Updated TI Home 2011 -> 2012 and no no longer to backup to NAS - what gives?
Have a Seagate Blackarmor NAS 220 and I'm having the same issues with 2012. I can see the first level folder via the NAS option but it goes no further. Does not work with naming and I overlooked trying the IP address (//IP/folder/etc). I'm sure that would work. Have to admit there are are issues at lower levels that you would think would not be a problem at all.
In 2011 it seems the FTP transfers are speedy. Not sure of actual transfer rates though using the FTP function in 2011 to my NAS. I was looking forward to seeing if the speeds were improved with the new NAS function that was touted.
Speed will be limited at the NAS side --- way slower than any other link in the chain...
I apologize for being somewhat amused... I know you have legitimate issues here. I'm a TIH 2011 user who simply refused to upgrade to 2012 for these very reasons... They just released an update a week or so ago for TIH 2011 that finally resolved some of my more annoying issues. I just couldn't stand going through that for another year with a new version. 2011 works well enough for me now. Seems like every new version breaks things that at least worked OK in prior versions.
I have Qnap 419 and 459 Pro II NAS servers I use for backup. I think I'd croak if I couldn't get standard network URL (\\Server\Share...) to work.
For those having to substitute IP address instead of Server name, you might try creating a \windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts and/or lmhosts file to see if that helps. I do that on my local LAN machines since I don't have a local DNS server for my private network.
I saw over 100 MB/sec (my normal speed) to a QNAP 659Pro II the one time it worked via IP address.
100MB/sec not in the range of consumer or prosumer NAS. Would bet more like 10-30MB/sec unless multi-NIC unit. To get a better idea, find a large single file (say 10GB) and use windows copy to time a transfer to NAS and time it. Or use a disk profiling utility (IO Meter, HD Tune, etc) to get a more precise read.
100MB/sec not in the range of consumer or prosumer NAS. Would bet more like 10-30MB/sec unless multi-NIC unit.
Let's agree to disagree. Me and my 40 years in computing say I get 100MB/sec to my NAS.
==> Let's agree to disagree. Me and my 40 years in computing say I get 100MB/sec to my NAS.
OK by me...
I saw you edited down the last reply referring to an "expert" review.
I think you were referring to a different NAS.
To the NAS I actually have I just copied 86,822,802,432 bytes in 844 seconds. That's 102,870,619 bytes per second.
Let's not lose sight of the real subject of this discussion ATIH 12 is fundamentally broken.
Its support is fundamentally bad and the reflection upon Acronis as a company is fundamentally awful.
I am likely to soon switch my own site (what amounts to a small data center) and those of my clients to other vendors pending the company's response by the end of this week. That's the limit of my patience. Acronis is making me look bad to my customers because I had faith in Acronis. That is unacceptable.
I am likely to soon switch my own site (what amounts to a small data center) and those of my clients to other vendors pending the company's response by the end of this week.
I think if I had this setup, I would be more inclined to use ABR11 Workstation Advanced as the more appropriate tool.
==> Let's agree to disagree. Me and my 40 years in computing say I get 100MB/sec to my NAS.
OK by me...
LOL... I have a QNAP TS-459 Pro II and have pushed 100 MB/sec to/from the device many times when performing backups and file copies.
Yea Yea Yea, was actually referring to a single-NIC consumer NAS by another poster – confusion caused cross posting on my part. Sorry about that. The Pro II is a different animal --- load leveled multi-NIC SMB unit.
As for the Pro II, AnandTech just reviewed that unit last month – looks nice – may get a couple to replace my older units. If you have an IO Meter or HD Tune on the unit with host caching disabled, would be interested in the result. To get that speed, are you hooking to unit directly to your host or through a switch?
Yea Yea Yea, was actually referring to a single-NIC consumer NAS by another poster – confusion caused cross posting on my part. Sorry about that. The Pro II is a different animal --- load leveled multi-NIC SMB unit.
As for the Pro II, AnandTech just reviewed that unit last month – looks nice – may get a couple to replace my older units. If you have an IO Meter or HD Tune on the unit with host caching disabled, would be interested in the result. To get that speed, are you hooking to unit directly to your host or through a switch?
Connected through Netgear 8-port GB switch. Both NAS nics in use, but load balancing not enabled. One NIC handles receive, one send. 9K Jumbo frames enabled. Simple Raw sequential write IOmeter test with 512K blocks is attached. Using Acronis TIH 2011 backup with compression enabled, I measure (using Win7 Resource monitor) about 185-190 MB/sec disk read off of disk being backed up, and about 90-100 MB/sec Network write during backups. This confirms Acronis doing roughly 2:1 compression. Note, to achieve 185-190 MB/sec read from source disk I have to be backing up my SSD. Normal SataII hard drive can't read that fast. :) Anyway, this is way Off Topic so PM me if you need more info. JS.
Thanks. I'll look into it some more. The unit looks solid. I'll PM you for some more details.
Thanks. The unit looks solid -- thanks for the IO Meter. Looks like you are getting around 87MB/sec uncompressed -- that is quite a bit better then AnandTech's review. I'll PM you for some more details. I'll look into it some more - I may seriously get one of these --- thanks.
The TS-459 Pro II is a very solid unit with a robust application feature set. I also have the less capable model TS-419 P+ and they are like night an day. Lucky to get 40 MB/sec on that unit. Simply not enough CPU horsepower to handle the network and disk IO concurrently. I wish now I had gotten the 659. But overall I'm very happy with the QNAP units.
Let's get back on-message please. When the hell are we going to get working software?
And has an Acronis rep ever directly commented in this thread? I've seen them on other threads similar to this one - why aren't they here? Did I miss them?
I had the same problem.
No Backup to my NAS.
After enabling the WINS server on my QNAP Ts119 it just works with the \\server\backup\ path
/Edit
I'm sorry for my overhasty post.
It seems to backup to the \\server\backup\ path, but i have crashes now.
==> Let's get back on-message please. When the hell are we going to get working software?
Agree we are off topic. Not sure much more needs to be said about NAS backup:
1. 2012 is broken
2. 2012 was not ready for prime time when released
3. Acronis has spent minimal effort working with customers on these issues
4. Acronis has not kept customers informed
5. Acronis is probably going to lose customers on a going forward basis when the word gets out on 2012
As a side note, Tech Support sent me build 6054. It does browse network resources faster to support NAS, but introduces several new problems – detailed in a separate thread. I'll post a more detailed eval of 6054 when I have a week of use under my belt.
It’s pretty clear that Acronis development / QA screwed the pooch on 2012. Many have stated that 2011 was bad, and I agree that 2011 had issues. But 2012 is one of the worst commercial software releases that I have seen in years. Many software releases have bugs in "new features", but to break working functionality in a way that could have been obviously detected by QA sets a new standard.
It remains to be seen how fast they can salvage the situation and how the market will respond longer term.
Hopefully hhansard, you have informed Acronis developers of the problems with 6054 that you've found and the progress as noted in your post above directly as well as posting here.
Yup -- eMail already sent. And collecting more issues... 6054 fixes a few, but breaks a few more...
It’s pretty clear that Acronis development / QA screwed the pooch on 2012. Many have stated that 2011 was bad, and I agree that 2011 had issues. But 2012 is one of the worst commercial software releases that I have seen in years. Many software releases have bugs in "new features", but to break working functionality in a way that could have been obviously detected by QA clear sets a new standard.
It remains to be seen how fast they can salvage the situation and how the market will respond longer term.
2011 did exactly the same thing.... Broke some very basic features that worked fine in 2010. Perhaps we cut them a bit too much slack since 2011 was a complete revamp of the UI. So for those who had 2011 and now updated to 2012, let me pose a simple question - If 2012 had no major flaws / bugs - would the feature set be worth the upgrade? I can't tell if there are any new features in 2012 that are "must have" enough that I would upgrade to it after the 2nd or 3rd update build is released. It took 3 or 4 update builds before 2011 resolved my issues.
==> If 2012 had no major flaws / bugs - would the feature set be worth the upgrade?
That is really the question for those who paid the money... For me, sync was going to be a good feature to have --- now that I have looked at it (and wonder why I need an Acronis account to use it) I am reevaluating the decision.
Maybe 2011 was more broken than I remember... Just can't remember my upgrade from 2010 to 2011 -- If so, shame on me for upgrading yet again....
Well, that's it for me. I have not had a version of 2011 or 2012 that has worked. They send me a copy of a beta release for a 2012 update with a serial number. The serial number does not work properly and tells me that I only have a few days to use it before it stops working.
They send me another serial number. This one stops the software entirely. I can only perform restores.
That's enough for me. I will be asking for a refund and looking somewhere else for backup software. I've had enough of this rubbish.
And to top it off, Oleg just sent me a new serial number that does not work! Why am I not surprised.
Well, that's it for me. I have asked for and received a refund for the software, and I will be investigating other options. ATIH is just too buggy and unreliable. I can't tolerate that in a disaster recovery solution.
Just to throw in my two cents here...I purchased Home Backup on September 27. I have yet to get it to make a backup to a NAS device. I've had a support case open for most of this time with network traces and product logs being sent in with no resolution. I have to poke support to even get an acknowledgement that files have been received. So like others I've thrown in the towel and have requested a refund. I'm afraid if I wait any longer the 30-day window will close and I'll be stuck with a backup product that can't make backups. What a disappointment.
- Jeff
Agree 100%
NAS is broken, all my existing backups are useless!
I upgraded for Sync and was hoping to combine all my backups in one program, eliminating the need for SyncBackPro - but need for account and lack of options makes Acronis worthless compared to SyncBackPro!
Just had a long online-chat session with Vikram Singh.
I gave him access to my computer and he was able to see the problem first hand, and find a workaround that seems to be working.
The NAS is accessible by IP address - so when specifying the backup location, use browse and then type in the IP address of your nas - you should be able to ping it from the cmd prompt if you don't already know it. This will allow ATIH 2012 to then browse the folders on the nas and access them properly.
I asked Vikram to post a bug report, so hopefully this will be resolved soon!
I asked Vikram to post a bug report, so hopefully this will be resolved soon!
Unfortunately, I went down this track already. It worked for a while (2-3 days) but then stopped again.
I asked Vikram to post a bug report, so hopefully this will be resolved soon!
Don't hold your breath. I have opened six support tickets since July. The first was for exactly this problem and remote support came up with the same solution as they did for you. This was for ATI2011. Since I upgraded to ATI2012 the problem still exists and I have had a ticket open for this since August. Still no solution and no patch release to test.
Hi guys
have the same problem since I did the update to 2012 in september.
I have Win 7 64 bits and DS 207 NAS Server
I had to switch back to the 2011 version, which works well on that system.
This is incredible. Still no reaction from the company.
I think we should all reclaim our money and publish to the world that nobody should upgrade or buy this product.
Lack of communication is probably the big issue. Contact Oleg and ask for the beta. It resolved my issues. I suspect they are doing more tests before releasing a new version, rather than release a version that still fails?
Personally I don't like the new interface, and the new Synchronisation feature is a very poor implementation IMO, so the benefits of upgrading are nonexistent for me!
I've been using TIH for quite some time. Always a pleasure. I recently upgraded to 2012. I haven't had the time to 'play around' with the software to discover the new ins and outs. I found out that there's no support anymore for my QNAP NAS. I did manage via \\QNAP\Backup\ However, after I updated to the latest version of 2012, I noticed today that that doesn't work anymore eiter. And then I found out that support ended a week ago. WTF? I just purchased it 40 days ago... This will be my last upgrade. I'll go for something else, like a combination of CrashPlan and FreeFileSync.
This message has been removed.
Reason: Advertisements not allowed. See Terms of Use.
Hi
I got a new version of ATIH 2012. It seems that the problem with NAS is solved. See the following link
The link has been removed. See Terms of Use.
ok - this read was started 2 months ago. Fundamental core features don't work. Were is the fix?
Just ask support to provide you the link for the new alpha/beta or whatever build. That works fine!
BTW it will be available soon after further testing.
Hi, I also do have the same problem with backing up to a NAS mapped drive. My NAS is Synology DS 1511+ and I use ATIH 2012. I don't have anything to attach. Can't open support ticket, because of stupid Acronis policy customer can only open support within 30 days of purchase the force customers to pay for fixing their own bugs... I have nothing to attach.
THE REAL PROBLEM:
Basic function of any backup program is to be able to backup to a network share, it's fundamental demand in the backup business. This is prohiitive that software of this caliber can't do this right and software engineers can't resolve/program correctly the basic functions of file access in Windows NT. Acronis forces to use UNC directly, but this is known to be a slower method since 1990's. That's why mapped drives have been invented. What Acronis does besides simply calling OpenFileEx() and similar native Win32 APIs?
Acronis does most probably disconnect remote drives connection/credentials when selecting destination drive dialog resulting in further browsing it invalid or unusable, so people have all this problem with "path/file invalid" and "access denied" and need to manually remap and this results in backup bypassing mapped drive designation and backing up to UNC anyway. It lists all my backups done in this way and I have no more mapped drives in the system as those disappered after using Acronis. Acronis should not be messing with those NT APIs. I do provide/type password when connecting ad-hoc to a NAS and mapping the drive manually by myself before running Acronis main UI, so the drive is nicely present. ATIH do not need to do anything else, but I imagine you do use a Windows Service to perform actual backup and storage access and services are sensitive into the context those are run within. What we see from UI supposed to work without problem, but the service needs to authenticate on a separate level before being allowed to access network drive (depends on process credentials: LocalUser or NetworkUser in Win NT/2000/XP/2008/7). So, this is real problem, that maybe customers should configure to run Acronis Background Service to run under a user account and password designated to access the server (NAS) and its drives. It seems doing it programatically fails on Acronis engineers side as they don't prompt for a password to pass to appropriate domain APIs from within a service level!. Either software should prompt or ask to store network credentials on a separate tab under backup task options dialog and then pass those along with the write operations on UNC.
Just purchased 2013 version - having same problems as everyone in this thread with QNAP - should've read these forums before wasting my money - 30 day refund
When using ATI with a network drive, use a UNC path to to your NAS device for a backup destination, not a typical friendly "mapped" drive.
e.g.
\\192.168.2.25\My Backups\
using \\qnap\backups\my backups - 2013 doesn't give you the option of using an IP address that I can find, first backup worked but after that it just sits there calculating, can't even shut down 'operations are in progress' message
Did you try entering \\xx.xx.xx.xx\backups\my backups\...
I am using 2013 now with good success backing up automatically (scheduled backups) to QNAP TS-419P+ and TS-459 PRo-II models and working fine.
I do not use IP address. However, I do have c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts and lmhosts files configured to resolve my 2 qnap units as "nas01" and "nas02" and I reference them in Acronis as \\nas01\backups\acronis\... and \\nas02\backups\archives\...
Did you try entering \\xx.xx.xx.xx\backups\my backups\...
I am using 2013 now with good success backing up automatically (scheduled backups) to QNAP TS-419P+ and TS-459 PRo-II models and working fine.
I do not use IP address. However, I do have c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts and lmhosts files configured to resolve my 2 qnap units as "nas01" and "nas02" and I reference them in Acronis as \\nas01\backups\acronis\... and \\nas02\backups\archives\...
This is good information. Thanks, James.
If you are backing up to a network device turn off the TOE on your NIC. This probably does not apply to people using the home version of the product as you will not likely have a TOE in a standard workstation...
Servers on the other hand will likely come with a TOE. My backups times were cut in half and they never fail anymore...
Turn off the following under the NIC settings...
Large Send Offload V1 & V2
Receive Side Scaling
TCP Connection Offload (IPv4 & IPv6)
TCP/UDP Checksum Offload (IPv4 & IPv6)
I had to delete any exsisting vaults or shares (keep backup files) and remap my network drive using an IP address. It seems any time I edit a backup job this is a problem with access denied to the vault or share unless I am mapped with an IP address rather than server name.