backup files getting bigger than they should - why? (true image home 2009)

....

...anybody..?

what can I do to limit the "growth" of the backup files (which is much bigger than the actual data that get's backed up)?

Do a Full backup instead of an incremental.

..but doesen't a full backup mean that each time I do the backup ALL files will get copied again?

it won't be a problem for the computer I use in my office, but what if I have much larger files to backup (such as 500 gb)? doing each time a full backup would need hours and hours.

there must be a more convenient way - or how can this be done?

A full backup does indeed backup all files.

I don't do incremental backups as I don't feel comfortable waiting till I
need them to find out they may not be unusable.

I use a 3 drive full backup approach.

Total time to backup and restore a 500gb drive - 40 minutes.

I restore my backup immediately to another drive to verify the backup.

My backup files do go in size if large amounts of data or programs
are added to the system.

40 min for 500 gb - impressive. do you use your external drive via USB 2?

You say you use incrementals, some points why you shouldn’t.

If you defrag your drive between creating an incremental then TI will produce a file that is almost the size of a full image.

If just one of your incrementals becomes corrupt then that and all files after that date will be of no use and you will not be able to be restore to the current date.

Additional information TI only creates a file containing the sectors in use, so if you have 28 GB of files on a 500GB drive TI will create an image of less than 28GB depending on the compression you set in options.

Many of us do not use TI to backup data, we use a program that backs up files in their native form i.e. jpg, doc etc.
I agree with snifferpro, I don't use incrementals, but if you must then I would limit them to single figures and then create a full image. If your external is getting full, you can delete earlier sets.

Why always use full backups? It takes more time and disk storage and that becomes (very) important if you make (image) backups often (and save that backups rather long). So, I make differential backups unless the size becomes (too) large (e.g. after installing or updating software or defragmentation of the drive).
The main reasons for using differential, are:
a. The file size of a Diff. backup is important/helpful for deciding when to start a new Full backup.
b. Afterwards it is possible to delete some of the (less important) Diff. backups.

If just one of your incrementals becomes corrupt
I don't take that into account. Why should a file become corrupt (if the backup was verified)?

Note. I make image backups of the OS-partition and file-based backups of the other partition(s). And for speed (and "convenience") reasons, I save the image backups (initially) at a non-OS partition and later on, I copy the files to an external drive. During installing, updating or troubleshooting, I don't like waiting for making backups.

40 min for 500 gb - impressive.
No, unbelievable!

Total time to backup 500gb drive and restore it is 40 minutes.

Obviously the 500gb drive is not full. It has 85gb used space.

Even when I had 178gb used it still only took 40 minutes to backup
and restore. All drives are SATA drives.

I can keep more than 6 FULL backups on my backup drive.

I do not have to do a verify as the restore is the ultimate verify.

Also, I don't have to wait for a C drive failure to attempt a restore
as it is already done to a spare drive. Backups are 1 week old,
meaning that I back up once a week.

If I need a file from my oldest backup I can still get it from my
oldest image file.

CDGMOL
I don't have to wait and decide when to do a full backup. I do one once a week.

I can delete full backups just as easy as differential backups.

Disk storage is dirt cheap today (except for SSD;s).

I don't need to verify - the restore is the ultimate verify. Done Immediately after backup.

Martin -
my drives are all in removable drive bays. If I use my external drive I connect
via Esata,

cdgmol wrote:

If just one of your incrementals becomes corrupt
I don't take that into account. Why should a file become corrupt (if the backup was verified)?

Do a search for corrupt on this and the old forum, you will see that files do become corrupt even after a validation

snifferpro, I think that many (home/private) users with a "personal computer" don't have a system like your hardware. And that kind of users can perhaps not afford (nor want or need, like me) such hardware. In a multi-user business situation, your hardware and way of working is probably a suitable one. But for home or small business use, only one external drive and another backup strategy can be enough for a fool and disaster proof computer system.
= = = = =

como, thanks for that warning. I'm using now ATIH for nearly 2 years and, fortunately, never had restore problems or corrupted image backups. However, searching for "corrupt" gives a lot of hits and I have to look on (at least some of) them to see when or why this kind of problem can occur. But if a (re-)validated archive could be corrupted, it would be an unacceptable and (really) fatal problem of backup software.

I have 2 - 250 Gbit hard drives. On my main hard drive (C) I have a 48.10 Gbps. When I just made a backup using "True Image 11 Home" to my "D" drive it took up 126.65 Gbps and 4 hours.
I have Windows 7, IE9
Is this normal?
Thanks
Don

Did you select the sector by sector option?
If not, could you take a screen capture with the snipping tool of the disk management console (search for disk management in the start menu), and post it here?

Yes I did select the sector by sector option.
I should mention, just in case it makes a difference that I have used the backup hard drive with my Windows XP prior to using it for this backup. I don't think it should make a difference since before I started the nackup all of the disk showed as unallocated, but after reading abut the secret zone of Acronis I thought I had better mention it.
I also had to change the disk after I formatted from GUID since I received the message that I could not use the backup as a replacement for my existing disk in case of failure of the original disk.
Don

Do not use the sector by sector option. This option forces ATI to backup ALL sectors, regardless of whether there is any useful data on it or not. Withou this option, ATI copies all used sectors. This is the normal option for backup.
Use normal compression.
ATI should backup you 50GB in about 8mn.

I formatted disk D (backup) then made backup of "C" to "D".
C has capacity of 250.99 Gbs now has 200.36 Gbs free, so 50.63 Gbs used.
D has capacity of 251.00Gbs, now has 215.33 Gbs free, so 35.67 Gbs used.
Question - why so little on "D" ?
It did take 45 mins to make the backup copy , not sector to sector.
Thanks
Don

So if I understand correctly your backup takes 35.67GB for 50.63GB used on C:? That sounds about right.
45mn is a bit slow but about OK if you have included validation after the backup. Did you validate your backup?

Pat, not sure if I did or not-LOL
I do not remember specifically asking for validation.
When the backup started, it did have one hour 40 minutes, then backed up to around 45 minutes. How do I tell after the fact if it was validated?
Thanks again
Don

You can look at the log under help. It should tell you if the validation happened.
If it didn't happen, no big deal.
You should however go to Operations > Edit backup settings > Advanced Tab > Validation and check that the validation schedule is what you want. I validate my backup chains once a week, or manually. Some prefer to validate just after the backup. Your choice.

Just make sure you validate your backups from time to time to make sure there is no corruption of the chains.

A partial backup is short, but the validation of that partial covers the entire chain necessary to recover that partial (since the last full). So validation can take much more time than a partial backup.