nna wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:u$6qml1qKHA.5896@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm a little confused about this:
>>
>> I save several (different-dated) system images on my backup drive, with a
>> pretty large partition reserved just for storing those system drive (C: )
>> images (the rest of the space on that drive is still unallocated).
>>
>> Now suppose I increase the size of the partition on the backup drive
>> (which stores those images) to make more room for more of them, and
>> subsequently save a few more backup images. Ok, no problem so far.
>>
>> But now if decide to restore a much earlier image (where the partition
>> size on the backup drive was previously allocated as being much smaller),
>> will I then lose the ability to access the newer and later image,s where
>> I
>> had later expanded the partition?
>>
>> I'm guessing it won't be a problem, and after the system reboots to
>> restore the system drive backup, BIOS will report the new partition size
>> to windows, and there won't be an issue, but I'm not sure of this.
>
> (Bill adds...)
>> The problem I'm mentioning may come about due to the recorded size of the
>> partition as it was specified within the system image backup itself, and
>> what happens if you restore an image which has embedded within it a
>> different allocation size, since that information is stored within each
>> of
>> the image backups. Maybe we're saying the same thing though, and it's
>> not an issue (with Acronis).
>
>> I'm using Acronis True Image.
>>
>> No, I've tested the restore capability on numerous times, and it's been
>> working great, but I have not done the specific test mentioned above.
>>
>> That is, I haven't yet enlarged my system backup's partition size, stored
>> some more images, and then tried restoring an earlier system backup image
>> (where the recorded partition size was much smaller).
>>
>> Since the backup drive's partition size info is stored within each image,
>> I can see how it might be a problem, and perhaps render unobtainable any
>> images stored beyond the original partition size (as recorded in that
>> image). Does that explain it?
>
>> My C: source drive is - and has remained - unchanged in its partition
>> allocations. I'm not talking about that drive.
>>
>> The ONLY thing I would have changed would be the size of the partition
>> allocated on the BACKUP drive used to store the images to make more room.
>> So it's not a question of restoring to a drive with insufficient room.
>>
>> But again, I thought this operation might be problematic, as every time
>> you restore an image, it also (presumably) restores the information on
>> the
>> partition sizes of all drives, and as far as windows is concerned, the
>> backup partition size may then look as small as it originally was after
>> restoring an earlier image, thus rendering any subsequent images stored
>> on
>> the backup drive, inaccessible. Does that clarify what I'm asking? I
>> just am trying to understand this better.
>>
>> OR - maybe the partition size of the backup drive is completely
>> immaterial
>> after restoring any image from any other drive, as BIOS, and then
>> windows,
>> automatically takes care of the changes after the system drive reboots to
>> complete the restore operation, so that the larger partition recently
>> created on the backup drive will be recognized (and the later images
>> accessible).
>
>
> Bill:
> Based on previous posts between us re this general subject of
> disk-cloning/disk-imaging issues I'm pretty sure you're aware that I use
> the
> disk-imaging capability of the Acronis True Image program on a very
> infrequent basis (more for experimentation and resolving user problems for
> the most part). Again, as I think you know, I much prefer the Casper
> disk-cloning program as a vehicle for the great majority of PC users in
> establishing & maintaining a comprehensive backup program of their
> systems.
> I only mention the preceding because while I believe my following comments
> are factual as they relate to the ATI program in general, take into
> account
> the fact that I haven't had extensive experience with recent versions of
> the
> ATI program.
>
> Obviously you're maintaining "generational" copies (backups) of your
> day-to-day working HDD. (As an aside this is the one particular area (in
> our
> view) where generally speaking a disk-imaging program will serve the
> user's
> needs better than a disk-cloning program.)
>
> It's hard to imagine that the size of the partition you established on
> your
> "destination" HDD serving to contain the various disk-images
> (files/archives) will have any relevance (impact) bearing on the potential
> problem/issue you've raised. Obviously all that's required re the size of
> the partition you create on the external HDD is that it be large enough to
> contain the disk-image files/archives you've created over a period of
> time.
> And if & when it becomes necessary to increase the size of that partition
> to
> contain add'l disk-image files/archives it's relatively simple to do so as
> you know. And the additional size of the partition should have no impact
> on
> the already-contained disk-image files/archives stored on the partition in
> terms of any future restoration process involving *any* of those
> disk-images.
>
> Thus the size of the destination partition is really of no consequence as
> related to the restoration operation (as I believe you suspect). The fact
> that you may have increased the size of the partition following any number
> of previous disk-image files/archives stored on the previous smaller-sized
> partition is of no relevance as it pertains to any future restoration
> process.
>
> It simply doesn't matter which one of the "x" number of disk-image
> files/archives residing on the external drive's partition you select for
> restoration purposes. Obviously all that is necessary is that recipient
> HDD
> to be restored has sufficient disk space to accommodate the restoration
> process, the size of the destination drive's partition notwithstanding
> (regardless of whether it had been changed in size along the way).
>
> While I'm assuming my above comments are correct, again, I haven't worked
> in
> any extensive way with recent versions of the Acronis program so it's
> conceivable I may be "off-base" as they pertain to the issue you raised.
> If
> so, hopefully, someone more familiar with the program (including
> yourself!)
> will correct me.
> Anna
Hi Anna, thanks for the reply. But I think I'm having difficulty getting
my point across. The issue I'm getting at is not a matter of insufficient
disk space for storing the images, but that seems to be what I am having a
hard time getting across.
The issue is this:
When one restores an image of their system drive partition (C
, also
included within that image I presume is the previously stored information
about the backup drive's partition size *as it was at the time that image
was taken*, which in my mind may present a problem:
Let me give a specific example. Suppose the backup drive originally has a
100 GB partition reserved to store my system drive image backups. And I
keep saving generational images of my system drive to that 100 GB partition.
Naturally after a few backups, it fills up (keep in mind these images are of
the entire C: partition of my source drive which stores all programs, etc.
Typically the image size is around 15 GB per image).
OK, it gets full now, so I now decide to expand the backup partition size to
150 GB to make room for more generational images. So far, so good, and I
can safely store more generational backup images.
Now suppose I decide to restore a very early system drive image, which had
been stored when the backup partition size *was recorded as being 100 GB*.
OK, that image should be restored successfully (after rebooting), I expect -
no problems so far.
BUT - now if I look at the backup drive in windows explorer, will it appear
to be only 100 GB in size (since THAT was the backup partition size
information that was originally "recorded" in its image), OR will the backup
drive correctly appear to be 150 GB (which is what it should be), and allow
thus access to all the later images? Remember, strictly speaking, if I
restore an earlier system drive image, at that time the backup drive
partition size was onlt set at 100 GB in size, so that's what windows may
now think it is, after restoring that image.
IOW, I'm assuming that restoring an image can impact partition size
information, but that may be an incorrect assumptionm
