Talk about computer software/hardware problems, related to digital video or otherwise.
by George Tyndall » Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:55 pm
I want to create a mirror image of my 1TB C drive on a second internal 1TB drive. Here's the problem: --According to Windows Explorer when I boot with both drives running, my current C drive has consumed 269GB of space and the E drive 246 --But when I boot with the Acronis rescue media, I am informed that it's the drive labeled E that has consumed 269GB Given that Acronis is known to create drive letters that differ from what Windows sees, should I use the drive that Acronis has labeled as E as the drive to be mirrored?
HP h8-1360t Win7 Home Premium 64-bit/Intel i7-3770@3.40GHz/8GB RAM/NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050/LG BH10LS30 Blu-ray RW+SD DVD/CD RW+LightScribe/52" Samsung LCD HDTV (ancient 1080p)/PRE & PSE & ORGANIZER 2018/CS 5.1 & 5.5 (rare use)
-
George Tyndall
- Super Contributor
-
- Posts: 2570
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 12:50 am
- Location: Los Angeles, California
by Bob » Sun Nov 09, 2014 10:25 pm
Looks like it. If the C: drive under the rescue media shows as using 246GB and the E: drive as 269GB, it would appear the bootable rescue disk is simply enumerating the drives in a different order than Windows and E: is the one you want to mirror.
-
Bob
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 5925
- Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:49 am
- Location: Southern California, USA
by George Tyndall » Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:19 am
Bob wrote:Looks like it. If the C: drive under the rescue media shows as using 246GB and the E: drive as 269GB, it would appear the bootable rescue disk is simply enumerating the drives in a different order than Windows and E: is the one you want to mirror.
To add to the confusion, Acronis shows the drive it has labeled C as 214GB rather than 246. I don't know what to make of that.
HP h8-1360t Win7 Home Premium 64-bit/Intel i7-3770@3.40GHz/8GB RAM/NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050/LG BH10LS30 Blu-ray RW+SD DVD/CD RW+LightScribe/52" Samsung LCD HDTV (ancient 1080p)/PRE & PSE & ORGANIZER 2018/CS 5.1 & 5.5 (rare use)
-
George Tyndall
- Super Contributor
-
- Posts: 2570
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 12:50 am
- Location: Los Angeles, California
by Bob » Mon Nov 10, 2014 12:18 pm
Hmmm, are those are the only two internal disks? Is there another partition on that drive?
Best to confirm which disk is which then. While booted into Windows, allocate some files on E: to kick the utilization up enough to see the increase (1GB+). Boot from the rescue media and see if the drive you think is the same one increased by the same amount.
-
Bob
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 5925
- Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:49 am
- Location: Southern California, USA
by TreeTopsRanch » Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:31 pm
My take...If a backup software uses different drive letters than Windows then there is a big chance of a mistake in the future. It's difficult enough to backup correctly and when you need to recover, a confusion of drive letters just makes it harder and potentially dangerous. I would contact Acronis and ask if they have an update that fixes that problem as it sure looks like a bug to me.
-
TreeTopsRanch
- Super Contributor
-
- Posts: 1027
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:57 pm
by Peru » Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:46 pm
TreeTopsRanch wrote: I would contact Acronis and ask if they have an update that fixes that problem as it sure looks like a bug to me.
Acronis has always been like that. They even state in some of their help that this can happen.
-
Peru
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 3695
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:34 pm
- Location: Peru, NY, USA
by George Tyndall » Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:34 am
Bob wrote:Hmmm, are those are the only two internal disks? Yes. Is there another partition on that drive? Do Rollback-RX files count as another partition -- or would they be unseen by Acronis? Best to confirm which disk is which then. While booted into Windows, allocate some files on E: to kick the utilization up enough to see the increase (1GB+). Boot from the rescue media and see if the drive you think is the same one increased by the same amount. I added 2.25GB to the drive that Windows labels as Drive E and the usage did increase to 249GB-- but when I booted from the rescue media I noted that the drive labeled as C by Acronis continued to show only 214GB as used = no change
The reason for the question re Rollback-RX is that it was installed on my previous C drive that crashed, which is the drive that Windows now labels as E. I had created many snapshots with Rollback-RX on that drive.
HP h8-1360t Win7 Home Premium 64-bit/Intel i7-3770@3.40GHz/8GB RAM/NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050/LG BH10LS30 Blu-ray RW+SD DVD/CD RW+LightScribe/52" Samsung LCD HDTV (ancient 1080p)/PRE & PSE & ORGANIZER 2018/CS 5.1 & 5.5 (rare use)
-
George Tyndall
- Super Contributor
-
- Posts: 2570
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 12:50 am
- Location: Los Angeles, California
by George Tyndall » Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:35 am
Peru wrote:TreeTopsRanch wrote: I would contact Acronis and ask if they have an update that fixes that problem as it sure looks like a bug to me.
Acronis has always been like that. They even state in some of their help that this can happen.
Yes, they do -- and it is an exceedingly frustrating feature, which is why, when deciding which mounted disk is which, I always go by the amount of used disk space rather than by the drive letters.
HP h8-1360t Win7 Home Premium 64-bit/Intel i7-3770@3.40GHz/8GB RAM/NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050/LG BH10LS30 Blu-ray RW+SD DVD/CD RW+LightScribe/52" Samsung LCD HDTV (ancient 1080p)/PRE & PSE & ORGANIZER 2018/CS 5.1 & 5.5 (rare use)
-
George Tyndall
- Super Contributor
-
- Posts: 2570
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 12:50 am
- Location: Los Angeles, California
by Bob » Tue Nov 11, 2014 3:28 pm
Do Rollback-RX files count as another partition -- or would they be unseen by Acronis?
They are not a separate partition, but, I suspect Acronis might not be able to see them. RollBack Rx works at the physical drive sector level. It intercepts disk I/Os and then processes them according to its snapshot algorithm. Windows does not see the actual drive sectors as it would on a PC without RollBack Rx. Since some of the RollBack Rx features are written to physical sectors on the hard drive and do not exist in a file format, a normal clone by file of the hard drive will not be able to include all RollBack Rx components. Snapshots may very well fall into this category. I really don't know how cloning using Acronis will affect RollBack Rx. Incidently, RollBack Rx has its own backup utility that specifically includes the Rollback Rx snapshots.
-
Bob
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 5925
- Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:49 am
- Location: Southern California, USA
by George Tyndall » Tue Nov 11, 2014 4:11 pm
Bob wrote:Do Rollback-RX files count as another partition -- or would they be unseen by Acronis?
They are not a separate partition, but, I suspect Acronis might not be able to see them. RollBack Rx works at the physical drive sector level. It intercepts disk I/Os and then processes them according to its snapshot algorithm. Windows does not see the actual drive sectors as it would on a PC without RollBack Rx. Since some of the RollBack Rx features are written to physical sectors on the hard drive and do not exist in a file format, a normal clone by file of the hard drive will not be able to include all RollBack Rx components. Snapshots may very well fall into this category. I really don't know how cloning using Acronis will affect RollBack Rx. Incidently, RollBack Rx has its own backup utility that specifically includes the Rollback Rx snapshots.
Thank you, still once again, for some exceedingly helpful information. Based on what you've written, it seems that it would be okay to proceed with backing up the drive that Windows labels C (269GB) onto the drive that Windows is labeling as E (247GB per Windows but 214GB per Acronis) The drive that Windows is currently labeling E was my C drive before it failed to boot -- and it contains dozens of snapshots that, as you suggest, Acronis may not recognize, which is why it says 214GB while Windows says 247GB. Here is the only remaining piece of the puzzle: I added 2.25 GB to Windows Drive E, but when I subsequently checked its properties with Windows, it continued to say 247G. Is that, too, explainable? P.S. As a precaution before proceeding, I've used the Acronis rescue media to create a mirror of the two internal drives, each on a separate external drive. I'll return tomorrow to inform you of the outcome.
HP h8-1360t Win7 Home Premium 64-bit/Intel i7-3770@3.40GHz/8GB RAM/NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050/LG BH10LS30 Blu-ray RW+SD DVD/CD RW+LightScribe/52" Samsung LCD HDTV (ancient 1080p)/PRE & PSE & ORGANIZER 2018/CS 5.1 & 5.5 (rare use)
-
George Tyndall
- Super Contributor
-
- Posts: 2570
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 12:50 am
- Location: Los Angeles, California
by Bob » Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:49 pm
Here is the only remaining piece of the puzzle: I added 2.25 GB to Windows Drive E, but when I subsequently checked its properties with Windows, it continued to say 247G. Is that, too, explainable?
You added 2.25GB to E: in Windows. While still in Windows, you checked properties for E: again and it still said 2.25GB. Right? If you left the properties window open while adding the extra files, it's possible that the value didn't get updated in the properties window and it continued to show the old value. If you displayed the properties of the drive root, it usually shows the old value until you select the properties window again and then it refreshes. If you displayed the properties of a folder, you actually need to close the properties window and then show the properties again. Closing the properties window and then selecting properties again should always refresh and show the updated value. If it doesn't, I have no explanation for what's going on.
-
Bob
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 5925
- Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:49 am
- Location: Southern California, USA
by George Tyndall » Wed Nov 12, 2014 12:45 pm
Bob wrote:Here is the only remaining piece of the puzzle: I added 2.25 GB to Windows Drive E, but when I subsequently checked its properties with Windows, it continued to say 247G. Is that, too, explainable?
Closing the properties window and then selecting properties again should always refresh and show the updated value. If it doesn't, I have no explanation for what's going on.
That's exactly what I did. BTW, I did not yet create the equivalent of a clone on the second internal drive as 21 recommended Windows updates appeared last night, one of which, according to a news article on Yahoo, needs to be installed NOW because of a long-existing vulnerability of the Windows OS. What that means is that I must once again use Acronis to create a backup of my internal C drive to an external drive before restoring from that external drive to the second internal drive to get the equivalent of a clone -- I never use Acronis' clone feature as I've read multiple recommendations that backing up and restoring is far safer and more effective than attempting to clone directly from one drive to another. Do you agree?
HP h8-1360t Win7 Home Premium 64-bit/Intel i7-3770@3.40GHz/8GB RAM/NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050/LG BH10LS30 Blu-ray RW+SD DVD/CD RW+LightScribe/52" Samsung LCD HDTV (ancient 1080p)/PRE & PSE & ORGANIZER 2018/CS 5.1 & 5.5 (rare use)
-
George Tyndall
- Super Contributor
-
- Posts: 2570
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 12:50 am
- Location: Los Angeles, California
by Peru » Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:25 pm
As long as the software works properly, I don't think it really matters.
-
Peru
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 3695
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:34 pm
- Location: Peru, NY, USA
by Bob » Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:52 pm
Theoretically, the end result would be the same regardless of which way you do it. However, Acronis has had a history of problems with cloning. I don't know whether or not current versions have resolved all the issues, but some of the past versions had lots of problems.
Backup and restore to create the cloned drive takes much longer than a direct clone operation. But, you have the distinct advantage that at the end of the process you also have a backup that's been proven to be restorable.
If you one of the many for which cloning is not a problem, it comes down to personal preference. I've done it both ways.
-
Bob
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 5925
- Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:49 am
- Location: Southern California, USA
by George Tyndall » Wed Nov 12, 2014 9:36 pm
Bob wrote:... but some of the past versions had lots of problems.
I do have an older version
But, you have the distinct advantage that at the end of the process you also have a backup that's been proven to be restorable.
For one who abhors being required to perform a clean install, that is a huge advantage, indeed.
HP h8-1360t Win7 Home Premium 64-bit/Intel i7-3770@3.40GHz/8GB RAM/NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050/LG BH10LS30 Blu-ray RW+SD DVD/CD RW+LightScribe/52" Samsung LCD HDTV (ancient 1080p)/PRE & PSE & ORGANIZER 2018/CS 5.1 & 5.5 (rare use)
-
George Tyndall
- Super Contributor
-
- Posts: 2570
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 12:50 am
- Location: Los Angeles, California
Return to Computer Issues
Similar topics
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
|