Restore after HDD crash causes PTSS - how to restore full disk (2nd trial)
Hi All,
I've been trying to restore data for almost a week now, one option failing after the other.
This is the case:
Desktop pc, dual boot.
SSD with Win10pro.
HDD (with WinXP partition -still needed because of the RAID1 drivers/ Intel Raid Utillity meny), video partition, msdos partition and data partition) in RAID -1 by an on board ICH10 controller on my ASUS P6T Deluxe V2. No EUFI.
I used to have norton ghost in the past, never failt me. On my Desktop I made a full backup with Acronis (older version) in 2013. Thereafter I made incremental backups with Acronis 2014 (always in boot mode /CD). The backups never shown any problems: no errors shown.
I never installed Acronis because I want to keep the dual-boot OS's as clean as possible during post.
Now one of my HDD (from the RAID 1 setup) was causing problems. No problem (normally) I would say, just put a new drive in and the controller will rebuild the RAID. Wrong. Originally a Seagate Barracuda, but because of the lack of availability here, I had a WD20 available. But mirroring the disk in the RAID controller fails for some reason.
So still no problem I would say: just make a new RAID array with 2 brand new HDD's (4TB), that I limited with the Acronis tool option (forgot the name) to 2TB because of the MBR limitations. Then, after rebuild, simply restore my backup, right? Wrong. It will restore - partially. Acronis (even True Image 2020) shows the correct partitiones from the (incremental) files, but it does not restore all partitions. Even no error, fail, red cross, nothing. Just restoring 2 partitions, leaving the last 2 untouched. From one try, I noticed "copying and merging partitions". But I don't want to merge anything, just restore!
The "what to recover" is the Disk 1 selected, having:
-> Disk 1, Flags, Capacity, Used Space, Type
NTFS (WinXP) (C:) Pri, Act, 195.3 GB, 139.1 GB, NTFS
NTFS (Video) (D:) Logical, 735.2 GB, 708.7 GB, NTFS
NTFS (DataSafe) (E:), Pri, 931.5 GB, 773.9 GB, NTFS
FAT32 (MSDOS) (Z:), Pri, 996.2 MB, 1.996 MB, FAT32 (LBA)
MBR and Track 0, , , , MBR and TRack
-> Result: Drive size 3.639TB -> Drive D: (size not shown), F: (735.2 GB NTFS), Unallocated 1.091 TB.
Simply a diskclone (original HDD away from the RAID controller, to a new WD20) on another machine fails to: Arconis takes 2,5 days to restore, leaving me with only ONE partition copied in this case. GRRRR.....
What could cause this problem? This is really driving me crazy. I "simply" would like a duplicate of my HDD, so it can be added within the RAID 1 and perform as a bootable divice, just like it was last week...
Hope someone could help me with this issue?
Dear Steve, thanks for taking the effort to help me out. Nice to know if there is someone out there trying to help.
I didnt use the extended capacity disks before in WinXP. My largest disks had 2TB/each, and those were supported.
And if I understand the link you showed well; the acronis software won't run on XP-systems when the extended capacity is used. But I never run Acronis software within the OS. Not in XP, not in Win7, or now Win10 (skipped Vista and 8). Always from CD (2x/yr).
I use WinXP now because it is the only way the Intel Storage driver will recognise the on-board RAID, and thus able to reset the HDD for instance if the HDD is disabled. The Intel drivers are not supported anymore by Intel.
I use WinXP still for other (hobby kind) application like my 3D milling machine.
Your second question: yes, it is configured by the onboard chip only. So in the attached picture it shows the setup while booting (one of the tried setups). Acronis should show the RAID1 as one drive indeed.
In some cases, I get the status FAILED instead of Degraded. If FAILED, i.e. if only one drive is installed instead of 2, the drive does not show up within any system (Acronis, Win 10, WinXP).
So I need at least 2 drives attached (and marked as mirror) in order to show the 2 drives as 1 single drive within the OS's. But as I mentioned in the first post, rebuilding the RAID 1 by the BIOS does not succeed with the one new HD attached (WD 2TB), with either one of the "old" drives. So this is driving me crazy.
It might be, that because of the failure of 1 HDD the data on the other got corrupted too. And since restore does not work well, it seems too dangerous to erase, format and rebuild the RAID array with my excisting "old" drives and recovering the data/HDD layout with Acronis.....
So my wish is simply: in what way do I get the complete restore (disk image, drive, partitions, layout, files etc) back from my Acronis backup? It might be on another drive (not in RAID) would be a good step forward.
Underneath a result from Acronis result, with one of the trials (too less partitions created).
Situation: drive 1 /OSWin10,
drive 2 - a new drive, as non-RAID attached, limited to 2TB,
drive 3 - the drive with the image files.
DA-API report version 3
PS Speed IFace Hs-Bs-Tg Model
Num NT L9NO Size FSsize Free FS Type Label ABCHSV Error
---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ------ --------------- ----------- ------ ----------
1- d(0) MBR 932G SATA 0-0-0 Samsung SSD 840
MBR -----v
-1 p(1) --CC 930G 930G 0b NTFS 07 NTFS, HPFS ........... A-c--v
-2 p(2) ---- 864M 864M 0b NTFS 27 Windows RE H ........... --c--v
452M unallc ------
2- d(1) MBR 3.6T SATA 1-0-0 WDC WD40EFRX-68N
MBR -----v
-1 p(1) --DD 195G 195G 0b NTFS 07 NTFS, HPFS ........... A-e--v
-2 EPT 05 Extended ------
-5 p(2) --FF 735G 735G 0b NTFS 07 NTFS, HPFS ........... --c--v
1.1T unallc ------
3- d(2) GPT 3.6T SATA 3-0-0 WDC WD40EFRX-68N
MBR ------
GPTpri -----v
MSresr -----v
-2 --EE 3.6T 3.6T 0b NTFS 07 NTFS, HPFS ........... --c--v
1.8M unallc ------
GPTbck ------
Firmware: BIOS
OS: Acronis
Free letters: -----FGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWX--
Disk 1 properties:
BIOS number: 0x80
Geometry: 121602 255 63 LSS: 512, PSS: 4096, LSO: 0
Total sectors: 1953525168 (0x74706DB0)
Device name: "/dev/sda"
Sys name: "sda"
BIOS extension properties:
Extension version: 3.0
Functions supported: Ext.
Transparent DMA: 1
CHS information: None
Removable drive: 0
Write with verify: 0
Change-line: 0
Lockable drive: 0
Geometry: 56065 255 63
Total sectors: 1953525168
Sector size: 512
Disk 2 properties:
BIOS number: 0x81
Geometry: 486402 255 63 LSS: 512, PSS: 4096, LSO: 0
Total sectors: 7814037168 (0x1D1C0BEB0)
Device name: "/dev/sdb"
Sys name: "sdb"
BIOS extension properties:
Extension version: 3.0
Functions supported: Ext.
Transparent DMA: 1
CHS information: None
Removable drive: 0
Write with verify: 0
Change-line: 0
Lockable drive: 0
Geometry: 22443 255 63
Total sectors: 3519069872
Sector size: 512
Disk 3 properties:
BIOS number: 0x82
Geometry: 486402 255 63 LSS: 512, PSS: 4096, LSO: 0
Total sectors: 7814037168 (0x1D1C0BEB0)
Device name: "/dev/sdc"
GPT GUID: 0BD63E29-9627-4BA4-87BE-797D0A287AE8
Sys name: "sdc"
BIOS extension properties:
Extension version: 3.0
Functions supported: Ext.
Transparent DMA: 1
CHS information: None
Removable drive: 0
Write with verify: 0
Change-line: 0
Lockable drive: 0
Geometry: 22443 255 63
Total sectors: 3519069872
Sector size: 512
Computer: \local
Disk 1: \local\hd_sign(8A23480C)
Partition 1: \local\hd_sign(8A23480C)\part_sn(8B5CE9A10EC23F7E)start(2048)
Partition 2: \local\hd_sign(8A23480C)\part_sn(527B30AC38527B6F)start(1950830592)
Disk 2: \local\hd_sign(AB556F4B)
Partition 1: \local\hd_sign(AB556F4B)\part_sn(44786D7506447879)start(2048)
Partition 5: \local\hd_sign(AB556F4B)\part_sn(60F201E5A38E8D5D)start(409614336)
Disk 3: \local\hd_gpt(0BD63E294BA496277D79BE87E87A280A)
Partition 2: \local\hd_ev\vol_guid(8F3D86A742B17C119D1202A5920884BA)
The only thing I can think of is to get a second WD HDD and see if you can then successfully create the RAID array. That of course assumes you are willing to make the outlay for something that may well not solve the problem. What model is the WD HDD? It is possible there is some incompatibility between the WD and Seagate HDDs.
Edit: It appears that the Seagate HDDs are 7200rpm drives; is the WD HDD also rated at 7200rpm - I suspect that the only WD Black are likely to be 7200rpm.
Edit 2: It is possible that the capacity of the WD HDD is slightly less than that on the Seagate drive, in which case rebuild would not work.
Ian
Frank, thanks for the further information.
just make a new RAID array with 2 brand new HDD's (4TB), that I limited with the Acronis tool option (forgot the name) to 2TB because of the MBR limitations.
Can you expand on the above from your original post?
Have you tried creating a new RAID with the 2 new WD HDD's without limiting their capacity? As this is a MBR system, the BIOS should automatically determine the maximum usable size.
To restore your backup to the RAID set would need that 'drive' to be wiped then repartitioned, so you would lose any existing data on the good drive in the RAID array by doing this, unless you had removed the other good Seagate drive?
How important is it to have this as RAID?
You could install a single WD HDD as a normal drive not using RAID, then restore your ATI backup to that and bypass all the issues surrounding RAID. Then install the second WD HDD and use it as a backup drive.
Thanks for the effort so far.
Indeed the rpm's from WD and Seagate are different. but since its is only data, I think I will not notice the difference. The question is indeed of the RAID controller will accept the two different types, and so far it looks like it.
In order to eleminate causes, I made a new RAID1 array with only the WDs installed. Rebuilding and initialising an array takes a long time (approx 6hrs) and is finished just at the moment you go to sleep of course :-(
I'm now trying to restore a full backup. I made this backup this week from one of the original RAID1 disks. The original drive I suspect to be okay, but has some files lost).
Making this backup took 2,5 days (on a brand new i7 laptop seperately, by USB 3.0 ports (and SATA -> 3.0 USB adapters).
This backup caused the ATI 2014 and 2020 to show also coppying/merging and/or missing driveletters prior to the start-button. So I'm not going to test this. If it fails it takes me another day's work.
Now I got Acronis Universal enterprise copy (a really aged/classic version now) from a friend, and this version shows prior to the restore the correct partitions with the new RAID1 config. So I give this version a try - but is still restoring ( "5 days remaining"). Oh man, that takes a long time to restore 2TB disks by SATA600, amazing.
The setup is MBR indeed, so I have to limit the disk size before restoring the image. If llimited, the size is assigned as 1,8TB, otherwise the drive is recognised as 1,6TB.
In fact I love the RAID1 setup. It did save me a lot of trouble in the past. The seagate Barracuda's are 4yrs old with one seriously defect, the WD Red's I own (NAS) show after 21000hrs (3yr use) C5 errors. I dont know how everyone else do this, but I would like to have a reliable system for my personal data! That's why I dont see the idea to split the RAID1 as an option...But relying on >10yr/old software is not very reliable too.
To be continued,
I am a big believer in having the strongest backup. On one of my PCs I have 3 500gig SSDs in Raid 5, before that I had 3 600gig WD VelociRaptor drives (10,000 rpm). I use this for my data files and sofware insallation files. It is backed up to my Synology NAS, both by file synchronisation and Acronis backups (the NAS has 4 WD Red 4TB HD, giving capacity of 12TB). I also backup to Acronis Cloud and to two other PCs.
Unfortunately, none of this helps you work out what the problem is.
Ian
Update:
The restore has been completed finally.
It completed with first a complete backup of the (failing) drive, and restored it to a RAID1 array with the 2 pcs WD 2TB drives. The RAID1 setup was tested before restore operations (and 100% o.k.).
I did the restore with the aged Acronis Universal version. Took a lot time.
The sreenshots show exact what goes wrong. All pictures have been taken with exact the same hardwaresetup and same backup image/location. But the problems I run up to, are show here:
- ATI 2020 "forgets" to restore partitions, renames drives (picture 532807-180639),
- ATI 2014 shows the correct partions, works for hours and finally ends with "an error" (picture 532807-180636).
- ATI universal did the correct job, but took a lot of time (possibly because of the lack of correct drives, since it is a very old version). (picture 532807-180642)
Any clue why this happens? What makes ATI to ignore the correct setup? If there is no clear/useable solution, then ATI2020 is not worth the trouble to upgrade for me.
Secondly:
- The disk layout and (most of??) the files are restored. But I have no clue if alle the restored files are correct/ not damaged somehow. So I would like to compare the restored files with files of my original/older backup. What is the best way to do this? So can I force an automated bit-by-bit comparison?
- I also do have a bunch of files, obtained from the other (damaged) RAID1 disk. These files I copied to my Synology NAS. Is there a way to automate a full bit-by-bit comparison of the files/folders with the ones restored?
@Ian, I understand what you say :-) My datadisks are bigger, and I dont have the money for these quad-bay Syno's. Well done. I would like something like this too - but wonder how the file-copy backup is done? With DSCloud?
Frank, I have never seen any other reports of partitions being merged rather than being restored correctly as individual partitions, so as you have been able to show that ATI 2020 does this whereas your older ATI 2014 or 2013 recovers the partitions correctly, I would recommend raising this as a support case direct with Acronis for further investigation, or at least submitting feedback to them with a link to this forum topic.
Oke, but do you think they will respond?
On my last question (this topic) and questions prior to buy ATI2020 (two weeks ago) I had a few questions, but still waiting for an answer,
(I dont have a license 2020 yet)
Do you have options for file comparison, as described before?
Frank, difficult to say if Acronis will respond - guess that depends on how busy they are and whether they are being impacted by the global pandemic?
If you use the Feedback option, then they say they won't give a response but will review the information provided.
If you have taken a 30-day trial of ATI 2020, then you can open support tickets during that period.
For file comparison, if you can mount your backup .tib file to a drive letter, then you can use any file synchronisation tools for comparing folders / files using different methods.
I have used a free tool called SyncFolders which can do the above.
To mount the backup .tib file to a drive letter, right-click on the .tib file in Explorer and look for the Acronis True Image options, then select the Mount option. Note: ATI needs to be installed to provide the integrations with the Windows shell.
Frank Verberne wrote:Oke, but do you think they will respond?
On my last question (this topic) and questions prior to buy ATI2020 (two weeks ago) I had a few questions, but still waiting for an answer
Hello Frank,
do you have the support ticket ID? Could you please share this ID, so that I can find your ticket in our system and look into the situation. Alternatively, please send me the email address used to open a ticket\submit feedback in a private message.
hello Ekaterina,
I dont remember the support ticketnumber.
The messages I send was to support and presales. In the account window I remember I got a message like "succesfully send" or similar. I cant remember anymore, it is too long agoo (march 17thi think).
Anyway, the most recent backup for my laptop is done with Samsung software (obtained with the SSD ad avail on theiir website). Works like a charm. Fast and reliable.I dont think I'll use ATI on the laptop anymore. I skipped ATI in this case, because ATI couldnt even find my SSD, only the HDD in the laptop. No clue why, but the Samsung did see it.
Still got this issue with my desktop RAID drives.
I think I may have found the solutions of one of the big issues - has to do with rights mgt, the difference between running Acronis from bootable CD or from within Windows while using a (non)windows NAS..
I finally got the trial 2020 working to obtain files back. The see the files within a backup with explorer.
Please note that the files are within the backup, but the restores fail with the problems mentioend in post #1.
Irritating that during the restore proces from within Windows the screen shows "back up" while it is restoring.
And then the regular interruptions, so I have assign (random number) incremental file AGAIN. This during the whole restauration process. I wonder why: the h*ll does it "forget" the locations of the files? They stay at the same place!
And why is the pop-up window after a "retry" button, and I have another pop-up with browse button, then browse to the location of the files (through your netwerk, click-click-click-wait-wait-click-click. Finally the correct location, which everytime the windows has to be expanded and also the colum "file" expanded in order to see the correct file (s-number), otherwise they are hidden. Men, with ATI you have to sit for 11 hours beside the computer to keep it running. It feels I better write 01010101 on a piece of paper.
Yes, I am a bit frustrated right now. It might that a (basically) simple task has been made so complicated, that you have to be a nerd in order to make a backup. It also feels like the clients are the beta-testers, which I hate to be.
So now after a few weeks after the crash of one HDD, It still takes all my spare time to restore files.
While I was thinking to playsafe with decent backups for years. But I was wrong.
Why I'm posting this? Well, there is no solution right now, specially with ATI2020. Still looking for a good and reliable system.
Alternatives right now:
Keep using 2014, and using "trick" for problems related to UEFI bios,
Using a 3rd HDD, with Samsung software or Synology
Using a virtual machine (using the VMX as "backup file")
Other alterantives are welcome.
I found out that the tibx-system in 2020 is not my favorite - if there are problems, I have to move try etc. backup files. The spare storage space is not endless in this house. Since that is not possible with 2020, this option is a no-go for me, whatever the future updates will improve. Pitty.