Confusing ATI2021 Backup File Structure
I have two questions about the Acronis backup files. The structure is very confusing.
In the location where my backups are stored, I have three (Yes, 3) sets of backup files. And all appear to be duplicates (all have the same dates). They are probably not duplicates but they appear to be.
See the attached screenshots. Image-1 shows all of the backup contents (at the top level). There are three sets of files. The remaining three images show the contents of each, when expanded.
My questions:
(a) Why are there three (3) sets of backup files? (What is the purpose.)
(b) And, what is the difference between each of the three sets?
I have Acronis True Image 2021
My backup scheme: 1-full backup, and 5-incrementals per set.
Steve, Thanks for the response. I read what you had to say, and I also read through the references you provided. However I didn’t find that the central question was answered.
As you pointed out, I have two version chains: -0001 & -0002. Version chains (logically) should have *different* backup data files in each. Example: -0001 should have January backup data; and -0002 should have February backup data.
However from looking at the files listed in -0001 & -0002, both version chains appear to have exactly the *same* backup information. Which again is confusing.
Simply look at the screenshots (attachments) for -0001 & -0002. And look at the backup date/time stamps. They are identical. From the bottom, the date stamps for both are: Jan 03, Jan 24, Feb 21, Feb 07, etc.
My central questions:
Why do -0001 & -0002 appear to have identical backup information?
What is the difference between the two, and why is it structured this way?
Thank you.
Paul, what you are seeing is how the data is presented as if your 2 backups are one single large backup archive container by virtue of the use of metadata for .tibx files. As such this is now the normal view that users will see, which means that you can click on any of the files and see exactly the same information & contents.
This takes a little getting used to after being used to seeing separate contents with the older .tib format files but should not prevent any other actions for these files, as you can still pick any individual point in time and look at the contents of that specific backup 'slice'.
Paul, also don't worry too much about the file dates. Because of the way the .tibx files are "linked", when a new file is created the prior file will also get a touched so it's date will change.
And don't do any file moves, deletions, etc. in Windows Explorer. Always use the ATI interface.
What I’m hearing is that all the version chains contain the same backup information, by date.
And, if I click the same date (ex Jan 03) in -0001 & -0002, both will contain exactly the same backup information for Jan 03. (And the same is true for all other dates.)
Do I have this right.
Thanks. It’s counterintuitive. But I understand how it works.
Steve, correct me if I'm wrong. I suspect that while all version seem to have the same information it is really that ATI is consolidating the information from all the files in the chain to create a complete and consistent picture of the whole backup.
Bruno, agreed that Acronis are presenting a single view of all the backup data regardless of which file you open but that the actual files only contain the content of the specific chain they belong to, though this is not possible to see anymore.
I want to say that I despise the new backup format of one file with all the slices in it. This makes off-site backups nearly impossible as now when I do file syncs, instead of copying small bits of data every night (one file per incremental backup with maybe 20-50 mb of data in it), I now have to copy 700 GB per nightly incremental backup because it's now all in one file and I have to sync at the file level. Did the file change? Yup! Copy a new one -- all 700 GB of it! It also plays hell with the my destination NAS snapshots because of so many large files changing and being seen as "new files" every night.
Please bring back the option to save separate files per incremental/differential backup. As the previous person stated, I want no cloud-backup options. I want no additional junk. Just give me the ability to backup my systems to a NAS and allow me to sanely manage those backups the way it used to be. I understand ... "PROGRESS!" ... but please consider forcing such changes down everyone's throats and the changes it makes to all our existing processes without any way of changing it.
I'm about to the breaking point of finding other software to use and will likely not renew my Acronis subscriptions or buy additional licenses due to this fundamental and ridiculous change. Consider your users and how this affects those of use who have used the software for years.
As for "always use the ATI interface to manage backups" and not using file-system level "omg why are these not being deleted?" clean ups, if Acronis would actually fix the cleanup of old backups and not leave stuff peppered everywhere, that would be a good thing. In the meantime, we've had to deal with things being left behind for weeks and weeks and wondering where our storage space is going only to realize Acronis went braindead with mopping up older backups (again).
Dan,
Sounds like you have a arm load of issues with TI 2021/2020, I include 2020 as your comments suggest one would experience similar behavior with TI 2020 as well.
The issues you post here apply strictly to the new TIBX file format and that format is applied ONLY to FULL DISK and PARTITION backups. Your comments suggest that your problems have focus on FILE level syncs or possibly FOLDER level.
If you structure your backup tasks at the FILE/FOLDER level (meaning you create file/folder backup tasks) rather than using a DISK/PARTITION level backup then the result will be that instead of using the new TIBX file format, the old TIB file format will be used and the old level of control will be there as well.
This simple change in your backup strategy should address most if not all of the issues you mention here.
Perhaps there's a terminology issue in my explanation and which interpretation applies at what step.
I want to, and do, take full disk backups of workstation to a local NAS share. I replicate that NAS share off site (via an extern app that handles file-level changes between NASs, then keeps snapshots so I have a week's worth of nightly changes available). I'm not sure I want to target folder level workstation backups because if I need to do a full disk restore, that would require a full installation of the OS and all applications, settings, etc. instead of a restore of the full disk. That would take hours and hours and hours and hours.
So, the downstream problem introduced with the new tibx format remains - a full disk backup and subsequent incrementals/differentials drop into a single file. When that file is changed during a nightly incremental to the local NAS, it modifies the single file on the NAS, as the new format forces.
When backups happen between NASs, it's at a file level outside of Acronis' influence... it sees the file changed, it has to copy the WHOLE file. EVERY. SINGLE. NIGHT even though a fraction of the data in it (the incremental portion) changed. Then because that file changed on the destination, at the next snapshot, it sees that the file changed completely, keeping the "deleted" file in the previous day's snapshot. So that keeps 7 days of hundreds of gigs just to represent one week's worth of what used to be a few tens of megs of incremental files.
It's terrible and takes hours to replicate a single night's worth of backups now where it used to take minutes. Again, we need a way to elect to go back to creating individual files per incremental/differential backup. A single file containing all changes is far too much overhead to manage as it sits.
Dan,
I have no idea what external app you use to facilitate your backup scheme however, it is apparent that due to methodology differences they do not produce the desired outcome. It does sound like this used to work for you however.
Are you aware that you can open a disk image backup file and see all of the incremental or differential files that the backup has created using Windows File Explorer? Would it be possible to do that then copy out the desired increment file and then let your external app handle the rest of the process?
The drawback to this approach is that of a dependency that exists with the tibx format. That dependency comes into play when a backup needs to be recovered. It requires that all files produced by the backup task be located in the same location or else are deemed corrupted.
Your backup plan is not an ordinary one and is not contemplated in the True Image product. For this reason a different solution may be your best option.
Dan, given your requirement to replicate your backups from your NAS to other locations / offsite, then this is definitely an issue with the new .tibx format backups introduced with ATI 2020 and later versions.
There is a way to still force ATI 2021 to use the older .TIB files for new Disks & Partitions backup tasks but this has gotten a little more complicated since Acronis put out build #39184 because despite turning off all Protection off permanently, Acronis Active Protection will still want to prevent any changes to the underlying script .TIB.TIS files that control how backups are created!
I have a powershell script that I can use to force .TIB files to be used and to force AAP to stop to allow this if you are interested.
Enchantech wrote:
I have no idea what external app you use to facilitate your backup scheme however, it is apparent that due to methodology differences they do not produce the desired outcome. It does sound like this used to work for you however.
Whatever the backup method is (a piece of software copying cold files, a tape library writing cold files to tape, any of the "normal" methods one would use to make a backup of files... is immaterial in this case. The issue is that Acronis, to anything look at it from the outside, is now creating GIGANTIC files for a single incremental backup of small amounts of data. If I can't look at those files from outside of the operating system running the backed up system, how would it ever be reliable for restoration?
Are you aware that you can open a disk image backup file and see all of the incremental or differential files that the backup has created using Windows File Explorer? Would it be possible to do that then copy out the desired increment file and then let your external app handle the rest of the process?
Why would I ever want to muck about inside the application's backup files to separate them? I would think THAT would be introduction of corrupted backups by changing the way the application is writing them. I have no interest in doing this. I simply need the means to create discrete, independent incremental/differential backup files instead of cramming it into the same backup file that was used yesterday, thus creating a nightmare of having to copy massive files for small changes.
The drawback to this approach is that of a dependency that exists with the tibx format. That dependency comes into play when a backup needs to be recovered. It requires that all files produced by the backup task be located in the same location or else are deemed corrupted.
Your backup plan is not an ordinary one and is not contemplated in the True Image product. For this reason a different solution may be your best option.
I beg to differ. Backing up cold files to off site media, backup hard drives, tapes, etc, IS THE WAY you're supposed to be handling backups. I'm not sure how this isn't contemplated in the True Image product. You back up your hard drives to external media. You want to make an off-site copy of that media. Read ANY backup strategy to get 3-2-1 strategy. Ironically, even Acronis says this is the "golden rule" -- see https://www.acronis.com/en-us/articles/backup-rule/
"Backup is important but it is just as important to remember that having one backup copy is sometimes not enough. For example, let’s assume that you backup your computer to an external drive, which you keep in your home office. If your computer crashes, you have the backup copy. However, if a fire breaks out in your home, it will destroy both your computer and the external drive."
How would you possibly think making off-site backups of cold files is not an ordinary plan?
Dan, given your requirement to replicate your backups from your NAS to other locations / offsite, then this is definitely an issue with the new .tibx format backups introduced with ATI 2020 and later versions.
My "requirements" are standard practice. See https://www.acronis.com/en-us/articles/backup-rule/ to read Acronis' own recommendations for backing up data.
There is a way to still force ATI 2021 to use the older .TIB files for new Disks & Partitions backup tasks but this has gotten a little more complicated since Acronis put out build #39184 because despite turning off all Protection off permanently, Acronis Active Protection will still want to prevent any changes to the underlying script .TIB.TIS files that control how backups are created!
I have a powershell script that I can use to force .TIB files to be used and to force AAP to stop to allow this if you are interested.
The issue is precisely that it has gotten more complicated by the introduction of a single file for full and THEN any incremental/differential backups hence. If it can be forced, then why not just include "using discrete incremental backup files" as an option inside the software? I would be interested in what this script does and whether it's going to cause corruption and/or unsupported issues whenever they decide they don't want it to work that way any more.
I appreciate the input, but it seems that more fault is being found in the standard way of backing up a full hard drive image, copying cold files off site to protect in case of local damage to the building containing the primary live copy of a computer AND the backup files (e.g. fire, flood, hurricane, tornado) and expecting to be able to restore from a bit-wise copy of those replicated files is being found unfathomable.
How did anyone think putting everything into one file was a good idea? It simply introduces massive network, file storage and time requirements into the process for no discernable benefit.
How do we get this to Acronis for consideration in future releases? It is a very simply and legitimate use case complicated by someone wanting to simplify a file structure. It almost seems like the developers found a lazy way out of managing a multiple file backup that has been working (mostly) well for years.
Dan, see forum topic: How to create a Disk backup as .tib (not .tibx) which will create a new backup task using the older .tib format in the Windows ATI 2020 or 2021 GUI. I updated this earlier today with a new zip file with the powershell script after testing it on my own PC.
There is no corruption by using this method as it is just emulating the settings used in earlier versions of ATI prior to 2020 and which are still fully supported by ATI 2021 for situations where users bring forward existing backup tasks that were created in 2019 & earlier versions.
As far as getting Acronis to take any notice, then sorry but I very much doubt that they will do so! They decided with ATI 2020 to port over the use of .tibx files from their business application application range, and are now forcing further changes on users by dropping all perpetual license editions and imposing their Cyber Protect bloat in all versions of ATI 2021.
Returning to your 'requirements' then the Acronis answer would be to use separate backup tasks that write to the various different destinations, where these will manage the changed data without needing to transfer the whole .tibx backup file every time. This might be fine for multiple different destinations that are accessible locally, i.e. internal / external and network drives, but may not be helpful if your other NAS devices you replicate to are located outside of your local network.
Dan,
You said:
I beg to differ. Backing up cold files to off site media, backup hard drives, tapes, etc, IS THE WAY you're supposed to be handling backups. I'm not sure how this isn't contemplated in the True Image product. You back up your hard drives to external media. You want to make an off-site copy of that media. Read ANY backup strategy to get 3-2-1 strategy. Ironically, even Acronis says this is the "golden rule" -- see https://www.acronis.com/en-us/articles/backup-rule/
"Backup is important but it is just as important to remember that having one backup copy is sometimes not enough. For example, let’s assume that you backup your computer to an external drive, which you keep in your home office. If your computer crashes, you have the backup copy. However, if a fire breaks out in your home, it will destroy both your computer and the external drive."
How would you possibly think making off-site backups of cold files is not an ordinary plan?
You misunderstand my meaning of " Your backup plan is not an ordinary one and is not contemplated in the True Image product. For this reason a different solution may be your best option." What I meant there was your method of creating these copies as well as your perceived need to do all of this at the disk level.
Your plan is one that I expect to see in the enterprise or business environment, not the consumer space. Most users of the True Image product are using it on a single laptop or desktop PC and backup to an external drive usually a USB HDD. Since True Image is a consumer product the functionality of the product is geared to these consumers.
So I get where you are coming from with the 3-2-1- plan and yes Acronis stands behind that model however, even that is changing in today's computing world, that is another subject however.
It seems to me that the one file strategy is now a single point of failure and you lose all your backups if the file gets lost or corrupted. Or am I mis-understanding something?
DR wrote:It seems to me that the one file strategy is now a single point of failure and you lose all your backups if the file gets lost or corrupted. Or am I mis-understanding something?
@DR, you are not misunderstanding. This is exactly what is happening.
Given the replies and their complete devotion to creating headaches, I abandoned Acronis and moved to Macrium Reflect (free version). It seems to have most of the capabilities of Acronis without all the hassle, but yes - also without such a polished interface. However, it's free and it actually works.
Since Acronis doesn't seem to want to hear or care how users are now shoved into a corner with the single file backups and into the fire with one location as you exactly interpreted it to mean without an enterprise version, it's exactly what you interpreted it to mean.
For me, it was time to move along and leave the user-hostile product behind. I find it odd that in the time of now cloudifiying everything, they make using site-to-site backups nearly impossible by forcing the use of a single file with embedded "slices" of backups and having to push so much data for simple incremental backups. Meh. Problem solved.
Good luck in your endeavors!
DR wrote:It seems to me that the one file strategy is now a single point of failure and you lose all your backups if the file gets lost or corrupted.
No, not true unless you have elected to use incrementals forever which would only ever create a single file.
If you use the default settings which create 5 incrementals then a new full backup, then each such backup chain (full + 5 inc) is in a separate file.
The same was true for older versions using incremental files except that an individual incremental _inc_b?_s?_v1.tib file could get corrupted and cause the loss of all subsequent files in the same chain.
Personally, I have found my .TIBX backups to be more secure than the older .TIB ones and for some backups I have increased the number of incrementals because they are all consolidated within the full .tibx file. I would still never use the 'Incrementals forever' option for backups!
Steve Smith wrote:DR wrote:It seems to me that the one file strategy is now a single point of failure and you lose all your backups if the file gets lost or corrupted.
........ I would still never use the 'Incrementals forever' option for backups!
Same here. High risk. I prefer multiple backups (Acronis Cloud), local PC and NAS. ALso like to fine tune what is backed up - some disk & partitions some files & folders.
Ian
The same was true for older versions using incremental files except that an individual incremental _inc_b?_s?_v1.tib file could get corrupted and cause the loss of all subsequent files in the same chain.Personally, I have found my .TIBX backups to be more secure than the older .TIB ones and for some backups I have increased the number of incrementals because they are all consolidated within the full .tibx file. I would still never use the 'Incrementals forever' option for backups!
But now you have the same issue. One file corruption and your ENTIRE backup is destroyed, making it more likely to lose data. In your example, now if you lose the one file *poof* all gone - not just whatever might be in a discrete incremental backup file that got corrupted.
No one questioned the security of anything regarding the new TIBX format. It's a matter of being able to back up off-site copies of the backups -- one full backup a week and daily incrementals -- without having to waste so much disk space and bandwidth (disk space in that versioning/snapshots/trash can on the remote, destination NAS has to delete the entire backup file to replace with a new one every night).
No one mentioned "incrementals forever" so I'm not sure where that came from.
Considering the risk of mechanical damage due to physical failure of the Disk Storage
It is not desirable to have a write operation to an already completed full backup archive every time.
It's a matter of being able to back up off-site copies of the backups -- one full backup a week and daily incrementals -- without having to waste so much disk space and bandwidth (disk space in that versioning/snapshots/trash can on the remote, destination NAS has to delete the entire backup file to replace with a new one every night).
That is a significant key difference between .tib and .tibx files for incremental backup tasks and the only methods available to combat this change would be to:
- force the use of .tib files for the task (which means editing the underlying .tib.tis script file for a new backup task before it is run for the first time along with bypassing Acronis Active Protection which wants to stop such editing!)
- setup separate backup tasks for each destination where backup .tibx files are to be stored thus allowing Acronis to manage the updating of incrementals in those locations.
- use FTP as the connection method for the task to a remote location so that it forces .tib files to be used instead of .tibx. The downside of using FTP is the lack of security (no secure FTP option) and file size limited to 2GB max per file, thus file splitting can occur.