A short time ago I began using EaseUS Todo Backup which worked fine for a couple of months.  Recently a couple of issues have arisen.  Sometimes the program gives a message that the restore could not be done and prompts to retry using "sector by sector" restore.  The problem is the program apparently deletes the logical drive creating unallocated free space in its place.  One then has to create the logical drive anew and format it before EaseUS can restore using sector by sector.  The other problem encountered only once thus far is the program gave a "The partition is too small to restore the image" even though it is the exact same partition from which the image was created.

Has anyone had these issues or know of a fix within EaseUS by changing some settings?  I'm unsure of the EaseUS version I have, and I wonder if these issues might be due to bugs and whether a later version might have fixed such issues. 

@ Tator

Free or Paid version?

Free version 8.0, and maybe I should try latest version since 8.0 version is pretty old.

I'm interested to hear if you see those errors with the latest EaseUS. I've never experienced those errors with any imaging app.

UEFI or MBR system?

I must correct part of my initial post where I said "...the program gave a 'The partition is too small to restore the image' even thoughit is the exact same partition from which the image was created."  The saved image was from a drive that was later determined to be failing and did not pass the Seagate Seatools drive test, and I'm unsure whether that image is a good one.  What I should have said is the saved image was being restored to a partition of the exact same size as the partition from which it was created.  Next I replaced the bad drive creating a partition the exact same size as the one from which the saved image was created, and the error was generated while trying to restored the saved image to the corresponding partition on the replacement drive.  It is MBR system.  Do you think a possibly bad or corrupt backup image could have caused the error to be generated?

At any rate I'm going to try the latest EaseUS version in case the error might have been caused by the old EaseUS version.  It may be some time before the problem may recur if it recurs with the new version because I had numerous restore successes with the old version before the recent problem which is the only time that's happened.

@ Tator


Tator wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2016 at 10:31am:

What I should have said is the saved image was being restored to a partition of the exact same size as the partition from which it was created.Next I replaced the bad drive creating a partition the exact same size as the one from which the saved image was created, and the error was generated while trying to restored the saved image to the corresponding partition on the replacement drive.

Well--the *rest of the story*!

I think that may suggest where a potential problem could be generated. 

There are a lot of *potential* variables:

1.  What software was used to partition and format the original *failing* drive?,   What software was used to partition and format the *new* HDD? 

2.  If the partitioning software brand was the same, was it the *same* program, or same *version*?  Or was as newer version used on the new HDD?

3.  Was the new HDD an exact same brand as the original, same total size, manufactured on or about the same date as the failed HDD?  Manufacturers change the firmware of HDD's frequently--was that the same on both drives?


Tator wrote on Nov 11^th, 2016 at 5:54pm:

A short time ago I began using EaseUS Todo Backup which worked fine for a couple of months.    Recently a couple of issues have arisen.

Whenever I see a statement like that, my first question is always *what changed just before the problem(s) started*?

From your most recent post as to what you are attempting--for sure the actual hardware has changed!

I'm not familiar with the EaseUS imaging software.  You made the following statement:


Tator wrote on Nov 11^th, 2016 at 5:54pm:

The problem is the program apparently deletes the logical drive creating unallocated free space in its place.  One then has to create the logical drive anew and format it before EaseUS can restore using sector by sector.

You have made it sound like *you* have to take care of recreating the partition and formatting it manually after EaseUS has deleted the original partition that you had created.  It seems like if a program is going to restore an image, and as part of the process, it's going to erase the existing partition, then it should *automatically* take care of partition recreation and the image should dictate the file system formatting that needs to be done!  Something doesn't sound quite right!

Most (not all) imaging programs will *resize* an image to fit the space that it is being restored to--unless you have specifically forced the program to only restore to the *exact* same destination size.  Apparently EaseUS does not think the partition you are restoring to is an *exact* match based on the error message.

If EaseUS is supposed to be able to resize the image on the fly, then I would make the space that I'm trying to restore the image to to be *unallocated* space, and then point the restore to that space and let EaseUS do all the work (you may have to specifically tell EaseUS to do the resizing), and see how that works.


Tator wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2016 at 10:31am:

At any rate I'm going to try the latest EaseUS version in case the error might have been caused by the old EaseUS version

Be aware, there can be incompatibility issues either with going forward or backward with an image created by a different versions of the imaging software.  Usually, images created by newer versions of imaging software can not be restored using an older version of the software.  But, unless you have evidence that older images can be restored by the newer software version--don't assume it will be okay!

Let us know what you find out.

Drives were the same brand and size, and Windows Disk Management was used to create and format partitions.  The problem of deleting the partition and not recreating it by EaseUS has also been observed when I tried Seagate Discwizard version 13  with  which it happened so often I decided it was totally unsuitable. 

According to http://forum.easeus.com/viewtopic.php?t=19997 EaseUS Todo Backup is capable of restoring images to smaller partitions.  This means the only way a "Partition is too small" message should be given is if the data size exceeds the size of the target partition.  This leads me to believe the problem is most likely due to a bug in the old EaseUS version.   

I know  there can be incompatibility issues either with going forward or backward with an image created by a different versions of the imaging software because I found Discwizard 13 when I tried it was unable to restore images created by Discwizard 11.  However, I'm glad you reminded me because I need to test if restoring images created by older EaseUS version can be restored by the latest version.  I'll let you know if any problems arise using the latest EaseUS versions. 

@ Tator

So, I have done some digging around on the EaseUS website to try to better understand the product.

Whew--that website is not super friendly to find what one is looking for--at least not for me!

Here's the main website for their imaging software:  EaseUS Backup & Recovery Solution

To find the User Guide, click on *Support* at the top of the page, then on the *Self-Service Options* click on the *User Guide*, and you will end up  Here:  *User guide*--there will be a list of their various product user guides in pdf format.  If I click on one of them, it opens in my browser like this:  EaseUS Todo Backup User Guide.  To download it I need to *right click* and select *Save Link As ...*, and then select where to save it.

But, you will not easily find what version this Guide is for.  If you go to the Product page, EaseUS Todo Backup Free you will see that the page title says *EaseUS Todo Backup Free 9.2*, and I assume that the *9.2* is the current version!  I am assuming that the User Guide is also for that version--actually if you look at the pdf file link, it has that *V9.2* in it--so I think I'm good for that assumption!

Boy, that's just like pulling teeth to have to look that hard to find information about a product!

So, if you have installed EaseUS ToDo Backup, then you can check the image file using the *Check Image* feature.  Apparently you have to do that manually after creating an image if you want to verify if an image file is valid--does not look like you can make that part of the backup process to do it as an all in one solution.  See here in the User Guide:  Check Image

Hiding near the end of the User Guide, is a stand alone utility called the *EaseUS Todo Backup Image Explorer*, an image tool that you can install on one's system without loading the entire EaseUS program.  You can look at the information here:  Image Tool

I could not find a download listing anywhere on the website--only the download link in the pdf file:  Todo Backup Image Explorer download

It's never stated as such, but I suspect if you can load an image file with this stand alone utility, then most likely the image file is not corrupt and is usable for restoring.

I'm not sure about this, but I thought a *Sector by Sector* operation put certain restraints on how one can use an image or clone operation.  My recollection is that *resizing* was not allowed, but in this User Guide they talk about making backups and restoring using a *Sector by Sector* mode, and also talk about being able to edit the final disk partition size(s).  I'm not sure that is correct--anyone know about that?

I saw only one place where the *Sector by Sector* mode limited resizing--and that was under the section on cloning the entire disk--see here:  See the *Note*

There are references to resizing a partition when restoring an image--all the samples I found in the User Guide were for expanding the original size taken from the original source drive and making it *bigger*--I saw no example where it says you can go the other way with this software--i.e. making a partition smaller on a destination drive or partition from the original.  I could not find anything that said you couldn't--just nothing either that said you could!

Bottom line--

I think you should use one of the image tools to verify the image file.

I would not use a sector by sector mode restore.

I would make the destination partition you wish to restore to *noticeably larger* than the original source partition if you want to avoid a size mismatch issue--unless you are restoring to the original source partition.

NightOwl wrote on Dec 11^th, 2016 at 2:10am:

So, I have done some digging around on the EaseUS website to try to better understand the product. Whew--that website is not super friendly to find what one is looking for--at least not for me! [...] Boy, that's just like pulling teeth to have to look that hard to find information about a product!

I did some testing of several imaging products about 5 or 6 yrs ago, and that was one of my peeves about the product. I, too, was frustrated by the difficulty in finding basic information about how the EasUS product worked. I could find information about how to use it (though it was rather obvious because the user interface was so simple), but very little information about what it was actually doing. That made it difficult to determine the limits of when it could or should not be used.

To Tator's question, the version I tested was 3.5 and I did note that version was able to restore to a smaller partition, so I don't know why it's failing for him now. The "restore-to-smaller" capability has been in EasUS for quite some time.

Ultimately, my testing concluded EasUS was adequate for the technically challenged (because of the simple UI) but inadequate for my purposes because it utterly failed on the more advanced partitioning schemes I typically favor. The user-friendly UI may make it easy for novices to use, but also makes it too limiting for advanced users.

I know EasUS is now several versions beyond the version I tested, but I found better alternatives that do work and so I've had no incentive to revisit and test their latest versions.

In order of preference, these are the imaging/restore utilities I frequently recommend:

• Terabyte Image
  
• Macrium Reflect
  
• Ghost 11.5 (with manual boot repair, if necessary)
  
• Aomei BackUpper
  
• Paragon Backup & Restore
  
• EasUS ToDo Backup
  
• ImageX (command-line utility)
  

They're not all equivalent, and each has it's strengths and weaknesses, so I'll recommend one or the other based on the type of user and type of system.

And these are the utilities I've tested and do not recommend for anyone:

• Microsoft Windows Backup
  
• Clonezilla
  
• DriveImage XML
  
• Ghost 2003
  
• PING ("PING Is Not Ghost", linux-based utility)
  
• dd (linux command-line utility)
  
• SavePart
  

A few months ago I installed the latest EaseUS Todo Backup version 9.2 and have tested it a few times since.  It is a little faster than the 8.0 version I was using, restores version 8.0 images with no problem, and there have been no failure to restore images or any other issues thus far. 

One thing I learned using the 8.0 version is that it's necessary to do the image creation sector by sector, or the image creation will fail except for very small partition sizes, less than 8GB.  This is also true of the new 9.2 version.

I've not tried restoring an image to a partition smaller than the source partition that NightOwl mentions in reply #7 and can't imagine a situation where I'd want to do that.  All my backup/restore has been from/to partitions of equal size or restore target partition greater in size than the source partition.

Yesterday I encountered a new problem with EaseUS Todo Backup when more than 1 physical hard drive is present.  On a system with an Asrock motherboard there is no issue.  On a second system with a MSI motherboard but same Intel CPU EasesUS shows the drives shown as Disk0 (1TB drive) and Disk1 (500GB drive) in Disk Management reversed, i.e. EaseUS shows the 500GB drive as Disk0 and the 1TB drive as Disk1.  This creates a problem if different Windows versions are on different drives because a restored EaseUS image will not boot since it'll be on the opposite drive than the one from which it was originally.  In this MSI system with the problem which is dual boot WinXP/Win10, Win10 is on Disk0 and WinXP is on Disk1, and it gives error message that HAL.DLL file is missing or corrupt after a WinXP EaseUS image is restored to Disk1.  Has anyone else seen this problem with other backup programs?  I would guess there might be no problem on single OS system or systems with only 1 physical drive.

There's now a newer version 10 of EaseUS that I tried but got the same result with it.  I even tried the Linux ISO too, but that must be only for Linux systems, because everything is greyed out when booted to the Linux CD except the "Clone" tab which gives error "Unable to open disk" when clicking that tab.  I ended up resorting to Seagate Discwizard v11 to use on this system which is too bad because Discwizard takes nearly 3 hour to create/restore a 23GB data size partition image versus less than 15 minutes for EaseUS.  I'd really like to find a better alternative and would have tried Paragon Bckup and Recovery Free Edition before trying E#aseUS, but it failed to compile the ISO on 3 different system on which I tried it.    

@ Tator


Tator wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 10:12am:

I'd really like to find a better alternative

I suggest "TeraByte Drive Image Backup and Restore Suite". There is a 4 week fully functional trial.

http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/index.htm

Reviewing my records I found my memory was faulty when I said in Reply #10 that Paragon Bckup and Recovery Free Edition failed to compile the ISO.  Paragon Bckup and Recovery Free Edition was tried and worked, but it took twice as long as Seagate Discwizard to create/restores images.  For that 23GB data size that took 3 hours with Discwizard to create/restore that image would take 6 hours with Paragon Bckup and Recovery Free Edition.

It was Macrium Reflect Free Edition that failed on 3 different systems to compile the ISO for the Rescue media.  One thing the 3 systems had in common is all had OSs that were not on the first partition of Disk0.  I decided to try again using a Dell laptop with Windows 10 on the first partition of Disk0 on the laptop, and it compiled the ISO for the Rescue media without problem.  This must mean Macrium Reflect will compile the ISO for Rescue media only if the OS is on the first partition of Disk0.

Macrium Reflect Free Edition version 6.3 was chosen because I read some not so good things about the latest version 7.1.  Macrium Reflect recognizes all partition correctly with correct drive letters just as Discwizard did and unlike EaseUS which reversed Disk0 with Disk1 resulting in incorrect drive letters on 1 system.  The 23GB data size partition that took less than 15 minutes with EaseUS to create/restore took only 5 minutes with Macrium Reflect.

Finally I found a very good alternative program to create/restore images, and it's the fastest backup program I've ever tried.  I only wish I'd discovered the problem sooner, or even better would be the software creators wrote it to compile the ISO for Rescue media regardless of which partition the OS is located.
   

It seems I was premature in assuming Macrium Reflect Free was a good backup program.  It's fast and easy to use, and I had 4 consecutive backups and restores.  However, just recently I had 3 consecutive bad restores of Win10 partition, i.e. the restored partition failed to boot on all 3 attempts.  I ran diagnostics on the hard drive and tested the memory, and no problems were found.

I began backing up systems with Ghost 2003 and have used Seagate Discwizard and other imaging programs over the years, and I never had a problem with a restored image unless there was some hardware issues like bad memory or a failing hard drive.  Macrium Reflect is totally unacceptable imo.

"Macrium Reflect Free Edition version 6.3 [...] Finally I found a very good alternative program to create/restore images,"
[...later...]
"It seems I was premature in assuming Macrium Reflect Free was a good backup program."

Macrium Reflect Free is fine, though if you want the very best try Terabyte Image.

"recently I had 3 consecutive bad restores of Win10 partition, i.e. the restored partition failed to boot on all 3 attempts."

Did you disable Fast Startup in Win10? That's known to create havoc with imaging/restoring operations or with multi-boot systems.

I was totally unaware of Fast Startup in Win10.  Would you turn it off only for backup/restore operations and then turn it back on, or is it best to just leave it off permanently?  Does turning it off significantly affect startup time?  It seems odd Macrium Reflect Free is the first and only program with which I've had such problems.

Terabyte Image seems to have a lot of features I don't use according my search results.  I just got Acronis True Image WD Version and will be running some tests with it.  Thus far I've only measured its speed to backup and verify images.  It took just 8 minutes to create backup image for 30GB of data and just 2 minutes to verify same image.  This is more than twice as fast as EaseUS and nearly as fast as Macrium Reflect test results in my reply #12 above., and it does not reverse Drive0 and Drive1 as EaseUS sometimes does.  I'll let you know when I get more tests completed, but it has similar look and feel of Discwizard v11 that I used for several years until it became unbearably slow.  The only draw back I've found so far is it requires at least 1 Western Digital drive be attached to the system, but I have an external usb drive that's by Western Digital. 

Edit:  Does Win10 Fast Startup actually affect image/restore operations if the imaging program is run from boot media created by the program?  I always do backup/restore operations from the boot media and never from Windows.  I would think any Windows settings would have no effect unless the program were run from Windows.  Am I wrong about this, and can anybody explain how Fast Startup or any Windows setting can affect image/restore operations if the program is run from boot media and not from Windows?

It's not just Macrium Reflect, all imaging/cloning utilities can run into the same problem with Windows 10. Which other utilities did you try with Win10 that worked better than Macrium Reflect?

Fast Startup is a sort of hibernation system, and by default most imaging/cloning utilities do not preserve the pagefile or hiberfile.

I'm not sure about the exact mechanics of how Fast Startup works, but I presume it's effectuated via the BCD and hiberfile. Thus, if you make an image that excludes the hiberfile it shouldn't be surprising that the system may crash when you try to boot that restored image.

When you boot a system that had been shut down with Fast Startup, it pulls stuff out of the hiberfile (and pagefile?) to repopulate RAM instead of rebuilding the RAM contents from scratch. That can save a bit of time, but most users are unaware how distinctly different this is from what you've come to expect from cold booting in the past. In essence, Windows isn't being fully shut down. In the past, you knew what to expect when you cold booted a computer, but Fast Startup skews that because it's not truly a cold boot anymore.

Incidentally, that's why you should be skeptical of boot time comparisons between Win10 and earlier versions. Often they compare the hibernated Fast Startup to a true cold boot of the earlier OS. It may seem like Win10 boots way faster, but if you compare a true cold boot of Win10 to Win7 it's only slightly faster (if at all--I don't boot my Win10 that often, so when I do it's always doing some update or other that slows the boot process way down).

By disabling Fast Startup you force Win10 to completely shut down and start with a true cold boot the next time the computer is turned on.

BTW, I believe Fast Startup comes into play only when you "Shut down" the computer. My understanding is it does not come into play if you choose "Restart" instead of "Shut down". Thus, I think you can expect different results if you "Restart" to boot your imaging boot media vs. "Shut down" and powering back on. I haven't confirmed that because I leave Fast Startup disabled on my system, but that would be my assumption.

EaseUS Todo Backup never presented the fail to boot restored Win10 image like Macrium Reflect did even with Fast Startup enabled.  Ditto for Seagate Discwizard v11.  However, EaseUS does occasionally reverse Disk0 and Disk1 when run from boot media on 1 PC but not on another similar PC, but Macrium Reflect is faster.  Discwizard vll never produced the reversed Disk0 and Disk1 problem, but it has become many times slower than EaseUS, unacceptably slow.  Acronis True Image WD Edition is very close in speed to Macrium Reflect and has not yet produced the reversed Disk0 and Disk1 problem.

I suppose I should try running Win10 with Fast Startup disabled since I can simply turn it on again if startup is too slow.  If startup is too slow with it disabled, I could run Win10 with it enabled and disable it only when doing backup/restore operations. 

I'm going to do more testing with Acronis True Image WD Edition to see how it does and might give Macrium Reflect another go with Fast Startup disabled for backup/restore.  It may be interesting to see how these 2 programs compare, especially regarding reliability because there seems to to very little difference in speed between them.

Edit:  Do you think Fast Startup might be the cause of the issues described at http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1497744955 ?  Also I just remembered around 2 weeks ago I tried to use Macrium Reflect boot CD to image an old Dell 4550 desktop that's ide only, but the CD would fail to boot part way through the loading process resulting in lines all over the screen and freezing there.  This boot CD was created using the PE download recommended for Win10 to build the ISO to make the boot CD.  Would the PE download recommended for WinXP be a better choice for older systems, and would such boot media possibly boot normally on the old Dell PC?