Size of True Image incremental backups, plus...

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I've been using True Image 8 to make images of my partitions. I've made
several incremental backups, and I noticed that the size of the very
first image was about 4GB, then the first (if I remember correctly)
incremental image was about 400MB, and every subsequent incremental
image is about the size of the first - 4GB. Why the single small image?
Is this how it should work?

I noticed that even if I delete some of the earlier backups, I can
still access my entire drive from the remaining incremental images.
However, I recently started to get the message that TI cannot assign a
drive letter to the image. This was working without any problems
before, even after I had previously deleted some early backup images.
Anybody know why this message suddenly appears?

Thanks in advance.

---
No question is difficult if you know the answer.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Peter wrote:
>
> For incremental backup to work, a full image and all subsequent incremental
> images belonging to the same set are required.
> You have probably mixed up full and incremental images from different sets.

No, I don't really think so. In fact, I am able to check the integrity
of the images - all is fine. Also, if I go through the motions of a
RESTORE I am able to select an image from various dates, regardless of
which specific image I choose, although I think (not sure!) I am unable
to choose some of the earlier dates, coresponding to dates whose images
I've deleted.

---
No question is difficult if you know the answer.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Peter wrote:
> > > For incremental backup to work, a full image and all subsequent
> incremental
> > > images belonging to the same set are required.
> > > You have probably mixed up full and incremental images from different
> sets.
> >
> > No, I don't really think so. In fact, I am able to check the integrity
> > of the images - all is fine. Also, if I go through the motions of a
> > RESTORE I am able to select an image from various dates, regardless of
> > which specific image I choose, although I think (not sure!) I am unable
> > to choose some of the earlier dates, coresponding to dates whose images
> > I've deleted.
>
> If image integrity check is fine, you should be able to mount it.

My thoughts precisely. For all know, the failure may have nothing to do
with TI having a problem - perhaps something has gone screwy in Windows.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Will Dormann wrote:
> bxf wrote:
> > I've been using True Image 8 to make images of my partitions. I've made
> > several incremental backups, and I noticed that the size of the very
> > first image was about 4GB, then the first (if I remember correctly)
> > incremental image was about 400MB, and every subsequent incremental
> > image is about the size of the first - 4GB. Why the single small image?
> > Is this how it should work?
>
>
> Did you defragment your drive between backups? If so, an incremental
> might be as large as a full backup.

Quite possibly yes. But, if what you say is the correct explanation, it
is a surprise, because I thought that TI, unlike Ghost 2003 for
example, worked at the file level, rather than sector level. If such is
the case, I'd expect that a defrag would not cause the files to appear
changed. On the other hand, perhaps the fact that the files are
relocated is enough to make them appear different to TI. What you say
may be absolutely correct. I'll experiment on the weekend.

Thanks for the responses.

---
No question is difficult if you know the answer.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Will Dormann wrote:
> bxf wrote:
> > Quite possibly yes. But, if what you say is the correct explanation, it
> > is a surprise, because I thought that TI, unlike Ghost 2003 for
> > example, worked at the file level, rather than sector level. If such is
> > the case, I'd expect that a defrag would not cause the files to appear
> > changed. On the other hand, perhaps the fact that the files are
> > relocated is enough to make them appear different to TI. What you say
> > may be absolutely correct. I'll experiment on the weekend.
>
>
> TrueImage operates on the sector level, not file.

Not to dispute what you say, but somewhere along the way I've picked up
the notion that TI worked on files, not sectors. One of (the only?) the
items that come to mind that likely contributed to this idea may be a
post made by somebody where he compared a drive before a TI backup and
after a restore, and the file structure on the drive was different,
whereas a similar excercise with Ghost 2003 (if I remember correctly)
resulted in identical before-after contents. This is something that
would lead me to believe that TI processed files. Still, I suppose
there may be more to this than meets the eye.

I'm still inclined to accept what you suggest with respect to the
defrags being responsible. I'll find out soon enough.