Backup Larger than Original



+ Add a Comment


The radically different in regards to the look of their buttons and such. Differences exist, but nothing so groundbreaking as to warrant a customized skin for your Firefox browser.Thanks for sharing the info.
Samson - drop shipping



The method is causing your problem. By choosing incremental you keep the original files and add what has changed. So... if you had 1.4Tb on your machine, backed it up, then deleted 1tb and added 1tb later, your backup would now be the original 1.4tb + the added 1tb and this happens each time you back up. So your incremental backup happens a lot faster than a full backup, but restoring it will take a lot of time. Rethink how much you need to back up and what the best method is. You can check my online storage blog for more tips.



This is a wonderful post. I enjoyed the information lot. I will bookmark this page. Thanks for sharing this important information.
brass telescope



Thx for your valuable information, I really appreciate that. All the best, Jeff Blumenladen



A mirrored drive is not a back up. If you contract a virus, for instance, then both drives are contaminated. He is doing right. you mirror so that if one drive physically fails then your still in busines till you get a new drive and rebuild the array.



Hi, I'm Elly the I.S. manager over at the The Positive Thinking Playground and as you can guess from the amount of data I work with over there I've run into this exact problem more than once...

Here's what I've learned to do:

1. I use Iolo System Mechanic alongside my Acronis install

2. I schedule System Mechanic to repair, defrag, and compact the registry 2 hours before Acronis does it's thing

Even though the registry isn't massive in terms of file space, it does make a difference in the back-up imaging...  While my back up images are normally bigger than the originals, it is usually around 2% (but I have done 1:1 back-ups in the past)...

Of course as the doctor said, keep your frag levels low, but don't forget to defrag the registry too!!!  It will make you whole machine run better and even make the imaging process 10-15% faster! 



...incremental backups, backup the malware also...a straight primary HDD image (after a thorough cleaning) is, IMO a much better solution.  If you keep your primary hard dive small (40-60GB) and uncluttered, nothing beats a full image backup.  Use a small SSD for a primary HDD and a 1-2TB partitioned secondary HDD for programs, page file, backups, movies, pics, music, another OS maybe, and copies of all your installed programs, drivers, bookmarks etc.

Personally, I never really liked any RAID setup, it's more of a PITA than the 'old way'   ;)



I typed out a great story, only to lose it all.

 I'll quit posting till you guys fix that.  Promise, not a threat.

THERE ARE ONLY 11 TYPES OF PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD. Those that think binary jokes are funny, those that don't, and those that don't know binary



The problem with mirroring is that if you bork your machine and it's not the result of a hard drive failure, you also mirror the borking. With a backup you can restore pre-borking.



then (adverb) \'then\: denotes time
than (conjunction) \'than\: denotes comparison
ex., 1 is first, THEN 2; but, 2 is more THAN 1.



What I find amazing, is that C is 1.5 TB in size.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

I wanted a signature, but all I got was this ________



It sounds like he's setup a poor-man's RAID array.  If the second (identical) drive is just being used for storage of the backups, then why not just mirror them and achieve the same thing, without even having to mess with a specific backup method like that.  Just sayin'



Raid 5 is known to be slower then non-raid setup.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.