Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Acronis TI8 Trial Experience

Tags:
  • Backup
  • Software
  • Storage
Last response: in Storage
Share
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 5, 2005 1:09:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.backup-software,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I downloaded the Acronis True Image 8 trial software. It is a fully
functional package but has a 15 day expiration time.

After download, it prompts you to create an emergency disk. I did it
using a CD-R.

In order to back up to DVD, I did have to format the disks first. I did
the backup while with OS, windoes XP, was running. It did identify the
3 partitions and backed up each one. I did a verify. The back up of
about 6 GB total took about 30 mins. The backup files were in 2 GB
chunks. While verifying, there was some confusion in requesting a
"volume number" vs "disk number"..it asks to insert volume X, which is
the sequentially numbered 2 GB chunks, but when you create the disks it
says to label the disks as "disk number Y". You have to examine the
disks after to know what volume is on what disk.

I tried to explore the backup but hit the limitation that TI needs to
see all volumes of the back up in order to explore them. So you cant
explore the backups from DVDs alone.

I then tried to backup over the LAN, which worked well but took a lot
longer than I figured - about an hour and twenty minutes for 6 GB. The
network is a smal office network, not much going on at the time. I also
verified the back up, which took about as long. I was able to explore
the back up: each partition shows up as a logical drive, and was able
to extract a file.

I then booted up using the emergency disk. I was able to verify and
explore the LAN backed-up files from the emergency disk.

I didnt have a spare drive so I didnt try to do a restore.

Overall not bad. A better UI than Ghost 2003. Wish it could format DVDs
on the fly (i was using DVD-R)

More about : acronis ti8 trial experience

Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 7, 2005 11:31:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.backup-software,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

It is preferable to backup to a hard drive in my opinion. certainly more
reliable than discs, especially with the cheap price of drives now.
bw..OJ

<zigipha@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120579776.062617.58990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I downloaded the Acronis True Image 8 trial software. It is a fully
> functional package but has a 15 day expiration time.
>
> After download, it prompts you to create an emergency disk. I did it
> using a CD-R.
>
> In order to back up to DVD, I did have to format the disks first. I did
> the backup while with OS, windoes XP, was running. It did identify the
> 3 partitions and backed up each one. I did a verify. The back up of
> about 6 GB total took about 30 mins. The backup files were in 2 GB
> chunks. While verifying, there was some confusion in requesting a
> "volume number" vs "disk number"..it asks to insert volume X, which is
> the sequentially numbered 2 GB chunks, but when you create the disks it
> says to label the disks as "disk number Y". You have to examine the
> disks after to know what volume is on what disk.
>
> I tried to explore the backup but hit the limitation that TI needs to
> see all volumes of the back up in order to explore them. So you cant
> explore the backups from DVDs alone.
>
> I then tried to backup over the LAN, which worked well but took a lot
> longer than I figured - about an hour and twenty minutes for 6 GB. The
> network is a smal office network, not much going on at the time. I also
> verified the back up, which took about as long. I was able to explore
> the back up: each partition shows up as a logical drive, and was able
> to extract a file.
>
> I then booted up using the emergency disk. I was able to verify and
> explore the LAN backed-up files from the emergency disk.
>
> I didnt have a spare drive so I didnt try to do a restore.
>
> Overall not bad. A better UI than Ghost 2003. Wish it could format DVDs
> on the fly (i was using DVD-R)
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 8, 2005 12:06:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.backup-software,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In message <1120579776.062617.58990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
zigipha@hotmail.com writes
>I downloaded the Acronis True Image 8 trial software. It is a fully
>functional package but has a 15 day expiration time.
>
>After download, it prompts you to create an emergency disk. I did it
>using a CD-R.
>
>In order to back up to DVD, I did have to format the disks first. I did
>the backup while with OS, windoes XP, was running. It did identify the
>3 partitions and backed up each one. I did a verify. The back up of
>about 6 GB total took about 30 mins. The backup files were in 2 GB
>chunks. While verifying, there was some confusion in requesting a
>"volume number" vs "disk number"..it asks to insert volume X, which is
>the sequentially numbered 2 GB chunks, but when you create the disks it
>says to label the disks as "disk number Y". You have to examine the
>disks after to know what volume is on what disk.
>
>I tried to explore the backup but hit the limitation that TI needs to
>see all volumes of the back up in order to explore them. So you cant
>explore the backups from DVDs alone.
>
>I then tried to backup over the LAN, which worked well but took a lot
>longer than I figured - about an hour and twenty minutes for 6 GB. The
>network is a smal office network, not much going on at the time. I also
>verified the back up, which took about as long. I was able to explore
>the back up: each partition shows up as a logical drive, and was able
>to extract a file.
>
>I then booted up using the emergency disk. I was able to verify and
>explore the LAN backed-up files from the emergency disk.
>
>I didnt have a spare drive so I didnt try to do a restore.
>
>Overall not bad. A better UI than Ghost 2003. Wish it could format DVDs
>on the fly (i was using DVD-R)
>
I believe you can use DVD-RW disks by formatting them with Nero InCD,
and DVD-+R by using Roxio Direct CD.
The files can be set as 'automatic' rather than 2gb size, then use
maximum compression and you may get it all on 1 DVD (XPHome NTFS).
--
gillie
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 14, 2005 6:19:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.backup-software,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"old jon" <ImNotIn@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Aqfze.1972$Rn1.727@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> It is preferable to backup to a hard drive in my opinion. certainly more
> reliable than discs, especially with the cheap price of drives now.
> bw..OJ
Hunh? A hard drive more reliable than a DVD or CD disk? Hard drives die on
the order of years. CD/DVD disks fail on the order of decades.
>
> <zigipha@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120579776.062617.58990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>I downloaded the Acronis True Image 8 trial software. It is a fully
>> functional package but has a 15 day expiration time.
>>
>> After download, it prompts you to create an emergency disk. I did it
>> using a CD-R.
>>
>> In order to back up to DVD, I did have to format the disks first. I did
>> the backup while with OS, windoes XP, was running. It did identify the
>> 3 partitions and backed up each one. I did a verify. The back up of
>> about 6 GB total took about 30 mins. The backup files were in 2 GB
>> chunks. While verifying, there was some confusion in requesting a
>> "volume number" vs "disk number"..it asks to insert volume X, which is
>> the sequentially numbered 2 GB chunks, but when you create the disks it
>> says to label the disks as "disk number Y". You have to examine the
>> disks after to know what volume is on what disk.
>>
>> I tried to explore the backup but hit the limitation that TI needs to
>> see all volumes of the back up in order to explore them. So you cant
>> explore the backups from DVDs alone.
>>
>> I then tried to backup over the LAN, which worked well but took a lot
>> longer than I figured - about an hour and twenty minutes for 6 GB. The
>> network is a smal office network, not much going on at the time. I also
>> verified the back up, which took about as long. I was able to explore
>> the back up: each partition shows up as a logical drive, and was able
>> to extract a file.
>>
>> I then booted up using the emergency disk. I was able to verify and
>> explore the LAN backed-up files from the emergency disk.
>>
>> I didnt have a spare drive so I didnt try to do a restore.
>>
>> Overall not bad. A better UI than Ghost 2003. Wish it could format DVDs
>> on the fly (i was using DVD-R)
>>
>
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 14, 2005 5:14:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.backup-software,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:19:48 GMT, "fj" <jelenko2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"old jon" <ImNotIn@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:Aqfze.1972$Rn1.727@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>> It is preferable to backup to a hard drive in my opinion. certainly more
>> reliable than discs, especially with the cheap price of drives now.
>> bw..OJ
>Hunh? A hard drive more reliable than a DVD or CD disk? Hard drives die on
>the order of years. CD/DVD disks fail on the order of decades.

Don't believe all the marketing promises you read. The recordable CD
is just now 1 decade old as a mass-market technology, and there are
very few hard test on CDR lifetimes not based on accelerated testing
(which only proves how well they survive accelerated testing).
Recordable DVDs are far younger. There is absolutely no data to show
that recordable optical media will last decades.

Do a Google search, both on the web and newsgroups, for "cdr
lifetimes".


--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 15, 2005 1:09:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.backup-software,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

<zigipha@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120579776.062617.58990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I downloaded the Acronis True Image 8 trial software. It is a fully
> functional package but has a 15 day expiration time.
>
> After download, it prompts you to create an emergency disk. I did it
> using a CD-R.
>
> In order to back up to DVD, I did have to format the disks first. I did
> the backup while with OS, windoes XP, was running. It did identify the
> 3 partitions and backed up each one. I did a verify. The back up of
> about 6 GB total took about 30 mins. The backup files were in 2 GB
> chunks. While verifying, there was some confusion in requesting a
> "volume number" vs "disk number"..it asks to insert volume X, which is
> the sequentially numbered 2 GB chunks, but when you create the disks it
> says to label the disks as "disk number Y". You have to examine the
> disks after to know what volume is on what disk.
>
> I tried to explore the backup but hit the limitation that TI needs to
> see all volumes of the back up in order to explore them. So you cant
> explore the backups from DVDs alone.
>
> I then tried to backup over the LAN, which worked well but took a lot
> longer than I figured - about an hour and twenty minutes for 6 GB. The
> network is a smal office network, not much going on at the time. I also
> verified the back up, which took about as long. I was able to explore
> the back up: each partition shows up as a logical drive, and was able
> to extract a file.
>
> I then booted up using the emergency disk. I was able to verify and
> explore the LAN backed-up files from the emergency disk.
>
> I didnt have a spare drive so I didnt try to do a restore.
>
> Overall not bad. A better UI than Ghost 2003. Wish it could format DVDs
> on the fly (i was using DVD-R)
>


I bought TI Ver 6 a while back, when I could not get Drive Image to work
after an XP upgrade and DI's Tech Support was, essentially, non-responsive.
I now run TI Ver 7 with a daily scheduled backup on three PCs. True Image
has saved my bacon several times, not only with HD failures but with those
oh-so-unique XP issues like scrambled startup files, etc. Just three weeks
ago I had an issue where it looks like my HD relocated some bad sectors and
my system slowed to a crawl. A TI restore fixed the problem.

It is also good for cloning disks, creating partitions, etc. A great
product, IMHO. And when I've needed Tech Support they have been responsive
and helpful, and have fixed my problems.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 15, 2005 1:51:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.backup-software,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage fj <jelenko2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "old jon" <ImNotIn@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Aqfze.1972$Rn1.727@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>> It is preferable to backup to a hard drive in my opinion. certainly more
>> reliable than discs, especially with the cheap price of drives now.
>> bw..OJ
> Hunh? A hard drive more reliable than a DVD or CD disk? Hard drives die on
> the order of years. CD/DVD disks fail on the order of decades.

For recordable CD/DVD this is in the range from "hours" to "nobody
knows".

Arno
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 15, 2005 11:16:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.backup-software,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Neil Maxwell" <neil.maxwell@intel.com> wrote in message
news:vchdd1pmtg4or22q33m52q5h9navkqhi94@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:19:48 GMT, "fj" <jelenko2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>"old jon" <ImNotIn@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:Aqfze.1972$Rn1.727@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>>> It is preferable to backup to a hard drive in my opinion. certainly more
>>> reliable than discs, especially with the cheap price of drives now.
>>> bw..OJ
>>Hunh? A hard drive more reliable than a DVD or CD disk? Hard drives die
>>on
>>the order of years. CD/DVD disks fail on the order of decades.
>
> Don't believe all the marketing promises you read. The recordable CD
> is just now 1 decade old as a mass-market technology, and there are
> very few hard test on CDR lifetimes not based on accelerated testing
> (which only proves how well they survive accelerated testing).
> Recordable DVDs are far younger. There is absolutely no data to show
> that recordable optical media will last decades.
>
> Do a Google search, both on the web and newsgroups, for "cdr
> lifetimes".
>
Thanks.
OK. I can accept we don't really know the minimum life a CDR, DVD+/-R. But
nothing I've found [via Google] indicates they aren't stable for at least
multiple years - if not a few decades.
The 2004 article on the Independent about some CD-R's failing after two
years sounds troubling, but doesn't say if there was anything that
distinguised the ones that did fail - i.e., dye, reflective material. And,
there hasn't been anything published [that's visible to Google] since then
that supports PC Active's findings.
But, even if CDR's/DVD's - i.e., a brand name using azo or phthalocyanine
based - have the same expected life time as hard drives, it's far cheaper
[and easier] to proactively reburn a CD/DVD than to proactively replace a
hard drive.

>
> --
> Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
July 16, 2005 1:10:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.backup-software,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote
> fj <jelenko2@hotmail.com> wrote
>> old jon <ImNotIn@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote

>>> It is preferable to backup to a hard drive in my opinion. certainly more
>>> reliable than discs, especially with the cheap price of drives now.

>> Hunh? A hard drive more reliable than a DVD or CD disk?
>> Hard drives die on the order of years. CD/DVD disks fail
>> on the order of decades.

> For recordable CD/DVD this is in the range from "hours" to "nobody knows".

Bullshit. Many of us know we have had CDs last for years and years now.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 16, 2005 2:04:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.backup-software,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In message
<42d8426d$0$792$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>,
TonyB <nospam@nospam.com> writes
>Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote
>> fj <jelenko2@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> old jon <ImNotIn@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote
>
>>>> It is preferable to backup to a hard drive in my opinion. certainly more
>>>> reliable than discs, especially with the cheap price of drives now.
>
>>> Hunh? A hard drive more reliable than a DVD or CD disk?
>>> Hard drives die on the order of years. CD/DVD disks fail
>>> on the order of decades.
>
>> For recordable CD/DVD this is in the range from "hours" to "nobody knows".
>
>Bullshit. Many of us know we have had CDs last for years and years now.

I've had some CD-RW disks for nearly ten years, while some have died
within one or two. It seems to be a quality thing, and I generally look
for better brands amongst the price reductions.

Also, notwithstanding minimal effects of normal handling, I understand
that it is repeated writing that causes wear. Mishandling is another
thing altogether.
--
Huss
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 18, 2005 1:28:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.backup-software,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 19:16:44 GMT, "fj" <jelenko2@hotmail.com> wrote:

>But, even if CDR's/DVD's - i.e., a brand name using azo or phthalocyanine
>based - have the same expected life time as hard drives, it's far cheaper
>[and easier] to proactively reburn a CD/DVD than to proactively replace a
>hard drive.

Cheaper, yes, in terms of hardware. Easier depends on your backup
schedule and methodology.

I use a multi-tiered backup to HD via TI8 and Second Copy - staggered
primary backups go to a local HD (internal or external, depending on
which box), and these are copied over the network to a remote HD.
This allows automatic, daily unattended backups that slow down the
machines a little bit while in process, but take no extra time or
effort beyond a weekly check that the backups are OK.

I also burn these backups to DVDR now and again to put in the safe,
and this is a fairly time-consuming and slightly error-prone
technique, for me at least. It does add another level of protection,
though, and DVDR lifetimes aren't so much of a worry here, since
they're updated every month or two.

As a result, no HDs need to be replaced proactively, as it would take
3 failing at once to lose my data. To achieve this level of daily
backup on DVDRs would require a number of hours a week, and I'd end up
slacking off on it and being without a current backup when I needed
one.

YMMV, as always, and there are lots of ways to skin this particular
cat.


--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 18, 2005 1:35:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.backup-software,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:10:36 +1000, "TonyB" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote
>> fj <jelenko2@hotmail.com> wrote

>>> Hunh? A hard drive more reliable than a DVD or CD disk?
>>> Hard drives die on the order of years. CD/DVD disks fail
>>> on the order of decades.
>
>> For recordable CD/DVD this is in the range from "hours" to "nobody knows".
>
>Bullshit. Many of us know we have had CDs last for years and years now.

I don't think anybody denies that CDRs can last for years and years.

The problem is one of predictability, and understanding what the
failure mechanism is on the ones that die within a few years, so that
appropriate risk management decisions can be made. Tape failure
mechanisms are pretty well understood, for instance, and can be
planned around with whatever confidence level is required.

I have no doubt that the CDR OEMs understand these mechanisms fairly
well. The fact that they're not saying anything about it doesn't give
me confidence.

Until there are some published studies on this that explain why some
media fails more quickly than others, relying on burned optical media
for long-term data storage is risky business.


--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 20, 2005 10:03:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.backup-software,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Huss <nospam.a.husserl@spamgourmet.com> wrote
> TonyB <nospam@nospam.com> writes
>> Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote
>>> fj <jelenko2@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>> old jon <ImNotIn@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote

>>>>> It is preferable to backup to a hard drive in my opinion. certainly more
>>>>> reliable than discs, especially with the cheap price of drives now.

>>>> Hunh? A hard drive more reliable than a DVD or CD disk?
>>>> Hard drives die on the order of years. CD/DVD disks fail
>>>> on the order of decades.

>>> For recordable CD/DVD this is in the range from "hours" to "nobody knows".

>> Bullshit. Many of us know we have had CDs last for years and years now.

> I've had some CD-RW disks for nearly ten years, while some have died within
> one or two.

And CD-RW is just one approach too.

> It seems to be a quality thing, and I generally look for better brands amongst
> the price reductions.

I used to do that with CD-Rs and then gave up when I didnt lose any,
regardless of brand. I did deliberately choose a known reliable burner tho.

> Also, notwithstanding minimal effects of normal handling, I understand that it
> is repeated writing that causes wear.

Sure, but thats only something that matters with the RW formats.

> Mishandling is another thing altogether.

Yeah, and problems are trivially avoidable
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 20, 2005 10:09:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.backup-software,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Neil Maxwell <neil.maxwell@intel.com> wrote
> TonyB <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
>> Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote
>>> fj <jelenko2@hotmail.com> wrote

>>>> Hunh? A hard drive more reliable than a DVD or CD disk?
>>>> Hard drives die on the order of years. CD/DVD disks fail
>>>> on the order of decades.

>>> For recordable CD/DVD this is in the range from "hours" to "nobody knows".

>> Bullshit. Many of us know we have had CDs last for years and years now.

> I don't think anybody denies that CDRs can last for years and years.

He just did.

> The problem is one of predictability, and understanding what the
> failure mechanism is on the ones that die within a few years, so
> that appropriate risk management decisions can be made.

All easily handled by deliberately using more than one type of
media and checking for deterioration over time and copying from
the copy that hasnt gone bad if one of the copys does go bad.

And a hard drive has the same problem anyway
and much more expensive to have duplicates.

> Tape failure mechanisms are pretty well understood, for instance,
> and can be planned around with whatever confidence level is required.

Just as true with CD and DVD media.

> I have no doubt that the CDR OEMs understand these mechanisms
> fairly well. The fact that they're not saying anything about it

That is just plain wrong. They have had plenty to say about life.

> doesn't give me confidence.

> Until there are some published studies on this that explain why
> some media fails more quickly than others, relying on burned
> optical media for long-term data storage is risky business.

Nope, not when you organise things sensibly, just like you have to with tape.

And that isnt practical with the hard drives being discussed.
!