Anyone use Acronis Drive Image 7.0?

FransHals wrote:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.acronis.com/products/trueimage/</font" target="_blank">http://www.acronis.com/products/trueimage/</font</a>>
 >
 > I need to do an image back up a machine. This looks like a better
 > solution than Ghost. Acronis allows you to do scheduled back ups
 > which is also a plus. Ideally I want to set up the clone machine
 > next to the older machine. Plug them both into the network and have
 > the new machine backing up the old once a week or every day.

TrueImage is a great program.
Incremental backups, scheduling, Linux filesystem support, and native
"Network Neighborhood" support are a few of my favorite features.

The only place you might run into a snag is that since the recovery CD
is Linux-based, you might have trouble if you have some hardware which
isn't supported by Linux.

I question your "cloning" backup strategy, though. First, cloning is
intended for use between drives in a single machine. Even if you could
get some way to clone across machines, the hardware would need to be
pretty much the same between the machines. And I'm sure you'll
probably run into licensing/activation issues with XP if that's your OS.

Wouldn't it make more sense to do an "Image" backup. That way you can
take advantage of the scheduling, incremental, and other features of
TrueImage. Plus you can keep multiple levels of backups, depending on
your storage availability and backup needs. Heck, you can even
dispense with the whole older machine. Save on power costs, if that's
all that you'd be using it for. Just get an external USB2 or Firewire
drive. (Or even a spare internal drive)


-WD<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Anyone use Acronis Drive Image 7.0? 

In article <SGBCc.152632$DG4.152256@fe2.columbus.rr.com>,
Will Dormann <wdormann.DeleteThis@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
 >FransHals wrote:
<font color=green>  >> <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.acronis.com/products/trueimage/</font" target="_blank">http://www.acronis.com/products/trueimage/</font</a>>
  >>
  >> I need to do an image back up a machine. This looks like a better
  >> solution than Ghost. Acronis allows you to do scheduled back ups
  >> which is also a plus. Ideally I want to set up the clone machine
  >> next to the older machine. Plug them both into the network and have
  >> the new machine backing up the old once a week or every day.
 >
 >TrueImage is a great program.
 >Incremental backups, scheduling, Linux filesystem support, and native
 >"Network Neighborhood" support are a few of my favorite features.
 >
 >The only place you might run into a snag is that since the recovery CD
 >is Linux-based, you might have trouble if you have some hardware which
 >isn't supported by Linux.
 >
 >I question your "cloning" backup strategy, though. First, cloning is
 >intended for use between drives in a single machine. Even if you could
 >get some way to clone across machines, the hardware would need to be
 >pretty much the same between the machines. And I'm sure you'll
 >probably run into licensing/activation issues with XP if that's your OS.
 >
 >Wouldn't it make more sense to do an "Image" backup. That way you can
 >take advantage of the scheduling, incremental, and other features of
 >TrueImage. Plus you can keep multiple levels of backups, depending on
 >your storage availability and backup needs. Heck, you can even
 >dispense with the whole older machine. Save on power costs, if that's
 >all that you'd be using it for. Just get an external USB2 or Firewire
 >drive. (Or even a spare internal drive)
 >
 >
 >-WD


If you do image backups you can keep several generations on the disk
you put your backups on. Always a good idea. TI7 gives you a range of
compressions to choose from. I pick the highest and get smaller
savesets. I can't see any downside.

If you backup to burnable media, always do a verification, then handle
the media very carefully.



--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Anyone use Acronis Drive Image 7.0? 

Will Dormann <wdormann DeleteThis @yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message news:<SGBCc.152632$DG4.152256@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...
 > FransHals wrote:
<font color=green>  > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.acronis.com/products/trueimage/</font" target="_blank">http://www.acronis.com/products/trueimage/</font</a>>
  > >
  > > I need to do an image back up a machine. This looks like a better
  > > solution than Ghost. Acronis allows you to do scheduled back ups
  > > which is also a plus. Ideally I want to set up the clone machine
  > > next to the older machine. Plug them both into the network and have
  > > the new machine backing up the old once a week or every day.
 >
 > TrueImage is a great program.
 > Incremental backups, scheduling, Linux filesystem support, and native
 > "Network Neighborhood" support are a few of my favorite features.
 >
 > The only place you might run into a snag is that since the recovery CD
 > is Linux-based, you might have trouble if you have some hardware which
 > isn't supported by Linux.
 >
 > I question your "cloning" backup strategy, though. First, cloning is
 > intended for use between drives in a single machine. Even if you could
 > get some way to clone across machines, the hardware would need to be
 > pretty much the same between the machines. And I'm sure you'll
 > probably run into licensing/activation issues with XP if that's your OS.
 >
 > Wouldn't it make more sense to do an "Image" backup. That way you can
 > take advantage of the scheduling, incremental, and other features of
 > TrueImage. Plus you can keep multiple levels of backups, depending on
 > your storage availability and backup needs. Heck, you can even
 > dispense with the whole older machine. Save on power costs, if that's
 > all that you'd be using it for. Just get an external USB2 or Firewire
 > drive. (Or even a spare internal drive)
 >
 >
 > -WD

The old machine has NT 4.0 SP 6. I would prefer to upgrade but I
really don't want to touch the old machine. It has on the front a
serial pot and USB 1.1. (which NT does not support).

1. So should I buy a new machine.
2. Remove the hard drive & put it in the old machine and do an Image
Backup.
3. Move the new drive back to the new machine and just use the new
machine.
4. Get an external USB2 or fireware or spare internal and use it on
the new machine?
5. Schedule back ups with True Image to the USB/Fireware/second
internal?

he moving the image over part from the old machine is what I am
confused about. I am trying to determine the easiest method.

Will the new machine work if it is using XP or 2000?

I think an exernal USB and DVD backs ups may be the safest.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Anyone use Acronis Drive Image 7.0? 

Al Dykes wrote:
 > The only shortcomming I can thing of is that it doesn't automatically
 > generate a name for the backup that is unique (include the date digits
 > and time digits, for example). I assume if it was a
 > scheduled/unattended backup it would always overwrite the previous
 > backup, which would be Very Bad.

A scheduled incremental backup will never overwrite an existing image
file. It will create a new backup file for each backup performed, using
the name: <BackupName>n.tib , where 'n' is an incrementing number.

From a previous post here, I'm told that a scheduled full backup will
overwrite the existing filename. I have not attempted this, so I
cannot verify that statement at this point.


-WD<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Anyone use Acronis Drive Image 7.0? 

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:27:54 GMT, Will Dormann
<wdormann DeleteThis @yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

 >Al Dykes wrote:
  >> The only shortcomming I can thing of is that it doesn't automatically
  >> generate a name for the backup that is unique (include the date digits
  >> and time digits, for example). I assume if it was a
  >> scheduled/unattended backup it would always overwrite the previous
  >> backup, which would be Very Bad.
 >
 >A scheduled incremental backup will never overwrite an existing image
 >file. It will create a new backup file for each backup performed, using
 >the name: <BackupName>n.tib , where 'n' is an incrementing number.
 >
 > From a previous post here, I'm told that a scheduled full backup will
 >overwrite the existing filename. I have not attempted this, so I
 >cannot verify that statement at this point.

That may have been mine, and it definitely will overwrite it, leaving
any previous incremental backups in place as orphans to be overwritten
by future incrementals. I don't like too many incrementals on the HD,
so this limits each backup to 7 files.

I reduce the risk somewhat by making an additional backup that doubles
as my DVD backup. While TI7 is making daily incrementals (one full on
Monday, dailies Tues-Sunday), I make an alternate full backup on
Wednesday that I keep in 4.5GB chunks. This one doesn't get
incrementals, and is the one I burn to DVD now and again to store
elsewhere. This way I have an secondary backup in case of problems
with the primary.

Another solution would be to use Second Copy to backup the images to
another HD, as it will keep up to 25 archival copies. It's a very
flexible file-backup program that works nicely in parallel with TI7.


--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Anyone use Acronis Drive Image 7.0? 

Also, a guy could write a VERY simple batch file that will move the image
file to another folder so another full backup can also be done. I do this
right now using NTbackup for a daily backup, a scheduled batch file moves
the previous daily backup to another folder and then does the daily backup.
I keep 4 days worth of backups on a single removable drive-as well as a
monthly backup. I don't care for incremental backups if I have the space to
make a whole new backup file. Tapes can burn in hell, its all about RAID
arrays and HD backup these days. From the discussion that dominates this
group, I think backup is a becoming a BIG issue for everybody as even the
smallest businesses are running file servers these days. Makes me real glad
I know what I know.

By the way, as soon as possible I am going to start using Acronis. I tried
the demo and was VERY impressed.

--Dan

"Will Dormann" <wdormann DeleteThis @yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:_pCCc.7988$rL4.6348@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
 > Al Dykes wrote:
  > > The only shortcomming I can thing of is that it doesn't automatically
  > > generate a name for the backup that is unique (include the date digits
  > > and time digits, for example). I assume if it was a
  > > scheduled/unattended backup it would always overwrite the previous
  > > backup, which would be Very Bad.
 >
 > A scheduled incremental backup will never overwrite an existing image
 > file. It will create a new backup file for each backup performed, using
 > the name: <BackupName>n.tib , where 'n' is an incrementing number.
 >
 > From a previous post here, I'm told that a scheduled full backup will
 > overwrite the existing filename. I have not attempted this, so I
 > cannot verify that statement at this point.
 >
 >
 > -WD<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Anyone use Acronis Drive Image 7.0? 

FransHals wrote:
 >
 > The old machine has NT 4.0 SP 6. I would prefer to upgrade but I
 > really don't want to touch the old machine. It has on the front a
 > serial pot and USB 1.1. (which NT does not support).

If you want a backup system for that particular machine, then put
another hard drive in the system and image to that. Should your main
drive fail (or a virus hits or whatever), you'll have a backup image on
your secondary drive.

If you want the drive to be usable in more than one system (or just want
to be able to swap out the drive), then get a removable drive bay along
with the drive.


-WD<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Anyone use Acronis Drive Image 7.0? 

adykes.TakeThisOut@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote in message news:<cbeqto$5ev$1@panix3.panix.com>...
 > In article <9b942ce7.0406240613.514de87f.TakeThisOut@posting.google.com>,
 > FransHals <frans_hals5.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
  > >http://www.acronis.com/products/trueimage/
  > >
  > >I need to do an image back up a machine. This looks like a better
  > >solution than Ghost. Acronis allows you to do scheduled back ups
  > >which is also a plus. Ideally I want to set up the clone machine
  > >next to the older machine. Plug them both into the network and have
  > >the new machine backing up the old once a week or every day.
  > >
<font color=green>  > >I am also looking at R-Drive Image at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.drive-image.com/</font" target="_blank">www.drive-image.com/</font</a>>
  > >
  > >Any suggestions?
 >
 >
 > TI7 is working fine for me, in a similar fashion. I back a laptop and
 > a desktop to a huge disk in the desktop system that's shared out on
 > the ethernet. (I put my data files on CDRs and get them off-site,
 > also.)
 >
 > I don't schedule backups.
 >
 > The only shortcomming I can thing of is that it doesn't automatically
 > generate a name for the backup that is unique (include the date digits
 > and time digits, for example). I assume if it was a
 > scheduled/unattended backup it would always overwrite the previous
 > backup, which would be Very Bad.
 >
 > I can tell you, from experience, that I can retore a C drive from a
 > network backup by booting from the Acronis cdrom and browsing my
 > network to find the backup share, and image. Very fast.
 >
 > TI7 knows how to talk to SATA disks, and controllers. At least mine.
 >
 > OTOH, I've had very unsatisfactory results trying to burn CDs from
 > TI7. But I never trusted CDs for critical backups, anyway. Maybe it's
 > bad karma.


Are you able to get a perfect image dragging the files across the
ethernet network?

I guess i can just use one desktop with a big hard drive to back up
critical things if I can pull the drive image acroos the network.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Anyone use Acronis Drive Image 7.0? 

On 24 Jun 2004 14:10:47 -0700, frans_hals5.DeleteThis@hotmail.com (FransHals)
wrote:

 >The old machine has NT 4.0 SP 6. I would prefer to upgrade but I
 >really don't want to touch the old machine. It has on the front a
 >serial pot and USB 1.1. (which NT does not support).

There's a very good chance the True Image boot disk will recognize
your USB1.1 port and allow you to make a non-invasive backup from
this. I've done this several times on systems with old OS's. Power
down, plug in the external USB drive, boot to the TI cd or floppies,
and back up directly to the external drive. Slow, compared to USB2,
but very low risk.

 >1. So should I buy a new machine.
 >2. Remove the hard drive & put it in the old machine and do an Image
 >Backup.
 >3. Move the new drive back to the new machine and just use the new
 >machine.

Far easier and less invasive would be to backup to an external via
boot disk as described above, plug this into the new system, and
restore to the new HD using the boot disk. Fastest would be to
install both HDs into the new machine and clone from the old to the
new. If you screw up and do it backwards, you're toast, which is
another benefit of the external - it leaves your original intact in
the existing system. Any problems at all, and you plug the old box
back in, just like before.

 >4. Get an external USB2 or fireware or spare internal and use it on
 >the new machine?

Each has benefits and drawbacks. Internal runs both on the same power
supply, so power supply problems could fry both disks at once. The
footprint is smaller, though, and there's no external to drop. If the
internal needed to be replaced, it's riskier to open up the system.

Externals can be moved around, plugged into other systems for
archives, replaced/serviced without risking the primary system.
They're easier to drop or misplace, and external cables (especially
USB, which are not always very secure) can come loose more easily than
internals.

 >5. Schedule back ups with True Image to the USB/Fireware/second
 >internal?

 >he moving the image over part from the old machine is what I am
 >confused about. I am trying to determine the easiest method.

TI7 has a function to clone one disk to another if both are on the
same machine. Easiest is with an external, since you only need to
plug USB connectors and boot to TI7.

 >Will the new machine work if it is using XP or 2000?

Yes, but when you clone the old image over, the new machine will be
running identically to the old one - same OS, same drives, same
everything. This can cause a problem with hardware drivers and such.

 >I think an exernal USB and DVD backs ups may be the safest.

I agree. This is what I do. At home, it has the added benefit that I
can lock the external drive in the safe when I go on vacation.


--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Anyone use Acronis Drive Image 7.0? 

FransHals wrote:


 > Are you able to get a perfect image dragging the files across the
 > ethernet network?

I wouldn't necessarily call it "dragging", but I back up over the
network all the time using TI.


-WD<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Anyone use Acronis Drive Image 7.0? 

Neil Maxwell <neil.maxwell RemoveThis @intel.com> wrote in message news:<9kood0pgbhjts24e5535p4lidltrebmhff RemoveThis @4ax.com>...
 > On 24 Jun 2004 14:10:47 -0700, frans_hals5 RemoveThis @hotmail.com (FransHals)
 > wrote:
 >
  > >The old machine has NT 4.0 SP 6. I would prefer to upgrade but I
  > >really don't want to touch the old machine. It has on the front a
  > >serial pot and USB 1.1. (which NT does not support).
 >
 > There's a very good chance the True Image boot disk will recognize
 > your USB1.1 port and allow you to make a non-invasive backup from
 > this. I've done this several times on systems with old OS's. Power
 > down, plug in the external USB drive, boot to the TI cd or floppies,
 > and back up directly to the external drive. Slow, compared to USB2,
 > but very low risk.
 >
  > >1. So should I buy a new machine.
  > >2. Remove the hard drive & put it in the old machine and do an Image
  > >Backup.
  > >3. Move the new drive back to the new machine and just use the new
  > >machine.
 >
 > Far easier and less invasive would be to backup to an external via
 > boot disk as described above, plug this into the new system, and
 > restore to the new HD using the boot disk. Fastest would be to
 > install both HDs into the new machine and clone from the old to the
 > new. If you screw up and do it backwards, you're toast, which is
 > another benefit of the external - it leaves your original intact in
 > the existing system. Any problems at all, and you plug the old box
 > back in, just like before.
 >
  > >4. Get an external USB2 or fireware or spare internal and use it on
  > >the new machine?
 >
 > Each has benefits and drawbacks. Internal runs both on the same power
 > supply, so power supply problems could fry both disks at once. The
 > footprint is smaller, though, and there's no external to drop. If the
 > internal needed to be replaced, it's riskier to open up the system.
 >
 > Externals can be moved around, plugged into other systems for
 > archives, replaced/serviced without risking the primary system.
 > They're easier to drop or misplace, and external cables (especially
 > USB, which are not always very secure) can come loose more easily than
 > internals.
 >
  > >5. Schedule back ups with True Image to the USB/Fireware/second
  > >internal?
 >
  > >he moving the image over part from the old machine is what I am
  > >confused about. I am trying to determine the easiest method.
 >
 > TI7 has a function to clone one disk to another if both are on the
 > same machine. Easiest is with an external, since you only need to
 > plug USB connectors and boot to TI7.
 >
  > >Will the new machine work if it is using XP or 2000?
 >
 > Yes, but when you clone the old image over, the new machine will be
 > running identically to the old one - same OS, same drives, same
 > everything. This can cause a problem with hardware drivers and such.

Yeah this may be the rub.

  > >I think an exernal USB and DVD backs ups may be the safest.
 >
 > I agree. This is what I do. At home, it has the added benefit that I
 > can lock the external drive in the safe when I go on vacation.

Smart.

Thanks for the feedback. This is exactly what I was looking for. I
want to do the safets backup first then if I want to throw a second
drive in the machine - I will have the back up.

I have bought the software and need to get an external drive. Anyone
have any preferences? Office Depot has a Maxtor 120 gb for about
$154.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Anyone use Acronis Drive Image 7.0? 

FransHals,

I was a big Norton Ghost fan. Lately I had some problems, even with
the latest version. With my new Dell, it would not recognize the USB
drive. With my daughter's new Compaq, it would lock up. Tried all
types of different procedures, switches, etc. No luck. Then I tried
Acronis Drive Image 7. Imaging was a piece of cake. I was able to
backup to a network drive, while still in Windows XP. We also use it
at work, and it is a great program. Works with Linux too.

See http://www.savingsdiscovery.com/specials/essentials.htm for some
special Acronis offers.

Happy imaging!

Joe
 >> Stay informed about: Anyone use Acronis Drive Image 7.0? 

This is interesting. I am personally using PowerQuest (now Symantec) Drive
Image 7 which can backup disks or partitions in a Windows session. It is
possible to schedule backups. Some backups could not be used, though. This
is a problem I already faced with Drive Image 2002. I am now using Norton
Ghost 2003 and it runs smooth. Personally I think that running the backup
from DOS is a more secure operating solution. Considering the very good
feedback on Acronis software, I am going to try it.

- Frederic W. Erk, EIHSD.
 >> Stay informed about: Anyone use Acronis Drive Image 7.0?