Post v5.0.2.3b2501213 install

[Froggie]

Ran a v5.0.2.2 Incremental.  Fifteen minutes later installed v5.0.2.3 followed by an Incremental... this INC was only 3.8mb.  I've never seen such a small INC at any time and in this case after an updated installation of HBS.

Any ideas...??? (seems wrong to me)

[Froggie]

Ran a v5.0.2.2 Incremental.  Fifteen minutes later installed v5.0.2.3 followed by an Incremental... this INC was only 3.8mb.  I've never seen such a small INC at any time and in this case after an updated installation of HBS.

Any ideas...??? (seems wrong to me)

Just figured it out, possible file access bug in Hasleo.

Secure Folders was in use on target storage device with HBS being excepted for folder access.  When the update was made, the new Hasleo program elements were not excepted in Secure Folder.  As a result, HBS v5.0.2.3 had no access to the target image folders during its 1st INC operation.  BUT, with that in play, HBS offered no ERRORs in relation to its imaging operation... LOGs stated all went well.  The only anomaly was the tiny INC backups at 3.8mB in size.

When Secure Folders was turned off, all went well, including the errorless indication.  I have been using Secure Folders since my installation of v5.0.2.2 without issue.  I now have to remember to update my Secure Folders access exceptions when new HBS updates are installed.  (I'm not sure I like having to do this  )

[admin]

Ran a v5.0.2.2 Incremental.  Fifteen minutes later installed v5.0.2.3 followed by an Incremental... this INC was only 3.8mb.  I've never seen such a small INC at any time and in this case after an updated installation of HBS.

Any ideas...??? (seems wrong to me)

Just figured it out, possible file access bug in Hasleo.

Secure Folders was in use on target storage device with HBS being excepted for folder access.  When the update was made, the new Hasleo program elements were not excepted in Secure Folder.  As a result, HBS v5.0.2.3 had no access to the target image folders during its 1st INC operation.  BUT, with that in play, HBS offered no ERRORs in relation to its imaging operation... LOGs stated all went well.  The only anomaly was the tiny INC backups at 3.8mB in size.

When Secure Folders was turned off, all went well, including the errorless indication.  I have been using Secure Folders since my installation of v5.0.2.2 without issue.  I now have to remember to update my Secure Folders access exceptions when new HBS updates are installed.  (I'm not sure I like having to do this  )

If the target image folder cannot be accessed, HBS should prompt an error. We will reproduce and fix the issue.

[admin]

Just figured it out, possible file access bug in Hasleo.

Secure Folders was in use on target storage device with HBS being excepted for folder access.  When the update was made, the new Hasleo program elements were not excepted in Secure Folder.  As a result, HBS v5.0.2.3 had no access to the target image folders during its 1st INC operation.  BUT, with that in play, HBS offered no ERRORs in relation to its imaging operation... LOGs stated all went well.  The only anomaly was the tiny INC backups at 3.8mB in size.

When Secure Folders was turned off, all went well, including the errorless indication.  I have been using Secure Folders since my installation of v5.0.2.2 without issue.  I now have to remember to update my Secure Folders access exceptions when new HBS updates are installed.  (I'm not sure I like having to do this  )

If the target image folder cannot be accessed, HBS should prompt an error. We will reproduce and fix the issue.

We tested it and there were no issues, maybe 3.8MB is the true size of the increment.

[Froggie]

If the target image folder cannot be accessed, HBS should prompt an error. We will reproduce and fix the issue.

We tested it and there were no issues, maybe 3.8MB is the true size of the increment.

Sorry, no INC after 10-min is that small  , Windows makes many more changes than that in 10-min 

I don't know the folder locking method "Secure Folders" uses... I will investigate and report back what I find.

[Froggie]

Leaving "Secure Folders" ACTIVE, I downgraded HBS by 1-version... all worked well, I then re-upgraded HBS to current release and all worked as well.  Maybe some type of Windows caching involved... not a clue.

I do not know what happened on the 1st upgrade to HBS as far as "Secure Folders" is concerned... I do know that HBS failed in its imaging without an error (3.8mB image multiple times) until I deactivated "Secure Folders" following that original update to the current version.

I will forward the LOG file to your SUPPORT channel if you wish to peruse what happened... thank you!

[admin]

Leaving "Secure Folders" ACTIVE, I downgraded HBS by 1-version... all worked well, I then re-upgraded HBS to current release and all worked as well.  Maybe some type of Windows caching involved... not a clue.

I do not know what happened on the 1st upgrade to HBS as far as "Secure Folders" is concerned... I do know that HBS failed in its imaging without an error (3.8mB image multiple times) until I deactivated "Secure Folders" following that original update to the current version.

I will forward the LOG file to your SUPPORT channel if you wish to peruse what happened... thank you!

The log file shows that all backup operations completed successfully. If Secure Folders intercepted the HBS write operation, then no new image files should have been generated. If the write operation was not intercepted by Secure Folders, backing up the C: drive should not generate an image file of 3.8MB in size, especially if more than one is generated in a row.

[Froggie]

Yup, that's kinda what I thought.  The image FileSize came from the imaging window when running a manual INC. I ran (2) INCs with the same result, then ran a 3rd with "Secure Folders" deactivated and the imaging summary was correct (an overnight time slot of about 12-hours). I will attempt another failure when the next test/update arrives... thanks for your help with this!