What do you use for backup today?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Over the past few years the capacity of disk drives (and the amount of
space typically used on them) has greatly increased, and now it is
getting more and more difficult to figure out how to back up these
drives.

What type of hardware (and software) do you use on your systems for
backup?

Up to now, I've used HP DDS tape drives (DAT drives) for backup. But
DDS2 is limited to 4 GB, and DDS3 is limited to 24 GB, and that's
getting to be to small to hold even one backup on a single tape (or
even on several tapes in some cases).

So, what else is there? These DAT drives already cost me a fortune in
the good old days, and today they cost nearly as much as the rest of
the computer, when I can find them ... and even DDS4 is still limited
to 40 GB. DLT drives are several times more expensive at the cheap
end, although they do have capacity to hold an entire drive of data.

Are there other practical alternatives? What about external USB
drives, can that work? Old stuff like Zip drives and so on is
history, as it has even less capacity than tape. Archiving to CD or
DVD is also too low in capacity. It's getting to the point that the
only affordable option seems to be some sort of disk-to-disk copy (or
RAID for those who can afford it), but it would be nice to have
removable media that could be put in a safe place.

So what is everyone else building into their new machines for backup?
And do you just use standard backup tools like ntbackup on Windows or
dump on UNIX, or do you use special software purchased separately?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

> Over the past few years the capacity of disk drives (and the
> amount of space typically used on them) has greatly increased,
> and now it is getting more and more difficult to figure out how
> to back up these drives.
> What type of hardware (and software) do you use on your systems
> for backup?

I have a second hard disk drive, 1/6 size of the main. I also have
a recently purchased DVD writer.

I don't use software. I just copy the stuff.

Have fun.

 

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

generally I let the transmission handle this, I prefer automatic.....oh
wait.....wrong direction...I ghost a 10gig os partition every week to
another off box HD(1394 external). data and project files are burned to CD
and also stored in a separate partition on the off box drive.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eq3fd1dmrsbre7ako2g64e14u2sq9a09rt@4ax.com...
> Over the past few years the capacity of disk drives (and the amount of
> space typically used on them) has greatly increased, and now it is
> getting more and more difficult to figure out how to back up these
> drives.
>
> What type of hardware (and software) do you use on your systems for
> backup?
>
> Up to now, I've used HP DDS tape drives (DAT drives) for backup. But
> DDS2 is limited to 4 GB, and DDS3 is limited to 24 GB, and that's
> getting to be to small to hold even one backup on a single tape (or
> even on several tapes in some cases).
>
> So, what else is there? These DAT drives already cost me a fortune in
> the good old days, and today they cost nearly as much as the rest of
> the computer, when I can find them ... and even DDS4 is still limited
> to 40 GB. DLT drives are several times more expensive at the cheap
> end, although they do have capacity to hold an entire drive of data.
>
> Are there other practical alternatives? What about external USB
> drives, can that work? Old stuff like Zip drives and so on is
> history, as it has even less capacity than tape. Archiving to CD or
> DVD is also too low in capacity. It's getting to the point that the
> only affordable option seems to be some sort of disk-to-disk copy (or
> RAID for those who can afford it), but it would be nice to have
> removable media that could be put in a safe place.
>
> So what is everyone else building into their new machines for backup?
> And do you just use standard backup tools like ntbackup on Windows or
> dump on UNIX, or do you use special software purchased separately?

 

[Clyde]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Over the past few years the capacity of disk drives (and the amount of
> space typically used on them) has greatly increased, and now it is
> getting more and more difficult to figure out how to back up these
> drives.
>
> What type of hardware (and software) do you use on your systems for
> backup?
>

I have an iOmega external, Firewire drive the same size as my main HD. I
use iOmega's Automatic Backup Pro software. It will backup data or the
whole system. The key is that is will backup open files, so it get
everything. This software was part of the package with the drive.

Clyde

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I've settled into using a Maxtor One Touch USB/firewire drive with
Retrospect software from Dantz (software comes with the drive). This is the
easiest backup procedure I've ever used. Just push a button. Or for that
matter I could auto-set it to back up daily.
Additionally I make a Ghost image backup on the USB/firwire drive as well.

--
Jan Alter
bearpuf@verizon.net
or
jalter@phila.k12.pa.us
"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns96943D331B2E7wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
> Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Over the past few years the capacity of disk drives (and the
>> amount of space typically used on them) has greatly increased,
>> and now it is getting more and more difficult to figure out how
>> to back up these drives.
>> What type of hardware (and software) do you use on your systems
>> for backup?
>
> I have a second hard disk drive, 1/6 size of the main. I also have
> a recently purchased DVD writer.
>
> I don't use software. I just copy the stuff.
>
> Have fun.

 

[Arnold]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eq3fd1dmrsbre7ako2g64e14u2sq9a09rt@4ax.com...
> Over the past few years the capacity of disk drives (and the amount of
> space typically used on them) has greatly increased, and now it is
> getting more and more difficult to figure out how to back up these
> drives.
>
> What type of hardware (and software) do you use on your systems for
> backup?
>
> Up to now, I've used HP DDS tape drives (DAT drives) for backup. But
> DDS2 is limited to 4 GB, and DDS3 is limited to 24 GB, and that's
> getting to be to small to hold even one backup on a single tape (or
> even on several tapes in some cases).
>
> So, what else is there? These DAT drives already cost me a fortune in
> the good old days, and today they cost nearly as much as the rest of
> the computer, when I can find them ... and even DDS4 is still limited
> to 40 GB. DLT drives are several times more expensive at the cheap
> end, although they do have capacity to hold an entire drive of data.
>
> Are there other practical alternatives? What about external USB
> drives, can that work? Old stuff like Zip drives and so on is
> history, as it has even less capacity than tape. Archiving to CD or
> DVD is also too low in capacity. It's getting to the point that the
> only affordable option seems to be some sort of disk-to-disk copy (or
> RAID for those who can afford it), but it would be nice to have
> removable media that could be put in a safe place.
>
> So what is everyone else building into their new machines for backup?
> And do you just use standard backup tools like ntbackup on Windows or
> dump on UNIX, or do you use special software purchased separately?


Mxmanic:
No doubt you'll get a slew of responses to your query each one touting his
or her favorite backup scheme, so let me give you my "take" on this
subject....

In my opinion, the best backup system for the average home user and even
small business owner in most cases is having his or her desktop computer
equipped with two removable hard drives and using a disk imaging program
such as Symantec's Norton Ghost or Acronis True Image to "clone" the
contents of their working hard drive to another removable hard drive. There
are other advantages in having two removable hard drives on one's desktop
computer but the most significant one is providing a near fail-safe backup
system. The speed, flexibility and peace of mind you get with this
arrangement far outweighs (for most users) the relatively small additional
cost of equipping one's desktop computer with this hardware configuration.
Note that the removable hard drive mobile racks we are discussing are
designed to be installed in desktop computers and not laptop or notebook
computers. The size, weight, and design considerations of laptops/notebooks
do not allow for this hardware configuration.

Using this setup, backing up your hard drive is simple, straightforward,
fast, and most important of all -- effective. By easily and relatively
quickly making a clone of your hard drive, using a software program like
Symantec's Norton Ghost or Acronis True Image, programs which are
specifically designed for this purpose, you get, what seems to me, the
ultimate backup solution given the present state of personal desktop
computer technology. Unlike backup programs that merely back up your data
files - that is, the files you've created in the various programs and
applications you use - by cloning your hard drive, you're backing up your
operating system, your registry, all your programs and applications, your
configuration settings, your data files - in short, everything on the hard
drive from which you're making (for all practical purposes) a bit for bit
copy.

And you're doing all this in one fell swoop, the result of which is the
creation of an exact duplicate of your working hard drive. And for *added*
safety you can remove this newly-cloned hard drive from the premises, not to
mention making unlimited additional clones you desire for near-absolute
security.

While it is true that backup software programs can backup the files you have
created in your various programs, they are unable to backup your operating
system and (for the most part) the programs installed on your computer. As
others have pointed out more that once, many, if not most, computer users
have invested substantial time and effort in customizing Windows and
configuring their applications to work the way they want to and putting all
of that back the way it was can be a difficult, frustrating, and
time-consuming effort.

So when the day comes - as it *surely* will - that your hard drive fails
because of some mechanical or electrical defect, it's a wonderful feeling to
know that you have a perfectly good copy of that failed hard drive that you
simply shove in the computer, boot up, and you're off and running. Or if you
ever get some miserable computer virus that plays havoc with your system, or
for some unknown reason this or that system file is missing or becomes
corrupt resulting in an inoperable computer, isn't it nice to know that you
have at hand a perfectly good virus-free clone of your hard drive? And then
simply clone that "good" previously cloned hard drive to the virus-infected
one so that once again you now have two perfectly good hard drives. And in
the case where the hard drive is kaput because of some mechanical/electronic
failure, you purchase a new hard drive, simply remove the defective drive
from the removable tray, plop in the new one, make two simple connections,
shove it in the computer and then clone your good hard drive to the new one.
And the added beauty of this arrangement is that you do all this from the
comfort of your computer chair. There's no need to open your computer case
and get into the "guts" of your computer to make complicated cable
disconnects/connects. Everything is done outside of your computer because
each hard drive resides in a tray (caddy) that you simply slide into the
computer's mobile rack.

There's *no* need to partition and format the new drive; *no* need to
reinstall your operating system on the new drive; *no* need to reinstall
your programs and data files. None of this is necessary. By simply cloning
the
previously-cloned hard drive to the new drive you once again have two
functioning hard drives at your disposal. And a simple turn of the mobile
rack's keylock allows the user to boot to either hard drive following the
cloning operation.

As previously indicated, these mobile rack devices are two-piece affairs -
the rack itself and the inner tray or caddy (in which the hard drive
resides) that slides into the rack. They come in all-aluminum models or a
combination of aluminum-plastic ranging in price from about $15 to $50.
Naturally, your desktop computer case will need two 5¼" bays that are
available to house the mobile racks. Mobile racks come in various versions,
depending upon whether the hard drive to be housed is an IDE/ATA, SATA, or
SCSI device. A Google search for "removable hard drive mobile racks" will
result in a wealth of information on these products and their vendors. I'm
aware of many users who have been using inexpensive plastic mobile racks
without any problems whatsoever. Unfortunately, there is no industry
standard involving the design and construction of the racks nor the inner
trays that contain the hard drive.Consequently, there is (usually) no
interchangeability of these trays among the various manufacturers of mobile
racks. Indeed, there is frequently no interchangeability of the inner trays
among different models from the same manufacturer. This lack of
interchangeability may not be an issue if the user will be purchasing a
particular model of mobile rack for a single computer, however, if the user
will have access to other computers, he or she may want to settle on a
specific brand and model of mobile rack that will provide for tray
interchangeability amongst different computers.

As I've previously indicated, the cloning process itself is easy and
relatively fast. Using Symantec's Norton Ghost 2003 cloning program as an
example, with the two removable hard drives connected to the computer, you
simply boot up your desktop computer with the bootable floppy disk (my
preferred method) that contains the Ghost program and after a few key clicks
the cloning process begins. The cloning process is practically automatic and
you need not be in attendance during the actual cloning operation. The size
(disk capacity) or make/model of your hard drives need not be identical; all
that matters is that your destination drive contains sufficient capacity to
receive the contents of your source drive. Incidentally, I've recently been
experimenting with the Acronis True Image program because of the many
favorable reports I've come across about this program. Using a bootable ATI
CD, I find the cloning speed of this program is considerably faster than
that of Ghost. And so far I've run into no problems with the cloning process
itself. Depending upon the speed of your processor and hard drives you
should get cloning speeds of somewhere between 700 MB to 1.5+ GB per minute
(less if cloning to a USB/Firewire external hard drive).

I can virtually guarantee that once you begin working with two removable
hard drives, you'll have but one regret and only one regret. And that is you
didn't have this arrangement on your previous computer or computers. While
the additional cost involved in configuring your desktop computer with two
mobile racks together with the additional hard drive and disk imaging
software is not negligible, I can assure you it's money well spent. Frankly,
when you consider the enormous advantages of having two removable hard
drives on your desktop computer, the additional cost of so equipping your
computer in this fashion practically pales into insignificance.
Anna

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe writes:

> I don't use software. I just copy the stuff.

What about things like the registry?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

John Doe wrote:
> troll
>

WWWAAAAAAAAHHH! John is calling me names. Oh wait, that crying sound is
his little heart breaking because someone told the truth about him.

--

sbb78247

Speak the truth and leave shortly there after.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Doe writes:

>> I don't use software. I just copy the stuff.

> What about things like the registry?

I don't think Microsoft has ever genuinely promoted a modular
installation or easy backup of program data, that might promote user
independence. For attempting to preserve my installation, I backup
the whole Windows partition. I have used PartitionMagic, but
currently I am using Partition Manager 2005.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe writes:

> I don't think Microsoft has ever genuinely promoted a modular
> installation or easy backup of program data, that might promote user
> independence.

You make it sound deliberate. In fact, it's just a design flaw, not
something Microsoft has deliberately done.

There are generally two models for configuration data: one is the UNIX
model, with configuration files scattered all over the system, and the
other is the Windows model, with everything in one monolithic,
gigantic, proprietary database. Both have advantages and
disadvantages. The UNIX model is probably friendlier from the
standpoint of back-up and restore operations, though.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:
> John Doe writes:

>> I don't think Microsoft has ever genuinely promoted a modular
>> installation or easy backup of program data, that might promote
>> user independence.

> You make it sound deliberate. In fact, it's just a design flaw,
> not something Microsoft has deliberately done.

In fact (fact according to our federal courts), tying users to
Windows is something Microsoft puts great effort into, to the
point of breaking our laws. And for very good reason. Windows, a
monopoly with an 85% profit margin, is Microsoft's cash cow.

> There are generally two models for configuration data: one is
> the UNIX model, with configuration files scattered all over the
> system, and the other is the Windows model, with everything in
> one monolithic, gigantic, proprietary database.

Program configuration data has always been scattered, and still
is. Not only in the registry, but in files and folders.
Microsoft's Visual C++ is a good example.





>
>
>
>
> Path: newssvr33.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm06.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:43:53 -0500
> From: Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: What do you use for backup today?
> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 22:43:52 +0200
> Organization: Just Mxsmanic
> Message-ID: <vs7gd11pfeu5bkg03aag6cbqv0k45b7bbj 4ax.com>
> References: <eq3fd1dmrsbre7ako2g64e14u2sq9a09rt 4ax.com> <Xns96943D331B2E7wisdomfolly 207.115.63.158> <ebcfd1tq14vbc5ndq9akhu6lv43v6id0vm 4ax.com> <Xns969498163CB5wisdomfolly 207.115.63.158>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 15
> X-Trace: sv3-e29VQd8pKEMKGzerp93MNE6GRlqr0eir1DO9GNRRu+udKA4t/gM0eLzVHAbGP46+4E+j+VK7wvhFvFZ!aTCRtRa8Z3l/KiA2H9MvQJ/unVN3Uncfjg3xPLmDk4seGiAyWZOKFOmEyyNWZmJgSg==
> X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com
> X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
> Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:214098 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:441124
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Over the past few years the capacity of disk drives (and the amount of
> space typically used on them) has greatly increased, and now it is
> getting more and more difficult to figure out how to back up these
> drives.
>
> What type of hardware (and software) do you use on your systems for
> backup?

All backups, as well as shared files, are transfered to my linux server
with software RAID 1 (2x80 and 2x120). Further, I have a 200GB drive in
a 3.5" enclosure that I back up all this data onto for an 'off site'
backup one a month, minimum.

>
> Up to now, I've used HP DDS tape drives (DAT drives) for backup. But
> DDS2 is limited to 4 GB, and DDS3 is limited to 24 GB, and that's
> getting to be to small to hold even one backup on a single tape (or
> even on several tapes in some cases).
>
> So, what else is there? These DAT drives already cost me a fortune in
> the good old days, and today they cost nearly as much as the rest of
> the computer, when I can find them ... and even DDS4 is still limited
> to 40 GB. DLT drives are several times more expensive at the cheap
> end, although they do have capacity to hold an entire drive of data.
>
> Are there other practical alternatives? What about external USB
> drives, can that work?

Yes. You can send entire ghost images to them or just create a backup
plan. I wonder if any of the commercial (or freeware) backup software
will let you set the USB HDD as a destination for the files, or if these
softwares are able to incrementally update onlt the files that are new
or have changed? I know there's a technique in linux to do this, and I
should REALLY look into it soon.

> Old stuff like Zip drives and so on is
> history, as it has even less capacity than tape. Archiving to CD or
> DVD is also too low in capacity. It's getting to the point that the
> only affordable option seems to be some sort of disk-to-disk copy (or
> RAID for those who can afford it), but it would be nice to have
> removable media that could be put in a safe place.

Even windows sofware RAID is quite cheap. Unlike hardware RAID, you need
to use the manufacturer's windows drivers.

>
> So what is everyone else building into their new machines for backup?
> And do you just use standard backup tools like ntbackup on Windows or
> dump on UNIX, or do you use special software purchased separately?


--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in
hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone
marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow
transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

spodosaurus writes:

> Even windows sofware RAID is quite cheap. Unlike hardware RAID, you need
> to use the manufacturer's windows drivers.

The motherboards of the last two PCs I've been support hardware RAID
for SATA drives, but I'm wary of trying it out, as things like that
move into the "danger area" of hardware/software interactions that can
cause lots of problems and take forever to sort out.

 

[anna]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Please see my inline comments...

> Anna writes:
>> In my opinion, the best backup system for the average home user and even
>> small business owner in most cases is having his or her desktop computer
>> equipped with two removable hard drives and using a disk imaging program
>> such as Symantec's Norton Ghost or Acronis True Image to "clone" the
>> contents of their working hard drive to another removable hard drive.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
> This solution is tempting to me, too, although I don't have the budget
> for it at the moment. It might be the way I go in future, as tape
> drives with sufficient capacity to hold all the disk space I now have
> would cost thousands of dollars for the drives alone, plus $100 or so
> each for each data cartridge.

Anna responds:
As I've later indicated, the cost of equipping one's desktop computer with
two removable drives, including the two mobile racks, the additional hard
drive, and the disk imaging software, while not trifling, is *not* an
expensive proposition for most users. I would estimate the cost would be in
the neighborhood of $100 to $150.

>> And you're doing all this in one fell swoop, the result of which is the
>> creation of an exact duplicate of your working hard drive. And for
>> *added*
>> safety you can remove this newly-cloned hard drive from the premises, not
>> to
>> mention making unlimited additional clones you desire for near-absolute
>> security.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Yes, being able to move the media elsewhere is important, as it guards
> against major disasters.

Anna comments...
>> While it is true that backup software programs can backup the files you
>> have
>> created in your various programs, they are unable to backup your
>> operating
>> system and (for the most part) the programs installed on your computer.
>> As
>> others have pointed out more that once, many, if not most, computer users
>> have invested substantial time and effort in customizing Windows and
>> configuring their applications to work the way they want to and putting
>> all
>> of that back the way it was can be a difficult, frustrating, and
>> time-consuming effort.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
> But there is an opposite side to the coin: What happens if you have to
> restore the system to somewhat different hardware? All that OS
> information in the registry covering the hardware configuration now is
> obsolete. You'll be restoring a system that may not even boot. How
> do you selective restore from a clone in such a way that you get all
> your data and software configuration information back, but you can
> still restore to a somewhat different hardware configuration?

Anna responds...
I really can't see why "there is an opposite side to the coin". The whole
idea of what we are discussing is a mechanism that backs up one's current
system, and does it simply, conveniently, effectively, with reasonable
speed, and is reasonably cost-effective. To indicate that this recommended
mechanism is somewhat deficient because it will not be as simple,
convenient, effective, etc. to restore *another* system introduces a
completely different objective, does it not? Anyway, should the user
completely revamp his/her hardware, programs, etc. etc., wouldn't the user
simply make a clone of his/her new system along the lines I've described?
Why would a user even attempt to use his/her "old" clone to restore to a
different system?

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
> After all, if your computer is destroyed, you may not be able to build
> one that is rigorously identical to it from a hardware standpoint.
> And if the new computer isn't identical, restoring the software
> configuration for the hardware may cause a heap of trouble. You have
> to be able to modify the hardware configuration information without
> changing anything else. How do you do that with something that just
> clones the entire drive?

Anna responds...
Please refer to my remarks above. A clone is a clone is a clone. Obviously
it's designed to be a clone of the system one has cloned from. If the user
subsequently builds a completely new system then he or she will clone the
contents of that new system to another clone would he not? And anyway, the
cloned drive *could* be used (with some modification) to clone the contents
of the old drive back to the new system for restoration purposes. See my
further comments on this below.

>> ... isn't it nice to know that you
>> have at hand a perfectly good virus-free clone of your hard drive?

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Yes, if I have an identical hardware platform to which I can restore
> the clone.

Anna responds:
Honestly, isn't that what we're *really* talking about? For the overwhelming
number of users the basic issue is backing up one's current system.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
> How do you restore the clone to the virus-infected drive without
> infecting both with the virus? After all, you'll be running the
> cloning program on the machine that has the virus.

Anna responds:
It nearly goes without saying that when a user clones his/her drive, he/she
must ensure that the drive is malware-free and suffers no system files
corruption. If you clone garbage, garbage is what you'll get. Presumably the
cloned drive is virus-free, so that if the working drive subsquently becomes
virus infected, restoring it from that "good" clone represents one of the
basic advantages of the disk cloning process.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Your only choice would be to buy yet a third disk, and clone the clean
> disk to that. You _might_ be able to clone back to the infected disk
> eventually, too, if you can be sure that no virus will sneak in.

Anna responds:
You're really losing me here. Hopefully, my remarks directly above have
clarified the issue for you.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
> But really, viruses aren't a big problem in my view. Drive failures
> and other hardware failures are. A simple drive failure can be fixed
> by a cloning program such as you describe. But if you have to replace
> other hardware, or build a new machine ... then what?

Anna responds:
I'm glad to hear that virus infection is not particularly troubling for you.
But believe me, it is for many, many computer users. And it's here that the
virus-free cloned drive is especially valuable.
So let's say that the user builds a new machine with different hardware, say
a new motherboard, a new processor, new RAM, new HD, etc. -- in short, a new
system. The cloned drive could *still* be used to re:clone the contents of
the old drive back to the new system. Sure, after doing so, the user would
presumably need to install (or reinstall) whatever drivers are necessary for
the new system. But his/her precious programs/data would be intact. And
there's no reason why that newly-cloned drive would not be bootable. There
may be activation issues, of course, assuming we're dealing with Windows XP,
but that's another issue.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Not that traditional tape backups are any better in this respect,
> though. It's a problem for any kind of backup.

Anna says...
>> Everything is done outside of your computer because
>> each hard drive resides in a tray (caddy) that you simply slide into the
>> computer's mobile rack.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Sounds nice, but what about performance ... and purchase cost? It's
> the former lower and the latter higher for removal drives? Disk
> drives are the slowest link in the chain as it is already.

Anna responds:
As to "performance" - I take it you're referring to speed of cloning, yes?
Using medium to high-powered processors and modern hard drives, cloning
speed will be somewhere around 1.5 GB/min. Not breakneck speed by any
stretch, but I would guess sufficient for most users. And the nice thing
about the cloning process is that the user need not be in attendance during
most of the process. Once he/she initiates the process, it automatically
performs the cloning process.
As to cost, as I mentioned above - about $100 to $150 for the two mobile
racks, the additional HD, and the cloning software.

Anna says:
>> There's *no* need to partition and format the new drive; *no* need to
>> reinstall your operating system on the new drive; *no* need to reinstall
>> your programs and data files. None of this is necessary. By simply
>> cloning
>> the previously-cloned hard drive to the new drive you once again have two
>> functioning hard drives at your disposal. And a simple turn of the mobile
>> rack's keylock allows the user to boot to either hard drive following the
>> cloning operation.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Unless your hardware configuration has changed. If your cloned system
> expects video card A and you've had to replace your burnt-out card A
> with a new video card B, it may be difficult to even boot, although I
> suppose in that particular case you could fix things fairly quickly.

Anna responds:
There shouldn't be a booting problem at all. As I stated above, after the
contents of the cloned drive has been cloned to the new system, it will
probably will be necessary to install a new video card driver in the example
you've given, but there should be no boot problem at all.

Anna says:
>> As previously indicated, these mobile rack devices are two-piece
>> affairs -
>> the rack itself and the inner tray or caddy (in which the hard drive
>> resides) that slides into the rack. They come in all-aluminum models or a
>> combination of aluminum-plastic ranging in price from about $15 to $50.
>> Naturally, your desktop computer case will need two 5¼" bays that are
>> available to house the mobile racks. Mobile racks come in various
>> versions,
>> depending upon whether the hard drive to be housed is an IDE/ATA, SATA,
>> or
>> SCSI device. A Google search for "removable hard drive mobile racks" will
>> result in a wealth of information on these products and their vendors.
>> I'm
>> aware of many users who have been using inexpensive plastic mobile racks
>> without any problems whatsoever. Unfortunately, there is no industry
>> standard involving the design and construction of the racks nor the inner
>> trays that contain the hard drive.Consequently, there is (usually) no
>> interchangeability of these trays among the various manufacturers of
>> mobile
>> racks. Indeed, there is frequently no interchangeability of the inner
>> trays
>> among different models from the same manufacturer. This lack of
>> interchangeability may not be an issue if the user will be purchasing a
>> particular model of mobile rack for a single computer, however, if the
>> user
>> will have access to other computers, he or she may want to settle on a
>> specific brand and model of mobile rack that will provide for tray
>> interchangeability amongst different computers.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
> I'm not clear on this: are you saying that the drives themselves are
> ordinary internal disk drives and it's just a special rack that allows
> them to be connected more easily, or what? Don't you have to buy
> special removable drives and racks that match?

Anna responds:
That's correct. The hard drives are ordinary PATA or SATA drives, nothing
special about them. You just plop them in the tray (caddy), make two simple
connections (power & data cable), and slide the tray into the mobile rack
(which has been installed in the case's 5 1/4" bay, just like a CD-ROM).
Takes about 30 seconds. Obviously you would want the same make/model for the
two mobile racks so that the inner trays would be interchangeable.

Anna says:
>> I can virtually guarantee that once you begin working with two removable
>> hard drives, you'll have but one regret and only one regret. And that is
>> you
>> didn't have this arrangement on your previous computer or computers.
>> While
>> the additional cost involved in configuring your desktop computer with
>> two
>> mobile racks together with the additional hard drive and disk imaging
>> software is not negligible, I can assure you it's money well spent.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
> I tend to agree. Unfortunately I have no money to spend at the
> moment. When I do, though, I'll surely look into it, as the
> alternative of buying a DLT or DDS4 tape drive would probably be at
> least as expensive if not more.

Anna responds:
I truly hope you seriously consider this hardware configuration. We gave up
on using tape for backup purposes years ago because of the many difficulties
we encountered with that system. We have installed or helped install
hundreds of systems along the lines I have recommended and I can't recall a
single user ever expressing dissatisfaction with this configuration.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Right now I try to keep irreplaceable stuff in a few key folders and I
> just copy those somewhere periodically. Not very convenient and very
> error prone, but that's all the budget allows right now. Periodically
> I save to tape, although now I require multiple DDS cassettes for each
> backup because of the growing size of the disks.

Anna says:
>> Frankly,
>> when you consider the enormous advantages of having two removable hard
>> drives on your desktop computer, the additional cost of so equipping your
>> computer in this fashion practically pales into insignificance.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
> If you have the money in the first place, but I don't. Maybe someday.
> Thanks for your ideas, anyway--it does sound like going removable may
> be the wave of the future.

Anna responds:
Obviously that's a decision you have to make based on your particular
circumstances. As I've indicated above, we're not talking "big bucks" here.
While I recognize it's not a trifling cost for many users, it's certainly
not an enormous amount by any stretch.
And I would respectfully correct your final statement...
Equipping one's desktop computer with two removable hard drives is not the
"wave of the future", rather, it's here & now.
Anna

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe writes:

> Program configuration data has always been scattered, and still
> is. Not only in the registry, but in files and folders.
> Microsoft's Visual C++ is a good example.

Individual applications have the option of storing configuration data
in any way they choose. Some Windows programs use the registry,
others still use .INI files, still others have their own proprietary
methods of holding the data. I rather like programs that hold all the
necessary information in their own directories, since that allows one
to restore them to a system by simply restoring the directory, without
worrying about the registry. Of course, it's inelegant in other ways.
It's easy to back up and restore, though.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Doe writes:

>> Program configuration data has always been scattered, and still
>> is. Not only in the registry, but in files and folders.
>> Microsoft's Visual C++ is a good example.
>
> Individual applications have the option of storing configuration
> data in any way they choose.

Microsoft has the power to force the issue, but Microsoft would
rather bind the user to a single installation on one machine.
Fortunately we can still produce files in Windows that can be
removed.

Back to the subject of application data/settings. Some people keep
their programs on a second partition. I have done that before, but
nowadays the operating system installation is massive by itself,
so I do the basic installation/settings plus the most needed
applications, and copy the whole thing.

Good luck.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe writes:

> Microsoft has the power to force the issue, but Microsoft would
> rather bind the user to a single installation on one machine.
> Fortunately we can still produce files in Windows that can be
> removed.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Anyway, individual Windows applications can store their configuration
information in any way they choose. The OS does provide a registry
along with API calls to access it in a consistent way, and
applications can store their configuration information in the registry
if they so choose. The decision to provide a registry was an
attempted technical solution to the problem of incoherencies across
applications in the ways they stored configuration information, making
back up and restore of applications difficult in some cases (because
they stored their information in weird places, or because they even
modified configuration data belonging to other programs).

It was a good idea, but it's not without problems of its own. The
biggest problem is that the registry is a "magic" file that cannot
easily be saved and restored as a block. It is always allocated to
the system and thus perpetually "busy." It contains mixed data from
many different applications and so restoration en masse of the file is
likely to cause problems. Overall, it ends up being no better or
worse than the way things were before (and the way they still are on
UNIX); it's just different. Unfortunately, even Microsoft is not very
consistent in its use of the registry (try to find all the parameters
for Internet Explorer in the registry, and you'll see).

> Back to the subject of application data/settings. Some people keep
> their programs on a second partition. I have done that before, but
> nowadays the operating system installation is massive by itself,
> so I do the basic installation/settings plus the most needed
> applications, and copy the whole thing.

I install applications in a folder I call \Software (I don't like the
default \Program Files folder), but other than that I don't do much.
Software I can usually reinstall from scratch, so the main issue is
just saving configuration data, and unfortunately that often involves
the registry, with all the problems described above.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:32:19 +0200, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

>Over the past few years the capacity of disk drives (and the amount of
>space typically used on them) has greatly increased, and now it is
>getting more and more difficult to figure out how to back up these
>drives.
>
>What type of hardware (and software) do you use on your systems for
>backup?

Raided drives using PCI card not motherboard dependant (plus
identical spare raid card), a 3rd copy on non-raided drives
(offline system only plugged into lan or power for this
purpose), a 4th copy on DVD (formerly CDR). 3rd copy
updated less often, 4th even less. Then there's basic
records and such, smaller file sets also on flash media.
Basically the plan revolves around getting the more frequent
backups done quicker as I find that makes it more likely to
get done regularly. Tape made more sense in the past, IMO,
but after HDD prices plummeted per capacity they can be
cheap to throw into old boxes- plus "old" boxes are quite a
bit more suitable since it's been a few years since the
typical board started supporting 48bit LBA, large HDDs.

 

[ted]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eq3fd1dmrsbre7ako2g64e14u2sq9a09rt@4ax.com...
> Over the past few years the capacity of disk drives (and the amount of
> space typically used on them) has greatly increased, and now it is
> getting more and more difficult to figure out how to back up these
> drives.
>
> What type of hardware (and software) do you use on your systems for
> backup?
>
> Up to now, I've used HP DDS tape drives (DAT drives) for backup. But
> DDS2 is limited to 4 GB, and DDS3 is limited to 24 GB, and that's
> getting to be to small to hold even one backup on a single tape (or
> even on several tapes in some cases).
>
> So, what else is there? These DAT drives already cost me a fortune in
> the good old days, and today they cost nearly as much as the rest of
> the computer, when I can find them ... and even DDS4 is still limited
> to 40 GB. DLT drives are several times more expensive at the cheap
> end, although they do have capacity to hold an entire drive of data.
>
> Are there other practical alternatives? What about external USB
> drives, can that work? Old stuff like Zip drives and so on is
> history, as it has even less capacity than tape. Archiving to CD or
> DVD is also too low in capacity. It's getting to the point that the
> only affordable option seems to be some sort of disk-to-disk copy (or
> RAID for those who can afford it), but it would be nice to have
> removable media that could be put in a safe place.
>
> So what is everyone else building into their new machines for backup?
> And do you just use standard backup tools like ntbackup on Windows or
> dump on UNIX, or do you use special software purchased separately?

let the boys bitch on while I add my 10p worth............

Hardware: An internal 80gb HDD and an external 250gb USB HDD. Both Maxtor's.
I back up both my comps to the external drive. Rather a belt and braces
idea.

Software: Acronis True Image 8. Nice easy to use software. (also offers good
recovery prog which I used to recover my daughters lappy when Windoz went
walkies)

ted

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Doe writes:

>> Microsoft has the power to force the issue, but Microsoft would
>> rather bind the user to a single installation on one machine.
>> Fortunately we can still produce files in Windows that can be
>> removed.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about.

Except for a show of public relations, Microsoft could not care
less about anything except protecting its monopoly power.

> Anyway, individual Windows applications can store their
> configuration information in any way they choose.

Not if they are going to be installed on my system.

>> Back to the subject of application data/settings. Some people
>> keep their programs on a second partition. I have done that
>> before, but nowadays the operating system installation is
>> massive by itself, so I do the basic installation/settings plus
>> the most needed applications, and copy the whole thing.

> I install applications in a folder I call \Software (I don't
> like the default \Program Files folder),

Long ago, probably in my Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 days, I would
install Windows to a different folder.

I also went through the renaming Program Files phase.

After playing with Windows for tens of thousands of hours, I do it
Microsoft's Way.

Coincidentally, yesterday a related problem came up. I installed
Age of Empires into Program Files\ instead of into Program
Files\Microsoft Games\. Unfortunately, apparently the no CD patch
was expecting it to be installed in ...Microsoft Games\.

> but other than that I don't do much. Software I can usually
> reinstall from scratch,

Some programs can require a significant amount of configuring,
just depends on your personal preferences I guess. I have always
enjoyed configuring Windows and programs. Nowadays it is much more
involved

I mostly forget about program data, except for making a complete
copy of the Windows partition.

I also have a backup folder called Installation, with subfolders
Desktop (icons from the desktop), Favorites (Internet shortcuts),
and Launch (program shortcuts).

Properly named program shortcuts are very useful since nowadays I
start programs by saying "start <name>", for example "start
browser" or "start discussion".

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Anna writes:

> Anna responds...
> I really can't see why "there is an opposite side to the coin". The whole
> idea of what we are discussing is a mechanism that backs up one's current
> system, and does it simply, conveniently, effectively, with reasonable
> speed, and is reasonably cost-effective. To indicate that this recommended
> mechanism is somewhat deficient because it will not be as simple,
> convenient, effective, etc. to restore *another* system introduces a
> completely different objective, does it not?

No. Every system must include both functions: backup and restore. If
you can back up everything, but you cannot restore it again, the
backup is useless. While it is true that a backup of everything might
help if you want to _restore_ everything unconditionally, if you have
a need to only selectively restore certain data, being constrained to
restore everything is as bad as not being able to restore anything at
all.

For example, if your computer fails, and you are forced to buy new
hardware that doesn't precisely match the old, you must be able to
selectively restore data from the old computer so that all
hardware-independent information is restored, but hardware-dependent
information is not. That way you can configure the new hardware and
then overlay it with all other restored data without corrupting your
new hardware configuration. If you simply restore the Windows
registry wholesale, you restore all the software _and_ hardware
configuration data, blasting the new configuration for the machine and
potentially making the machine unusable.

> Anyway, should the user
> completely revamp his/her hardware, programs, etc. etc., wouldn't the user
> simply make a clone of his/her new system along the lines I've described?

A clone works if you will always restore to identical hardware. But
since hardware changes daily, the chances of being able to restore to
identical hardware after a system has been running for several years
are very slim. You therefore need the ability to selectively restore.

Being able to selectively back up data isn't that big a deal, its only
advantage being that you can reduce the size of your backups that way.
But being able to restore selectively is extremely important. You may
wish to only restore certain files or directories, or you may wish to
restore only certain branches of the registry.

It is the absence of any awareness of the uniqueness of the registry
in most backup software that makes the registry such a pain to deal
with. How many backup products can selectively restore only certain
branches in a registry tree? Indeed, how would you even determine
which branches to restore, and which to leave alone?

> Why would a user even attempt to use his/her "old" clone to restore to a
> different system?

The old system may have failed, and he may have been forced to replace
it with new and significantly different hardware. But he still needs
all the old data and functionality.

> Please refer to my remarks above. A clone is a clone is a clone. Obviously
> it's designed to be a clone of the system one has cloned from. If the user
> subsequently builds a completely new system then he or she will clone the
> contents of that new system to another clone would he not?

If he can. But to do that, he has to build an identical system with
identical hardware. If the hardware is not identical, simply
restoring an entire drive from a clone will probably not work.

> Honestly, isn't that what we're *really* talking about?

Sometimes. But the computer world changes quickly, and unless you buy
several identical systems and put all but one in storage, there's no
guarantee that you'll ever be able to restore to an identical hardware
platform. By the time one system fails in a way that requires
replacement, there will be no identical replacements available. The
original clone will have to be restored to hardware different from
that on which it originally ran.

> For the overwhelming number of users the basic issue is backing
> up one's current system.

But backing things up implies being able to restore them. If you
can't do the latter, the former is a waste of time.

Even large companies make this mistake: they back up everything
religiously, but they have no idea how to restore any of what they
back up, because they've never tried. When the real disaster hits,
they find that they can't restore anything in a way that allows them
to build a usable system. Sometimes they can get around it, in time,
sometimes they are stuck.

In Windows, by far the most likely culprit for this type of problem is
the registry, which has to be selectively restored if the hardware
changes. And unfortunately there is very little discipline in the
structure of the registry, so it may be impossible to figure out what
must be restored and what must be left in its "virgin" state on the
new machine.

> It nearly goes without saying that when a user clones his/her drive, he/she
> must ensure that the drive is malware-free and suffers no system files
> corruption.

How does one do that? For that, you need a trusted system that can
analyze the system at risk. If you are analyzing the system at risk
from _within_ that very system, you may not be able to detect all
corruption. Some malware is very good at hiding itself.

> If you clone garbage, garbage is what you'll get. Presumably the
> cloned drive is virus-free, so that if the working drive subsquently becomes
> virus infected, restoring it from that "good" clone represents one of the
> basic advantages of the disk cloning process.

A better practice might be to replace the working drive with the
cloned drive by swapping drives, then put the old working drive on
another machine, wipe it clean, and clone the new working drive back
to it. And this must not be done using any software from the old
working drive, since that might be infected.

It can be a complex problem to resolve.

> You're really losing me here. Hopefully, my remarks directly above have
> clarified the issue for you.

I've actually had problems like this, in the distant, misty past. The
central problem is that you cannot trust anything that has been
infected, including any OS that resides on the infected device. Since
most PCs have only one OS that _does_ reside on the (only) disk drive,
it isn't completely safe to do anything with them if you want to
eliminate infection entirely. Most malware is not this sophisticated,
but if it is, you have a serious problem.

> I'm glad to hear that virus infection is not particularly troubling for you.
> But believe me, it is for many, many computer users.

They execute untrustworthy code. They click on attachments, they
download ActiveX components, etc. At some point, they do something
explicit that causes the infection.

Some software can be configured to execute code implicitly, but this
can usually be turned off. I switched from Outlook Express to The Bat
because OE didn't allow me to turn off HTML mail completely, and it's
too easy for executable code to sneak into HTML (even though I turned
everything off in the Restricted Zone and set OE to use this zone).

> And it's here that the virus-free cloned drive is especially valuable.

Yes, but you have to keep it away from infected machines when you copy
it back. It would be nice to be able to block all writes to a drive
with a hardware switch for this type of situation. Then there would
be no way to infect a cloned drive at all, period, and anything
restored from it (using trusted software, which is no easy task) would
be clean.

> So let's say that the user builds a new machine with different hardware, say
> a new motherboard, a new processor, new RAM, new HD, etc. -- in short, a new
> system. The cloned drive could *still* be used to re:clone the contents of
> the old drive back to the new system.

What about the registry? Some things in the registry are
hardware-dependent, and must not be changed by the restore; other
things are hardware-independent, and must be restored. But these
things are mixed in haphazard fashion in the _same file_. How do you
select what to restore and what not to restore?

> Sure, after doing so, the user would
> presumably need to install (or reinstall) whatever drivers are necessary for
> the new system. But his/her precious programs/data would be intact. And
> there's no reason why that newly-cloned drive would not be bootable. There
> may be activation issues, of course, assuming we're dealing with Windows XP,
> but that's another issue.

The old cloned content may point to software on a drive that no longer
exists, for example. Windows can boot in safe mode with a generic
video driver, so a video driver mismatch is survivable, but other
drivers don't have that protection (as far as I know).

> As to "performance" - I take it you're referring to speed of cloning, yes?

No, I mean the speed of the drive (access time, transfer rates). Are
removable drives slower?

> Using medium to high-powered processors and modern hard drives, cloning
> speed will be somewhere around 1.5 GB/min. Not breakneck speed by any
> stretch, but I would guess sufficient for most users. And the nice thing
> about the cloning process is that the user need not be in attendance during
> most of the process. Once he/she initiates the process, it automatically
> performs the cloning process.

This raises another question: since the system is presumably running
and still writing to the working drive, how do you ensure that the
clone is a coherent copy of the working disk?

Some software can take a snapshot of the entire system and use that to
copy the clone, but this requires OS support that isn't always
present. I know the latest version of my FreeBSD UNIX OS does this.
It looks like Windows backup may also be doing something similar, but
I'm not sure. If it isn't done, though, you can get incoherencies in
the clone that may be impossible to resolve. This is especially true
for things like databases, although usually that's more of an issue on
servers than on desktops (on desktops you can often simply stop
processes that are actively modifying disk data).

> As to cost, as I mentioned above - about $100 to $150 for the two mobile
> racks, the additional HD, and the cloning software.

That doesn't sound too bad.

> There shouldn't be a booting problem at all. As I stated above, after the
> contents of the cloned drive has been cloned to the new system, it will
> probably will be necessary to install a new video card driver in the example
> you've given, but there should be no boot problem at all.

What if the driver is something you need just to get the system up and
running? Windows safe mode was invented to deal with this sort of
issue, but unfortunately it's not foolproof (as far as I know).

> That's correct. The hard drives are ordinary PATA or SATA drives, nothing
> special about them. You just plop them in the tray (caddy), make two simple
> connections (power & data cable), and slide the tray into the mobile rack
> (which has been installed in the case's 5 1/4" bay, just like a CD-ROM).
> Takes about 30 seconds. Obviously you would want the same make/model for the
> two mobile racks so that the inner trays would be interchangeable.

So the racks have some sort of sockets that made with the caddies, and
you just bolt in the drive of your choice and thereafter you can plug
and unplug?

That sounds like a cool idea.

> I truly hope you seriously consider this hardware configuration.

I'll certainly look into it, as the tape backup situation is getting
more and more out of sync with the real-world requirements of backup
for desktop systems (it still works fine for servers, though, if you
have the money).

> Obviously that's a decision you have to make based on your particular
> circumstances. As I've indicated above, we're not talking "big bucks" here.

I know, but I'm really poor. I just replaced this desktop because I
had no choice (hardware failure on the old one), and I'm not even sure
how I'm going to pay for that. So every dollar is a problem.

> Equipping one's desktop computer with two removable hard drives is not the
> "wave of the future", rather, it's here & now.

I'm not so sure. I don't know _anyone_ outside of a few geeks who
does _any_ kind of backup of his or her desktop machine, much less
anyone who is using removable drives to accomplish it.

This, incidentally, is the reason why most digital photos today will
be lost: they are all stored on disk drives that are never backed up,
and once those drives fail, all the photos they contain will go away.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

kony writes:

> Raided drives using PCI card not motherboard dependant (plus
> identical spare raid card), a 3rd copy on non-raided drives
> (offline system only plugged into lan or power for this
> purpose), a 4th copy on DVD (formerly CDR). 3rd copy
> updated less often, 4th even less. Then there's basic
> records and such, smaller file sets also on flash media.
> Basically the plan revolves around getting the more frequent
> backups done quicker as I find that makes it more likely to
> get done regularly.

Sounds pretty stable. Is this for a desktop system or a server?

> Tape made more sense in the past, IMO,
> but after HDD prices plummeted per capacity they can be
> cheap to throw into old boxes- plus "old" boxes are quite a
> bit more suitable since it's been a few years since the
> typical board started supporting 48bit LBA, large HDDs.

Removable disks seem like an intelligent choice. I'm just looking
into the cost and difficulty of getting it to work for me. I was
thinking that a removable external disk would work, coupled with
software that can completely clone the working drive to the external
disk periodically. That would provide pretty good protection against
drive failure, and fair protection against destruction of the machine
(depending mainly on how closely a replacement machine could match the
original hardware). It doesn't provide non-stop uptime, but I don't
need that on a desktop; as long as I can be up and running within 2-4
hours, that would suffice.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:48:58 +0200, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

>kony writes:
>
>> Raided drives using PCI card not motherboard dependant (plus
>> identical spare raid card), a 3rd copy on non-raided drives
>> (offline system only plugged into lan or power for this
>> purpose), a 4th copy on DVD (formerly CDR). 3rd copy
>> updated less often, 4th even less. Then there's basic
>> records and such, smaller file sets also on flash media.
>> Basically the plan revolves around getting the more frequent
>> backups done quicker as I find that makes it more likely to
>> get done regularly.
>
>Sounds pretty stable. Is this for a desktop system or a server?

The server has the raided drives, one of the (now retired
from regular uses) desktops has 3rd copy.

>
>> Tape made more sense in the past, IMO,
>> but after HDD prices plummeted per capacity they can be
>> cheap to throw into old boxes- plus "old" boxes are quite a
>> bit more suitable since it's been a few years since the
>> typical board started supporting 48bit LBA, large HDDs.
>
>Removable disks seem like an intelligent choice. I'm just looking
>into the cost and difficulty of getting it to work for me. I was
>thinking that a removable external disk would work, coupled with
>software that can completely clone the working drive to the external
>disk periodically. That would provide pretty good protection against
>drive failure, and fair protection against destruction of the machine
>(depending mainly on how closely a replacement machine could match the
>original hardware). It doesn't provide non-stop uptime, but I don't
>need that on a desktop; as long as I can be up and running within 2-4
>hours, that would suffice.

Yes that would work. My main item of priority was
segregating data such that the more frequent backups only
covered newer material. I really don't need 10 copies of
exactly the same files on DVD for example, only the things
that change or are added. Then again, the time it takes to
fuss through doing it in very strategic manner can be more
valuable than a few GB of drive space. Supposedly Japan now
has 20-odd or maybe it was 30+ GB DVDs now so hopefully in
the next couple years those will make it into the US market.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ted writes:

> Software: Acronis True Image 8. Nice easy to use software. (also offers good
> recovery prog which I used to recover my daughters lappy when Windoz went
> walkies)

Several people have talked about Acronis, so I'm considering that, if
I can come up with $49.

What about UNIX? What would be the equivalent for that? I think that
standard dump may well do the job, if I have enough spare space on a
drive--I could just dump everything to one huge file, and then copy
the file somewhere for safekeeping.

Indeed, since I have two machines, conceivably I could save one with
Acronis and the other with dump, then copy the resulting files over
the LAN to the opposite machines. That way, unless all disk drives in
both machines fail at the same time, I'm fully covered. Does that
make sense?

 

[ted]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n2mhd19fa6oncoq1t82qgqmc2a7dsc4pcl@4ax.com...
> Ted writes:
>
>> Software: Acronis True Image 8. Nice easy to use software. (also offers
>> good
>> recovery prog which I used to recover my daughters lappy when Windoz went
>> walkies)
>
> Several people have talked about Acronis, so I'm considering that, if
> I can come up with $49.
>
> What about UNIX? What would be the equivalent for that? I think that
> standard dump may well do the job, if I have enough spare space on a
> drive--I could just dump everything to one huge file, and then copy
> the file somewhere for safekeeping.
>
> Indeed, since I have two machines, conceivably I could save one with
> Acronis and the other with dump, then copy the resulting files over
> the LAN to the opposite machines. That way, unless all disk drives in
> both machines fail at the same time, I'm fully covered. Does that
> make sense?

sorry can't help on the UNIX.

I suppose you could just dump the lot, if its just data, whereas Acronis is
a full recovery software including Windoz and all applications. It has
additions like making the installing of a new hard drive (C) easy, if and
when required. Plus of course the boot recovery side. This I have found very
good.

Being a Brit the $49 is a good buy with the current exchange rate.