Salta al contenuto principale

Backup consolidation gets confused about backup names

Thread needs solution

It seems that when backups get consolidated, only the filenames get updated appropriately, not the actual names of the backups that True Image refers to. This can be easily seen when trying to manually consolidate backups.

Here are the steps to reproduce:

Create a new File Backup called 'Test'.
Configure it to be Incremental.
Configure it to automatically consolidate when number of backup versions exceeds 3.
Manually run the backup 4 times.

After the first 3 runs, you will have the following files:

Test_full_b1_s1_v1.tib
Test_inc_b1_s2_v1.tib
Test_inc_b1_s3_v1.tib

When the 4th backup runs, True Image will temporarily create a file called 'Test_inc_b1_s4_v1.tib', then merge the oldest version with the second oldest version, and then rename all of the files appropriately. The logs confirm this. All good.

So after the 4 backups have been run, you're left with the 3 files you expect:

Test_full_b1_s1_v1.tib
Test_inc_b1_s2_v1.tib
Test_inc_b1_s3_v1.tib

So far so good.

However, if you then right-click on the backup in True Image, and choose 'More -> Consolidate versions', this is what you will see:

Clearly, True Image is getting confused because the names of the backups no longer match the file names.

Now, manually run the backup two more times. Now that a total of 6 backups have been run, you're still left with the 3 files you expect:

Test_full_b1_s1_v1.tib
Test_inc_b1_s2_v1.tib
Test_inc_b1_s3_v1.tib

Now if you right-click on the backup in True Image, and choose 'More -> Consolidate versions', this is what you will see:

Clearly, the confusion about file names has become even worse, now that the automatic renaming has cycled through all of the file names when the backups ran. Now, the consolidation dialog thinks they're all named the same.

Allegato Dimensione
consolidate_2.png 13.53 KB
consolidate_1.png 13.78 KB
0 Users found this helpful

GrindAx, One workaround for your problem would be to cease to use consolidsation and instead, use the automatic cleanup feature. A new task pointing to a new empty storage folder would be needed. Here are two examples from my link #2 below.

Figure 11-Inc: Example of custom/incremental backup method settings
If using incremental type backups (which is full +?Inc), the 11-Inc is my recommended method. Change the 6 or 4 to fit your needs.

Allow space for 1 more full than your selected number (4) as TI will NOT delete the oldest full or chain until its replacement has been created.
Also understand the limitations/risk factor of incremental backups. If one inc backups gets corrupt, all newer inc are worthless so avoid excessive number of incremental backups. Always maintain a full backup set which are current This explains why my keeping a reasonable number of x "recent version chains" can be important. Keeping a high number of incremental is a high risk factor to your backups and should be avoided. For a better understanding of the differences between Inc and Dif as it relates to the safety factor, review this link. http://forum.acronis.com/forum/38799#comment-122496

Thanks GroverH, I do have a good understanding of how all the different types of backup work, as well as the pros and cons of each approach.

I'm hoping for this bug to be escalated to the Acronis development team so that it can be fixed.

The summary of the bug is: whenever Acronis True Image consolidates files, it knows to change the file names appropriately, but it doesn't update the backup names within those files. And the result is that when you try to do things later with those files, like restore or consolidate, then the wrong backup names are shown.

How can we be sure that the development team have visibility of this important issue so that this bug gets fixed?

As MVP's, we can post in a private section that is visited by the forum moderators.

Grover has already flagged your post for the moderator(s), but I would suggest that you also contact support directly.

You can also send feedback to the following locations:

http://www.acronis.com/support/feedback.html
and
mailto:Managers@acronis.com

James

Thanks James, that is very much appreciated.

Will you have any visibility of them picking it up and adding it to the known issues being worked on, i.e. is there any way we can find out whether it's been acknowledged?

Also, I think Colin might have already done the same with some of the other issues I raised, but is it possible for you to see whether these reports are already in that private section?:

http://forum.acronis.com/forum/41252
http://forum.acronis.com/forum/41231
http://forum.acronis.com/forum/41271
http://forum.acronis.com/forum/41232
http://forum.acronis.com/forum/41291

Many thanks.

I flagged all of the posts you have listed to be sure some additional attention is drawn to them.

Since this is a user to user forum, the moderators (Acronis personnel) are primarily responsible for keeping the forum organized, and clean of inappropriate posts.

Acronis personnel do sometimes visit the forums and occasionally offer information to end users here on the boards.

I have suggested in the past that Acronis set up a way for users to log software problems / usability issues directly with the support and development teams without going through the paid support process just to report an issue.

At this time, the MVP forum volunteers do not have any more access to any list of issues being looked at or under consideration by either support or the development team then do any other users on the forum.

Acronis support is still the primary way to report / get resolution to any issues (along with the two options I listed in my above post).

Your posts do offer a good deal of documentation of the issues you are having. These will be very valuable to Acronis support / development to allow duplication of the issues on their side if they choose to use the forum posting to their advantage.

James

Understood, thanks James. I appreciate your advice and assistance.

I too hope that Acronis will actually use the forum to their advantage rather than leave users feeling like no-one from the company is even paying any attention to it.

I find that True Image has so much potential, if only everything worked as it should. When trying out lots of different options within the program, and clicking through various combinations of settings, etc., I just seem to find more and more examples of things which just don't work. Each time it's like opening a can of worms, and I think that before spending much more of my time trying to log issues, I'll keep an eye on future patches to see whether bug reports are being actively taken onboard and whether things are actually improving.

Just today I've been trying out changing options on existing backups. Changing from automatic cleanup to automatic consolidation and vice versa gets the program into a very confused state and further backups resume from random and unexpected points in the existing backup set. The file naming convention then gets totally messed up as well. Non-current version chains can then no longer be manipulated, restored, or verified anymore. And on and on. One thing after another. Before that I was discovering that when choosing files to back up, if you include the 'Users' directory on the system drive, the backup size estimation will keep going forever. And when you try to restore from a file backup, if you choose a top-level folder representing the entire backup, the estimation will keep running forever as well. And then later on I discovered that even if you try to verify a particular chain within a backup set, True Image will tell you that its verifying all backup versions. But it actually only tries to verify the latest chain, and ignores all others. These are just some examples. Hopefully over time these things will be fixed. But in the back of my mind I'm thinking: this is not exactly a new backup program -- it's been in development for several years already.