Backup File Server to DAS
-
what about the built in restore points in windows 7 for example, you mean that if i select a x restore point it will format the computer ???
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
what about the built in restore points in windows 7 for example, you mean that if i select a x restore point it will format the computer ???
Neither case formats, both cases basically format. Format doesn't mean what you think that it means. Both cases apply a new image to the machine in roughly an identical way.
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IT-ADMIN said:
@dafyre said:
@IT-ADMIN said:
great then, it will save half of our storage, i think it will do the same in the entire computer mode ?
It could. I'm getting ~ 40% compression on my backups at home.
Dear @dafyre, i have a technical question, if we boot from the bootable USB and restore the server using a previous system image, does this image format completely all server hard drives ???
That's what restoring a server would mean.
i see, i was unaware of how restore is made, so the restoring will format all hard drives, that is great
Just the words.... if you restore the system, you are restoring all of it. It doesn't do a format and put files back one by one, it literally restores the entire system as it was with the original formatting in the image.
-
From the way that you are using the word format, I can't tell if you are aware of what a format operation is so I can't tell how to respond. The entire drive is imaged, no format operation is run, the disk will be completely replaced as if it was formatted.
-
i can understand that the new system image overwrite the old damaged one without deleting the damaged system image, it is like bringing the time back to the time that the new system image was taken
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
i can understand that the new system image overwrite the old damaged one without deleting the damaged system image, it is like bringing the time back to the time that the new system image was taken
Um, no. Overwriting and deleting are the same thing here. It IS deleting. How could it not be? Wouldn't going "back in time" delete anything done since that time?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IT-ADMIN said:
i can understand that the new system image overwrite the old damaged one without deleting the damaged system image, it is like bringing the time back to the time that the new system image was taken
Um, no. Overwriting and deleting are the same thing here. It IS deleting. How could it not be? Wouldn't going "back in time" delete anything done since that time?
yes this is what i mean Dear @scottalanmiller
-
anyway i guess it is a complicated process
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IT-ADMIN said:
i can understand that the new system image overwrite the old damaged one without deleting the damaged system image, it is like bringing the time back to the time that the new system image was taken
Um, no. Overwriting and deleting are the same thing here. It IS deleting. How could it not be? Wouldn't going "back in time" delete anything done since that time?
Heck no. Here we can't remove failed backup or the log of the failed backups everything remains untouch as it was taken, even if it's bad and wasting space. Remove it and someone (or a virus) could be overwriting something to cover it's tracks.
-
@Jason said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IT-ADMIN said:
i can understand that the new system image overwrite the old damaged one without deleting the damaged system image, it is like bringing the time back to the time that the new system image was taken
Um, no. Overwriting and deleting are the same thing here. It IS deleting. How could it not be? Wouldn't going "back in time" delete anything done since that time?
Heck no. Here we can't remove failed backup or the log of the failed backups everything remains untouch as it was taken, even if it's bad and wasting space. Remove it and someone (or a virus) could be overwriting something to cover it's tracks.
Meaning that the rollback deletes everything and then writes over it (essentially.)
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
anyway i guess it is a complicated process
Actually no, it is rather simple. Often in IT things get confusing when they are simpler, rather than complex. SAN, for example, is super confusing because no one will accept how simplistic it is. They always read into it things that do not exist.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Jason said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IT-ADMIN said:
i can understand that the new system image overwrite the old damaged one without deleting the damaged system image, it is like bringing the time back to the time that the new system image was taken
Um, no. Overwriting and deleting are the same thing here. It IS deleting. How could it not be? Wouldn't going "back in time" delete anything done since that time?
Heck no. Here we can't remove failed backup or the log of the failed backups everything remains untouch as it was taken, even if it's bad and wasting space. Remove it and someone (or a virus) could be overwriting something to cover it's tracks.
Meaning that the rollback deletes everything and then writes over it (essentially.)
we are waiting for the gentleman @jason to clarify his point, is the restore format the hard disk ??
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IT-ADMIN said:
anyway i guess it is a complicated process
Actually no, it is rather simple. Often in IT things get confusing when they are simpler, rather than complex. SAN, for example, is super confusing because no one will accept how simplistic it is. They always read into it things that do not exist.
yes sometimes we don't accept some stuff simply because they look to us very simple
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Jason said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IT-ADMIN said:
i can understand that the new system image overwrite the old damaged one without deleting the damaged system image, it is like bringing the time back to the time that the new system image was taken
Um, no. Overwriting and deleting are the same thing here. It IS deleting. How could it not be? Wouldn't going "back in time" delete anything done since that time?
Heck no. Here we can't remove failed backup or the log of the failed backups everything remains untouch as it was taken, even if it's bad and wasting space. Remove it and someone (or a virus) could be overwriting something to cover it's tracks.
Meaning that the rollback deletes everything and then writes over it (essentially.)
we are waiting for the gentleman @jason to clarify his point, is the restore format the hard disk ??
Let's define what you mean by format first. Can you provide how you are using that term so that we are clear?
-
ok, i like your way of analyzing things, define the terms first, (i'm impressed :))
i mean by format: erase everything -
Okay yes. A system level restore does a full erase either by wiping the drive while applying a full image or by doing a block level rollback. In both cases it is effectively an entire erasure of the system.
-
Just an FYI: formatting would always erase things, but just erasing does not format. Formatting is a specific filesystem operation. So I would use erase in a discussion like this rather than format. Because technically it erases but does not format.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Just an FYI: formatting would always erase things, but just erasing does not format. Formatting is a specific filesystem operation. So I would use erase in a discussion like this rather than format. Because technically it erases but does not format.
yeah, it is correct, i should use erase rather than format
-
the entire computer backup just finished, it is 58.2 GB and the original is C+D= 113 GB
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
the entire computer backup just finished, it is 58.2 GB and the original is C+D= 113 GB
It only copies the blocks in use not the empty parts of the filesystem
