) which will create the new backup using that name (or you can rename the task <before> you run it to another name).

The user interface in ATIH 2015 through 2017 has been simplified in many ways and you are not alone in deploring some of the changes and removal of various features.  I would recommend using the Feedback tool in the GUI Help section to make your views known to the Acronis developers.