"EBAB03F1: Insufficient system resources exist..."

One of my Ghost 15.0.1.36526 base backup jobs now fails with:

 "Error EC8F17B7: Cannot create recovery points for job: Drive Backup of Seagate1500 (F:\).  Error E7D1001E: Unable to read from file.  Error EBAB03F1: Insufficient system resources exist to complete the requested service. (UMI:V-281-3215-6071) Details: 0xE7D1001E"

 

I posted when this happened a few years back; the solution that worked until now, was to (as I read elsewhere solved this Ghost error message for others) increase IRPStackSize; and I did so when the error returned from time to time.  But I can't increase it anymore as it's now set to the max of 50.

 

New year I'll be able to install a more current OS, but for now I need to back up on Windows XP Pro sp3 32-bit.

 

The 1.5TGB drive (source) whose base backups fail has 579GB in use; a 2TB hard drive (destination) contains nothing but this drive's backups (and currently has 1.2TB free space).

 

Any suggestions, please?

I wonder if I need (and if it would even help, I'm not sure I understand what type of "resources" are "insufficient") to reduce the amount of data on the source drive.

 

 

None of my backups are to network drives.  The two drives I back up are on (the computer's only two) onboard SATA1 ports.  The two drives the two Ghost jobs back up to are on PCI expansion cards:

http://www.siig.com/it-products/controllers-storage/serialata/pci/esata-ii-150-pci.html

http://www.siig.com/it-products/controllers-storage/serialata/pci/serial-ata-4-channel-pci.html

 

The computer has:

Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2 cores@ 3.2GHz

most current BIOS

4GB RAM

WD VelociRaptor WD3000HLFS system drive

 

Hardware diagnostics (RAM, hard drives, CPU) and malware scans (SUPERAntiSpyware free 5.6.0.1020, and Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 1.75.0.1300) all pass.

 

Nothing else is running when the backup job fails except Norton AntiVirus 2013 and Comodo Free firewall.

coyote2,

first of all it would be helpful if you posted a pic of disk management.

Secondly if you have a suitable external USB drive available run a "One Time Backup" onto that to get XP Pro backed up.

 

579 GB is a lot to backup, I tend to just run the O/S and apps etc. on the primary drive and split off the data, music, video etc onto another drive. There is plenty of power and memory so that shouldn't be a problem.

 

You talk about base backup so you are running incrementals correct?

If so clear the history and schedule by stopping the Ghost service, deleting the .pqh files, restart the service and then run "Define New" to start a new base backup using the present drive setup.

A "One Time Backup" should also fit on your PCI expansion drive because it will be compressed anyway.

 

I used to use a IDE PCI card years ago but it got a bit complicated so I slung it, nothing to do with Ghost though.

 

Deric

Thank you very much for your reply, Deric!  (Thank goodness for this forum; I wish it existed when I first started using Ghost back in the 1900s).

 

Here's Disk Management:

 

dual-diskmgmt.jpg

 

I do keep relatively little other than the OS on my system drive (C: only contains 50 GB; it's backup job has never failed).  It's drive F: (579 GB of data) whose backups (to drive H:) are failing.

 

(I too embrace the many efficiencies of having OS and data on separate physical drives.)

 

Yes I run daily incrementals.  I had already deleted the drive's Recovery Point data in Manage Backup Destination (after hiding the actual previous backup set in a renamed folder on H:).  I'd never looked in C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Symantec\Norton Ghost\History …

 

Question:  Should I delete the .pqh files manually (i.e. in Windows Explorer), and should I leave the .dat and .policy files?

 

Then, I can try a "One Time Backup" (I'm guessing that you suggested that because it might work in some cases where a regular job won't).  But I'd much rather do so over PCI, since that take 8 to 10 hours, since over USB it would be even slower.  (And I don't even have a USB drive, though I could simulate one by putting a 2TB drive in a USB enclosure I use for optical drives.)

cotote2,

 

We can't see your disk management yet, it still needs approval for us to see it.


Question:  Should I delete the .pqh files manually (i.e. in Windows Explorer), and should I leave the .dat and .policy files?


We seem to be both on the same wave length.

Yes just delete all the .pqh files and the the odd .pq files for the schedule, i think .pqs.

I agree the USB drives are slower, I use sata drives in docking stations with an eSata connection but it will work in an enclosure.

You might want to try a docking station they are probably better than the PCI card.

My data is backed up with retrospect 7.5 and I run it as a duplicate which is similar to incrementals.

 

Edit: It might take 8-10 hours for the base backup to run but there after the incrementals should only take minutes.

 

Deric


DStain wrote:

cotote2,

 

We can't see your disk management yet, it still needs approval for us to see it.


Question:  Should I delete the .pqh files manually (i.e. in Windows Explorer), and should I leave the .dat and .policy files?


We seem to be both on the same wave length.

Yes just delete all the .pqh files and the the odd .pq files for the schedule, i think .pqs.

I agree the USB drives are slower, I use sata drives in docking stations with an eSata connection but it will work in an enclosure.

You might want to try a docking station they are probably better than the PCI card.

My data is backed up with retrospect 7.5 and I run it as a duplicate which is similar to incrementals.

 

Edit: It might take 8-10 hours for the base backup to run but there after the incrementals should only take minutes.

 

Deric


Yes, I don't mind an 8-10 hour (PCI eSATA) base, but much longer USB bases would be problematic.

 

I look forward to my Disk Management jpeg getting approval.

 

I really love this forum; wish it existed back in the 1900s when I first started using Ghost!  I thought I knew alot (and I did compared to Ghost phone support), until this place started and I was amazed by the expertise!

 

(The lan backups I ran in the 1900s were so slow I embraced 1394b early.)

coyote2

 

Unless Dave and Brian can spot anything the disk management pic looks ok to me, no what I call "problem partitions", more like mine on the multi boot machine.

There doesn't seem to be a problem with both F: and H: so it could be down to the PCI adaptors.

How many Sata ports have you got on the motherboard because it would be better to go direct to the mother board to run a backup onto F: to prove a point.

If you haven't got Sata ports available then there may be no alternative but to go for USB and stick the H: drive in an enclosure.

Once the base is set incrementals are quicker and you can dictate when new base sets are run.

See how you go with it when you have deleted the necessary .pqh files and start a new base backup, if you still have a problem then I think you will have to look at an alternative to the PCI adaptors.

 

If Brian, Dave or Red have an answere I am sure they will post some suggestions for you.

 

If you consider docking stations, I have two Akasa dual (USB and eSata) and will take both 2.5" and 3.5" Sata drives, I keep all my backups on them and have also tested incrementals on them as well. To use them you will need a "Rob" adaptor which fits in the opening that the PCI adaptors fit in and a sata cable goes direct to the motherboard from the Rob.

 

Deric


DStain wrote:
You talk about base backup so you are running incrementals correct?

If so clear the history and schedule by stopping the Ghost service, deleting the .pqh files, restart the service and then run "Define New" to start a new base backup using the present drive setup.



I did this and it worked!  (Even though--as I usually do--I ran it overnight when for much of the 9.5 hours it ran, a Norton Antivirus 2013 scan also ran.)

 

While I'm not surprised that your advice worked, I can't claim to understand why.  But I am happy, so at least for now I shall mark this as Solution! 

 

Thank you very much, Deric!!


DStain wrote:

coyote2

 

How many Sata ports have you got on the motherboard because it would be better to go direct to the mother board to run a backup onto F: to prove a point.

If you haven't got Sata ports available then there may be no alternative but to go for USB and stick the H: drive in an enclosure.


I have only 2 SATA ports on the mobo (both are used by the two "backup source" drives for the machines two backup jobs).  Had your suggestion not already (at least for now) Solved the issue, perhaps I could have moved the system drive (C:) to an expansion card, and put both the drives (F and H) for the big job on the mobo's SATA ports. (But perhaps not, I think it may be that the system drive needs to use the primary mobo SATA port.)

coyote2

 

You're welcome, only too pleased to help.

 

Deric

This change of title is caused by Windows 8 using IE 10, it doesn't happen on Windows 7 using IE8.

I have changed the title back.

 

Deric


coyote2 wrote:

I have only 2 SATA ports on the mobo (both are used by the two "backup source" drives for the machines two backup jobs).  Had your suggestion not already (at least for now) Solved the issue, perhaps I could have moved the system drive (C:) to an expansion card, and put both the drives (F and H) for the big job on the mobo's SATA ports. (But perhaps not, I think it may be that the system drive needs to use the primary mobo SATA port.)


 Yes, leave it at that for now, you can always experiment later on when the incrementals are running ok and XP is backed up.

Think about using "One Time Backup" for C: drive because that doesn't change much only security updates etc on the O/S and it is a simple manual backup with out any "complicated" settings.

Best of luck,

 

Deric.

PS I have posted this on Win7 and IE 8 and no change to the title.

 

I'm curious about something.

Look at your boot.ini file,  have you added any switches to change the default memory allocation such as /3GB or /PAE?

Have you done any tweaks to the default page file settings?

 

Dave


DaveH wrote:

I'm curious about something.

Look at your boot.ini file,  have you added any switches to change the default memory allocation such as /3GB or /PAE?

Have you done any tweaks to the default page file settings?

 

Dave


Thank you very much for your reply, Dave!

 

I've never edited the boot.ini file:

 

[boot loader]
timeout=10
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect
[spybotsd]
timeout.old=30

 I did, however, need (IIRC an OS message called for it) adjust the page file like this:

 

dual-vm.jpg

 

Would you recommend I configure it differently?  (I forget why, after much googling, I set it = RAM size; since the first site I saw just now said "The recommended size is the same as 1.5 times the RAM".)

 

(I was intrigued by "The more Virtual Memory you add the more of a chance that your hard drive will fail" because I'd love for my system drive to fail soom because it's WD warranty expires April 2014!)

I can't see your image until it gets approved and on weekends that sometimes takes a very long time.

But as long as you have not reduced the page file to far or tried to go without one you should be fine.

The old rule about it being 1.5X the amount of RAM is pretty outdated and no longer applies to large amounts of memory.  If you think about it, it makes no sense to have to double your page file when you double your RAM.

 

I was just wondering if you really were having system resource problems,  I find it very odd that you keep increasing the IRPstack size to get around that error.  If you recall your other topic a while back I was saying that for the most part that setting is for a "server" and not the workstation.

 

This system I'm sitting at in my office is also a Northwood 3.2GHz with 4GB RAM and XP Pro 32bit.

(My page file is fixed at 1.5GB minimum and 2.5GB max, although that really doesn't matter).

Other than that I don't use any teaks to try to change the default memory allocations.

 

I actually had to change my IRPStackSize from the default setting of 15 up to 17 but that was because of errors while trying to access shared folders from other systems.  (think of this system as a server and the other systems as workstations).

When I tried to access this system from others, especially windows 7 systems, I would get errors on the workstations

"Not enough server storage is available to process this command".

 

Then I increased the stack size on the XP system so I could access it from other systems without getting the error on the other systems.  (The XP system never got errors).

 

So I really don't understand the cause and effect of changing that setting when it is a standalone system not in a network role.

I also don't understand how you can increase it up to 50 without having problems.  I chose 17 because 18 gave me other problems (I can't remember what those problems were but I remember having to bump it back to 17).

 

But I never got any errors about system resources.

 

Dave

 

My Page file is set to a Custom | Initial & Maximum = 4096 MB on Drive C

 

The Virtual Memory window says "Recommended:  4989 MB"