Skip to main content

TIB file Sizes differences

Thread needs solution

Why is there such a big difference between TIB files created under the boot up Recovery Manager as compared to running a backup under Windows 10 using Acronis?

 

Boot up Recovery Manager TIB size is 19 GB (SSD size is 465 GB).

Running Windows 10 Acronis TIB size is 261 GB (SSD size is 465 GB) not doing sector by sector copy using default compression from what I can determine.

Are the TIB files compatible between backup methods?

0 Users found this helpful

No idea if the *.tib files created by ATI (either using the everyday Windows ATI app, or recovery media created by ATI) are compatible. I expect they would be read compatible.

I have no (recent) experience with Acronis Recovery Manager; however the disparity in backup size suggests that the 19GB file may be incomplete. 

Ian

The 19GB TIB file is fully intact and it restores properly.

 

So far, nobody has correctly answered the questions. 

Big_Dave wrote:

The 19GB TIB file is fully intact and it restores properly.

So far, nobody has correctly answered the questions. 

I can only suggest doing a comparison of the contents of the two backup image files to see where the differences in size occurs, otherwise my crystal ball is on the blink!

Windows 10 indicates that the targeted system drive in only 60GB allocated of the total 465GB SSD size. The bootable recovery manager does shirk the image to 19GB and the backup time is under 8 minutes.  However, when using Acronis under Windows 10, the total backup size is 261GB and takes well over 25 minutes to complete.

There are only three partitions on the targeted system drive: EFI 100MB, System 460+GB and Recovery 499MB.

While the excluded files list appears to be normal, the backup of the system partition appears to be sector by sector even though sector by sector is not selected. Uninstalling and reinstalling Acronis does not fix the size issue.

If the Aconis backup function under W10 allowed for other drive selections then I could try it on another offline system drive to see if the behavior is the same.

Dave, have you examined the actual TIB file contents to see what is different?

You should be able to mount the main OS partition to a Windows drive letter which would then let you use a tool such as TreeSize Free to find where the largest chunks of data are stored?

Steve,

I don't understand your last suggestion or the reasoning behind it. 

I have accurately stated the facts and findings.

Dave, you are telling us that backups of the same source disk drive & partitions produces backup files of 19GB from rescue media and 261GB from the Windows ATI application.

My suggestion here is to mount the larger backup TIB image file to a Windows drive letter and use a tool such as TreeSize Free to see what has added the extra 242GB of size to it?

If your further comment that the source disk only has about 60GB of used data size is correct, then the smaller size looks more realistic but still leaves the question as to why the Windows backup using ATI is finding four times more data?

One possible reason is an error in the Master File Table (MFT) for free space size which should be resolved by running CHKDSK /F against the drive.  I would have expected the same error to apply to the rescue media backup too unless you are using the Linux based media?