System Restore

[Bert Kinney]

Indeed. By default it even monitors removable drives, which is
particularly silly.

I agree! You can try assigning a permanent drive letter to the removable
drive to stop this from happening.

I was able to turn off monitoring for my in-computer partitions, but
I can't delete the "System Volume Information" folder from my
removable drive even after turning off its monitoring.

System Restore places a SVI on any partition it sees. There is no way
around this that I know.

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Ken

Do you use external drives? If you don't, like many of us, the reliability
is such that the risk can be made minimal.

However, anyone using external removable drives, as I understand it,
has to take extra precautions whenever they remove the drive ,
because the act of removal corrupts all existing restore points. They
need immediately to delete all existing restore points and create a
new restore point. You may have to do the same when you restore
an external drive?

Perhaps you or Bert can confirm whether I am fully understanding
this issue. It would help with the rebuttal of criticisms of System
Restore, if we can draw a clear distinction between problems
associated with removable drives and other problems.

--

Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Bert Kinney]

Do you use external drives? If you don't, like many of us, the
reliability is such that the risk can be made minimal.

However, anyone using external removable drives, as I understand it,
has to take extra precautions whenever they remove the drive ,
because the act of removal corrupts all existing restore points. They
need immediately to delete all existing restore points and create a
new restore point. You may have to do the same when you restore
an external drive?

Perhaps you or Bert can confirm whether I am fully understanding
this issue. It would help with the rebuttal of criticisms of System
Restore, if we can draw a clear distinction between problems
associated with removable drives and other problems.

Most external drives are automatically monitored by System Restore.
Stopping monitoring on an external drive may only last until the next
reboot. This is by design. : - (

What happens is if any changes are made to the external drive while it
is not connected to the system, the next time it’s connected System
Restore will find an inconsistency in the SR log and cause all existing
restore points to become corrupt and require there deletion. The same
can be true if the external drive is powered off while the system is
running.

One way around this is to assign a permanent drive letter to the
external drive via Disk Management.

Right-click a partition, logical drive, or volume, and then click Change
Drive Letter and Paths.
Do one of the following:
1. Assign a drive letter, click Add, click the drive letter you want to
use, and then click OK.
2. Modify a drive letter, click it, click Change, click the drive letter
you want to use, and then click OK.

Reboot the system. Open System Restore and stop monitoring that drive.
This should keep SR from re-reading the drive.

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Bert

Part of your post seem to be a quote from your site. Wouldn't
your workaround using Disk Management be a suitable addition?

--

Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Bert Kinney]

Yes, I just have not gotten around to it. : - (

 

[Stan Brown]

I agree! You can try assigning a permanent drive letter to the removable
drive to stop this from happening.


System Restore places a SVI on any partition it sees. There is no way
around this that I know.

Good information -- I thought the presence of the SVI folder there
indicated System Restore was monitoring it, but I'll check in the SR
settings next time I've got the drive connected.

P.S. I do have a permanent letter Y assigned to my removable drive.

 

[Stan Brown]

Sun, 8 Jan 2006 20:23:26 -0000 from Gerry Cornell

However, anyone using external removable drives, as I understand it,
has to take extra precautions whenever they remove the drive ,
because the act of removal corrupts all existing restore points.

There must be more to it than that. I have a removable drive, and I
attach and remove it once every day or two to perform system backups.
Yet System Restore is working fine for me -- I did a restore without
problems about 24 hours ago in fact.

I'm not denying what you say, but there must be more specialized
circumstances than simply removing removable drive.

 

[Bert Kinney]

Good information -- I thought the presence of the SVI folder there
indicated System Restore was monitoring it, but I'll check in the SR
settings next time I've got the drive connected.

P.S. I do have a permanent letter Y assigned to my removable drive.

Does this drive stay un-monitored by System Restore?

 

[Bert Kinney]

Done. Let me know what you think!
http://bertk.mvps.org/html/tips.html#ExternalDrive

 

[Bert Kinney]

Sun, 8 Jan 2006 20:23:26 -0000 from Gerry Cornell


There must be more to it than that. I have a removable drive, and I
attach and remove it once every day or two to perform system backups.
Yet System Restore is working fine for me -- I did a restore without
problems about 24 hours ago in fact.

I'm not denying what you say, but there must be more specialized
circumstances than simply removing removable drive.

This could be do to the fact that it has a permanent drive letter
assigned to it, and it is set to not be monitored by SR! Can you confirm
this?

 

[Edward W. Thompson]

Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:48:02 -0000 from Edward W. Thompson <thomeduk1
@btopenworld.com>:

"Reliable" is not binary like "alive"; there are degrees of
reliability.

The point is that by periodic checking System Restore can be raised
to an acceptable level of reliability (acceptable for most of us),
ESPECIALLY given that it's the first line of defense and not the only
line of defense. Obviously everyone should be doing full-disk backups
as well; System Restore is deliberately limited to restoring a few
specific components.


Only in the sense that a speedboat is a suitable alternative to an
automobile. They're both means of transportation, but they don't do
the same thing.

I don't see how you can honestly make such a statement, if you've
read the replies to your earlier comments. As has been pointed out
multiple times, ERUNT is fine for what it does, but it doesn't do the
same job.

At the risk of being boring, System Restore sole purpose is to provide a
means to recover from an event that damages the Registry and other
files/systems that are included in the utility. To be sucessful in that
intent it must be available on demand, not sometimes or if you're lucky or
it you have configured it in a particular way etc. As the number of
contributors to this thread appear to agree SR's continued availability may
depend upon taking certain actions although there appears to be some
differences exactly what those actions are. Even when all these actions are
taken there still appears to be an agreement that SR cannot be relied upon
to function on demand, one can only hope the actions have improved the
chance it will function when required..

Whereas utilities like ERUNT may not mirror completely all functions of SR,
it would be my opinion that it is sufficiently close to satisfy the majority
of requirements as it is likely most require to recover from a corrupted
Registry. That has certainly been my experience. The tone of the thread
appears to be slanted that I am suggesting SR should not be activated, that
is a matter for personal choice but that choice needs to be an informed
choice. The user needs to be aware that SR is unreliable (degrees of
reliability for a 'safety' system is a nonsense in my opinion, if it isn't
available on demand it does not provide 'safety'). The user should not put
all 'his eggs in one basket' that is be fully reliant upon SR to provide
backup to the Registry as seems to be suggested by some.

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Edward

On the basis of your argument a new product would never be developed.
Compare the situation the situation with regard to Windows 98 SE and
what it is today with Windows XP.

No one has denied the value of Erunt or any other backup software
in a Risk Management strategy. The thread has just been revisiting how
users might identify the potential causes of failure of System Restore
to enable relevant advice to given on how reduce this risk to a level
where failure become an uncommon event.

Any backup involves a risk of failure.

--

Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Stan Brown]

This could be do to the fact that it has a permanent drive letter
assigned to it, and it is set to not be monitored by SR! Can you confirm
this?

Well, when I first had it it _didn't_ have a permanent drive letter,
and it _was_ being monitored by SR (until I thought to turn that
off), but SR has never failed for me.

I can confirm that the drive now has a permanent letter.

However ... automatic restore points don't get created all that often
on my machine, so it's possible that SR never ran during the few days
before I had assigned the permanent drive letter.

 

[Bert Kinney]

Well, when I first had it it _didn't_ have a permanent drive letter,
and it _was_ being monitored by SR (until I thought to turn that
off), but SR has never failed for me.

I can confirm that the drive now has a permanent letter.

However ... automatic restore points don't get created all that often
on my machine, so it's possible that SR never ran during the few days
before I had assigned the permanent drive letter.

It could be that automatic restore points are not being created do to
little or no idle time.

Now that the external drive has a permanent drive letter, does SR try to
monitor it?

 

[Stan Brown]

This could be do to the fact that it has a permanent drive letter
assigned to it, and it is set to not be monitored by SR! Can you confirm
this?

I posted that it _is_ assigned a permanent letter, but I forgot to
respond to the other half of your question.

The answer is that I don't know whether it's set to be monitored by
SR! I connected the drive and went into "System Restore Settings".
The drive was not shown in the list of available drives, neither as
monitored nor as not monitored. (I apologize if I don't have the
exact terms, since I did all this before connecting to the Internet.)

When I look at the removable drive, I do find a System Volume
Information directory, containing exactly one RPnn directory dated 2
January. I did indeed create a manual restore point on that day. I've
created two of them since, and didn't have the dive connected either
time, and XP didn't complain.

 

[Stan Brown]

[quoted text muted]

However ... automatic restore points don't get created all that often
on my machine, so it's possible that SR never ran during the few days
before I had assigned the permanent drive letter.

It could be that automatic restore points are not being created do to
little or no idle time.

I think that's exactly the explanation. I tend to put the laptop into
Hibernate if I'm leaving it for more than a bathroom break.

Now that the external drive has a permanent drive letter, does SR try to
monitor it?

We've sent back and forth a few messages, so let me condense
everything in one place for convenience.

This is a Win XP Pro SP2 system with one internal hard drive and one
external USB hard drive. I keep the external one unplugged except
when actually using it to create or use a backup image.

Just to review, it's had a permanent letter since late August. I
think I remember telling SR not to monitor the drive, but when I
examined "System Restore Settings" a few minutes ago with the
removable drive connected, it wasn't shown in the list of drives for
me to check or uncheck monitoring.

On the actual drive, there's just one restore point. Since I normally
leave the drive disconnected, all the other restore points were
created when that drive was not available. There was no problem from
Windows, and in a test I was able to restore a restore point
successfully, also with the drive disconnected.

The other thing that may or may not be relevant is that I have four
or five logical partitions on my hard drive in addition to the
primary C: system partition; System Restore is set not to monitor any
of them (and they do all show up in the list of available drives in
"System Restore Settings".

And again, just to review, I'm not actually having any kind of
problem with SR. We're just exploring one of the dark corners of how
it works, for curiosity's sake.

 

[Bert Kinney]

[quoted text muted]

However ... automatic restore points don't get created all that
often on my machine, so it's possible that SR never ran during the
few days before I had assigned the permanent drive letter.

It could be that automatic restore points are not being created do to
little or no idle time.

I think that's exactly the explanation. I tend to put the laptop into
Hibernate if I'm leaving it for more than a bathroom break.

Now that the external drive has a permanent drive letter, does SR
try to monitor it?

We've sent back and forth a few messages, so let me condense
everything in one place for convenience.

This is a Win XP Pro SP2 system with one internal hard drive and one
external USB hard drive. I keep the external one unplugged except
when actually using it to create or use a backup image.

Just to review, it's had a permanent letter since late August. I
think I remember telling SR not to monitor the drive, but when I
examined "System Restore Settings" a few minutes ago with the
removable drive connected, it wasn't shown in the list of drives for
me to check or uncheck monitoring.

Now that's strange! I wonder why it doesn't show up in SR?

On the actual drive, there's just one restore point. Since I normally
leave the drive disconnected, all the other restore points were
created when that drive was not available. There was no problem from
Windows, and in a test I was able to restore a restore point
successfully, also with the drive disconnected.

That's good new.

The other thing that may or may not be relevant is that I have four
or five logical partitions on my hard drive in addition to the
primary C: system partition; System Restore is set not to monitor any
of them (and they do all show up in the list of available drives in
"System Restore Settings".

And again, just to review, I'm not actually having any kind of
problem with SR. We're just exploring one of the dark corners of how
it works, for curiosity's sake.

Agreed. And I don't have an external, so this is all good information.
Thank you for sharing.

There's so much about SR that's still a mystery, and I think always will
be! <g>

 

[Edward W. Thompson]

Edward

On the basis of your argument a new product would never be developed.
Compare the situation the situation with regard to Windows 98 SE and
what it is today with Windows XP.

No one has denied the value of Erunt or any other backup software
in a Risk Management strategy. The thread has just been revisiting how
users might identify the potential causes of failure of System Restore
to enable relevant advice to given on how reduce this risk to a level
where failure become an uncommon event.

Any backup involves a risk of failure.

--

Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I do not follow how what I posted suggests any obstacle with respect to
developing new programs. SR, the subject of this thread, is hardly a new
program. It is suprising to me that MS has not taken steps to remedy its
short-comings by now.

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Edward

You said System Restore is useless.

"I guess the point where we disagree is over whether or not SR is 'useless'.
I am not totally sure I actually said that but I will not debate that. If
when you come to need to use SR and it doesn't function I think it fair to
say it is useless, that is it has no use. As many of the posts in this and
other NGs demonstrate this circumstance has occured to many ergo, many
have found SR useless at the time it was required. Further, as SR purpose
is only to provide a means to restore corrupted files on demand, if there is
no guarantee it will do this when required it does not fulfill its function
and
the term 'useless' seems to be appropriate."

This statement causes everything you subsequently say to be taken in the
context of Edward thinks System Restore is useless.

"I do not follow how what I posted suggests any obstacle with respect to
developing new programs. "

If a programme is under development ( it remains under development until it
is perfected ) then issuing a programme that is not perfect will be branded
by Edward as useless. The question then becomes how can a programme
be perfected if people like Edward brand it as useless. You are creating the
obstacle. You give no credit for what System Restore has achieved for many
users of Windows XP.

"SR, the subject of this thread, is hardly a new program. It is suprising
to
me that MS has not taken steps to remedy its short-comings by now."

We agree on this point. However, you will find numerous examples where
the same point can be made throughout the software industry. Equally there
are other issues Microsoft need to address. Microsoft have their priorities
and System Restore deficiencies has clearly not been one of them. Until
programme changes are made then users need to workaround these
deficiencies. The resource which Bert Kinney has created is a relatively
recent addition and he is very receptive to positive contributions which can
benefit all users of Windows XP.

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Stan Brown]

Now that's strange! I wonder why it doesn't show up in SR?

Dang! I was hoping you'd have an easy explanation.

About all I can think of is that maybe it has to be connected during
the boot process. I'll give that a try, next time I remember.