Anyone VERY experienced with Acronis True Image and Raid configurations?

I tried that twice. Both time I found local builders.

The first guy in those days built me a $4000 computer which even then was a lot of money. I requested Ghost. He installed Win2000 (which I hated by the way) and he did dynamic partitions on it.

Well, apparently Ghost didn't support it and he never got it to work and finally, I gave up dealing with him. My loss

A few years later I paid another local guy that had big corporate customers to build a new computer but using some of the components like the case and he was going to do the same thing. He MADE a Ghost copy but never tested it. When I tried to use it, it did NOT work and he blamed it on the SATA drives and said he had only tried it with IDE.

How the hell do you find someone that you KNOW for sure is good and can do it? You can't. Everyone will claim they can (those that take on the job that is) and when they can't fix it, they blame it on something.

This is what most people and companies do. You call tech support and the first thing coming out of their mouth is, it's not our hardware, it's this or that.

I see this all the time.

When I did webdesign more actively, the last two years, ALL of my customers were people that had paid someone to make a site and of course, these people had low ball bids to get the job and then halfway through the job, they figured, shi*, this ain't worth my time and just left the customer.

I mean, I had quite a few people with these problems.

Some of the guys here act like it's my fault for not finding someone that is better or more reputable of whatever. How the hell is it NOT their fault for not being honest about their skills or whatever. I dont' take on jobs I can't do.

--
George with the (big) rack

Lindsayhunter said:

Let me get the computer and I'll get back to you, UNLESS I get it
sold between now and then.

He suspects that it's the P45 chipset but going back to another board
with older chipset also would mean that he would have to reinstall
everything and there is too much stuff and I know it would take him
another week. I paid him to install my programs too by the way.

The system is a dual boot with XP and Vista and he says that when he
restores it (he tried with three other drives in Raid 0 in case it
didnt work) the image works fine or rather, the XP boot works fine
but Vista boots up with numerous errors. You know how you get window
after window popping up in the beginning with errors, this is what he
says it does.

Mind you, this is NOT much of an issue for me as I plan on using XP
99% but it still sucks. I got 8GB of RAM in there but since I chose a
32 version of XP, I was going to use VIsta 64 bit IF I felt I needed
the 8 gigs for something.
--
George with the (big) rack

Click to expand...

George, thanks for your reply:

I certainly am not trying to "Kindle the discussions regarding Vista" but it does seem that there continues to be areas that have not been fully resolved by the various software developers such as Acronis and you also mentioned Symantec's Ghost product -- and Microsoft, the Mother of Vista.....

Naturally, it is very difficult to know that the System Backup software can work properly with Vista as well as all the many different configurations and Motherboards as well as other devices.

As we all know, a backup is basically worthless if it will not perform a proper and working system configuration after the Restore.

I have used Ghost 2003 now for over 5 years, however; my systems use a single boot of XP Pro and work properly with the latest technology Motherboard as well as the 6 year old Vintage systems. I do not use any type of RAID configuration which I am certain helps the compatibility by having normal EIDE and SATA configurations and using the somewhat proven XP Pro.
I do hope you get this issue resolved.
--
Vernon...

Thanks Vernon. At this point, I'm so disgusted with the whole thing (yes, there's much more going on) that I want to sell it and start all over again but we'll see.

Yeah, the configuration doesn't make things easier to trouble shoot but of course, I was led to believe there would be no problems. Mind you, I'm not really saying it's his fault because I for one know how computers are and that one moment everything is working great and next thing you know, the whole thing crashes.

However, this still doesn't change the fact that this is what I want
--
George with the (big) rack

He is making the partitions around that size or maybe a bit bigger just in case.

I WAS going to put some of my work files on those drives (NOT on those partitions though) just so I could have fast access to my files but if that's not a good idea, I won't., How much would THAT slow the computer down and also, how much would a fourth raptor speed it up? Just in case I have him rebuild the computer and at this point, I'm tempted to 'cause I WANT my acronis or SOMETHING like that working.
--
George with the (big) rack

Lindsayhunter said:

Thanks Vernon. At this point, I'm so disgusted with the whole thing
(yes, there's much more going on) that I want to sell it and start
all over again but we'll see.

Yeah, the configuration doesn't make things easier to trouble shoot
but of course, I was led to believe there would be no problems. Mind
you, I'm not really saying it's his fault because I for one know how
computers are and that one moment everything is working great and
next thing you know, the whole thing crashes.

However, this still doesn't change the fact that this is what I want
--
George with the (big) rack

Click to expand...

You mentioned "starting over" with a different Mother Board that is suppose to be using a "MORE" compatible Chip Set that should be helpful for the System Backup/Restore issues.

I would suggest that you (do everything Possible) to be assured that a different Mother Board will "definitely" resolve the issue with your "specific RAID" Configuration.

I have no way of knowing for certain but it seems to me that there may be some "drop out" of definite information from Acronis (OR the Builder didn't do His/Her research) regarding your current configuration and the issues that showed up when making the Backup (and especially the Restore) tests. Acronis needs to be "pinned and committed to the issues" to be certain IF their software will "do the job" of Backup and Restore for YOUR configured system.

My comments could be interpreted by some to be slightly harsh regarding Acronis but WHO should know their product and it's capabilities better than the Acronis Staff -- so they should "Know what they are talking about". --IF-- the Builder reviewed the "specific configuration" with Acronis, PRIOR to assembly.

I expect the present builder of your system was assured (by Acronis) that Acronis would do the Job for your system and if HE/She did NOT "PRE Confirm" with Acronis, then; the builder needs to "learn a few facts of Life" regarding Hardware and Software.

If you do decide to "start over" with a new/different Mother Board, the Builder should NOT wait until ALL Software is (again) installed before testing the Backup and Restore functions. Test immediately after installing the (Dual Boot) Operating Systems plus any needed drivers, etc -- BOTH the Backup and the Restore and this will allow earlier alterations of plans/configurations. Then, again do a Backup and Restore when partial through installing Software and AGAIN after ALL installing is completed.

This should help to have a better "early warning" of something not functioning properly and NOT wait until ALL is installed to find there are some type of issues or problems.

Perhaps the Builder/Installer is already aware of all the mentioned "precautions and testing" but evidently didn't do the Backup/Restore tests until ALL installing was completed.

I have a "fairly NEW" Assembled Computer (Oct 2007) that is rather "heavily equipped" but uses only ONE OS (XP Pro) and NOT using RAID, I followed the above Tests (I use Ghost 2003) and "fortunately" I did NOT have even ONE Issue during the complete Assembly and Installing/Testing for the new System.

The only issue I had was it seemed that I would NEVER get ALL of my software Installed on the New Computer which literally consumed several DAYS....
--
Vernon...

Man, just dump RAID-0, it is just completely not worth the hassles. You've wasted more time with this than it could conceivably save you. The recommendation of going with a tier-1 workstation is the best advice you'll get if you're not building your own box and willing to do your own troubleshooting and support.

I think the problem is the OP's unwillingness to use first tier hardware and his builder's interpretation and execution as far as instructions and drivers.

My main work associate and I have about 30 hosts using home and pro versions of the product and with XP and Vista. Our problems = 0. My brother is a desktop manager at a 50,000 seat university and he uses the product line extensively. My local vendor for hardware and software has a large bench tech operation and they build Intel "boxed" in addition to selling HP and Cisco stuff. They don't have problems. The common thread among these hundreds of hosts using the product seems to be not using SFQ hardware, reading the instructions and knowing how to address the instructions.

I will admit that some iterations of using the product have been more complex. I was guilty of using a cheap SOHO/hobbyist type controller with an Asus mobo for one of my home NAS and I did the BartPE build route. For one customer that caused me to inherit a cr_ppy Asus white box pc. of junk I did do a minimal OS install and restored from there. That was about 3 or more years ago and earlier versions so it may not apply.

I think moral of story remains that you get what you pay for, firms publish requirements and instructions for good reason, and you have to follow them in general. I also realize not everybody likes my evolution toward first tier and consistent product but it's the only way my associates and I can have hundreds of people with reliable systems and happy. Home and personal users who go same route are happy too.

Good luck.

Wm. L. said:

I think the problem is the OP's unwillingness to use first tier
hardware and his builder's interpretation and execution as far as
instructions and drivers.

My main work associate and I have about 30 hosts using home and pro
versions of the product and with XP and Vista. Our problems = 0. My
brother is a desktop manager at a 50,000 seat university and he uses
the product line extensively. My local vendor for hardware and
software has a large bench tech operation and they build Intel
"boxed" in addition to selling HP and Cisco stuff. They don't have
problems. The common thread among these hundreds of hosts using the
product seems to be not using SFQ hardware, reading the instructions
and knowing how to address the instructions.

I will admit that some iterations of using the product have been more
complex. I was guilty of using a cheap SOHO/hobbyist type controller
with an Asus mobo for one of my home NAS and I did the BartPE build
route. For one customer that caused me to inherit a cr_ppy Asus white
box pc. of junk I did do a minimal OS install and restored from
there. That was about 3 or more years ago and earlier versions so it
may not apply.

I think moral of story remains that you get what you pay for, firms
publish requirements and instructions for good reason, and you have
to follow them in general. I also realize not everybody likes my
evolution toward first tier and consistent product but it's the only
way my associates and I can have hundreds of people with reliable
systems and happy. Home and personal users who go same route are
happy too.

Good luck.
--

Click to expand...

It is somewhat difficult to know "exactly" what the overall issue is for the subject of this thread. However, any time we are using (or considering) a somewhat "unusual configuration", we need to cover all possible areas to know (at an early stage) when issues "creep into the equation. Software/Hardware compatibility issues usually become more likely and more severe with the questionable configurations.

My main reason for my latest computer assembly (rather than a pre-built unit) was that I wanted to select and use the specific and better quality devices and components. Also, even though it is rather highly (or heavily) equipped, I also wanted plenty of room for expansion.

Compatibility with my (already purchased and/or developed) software and peripherals was also a requirement since I am NOT one that thinks I need to change to a completely new computer setup each year.

Quality is something that we get what we pay for and usually there are more issues with lesser quality products --AND-- the consumer grade items are close to the same price as the quality products.
--
Vernon...

--
George with the (big) rack

--
George with the (big) rack

I noticed this (Linux message):

Lindsayhunter said:

He can make the images fine but NOT restore them and he is saying
that he is getting some kind of "Linux" message error.

Click to expand...

I also see where you said this in another post:

Lindsayhunter said:

He thinks that the
Acronis problem is with the chipset of the mobo (P45 or something
like that) and that because it is so new, it's giving him problems.

Click to expand...

Exactly. My guess is that Acronis is using Linux as the operating system for the boot disk you use for restoring drive images since he mentioned a Linux error.

The Linux kernel being used by most distros does not fully support the P45 chipset yet.

It's my understanding you need Linux kernel version 2.6.26-5 to have any luck with most motherboards using that chipset, and even then, it only works with the SATA drives set to AHCI versus RAID in the BIOS. I don't know if the issues will be resolved in 2.6.27 or not.

I'd probably just break the raid temporarily, with the drives set to AHCI, then see if you can get a good clone of them using a newer Linux distro with dd (which allows a sector by sector copy of a drive, without regards to the MBR, partitioning, etc. (it just treats the source as a block device). It can then write to another identical drive (good for drive cloning if desired), or you can write the output to an image file.

dd can also backup individual partitions versus an entire drive if desired. That's sometimes handy if you have drives with different geometry (since copying an entire drive is going to overwrite the destination drives MBR and partition tables).

For example, with most PC configurations you could specify dev/sda as the first drive in your system as the source if you wanted to copy an entire drive to another drive or to an image file. Or, you could specify dev/sda1 as the source if you wanted to copy the first partition from that same drive. It's also handy for backing up your MBR, since you can tell it to read the first 512 bytes of a drive only if desired, writing it to a file that you could restore it from later.

But, if you broke the RAID config to backup your drives to separate image files, or to identical drives, you'd need to do a drive at a time instead of individual partitions.

Most linux distros already have dd included. See this page for usage:

http://www.softpanorama.org/Tools/dd.shtml

Note that I usually prefer to use gnu ddrescue instead. It's a smarter utility that can do multiple passes against a source drive if it's failing, only retrying errors that it didn't accurately copy on the first pass by using a log file to keep track of what it's read without errors. That lets you do things like let a drive cool off between passes, until you get as much as you can from one written to an image file or another drive.

--
JimC
------
http://www.pbase.com/jcockfield

Better examples of using dd:

http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Dd

But, you'd need to boot into a very new linux distro (one using a newer kernel) in order to get support for that P45 chipset (and even then, it may only work if the drives are set to AHCI, so you'd just want to break the raid and back up the drives to image files on a non-raid drive (for example, a USB attached hard drive or a different non-raid drive in your system). Most linux distros have NTFS-3G built in now so that you can write the saved image files to an NTFS partition if desired (and you'd have to mount it first with some distros).

Then, do the opposite to restore (use dd to copy the contents of the 3 saved image files to 3 drives individually, after you break the RAID and set your BIOS to AHCI for them. Then, change your BIOS back to RAID after you finish your restores of the saved images so that you can boot back into Windows using them.

--
JimC
------
http://www.pbase.com/jcockfield

Check out vista ultimate!
--
8> )

photonerdcom said:

Check out vista ultimate!
--
8> )

Click to expand...

-- Acronis is simply the best cloning software I've ever used. Backups can fail miserably and lose critical data. Both hardware and the Acronis software cloning are better because what you see is what you get. All or nothing will no "surprises". Please note that I DO NOT use the Acronis backup utilities at all, only it's cloning!

-I shoot my images as I live, in the open-

Hey any movie peeps need a rigger? Blackhawk for hire.

And of course you can still restore individual or groups of files and folders from that image, you aren't forced to restore an entire image when something goes wrong. TrueImage also allows you to mount a backup image as a read-only drive and assign a drive letter to it, so you can access the files in-place without having to restore them.

blackhawk13 said:

photonerdcom said:

Check out vista ultimate!
--
8> )

Click to expand...

-- Acronis is simply the best cloning software I've ever used.
Backups can fail miserably and lose critical data. Both hardware
and the Acronis software cloning are better because what you see is
what you get. All or nothing will no "surprises". Please note that
I DO NOT use the Acronis backup utilities at all, only it's cloning!

-I shoot my images as I live, in the open-

Hey any movie peeps need a rigger? Blackhawk for hire.

Click to expand...

The ONLY thing I know about Acronis is what I have read since I have not used it. I have used Norton Ghost 2003 for 5 years and it continues to work without issues also with my new (10 month old) computer configurations, however; (some day) the date I don't know, there will come a time that I may have a configurations that will not work with Ghost 2003 and because of this, I am very interested in Acronis and it's capabilities.

I tested my Ghost 2003 last month on one of our Son's Laptop (some Model of HP) and it "would NOT load the Ghost Boot CD and seemed to "balk" regarding the Drivers for using Firewire 400 and/or USB 2.0) -- so that also encouraged me to "dig into the possible future need for other System Backup Software". All of my (32 bit) later computers use XP Pro and the mentioned HP Laptop used XP Pro -- so there is NO discussion (or comments) regarding Vista-- at this stage.

I have read before that you use Acronis only for Cloning your System Drive. Regardless of your (choice of methods -- to Clone or using a Drive Backup to an image file); does Acronis have issues with Drive Backup to an image file.

There are pro's and con's for each of the 2 methods but with my present Ghost 2003 I prefer to use the Drive Backup to an image file because of the versatility it provides for me as well as the flexibility of saving the image file to any of my Drives (or Partitions) (other than any on the Primary Drive BOX) as well as to DVD as I may desire --and-- the image file is relatively small (20 to 30 GB) as compared to my Primary Hard Drive size..
Any helpful comments will be appreciated.
--
Vernon...

As with any program, I think you'll find different answers to your question of whether Acronis TrueImage has issues with backing up an entire drive to an image, rather than cloning the drive to another one.

Some people will have tried this and experienced problems, while I have been using this feature for years on my own systems and those of friends and acquaintances for whom I'm the tech support guy, and never been let down. I periodically back up my system to an image on a separate RAID1 array, and I can access that image directly from inside Windows or boot Acronis TrueImage from a non-dedicated USB thumb drive or CD, and restore if that should become necessary.

So yes, the feature you are looking for does exist, and it has worked very well in my experience.

Torsten Hoff said:

As with any program, I think you'll find different answers to your
question of whether Acronis TrueImage has issues with backing up an
entire drive to an image, rather than cloning the drive to another
one.

Some people will have tried this and experienced problems, while I
have been using this feature for years on my own systems and those of
friends and acquaintances for whom I'm the tech support guy, and
never been let down. I periodically back up my system to an image on
a separate RAID1 array, and I can access that image directly from
inside Windows or boot Acronis TrueImage from a non-dedicated USB
thumb drive or CD, and restore if that should become necessary.

So yes, the feature you are looking for does exist, and it has worked
very well in my experience.

Click to expand...

--I use Acronis for mirroring a clone of my 4 SATA2 HDs RAID 0 logic disk that houses my OS to a back up drive that's second partition serves as a data disk. This system couldn't function without Acronis as it makes the OS fully restorable in less than 20 minutes.

I use a stand alone IDE HD with the same cloned OS on it to operate Acronis from so no drive letter conflicts or disk mix ups can occur. I also use hardware cloning on some of my mobos, but even they aren't 100% foolproof and are usually less flexible as well as slower.

No method or system is foolproof though, and no easy answers. Some commercial RAID arrays are nearly fully automated with assigned spares. I spent a bit of time and thought to get my system to be configured so it is reliable. Proper bios settings, software and hardware, as well as usage of them by the user are needed for the system to work. One should fully test what ever back up system they choose to use, and live with the consequences.

It is always best to use a DOS based zero fill app before attempting to clone a disk. On multi-disc RAID arrays (especially hardware supported cloning) it is important to do a zero fill of each HD; sometimes you can get away without doing it, but this is a common cause of crashes and RAID/Window issues. Normally a quick zero fill is all that's needed, and doesn't take long to do.

-I shoot my images as I live, in the open-

Hey any movie peeps need a rigger? Blackhawk for hire.

blackhawk13 said:

Torsten Hoff said:

As with any program, I think you'll find different answers to your
question of whether Acronis TrueImage has issues with backing up an
entire drive to an image, rather than cloning the drive to another
one.

Some people will have tried this and experienced problems, while I
have been using this feature for years on my own systems and those of
friends and acquaintances for whom I'm the tech support guy, and
never been let down. I periodically back up my system to an image on
a separate RAID1 array, and I can access that image directly from
inside Windows or boot Acronis TrueImage from a non-dedicated USB
thumb drive or CD, and restore if that should become necessary.

So yes, the feature you are looking for does exist, and it has worked
very well in my experience.

Click to expand...

--I use Acronis for mirroring a clone of my 4 SATA2 HDs RAID 0 logic
disk that houses my OS to a back up drive that's second partition
serves as a data disk. This system couldn't function without
Acronis as it makes the OS fully restorable in less than 20 minutes.
I use a stand alone IDE HD with the same cloned OS on it to operate
Acronis from so no drive letter conflicts or disk mix ups can occur.
I also use hardware cloning on some of my mobos, but even they aren't
100% foolproof and are usually less flexible as well as slower.
No method or system is foolproof though, and no easy answers. Some
commercial RAID arrays are nearly fully automated with assigned
spares. I spent a bit of time and thought to get my system to be
configured so it is reliable. Proper bios settings, software and
hardware, as well as usage of them by the user are needed for the
system to work. One should fully test what ever back up system they
choose to use, and live with the consequences.

It is always best to use a DOS based zero fill app before attempting
to clone a disk. On multi-disc RAID arrays (especially hardware
supported cloning) it is important to do a zero fill of each HD;
sometimes you can get away without doing it, but this is a common
cause of crashes and RAID/Window issues. Normally a quick zero fill
is all that's needed, and doesn't take long to do.

-I shoot my images as I live, in the open-

Hey any movie peeps need a rigger? Blackhawk for hire.

Click to expand...

I appreciate both of your replies.

I fully agree that complete tests for both Backup and for Restore should be made before settling on a method and/or software to depend on. These tests should be inclusive of all Media to be used and for both internal and for external USB 2.0 and Firewire 400 drives where the image file(s) are stored.

Several years ago, I did all the testing with Ghost 2003 and found a few "Procedural Issues" especially regarding some of the options of Restoring and that I should NOT depend on just a C: Partition backup on my Primary Hard Drive (BOX) that has 2 partitions (C: and D. The partition backup/restore was fine when using a Drive that had been previously used as an XP Pro installed Drive but when working with a "Completely NEW" drive, it did not Boot properly after a Partition Restore of ONLY the C: Partition.

As a result, I have always used the DRIVE Backup to an Image file for the entire drive BOX and have never had an issue for the past 5 years. Drive Cloning (of course) does not have the Partition considerations -- it is the entire drive being Cloned.

So TEST -- TEST-- is the key word for System Backup Software evaluation and/or selection(s)....

When I have enough "linear time" for testing, I probably should give Acronis a Test Drive for my Computer Configurations.
--
Vernon...

I have a raid 1 configuration using motherboard Raid, Vista and Acronis. Restores didn't work using the Linux standalone Acronis because the controller for the raid wasn't recognized. Support shipped me another Linux version which recognized the controller but didn't recognize the raid information.

I built a Vista-PE (standalone bootable Vista) that included Acronis and the motherboard drivers for the Raid controller. That worked fine. I kind of wish Acronis would go this way rather than use Linux.