Skip to main content

File Size of Backups w/ TI-2012 vs 2011 on two different systems. Very odd!

Thread needs solution

Recently, after system(s) clean-up, updates, etc, I backed up my two computers. One is a laptop, the other a PC; they have significantly different size HDs, and the amount of data stored on the PC is appx 3x greater. What's troubles me is that the two backup files are close to the same size, which makes no sense - unless one version compresses far more on the 'Normal' setting than the other. Here are the particulars:

Sys #1:
Sony Vaio laptop, 80GB HD. Used Space= 41.6GB. Backup w/ Acronis TI2011 yielded a bkup file that shows 28.1GB from within Acronis...26.8GB when using 'Properties.' (It's an older system, not used as much lately; thus, the older version.)

Sys #2:
PC w/ 320GB HD. Used Space= 120GB. Backup w/ Acronis TI2012 yielded a bkup file that shows 29.7GB from within Acronis...28.3GB when using 'Properties.'

Settings were the same (Normal Compression), tho' I may've set the PC to 'High Priority,' yet don't believe this would make any diff in file size – that's just priority in allocation of sys resources to make the bkup. I didn't Validate after creating due to time limitations, and since it's been a few weeks now, I don't know if that'd even work. In any case, this just plain doesn't make any sense to me, not given the above. The PC would have to have almost 3x the compression ratio to get it down to almost the same file size as the Sony, or so it would seem.

Any Guru's out there who can explain this to me, make suggestions, or point me in the right direction?? Any input most appreciated!

Michael

0 Users found this helpful

Hard to tell, you might have more compressible files on one system than the other.

Your hidden files such as hyberfil and pagefil.sys might be different in size, this would affect what you see in Windows as used space, TI won't image these files just placing place markers in the tib file.

I would have expected your laptop tib to be slightly smaller in size, but it is still within the ball park and your PC one to be mid 30 - 40GB, but it does as I mentioned depend on how compressible the files are..

Are these complete disk images that you have performed or partition based ones?

You haven't made an incremental or differential image without realising it by any chance?

The difference between what Explorer reports a file size to be an Acronis is nothing to be concerned about, the difference is due to the way the two programs calculate disk space and rounding the result.

Hi Colin,

My first chance to get back to you; thanks for your input. As to the difference in what Acronis and Explorer reports as "file size," I figured it had something to do w/ what & how they each calculate. Though I wasn't entirely certain about this, that's really not what concerned me much. Rather, it was that the size of the two tib files created for each HD were so close in size, yet the PC had several times the amount of data to backup. That led to my questioning if it had anything to do with differences between TI2012 and TI2011 and their capabilities.

Ideally, I'd have identical versions on both systems, thereby removing that question from the equation. Unfortunately, w/ major medical issues impacting my finances, I can't just go out and upgrade as I did for years. I'll have to live with the different versions on each system unless something changes.

Like you, I too thought the laptop tib should've been smaller, and didn't compress much – certainly not when compared to the PC using TI2012. I don't think there's a drastic difference in file content on one sys vs the other. Much of it is the same, as over time I've migrated a lot of data to a couple ext 1TB HDs, especially backup programs, movie files, etc. So, all in all, I don't believe one sys has less compressible files; perhaps that's something to explore further. The Page File is 3GB (PC) and 2GB (laptop).

As to image type, I'm almost certain that both were Single Version schemes. Both were full disk images; as far as I know, however, that doesn't back up anything but all the data, and disregards the unused space. Is that right? I'd read some about the Incremental type, but wanted one good stand-alone bkup. I thought that later I might make one for incremental and add to it periodically, tho' the Restore process seems to then involve a chain of images, etc. Figured it was best to have one good Single Ver as a safeguard.

Bringing up the last PC bkup & clicking on 'Settings', it shows Single Version in the nx window. Is that the way to tell if that's a Single version or Incremental backup? HOLD THE PRESSES: I just brought up the Log and dug thru that. At one point is says "version chain is appoach is single version," but further up the Log it says, "New value of option: backup method is Incremental." I believe that's the default method, and perhaps as I was reviewing things/parameters, it defaulted back to incremental...? Doesn't that method create a smaller file in general??? Seem to recall something about that...

I used to be far more up on all my software, but health issues have taken priority. Maybe I should make a new back up, being sure the parameters are nailed down, and then compare sizes. I just want to be sure I have reliable backups for both in case something goes south...God forbid. Thanks again for your comments. Michael

The default image method is incremental, it will always make a full the first time it is run and incrementals subsequently.

I don't think you should see any difference in file size should you select the Full option instead of the default.

To check if the image is OK, you could always run a validation (takes ages), or more easily mount the image and see if everything seems to be included.