Radified Community Forums
http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl
Rad Community Technical Discussion Boards (Computer Hardware + PC Software) >> Cloning Programs (Except Norton Ghost) >> Image For Windows
http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1499395711

Message started by Mr Moose on Jul 6th, 2017 at 9:48pm

Title: Image For Windows
Post by Mr Moose on Jul 6th, 2017 at 9:48pm
Hi Brian,

I'm starting a new topic for this subject.

I just finished reading the first 35 pages of the online manual for Terabyte's  Image For Windows.
You've said that you highly recommend this software. And now I know why you said that you would help me set it up.
After just reading the first 35 pages, (out of 235) my head is spinning.
This software makes Ghost look like child's play (Ghost was easy to setup, and understand)
You also said I can use BBM to image C: drive.
I can buy IFW for $38.50 and that price doesn't include BBM which I already have.
I'm not concerned about the extra money if buying IFW is the better way to go.
So, I would like to hear your thoughts?

Thanks Bill.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 7th, 2017 at 2:02am
Bill,

The IFW manual can be a nightmare. Use it for reference rather than reading start to finish because you won't use most of the special switches. They are there because individuals have requested them. TeraByte Unlimited makes three imaging apps. Image for DOS (which you have), Image for Linux and Image for Windows. They all create the same image and each can restore images created by the other two apps. There is a Simple Mode where you can image and restore with 3 to 4 mouse clicks but I don't use it.

If you image infrequently just use your IFD. IFD does offline imaging. If you image frequently or desire to image while Windows is running, get IFW. An IFW purchase is valid for 5 home computers and includes IFL and IFD.

Speed wise, IFL is the fastest and IFD is the slowest. I use IFL for restores.

If you are happy with IFD you don't need IFW. It's your choice.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Mr Moose on Jul 7th, 2017 at 3:06pm
Brian,

Thanks for clearing that up for me.
The fact that IFD comes with BBM, that is what I'll use.
One question I have, that I can't find a answer to, is there any problem with storing the image I create with IFD to my external HDD, then restoring that image back to a SSD?
That might sound like a beginners question, but with SSD I am new to them, and when were talking about backing up C: drive, it can't fail.
Is there a way to validate the image I create with IFD that comes with BBM? Or do I need to test it out with another drive?
Assuming that there's no difference using a HDD or a SSD, that only spare drives I have are HDD.
So with those questions out of the way, how do I set this up?

Thanks, Bill.   

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 7th, 2017 at 4:20pm

Mr Moose wrote on Jul 7th, 2017 at 3:06pm:
is there any problem with storing the image I create with IFD to my external HDD, then restoring that image back to a SSD?


No, but depending on your BIOS you might need to use the BIOS interface instead of the USB interface. More on that later.


Mr Moose wrote on Jul 7th, 2017 at 3:06pm:
Is there a way to validate the image I create with IFD that comes with BBM? 


On the Options screen select Validate.

Try creating a backup image to an internal HD. Boot BIBM, click Disk Imaging...

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1495508533/45#58

Follow Reply #58.


Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Mr Moose on Jul 7th, 2017 at 8:18pm
My external enclosure and my PC has a  eSATA connection, if that would work?
I used that connection with Ghost. (come to think about it, the last image I made with Ghost, I used USB)
But if not, I can add another drive inside.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 7th, 2017 at 9:11pm
eSATA is great. As good as an internal HD for IFD.

IFD doesn't support USB3 so any connected USB3 devices will run at USB2 speeds.

Let me know if you have any issues with my Reply #58. Use eSATA or an internal HD for your first tests, We'll try USB later.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by NightOwl on Jul 8th, 2017 at 1:15am
@ Mr Moose


Mr Moose wrote on Jul 6th, 2017 at 9:48pm:
After just reading the first 35 pages, (out of 235) my head is spinning.

Don't feel bad!  I had essentially the same reaction!

All those options--not for the faint of heart.

Sure points out all the information I could know about imaging of different types of systems that I don't have much knowledge about!

Brian offered to walk me through it--with his help, it was easy--so you're in good hands.


Mr Moose wrote on Jul 6th, 2017 at 9:48pm:
I can buy IFW for $38.50 and that price doesn't include BBM which I already have.

What version of Boot It Bare Medal do you have?  You probably have v3.xx, so I suspect you have the option to update to the latest version available.

But, heck, for $11.50 more ($49.98), you can have the whole suite of TeraByte's imaging programs.  Image for Linux is amazing.

https://www.terabyteunlimited.com/purchase-image-for-windows.htm

I've never been a fan of imaging software that works from within Windows live--well, for example the Ghost problem you are having where you can no longer get the C:/ drive to show up!  But, I have not heard of similar problems with Image for Windows. 

What say you Brian?  Are there know issues using Image for Windows that causes it to choke from within Windows?

If you want that type of imaging software, then you might want to consider getting the TeraByte's suite--so you can do your imaging from within Windows like you have been doing with Ghost.




Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 8th, 2017 at 2:59am
@ NightOwl

Bill has ver 1.37 BIBM. Ver 1.38 was released last week so he should upgrade. We all should. I'm not sure but he might be eligible for a 50% discount on IFW if he decides to go that way.


NightOwl wrote on Jul 8th, 2017 at 1:15am:
I've never been a fan of imaging software that works from within Windows live


NightOwl wrote on Jul 8th, 2017 at 1:15am:
Are there know issues using Image for Windows that causes it to choke from within Windows?


Since PowerQuest Drive Image I've been a fan of live imaging. There has been heated discussion about the merits of live vs cold imaging but it's rare to hear of someone who isn't a live imaging user these days. Congratulations NightOwl. The heated discussion, more warm than heated, will probably start again arguing the merits of classic live imaging vs metadata live imaging.

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1496268489

I've never had an issue with IFW backups or restores. Since metadata imaging was introduced a few versions ago I've changed from using PHYLock to VSS. No problems, probably easier. TeraByte recommendation.




Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by NightOwl on Jul 8th, 2017 at 2:54pm
@ Brian


Brian wrote on Jul 8th, 2017 at 2:59am:
There has been heated discussion about the merits of live vs cold imaging but it's rare to hear of someone who isn't a live imaging user these days. Congratulations NightOwl.

Hey Brian, thanks ...... oh, hmmm, you're dissing me for being an old fuddy Luddite, aren't you?   8-)


NightOwl wrote on Jul 8th, 2017 at 1:15am:
If you want that type of imaging software, then you might want to consider getting the TeraByte's suite--so you can do your imaging from within Windows like you have been doing with Ghost.

Gee, I was encouraging Mr. Moose to get the full TeraByte Suite so he could do live imaging from Windows!


Brian wrote on Jul 7th, 2017 at 2:02am:
just use your IFD. IFD does offline imaging.

You're encouraging him to use Image for DOS.  At least, I'm using Image for Linux!


Brian wrote on Jul 8th, 2017 at 2:59am:
the merits of classic live imaging vs metadata live imaging.

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1496268489

I think we need to have a discussion of what exactly *metadata* imaging is vs classic live imaging!  How does it work, what does it do, how is information saved and restored, etc. ?

I have not noted that new way of imaging.  I need to learn more ......

Maybe a new topic?



Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 8th, 2017 at 6:23pm
@ NightOwl


Don't ask me to describe how metadata imaging works as I can't explain it to myself. What is clear is it only applies to Changes Only images, differentials and incrementals. The full image is created as it was in the past except there is an extra metadata hash file which is the basis for future Changes Only images. When you create or restore a Changes Only image with "metadata" selected as an option, create and restore are much faster. Metadata imaging can be done online or cold. IFW, IFL and IFD support metadata imaging.

Macrium Reflect has been doing metadata imaging for a few years and I haven't read of any complaints. TeraByte has added this option in the last few months and does provide a caution message. "NOTE: You should only use this option if you understand its impact on restore operations." TeraByte Support was asked what this meant and provided this "clear" answer...

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 8th, 2017 at 6:24pm
"For normal backups that don't use /usemd, you can continue to use either.
VSS is recommended for /usemd because of open files that stay open nearly
all the time that have only updates over existing data (no
additions/truncations) and which metadata is not updated until the file is
closed. In windows 10, there are a lot of these type of caching files which
are also set to not update any timestamp information even when the handle is
closed. For those files, the only metadata change may be the USN when the
USN Journal is enabled on the volume. Sticking with those type of files
(ones where there are no timestamp updates at all, and only a USN update
when the USN Journal is enabled); when VSS starts, it triggers the USN to
update on the open file. When PHYLock starts and even though requests both
locking and volume flush on the volume, Windows ignores and does not update
the USN on the files. The difference can be explained with an example:
Take file X that has no timestamp updates, file updates with no appending or
truncation, does have USN updates. Backup A includes file X, Backup B, C
the file X was not changed and therefore data used from A. Backup D, File
X is open and has been updated but the USN is still as it was in A, B, C.
The file data is backed up both using VSS and PHYLock, the difference is in
the VSS version USN is different than ABC, PHYlock the same as ABC. Now
file X is closed with no other updates other than what was already done
prior. Backup E VSS version would skip the data and use what is in D,
PHYLock version would see change and backup the data in to E. Now it's
time to restore, if we just booted and restored back to B, all fine in all
versions, however, if you first restored D version then right after that the
B version, the D restored with VSS version will have a USN different than B
so will restore file X data from B, PHYLock version has the same USN so
ignores restore file X data. So the PHYLock restored version of B has D's
data for file X. The byte-for-byte validation would confirm and fail since
it's done over the entire data. Of course these are special files, special
restores, but to ensure best metadata state, VSS should be used (If Windows
were changed to flush the metadata of open handles on lock or volume flush
request, then the difference goes away at the metadata level and either
would give the same metadata results)."

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by NightOwl on Jul 9th, 2017 at 1:09am
@ Brian


Brian wrote on Jul 8th, 2017 at 6:23pm:
TeraByte has added this option in the last few months and does provide a caution message. "NOTE: You should only use this option if you understand its impact on restore operations." TeraByte Support was asked what this meant and provided this "clear" answer... 

It was *clear* to me!

Let me translate:

You are a fool to use MetaData imaging while Windows is live.  Windows has files that are *open*, and Windows does not respond to *normal* requests to close those files, or at least update their status when asked.

You will be unable to restore correctly from the resulting image.  You will get a *validation* error saying your restored backup has failed, but we can not tell you what has failed, or how to recover from that failure.

You're on your own, and good luck!





TeraByte just hammered home the nail in the coffin of live *hot* imaging!  Nothing is mentioned, but I'm guessing that if *cold* off line MetaData imaging is used, then the *opened* files and non-updated MetaData file problems are non-existant.

I, personally, would avoid live Windows MetaData imaging like the plague if your backup images are important to you!

But, that's just me  ;) !  I will use *cold* imaging with confidence--or, maybe *live Windows* hot imaging that has a proven track record that does not come with the above TeraByte disclaimer!

I hope the *classic* hot imaging using TeraBytes software has a *fool-proof* track record!

There's absolutely nothing, including how fast a backup or restore can be done, that will motivate me to use a backup system that is not *rock solid* in its ability to help me recover from whatever disaster might befall my computing system.

So, there ....  >:(  !

(See NightOwl's chin sticking out waiting for someone to take a swing at it  :D !)








Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 9th, 2017 at 2:39am
@ NightOwl

Metadata backup/restores are popular in the group who don't separate their data from the OS partition. A few minutes to restore the OS partition has advantages over a one hour restore. I also suspect that the dangers of metadata backup/restores are more theoretical than real. In the same way live backup/restores haven't caused practical issues in over ten years of use. TeraByte has introduced metadata backup/restores for those who are interested but classic backup/restores will remain the mainstay.

In my case I'm using metadata backup/restores on my test computer and classic backup/restores on my main computer. My OS partition is lean and mean and a classic restore takes 2 minutes as opposed to a metadata restore taking 1 minute. SSD to SSD. "So what" in time. But I'm experimenting with metadata backups on my data partition which contains 400 GB of used space. (I'm still using data backup software too)

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Mr Moose on Jul 10th, 2017 at 9:02pm
Brian,

Saturday I followed reply #58 using my eSATA connection.
It only took a little less than 30 min to write the backup image to my external drive, and at the end it said
(Completed Successfully)
So that's where I'm at right now.

Bill.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 11th, 2017 at 3:01am
Bill, good news. It works as expected. Out of interest, how long did Ghost take to create an image?

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by NightOwl on Jul 11th, 2017 at 10:08am
@ Brian


Brian wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 3:01am:
Out of interest, how long did Ghost take to create an image?

Is this an *apples vs oranges* comparison?  Mr. Moose, I think, has been doing Windows *hot* imaging using Ghost 15.  His recent imaging was TeraByte's Image for DOS.  I forget--can one do offline *cold* imaging with Ghost 15.  Vague memory is saying *probably yes*, but I can't remember for sure.







Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by NightOwl on Jul 11th, 2017 at 10:11am
@ Mr Moose

Good to see your progress report.

It had been awhile since your last report, and I was afraid we had *scarred* you off with our somewhat off topic banter!




Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by NightOwl on Jul 11th, 2017 at 10:19am
@ Brian


Brian wrote on Jul 9th, 2017 at 2:39am:
In my case I'm using metadata backup/restores on my test computer and classic backup/restores on my main computer. 

Ah, good to hear!  Defensive computing!  Experimenting on *test computer* only!

The average image software user needs to know that!


Brian wrote on Jul 8th, 2017 at 6:23pm:
Macrium Reflect has been doing metadata imaging for a few years and I haven't read of any complaints.

Is using *metadata imaging* an option, or is it the only way Macrium Reflect works? 

Is there any disclaimer by Macrium about possible image restore corruption similar to TeraByte's?



Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Mr Moose on Jul 11th, 2017 at 11:54am

Brian wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 3:01am:
Bill, good news. It works as expected. Out of interest, how long did Ghost take to create an image?


When I made the partition on the internal drive for my last Ghost backup, I think it did take longer, but I wasn't really paying much attention.
When I used USB and had it verify the backup, it took over 3 hours. (That was the mistake I made, where Ghost wrote the image to the wrong location)

Bill. 














Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 11th, 2017 at 4:18pm
@ NightOwl


NightOwl wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 10:19am:
Is using *metadata imaging* an option, or is it the only way Macrium Reflect works?

Is there any disclaimer by Macrium about possible image restore corruption similar to TeraByte's?


Sorry, I've no experience with Macrium's "fast hourly incrementals" but I do know you can perform conventional and "Rapid" restores. I've never seen a post mentioning potential problems with the fast incrementals and I haven't seen any posts mentioning issues with these backups or restores. The Macrium users love the fast features.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 11th, 2017 at 4:23pm
@ Mr Moose

Bill, at your leisure you could practice the restore procedure. Don't do a restore, abort on the last screen.

Reply #61 in the other thread.

I wouldn't bother using the USB interface for a backup as it will be slow.


Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by mariella on Jul 12th, 2017 at 5:03pm
@ NightOwl


NightOwl wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 10:19am:
@ Brian


Brian wrote on Jul 9th, 2017 at 2:39am:
In my case I'm using metadata backup/restores on my test computer and classic backup/restores on my main computer. 

Ah, good to hear!  Defensive computing!  Experimenting on *test computer* only!

The average image software user needs to know that!



I had a hot discussion with Brian last year (see reply #10 in thread http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1478986800/0) and it was clear that Brian and I have a different view on backup strategies.

Now, finally, Brian revealed that he continues on using a classic backup for the production computer, even if in several posts I see he push for metadata methodology...

@ Brian,

With your advices/recommendations,  I guess you often does not keep into the right consideration the knowledge level of people asking for help.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 12th, 2017 at 5:43pm
@ mariella


mariella wrote on Jul 12th, 2017 at 5:03pm:
Now, finally, Brian revealed that he continues on using a classic backup for the production computer, 


I'm running parallel backups in my main computer, classic and metadata. I'm restoring both as tests but the classic ones are the primary backups. In my test computer I don't create classic image backups. Metadata only. All backups are automated so it doesn't consume any of my time. I think metadata backups will be found to be safe and reliable; time will tell. I haven't suggested newcomers to imaging use metadata backups.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 12th, 2017 at 6:54pm
@ NightOwl

I asked questions of some keen Macrium users. Macrium only creates metadata backups and the default restore is metadata. However you have the choice of a classic restore if desired. They felt TeraByte was being over-cautious in its approach to metadata imaging. Perhaps this is reasonable as TeraByte introduced metadata imaging a few months ago and Macrium has been using metadata imaging for a few years. No-one recalls Macrium having a metadata warning similar to TeraByte's.

Edit... Say you have a TeraByte metadata differential backup image. If you are concerned there is an issue with a metadata restore you can do a classic non metadata restore. If you are still concerned with the restore you can restore the Full backup image. The Full backup image is a classic image. Not based on metadata.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Mr Moose on Jul 12th, 2017 at 10:00pm

Brian wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 4:23pm:
@ Mr Moose

Bill, at your leisure you could practice the restore procedure. Don't do a restore, abort on the last screen.

Reply #61 in the other thread.

I wouldn't bother using the USB interface for a backup as it will be slow.



Brian,

I need to test the backup image, but I don't have extra ssd to do a test on.
I have a spare HDD (500GB) that I could try to recover the image that I made with IFD.
If that works (and it should) Can I assume that it would work with a ssd?
Or do I really need to try recovering to a ssd to be sure?
Now I still have my Samsung 840 256GB that I started with (that's almost full) But I really would like to save that as a master copy.
I'm a little pessimistic about backup images, with Ghost, I always tested my first image, just be be sure.
Can the validate feature in IFD give me the peace of mind that I'm looking for?

Bill.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 12th, 2017 at 10:21pm
Bill,


Mr Moose wrote on Jul 12th, 2017 at 10:00pm:
Can the validate feature in IFD give me the peace of mind that I'm looking for?


Yes. If it Validates it will Restore. I wouldn't bother restoring the image as I know it will restore to a SSD or a HD. But if you have a spare HD and you would like to do it, go ahead.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Mr Moose on Jul 12th, 2017 at 10:34pm
Thanks Brian, that's what I wanted to hear.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 12th, 2017 at 10:48pm
Bill, to satisfy my curiosity, how often would you create an image? There is no correct answer.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by mariella on Jul 13th, 2017 at 6:06am
@ Brian


Brian wrote on Jul 12th, 2017 at 5:43pm:
@ mariella

In my test computer I don't create classic image backups. Metadata only. All backups are automated so it doesn't consume any of my time.


Continuing our different view on what, commonly and really, a backup is...and, in fact :
  • I'm almost sure that realatively few people knows and practices the "good" idea/concept of a "test computer"
  • Even if, theorically, a backup of a test computer is always a backup (also from the meaning viewpoint), it is far away from the real need called by a production computer backup
  • generally speaking, backup is a serious concept, which has nothing to do with shortening test/experimenting procedures

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Mr Moose on Jul 13th, 2017 at 10:40pm

Brian wrote on Jul 12th, 2017 at 10:48pm:
Bill, to satisfy my curiosity, how often would you create an image? There is no correct answer.


Once a month, before Windows Up Date.
I will hold on to the first image that I make with IFD, but after that, I will delete them as I go.
I also will save the old smaller ssd.

Bill.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 14th, 2017 at 1:07am
Thanks Bill, that's fine.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Mr Moose on Jul 15th, 2017 at 4:54pm
Brian,

Ran the valuation, it was very fast (12 min) and it was successful.   
IFD  must use a lot of compression as the image file was only about 75 GB 
My C:/ drive is about 215GB. But thats OK as I will have room to save a few extra back ups.

Bill.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 15th, 2017 at 5:17pm
Bill,

Was that 12 minutes for the backup plus validation?

The pagefile and hibernation file aren't backed up by imaging apps and with 64 GB RAM and Win7 your files are probably huge. What are the sizes of these two files?

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Mr Moose on Jul 15th, 2017 at 10:36pm
That was 12 min for the validation to run.
I'll have to check those other files Monday.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Mr Moose on Jul 17th, 2017 at 10:14pm

Brian wrote on Jul 15th, 2017 at 5:17pm:
Bill,

Was that 12 minutes for the backup plus validation?

The pagefile and hibernation file aren't backed up by imaging apps and with 64 GB RAM and Win7 your files are probably huge. What are the sizes of these two files?



Brian,

The page file is 65475 MB, that's what it's set at.
Never gave the page file much thought.
With that much ram, do I need a page file?
In regards to the hibernation file, I haven't
figured that one out yet.

Bill. 

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 17th, 2017 at 10:46pm
Bill, to see both files...

Folder Options
View tab
dot in Show hidden files, folders and drives
remove the tick from Hide protected operating system files (Recommended)

Look in C: drive root for the files.
pagefile.sys
hiberfil.sys

put the tick back in Hide protected operating system files (Recommended)


Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 18th, 2017 at 12:01am

Mr Moose wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 10:14pm:
With that much ram, do I need a page file?


You should have a pagefile but 2 GB should be enough.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Mr Moose on Jul 18th, 2017 at 12:02am
I will report back tomorrow night.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 18th, 2017 at 12:09am
Win7 assigns a pagefile 1 to 1.5 times the amount of RAM.

Win10 assigns a pagefile about 1/6 times the amount of RAM.

Big difference.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Christer on Jul 18th, 2017 at 3:10am

Quote:
Win10 assigns a pagefile about 1/6 times the amount of RAM.


I don't think that is a fixed ratio. I have been working with an ASUS LapTop with 2 GB RAM and a pagefile of 1.125 GB > a ratio of 0.5625. My own Toshiba with 8 GB RAM has a pagefile of 1.75 GB > a ratio of 0.21875. It seems like the more RAM the lower the ratio.

Both also have a swapfile of 16 MB. Does anyone know for what?

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Mr Moose on Jul 18th, 2017 at 8:29pm
Brian,

hiberfil.sys: 50,285,356 KB

pagefile.sys: 67,047,144 KB

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 18th, 2017 at 9:27pm
Bill,

Thanks. That 117 GB is not backed up by default so your backup image file size is appropriate.

Do you use hibernation? I turn mine off with (Admin command prompt)...

powercfg -h off

You can turn it back on with...

powercfg -h on

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Mr Moose on Jul 18th, 2017 at 10:24pm
Brian,

I set the page file to custom size.
2048 MB min
2048 MB max.

I don't use hibernation, but you say it's on by default?
Why do they make it such a trick to turn it off?
I do use a screen saver.

Bill.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 18th, 2017 at 10:57pm
Bill, when you get rid of hibernation and with the reduced pagefile size you should have 115 GB of extra Free Space.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 18th, 2017 at 10:59pm
@ Christer


Christer wrote on Jul 18th, 2017 at 3:10am:
Both also have a swapfile of 16 MB. Does anyone know for what? 


Something to do with Windows Apps, according to Google.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Christer on Jul 19th, 2017 at 3:45am
@ Brian


Quote:
Something to do with Windows Apps, according to Google.


Thanks, I found no good information to draw any conclusion.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Christer on Jul 19th, 2017 at 3:49am
@ Mr Moose


Quote:
pagefile.sys: 67,047,144 KB


That's ~64 GB. Is the pagefile system managed? If so, with Brians suggested ratio, installed RAM is ~384 GB ... :-/ ... or am I missing the obvious?

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Jul 19th, 2017 at 6:22am
Windows 7.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Christer on Jul 19th, 2017 at 8:46am
:-[

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Mr Moose on Oct 26th, 2017 at 9:02pm
Brian,

I just came back to take another look at this post, and I see that I didn't thank you for all of your help.

Thanks, Brian.

Now, I just make occasional backups using IFW, and all is good.

Bill.

Title: Re: Image For Windows
Post by Brian on Oct 27th, 2017 at 6:33am
Bill,

No worries. I'm glad you like the software.

Radified Community Forums » Powered by YaBB 2.4!
YaBB © 2000-2009. All Rights Reserved.