Solved Unusual backup size

[JimLewandowski]

Missing User profile in registry

Vista Backup Failing : 0x80070002 Error Code

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...p-failed/65b8f01d-f9ba-45ad-b0e6-c5ef5c775f77



USB issue

http://social.technet.microsoft.com.../thread/803d3876-0f1b-46ad-8836-ab1d8faddc92/

 

[whs]

Ok....

So... I was able to change the backup size down to normal... (50GB) by empty everything in my E drive but now im having a different problem...

I can no longer backup my system at all....

keep getting the following error

[/URL] Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]

sigh... one problem after another >.< maybe i should just format my windows...

any advises?

thanks!

In the process of clearing the other partitions you probably deleted some files that the system is looking for now.

No need to reinstall. Just get off that defunct Win7 imaging and use a sensible imaging program.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Back in the "good old days"

I haven't looked extensively but it appears to me
1) No gain moving pagefile to another partition
2) Maybe a marginal gain on another disk
eg, Ref:
Is it a good idea to change my Microsoft Windows page file size?
3) Sufficient RAM (which is relatively cheap) should place less emphasis on the pagefile.

So in the OP's case I would have thought moving the pagefile to another disk create more problems than it is worth. I use Windows imaging extensively with complete success. The OP's configuration effectively removes this capability in a practical sense.

You are absolutely right. No point moving the pagefile. With e.g. 4GBs of RAM, reduce it to 1GB for the very rare hard page fault that some programs produce - even if there is sufficient availablee RAM. And since the page faults are rare, there is really no performance gain.

I read about moving the pagefile back when I was using XP (~6 years ago).
The theory was that you would get superior performance, because you wouldn't be trying to read/write to the pagefile and OS partition simultaneously.
It seemed like a reasonable explanation to me.

Since I first started using Windows 98 (~10 years ago) it has been my practice to move everything possible off of the OS partition.
My friends all complained that they had to reinstall Windows every 2 or 3 weeks.
They also claimed that it wasn't because of malware.

The only reason I could think of, was that the constant read/write operations, on the OS partition, were causing the failures.
Therefore I moved everything that I could, off of the OS partition.
I only had to reinstall Windows 98 when I got hit by malware or I got a new HDD (so not every 2 or 3 weeks).

With modern hardware (large amounts of cheap RAM) there probably is no appreciable benefit to moving the pagefile.

My Windows 2K8 textbook recommended:

pagefile = 1.5 x RAM (caveat: see the MS links below)
​

Here are some MS links:
How to determine the appropriate page file size for 64-bit versions of Windows
How to overcome the 4,095 MB paging file size limit in Windows

I also remember reading (a few years ago) constant complaints about Windows backup (thus I use Macrium).

In any case the solution to the original problem is still the same:

Installing some other program to create your backups.
And/Or
Moving the pagefile back to your OS partition (or its own small partition).
​

 

[JimLewandowski]

IIRC, pagefile writes outnumber reads 10:1. Windows puts stuff in it (very little) but seldom is it recalled (can't find the Russinovich discussion right now)

So, the question I wish people would have been asking for 10 years is: how much paging file activity does your system incur? And, if you have caching policy set to allow writes to be completed as soon as the data is in the controller cache vs. waiting for it to be physically destaged to disk, then it matters even less where you put it.

 

[whs]

Yeah, sometimes history teaches us a lesson - but in this case it teaches us the wrong lesson. If you were looking for performance, moving the pagefile off the SSD would be counterproductive. But with today's systems that usually have a lot of RAM, the pagefile is used so rarely that it really is a non issue.

In addition to being rarely used, it is also used in very small doses. So a 1GB size suffices.

 

[JimLewandowski]

Yeah, sometimes history teaches us a lesson - but in this case it teaches us the wrong lesson. If you were looking for performance, moving the pagefile off the SSD would be counterproductive. But with today's systems that usually have a lot of RAM, the pagefile is used so rarely that it really is a non issue.

In addition to being rarely used, it is also used in very small doses. So a 1GB size suffices.

Having been in the field since the mid 80's, I am amazed at how hard it is to kill bad technical information in this field. People just won't adapt to technical evolution.

I was thinking of putting my Windows Search index on my SATA drive once I install my SSD.

I was mentioning to someone at work, that basically with SSDs, future releases of Windows can gut virtually all the code that was put in to reduce physical disk access. All that code to sort boot files during I/O to reduce head movement. All that stuff.

Much the same way too many people think 64-bit will "run faster" when 99% of the time, it's simply virtual storage constraint relief (address space map). There might be some cases where you're butting up against the address space limit, but not often.

 

[whs]

Right Jim. Rumors run faster than fact. But who cares, let the morons live with their believes.

 

[mjf]

I think the ironic thing in all of this is that I don't think imaging programs including Windows include the page file. But because it's a system file Windows may want to include the partition it is on!
If you are going to deviate from a basic MS Windows configuration for some good reason a good third imaging program is probably the way I would go.

 

[JimLewandowski]

I think the ironic thing in all of this is that I don't think imaging programs including Windows include the page file. But because it's a system file Windows may want to include the partition it is on!
If you are going to deviate from a basic MS Windows configuration for some good reason a good third imaging program is probably the way I would go.

Weird, isn't it? It probably has to do with the semi-same reason that on Disk Management, the PAGE FILE is one of the attributes listed next to a partition.

EDIT: Since System Image is in "VHD" (block-level) backup mode, WHOLE volumes/partitions copied is the only M.O. available.

I'm still happy using Windows System Image/Backup, though.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Reducing writes

If you were looking for performance, moving the pagefile off the SSD would be counterproductive.

Agreed.
I've never heard anyone say that moving your pagefile from your SSD to a HDD increases performance.
It's always been recommended as a way of reducing write operations performed on the SSD.

 

[JimLewandowski]

If you were looking for performance, moving the pagefile off the SSD would be counterproductive.

Agreed.
I've never heard anyone say that moving your pagefile from your SSD to a HDD increases performance.
It's always been recommended as a way of reducing write operations performed on the SSD.

Correct. Which is semi-valid. I'd rather make sure high-activity stuff is moved off the SSD (TIF, et. al.). The page file just isn't that I/O active. It mostly has cobwebs on it....

 

[whs]

It's always been recommended as a way of reducing write operations performed on the SSD.

That is probably one of the least obvious reasons to understand. Because a) there is nothing wrong writing to the SSD because it can stand a lot more writes than most people claim. And b) with a reasonable amount of RAM (3GB or more) there will be very, very infrequent writes to the pagefile.

 

[Nuntius]

AHHHHHH going NUTS!!!!

the problems are just non ending QQ...

Sigh... so the previous two problems with backing up have now been solved....

and a new one just poped up...

Im now getting error msg

"The backup was not successful. The error is: Windows Backup failed while trying to read from the shadow copy on one of the volumes being backed up. Please check in the event logs for any relevant errors. (0x81000037)."

&

"The backup operation that started at '‎2011‎-‎12‎-‎22T18:27:28.279000000Z' has failed with following error code '2155347999' (Windows Backup cannot find the shared protection point.). Please review the event details for a solution, and then rerun the backup operation once the issue is resolved."

I did see some post on the web saying that I will need to "remove all the reparse points" to resolve this problem... and... that method just made me even more confused....

anyone got any idea of how this issue can be fixed?

Thank you!

 

[whs]

Are you still mucking around with Windows imaging - you must be a bit masochist. LOL

 

[lehnerus2000]

Speed vs Capacity and/or Recoverability

It's always been recommended as a way of reducing write operations performed on the SSD.

That is probably one of the least obvious reasons to understand. Because a) there is nothing wrong writing to the SSD because it can stand a lot more writes than most people claim. And b) with a reasonable amount of RAM (3GB or more) there will be very, very infrequent writes to the pagefile.

According to an article I read (on ZDNet?) most HDD failures (~50%) are due to electronic failure (e.g. controller failure).
The authors claimed that people should expect the same controller failure rate for SSDs.

Given the massive price differential, between HDDs & SSDs, people should exercise all possible precautions.
Based on my local supplier's prices, up to 18x $/B.

For a given "capacity vs cost", I can have 17 backup HDDs plus the installed HDD vs 1 SSD.
My data is more important to me, than shaving a few seconds off of OS and program startup time.

IMO, if you need:

• "Capacity vs cost", then you have to go HDD
• "Recoverability/reliability", then you have to go HDD (assuming that you make the required backups).
• "Speed vs Watts", then you have to go SSD.

 

[Nuntius]

Are you still mucking around with Windows imaging - you must be a bit masochist. LOL

QQ no~~ im able to create a system image without any errors... but now it' the regular backup that keeps on failing >.<...

sigh... my head hurts lol...

 

[whs]

All Windows backup and recovery programs have their challenges - and that no only since Windows7. OEM programs are readily available and most do a perfect job.

 

[Nuntius]

>.< i gived up, but thanks for all your help~~ just formated my pc xD

have a good day~~