I just happen to have set my schedule list order in the hierarchy needed (FULL first, then DIFF then INC) so I didn't notice this anomaly (all worked fine) .  Just tested your find and indeed it's in list order rather than normal important hierarchy.

(11-02-2023, 03:15 AM)JayDee Wrote: In testing, I did a full disk restore (successfully)
I then initiated a differential backup
The differential completed (and was labelled as a differential) but was effectively the same size as a full backup.
So, for some reason,  the restored disk looked as tho' it was 100% different from the full backup that had just been restored... hence the very large size of the differential.

Not a real issue... just an observation.

I then ran a new full backup followed by a differential and this differential was (as expected) quite small.

JD

(11-02-2023, 08:12 AM)Froggie Wrote: Agreed!  Any group of scheduled images, same time same day/date, regardless of schedule list order, should execute according to their hierarchy... only one image should run at that time with the others being deferred to the next scheduled event.  FULL over DIFFERENTIAL over INCREMENTAL...

I just happen to have set my schedule list order in the hierarchy needed (FULL first, then DIFF then INC) so I didn't notice this anomaly (all worked fine) .  Just tested your find and indeed it's in list order rather than normal important hierarchy.

Thank you... not the final solution, I hope.  Users shouldn't have to worry about such things, even if they are, eventually, fully documented in the User Manual

The last thing you want is a daily INCREMENTAL to run on the 1st of the month when a FULL is scheduled just because it happens to be earlier in a list of schedules

(11-03-2023, 07:18 PM)admin Wrote:

(11-02-2023, 03:15 AM)JayDee Wrote: In testing, I did a full disk restore (successfully)
I then initiated a differential backup
The differential completed (and was labelled as a differential) but was effectively the same size as a full backup.
So, for some reason,  the restored disk looked as tho' it was 100% different from the full backup that had just been restored... hence the very large size of the differential.

Not a real issue... just an observation.

I then ran a new full backup followed by a differential and this differential was (as expected) quite small.

JD

We've tested and haven't been able to reproduce the issue you mentioned. Were you restoring to the original disk? Did you move any partition or change any options that could cause the caused the location or size of the partition to change?

(11-04-2023, 12:17 AM)JayDee Wrote:

(11-03-2023, 07:18 PM)admin Wrote:

(11-02-2023, 03:15 AM)JayDee Wrote: In testing, I did a full disk restore (successfully)
I then initiated a differential backup
The differential completed (and was labelled as a differential) but was effectively the same size as a full backup.
So, for some reason,  the restored disk looked as tho' it was 100% different from the full backup that had just been restored... hence the very large size of the differential.

Not a real issue... just an observation.

I then ran a new full backup followed by a differential and this differential was (as expected) quite small.

JD

We've tested and haven't been able to reproduce the issue you mentioned. Were you restoring to the original disk? Did you move any partition or change any options that could cause the caused the location or size of the partition to change?

Restoring to original disk: yes
move or change partitions: no

If I can reproduce it, I will let you know

JD

(11-04-2023, 12:19 AM)admin Wrote:

(11-04-2023, 12:17 AM)JayDee Wrote:

(11-03-2023, 07:18 PM)admin Wrote:

(11-02-2023, 03:15 AM)JayDee Wrote: In testing, I did a full disk restore (successfully)
I then initiated a differential backup
The differential completed (and was labelled as a differential) but was effectively the same size as a full backup.
So, for some reason,  the restored disk looked as tho' it was 100% different from the full backup that had just been restored... hence the very large size of the differential.

Not a real issue... just an observation.

I then ran a new full backup followed by a differential and this differential was (as expected) quite small.

JD

We've tested and haven't been able to reproduce the issue you mentioned. Were you restoring to the original disk? Did you move any partition or change any options that could cause the caused the location or size of the partition to change?

Restoring to original disk: yes
move or change partitions: no

If I can reproduce it, I will let you know

JD

Thank you very much.

(11-04-2023, 05:41 AM)JayDee Wrote:

(11-04-2023, 12:19 AM)admin Wrote:

(11-04-2023, 12:17 AM)JayDee Wrote:

(11-03-2023, 07:18 PM)admin Wrote:

(11-02-2023, 03:15 AM)JayDee Wrote: In testing, I did a full disk restore (successfully)
I then initiated a differential backup
The differential completed (and was labelled as a differential) but was effectively the same size as a full backup.
So, for some reason,  the restored disk looked as tho' it was 100% different from the full backup that had just been restored... hence the very large size of the differential.

Not a real issue... just an observation.

I then ran a new full backup followed by a differential and this differential was (as expected) quite small.

JD

We've tested and haven't been able to reproduce the issue you mentioned. Were you restoring to the original disk? Did you move any partition or change any options that could cause the caused the location or size of the partition to change?

Restoring to original disk: yes
move or change partitions: no

If I can reproduce it, I will let you know

JD

Thank you very much.

OK,  I've run several tests on restore followed by differential
I used  installed version and also USB boot version.
In all cases everything worked properly.

My previous case where differential was very large did not reappear...
so conclusion...
I did something to cause the issue... probably mixing up different backup versions.
Sorry for the report of a non-issue.

JD