Old Acronis
I have Acronis 2009
Have done a Mirror Image of my Hard Drive took 5 hours - went to do another Mirror Image and this time choosing Incremental and the system said it would take 7 hours.
Being as I had only done very little changes - why should it take longer 2nd time around.
Should I always choose Sector Backup ?
Cliff
Yes - it was a .tib
The 1st backup was done selecting Sector by Sector - Can I use the non Sector method on this backup incremently or do I need to start again?
Many thanks
Cliff
Start over without the sector-by-sector option.
FYI:
A task for Incremental or Differential will always begin with a full backup. That is necessary, as that becomes the baseline.
For an Incremental task, after the first full backup, subsequent backups will be incremental, each one based on changes since the previous Incremental backup, all the way back to the second backup being incremental based on changes since the full backup. As such, you need all links in the chain, all incremental backups right back to and including the first full backup, in order to Restore.
For a Differential task, after the first full backup, subsequent backups will be differential, each one based on changes since the first full backup. To restore, you would need just any Differential and the Full backup on which it is based.
You should not allow an incremental chain to become too long. An incremental restore depends upon every incremental in the chain being valid, including the original full. It's better to limit each chain to just a few incrementals, followed by a fresh full backup to start a new chain.
You should validate backups periodically. That would have alerted you much sooner if the full backup were missing or unreadable.
Many thanks for all the input Tuttle.
Will start over again
Cheers
Cliff
No, do not choose the sector-by-sector option. It is rarely needed.
Hi Tuttle,
Would the "sector by sector" backup be necessary in case of a Recovery to a larger or smaller drive? I understand that this type of recovery would require a sector-by-sector recover, but I ignore whether the same type of backup would be required.
No sector by sector is not necessary for recovery to a larger or smaller drive. You can't recover as sector by sector unless the backup was also sector by sector if I remember correctly.
Would the "sector by sector" backup be necessary in case of a Recovery to a larger or smaller drive? I understand that this type of recovery would require a sector-by-sector recover, but I ignore whether the same type of backup would be required.
No, even recovery to different size drive does not need the sector-by-sector option.
Do not choose the sector-by-sector option. It is almost never needed. If it is in a specific case, we will tell you. Otherwise, think of it as an advanced option that should be hidden, as you will never need it and should not use it.
Thanks for your good information. But still, I think I read in one of Grover's guides that it would be necessary, at least in the case of one drive consisting of multiple partitions, such as is my case, where I have three different partitions in my SSD drive. Do you mind to elaborate a bit about this?
Thanks.
I've said three times you don't need it, unless you want your backup to be larger (but no more data) or much slower.
OK, no offense intended!... I just asked you to elaborate a bit, if wouldn't mind. You made it clear you mind. No big deal, I will just remain undecided about whose advice to follow and the doubt will remain with me... But, by all means, no offense was ever intended. Thanks for your patience.
I don't know what elaboration you want. If you have specific questions, you're free to ask them. I don't know what you want to hear if you aren't specific.
Sector-by-sector images every single sector, even the blank ones. It images even those sectors that contain no data. Thus you end up with a much slower, much larger backup for no reason. Sector-by-sector is used only in rare situations when normal backups aren't possible.
LInYu,
I would concur with the postings by MVP Tuttle regarding "sector by sector" is not the norm and is only needed in special cases--not a routine backup. That type backup does include conditons you usually do not want the backup to have and if included, can cause the backup to fail validation.
On all normal recoveries, if "sector by sector" recovery is needed, the program will choose and choice by the user is not necessary.
Hello Tuttle and GroverH,
Well, after all the patience and generosity you have shown for keeping with my question, I feel obliged to at least try and make more clear what I meant to ask from the beginning. Let me start by emphasizing that I would never (and did never) challenge, at any moment, any piece of information you provided.
My original question was whether a sector-by-sector backup was needed in order to make it possible to perform a sector-by-sector recovery. Someone (other than either of you) replied that yes, to have the latter (sector-by-sector recovery) you would have to have the first, however, no sector-by-sector recovery would be necessary, even when recovering to a larger or a smaller drive.
Then (and this may have been my sole mistake) I mentioned that I was under the impression that Grover seemed to have included the recommendation in one of his guides that a sector-by-sector recovery would be required (or recommended) when recovering from a multi-partition backup to a drive of a different size if a resizing was intended. Otherwise, the new drive would just allocate its space proportionately to the size of the original partitions. The fact of the matter is, however, that I subsequently went back to Grover's guides and have been unable to locate such statement. So, at this point in time, I freely admit that my "impression" may very well have been unfounded. I may have become confused with something else. And I kindly ask you guys to either corroborate this or otherwise correct me.
In conclusion: If Grover never made that statement in any of his guides in the context of what has been discussed here, I hereby present my apologies to him and I will stand corrected. In this case, I will keep as certain and final the information provided by both of you and someone else to the effect that no sector-by-sector is needed except in very rare situations not likely to be encountered by the regular user and this implies no sector-by-sector procedure will be required on a recovery into a smaller or larger drive, even if the user wants to re-size the space automatically assigned to the various partitions in the new larger/smaller drive.
Many thanks, once again, for your great patience with slow learners like this one...
LinYu,
Sector by sector imaging is only required if you wish to either image a disk that contains a disk format that True Image doesn't recognise. For example my OS2 partition uses JFS and HFS, these two formats are not recognised by True Image, the only way I can use TI to image a disk in this instance is use the sector by sector option. The other time this would be needed is if there is damage to the information which describes the disk structure tables, TI will automatically switch to sector by sector if it cannot read the disk information at some point.
If you have made a sector by sector image then True Image will recognise the format contained in the tib file and will restore it as sector by sector.
This method will result in very large tib files as the complete disk will be imaged instead of just used sectors as per a normal image method.
Very occasionally it has been recommended to use a sector by sector restore of a standard image due to non standard disk structures used by some manufacturers. I emphasise thoug having to do this is very very rare even for those machines that still have non industry standard disk structures.
Thanks, Colin, for your time and for your detailed information. I appreciate it.
But you seem to not have been much specific about one point that is crucial to me: Whether or not you need a sector-by-sector image to restore to a multi-partition drive that is larger or smaller than the source drive. Is there anything one should be aware of about the allocation of partition spaces different from the proportionate space otherwise automatically assigned by ATI?
I am sorry for my insistence, by I still do not seem to have received one clear and definitive answer to this question.
Let's consider one specific scenario: I made a regular back-up of one 500 GB drive (that has four different partitions) and wish to recover it to a 1 TB with the same exact partitions, keeping their original sizes and allocating the remaining 500 GB to one or more partitions of my choosing; in such specific case, would I need to have made a sector-by-sector image or does this normal plain vanilla back-up be sufficient for my stated purpose?
Of course, I understand I could eventually achieve it through trial and error, perhaps expecting the best and ending with the worst, but in such case, what would these forums be good for?... :)
Thanks and best regards.
LinYu:
We have all answered this question several times in several ways.
As you want more detailed information, please check out the many user guides and tutorials in the left margin of this forum, particularly Getting Started and Grover's True Image Guides which are illustrated with step-by-step screenshots.
In particular, 29618: Grover's new backup and restore guides http://forum.acronis.com/forum/29618
Those links will provide lots of great information about how True Image works. You will understand much better after reading some of those guides.
Lin-Yu wrote:
I am sorry for my insistence, by I still do not seem to have received one clear and definitive answer to this question. Let's consider one specific scenario: I made a regular back-up of one 500 GB drive (that has four different partitions) and wish to recover it to a 1 TB with the same exact partitions, keeping their original sizes and allocating the remaining 500 GB to one or more partitions of my choosing; in such specific case, would I need to have made a sector-by-sector image or does this normal plain vanilla back-up be sufficient for my stated purpose?
In a single word NO. As tuttle repsonded this has been explained many times.
LinYu,
It makes no difference if you are restoring a multi partition or single partition drive. If a normal used sector image is restored, TI will, in the case of a multi partition restore, will lay the recovered used sectors onto the partition boundaries either to the size of the old partition, an auto adjusted partition or the size manually entered by the user. The 'stretching' or 'shrinking' of a partition is really just changing the partition address pointers either in the MBR/MFT or GPT database, and extending the formatting.
I don't know for sure, but I imagine TI marks the partition boundaries then quick formats them (in the case of extending a partition) and then lays the recovered sectors down. Shrining a partition of course does not require a format, just the partition boundaries to be changed and possibly free space to be 0xFF'd. Don't forget all drives have at least one partition, so a multi partition drive is just an extension of a single partition method.
Hi Colin,
I really appreciate your help. You taught me something. Your attitude shows me you understood my predicament and were willing to withstand my insistence as just a plain, direct consequence of my ignorance. A self-admitted slow learner and not willing to point fingers at anyone in particular, I must assure you that I still retain enough lucidity with me to easily distinguish between someone who genuinely seeks to reach out to others and is tailored to help them, from someone who is not.
I really learned something from you and this, I'm afraid, together with my grateful recognition, may be the only reward I can offer you in return at this time.
Many thanks and may God bless you.