Disk Partitioning

Ed Cryer wrote:
...winston wrote:
Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 01:08:14 -0400, "...winston"
wrote:


With respect to your points..afaik...that's not how incremental
backups have
worked here.
- Gene explained it quite well in understandable terms.


Thanks for your confirmation. With two people I respect saying the
same thing, it's more likely that I'm wrong. But as I said to Gene,
I'd greatly like to see a link pointing to a reliable web site that
says that.



There are many ways to look at it...if I were to explain it to an
average user....

A file backed up is an 'active' file on the source and marked as active
on the master and any subsequent incremental image. If deleted on the
source it becomes marked as inactive, a subsequent incremental image
updates the necessary image 'pointer' to ensure that any restoration
later only restores 'active' files (i.e. not the deleted 'inactive'
ones).


Where are these image pointers kept? Maybe on the full backup master image?

Ed


"Windows automatically saves copies of files that are modified
(including files that are deleted) with restore points; these files are
called previous versions."
http://tinyurl.com/nkcbqlf

"Previous versions are a feature of the "Volume Shadow Copy" service
that implements a copy-on-write architecture for windows, which when a
file/directory is changed, a copy of the previous state is stored on the
disk for recovery..."
http://tinyurl.com/o2l6umf

Ed

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 07:11:17 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:07:30 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 07:37:39 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

You missed how it works.

When you restore from an incremental backup, the backup program uses the
data it saved with the backup image files to figure out what the exact
state of the source system *when that incremental backup was made*. It
does *not* restore A, B, and C because *it knows* that B was deleted
before that incremental backup was made. Only A and the current C are
restored.

When you said above, "You do an incremental backup on #2 and all you get
is the modified C" you are wrong. You get instead A, the modified C, and
a notation that B has been deleted.

Not to say that you are definitely wrong, because I don't know that
for sure. But if you could point me toward a link that says that, I'd
appreciate seeing that.

And if what you say is true, it's very likely a relatively new thing.
I'm almost sure it didn't always work that way.

I can testify that it's true because I have verified it with my own
software, but I don't know of any links to give you, and don't intend to
try to find any. You'll have to choose to trust me or not to.


I'll trust you, because you're trustworthy and because two other
trustworthy people said the same thing.

That's why I didn't get involved at the time. I didn't want a situation
where you get answers from two trustworthy people and one from 'that other
person', AKA me. :-)

And believe me (hah!) there is nothing new in what I described.

But I'm more reluctant to trust you on that. I don't think it always
worked that way, and what I described was the way it used to work.

I don't remember a time, or a specific program or scenario, where what you
described was an issue. It could have been and I simply wasn't aware of it,
but it doesn't sound right.

--

Char Jackson

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:15:01 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

And believe me (hah!) there is nothing new in what I described.

But I'm more reluctant to trust you on that. I don't think it always
worked that way, and what I described was the way it used to work.

I don't remember a time, or a specific program or scenario, where what you
described was an issue. It could have been and I simply wasn't aware of it,
but it doesn't sound right.


Note that I said "*I don't think* it worked that way" I didn't say I
was sure.

In message , Gene E. Bloch
writes:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 09:30:21 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

"Once installed" is what bugs me, and the mention of a "*.tib file"
and/or "image". To me, I see no advantage (other than, possibly,
compression) in any backup/archive/whatever

We differ quite strongly here.

Only because you trimmed the end of my sentence! Granted, I do write
long sentences. But the end of that one was something like

"... which creates/stores the backup in some form other than that which
is accessible by the OS being backed up", by which I meant encryption,
compression, and similar - anything which needs software other than the
OS being backed up to make the backup/whatever accessible.

I certainly see the point of backing up - does anyone not (whether they
actually do it or not)?

Advantages of several kinds have been discussed in this NG, even this
thread, recently.

OTOH, I tend to create both incremental images and clones, belt and
suspenders fashion.

(In UK we say "belt and braces", suspenders being the mostly-female
garment that holds up stockings, and which in US is I think called a
garter belt, and is on both sides of the pond mostly associated these
days with eroticism. [Well, we do in theory have male suspenders - they
hold up socks - but I don't think I've seen anyone using them for
decades.])
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

No mistake is more common and more fatuous than appealing to logic in cases
which are beyond her jurisdiction. -Samuel Butler, writer (1835-1902)

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...


I don't necessarily see the advantage of looking at the images TOC
rather than at the mounted image, since to do anything with a file, you
have to mount the image anyway. I.e., you do two operatins instead of
one.

Does the TOC view look enough like Explorer that you are working in a
familiar environment?

The *.tib file once Acronis is installed allows Windows Explorer to treat it
like a zip file...just click on it to expand the folders....
- i.e. it is Explorer's environment

See this example..
http://sdrv.ms/15Dw9TS
The pic is an earlier image on this machine shortly after I installed Win7
Pro and Office 2010 and few of my primary pieces of software (not much else
on the image except a full updated Windows, Office with the usual suspect
MSFT third party applications - Acronis True Image 2013, Flash, Java, IE10,
WLM, SeaMonkey)

The pic shows how I used Windows Explorer to open the folder (on the image)
containing my Outlook.pst file. If I needed a copy of that file (or any
other I could just drag it to another local folder or desktop etc.
- fyi to make the picture smaller I collapsed the subfolders on the C
drive...the actual path to that folder in the *.tib file is shown in the
pic.

--
....winston
msft mvp consumer apps

"Ken Blake" wrote in message
news about deleted files being restored after subsequent incremental images were
made


But I'm more reluctant to trust you on that. I don't think it always
worked that way, and what I described was the way it used to work.


Possibly, but it must pre-date quite a few Acronis and Ghost programs I've
used during the last decade or unique to some other program. Not sure about
Windows included backup routines (maybe MSFT left some code out compared to
other companies utilities - wouldn't be the first time).

-- --
....winston
msft mvp consumer apps

That's a whole other separate topic..related since it is a feature in
Windows for Windows files and typically folders that are configured to be
party of Windows Libraries.
- not inclusive of everything an image might contain when created by a 3rd
party program (which most of us are discussing)

--
....winston
msft mvp consumer apps

"Ed Cryer" wrote in message ...

Ed Cryer wrote:
...winston wrote:
Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 01:08:14 -0400, "...winston"
wrote:


With respect to your points..afaik...that's not how incremental
backups have
worked here.
- Gene explained it quite well in understandable terms.


Thanks for your confirmation. With two people I respect saying the
same thing, it's more likely that I'm wrong. But as I said to Gene,
I'd greatly like to see a link pointing to a reliable web site that
says that.



There are many ways to look at it...if I were to explain it to an
average user....

A file backed up is an 'active' file on the source and marked as active
on the master and any subsequent incremental image. If deleted on the
source it becomes marked as inactive, a subsequent incremental image
updates the necessary image 'pointer' to ensure that any restoration
later only restores 'active' files (i.e. not the deleted 'inactive'
ones).


Where are these image pointers kept? Maybe on the full backup master
image?

Ed


"Windows automatically saves copies of files that are modified
(including files that are deleted) with restore points; these files are
called previous versions."
http://tinyurl.com/nkcbqlf

"Previous versions are a feature of the "Volume Shadow Copy" service
that implements a copy-on-write architecture for windows, which when a
file/directory is changed, a copy of the previous state is stored on the
disk for recovery..."
http://tinyurl.com/o2l6umf

Ed

....winston wrote:
That's a whole other separate topic..related since it is a feature in
Windows for Windows files and typically folders that are configured to
be party of Windows Libraries.
- not inclusive of everything an image might contain when created by a
3rd party program (which most of us are discussing)


It's highly likely that third party programs switch VSS on, and use the
data produced.

Easy to check in Services.

Ed

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 18:46:36 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

In message , Gene E. Bloch
writes:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 09:30:21 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

"Once installed" is what bugs me, and the mention of a "*.tib file"
and/or "image". To me, I see no advantage (other than, possibly,
compression) in any backup/archive/whatever

We differ quite strongly here.

Only because you trimmed the end of my sentence! Granted, I do write
long sentences. But the end of that one was something like

No, I don't differ strongly because I trimmed your sentence, I differ
strongly from what you posted, and I still do.

However, I did trim the post rather badly, and obscured my intent.

I see great advantages to the .tib file approach and the similar
approach of Macrium, and I have no concerns about needing software other
than the OS of the source data

"... which creates/stores the backup in some form other than that which
is accessible by the OS being backed up", by which I meant encryption,
compression, and similar - anything which needs software other than the
OS being backed up to make the backup/whatever accessible.

I certainly see the point of backing up - does anyone not (whether they
actually do it or not)?

I certainly did not intend to give the impression that I see no value in
backing up; rather, I see considerable value outside the only scenario
that you find acceptable.

Advantages of several kinds have been discussed in this NG, even this
thread, recently.

OTOH, I tend to create both incremental images and clones, belt and
suspenders fashion.

(In UK we say "belt and braces", suspenders being the mostly-female
garment that holds up stockings, and which in US is I think called a
garter belt, and is on both sides of the pond mostly associated these
days with eroticism. [Well, we do in theory have male suspenders - they
hold up socks - but I don't think I've seen anyone using them for
decades.])

No eroticism intended - I'm just a victim of transoceanic parochialism.
Or are you the victim? It's a dilemma :-)

I haven't used suspenders (USA definition) since maybe age 10 or 12, but
I have a friend who does now. It reflects both his relatively bucolic
origins and his current frailty, so that he needs the braces (and belt!)
to help him manage holding his pants up. Please don't ask me to explain:
it confounds me too...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 13:07:26 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 07:37:39 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:33:38 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:44:22 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 20:05:52 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 21:18:00 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:42:06 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:50:28 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:05:46 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

I am generally against incremental backup. It backs up only those
things that need to be backed up, and that's good.

But what's bad is that if you restore from it, you get back files
you've deleted. That may not always be a problem, but it can be.

I'm glad a couple of folks questioned that last part. It made no sense to
me. I apparently wasn't alone.

Ken Blake pointed out a scenario where that made sense, in

Message-ID:

If you back up a partition, then delete a file from it, then restore it
from that backup, you get the deleted file back.

It was then pointed out (by others) that this is a characteristic of
*any* backup method. Oddly enough :-)

To me, the fact that a backup contains everything that it contained as of
the time of its creation is one of those 'duh' moments, not really worth
mentioning and certainly not worth characterizing as a problem, but there's
room for differing opinions.

Well, I quite agree with you about the duhness of it, but (to a small
extent) I've been holding my tongue :-)

I've been waiting for someone else to point out what I was talking
about, but since nobody did, I will.

To use a simplified example, let's say there are two computers, each
with three files, A, B, and C. One computer (#1) uses full backup,
the other (#2)) incremental.

Both computers do a full backup (when you do incremental backups, you
start out with a full backup). Files A, B, and C are still on both
computers and both backups.

Then you modify C and delete B from both computers. Both computers now
have A and C.

You do a full back on computer #1, and you have A and modified C on
the backup. You do an incremental backup on #2 and all you get is the
modified C.

Both computers crash and you restore from their backups. Computer #1
gets A and modified C restored. On computer #2, you begin by restoring
the full backup--A, B, and C--and then the incremental backup, which
modifies C.

Computer#1 (the full backup computer) now has A and modified C on it.
Computer #2 (the incremental backup computer now has A, B, and
modified C on it.

You missed how it works.

When you restore from an incremental backup, the backup program uses the
data it saved with the backup image files to figure out what the exact
state of the source system *when that incremental backup was made*. It
does *not* restore A, B, and C because *it knows* that B was deleted
before that incremental backup was made. Only A and the current C are
restored.

When you said above, "You do an incremental backup on #2 and all you get
is the modified C" you are wrong. You get instead A, the modified C, and
a notation that B has been deleted.

Not to say that you are definitely wrong, because I don't know that
for sure. But if you could point me toward a link that says that, I'd
appreciate seeing that.

And if what you say is true, it's very likely a relatively new thing.
I'm almost sure it didn't always work that way.

I can testify that it's true because I have verified it with my own
software, but I don't know of any links to give you, and don't intend to
try to find any. You'll have to choose to trust me or not to.

And believe me (hah!) there is nothing new in what I described.


So how does it cater for the situation that Ken outlined?
I'll reduce it to its simplest terms; a deleted file.
You have a. the full backup and b. the incremental backup with a file
deleted.
Do a restore to the time of the incremental backup, and what tells it
about the deleted file?

Ed

It has already been explained ad infinitum by me and others, so here's
my last attempt.

The backup program keeps a record of the state of the source drive as
part of the incremental backups it creates. It uses that info to create
an exact picture of what the disk or partition looked like at the time
of backup, and that is what it will restore.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:19:49 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

Ed Cryer wrote:
Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 07:37:39 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:33:38 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:44:22 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 20:05:52 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 21:18:00 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:42:06 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"

wrote:

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:50:28 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:05:46 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

I am generally against incremental backup. It backs up only those
things that need to be backed up, and that's good.

But what's bad is that if you restore from it, you get back files
you've deleted. That may not always be a problem, but it can be.

I'm glad a couple of folks questioned that last part. It made
no sense to
me. I apparently wasn't alone.

Ken Blake pointed out a scenario where that made sense, in

Message-ID:

If you back up a partition, then delete a file from it, then
restore it
from that backup, you get the deleted file back.

It was then pointed out (by others) that this is a
characteristic of
*any* backup method. Oddly enough :-)

To me, the fact that a backup contains everything that it
contained as of
the time of its creation is one of those 'duh' moments, not
really worth
mentioning and certainly not worth characterizing as a problem,
but there's
room for differing opinions.

Well, I quite agree with you about the duhness of it, but (to a small
extent) I've been holding my tongue :-)

I've been waiting for someone else to point out what I was talking
about, but since nobody did, I will.

To use a simplified example, let's say there are two computers, each
with three files, A, B, and C. One computer (#1) uses full backup,
the other (#2)) incremental.

Both computers do a full backup (when you do incremental backups, you
start out with a full backup). Files A, B, and C are still on both
computers and both backups.

Then you modify C and delete B from both computers. Both computers now
have A and C.

You do a full back on computer #1, and you have A and modified C on
the backup. You do an incremental backup on #2 and all you get is the
modified C.

Both computers crash and you restore from their backups. Computer #1
gets A and modified C restored. On computer #2, you begin by restoring
the full backup--A, B, and C--and then the incremental backup, which
modifies C.

Computer#1 (the full backup computer) now has A and modified C on it.
Computer #2 (the incremental backup computer now has A, B, and
modified C on it.

You missed how it works.

When you restore from an incremental backup, the backup program uses
the
data it saved with the backup image files to figure out what the exact
state of the source system *when that incremental backup was made*. It
does *not* restore A, B, and C because *it knows* that B was deleted
before that incremental backup was made. Only A and the current C are
restored.

When you said above, "You do an incremental backup on #2 and all you
get
is the modified C" you are wrong. You get instead A, the modified C,
and
a notation that B has been deleted.

Not to say that you are definitely wrong, because I don't know that
for sure. But if you could point me toward a link that says that, I'd
appreciate seeing that.

And if what you say is true, it's very likely a relatively new thing.
I'm almost sure it didn't always work that way.

I can testify that it's true because I have verified it with my own
software, but I don't know of any links to give you, and don't intend to
try to find any. You'll have to choose to trust me or not to.

And believe me (hah!) there is nothing new in what I described.


So how does it cater for the situation that Ken outlined?
I'll reduce it to its simplest terms; a deleted file.
You have a. the full backup and b. the incremental backup with a file
deleted.
Do a restore to the time of the incremental backup, and what tells it
about the deleted file?

Ed




"Windows automatically saves copies of files that are modified
(including files that are deleted) with restore points; these files are
called previous versions."
http://tinyurl.com/nkcbqlf

"Previous versions are a feature of the "Volume Shadow Copy" service
that implements a copy-on-write architecture for windows, which when a
file/directory is changed, a copy of the previous state is stored on the
disk for recovery..."
http://tinyurl.com/o2l6umf

Ed

Windows is not the only software in the world that does backups, but in
any case, those quotes certainly don't contradict anything that has been
said. But nor do they *support* anything that has been said.

They do give an idea of the mechanisms that are used *by Windows* for
its own purposes

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 10:27:49 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:15:01 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

And believe me (hah!) there is nothing new in what I described.

But I'm more reluctant to trust you on that. I don't think it always
worked that way, and what I described was the way it used to work.

I don't remember a time, or a specific program or scenario, where what you
described was an issue. It could have been and I simply wasn't aware of it,
but it doesn't sound right.

Note that I said "*I don't think* it worked that way" I didn't say I
was sure.

As in "what I described was the way it used to work"? There was no "I
think" in front of that.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 04:08:12 -0400, ...winston wrote:

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 07:40:25 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 01:08:14 -0400, "...winston"
wrote:

With respect to your points..afaik...that's not how incremental backups have
worked here.
- Gene explained it quite well in understandable terms.

Thanks for your confirmation. With two people I respect saying the
same thing, it's more likely that I'm wrong. But as I said to Gene,
I'd greatly like to see a link pointing to a reliable web site that
says that.

As I said, I have experienced it, but you are free to doubt my word...


I'm surprised no one asked about Differential backups (images) g

Differential backups backs up files changed since the last full backup.
Incremental backups backs up files changes since the last backup - full
or incremental.

Well, we weren't discussing them, and given the way this thread has been
going, that's an unalloyed blessing :-)

I have never been interested in differential backups, for three reasons;

1. It wouldn't save as much time (or space, if intermediary BUs are
kept) as a differential BU would

2. Intermediate versions of a file would be lost (unless intermediary
BUs are kept).

3. I don't know how you could restore an intermediate backup if the
intermediary BUs aren't deleted, but I have an impression it would not
be easy - the user would have to do the organizing. I am speculating
from a secure position of ignorance on this question.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:40:52 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

...winston wrote:
That's a whole other separate topic..related since it is a feature in
Windows for Windows files and typically folders that are configured to
be party of Windows Libraries.
- not inclusive of everything an image might contain when created by a
3rd party program (which most of us are discussing)


It's highly likely that third party programs switch VSS on, and use the
data produced.

Easy to check in Services.

Ed

This does not contradict what ...winston said.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 13:14:29 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

Where are these image pointers kept? Maybe on the full backup master image?

In the relevant incremental BU file. The original full backup is never
touched after it is created.

Think about it.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)