Vista Incremental Backup

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aardvark
  • Start date Start date
A

Aardvark

Using the automated Vista files backup I am getting very large backups - 50Gb
- weekly. It should only be backing up new files and files that have
changed. Why is it backing up files that have not changed for years? I have
seen several other posts on discussion forums but no explanation or solution.
I am running Vista Ultimate 32-bit and am up-to-date on hotfixes.
 
Aardvark said:
Using the automated Vista files backup I am getting very large backups - 50Gb
- weekly. It should only be backing up new files and files that have
changed. Why is it backing up files that have not changed for years? I have
seen several other posts on discussion forums but no explanation or solution.
I am running Vista Ultimate 32-bit and am up-to-date on hotfixes.
Click to expand...

Get a backup program, like Acronis, that will allow incremental backups.

Q
 
If you use the default file settings the backup will be "huge". The only
files not backed up are system, program, encrypted, temps and recycle bin.

Also the incremental files are cumulative - backup size grows with each
increment. Older backups are discarded when disk size becomes an issue.

The backup files are "Zip" files and can be read by any "unzipper" such as
Winzip.
 
The Microsoft Vista backup is supposed to have an 'incremental' facility (new
and modified files). There is a complex algorithm to determine whether a full
or partial backup is required.

Why isn't it working?
 
Why should the file be huge if it contains new and modified files only?

There should only be a full backup if I manually require one or the system
determines that a significant number of files have been modified.
 
I have read that most if not all files get frequently and slightly modified
by the antivirus program(s) thus creating a 'changed' file that gets
included in the incremental backup.
 
Thanks John, that figures.

I wonder if I'd get the same problem using an alternative backup program,
like Acronis? If not, what are they doing that's cleverer than Microsoft?
Also, I didn't get this problem with XP, so I wonder is it the anti-virus
that's changed (I had to move from F-Secure to Norton because F-Secure wasn't
compatible with Vista) or is Vista just less clever than XP (sigh)
 
Back
Top