System Image vs 'normal' backup of system drive

[Simon]

I have my Windows installation on a separate drive (C), with nothing else (except programs, etc) on the drive.  So, what is the difference between doing a full incremental backup of C drive, and creating a System Image?

Further, is the system image created by Windows (7)'s own backup utility a fully functional backup or a half baked effort?

[Simon]

Bump!     Anyone?

[stevenrw]

Can't give you a definitive answer on the differences Simon, but AFAIK a "backup" refers to backing up data (files, pics, docs etc,) whereas an image (normally referred to as an ISO image) refers to an exact copy of the drive or partition you've chosen.
FWIW Ive done ISO images of all my machines to a portable USB drive. NOT to another area of your HDD, the reason for which which will become clear in a mo.
I've no experience of the W7 backup program, but on Rays recommendation in another thread I chose Macrium Reflect.
If you look at Macrium Reflect Free, you can make ISO images of your Windows installation. What you also do is make a bootable recovery media CD.
An ISO image is an exact copy of your drive (or any partition you select), including settings, drivers, programs, data, the whole deal.
The theory is that if, for some reason, Windows becomes corrupted, or your hdd goes bang and your machine will not start, you can boot from the recovery disc you've made. This effectively boots into what is known as Windows PE https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc766093%28v=ws.10%29.aspx?f=255&MSPPError=-2147217396 which then gives you a cut down version of Windows from which you can plug in the removeable drive you used to create the system image and restore it from there to your machine.
You then end up with exactly the same as you had before your machine hit the skids, right down to the shortcuts on your desktop.
Its easy to do and the Macrium software is superb, although it takes a while, but you can set it up to shut down when its done. I can't see a strong case for using the Paid-For version although its only about £30-£40, but that would go a long way towards an external drive.
If you search on YouTube there's a few good items about the process.
Its worth doing a bit of housekeeping/disc cleanup before you run the image creation, because you probably don't want to spend time copying your recycle bin etc.
Just be sure to set the "auto-verify" on before you start, then you can forget all about it.

[Simon]

Thanks, Steven.  I did see Ray's recommendation, but had already purchased Acronis at that point, so have stuck with it. 

I have created scheduled incremental backups for all of my data partitions and drives, which seem to be working as expected.  I have also created a scheduled backup of my entire C drive, which exclusively houses Windows.  All backups are stored on the new 4Tb external drive.

To create a System Image with Acronis, you are first required to create a boot disc.  This boots into a bare bones Acronis console from which you can recover or create backups.  So, much the same as the Macrium method, I guess.  Using this boot console, though, seems to be the only way to create an actual System Image, hence my assumption that it must somehow be different from the regular complete system drive backup.  Maybe the System Image is only recoverable as a whole thing, via the boot console, whereas the regular 'C' backup could be explored for particular files? 

[colirv]

The problem with scheduled backups is that they are only as up-to-date as the last one, IYSWIM. All my files are backed up (by Genie in the background) half-hourly to an NAS, so if I mess something up I've only wasted half an hour at the most, and I don't need to remember to do anything. I'm about to supplement that with ISO images from Macrium to an external drive via USB3, which will probably be done incrementally weekly and fully monthly. I'm avoiding daily backups as being an unsatisfactory halfway house between these two approaches.

[Simon]

My C drive is backed up daily, on computer shutdown, and my Documents and data is backed up daily.  You can only go so far, and given I only used to backup about once a year before, this is quite radical for me.   

[colirv]

 

[pctech]

A drive image is an exact bit by bit copy of the drive including the partition table.

The key advantage of this is speed of deployment as provided the drive is the same size all the bits are in the same place so no formatting is required.

Not really necessary in a home/home office environment but it's downside is you have to keep the image current so not really suitable as a daily backup solution.

[armadillo]

Thanks, Steven.  I did see Ray's recommendation, but had already purchased Acronis at that point, so have stuck with it. 

To create a System Image with Acronis, you are first required to create a boot disc.  This boots into a bare bones Acronis console from which you can recover or create backups.  ..... Using this boot console, though, seems to be the only way to create an actual System Image, hence my assumption that it must somehow be different from the regular complete system drive backup.  Maybe the System Image is only recoverable as a whole thing, via the boot console, whereas the regular 'C' backup could be explored for particular files? 

Where did you find that you can only create a System Image by booting from the boot disc? Also, what exactly do you mean by a System Image?

I use Acronis True Image 2013 on my Windows 7 (64bit Pro) machine. You definitely do not need to use the boot disc to create any image at all. You simply run Acronis True Image from within Windows. It is a good idea, however, to use the boot disc if you need to recover the system from a backup.

I assume you have actually installed True Image on your PC?

I have my Windows OS and programs on one physical disk (an SSD) with nothing else on it. I call this my "System Disk". I have my data on a second disk (an HDD) and I also have a third HDD onto which I make the backups of my System Disk. And I copy backups also to an external HDD.

I make all the backups from within the Acronis True Image 2013 program within Windows. Using the boot disc (a CD), I have restored the system disk many times.

I do not recommend backing up in "Partition" mode. Switch to "Disk" mode. Disk mode will create an image of the complete disk, including its boot sector and Master Boot Record (MBR). This is important as it ensures that the OS will remain bootable after recovery.

I also recommend using Differential backups rather than Incremental backups. I have used both and tested them many times.

Only the first incremental backup records changes since the full backup. Each subsequent incremental backup records the changes to the system since your last incremental backup.

Each Differential backup records the changes since the last full backup, regardless of how many differential backups you have.

For a restore to work from an incremental backup, it requires that the full backup and all the incremental backups in the chain are valid. For a Differential restore, you need only one differential plus the full backup.

If you restore from an incremental backup and then create further incremental backups, restore from subsequent backups will fail (due to a bug in True Image, unless they have corrected this in True Image 2015).

You can browse the backup files (that have an extension of .tib) from within Windows and can copy individual files from them if you wish.

[Simon]

Right, so my discs are set up in a similar way to yours, ie, one disc exclusively for the OS, and the others for documents and backups. 

I think you've answered my question with your comment re 'partition' and 'disc' backups and it is indeed a 'disc' backup I'm using for the OS drive, so that is actually creating a full system image?  I think it's only that I've read about people making system images, and as Acronis doesn't actually state that's what it is, that's where I was unsure.  Also, searching the help files in Acronis for 'create system image' gives instructions to do it from the boot disc, hence my wondering what the difference was with that, rather than doing it from within the normal program. 

[armadillo]

Yes, your disk backup of the OS drive is a full system image. I searched for "create system image" both in the help from within the Acronis True Image software running in Windows and in the help pdf file for True Image 2015 and True Image 2013. I could not see anywhere that it told you to use the boot disc to do this so I am still unsure as to where you were looking. Can you copy and paste the text you found?

Anyway, I can assure you that a disk backup of the disk that holds your OS is a system image and that you can make it from within the Acronis True Image software running in Windows. I have done it and restored from it perfectly happily.

The Acronis help files (in the software and on the pdf) are pretty hard to follow and more than a little confusing.

The only place I found where it said you have to back up using the boot disc was where it describes how to backup a system which is running an OS that is not Windows.

You can also of course use the boot disc to backup a Windows system which is corrupt and failing to boot before trying to fix it (eg you are trying to fix someone else's broken system and want to back it up, even though it is broken, because you might make it worse!)

But in all cases of backup of a Windows system which is currently working, you do it from within True Image in the normal Windows program.

[Simon]

Sorry, I'm not ignoring this, but I had a bit of a drama last night where the PC wouldn't start without a restore, which, incidentally, has happened before, and I believe it was because I set Acronis to shut down the machine after completing a backup.  I also found that one of my file backups (iTunes) had disappeared from the list and it wouldn't let me re-add the existing backup, so I had to do that all over again, which reintroduced the siren noise which initially prompted this thread!  That seemed to be resolved this time by a reboot, but something is obviously getting it's knickers in a twist.

So, all in all, not a great evening with Acronis, and with all that going on, I forgot to look for the bit which said about using the boot disc to create a system image, but I'll have a look when I'm on it tonight. 

[Simon]

Yes, your disk backup of the OS drive is a full system image. I searched for "create system image" both in the help from within the Acronis True Image software running in Windows and in the help pdf file for True Image 2015 and True Image 2013. I could not see anywhere that it told you to use the boot disc to do this so I am still unsure as to where you were looking. Can you copy and paste the text you found?

When I found it, I was using ATI 2011.  I must have seen it somewhere, otherwise I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of doing it, but I guess I could have misunderstood what it said, or didn't read it properly.  I have since upgraded to ATI 2012 (why not a later version?  Because when I tried 2014, there was a bug which prevented the auto shutdown from working on completion of a backup - plus, I found a retail boxed version of 2012 on eBay for a fiver!), and using the same search term, "create Windows image", it's just coming up with anything containing the word 'image', and nothing specific to suggest a boot disc is required, so I guess I'll just have to put that one down to a senior moment. 

[armadillo]

When I found it, I was using ATI 2011.  I must have seen it somewhere, otherwise I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of doing it, but I guess I could have misunderstood what it said, or didn't read it properly.

It has always been easy to misunderstand their dreadful help files. I think we can now take your question as resolved 

They are also poor at investigating bugs. I am using ATI 2013 rather than ATI 2015 for a similar reason. I reported a bug in ATI 2013 because I thought it might be in their interests to fix it. They first said they would only investigate if I were using the current version. Then they told me to install the trial of the current version and repeat the bug situation. I did that and the bug was present in ATI 2015 too (at least it was at the time I did it). I sent them all the details of the bug with screenshots and listings etc. Then they replied and said I actually had to have purchased the most recent version for them to investigate the bug.

So to make them investigate a bug, you have to buy the latest version, with its bug. Then they might fix it for the next version, which you also have to buy in order to get the fix 

BTW, I also use EaseUS Todo Backup as I think it is useful to have more than one backup software just in case you hit a bug that matters. I have tested it and restoring the system works fine with EaseUS too.

I tend to test restoring from backups pretty thoroughly when I get a new PC. If the software works, I do not get the upgrades as I would then be forced to do all the testing all over again.

[Simon]

I'm having enough trouble with one backup product, let alone trying out another one! 

I've never really taken backups all that seriously until now, and I guess I've been lucky not to have needed them so far, but an aging PC, and a realisation that I have a lot to potentially lose, prompted me to get something sorted.

[armadillo]

Yes, you are lucky if you have never needed a backup in ernest. I have always backed up my data separately from my system. I have never needed to restore data but I've had to restore the system many times. The last time was when I was trying to solve a USB 3.0 problem and I applied the motherboard manufacturer's USB driver update. The result was that the system would not recognise any USB device, including the keyboard and mouse. The only way back was to restore the system, which ATI 2013 achieved in about 10 minutes. I have also had systems nuked by Microsoft updates and firewall and AV updates. Reinstalling Windows is something I avoid at all costs as it takes me around a year to reinstal and configure all my software.

[Simon]

I've just received an offer to upgrade to ATI 2016 for £19.95.   I can't help feeling that sometimes older versions work better with older OSs, such as Windows 7, which I am on.   

[armadillo]

If what you've got works, don't upgrade 
I never upgrade backup software because the testing I have to do is something I would only rather do once 
All they ever do is add bloat features that I don't need and mess about with the GUI so I have to search for what I already do.

[Simon]

We share the same thoughts. 

[armadillo]

Cheers, Simon. Over and out 

[Simon]

I'm still struggling to get my head around all of this.  I have several backups, which run at staggered times throughout the week, so, for example, one for Music runs on a Weds and Sat, Documents runs on Tues, Fri, Sun, etc.   But, I'm using incremental backups for these, and I've now got one full backup and loads of smaller incremental backups, which will continue to increase.  I don't really want to use the "5 incremental, then 1 full backup" scheme, as my Documents backup is about 200Gb, and takes ages, but I'm unhappy with the amount of incremental backups which are accruing, as, presumably, these would all need to be 'linked' together if a recovery was ever required.

I've been looking at the Consolidation function, but I'm just not getting it.  The Acronis help file says:

Using consolidation of backup versions, you can create a consistent copy of backup while deleting selected backup versions. This allows you to delete the backup versions you no longer need from any backup without harming that backup.

Consolidation creates a consistent copy of the backup that does not contain deleted backup versions. If you select a new location for the consolidated backup, the source backup stays as is unless you delete it. This requires more disk space but ensures security of the backup in case the consolidation fails because of power failure or a lack of disk space.

The bit I've bolded is the bit which I'm not getting, but can I use this to combine all the incremental backups into the initial full backup, and therefore reduce the number of incremental backups building up?

[Simon]

Well, I've just tried a consolidation of a smaller backup, consisting of 1 full backup (178Gb) plus 2 incremental backups, and it says it's going to take over 12 hours, so that's not going to happen.  I'm beginning to wish I'd taken my chances and not got into this, as it just seems fraught with complications.

[colirv]

A couple of weeks ago you said "My C drive is backed up daily, on computer shutdown, and my Documents and data is backed up daily." Is all this imaging on top of that or instead?

[Simon]

I've changed it since then, Colin.  I now only do a twice weekly backup of my C drive and daily backups of data, but different days for different data, so Documents are now backed up three times a week (which usually takes a couple of minutes as there's not always many changes), and my music is backed up separately, twice weekly.  It was just all the incremental folders piling up which is worrying me a bit, but I don't want to go to the 5:1 thing (where it does a complete backup for every 5 incrementals), as I don't think that's necessary.  I know I can adjust that to whatever I want, so that may be the best option, but I was trying to tidy things up a bit, and get everything so I could 'set and forget' it.  I've also been trying to work out what the 'Version Chain' scheme does, but again, that would appear to be creating more 'full' backups than I need and I'd need to leave the computer on virtually 24/7 just for it keep completing backup cycles.

I've also just tried another consolidation, using different settings, and that started out at 3 hours 44 minutes to complete, then went to 12 hours, then to 1 day and 24 minutes, so I've given up with that one as well. 

[colirv]

As I've said before, all my data, program files etc., are automatically backed up hourly in the background to an NAS, so I really can just forget that side of things. And TBH, I really can't see any advantage to doing it any other way.

OS-wise, I'm now planning to do an image to a disk via a USB3, incremental weekly, full once a month (there's room on the disk for two full backups, so no need to mess about with consolidation). In terms of time and effort, that'll only take a few minutes every week. In terms of a worst case scenario (a full crash) I'll restore from the image to the position at most a week ago (which should be straightforward), then restore all my data and program files to at most an hour out-of-date (that could take several button presses, but heyho!).

[Simon]

As I've said before, all my data, program files etc., are automatically backed up hourly in the background to an NAS, so I really can just forget that side of things. And TBH, I really can't see any advantage to doing it any other way.

What type of backups do you do?  Are they all incremental following an initial full backup, and if so, how many incremental backups do you do per one full backup?

[colirv]

None of the above! I splashed out $60 on two of these for mine and my wife's PCs. There may be cheaper or free alternatives around. Genie simply checks every so often (you can set the period) for any files that have been updated, and copies them to the drive you specify. I use an NAS, and I can go to it any time I want and find the latest version of every file, in its original format. I've got it set to save earlier versions of files as well, going back a week.

The very first backup took about a day in all (at least), as all the files had to be sent over the wifi. Once that was done, however, the continuous backup is not noticeable - a few seconds in the background every hour depending on how many files you've changed. If you ignore the option to keep multiple copies the effect is as though you went to Windows Explorer every hour and told it to copy your whole drive to another disk, ignoring files that haven't been changed - except that would be somewhat of a chore to do yourself (even if you used programs like Synctoy or FreeFileSync), whereas Genie it does it for you!

[Simon]

OK, thanks.  I'll take a look.   

[armadillo]

The bit I've bolded is the bit which I'm not getting, but can I use this to combine all the incremental backups into the initial full backup, and therefore reduce the number of incremental backups building up?

Acronis terrible help file strikes again! It means you can combine all the incrementals with the full backup and then delete the incrementals. However, as you have found, it is useless as it takes longer than making a new full backup.

[Simon]

Yes indeed, I gave that up as a bad idea!

[armadillo]

It was just all the incremental folders piling up which is worrying me a bit, but I don't want to go to the 5:1 thing (where it does a complete backup for every 5 incrementals), as I don't think that's necessary.  I know I can adjust that to whatever I want, so that may be the best option, but I was trying to tidy things up a bit, and get everything so I could 'set and forget' it.

The best way is to do a full backup followed by differentials, not incrementals. Differentials do not form a chain so all you need for recovery is the full backup plus any one of the differentials. You can delete any number of differentials as you wish, without compromising the integrity of the backup. Differential backup is fast and, unless you are updating a large proportion of your data, the backups are tolerably small too.

[colirv]

I can think of two problems with differential backups.

a) They take up more space than incremental backups, which could be important, particularly if you're struggling to store two full backups (which is preferable, otherwise you're without any backup while you're doing the new full backup).

b) You will only have one version of each file you've been working on. Previous versions, which might exist in incremental backups, are over-written by each differential backup, which uses the current version. This, incidentally, is one reason why I use the different, automatic method of backing up files that I described above. I can go back an hour, or up to a week, if I make (as I have done in the past) a mess of something!

[armadillo]

I can think of two problems with differential backups.

a) They take up more space than incremental backups, which could be important, particularly if you're struggling to store two full backups (which is preferable, otherwise you're without any backup while you're doing the new full backup).

They do take up more space than incrementals but how big they are depends on how much data has been altered since the last full backup. So it might take many differentials before the same space is taken up as a further full backup.

b) You will only have one version of each file you've been working on. Previous versions, which might exist in incremental backups, are over-written by each differential backup, which uses the current version.

Previous versions are not overwritten by any differential backup. When you make a new differential backup, it does not alter the full backup nor any of the previous differential backups. You can always go back to a previous version (provided you have not deleted it).

For example, suppose you make a full backup on day 0 and then differentials on consecutive days, d1, d2, ..., d10. If you want to restore the data as at day 5, you just restore from the full backup together with differential d5. (Maybe I misunderstood your point. Forgive me if I did).

You have just as much flexibility as with incrementals. But to do that with incrementals, you would need the full backup plus the incrementals from each of the five days and you would be stuffed if any of them is corrupt.

[Simon]

The best way is to do a full backup followed by differentials, not incrementals. Differentials do not form a chain so all you need for recovery is the full backup plus any one of the differentials. You can delete any number of differentials as you wish, without compromising the integrity of the backup. Differential backup is fast and, unless you are updating a large proportion of your data, the backups are tolerably small too.

I don't quite follow when you say differentials don't form a chain.  Do you not still get "BackupA", followed by "BackupA1", BackupA2", etc?  I get that it's saving changes since the original backup, rather than since the last incremental, so does each differential overwrite the previous one?

[armadillo]

The differentials are completely independent of each other and do not form a chain. No differential overwrites any other. Backup A remains unaltered and valid. Each differential remains unaltered after it is created

At the time you create BackupA8, the total state of all your data is given by BackupA and BackupA8. BackupA contains all your data in its original state and BackupA8 contains those parts of your data that have changed since then.

BackupA1 to BackupA7 are no longer needed unless you want to recover to the time when one of them was created.

Imagine that your data consists of 100 document files, say f1, f2, ...., f100.
BackupA contains a (compressed) copy of all 100 of those documents.

On day 1, you work on files f20 and f50, say.
So BackupA1 contains not all 100 files but just the updated f20 and f50.

On day 2, you work on files f30 and f35, say.
So BackupA2 contains not all 100 files but just the updated f20, f50, f30 and f35.

On day 3, you work on f27 and f22.
So BackupA3 contains not all 100 files but just the updated f20, f50, f30, f35, f27 and f22

To recover your data as at day 3, the software copies all 100 of your files from BackupA and then updates them with the 6 files that are held in BackupA3.

Differential disk backups work in the same way except that they record altered disk sectors rather than altered files.

[Simon]

Right, I'm with you.  Thanks!   

[colirv]

Maybe I misunderstood your point. Forgive me if I did.

No, you didn't. I was wrong. I still think, however, that although imaging has a place in terms of recovering from a disaster, and one can backup just the system to do that, using imaging simply to keep copies of files seems unnecessarily clumsy. Perhaps it's me that's misunderstanding.

[armadillo]

No, you didn't. I was wrong.

That is generous of you.

I still think, however, that although imaging has a place in terms of recovering from a disaster, and one can backup just the system to do that, using imaging simply to keep copies of files seems unnecessarily clumsy. Perhaps it's me that's misunderstanding.

I agree that imaging is a great way to backup the system but a clumsy way to backup files. However, you may be misunderstanding what the imaging software, such as Acronis True Image, EaseUS Todo and a host of others, is doing with file backups. When it makes file backups, it does not actually create images at all.

When the software creates system image backups, it makes backups (full, incremental or differential, as you choose) of the disk sectors of the whole disk. Those backups are system image backups. They are the most reliable method of recovering a bootable system. If the computer is designed from the outset so as to keep the OS on a dedicated disk, this is very efficient in terms of time and storage.

For backing up data files, it is not usually best to create disk images of the disks which store the data files. But that is not what any of the imaging softwares do anyway. What Acronis (and EaseUS and all the others) do for file backups is to create backups merely of the files, not of the disk sectors. The same principle of full, incremental or differential is applied to these file backups.

When you specify file backups to Acronis True Image, you select the folders or files you want backed up and it then creates full, incremental or differential backups just of those specified files. Those backups are therefore small and very fast. They are not "images" in that they do not record any structure at all, just the data.

Acronis (and the others) started out by providing just partition and disk imaging in their software. Then they realised there was a market for the simpler file backup for data and they added file backup features to their software.

So, every backup is:

(Disk image level OR partition image level OR file level)
AND
(Full OR incremental OR differential)

The software can create any of those.

[colirv]

Thanks for that!

[Simon]

It's more complex than you might think, isn't it!  I've done fiddling with Acronis now, so I'll leave it for a month and see what it does.  I've set up some auto-deletes, so it will be interesting to see if they work according to plan.