Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Implementing Leopard features for Vista?

<< < (2/4) > >>

MrCrispy:
Carol, what you propose is quite possible except for the extra layer of indirection needed to mount the image so it appears as a filesystem. That is what TimeMachine does so nicely, the backup snapshot appears to everyone else as a regular copy of the data so its easy to search, index and view. With a VSS snapshot, I must use some kind of Volume explorer thingy to do so and its not always available, so it won't get indexed automatically.

I haven't used incremental snapshots in Acronis but I wonder if mounting them gives me access to the complete filesystem, or only the files that changed in that snapshot?

W.r.t. VSS vs TimeMachine, using hardlinks is quite clever, but as mentioned in the review, TM does not work at the block level which is a big disadvantage. Microsoft has block level shadow copies and it makes a huge difference. Windows Desktop Search could also be rewritten to search any 'previous versions' in addition, that would require no core OS changes.

Ralf Maximus:
I haven't used incremental snapshots in Acronis but I wonder if mounting them gives me access to the complete filesystem, or only the files that changed in that snapshot?

--- End quote ---

I use Acronis in incremental mode.  So long as all of your backup files are present, you have a complete image -- not just the files that changed.  You will get a complete snapshot of the whole filesystem as it looked when the incremental was taken.

And yes, it's powered by magic.

Carol Haynes:
Yes if you mount numerous increments you get the complete drive for each increment under a different drive letter at the point that the increment was made.

If you use something like X1 or Exalead it should be possible to index your files in each increment just once (but make sure each increment is allocated a different drive letter) - then the increment doesn't need to be mounted to search the image - obviously it will need to be mounted if you actually want to view the files but that just involves a right click on the increment file and select mount from the menu.

nontroppo:
So to get something close to Time machine, one needs to mount drives for each snapshot (TM does hourly (24), then daily (~29), then weekly (...) snapshots). I suspect one will run out of drive letters before long? I think one would need to break that useful timing scheme, so only allow weekly for two months then monthly (or can windows use "silent" drive letters)? This doesn't seem like a serviceable solution for general users unless some changes are made to the requirements of having to mount drives - is there any other way to do it?

Could one not use some program which catches requests to mount a drive and uses a hash of that mount volume to find the right mount - thus only one drive letter would be needed?

Is there any way to get Vista's desktop search to index those revisions (even as mounts) currently?

r.e. block mode: as I understand it, Apple had originally wanted to use ZFS to do the grunt work for block mode, but technical difficulties forced them to withdraw ZFS support for Leopard final (which is read-only for users and experimental read/write for developers). Indeed the weakness currently is for monolithic files, of which VMs are the clearest example. I wonder if they can't do some sort of delta mechanism on top of the hardlinks - deltas don't need block-mode IIUC.

Ralf Maximus:
So to get something close to Time machine, one needs to mount drives for each snapshot (TM does hourly (24), then daily (~29), then weekly (...) snapshots). I suspect one will run out of drive letters before long? I think one would need to break that useful timing scheme, so only allow weekly for two months then monthly (or can windows use "silent" drive letters)? This doesn't seem like a serviceable solution for general users unless some changes are made to the requirements of having to mount drives - is there any other way to do it?

--- End quote ---

That's the theory.  In practice, I usually only keep a week's worth of incrementals around at a time.  I figure if my Windows gets trashed and I don't notice within a week, there's something wrong with me.  So to keep a week's worth of incremental backups online would require (for me) a maximum of seven drive letters.

But having all that available all the time seems wasteful.  That's a lot of horsepower being used for something that might be needed but probably never will.  If I do need to delve into the past, then I can mount an image -- that "on demand" capability is a saviour during times of crisis, but how often do things really go to hell?  In my experience, twice in the past two years.

And as frequently discussed on other threads, more transparent means of incrementally backing up work files exist: File Hamster, for instance.  Apply a solution like that to a few critical folders and 98% of anyone's needs should be met.

I perceive TimeMachine as a wonderful "shiney object" that will make casual users purr, but beyond that it's more of a marketing tool than anything.  If enough heat & noise is generated about it then Microsoft will respond, and Vista's copycat version will be technically better but less elegant to use, and in the end everyone will still rely on traditional backup strategies.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page