RollBack Rx & Shadow Defender

Here is some info from HDS site, which is put very mildly, so not to rock the boat:

 

Here is some very tall claim of HDS:

That's mean on a 500GB hard disk, Rollback Rx will take up only 0.35GB, which is much, much less than 1GB to create up to 60,000 snapshots.

Can any Rollback Rx user testify to the above.

Best regards,

 

With RBrx you have an option as to how many snaps you want to keep.

I allocated enough space for SR to go back about 30 days. I set RBrx to keep about 30 days of snaps. The disk usage is very close to the same so there is no issue (at least not for me) about disk space usage.

 

In my case I was only protecting the system drive and this was without any user data. With Win 7 x64, and the amount of software that I install, keep and delete, if I kept the snapshots for 30 days, I would be using up about 30GB or more on a SSD taking a daily snapshot. 30GB is a very heavy premium on a 120GB SSD. So, every week I had to re-baseline and destroy all my snapshots.

Now compare this with the Tall, Tall Claim of HDS that on a 500GB, it will only take 0.35GB (less than 1GB) for 60,000 snapshots.

Best regards,

 

Strictly speaking, snapshotting - which as a general category includes both imaging and rollback type programs - isn't virtualization. The difference between snapshotting and virtualization lies in how changes to the file system are managed.

Virtualization can be described as 'pretend/really'. Applications run in a pretend environment maintained by the virtualization software. Applications work normally because they appear to be running within the real system due to the illusion created by the virtualization software. All changes are automatically discarded on exit from the virtual environment unless steps are taken to keep specific changes that are wanted by committing them to the real file system.

Snapshotting, on the other hand, can be described as 'note/restore'. All changes take place within the real file system but a note is made of the current state of the file system whenever a snapshot is taken. The file system seen and manipulated by applications is the real file system as seen by the operating system. There is no need to do anything extra unless it is desired to revert the file system to a different state in which case the file system can be restored from a previously made snapshot. After restoring, the reverted snapshot once again becomes the real file system upon which future changes will be based.

As I understand it, the difference between imaging utilities and rollback programs like Rollback Rx is the way in which snapshots are made and restored.

With imaging programs, disk sectors are copied to a file when making a snapshot of one or more disk partitions. The image file containing the snapshot is portable and can be stored on an external device. In order to restore an image, all of the disk sectors within the image file must be copied back to their original location. Whilst imaging is the most resilient approach to backing up a system, the disadvantage is the time taken to make and restore images.

With rollback programs, there is no need to copy disk sectors at all. Snapshotting simply involves locking all of the disk sectors within the current file system (some may already have been locked by previous snapshots) so that they can't be reused by the operating system as free space later if the information contained within them becomes out of date. The current disk sector map must also be saved so that the snapshot can be restored later. This has the advantage of speed because only the current disk sector map needs to be copied and restored, not the disk sectors themselves.

For anyone who needs to be able to snapshot and restore their system on a frequent basis, rollback applications can be very convenient because of the speed of making and restoring snapshots. The disadvantage of rollback applications is that they create a hidden file system outside of Windows that can be problematic for third-party imaging and defragmentation utilities, and carries the implicit risk of system corruption that may leave the system unbootable if something goes wrong. As you have pointed out, they can also use a fair amount of disk space. The amount of disk space required will depend on the degree of volatility of the file system, the number of snapshots stored, and the frequency of baselining in order to free up disk space taken up by redundant snapshots.

I agree that, whether using virtualization or rollback type software, it is essential to combine it with regular imaging. Virtualization and rollback software is convenient due to the speed with which the system can be reverted but neither is necessary, and neither is a substitute for imaging. Imaging is the bedrock of any backup system and the only approach that is resilient against hard disk failure. Personally, I prefer to turn off System Restore in order to reduce the size of system images as I image the system frequently. In the event of a bad Windows or software update, I would simply restore the most recent system image.

I know you know how all this works as you've more experience of these types of application than me. I've posted here partly to check my own understanding. If I've got any of this wrong, please correct me. We're all here to learn from each other.

Regards

 

Think of it this way, if its not actually "written to"/saved to the drive Rx will not record it. Thus there would be no conflict of any sort. Rx snaps are made up of the hooks (honestly not clear on what these are but have my suspicions) that point to the location of all data on the drive (that Windows can see). Open files that have been saved will be captured since they have been written to the drive, open files that have not been saved will not be captured.

I have been using Rx for quite some time and have always had it take a snap each hour without issue. Of course the schedule you select will be the one that suits you. It just seems to me that the less far back in time you need to roll the better since there will be fewer files to recover from the automatically taken snap that Rx will create as part of the rollback process.

 

I guess I should not speak for everyone but I def have not had any slow down issues that caused me any trouble. It is true that after extended heavy use of a system which has Rx on it, slowdowns can occur but I suggest that the slow down is not CAUSED by anything Rx has done beyond possibly preventing drive defrag utilities from running while Rx is installed.

Prior to installing Rx I would defrag my drive when my system slowed down (as well as conduct other PC maintenance chores such as getting rid of temp files etc). Interestingly enough I would do this every 4 or 5 weeks which is the same time table I am following with Rx installed. Some folks find no slowdown for 6 or more months with Rx on their system, others, like me find that the slowdown and need for house keeping occurs earlier (and this issue has been discussed numerous times on these and other forums). It all depends on how the system is being used.

Discussions have already taken place regarding this and other so called Rx issues (such as the drive space issue). I would suggest that nothing new is to be gained by repeating the same arguments over and over again.

With all due respect KOR, you had a bad experience with Rx, I expect you have had bad experiences with Windows as well so by your logic you should not be using Windows either. I bet there are folks out there that have had bad experiences with IFW, in fact, I bet there are no programs out there that have never been problematic for some of the folks who used them. Most of us simply move on when we encounter problems with a program, we do not make it our mission to try to convince everyone else that they need saving,,,, which is what you appear to be trying to do. You repeatedly dismiss the experience and of others out of hand. In truth, this is quite insulting and is rather rude.

 

Those are niche claims. Ain't gonna happen in the real world.

 

For some reason, it seems to me, we have slipped into an apples and oranges discussion. Imaging apps, virtualization apps, and rollback apps are clearly very different programs. They may in some areas have some overlap but thats it.

For me (and I suspect for many if not most users) Rx serves the function of allowing for quick and easy protection of my drive during the period between images. Once I have created an image I no longer need the snapshots and I will delete the majority of them (the maximum number of snaps that Rx ever has to defrag upon reboot on my system is 5).

I maintain a particular baseline only for simplicity sake as, since, if I have created an image of the drive at a time after the creation of the baseline, I really do not need that particular baseline any longer. I simply have chosen to leave it until I uninstall Rx in order to do my house keeping chores.

The only time I use SD is when I am doing something that I feel may pose a greater than normal hazard, such as opening a suspicious e-mail or file. During normal PC use I see no need to have SD running,,,,,for the most part I want to KEEP the work I have done and having to commit the work each time I exit SD is just plain silly IMO.

We all use our computers differently and we all have reasons for working the we do with the tools we have chosen to use. Some folks see value in program A and others do not. I see no reason that that should be an issue.

 

I agree, they are different. I suspect the reason why there is an apples and oranges discussion taking place is because both apples and oranges are mentioned in the thread title. I don't see any harm in that as both types of application have their own distinct advantages and disadvantages.

I've never tried Rollback Rx but I probably will do one day - I just haven't got round to it yet. I suspect that when I do, I will deploy it in a similar way to you which seems eminently sensible.

I agree that having to commit work every time when exiting SD would be highly inconvenient, and also error prone if one happened to forget. In my experience, for full-time use, light virtualization applications work best if all the data is held on a separate partition, with only the system partition kept virtualized which is what I do. The alternative is to virtualize on demand as you do. Both approaches are fine - it's just a question of individual preference.

I agree, it shouldn't be an issue. Everyone is free to choose the set-up that suits them best, and that's exactly how it should be. Nonetheless, I find these kind of discussions where people share their experiences both interesting and educational. Speaking personally, with the kind help of others I've learnt a lot since joining the Wilders community.

 

As far as VMware is concerned I am not sure if it is a virtualization software or not. When an operating system like Win7 x64 is loaded in VMware, the Win7 x64 is like a real operating system. Changes, updates, additions, deletions are made in real time. Even snapshots are taken in no time and one can rollback to any snapshot in no time like Rollback Rx. I perceive no difference here between VMware and Rollback Rx.

Now let us see how HDS the makers of Rollback Rx describes the baseline snapshot:

The above update to the baseline is done outside the Windows at boot, like VMware, which does outside the operating system. After this update is finished, Rollback Rx informs you, "VDisk Image is being loaded", or some similar wording as I am quoting from six months old memory.

Now what does this phrase, "VDisk Image is being loaded" mean?

Best regards,

 

LOL, I thought that you have used Rollback Rx in the past.

Best regards,

 

VMware is most definitely virtualization software (VM = Virtual Machine). Unlike light virtualization where the virtualization software runs as a normal application within the operating system, VMware is an example of full virtualization where the virtualization software functions as a hypervisor to create a virtual machine into which an operating system can be loaded.

That's a very good question. If Rx is loading an environment each time the machine is restarted before Windows loads then it could possibly be seen as virtualization. On the other hand, if it is a one-off restore of the Windows file system to a usable condition following a baseline update then it wouldn't be virtualization. The answer would depend on whether Rx is virtualizing the file system during normal system operation. I don't know enough about how Rx works to know the answer but it's an interesting point that you've raised.

 

That's why I said that you've got more experience of these types of application than I have.

Kind regards

 

I have licenses for both Rollback Rx and Shadow Defender and recently tried running them both together which did not go so well.
I was having numerous anomalies, which I was unable to correct until I uninstalled Rollback Rx. The problems I was having were: Windows slowdowns and lockups, which resulted in my having to perform a hard shutdown and reboot. I figured that it was a software conflict and once I uninstalled Rollback Rx my system was back to normal.

 

You can think of both WMware and Rollback Rx as similar in nature. In both of them Win7 is installed. All operations of Rollback Rx, like VMware takes place outside the Win7 installed in them. The install, update and uninstall of Rollback Rx is done outside the Win7, like VMware. Even the update of baseline of Rollback Rx is done outside the Win7, like VMware.

Once Win7 is installed either in VMware or Rollback Rx, the Win7 becomes a real system in real life where changes are retained in Win7 and not discarded like in a light virtualization software, such as Shadow Defender.

After that, both VMware and Rollback Rx then becomes a Snapshot Program, with baseline snapshot. And, this baseline snapshot then becomes the foundation of other snapshots. From then on, one can roll back and forth between the snapshots. To take a snapshot and/or to roll back and forth in either VMware or Rollback Rx takes seconds, usually within less than a minute.

Best regards,

 

Welcome to the nightmares of Rollback Rx. Both Rollback Rx and Shadow Defender are low level programs and thus they create an entry in UpperFilters. It depends which one was installed first for the Rollback to make problems and create nightmares.

Just do a simple test and it won't hurt your system. Install either BestCyprt and/or O&O Disk Image in your system. Do few restarts. Now uninstall Rollback Rx and reinstall Rollback Rx. Do few restarts and then report back what happens.

Best regards,

 

The above is nothing but an excuse for an unethical company. When a person uses pirated software everyone frowns on them. When a company acts unethically then its behavior is masqueraded as niche claims.

Best regards,

 

I had installed SD first then Rollback Rx.
I am not going to try what you suggested but out of curiosity, exactly what does happen?

 

Then most probably it had nothing to do with SD. There was some another conflict.

Nothing but nightmares!

Is anybody else game?

Best regards,

 

Duh! I know VM = Virtual Machine. Another reason Rollback Rx virtualize your system has to do with TRIM and SSD. For TRIM to work properly on SSDs, Rollback Rx puts your SSD under software RAID array.

Just to assure you, I have extensively tested and used Rollback Rx for two months with three computers all with SSDs.

Best regards,

 

Thanks for the clarification. When I get time, I definitely need to check out Rollback Rx in more detail to see how it works.

Kind regards

 

I know you know that and I wasn't trying to be insulting. Apologies if it appeared that way. I was just emphasising the fact that VMware is virtualization software because you said you weren't sure if it was virtualization software or not.

It's good to know that Rx works properly with SSDs.

I'm not quite sure what you really think of Rx though. Your responses to me seem quite positive but in other posts you talk about the nightmares of Rollback Rx. In your experience, is it Rx itself that is problematic or, in the context of this thread, is it trying to run it in conjunction with SD that can lead to problems?

One further question if you don't mind: Have you ever seen or know of an instance of MBR corruption caused by Rx? I must confess, I've always been a little wary of the potential of rollback applications to cause system corruption if things do go wrong.

Once again, thanks for sharing your insights.

Kind regards

 

Here is something of interest:
http://horizondatasys-forum.com/16312-post1.html

It helps to always have an image of your drive handy.

 

Oh dear, that's not very reassuring!

You're right about having an image to hand. I wouldn't dream of trying out low level software like Rx without imaging the system first.

Kind regards