Size of True Image incremental backups, plus...

[bxf]

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.

 

[Peter]

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?

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.

 

[bxf]

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.

 

[Peter]

For incremental backup to work, a full image and all subsequent
incremental

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.

 

[bxf]

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.

 

[Will Dormann]

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.


-WD

 

[bxf]

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.

 

[Will Dormann]

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.



-WD

 

[bxf]

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.

 

[Rod Speed]

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.

That's a different issue to what it does when keeping
track of what has changed between incremental backups.

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.

Yeah, trivial to test.

 

[bxf]

Yeah, trivial to test.

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode, coming to you Monday morning,
Central European time (is there such a thing?)

B.

 

[bxf]

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode, coming to you Monday morning,
Central European time (is there such a thing?)

Well, it ain't the defrags after all. I took an incremental backup,
came out to 1.7 GB. Did a defrag, followed by another backup, which
came out to exactly the same 1.7 GB.

Peter had previously suggested "You have probably mixed up full and
incremental images from different sets", which I said was not the case.
What I had done, however, is take full backups to another device (DVD
RW) between some of the incremental backups. I don't know if TI keeps
track of the backups and decides that a full backup somehow resets
something or other.

The error with the drive letter assignment was probably caused by the
fact that I had previously deleted some of the older incremental
backups. Logically, this is quite stupid, of course, because one would
expect to need to have all the images in order to reconstruct the
partition. However, given the size of these "increments", it looked to
me like they were full. Also, as an experiment, I had in the past
deleted some increments without any ill effects (keep in mind that I do
have my REAL backups on the DVDs, so the ones I'm playing with are not
crucial). I guess whether or not deleting some backups causes problems
simply depends on what these deleted increments happen to contain.
After deleting the entire set of these particular backups and starting
with a fresh full one, I no longer have the drive letter assignment
problem.

And that's all, folks.