File and Folder: Option to restore only files that are missing


Author
Message
jphughan
jphughan
Macrium Evangelist
Macrium Evangelist (22K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (22K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (22K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (22K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (22K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (22K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (22K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (22K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (22K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (22K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K, Visits: 85K
I'm picturing a scenario where for whatever reason, several files/folders perhaps spread throughout various levels of a complex folder tree have been deleted, but nobody quite knows all of what's gone -- meanwhile, users have continued to add and update other files.  Reflect's restore options for File and Folder backups currently only include "Restore all files" and "Restore files that are different", neither of which would be ideal in this scenario since either of them would indeed restore the deleted data, but would also perform undesired rollbacks of the other files that were updated between the data loss incident and the restore operation.  It would be nice if one could simply select the entire F&F backup in the restore wizard and specify that only data that's missing at the target should be restored.  Right now the best way I can think of to achieve this outcome would be to mount the backup and use some other application to perform a compare of the backup contents and the data on the source, then selectively restore any data that's missing, but this is far from ideal for several reasons. Obviously it requires a separate tool, and performing the restore would take much more time and care since files/folders would have to be manually reviewed, selected, and restored rather than just kicking off a restore operation of the entire data set with the "Files that are missing" filter and waiting for it to complete. And making this solution even more cumbersome is the fact that F&F backups mounted as a virtual disk split >4GB files into multiple files, which means even the compare results would not be totally accurate.

I understand that the data loss scenario I described above would be rather rare, but I also can't imagine that this option would be especially difficult to code, so I feel it is worth consideration.

Nick
Nick
Macrium Representative
Macrium Representative (5.4K reputation)Macrium Representative (5.4K reputation)Macrium Representative (5.4K reputation)Macrium Representative (5.4K reputation)Macrium Representative (5.4K reputation)Macrium Representative (5.4K reputation)Macrium Representative (5.4K reputation)Macrium Representative (5.4K reputation)Macrium Representative (5.4K reputation)Macrium Representative (5.4K reputation)
Group: Administrators
Posts: 3.2K, Visits: 22K
Thanks for the suggestion. It has  been added to the dev backlog.

Kind Regards

Nick

Macrium Support

Next Webinar

See our reviews on

Trustpilot Logo
Trustpilot Stars


GO

Merge Selected

Merge into selected topic...



Merge into merge target...



Merge into a specific topic ID...




Reading This Topic

Login

Explore
Messages
Mentions
Search