Backup Software - Something better than Retrospect for home use?

Author

Something better than Retrospect for home use?

(PeteCresswell)

2005-12-04, 5:47 pm

I've been running Retrospect 6.0 for a few years now and I'm getting fed up.

Bought it because I remembered the old Mac version - whose UI I'd give a solid
A+. But I'd only give the version I have now a C- in the UI department.

It's also buggy and Dantz does not offer bug fix releases.

Can somebody recommend an alternative? I wouldn't want another version of
Retro because of the no-bug-fix thing.

My requirements are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Point-in-time recovery. I want to be able to see all backup copies of a
given file along with dates/times and choose the one I want to restore.

2) Incremental backups (obviously...)

3) Ability to recover files on another computer. i.e. no BS about linking the
CPU's serial number to the license to install. If my home PC gets fried, I
want to be able to take my backup files to work and recover them there and/or go
out and buy a new box without any hassles with the backup utility install.

4) Scripts. I want to be able to create scripts that tell the utility what to
back up.

5) Multiple script execution. I want the ability to fire off several scripts,
walk away from the PC, and have them all execute.

6) Error notification. If one of several scripts failed, I want to know about
it even though the others ran.

7) Error logging. Errors should be written to a log that can be reviewed at
will.

8) Ability To Back Up To Disk: I do backups to disk drives. Tape, CD, DVD
would be nice, I guess, but what I really use is disk drives.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
PeteCresswell

Howard Kaikow

2005-12-04, 5:47 pm

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:kc96p1t3un6l1q4jn2pvvcj8jsg551qcl3@
4ax.com...
> I've been running Retrospect 6.0 for a few years now and I'm getting fed
up.
>
> Bought it because I remembered the old Mac version - whose UI I'd give a
solid
> A+. But I'd only give the version I have now a C- in the UI
department.
>
> It's also buggy and Dantz does not offer bug fix releases.
>
>
> Can somebody recommend an alternative? I wouldn't want another version
of
> Retro because of the no-bug-fix thing.

I too would like to use something other than Retrospect, tho I've not run
into any bugs YET that are showstoppers.

I've been looking at Ghost 10 and Acronis True Image 9.

Last week I installed the retail Ghost 10 ($0 after rebates)/
Yesterday, I violated a tenet of my religioom, i.e., to NEVER install demo
software, and installed the demo of Acronis True Image 9.

I have a multiboot system, on which te OS on the J drive is my main system,
an dit happens to have Net Framework 1.1, so I installed Gjost 10 there.

I am not pleased with the Ghost 10 interface and I found a number of bugs.
I, hopefully today, will be posting to
http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general to see whether there
are solutions.

As the Acronis software is a demo version, I decided to install it on one of
the other OS, so my main OS would not be affected and I could easily restore
te OS from a Retrospect backup.

I find the Acronis True Image 9 interface to be superior to that of Ghost
10, tho it does appear to excute more slowly. I was not able to restore
using the demo, and I encoountered what I believe to be a significant issue
when swapping USB drives. I, hopefully today, will be posting details at
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=64.

With respecy to your requirements, based on my meager knowledge of both
products, I will comment below.

> 1) Point-in-time recovery. I want to be able to see all backup copies of
a
> given file along with dates/times and choose the one I want to restore.

Both Ghost an TI allow you to Explore backuped up drives.
You choose the point in time you wish.
Does not seem to be an option to see all versions at once.

> 2) Incremental backups (obviously...)

Both do this, but it's an area in which I encountere dsignificant issues
with Ghost 10.

> 3) Ability to recover files on another computer. i.e. no BS about
linking the
> CPU's serial number to the license to install. If my home PC gets fried,
I
> want to be able to take my backup files to work and recover them there
and/or go
> out and buy a new box without any hassles with the backup utility install.

I would think that te licenses are tied to the installation of the app, not
the backup files themselves.
At worst, I expect that you have to re-activate to move the app to another
computer.
Heck, one of the purposes of a backup is to be able to restore/move files in
a disaster.

> 4) Scripts. I want to be able to create scripts that tell the utility
what to
> back up.

Both G and TI allow you to create, what I'll call, tasks. This an area in
which I found a significant problem in Ghost.

TI has both imahe backups and file backups, but ypu do a bare metal restore
only from image backups.
Ghost seems to have only image backups.

> 5) Multiple script execution. I want the ability to fire off several
scripts,
> walk away from the PC, and have them all execute.

Do not know.

> 6) Error notification. If one of several scripts failed, I want to know
about
> it even though the others ran.

Both G and TI have error logs.
TI's appears to be more detailed.

> 7) Error logging. Errors should be written to a log that can be reviewed
at
> will.

Both log errors, but I really do not like G's log.

> 8) Ability To Back Up To Disk: I do backups to disk drives. Tape, CD,
DVD
> would be nice, I guess, but what I really use is disk drives.

G and TI are intended for disk-like devices. doubt that they work with tape.

You can download TI's manual, and I belive you can download G's manual.

If your religion permits, TI has a demo version. I ferget wheter G has a
demo version.

One can often get G for 0$ after rebates at places like ww.buy.com, Staples,
CompUSA, Circuit City, Fry's, etc.
Sometimes, to get the rebate, you have to look for a package that both, say,
System Works and Ghost.
--
http://www.standards.com/; See Howard Kaikow's web site.

David Arnstein

2005-12-04, 5:47 pm

In article <kc96p1t3un6l1q4jn2pvvcj8jsg551qcl3@4ax.com>,
(PeteCresswell) <x@y.Invalid> wrote:
>My requirements are:
> ...

I believe that the only usable backup applications are those that are
deployed by commercial users (as well as home users). If you select a
"consumer grade" product, then you will get "consumer grade" reliablity.
The applications that are marketed exclusively to commercial users are
too expensive for home users, as far as I know.

This is acceptable for shit like Microsoft Word or Halo. In these cases,
the application corrupts your document and you start over, losing between
1 hour and 1 week of your work, depending on the quality of your backup
strategy.

When your BACKUP application corrupts your data, the consequences are
much more severe. Don't go there!

I know of two backup packages that are used by enterprises and users
alike: Retrospect and Ultrabac. If anyone knows of others, please post.
Otherwise, you should restrict your choice to these two. When you find
a bug in one of these programs, you can hope that a commercial user will
find it too, and it will be fixed. If you mess around with junk like
Ghost, then you have no hope.
--
David Arnstein |
arnstein+usenet@pobox.com |

DevDude

2005-12-04, 5:47 pm

You also have the choice of Backup Exec. Its great for small to medium sized
businesses and has been on the market for 10+ years. It has a reputation of
reliability and ease of use. http://www.backupexec.com

If you want enterprise functionality, then Netbackup will meet your needs.

Both are distributed by http://www.symantec.com

Thanks
Nick

"David Arnstein" <arnstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dmvg0v$qpv$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <kc96p1t3un6l1q4jn2pvvcj8jsg551qcl3@4ax.com>,
> (PeteCresswell) <x@y.Invalid> wrote:
>
> I believe that the only usable backup applications are those that are
> deployed by commercial users (as well as home users). If you select a
> "consumer grade" product, then you will get "consumer grade" reliablity.
> The applications that are marketed exclusively to commercial users are
> too expensive for home users, as far as I know.
>
> This is acceptable for shit like Microsoft Word or Halo. In these cases,
> the application corrupts your document and you start over, losing between
> 1 hour and 1 week of your work, depending on the quality of your backup
> strategy.
>
> When your BACKUP application corrupts your data, the consequences are
> much more severe. Don't go there!
>
> I know of two backup packages that are used by enterprises and users
> alike: Retrospect and Ultrabac. If anyone knows of others, please post.
> Otherwise, you should restrict your choice to these two. When you find
> a bug in one of these programs, you can hope that a commercial user will
> find it too, and it will be fixed. If you mess around with junk like
> Ghost, then you have no hope.
> --
> David Arnstein |
> arnstein+usenet@pobox.com |

(PeteCresswell)

2005-12-04, 8:46 pm

4Per Howard Kaikow:
>You choose the point in time you wish.
>Does not seem to be an option to see all versions at once.

That's a showstopper for me. Typically, I realize I've messed up a file but
can't figure out exactly when. Mostly I want a pick-and-choose list of all
instances of that file - although restoring all instances with times/dates noted
somehow would work too...then I could just do my picking and choosing after the
restore.
--
PeteCresswell

Howard Kaikow

2005-12-05, 5:50 pm

"David Arnstein" <arnstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dmvg0v$qpv$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <kc96p1t3un6l1q4jn2pvvcj8jsg551qcl3@4ax.com>,
> (PeteCresswell) <x@y.Invalid> wrote:
>
> I believe that the only usable backup applications are those that are
> deployed by commercial users (as well as home users). If you select a
> "consumer grade" product, then you will get "consumer grade" reliablity.
> The applications that are marketed exclusively to commercial users are
> too expensive for home users, as far as I know.
>
> This is acceptable for shit like Microsoft Word or Halo. In these cases,
> the application corrupts your document and you start over, losing between
> 1 hour and 1 week of your work, depending on the quality of your backup
> strategy.
>
> When your BACKUP application corrupts your data, the consequences are
> much more severe. Don't go there!
>
> I know of two backup packages that are used by enterprises and users
> alike: Retrospect and Ultrabac. If anyone knows of others, please post.
> Otherwise, you should restrict your choice to these two. When you find
> a bug in one of these programs, you can hope that a commercial user will
> find it too, and it will be fixed. If you mess around with junk like
> Ghost, then you have no hope.

What is the URL for Ultrabac?

David Arnstein

2005-12-05, 5:50 pm

In article <dn1ils$2elf$1@pyrite.mv.net>,
Howard Kaikow <kaikow@standards.com> wrote:
>What is the URL for Ultrabac?

http://wwww.ultrabac.com
--
David Arnstein |
arnstein+usenet@pobox.com |

Joe Rom King

2005-12-07, 5:49 pm

Peter

Relative Rev Backup http://www.datamills.com comes close...

It takes a first full backup followed by incremental backups for ever.
At the same time you are able to restore any single file of folder to
any retained point in time as if it was from a full backup. You may
also schedule the number of daily/weekly monthly to keep before it
purges older ones.

Point 3,and 4 for are covered as well.

You can schedule multiple 'script executions' to the very same time and
it will queue them for execution. And it will keep a log for each of
the last backup, as well as send an email..

Joe Rom King
http://www.datamills.com

(PeteCresswell)

2005-12-07, 5:49 pm

Per Joe Rom King:
>Relative Rev Backup http://www.datamills.com comes close...

Does it do anything more than looking at the "changed" bit to determine whether
a file has changed?
--
PeteCresswell

Joe Rom King

2005-12-08, 7:47 am

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Joe Rom King:
>
> Does it do anything more than looking at the "changed" bit to determine whether
> a file has changed?
> --
> PeteCresswell

I guess by the 'changed' bit you refer to what is commonly known as
the archive bit?

If that is what you mean, then Relative Rev backup can run in tandem
with any other backup software, (including incremental ones) as it does
not totally rely on, nor manipulate the "changed" bit. It has other
means to locate the changed files including time stamp, size,
signature, archive bit, and others properties managed in a separate
index.

Joe

Joe Rom King

2005-12-08, 7:47 am

Howard Kaikow

2005-12-08, 7:47 am

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:glmep1tr16ta74f06msvgv3s8mg9ud4rno@
4ax.com...
> Per Joe Rom King:
>
> Does it do anything more than looking at the "changed" bit to determine
whether
> a file has changed?

Although I've never tried them until recently, the only sure way to make
sure that ALL changes are backed up is to use image based backup. In
addition, image based backup is better on a multiboot system as it does not
worry about the system state.

I'm seriously thinking of switching from Retrospect to either True Image or
Ghost 10.
Not to mention that Retrospect takes 11.5+ hours to do a full backup and
compare of my system, whilst both True Image and Ghost take less than 3
hours.

But neither True Image nor Ghost do a true compare, rather they just
"validate" using what I guess is a CRC, sort of like a network transmission.
I'm not yet comfortable with this.

old jon

2005-12-08, 7:47 am

"Howard Kaikow" <kaikow@standards.com> wrote in message
news:dn9a05$1mf1$1@pyrite.mv.net...
> "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message
> news:glmep1tr16ta74f06msvgv3s8mg9ud4rno@
4ax.com...
> whether
>
> Although I've never tried them until recently, the only sure way to make
> sure that ALL changes are backed up is to use image based backup. In
> addition, image based backup is better on a multiboot system as it does
> not
> worry about the system state.
>
> I'm seriously thinking of switching from Retrospect to either True Image
> or
> Ghost 10.
> Not to mention that Retrospect takes 11.5+ hours to do a full backup and
> compare of my system, whilst both True Image and Ghost take less than 3
> hours.
>
> But neither True Image nor Ghost do a true compare, rather they just
> "validate" using what I guess is a CRC, sort of like a network
> transmission.
> I'm not yet comfortable with this.
>
>
Always been happy with TI 8 myself. But I also use Syncback here
www.2brightsparks.com/syncback/syncback-hub.html.
Very handy for the folders that change often.
bw..OJ

Frodo

2005-12-08, 5:48 pm

"Howard Kaikow" <kaikow@standards.com> wrote in message
news:dn9a05$1mf1$1@pyrite.mv.net...
> "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message
> news:glmep1tr16ta74f06msvgv3s8mg9ud4rno@
4ax.com...
> whether

Retrospect dont change "changed" bit. Altough you can command Retrospect to
change it, but
files change status dont determined by this - "changed" bit isnt reliable
method for determining changed status.

[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Although I've never tried them until recently, the only sure way to make
> sure that ALL changes are backed up is to use image based backup. In
> addition, image based backup is better on a multiboot system as it does
> not
> worry about the system state.

Retrospect is able to save "system state".

>
> I'm seriously thinking of switching from Retrospect to either True Image
> or
> Ghost 10.

Are you really sure? Are you even compared prices of them? OK, I
understand, its just piracy.

> Not to mention that Retrospect takes 11.5+ hours to do a full backup and
> compare of my system, whilst both True Image and Ghost take less than 3
> hours.

In incremental-backup Retrospect only compares files attributes and
parameters but True Image compares
every sector by sector with every byte by byte. Imagine yourself who is
faster.
Believe me - True Image is really shit. But Ghost is not at all backup
software - its imaging software.
Really new Ghost includes ex Powerquest program named V2i Protector that is
like True Image, only it
dont compare sectors at all, it only keeps log about changes while windows
session - very dangerous method for incremental backup.

But, yes, if you have money...then yes, Retrospect is best for home users,
but also for corporate users when
clustering isnt important. Retrospect simple uses most modern backup
technolgy, even IBM Tivoli and Veritas
Netbackup cant give close to it.

(PeteCresswell)

2005-12-08, 5:48 pm

Per Joe Rom King:
>I guess by the 'changed' bit you refer to what is commonly known as
>the archive bit?
>
>If that is what you mean, then Relative Rev backup can run in tandem
>with any other backup software, (including incremental ones) as it does
>not totally rely on, nor manipulate the "changed" bit. It has other
>means to locate the changed files including time stamp, size,
>signature, archive bit, and others properties managed in a separate
>index.

Precisely.

Thanks.
--
PeteCresswell

Howard Kaikow

2005-12-08, 5:48 pm

"Frodo" <.> wrote in message
news:43985780$0$48942$bb624dac@diablo.uninet.ee...
> Retrospect is able to save "system state".

that's not the issue.

With a multiboot system, say, ou have OS on drive G and J, and Retrospect is
installed in the OS on J.
In this case, REtrospect backs up the system state associated with the OS
on drive J and backls up drive G as if it had no OS, i.e., just backs up the
files.

THe problem is the backup set created by running Retrospect in the OS on
drive J CANNOT be used for a restore by a REtrospect that might be installed
in the OS in drive G. If you do, REtrospect really messes up drive G's
system state.

With a dumb image backup, each drive is treated as a bunch of sectors, so
the system state issue does not exist.

> Are you really sure? Are you even compared prices of them?

Price difference is not of concern for a single desktop system.

> OK, I
> understand, its just piracy.

Whast's piracy got to do with it?

> In incremental-backup Retrospect only compares files attributes and
> parameters but True Image compares
> every sector by sector with every byte by byte. Imagine yourself who is
> faster.

Not necessarily.

So far, both TI and Ghost have run incremental backups faster than
Retrospect.

> Believe me - True Image is really shit. But Ghost is not at all backup
> software - its imaging software.
> Really new Ghost includes ex Powerquest program named V2i Protector that
is
> like True Image, only it
> dont compare sectors at all, it only keeps log about changes while windows
> session - very dangerous method for incremental backup.

Both TI and Ghost are imaging programs.
From what I've seen these past few weeks, neithe Ghost 10 nor TO 9 is yet
working properly, and I would not rely on either.

(PeteCresswell)

2005-12-08, 5:48 pm

Per Howard Kaikow:
>Both TI and Ghost are imaging programs.
>From what I've seen these past few weeks, neithe Ghost 10 nor TO 9 is yet
>working properly, and I would not rely on either.

Seems to me like system backup and data backup are two different functions.

For system backups/restores, it seems like I almost always want to go back to a
known version of the sys and I don't want a lot of incremental versions. The
reason I'd restore would be something like troublesome software, viruses,
corrupted files, or software installed automatically that I want to get rid of
and is difficult to uninstall.

For data backups/restores, I want as many incrementals as I can. Typically
I'll either lose a file outright, or mess it up somehow. In the second
instance, I might not notice that it's messed up until quite a few days/weeks
later and need to step back through incrementals to find the last good copy.

Accordingly I keep my data on a separate drive and only use an imaging program
(TeraByte's "Image" - DOS version) to back up the system (a couple of gigs) -
relying on Retrospect for data backups only.

BTW, I've got an adolescent using my PC 3-4 hours per day - and they are running
under the Admin ID... So I've had plenty of chances to confirm that TeraByte's
"Image" works well. It's gotten to the point where sometimes I'll kick off a
system restore before dinner just because some nasty little toolbar has
insinuated itself into IE and I'm too lazy to figure out how to drive a stake
through it's heart.
--
PeteCresswell

Howard Kaikow

2005-12-09, 5:50 pm

I consider it impossible to totally separate system and non-system data.

Many apps use the registry, or other files on the system drive.
Critical apps insist on putting stuff in "system directories", not to
mention
the various directories under documents and settings.

And then there's the case of never knowing just how much space will be
needed on a system drive, causing some stuff to be installed on non-system
drives.

And there are apps such as VS .NET that insist on installing huge amounts
of files on the system drive, even if you attempt to install them
elsewhere.

Then there's the techniques of isolating things such as bookmarks, mail
files, etc. into an identified place to facilitate various things.

And. for folkes using multiboot systems, one often wants to share installed
apps and other things amongst the systems on the multiboot PC.

My main objection to the image programs is that, aside from the fact that
the latest releases of Ghost and TI have serious problems, they do
not do a real compare to verify a backup.

In any case, this is really a religious discussion, each of us may worship
howsoever we wish.

(PeteCresswell)

2005-12-09, 5:50 pm

Per Howard Kaikow:
>I consider it impossible to totally separate system and non-system data.

Sounds technically correct, but I've been doing that - and restoring my system
repeatedly - for about four years now with no problems.

Another advantage (besides backup management) is that if my PC goes up in smoke
one day, all I need to do is take (or recreate from backup...) that data drive
and plug it into another PC with a similar suite of software installed on it.

The registry definitely needs a little diddling for things like the location of
"Favorites". Although the changes are few, I wouldn't even *think* of trying to
impose such a scheme on Joe User. Already tried with a technophobe daughter
and a couple others - now I know to keep my mouth shut.

As far as size goes, I opt for wretched excess and create my C: partition with
about 40 gigs. Currently using 9.
--
PeteCresswell

Howard Kaikow

2005-12-09, 5:50 pm

In thepast, I've limited the partition sizes to 9187MB as that restricts the
clustrer size to 4096.
All are FAT32.

Backup USB drives are NTFS with entire drive as 1 partition.

I plan on using only NTFS for future systems, have not yet decided on
partition size.

I agree that Joe/Jane User would not be able to mange a system the way I
indicated, but I also would not want to delude them into thing they can
separate the system and system files. They'd just get in trouble.

Howard Kaikow

2005-12-09, 5:50 pm

> In thepast, I've limited the partition sizes to 9187MB as that restricts
the
> clustrer size to 4096.

9187 was meant to be 8187, i never learned how to type!

Howard Kaikow

2005-12-18, 5:47 pm

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:5rmhp1100q66gpkgvhj1inq91b22smqt8m@
4ax.com...
> Accordingly I keep my data on a separate drive and only use an imaging
program
> (TeraByte's "Image" - DOS version) to back up the system (a couple of
gigs) -
> relying on Retrospect for data backups only.

I just took a look at the Terabyte Image web site.
How does it compare with Ghost 10 and TI 9 in terms of functionality?

Seems as tho, in addition to Terabyte Image product (shareware), it is
necessary to also install add-ons for restoring individual files and
requires using an add-on for BartPE to build a restore CD.

I don't like the idea of having those critical features not being
integrated.
When there's a problem, it may be more difficult to get a fix.
--
http://www.standards.com/; See Howard Kaikow's web site.

(PeteCresswell)

2005-12-18, 8:46 pm

Per Howard Kaikow:
>I just took a look at the Terabyte Image web site.
>How does it compare with Ghost 10 and TI 9 in terms of functionality?
>
>Seems as tho, in addition to Terabyte Image product (shareware), it is
>necessary to also install add-ons for restoring individual files and
>requires using an add-on for BartPE to build a restore CD.

I only have vague recollections of a very old version of Ghost, so I cannot make
a comparison.

What I can say, however, is that DOS Terabyte does the job: backs up your
system drive to any one of several media. I always back up to a USB hard
drive and tell it to work in 640k chunks. Then I can burn CDs or DVDs of
selected backups.

Terabyte will burn CDs and DVDs all by itself, but I don't seen any point in
doing that. Nero will do it faster from the already-created image files that
Terabyte writes to my USB2 drive.

At restore time, I never though of a bootable DVD or CD. I've dabbled in
BartPE trying to make a Windows XP install disk, but either had problems with
the DVD or my old motherboard and never could get it off the ground. I
strongly suspect the mb in this case.

I restore fairly frequently and I've always just fed the Terabyte floppy to the
PC, let it boot up from the floppy, and then plugged in the USB2 drive and let
Terabyte restore from that. It's a snap and it has always worked flawlessly.
My only regret is paying extra for the additional Windows version of the
product. Turns out that I never use it.

I've burned a few DVDs for selected systems, but never actually restored from
them from DVD - always used the identical image files on my USB2 hard drive. The
procedure, however, sb identical as long as there's an ATAPI CD or DVD drive on
the PC.
--
PeteCresswell

Howard Kaikow

2005-12-19, 5:49 pm

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:t1tbq1d113idat9rbl87gn23fdjgeb22eb@
4ax.com...
> Per Howard Kaikow:
> At restore time, I never though of a bootable DVD or CD. I've dabbled in
> BartPE trying to make a Windows XP install disk, but either had problems
with
> the DVD or my old motherboard and never could get it off the ground. I
> strongly suspect the mb in this case.

I use win 2000 and there's no way to build BartPE for Win 2000.

> I restore fairly frequently and I've always just fed the Terabyte floppy
to the
> PC, let it boot up from the floppy, and then plugged in the USB2 drive and
let
> Terabyte restore from that. It's a snap and it has always worked
flawlessly.
> My only regret is paying extra for the additional Windows version of the
> product. Turns out that I never use it.

My recollection is that the DOS version is supplied if one buys the windows
version.

I rarely restore drives, so I am concerned that retrieval of files requires
a 3rd party add-in.

(PeteCresswell)

2005-12-19, 5:49 pm

Per Howard Kaikow:
>My recollection is that the DOS version is supplied if one buys the windows
>version.

When I bought it, DOS and Win versions were separate purchases but available as
a bundle - which I chose.

>I rarely restore drives, so I am concerned that retrieval of files requires
>a 3rd party add-in.

I use Retrospect for files. It's made specifically for that and works well
enough - in spite of my whining earlier...
--
PeteCresswell

Howard Kaikow

2005-12-19, 5:49 pm

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:k9ndq11bbbgh70m5e67tg12341k1dsmem3@
4ax.com...
> Per Howard Kaikow:
> I use Retrospect for files. It's made specifically for that and works
well
> enough - in spite of my whining earlier...

So you make image backups with program X and file backups with Retrospect.
Hard to keep them in sync, n'est-ce pas?

I often run several incremental backups in the same day.
I'm not convinced that either Ghost 10 or TI 9 would handle incrementals
well.

(PeteCresswell)

2005-12-19, 5:49 pm

Per Howard Kaikow:
>So you make image backups with program X and file backups with Retrospect.
>Hard to keep them in sync, n'est-ce pas?

Don't want them in synch. For system images, I want a known good system.

For data, I want as many incremental's as I can get.

If the system goes south, I want to go back to a version that I know is clean.

For data, I want to be able to pick and choose by file date if it's just one
file, or restore the absolute latest of everything if the data drive gets
cooked.

All this hinges, of course, on keeping data on a separate drive - or at least in
a single parent directory.... but with sixty-plus gigs of data, I find it
expedient to keep it on a separate drive. Keeps the system images as small as
possible and gives me the option of plugging the data drive into another PC.

>I often run several incremental backups in the same day.
>I'm not convinced that either Ghost 10 or TI 9 would handle incrementals
>well.

--
PeteCresswell