Re: Backup software--like GHOST
Re: Backup software--like GHOST
Well, I think we should wrap up soon. I'm sure there are many who are
annoyed by now over the length of this thread! Don't put any questions
in your response to this. This is it...!...
Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>> PCR wrote:
|>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>>>> PCR wrote:
|>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
....snip
|>>> Of course, you can have a crash without getting a blue screen. I
|>>> think you have admitted to at least one, & Terhune said you weren't
|>>> trying hard enough. But you are in a better position than I to know
|>>> which OS is more robust. You & Terhune!
|>>
|>> I haven't had a crash, but I have had a "lockup" or two. (where I
|>> needed to turn off the power, and then back on)
|>
|> Do you get any messages during boot after that-- such as that
|> ScanDisk (or an equivalent) must run?
|
| The "message" I got was just the desktop staring at me, and no action
| whatsover.
Alright. Naturally, I've seen those in Win98 too. Once/twice, I actually
waited long enough & the thing recovered!
....snip
|>>>>>> Well, as I said before, if I rerun ERUNT on the same day, it
|>>>>>> updates that folder's contents with the newer files. If you
|>>>>>> want to keep the earlier version, you should just rename it
|>>>>>> slightly (or the new one) when rerunning ERUNT. (Whereas in
|>>>>>> SCANREG, it *blindly* overwrites the oldest cab, each and every
|>>>>>> time you run it; so is that better? I don't think so!)
|>>>>>
|>>>>> Nope. But I'm still just wondering whether ERUNT suffers that
|>>>>> same peccadillo, that it would wipe one out EVEN doing a restore
|>>>>> (not just a save). I've found this...
|>>>>>
|>>
|>> Just an update here - I checked one thing out here: when I use
|>> ERUNT to restore a backup, it does NOT delete or touch the previous
|>> ones AT ALLl. It leaves them ALL alone. Yea!!
|>
|> That makes more sense than what ScanReg /Restore does! A lot more!
|> Congratulations to that ERUNT writer Lars Hederer! Thanks for
|> checking on that, Colorado. But, in...
|>
|>
http://www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt/erunt.txt
|> ERUNT - The Emergency Recovery Utility NT
|>
|> ...I'm see the possibility that it created a .bak file(s) of the
|> current Registry just before doing a restore...
|>
|> .......Quote...................
|> ERDNT technical information
|> ---------------------------
|> ERDNT knows two restoration modes.
|> ...snip...
|> Note: In restoration mode "NT" backups of the current registry files
|> are automatically created, so that option is grayed out.
|> ...snip...
|> The backups of the current registry files are placed in the same
|> location as the original and are given the extension ".bak".
|> .......EOQ......................
|
| That might be. But of what use is that? There are *several*
| registry data files; it's not as simple as in Win98SE, with just TWO
| files, "user.dat" and "system.dat", and one CAB backup!
|
| So messin around with these or their backups (and keeping them all
| straight) would be a bit dangerous - and actually - completely
| unnecessary (due to the other methods we've already covered!).
I believe you are absolutely correct. Yea, let ERUNT deal with those
..bak files, & XP users must use the other methods. Just for academic
reasons, one should know what they are, though, in case they do show up.
Despite what I quoted up there, I'm not really sure whether it is the NT
Mode of ERUNT or the "file copy" mode that even creates them.
|> So, do you see any .bak files in your Registry folders?
|
| I have seen some .bak files there, as I vaguely recall. But again,
| they are of no practical use to me, per above explanation.
OK. Probably, it is NT Mode of restore that does it, then: You have said
you never tried the other.
|> That might hold
|> the Registry that was current just before you did the ERUNT
|> restore-- IF I read that right & if MS hasn't changed it since
|> Hederer did that good work. (That might be a little like RBbad.cab
|> in Win98, but Win98 doesn't use it when doing /Restore).
|
| It might be like that. But who really cares?
. Once one has decided ERUNT knows what it is doing & that it doesn't
need micro-managing like ScanReg does-- it is only for academic reasons
to know.
|> Also... I recall you said that ERUNT would update its latest backup,
|> if you ran it twice on the same day instead of deleting the oldest.
|
| That is correct. It overwrites the existing ones (and there are
| several) with updated ones.
|
|> Is it possible that happened during the restore too? Was the size(s)
|> any different?
|
| They were NOT touched during restore. I checked the timestamps,
| etc.
Very good. Likely it is going into the .bak, then.
|> But I guess that STILL would be preferable to what Win98 does!
|
| Yup.
Yep. That Hederer was a smart one!
|>>>>>
http://www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt/erunt.txt
|>>>>> ERUNT - The Emergency Recovery Utility NT
|>>>>>
|>>>>> ...but I think what you've got might have advanced since then.
|>>>>
|>>>> Oh, I sure.
|>>>
|>>> Yea. That sure didn't look anything like an actual MS article. I
|>>> suppose MS bought ERUNT off that guy, if it comes pre-installed now
|>>> with XP. See how rich a guru can get?
|>>
|>> Huh? ERUNT and System Restore are completely different. If you
|>> want ERUNT, YOU have to download it and install it yourself. No
|>> big deal, though. It does NOT "come" with XP (or any OS).
|>
|> Ohhhh-- I was assuming it came with XP! It was smart of you take that
|> download-- sounds very useful! Those cheap-o MS bigwigs should buy it
|> for a million dollars!
|>
|>>>>> It does
|>>>>> point out another failing of System Restore-- if the Registry is
|>>>>> in bad enough shape, you won't be able to boot even to Safe Mode
|>>>>> to
|>>>>> use it.
|>>>>
|>>>> That could possibly happen, yes. (of course - it is a computer,
|>>>> after all!) System Restore is not a magic Elf.
|>>>
|>>> Yep. We are both smart to have our 3rd-party backup-apps!
|>>
|>> You bet.
|>
|>
.
|>
|>>>>> That's why he wrote ERUNT! Looks like ERUNT is more configurable
|>>>>> than ScanReg & possibly can be set to avoid that peccadillo or
|>>>>> running it one way instead of another avoids it.
|>>>>
|>>>> Yup. Quite flexible, too.
|>>>
|>>> Very good. Have you gone to see what it would be like to run it
|>>> from a floppy, CD-ROM or flash drive? Don't necessarily run it,
|>>> though.
|>>
|>> Well, to run it, you need to access it in the Windows\ERDNT folder.
|>> That's where it (and the backups) are stored. There might be a
|>> way to transfer all its contents over, by why bother? I guess if
|>> you couldn't boot into windows (which hasn't happened yet), that
|>> might be nice.
|>>
|>> Haven't read up on that, though. But if I couldn't boot up on
|>> windows, I could use one of my third party DOS-like goodies to boot
|>> and get access to the ERUNT files on the HD (in an explorer like
|>> interface), and execute it there.
|>
|> There's a section in Hederer's docs that says you are on the right
|> track. You may have to do something to an .ini, though -- IF the XP
|> drive is a different letter -- before you run ERUNT, is all. That is
|> "file copy" mode.
|
| Probably good to know.
Yea. Hopefully, one never needs to run it in file copy mode, though. If
he's really good, a message will pop up during the run of ERUNT that
mentions it-- instead of it only being in the docs. That's how I would
have written it when I was a computer programmer!
|>> Like the recovery or NTFS disk access programs I've mentioned
|>> before: Like the WinXP Recovery Console, or Bart's PE Builder, or
|>> NTFS4DOS, etc. (you can read about all those if you want).
|>
|> YOU must go read it-- I'm not XP yet!
|
| LOL.
.
| In 10 more days, it (theoretically) won't be sold anymore, either.
| Well maybe not, as the shops might have a grace period to clear out
| their inventory - I don't know.
Maybe. Or maybe someone will snap up all the excess & offer it on the
NET. Also, there is EBAY & such, we know.
....snip
|>>>>>>> DEFINITELY, don't go wiping out your system just to get me an
|>>>>>>> answer! Maybe Terhune will see this & wreck his instead!
|>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>> NOTE that big article you found about System Restore...
|>>>>>>>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx
|>>>>>>> Microsoft Windows XP System Restore
|>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>> ...does say "The restore operation itself will create a restore
|>>>>>>> point for undo purposes." But it doesn't say whether the oldest
|>>>>>>> is deleted for that! Can it be they have carried forward the
|>>>>>>> same boo-boo from Win98 into WinXP! SO... careful with your
|>>>>>>> Restore Points too!
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> With System Restore the oldest one gets deleted if needed to
|>>>>>> make room (within the designated space reserved for System
|>>>>>> Restore).
|>>>>>
|>>>>> So! That was pretty silly of them to carry that into XP! One
|>>>>> can't even copy ones Restore Points to protect them before doing
|>>>>> the restore, can one?
|>>>>
|>>>> I haven't ever had the need or desire to do that, but generally
|>>>> speaking, the answer to that is NO. But I mean, who on earth
|>>>> needs to go back to a Restore Point a month or two ago? Way
|>>>> too much has changed by then.
|>>>
|>>> Probably you are right. If the restore points failed or ran out,
|>>> the best course is to go for the full system backup.
|>>
|>> Yup. And if the restore points are that old, too.
|>>
|>>> But I'm thinking of
|>>> those who may post to some XP NG for help who haven't made a
|>>> backup. If someone starts telling them to go for those restore
|>>> points-- how many really will be usable?
|>>
|>> Usually most, if not ALL, *IF* the changes have been moderate and
|>> reasonable, and the system has been kept in good shape up to now.
|>>
|>> I say moderate, because for something like installing a Service
|>> Pack, or a new version of IE, or Microsoft Office, and then wanting
|>> later to reverse that, well THAT might be pushing your luck a bit.
|>> I'd go for the backup restore in that case.
|>
|> I think you have that right.
|
| However, that being said....
| Just recently, I tried System Restore out again, after installing a
| fairly large audio restoration demo program (just to try it out), and
| it worked perfectly (to remove the program, and any vestiges of the
| program, when done, which you CANNOT due with "scanreg /restore").
|
| But I usually uninstall it first.
| However, either way, System Restore works pretty well most of time.
| But because it was such a large program (it had a 50 MB installer exe
| file), and just to be *perfectly* safe, I went ahead and restored my
| prior backup image.
That's impressive that System Restore seemed able to handle a really big
one. You were wise still to go for the image afterwards, just in case.
If XP isn't too complex for a tracker -- like PCMag's InCtrl5 -- to
handle, you could use something like that too to decide whether to go
for the image. BUT the bigger the package even in Win98-- the tougher it
is to look at an InCtrl5 report!
|>>> Depends whether they start bottom up in date or
|>>> top down, looks like -- just as with ScanReg -- because the oldest
|>>> one gets destroyed during the restore process. That is true--
|>>> unless some XP guru greater than us cares to object!
|>>
|>> The oldest one(s) do get deleted if you exceed the allocated limit.
|>> I've already seen that.
|>
|> OK. Hederer did better!
|
| But keep in mind, when you set the limit for the System Restore
| point's disk space, YOU set the limit, so obviously something's got
| to go when it fills up, and that should be the OLDEST stuff - which
| it indeed is.
|
| And this stuff encompasses MUCH more than the ERUNT backup (which can
| ONLY restore the system registry). And NOT any programs or program
| files, etc.
All MS had to do was to leave the restore points alone during the
process of restoring one (instead of removing the oldest if space has
run out) & maybe put the current data into a .bak restore point
instead-- like Hederer seems to have done. As is, one has to be aware
the oldest won't be usable, if one starts top down & hopes to get to
them. Of course, it may be rare one needs to go that far back.
|>>>>> They are in some kind of secret place-- maybe in their own
|>>>>> partition!
|>>>>
|>>>> They are in a separate folder. They are in the (normally
|>>>> hidden) "System Volume Information folder", which is generally
|>>>> "hands-off"!
|>>>
|>>> Alright. Just to solidify our conclusion, look carefully at their
|>>> dates the next time you do a System Restore-- before & after. Did
|>>> you lose the oldest, as that article suggests but doesn't quite say
|>>> outright...?...
|>>>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx
|>>
|>> I have seen the oldest one(s) get removed - IF the specified allowed
|>> disk space limit was exceeded. So, YES.
|>
|> OK, thanks. So, depending on how much space is set for it, there
|> could be more or less than 5 Restore Points-- but the same silly
|> principle applies! Whatever you've got-- it's LESS than you think!
|
| There are *considerably more* then 5 restore points using System
| Restore! It's more like 20, or so!
Yow! That seems to be enough, really! I guess this problem of the oldest
getting wiped durin the process of a restore really is moot!
| It's not a fixed number of restore points. Its limited by size and
| disk space, and the different restore points are somewhat different
| in size, depending on how much you have done between sessions.
That makes me wonder whether each one is a full restore point or some
kind of incremental. But, if it offers you the full 20 during the
process of doing a restore-- I guess they must effectively be full
restore points. OK, then.
|>>>>> I know you've got your True Image in case the Restore Points
|>>>>> run out. But does everyone?
|>>>>
|>>>> I haven't EVER had the need (or want) to go back to the earliest
|>>>> Restore Points a month or two ago.
|>>>>
|>>>> Most would also have available some backup program or routine.
|>>>> (Or none at all, and they just live "foolishly" (probably the
|>>>> same ones who did that back in Win9x and Win3.1).
|>>>
|>>> It's still something to keep in mind, that, if it looks like you
|>>> have 5-- you may get to try only 3!
|>>
|>> YOU may. I usually have a bit more than 5 backups (with my manual
|>> ERUNT backups).
But I usually go in later and delete them.
|>> The autobackups are limited to 5 days worth, however, and do NOT get
|>> erased after a restore, as I mentioned earlier in this post.
|>
|> No, we're talking about Restore Points here. ERUNT does well.
|
| Well, as I said above, I typically have around 20 or so System Restore
| points to choose from, depending. And NOT 5!! But I've rarely IF
| EVER found the need to go back that far. (Presumably I'd know
| what's going on a lot sooner than that).
OK. It's a moot point, then-- you've got enough not to worry about the
oldest all all!
|>>>>>>> I have good reason to believe in Win98 -- if you start
|>>>>>>> restoring Registries oldest to latest -- you may get to try
|>>>>>>> them all.
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> Not ALL of them, unless you've saved one or two, since as soon
|>>>>>> as you restore one, one of them (the oldest remaining one) will
|>>>>>> be blindly erased to keep the limit at 5!!
|>>>>>
|>>>>> In this one, I restore the oldest (RB004). The current one
|>>>>> (System.dat, User.dat, System.ini, Win.ini) got put into RB003, &
|>>>>> RB004 went into oblivion. But all the rest survived! But who
|>>>>> wants to go oldest to youngest?
|>>>>>
|>>>>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP
|>>>>> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p
|>>>>> RB004 CAB 1,602,164 06-09-08 8:01p <<oldest
|>>>>> RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p
|>>>>> RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p
|>>>>> RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a
|>>>>> RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a
|>>>>>
|>>>>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP
|>>>>> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p
|>>>>> RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p
|>>>>> RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p
|>>>>> RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a
|>>>>> RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a
|>>>>> RB003 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:36a
|>>>>>
|>>>>>>> But who
|>>>>>>> wants to start with the oldest! So, as you know, it's best to
|>>>>>>> copy them all first & move them in/out-- but that's extra work!
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> But you can do this too with ERUNT. No big difference there.
|>>>>>
|>>>>> ERUNT seems to have a way or two around the problem. For one
|>>>>> thing, you can increase the backups kept beyond 5-- & NOT have
|>>>>> to move
|>>>>> them around for use.
|>>>>
|>>>> I can save as many ERUNT backups (manually) as I want. The daily
|>>>> ERUNT autobackup ones, however, are limited by your choice - as to
|>>>> how many.
|>>>
|>>> I'm going to increase the number of my Registry backups to 7 &
|>>> experiment again. I know the extra 2 won't be offered by ScanReg
|>>> /Restore-- but will they increase the number of usable ones when
|>>> restoring youngest to oldest in date?
|>>
|>> Don't know. I still expect the oldest ones to get deleted when you
|>> do a restore, but this time you'll have 7, but since you can only
|>> see 5 in scanreg /restore, what's the point? It's a real PIA!
|>> Better to just use a backup folder for some extra ones when that
|>> need arises.
|>
|> You are right about the backup folder. Nevertheless, I've now got 6
|> (not including RBbad.cab)...
|>
|> C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP>dir rb*.cab /od
|> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP
|> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p rbbad.cab
|> RB005 CAB 1,602,739 06-14-08 6:50p rb005.cab
|> RB003 CAB 1,602,739 06-15-08 2:06p rb003.cab
|> RB004 CAB 1,602,711 06-16-08 6:24p rb004.cab
|> RB000 CAB 1,602,771 06-17-08 4:05p rb000.cab
|> RB001 CAB 1,602,738 06-18-08 5:58p rb001.cab
|> RB002 CAB 1,602,761 06-19-08 6:03p rb002.cab
|>
|> By tomorrow, I'll have 7-- & I'll go do that test! Could be, although
|> the oldest won't show up in the /Restore operation,
|
| I expect that to be the case.
ODDLY-- it was the NEWEST that didn't show up! I didn't wait for 7, but
tried it after I had 6 (not counting RBbad.cab). The following is the
result...
RB002 was NOT offered by ScanReg /Restore among the 5 it offers, until I
deleted the excess (not shown). That's bad! Why would the NEWEST backup
NOT be offered! So, I restored RB001...
Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP
RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p
RB005 CAB 1,602,739 06-14-08 6:50p
RB003 CAB 1,602,739 06-15-08 2:06p
RB004 CAB 1,602,711 06-16-08 6:24p
RB000 CAB 1,602,771 06-17-08 4:05p
RB001 CAB 1,602,738 06-18-08 5:58p << 1
RB002 CAB 1,602,761 06-19-08 6:03p
After restoring RB0001, RB006 was added to hold what was current just
before the restore. Now, I had 7: That's the limit I set in ScanReg.ini.
So, the next restore will wipe one. ODDLY, RB006 (now the newest of them
all) was offered by /Restore-- but RB002 STILL was not offered! I chose
to restore RB000...
Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP
RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p
RB005 CAB 1,602,739 06-14-08 6:50p
RB003 CAB 1,602,739 06-15-08 2:06p
RB004 CAB 1,602,711 06-16-08 6:24p
RB000 CAB 1,602,771 06-17-08 4:05p << 2
RB001 CAB 1,602,738 06-18-08 5:58p
RB002 CAB 1,602,761 06-19-08 6:03p
RB006 CAB 6,209,878 06-20-08 4:59p
After that, RB005 was wiped for being the oldest. The next /Restore
still did not offer RB002-- but went ahead & offered both RB006 & 7 &
the 3 oldest.
Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP
RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p
RB003 CAB 1,602,739 06-15-08 2:06p
RB004 CAB 1,602,711 06-16-08 6:24p
RB000 CAB 1,602,771 06-17-08 4:05p
RB001 CAB 1,602,738 06-18-08 5:58p
RB002 CAB 1,602,761 06-19-08 6:03p
RB006 CAB 6,209,878 06-20-08 4:59p
RB007 CAB 6,209,878 06-20-08 5:16p
To recover, I then deleted both RB003 & 4 in DOS. (Everything was done
in DOS-- I never rebooted to Windows but only to DOS.) FINALLY, RB002
was offered! I took it & rebooted to Windows!
|> it might still be
|> the one that gets pushed out by it. It's just for academic reasons
|> that I want to know.
|>
|> ...snip
|>>> Yea, it doesn't seem to be as big an issue with ERUNT. How is it
|>>> you started to save your own Registry backups instead of relying
|>>> on the automatic ones?
|>>
|>> Well, on those days when I make some "significant changes" during
|>> the same day, and I want to save those recent changes (since I'm
|>> not sure if I'll want to fall back to them later. And I may even
|>> want to experiment with some more changes later on during the same
|>> day, so it never hurts to be fully prepared.
|>
|> OK. Very good. I've cut out the BING portion of this marathon
|> diatribe & posted it separately.
|
| OK. And I responded to that one a bit earlier (it was shorter
I see it. OK, bye.
.
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
