Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Scott McPherson's picture
Scott McPherson

Tiptoeing Through Minefields

Bad software design renders Seagate Replica a risky buy

A few weeks ago, I bought Seagate's new Replica backup solution.  I was searching for a drive that could back up both my Sony desktop and my Toshiba laptop in a single solution, without having to invest in expensive software and an external drive separately.  I wanted an integrated solution and I found one!

Or thought I had.

It is and looks pretty slick; it is also nice to have it constantly running in the background, constantly backing up your files and ready to help you recover from a catastrophic hard drive failure.

At least you think it is.  But there is a serious design flaw in the Seagate solution that you need to be aware of before you buy   because there is nothing -- zip, zero, nada -- in any of their literature that alerts you to this defect.

Here's the flaw:

Even though Seagate's literature says you need a drive that is at least the same size as the previous hard drive, that is not entirely accurate.  You see, Replica requires an identical drive partition to the original hard drive, regardless of that drive's ultimate capacity.

My Sony had an older hard drive, and I wanted to upgrade to a drive that has a capacity six times that of the original.  I set up the new hard drive to my larger partition specifications, and then let the replica do its restoration work.

You can imagine my angst when, hours later, I saw the original drive partitions restored -- and tons of unallocated space sitting unused.  Two separate chats with Seagate technicians, on two separate days over two weeks, confirmed what I feared; that the replica cannot accept restoring to a partition greater than the one that it copied.  It cannot be defeated and cannot be tweaked.

I have a few workarounds, but regrettably they all involve making a separate image of the new drive with the "old" partitions; repartitioning and reformatting the new drive; restoring to the new drive partitions; erasing the "old" image from the replica; and then restarting a new backup ofthe new partitions.  I estimate this will take more than a day's worth of work to accomplish.  In other words, engaging in the same behavior I wanted to avoid by buying the Replica.

Seagate could have made this a much more desirable solution by giving the software the flexibility to restore to a larger partition.  I mean, who in this day and age wants to go out and buy an older, smaller, obsolete drive?  Especially when Seagate is in the business of selling hard drives. 

Bad call, Seagate. Bad decision.  Stupid, really.

What People Are Saying

Your issues with Seagate Replica

Scott,

We have not seen the issue you to which you are referring. In fact, according to our software partner for Seagate Replica: "Neither for simple file/folder recovery nor for Bare Metal Recovery, must the partition of the new drive be identical to that of the old." We are, however, looking into it further.

Thanks,
Brian
Senior Director, Corporate Communications

Brian,

Two techs told me the exact same story: The partition will default to the one on the Replica, and they both told me there is no way to overcome that. My second tech did blame the software. My own experience confirms this.

I should be easy to find: I blog under my own name.

Let me say again: currently, the replica software will force the new drive, regardless of capacity and regardless of partition size, to accept the smaller partitions that were essentially backup along with the data.

If Seagate can overcome this serious oversight, it will have one heckuva product.
Scott

Replica won't work with Windows 7?

In addition, if you plan on upgrading to Windows 7, don't buy a current Seagate Replica.

When I asked Seagate if their current Seagate Replicas would be upgradable to work with Windows 7, their response was that they didn't know.

I guess if you upgrade to Windows 7, you're supposed to throw away your current Replica, and buy a new-future model.

Windows7 when?

I use Replica and it has provided me with flawless protection for my entire PC, continuously, for the past few months I've had it. I called Seagate about Windows7 support, and the automatic software update facility that Seagate provides will provide me with Replica support for Windows7 as soon as WIndows7 is available. (Not that I intend to "upgrade" to Win7). Last I checked at Best Buy, Windows7 won't be available until Oct. 21st.

Won't help partition size

Whether it be 7, Vista or XP, unless the next iteration of Replica software allows for flexibility in establishing a restoration partition larger than the one backed up, it will be worthless.

Imagine someone with, say, an 80GB drive which fails and he/she buys a 500GB drive and attempts a Replica restoration, only to find that the restoration took that 500GB drive back to 80GB of functionality?

Try to find an 80GB replacement drive!

Absolute stupidity on Seagate's part.
Scott

Not the real issue

I bought the Replica for automated backup of my PC. It does just what it said. It replicates my PC for me. I have a 100GB Lenovo PC. If my drive crashes, and I can restore the whole 100GB to a 500GB drive that ends up looking like my original 100GB drive -- I will be thankful. (I've had to recover from a disk crash before, which is why I bought the Replica in the first place). You don't want PC backup and recovery, what you want is disk management -- under Vista use the "extend partition" feature of disk management. Takes 2 minutes, not two days.

I don't disagree with you....

But the Replica was not created for the advanced user. It was created, and is marketed, to the user who wants ease of use and who is not computer-literate.

We can extend partitions using diskpart, and we can do other things. But Seagate could have (especially for the money) designed a solution with that flexibility built-in. They, for some inexplicable reason, chose not to do so.

There are a ton of people out there who do not want the hassles and angest associated with doing what you are recommending. For $200, I can't blame them for being upset.
Scott