Unknown
Fri Jul 04 07:39:29 PDT 2008
I did have an occasion to use System Restore after deleting all but the
latest Restore Point and it was successful.
"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OvbdPec3IHA.4036@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Correction to the below (added just below):
>
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> That would be my understanding.
>> (UNLESS you say turned System Restore off, and then back on again, which
>> starts afresh - but that is very different from what you're saying).
>
> In retrospect, I think System Restore has to be a bit more robust than
> this, meaning that if one did manually delete some of the previous restore
> points as you said, it might be able to at least recover and reboot using
> the last saved registry (if you chose to do so), BUT it may not be able to
> restore the system completely to the previous point in time.
>
> So I'm hypothesizing that System Restore basically saves a couple of
> things here:
> 1) the current (and full) registry and its associated files (like ERUNT
> does), AND
> 2) a logging of other prior system changes (and what other monitored files
> were changed), and it is this which would be lost, if one deleted some of
> the previous restore points. It must work something like this, because
> as we know, the oldest restore points eventually get deleted by the system
> to make room for new ones, since the total space reserved for them is
> fixed.
>
> <end note>
>
>> If you actually look at some of the restore files in the System Volume
>> Folder (in each RPnnn subdirectory), you will notice a bunch of ini (and
>> some other) files in addition to the registry files (like the SAM stuff,
>> etc, which are in the snapshot subfolder).
>>
>> And the net folder content varies considerably in both size and number of
>> files, between the different RPnnn restore point subfolders.
>>
>> Unknown wrote:
>>> Are you saying if I do a disk cleanup and elect to delete all restore
>>> points
>>> except the latest that the latest restore point is rendered useless
>>> after
>>> disk cleanup finishes???
>>>
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:O65qn5U3IHA.3508@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> OK, so let's see if I understand this better now:
>>>>
>>>> If, and *only if*, one purges all the previous restore points (as in
>>>> turning it off and then back on again), and then one creates a new
>>>> restore
>>>> point, that is the ONLY time it will be a complete restore point which
>>>> does not depend on any previous ones.
>>>>
>>>> (although actually that's not exactly true, because as soon as one
>>>> turns
>>>> System Restore off and then back on again, a restore point will be
>>>> created
>>>> right then - but you know what I mean)
>>>>
>>>> OR, to put it another way: if someone has two or more restore points
>>>> on
>>>> their system, they ARE always dependent on each other like a chain link
>>>> (right down to the earliest restore point), and if any of them were
>>>> somehow deleted, System Restore would be rendered useless.
>>>>
>>>> I think that's the way it is, but I'm not positive.
>>>>
>>>> R. McCarty wrote:
>>>>> I didn't phrase the answer very clearly. What I meant was if he purged
>>>>> all
>>>>> points and then either the daily timer or change detector created a
>>>>> "Single"
>>>>> point then that would have a higher reliability than points that
>>>>> extend
>>>>> over
>>>>> several days. Regardless a 1-day roll back is always going to have a
>>>>> higher
>>>>> chance of success than if you try and take the machine back to a
>>>>> earlier
>>>>> date because of the chained points dependency.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes I have the concept, but don't explain it very well.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:eCCs0eU3IHA.3348@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> But at what point does System Restore NOT have to depend on previous
>>>>>> restore points?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It sounds like you're saying here that if he now creates a new one,
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> doesn't rely on the previous ones. But yet in other cases, it's
>>>>>> incremental.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> R. McCarty wrote:
>>>>>>> The way you describe it, the most recent Restore point would have
>>>>>>> the highest reliability since it alone is required to roll-back the
>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>> state. To me the reliability decreases with each point ( or day )
>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>> in time you try to restore to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> System Restore is more of a remedy for the "Oh Damn" type of
>>>>>>> change where something is done and the change is immediately seen
>>>>>>> as unwanted. I've seen SR move a system back by months, but it's
>>>>>>> not something you'd want to depend on. System Imaging is a much
>>>>>>> better approach to restoring a system to a previous setup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <foobar5@home.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:lhip64d0h7g9d0h8sid3jf6f88vhhik82c@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:46:45 -0400, "R. McCarty"
>>>>>>>> <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It works much like an incremental backup. If you want to Restore
>>>>>>>>> to Monday and it is Friday - all the interim points must be valid.
>>>>>>>>> Once the chain is broken, no restores past the unusable point will
>>>>>>>>> be possible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd not known this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I *create* a restore point (versus the restore points XP
>>>>>>>> automatically creates), will that created restore point be full
>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>> thus usable pretty much no matter what), or will that also be
>>>>>>>> incremental?
>
>