Acronis True Image Oddity

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Jack Gillis, Sep 17, 2007.

  1. Jack Gillis

    Jack Gillis Guest

    I used True Image to back up my 12G NTFS System Partition to separate
    internal HD formatted NTFS. The resulting image is 5,113,960KB. I then did
    the same thing to a FAT32 USB external drive and got two files -- one
    4,194,304KB and the other 820,934KB for a total of 5,015,238KB. That
    surprised me. I kind of expected the sum of the two FAT32 to be a slight
    bit larger than the single NTFS file because of the information needed by
    True Image to connect the two files.

    No big deal. I just wonder if someone would explain why this happens.

    Thank you.
     
    Jack Gillis, Sep 17, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jack Gillis

    thanatoid Guest

    "Jack Gillis" <> wrote in
    news::

    > I used True Image to back up my 12G NTFS System Partition
    > to separate internal HD formatted NTFS. The resulting
    > image is 5,113,960KB. I then did the same thing to a FAT32
    > USB external drive and got two files -- one 4,194,304KB and
    > the other 820,934KB for a total of 5,015,238KB. That
    > surprised me. I kind of expected the sum of the two FAT32
    > to be a slight bit larger than the single NTFS file because
    > of the information needed by True Image to connect the two
    > files.
    >
    > No big deal. I just wonder if someone would explain why
    > this happens.
    >
    > Thank you.


    NTFS - not too fucking spiffy.

    Ever since I read an MVP refer to NTFS as a "fiasco" in another
    group, I have only been more glad that I am using FAT32 and will
    continue to do so.

    The info required for joining two files is usually minuscule, I
    would guess that the "fault" lies with the supposedly superior
    file system which eats up more space than FAT 32 - and just wait
    until it screws up.

    I could be totally wrong, of course. What is today? Monday?


    --
    "This is not nuclear. This is just a test."
    - illyria
     
    thanatoid, Sep 17, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jack Gillis

    Jack Gillis Guest

    "thanatoid" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns99AE9A5C077C8thanexit@66.250.146.158...
    > "Jack Gillis" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> I used True Image to back up my 12G NTFS System Partition
    >> to separate internal HD formatted NTFS. The resulting
    >> image is 5,113,960KB. I then did the same thing to a FAT32
    >> USB external drive and got two files -- one 4,194,304KB and
    >> the other 820,934KB for a total of 5,015,238KB. That
    >> surprised me. I kind of expected the sum of the two FAT32
    >> to be a slight bit larger than the single NTFS file because
    >> of the information needed by True Image to connect the two
    >> files.
    >>
    >> No big deal. I just wonder if someone would explain why
    >> this happens.
    >>
    >> Thank you.

    >
    > NTFS - not too fucking spiffy.
    >
    > Ever since I read an MVP refer to NTFS as a "fiasco" in another
    > group, I have only been more glad that I am using FAT32 and will
    > continue to do so.
    >
    > The info required for joining two files is usually minuscule, I
    > would guess that the "fault" lies with the supposedly superior
    > file system which eats up more space than FAT 32 - and just wait
    > until it screws up.
    >
    > I could be totally wrong, of course. What is today? Monday?
    >
    >
    > --
    > "This is not nuclear. This is just a test."
    > - illyria


    You could well be right about NTFS eating up more space than FAT32 for a
    given file. I just don't know and this is the first time I have read that
    I think I will run some test on some files.

    Thanks.
     
    Jack Gillis, Sep 17, 2007
    #3
  4. Jack Gillis

    philo Guest

    "Jack Gillis" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "thanatoid" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns99AE9A5C077C8thanexit@66.250.146.158...
    > > "Jack Gillis" <> wrote in
    > > news::
    > >
    > >> I used True Image to back up my 12G NTFS System Partition
    > >> to separate internal HD formatted NTFS. The resulting
    > >> image is 5,113,960KB. I then did the same thing to a FAT32
    > >> USB external drive and got two files -- one 4,194,304KB and
    > >> the other 820,934KB for a total of 5,015,238KB. That
    > >> surprised me. I kind of expected the sum of the two FAT32
    > >> to be a slight bit larger than the single NTFS file because
    > >> of the information needed by True Image to connect the two
    > >> files.
    > >>
    > >> No big deal. I just wonder if someone would explain why
    > >> this happens.
    > >>
    > >> Thank you.

    > >
    > > NTFS - not too fucking spiffy.
    > >
    > > Ever since I read an MVP refer to NTFS as a "fiasco" in another
    > > group, I have only been more glad that I am using FAT32 and will
    > > continue to do so.
    > >
    > > The info required for joining two files is usually minuscule, I
    > > would guess that the "fault" lies with the supposedly superior
    > > file system which eats up more space than FAT 32 - and just wait
    > > until it screws up.
    > >
    > > I could be totally wrong, of course. What is today? Monday?
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > "This is not nuclear. This is just a test."
    > > - illyria

    >
    > You could well be right about NTFS eating up more space than FAT32 for a
    > given file. I just don't know and this is the first time I have read that
    > I think I will run some test on some files.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    >


    The compression ratio that Acronis uses for NTFS vs FAT32 is a little bit
    different I suppose...
    but it certainly does not look like anything to worry about.

    The cluster size advantage of NTFS does not really become a factor until
    your partitions are over 32 gigs...
    so for a 12 gig drive...as far as cluster efficiency goes...either FAT32 or
    NTFS should be OK...

    However due to better fault tolerance (and security) I'd still recommend
    NTFS.

    As an example:

    About two years ago I copied about 200gigs of data from one NTFS drive to
    another.
    The data drive had developed a SMART error and it took me a hell of a long
    time to copy the data over...
    and had made many attempts.

    Upon insection of the data...about 5% -10% was initially corrupted...but
    virtually all of it had "healed" within 24 hours.

    I don't know if that is necessarily the case with NTFS...but I know I've
    never seen anything like that with a fat32 drive recovery.
     
    philo, Sep 18, 2007
    #4
  5. Jack Gillis

    VanguardLH Guest

    "Jack Gillis" wrote in message
    news:...
    >I used True Image to back up my 12G NTFS System Partition to separate
    > internal HD formatted NTFS. The resulting image is 5,113,960KB. I
    > then did
    > the same thing to a FAT32 USB external drive and got two files --
    > one
    > 4,194,304KB and the other 820,934KB for a total of 5,015,238KB.
    > That
    > surprised me. I kind of expected the sum of the two FAT32 to be a
    > slight
    > bit larger than the single NTFS file because of the information
    > needed by
    > True Image to connect the two files.
    >
    > No big deal. I just wonder if someone would explain why this
    > happens.



    There is no "information" to connect the files. They are simply split
    files. The limit is 4GB per file (chunking). Read
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/140365. Since we don't know how many
    clusters were used for the backup file(s), you'll have to figure that
    out to determine how much possible wasted space there was. However, I
    suspect each cluster except the last were fully filled so the
    difference would only be maybe up to about 4095 bytes.

    Unless you use the TrueImage CD or its rescue CD to load on boot, you
    were probably saving a *logical* image of the OS partition. Everytime
    you run it, you will get a different sized backup. That is because
    the OS partition is not static while you are doing the image save.
    TrueImage refused to save *physical* images (sector-by-sector copies)
    unless it cannot recognize the file system or the file system is
    corrupt. That means you will never get EXACTLY the same restored
    state for the hard drive from a *logical* image that you would from a
    physical image. The best you can do with TI is to boot using its
    [rescue] CD and save the image outside the OS (i.e., the OS must not
    be running). We (and you) have no idea what was changing while TI was
    running under a running OS and saving a logical image backup file.

    I suspect the difference is that you ran TI under a running OS while
    trying to save a LOGICAL partition image. You were shooting at a
    moving target. You also did not mention if you saved a detailed log
    for each backup to note if TI had skipped some files due to "file read
    errors". TI doesn't support volume shadow copying in their Home
    version. This means it may not be able to save open files. Acronis
    recommendation is you pay more for their Workstation version. VSS has
    been available in Windows XP and Windows 2003 since they appeared and
    the crippled NT Backup included with them also supports VSS. Since
    which files are opened will differ at any point in time from another
    point in time, and since TI Home will skip them or error on them, you
    won't get the same size image even if they are performed back to back.

    The only way to do the comparison that you mentioned would be to save
    the image of a static volume. That means the OS must not be running.
    That means you run the imaging program on boot. Fact is, booting from
    TI's rescue CD so the OS volume is static is the only reliable method
    of saving a partition image with this product (but unfortunately it is
    still a logical image because it reads files through the file system
    for the OS rather than save sectors for a physical image backup).
     
    VanguardLH, Sep 18, 2007
    #5
  6. Jack Gillis

    Jack Gillis Guest

    "VanguardLH" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Jack Gillis" wrote in message news:...
    >>I used True Image to back up my 12G NTFS System Partition to separate
    >> internal HD formatted NTFS. The resulting image is 5,113,960KB. I then
    >> did
    >> the same thing to a FAT32 USB external drive and got two files -- one
    >> 4,194,304KB and the other 820,934KB for a total of 5,015,238KB. That
    >> surprised me. I kind of expected the sum of the two FAT32 to be a slight
    >> bit larger than the single NTFS file because of the information needed by
    >> True Image to connect the two files.
    >>
    >> No big deal. I just wonder if someone would explain why this happens.

    >
    >
    >

    Snip ---------

    > I suspect the difference is that you ran TI under a running OS while
    > trying to save a LOGICAL partition image. You were shooting at a moving
    > target.


    Snip -------------
    > The only way to do the comparison that you mentioned would be to save the
    > image of a static volume. That means the OS must not be running. That
    > means you run the imaging program on boot. Fact is, booting from TI's
    > rescue CD so the OS volume is static is the only reliable method of saving
    > a partition image with this product (but unfortunately it is still a
    > logical image because it reads files through the file system for the OS
    > rather than save sectors for a physical image backup).
    >


    Yes, thank you very much for your complete explanation.

    This morning before reading your post, I booted from the TI CD and backed up
    to the FAT32 partition and then to the NTFS one. Surprise! the total of the
    FAT32 files equaled the NTFS file.

    I wasn't aware that TI would not shadow copy open files but I think in all
    cases I have had only TI running and no files open on purpose. However,
    that leads me to wonder what happens with all the running programs such AVG
    and HP digital Imaging Monitor. Do they get imaged correctly when backing up
    from within Windows?

    Thanks again.
     
    Jack Gillis, Sep 18, 2007
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. c.rowlands4

    Acronis True Image Drive Image7 or Norton Ghost 2003

    c.rowlands4, Dec 6, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,650
    Peter C. Bogert
    Dec 7, 2003
  2. L Mehl

    Acronis True Image 7 won't run

    L Mehl, Dec 23, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    562
    L Mehl
    Dec 23, 2003
  3. Bobby Fischler
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,910
    Bobby Fischler
    Jul 24, 2004
  4. vvcd
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,331
  5. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,035
    Maximum Hag
    Feb 11, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page