|
Home > Archive > Backup Software > February 2006 > Backup schemes
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Dubious Dude 2006-02-02, 5:48 pm |
| I have a laptop (no other PC) which I'd like to backup regularly.
Since my deskspace (and space in general) is quite small, an external
drive is not my favourite apprach. Can anyone refer me to some
(preferably online) material that discusses the feasibility of using a
nonvolatile memory card as an auxiliary drive?
There are various ways I can back up. I know there is a ghost
application, perhaps others, to take a "snapshot" of the hard drive.
Alternatively, I can simply take snapshots on a much smaller scale
e.g. of the essential files for a task, where each task corresponds to
a file tree somewhere in my file system. I would bundle & compress
these smaller snapshots, and copy them over to the auxiliary drive
when I think it is necessary. When I've amassed enough stuff, I can
burn it to CDR.
I hesitate to use CDR as a daily backup because of the overhead cost
of each additional session in a multisession CD. Packet-writing
software doesn't seem reliable (I already have DirectCD 5.2), and I
want to avoid the reliability question marks surrounding CD-RWs.
Thanks for any suggestions. I'm running Windows 2000, and currently
have a 30GB hard drive, more than half of which is filled (but I
suspect that half of that is system/OS, which I don't need to backup).
Most of it is work done under a user account, but some stuff is in an
admin account. Very little of the overall volume changes day to day.
Cost is an issue. This leads me to think that manually copying
snapshots of task directories to the auxiliary drive is preferable to
overarching images of the hard drive, or the complexities associated
with incremental backups over the entire file system.
| |
| Rod Speed 2006-02-02, 5:48 pm |
| Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes.com> wrote
> I have a laptop (no other PC) which I'd like to backup regularly.
> Since my deskspace (and space in general) is quite small, an
> external drive is not my favourite apprach. Can anyone refer me
> to some (preferably online) material that discusses the feasibility
> of using a nonvolatile memory card as an auxiliary drive?
The considerations are too obvious to actually need that.
It really just comes down to whether the card is big enough really.
> There are various ways I can back up. I know there is a ghost
> application, perhaps others, to take a "snapshot" of the hard drive.
> Alternatively, I can simply take snapshots on a much smaller scale
> e.g. of the essential files for a task, where each task corresponds to
> a file tree somewhere in my file system. I would bundle & compress
> these smaller snapshots, and copy them over to the auxiliary drive
> when I think it is necessary. When I've amassed enough stuff, I can
> burn it to CDR.
Yes, but that approach is a bit risky, its easy to forget about something
important until the laptop gets stolen etc and you need to restore. Its
easy to forget about stuff like digital certificates and account passwords
etc.
> I hesitate to use CDR as a daily backup because of the overhead
> cost of each additional session in a multisession CD. Packet-writing
> software doesn't seem reliable (I already have DirectCD 5.2), and I
> want to avoid the reliability question marks surrounding CD-RWs.
I've found RWs reliable enough when written directly, not using
packet writing. I normally use Roxio EMC to write them.
> Thanks for any suggestions. I'm running Windows 2000, and currently
> have a 30GB hard drive, more than half of which is filled (but I
> suspect that half of that is system/OS, which I don't need to backup).
Thats more complicated than it looks. If you configure the apps much,
it can be convenient to back everything up even when you dont actually
need to backup the system/OS and apps themselves. While most
modern apps should have their config stuff in the registry, not all do.
> Most of it is work done under a user account, but some stuff is in an
> admin account. Very little of the overall volume changes day to day.
> Cost is an issue. This leads me to think that manually copying
> snapshots of task directories to the auxiliary drive is preferable to
> overarching images of the hard drive, or the complexities associated
> with incremental backups over the entire file system.
Sure, but you need to be aware that it is a more risky approach.
When doing a clean install on an older OS like Win9x I normally
image the system over the lan, then do a manual copy of the
stuff I know I will have to restore, obviously data files etc and
emails etc, but its surprisingly common to need to actually
restore the original image to check something that I forgot
about when reconfiguring the new clean install.
I'm still reluctant to trust incremental images of the system,
but I dont have the limitations you do on where to store the
backups. I just image my laptop etc over the lan to a PC.
There is something to be said for wearing the downsides
of a decent sized external drive in your situation.
| |
| Odie Ferrous 2006-02-02, 5:48 pm |
| Dubious Dude wrote:
>
> I have a laptop (no other PC) which I'd like to backup regularly.
> Since my deskspace (and space in general) is quite small, an external
> drive is not my favourite apprach. Can anyone refer me to some
> (preferably online) material that discusses the feasibility of using a
> nonvolatile memory card as an auxiliary drive?
>
> There are various ways I can back up. I know there is a ghost
> application, perhaps others, to take a "snapshot" of the hard drive.
> Alternatively, I can simply take snapshots on a much smaller scale
> e.g. of the essential files for a task, where each task corresponds to
> a file tree somewhere in my file system. I would bundle & compress
> these smaller snapshots, and copy them over to the auxiliary drive
> when I think it is necessary. When I've amassed enough stuff, I can
> burn it to CDR.
>
> I hesitate to use CDR as a daily backup because of the overhead cost
> of each additional session in a multisession CD. Packet-writing
> software doesn't seem reliable (I already have DirectCD 5.2), and I
> want to avoid the reliability question marks surrounding CD-RWs.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions. I'm running Windows 2000, and currently
> have a 30GB hard drive, more than half of which is filled (but I
> suspect that half of that is system/OS, which I don't need to backup).
> Most of it is work done under a user account, but some stuff is in an
> admin account. Very little of the overall volume changes day to day.
> Cost is an issue. This leads me to think that manually copying
> snapshots of task directories to the auxiliary drive is preferable to
> overarching images of the hard drive, or the complexities associated
> with incremental backups over the entire file system.
Place all your data / emails / etc in a single folder. Copy this to DVD
/ flash (USB) drive whenever changes are made.
My "critical" data runs to just over 300MB, which gets backed up to
flash and a second hard drive (Seagate) whenever I make major
alterations, and DVD/CD once a week.
Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
| |
| Gunrunnerjohn 2006-02-03, 7:46 am |
| You have rejected probably the best solution out of hand. A 2.5" external drive
won't tax your desk space, and you can make an image backup of the entire
bootable image, then use something like the excellent and free Cobian Backup
http://www.educ.umu.se/~cobian/cobianbackup.htm to do your data files.
I separate my data files and My Documents to a data partition for ease of
backup, so that my boot volume is really 99% O/S related. I then use a Cobian
Backup job to collect all the various little config files and the like on the
boot volume for a single backup.
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 17:21:32 -0500, Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes.com> wrote:
>I have a laptop (no other PC) which I'd like to backup regularly.
>Since my deskspace (and space in general) is quite small, an external
>drive is not my favourite apprach. Can anyone refer me to some
>(preferably online) material that discusses the feasibility of using a
>nonvolatile memory card as an auxiliary drive?
>
>There are various ways I can back up. I know there is a ghost
>application, perhaps others, to take a "snapshot" of the hard drive.
>Alternatively, I can simply take snapshots on a much smaller scale
>e.g. of the essential files for a task, where each task corresponds to
>a file tree somewhere in my file system. I would bundle & compress
>these smaller snapshots, and copy them over to the auxiliary drive
>when I think it is necessary. When I've amassed enough stuff, I can
>burn it to CDR.
>
>I hesitate to use CDR as a daily backup because of the overhead cost
>of each additional session in a multisession CD. Packet-writing
>software doesn't seem reliable (I already have DirectCD 5.2), and I
>want to avoid the reliability question marks surrounding CD-RWs.
>
>Thanks for any suggestions. I'm running Windows 2000, and currently
>have a 30GB hard drive, more than half of which is filled (but I
>suspect that half of that is system/OS, which I don't need to backup).
>Most of it is work done under a user account, but some stuff is in an
>admin account. Very little of the overall volume changes day to day.
>Cost is an issue. This leads me to think that manually copying
>snapshots of task directories to the auxiliary drive is preferable to
>overarching images of the hard drive, or the complexities associated
>with incremental backups over the entire file system.
| |
| Neil Maxwell 2006-02-03, 5:48 pm |
| On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 17:21:32 -0500, Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes.com>
wrote:
>I have a laptop (no other PC) which I'd like to backup regularly.
>Since my deskspace (and space in general) is quite small, an external
>drive is not my favourite apprach. Can anyone refer me to some
>(preferably online) material that discusses the feasibility of using a
>nonvolatile memory card as an auxiliary drive?
One of the big plusses of using an external drive for image backups (I
like True Image) is for recovery from a HD crash. You can return your
system to the exact operating condition it was at your last backup,
and it takes about 20 minutes after the new HD is installed, depending
on data size.
This has saved me countless hours on crash recovery over the last few
years.
--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
| |
| Gerard Bok 2006-02-04, 5:47 pm |
| On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:38:55 -0800, Neil Maxwell
<neil.maxwell@intel.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 17:21:32 -0500, Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>One of the big plusses of using an external drive for image backups (I
>like True Image) is for recovery from a HD crash. You can return your
>system to the exact operating condition it was at your last backup,
>and it takes about 20 minutes after the new HD is installed, depending
>on data size.
One of the disadvantages of using (only) an image for backup is,
that it is often pretty hard to get your data restored on
anything other than the original hardware.
If OP looses his/her laptop, for whatever reason, the replacement
is rather likely to be a newer model. Which makes it very hard to
handle the older image.
(Sorry. Your remark is in no way 'wrong', but it is only one side
of the coin :-)
--
Kind regards,
Gerard Bok
| |
|
| > One of the disadvantages of using (only) an image for backup is,
> that it is often pretty hard to get your data restored on
> anything other than the original hardware.
There is no problem restoring, issue is with OS. It won't work on a new
hardware right away, one needs to repair it.
> If OP looses his/her laptop, for whatever reason, the replacement
> is rather likely to be a newer model. Which makes it very hard to
> handle the older image.
No problem with handling. Problem with recovery of original running
configuration.
All data files can be easily restored.
| |
| Gerard Bok 2006-02-04, 5:47 pm |
| On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:35:15 -0500, "Peter"
<peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>There is no problem restoring, issue is with OS. It won't work on a new
>hardware right away, one needs to repair it.
>
>
>No problem with handling. Problem with recovery of original running
>configuration.
>All data files can be easily restored.
I'm sure you will supply OP --who only owns a single PC, the
laptop-- a step by step guideline on how to accomplish this :-)
--
Kind regards,
Gerard Bok
| |
|
| > >> One of the disadvantages of using (only) an image for backup is,
>
> I'm sure you will supply OP --who only owns a single PC, the
> laptop-- a step by step guideline on how to accomplish this :-)
Absolutely. They can contact me on my e-mail.
| |
| Rod Speed 2006-02-04, 5:47 pm |
| Gerard Bok <bok118@zonnet.nl> wrote
> Neil Maxwell <neil.maxwell@intel.com> wrote
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> One of the disadvantages of using (only) an image for
> backup is, that it is often pretty hard to get your data
> restored on anything other than the original hardware.
No its not if you know what you are doing.
> If OP looses his/her laptop, for whatever reason,
> the replacement is rather likely to be a newer model.
> Which makes it very hard to handle the older image.
No it isnt. If you just want files off the image and dont
want to restore the entire image, you can browse the
files from the image with any decent modern imager.
Even if you want to use the Files and Settings Transfer
Wizard with XP, it isnt that hard to image the new laptop,
restore the original image, do an install in place to get
XP running again on the new laptop, run the wizard,
restore the image you produced of the laptop and
then import the wizard file on the new laptop.
> (Sorry. Your remark is in no way 'wrong',
> but it is only one side of the coin :-)
Yours is wrong.
| |
| Toshi1873 2006-02-04, 5:47 pm |
| In article <43e4d4f9.145076@News.Individual.NET>, bok118@zonnet.nl
says...
> One of the disadvantages of using (only) an image for backup is,
> that it is often pretty hard to get your data restored on
> anything other than the original hardware.
TrueImage allows you to mount the image file as a drive letter in
Windows. At which point you can simply drag-n-drop data files back to
your replacement system. (A rather neat feature.)
| |
| Dubious Dude 2006-02-04, 8:45 pm |
| Rod Speed wrote:
>Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes.com> wrote
>
> The considerations are too obvious to actually need that.
> It really just comes down to whether the card is big enough really.
I was actually wondering if it could even be done (nonvolatile memory
card acting as a drive). I know that USB memory sticks are available.
As well, I was interested in opinions about cost- effectiveness from
those who have chosen this path. I will spend some more time googling
around.
>
> Yes, but that approach is a bit risky, its easy to forget about something
> important until the laptop gets stolen etc and you need to restore. Its
> easy to forget about stuff like digital certificates and account passwords
> etc.
Agreed. I've got a schedule of all the folders I will backup up
regularly though. It helps that most of my stuff is in a cygwin user
directory, that I don't use much in the way of digital certificates,
and that I keep a copy of my passwords in one place.
>
> I've found RWs reliable enough when written directly, not using
> packet writing. I normally use Roxio EMC to write them.
I have Easy CD Creator 5.2, and have had some files dropped without
notice while burning sessions, as well as while importing sessions.
I've successfully used others (CD BurnerXP Pro 3 and Sony CD Extreme).
Even with CD-RW, though, if I use multisession, it will fill up too
quick due to the session overhead.
Just to clarify my envisioned scheme, my reason for creating
multisession CDs is as an intermediate off-line repository (which
doesn't necessarily mirror the files system on the hard drive). In
this "scratch" disc, I can incrementally amass a collection of
snapshots of various tasks on my hard drive. Each snapshot consists
of key hierarchical files needed to rebuild the task in question to
its current state, bundled together with tar and compressed with gzip.
At some point, I have enough on the scratch disc to warrant burning a
more efficient and permanent copy, either as a disc-at-once to CD-R,
or as a large session.
I then discard the scratch disc to avoid too many copies of the same
thing spread over too many discs. Some people may question this,
since I'm throwing away a good fall-back copy, but I believe that
keeping track of backups is just as important as having backups. I've
spent a lot of time scratching my head over multiple snapshots taken
at various times, with large overlap between them. In addition, I
also have limited space to store extra backups, especially if the data
on them are not densely packed.
I realize that using a CD-RW means I don't have to discard the scratch
disc, but I'm not yet ready to take on the greater risk associated
with CD-RW's (though admittedly, it is a *perceived* risk from reading
about them). I also realize that the most recent files are on the
hard drive, but since the scratch disc doesn't necessarily mirror the
hierarchy on the hard drive (I choose the hierarchical structure to be
convenient for stashing snapshots, not for working in), I would like
to avoid reassembling the a version of the scratch disc from the hard
drive. Furthermore, I would have to be aware of a corruption in the
CD-RW content before even going to the trouble of reassembling the
scratch disc content. Verifying the scratch disc content is not
hassle free if the hierarchical structure deviates from that of the
hard disc. Finally, the scratch disc and its various snapshots has to
be reliable because it acts as a fall-back for when problems arise in
the HD content, either due to the hardware, software, or my own
mistakes. Only after I burn the permanent backup onto CD-R is the
scratch disc free to be discarded or overwritten.
If the scratch disc is in fact a multisession CD-R or CD-RW, the
actual amount of data (as opposed to session overhead) will probably
fall short of the quantity needed to burn a complete permanent disc,
so it will probably be a large session on the permanent disc.
>
> Thats more complicated than it looks. If you configure the apps much,
> it can be convenient to back everything up even when you dont actually
> need to backup the system/OS and apps themselves. While most
> modern apps should have their config stuff in the registry, not all do.
Yes, I fully agree. I also have a "schedule" of files to backup as
administrator, too, which include app customization files and options
that I have identified. I guess I was just going to take the hit of
losing customizations that I haven't captured. I was envisioning the
scenario in which the HD dies, and I'm actually reinstalling
everything from scratch after replacing it. A complete image of the
HD would certainly make that a lot less painful. I don't have the
resources for that at the moment, though.
>
> Sure, but you need to be aware that it is a more risky approach.
> When doing a clean install on an older OS like Win9x I normally
> image the system over the lan, then do a manual copy of the
> stuff I know I will have to restore, obviously data files etc and
> emails etc, but its surprisingly common to need to actually
> restore the original image to check something that I forgot
> about when reconfiguring the new clean install.
Oh, believe me, I completely relate. That is what has led to my
"schedule" of things to capture in my backups. Not just application
data, but preferences, both as administrator and user. I've had to
extend my work to another PC once, and this experience has helped me
flesh out my "schedule" of useful files to capture.
> I'm still reluctant to trust incremental images of the system,
> but I dont have the limitations you do on where to store the
> backups. I just image my laptop etc over the lan to a PC.
I use to use my account space in an formal institutional setting
to stash away my snapshots of tasks, thus eliminating the need for
a scratch disc and a permanent CD. Having access to a LAN makes
a world of difference.
> There is something to be said for wearing the downsides
> of a decent sized external drive in your situation.
Er...I don't quite follow that last sentence. I agree that a decent
external drive is a very good thing. My workspace right now is
small enough that I have to stick with a small laptop that I can push
around the small deskspace. I am constantly disconnecting things like
the mouse (to use the touchpad), the PDA connector (which is 2 wires,
one to the docking station and another to a power supply for charging
the PDA), USB printer cable, and sometimes even the power for the
laptop.
The external HD is certainly a good path, though the extra connector
means I will certainly use it less often than I should. As well, I
was really looking for a replacement for the intermediate scratch
disc, since the plan was to always make a space-efficient copy on CD
(disc-at-once or large-track-at once). However, given that the jury
is still out on the longevity of CD-R, perhaps I should consider an
external hard drive to be THE backup, rather than the CD-R. I had a
Kodak Gold Ultima become unreadable after 3 years, in the same CD
drive that burned it. Since I burn only about 1 CD a month on
average, that amounts to a scary failure rate. It might even be
higher, I haven't had much occassion to check out all my CDs.
I will look further into the use of a nonvolatile memory card as a
scratch CD and compare that option to forgoing the scratch CD in
favour of an external HD being THE backup.
Thanks for your thoughts.
| |
| Dubious Dude 2006-02-04, 8:45 pm |
| Odie Ferrous wrote:
>Dubious Dude wrote:
>
> Place all your data / emails / etc in a single folder. Copy this to DVD
> / flash (USB) drive whenever changes are made.
>
> My "critical" data runs to just over 300MB, which gets backed up to
> flash and a second hard drive (Seagate) whenever I make major
> alterations, and DVD/CD once a week.
Odie,
That is in fact what I'm trying to find an efficient way to do,
considering the limitations of various methods of burning CDs.
And considering an external hard drive or internal RAM disc
as alternatives.
| |
| Rod Speed 2006-02-04, 8:45 pm |
| Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I was actually wondering if it could even be done
> (nonvolatile memory card acting as a drive).
Yes it can.
> I know that USB memory sticks are available.
My laptop support all the commonly used cards from cameras etc as well.
> As well, I was interested in opinions about cost-
> effectiveness from those who have chosen this path.
I still think you would be better off with a decent external drive.
Mainly because they are rather better value $/GB etc.
> I will spend some more time googling around.
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Agreed. I've got a schedule of all the folders I will backup up
> regularly though. It helps that most of my stuff is in a cygwin user
> directory, that I don't use much in the way of digital certificates,
> and that I keep a copy of my passwords in one place.
I keep mine using a decent password manager that supports
the use of full encrypted USB keys etc if you want to use them.
If you dont, its database is obvious so easy to include in a backup.
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I have Easy CD Creator 5.2, and have had some files dropped without
> notice while burning sessions, as well as while importing sessions.
I never got that with Creator Classic or its previous names.
> I've successfully used others (CD BurnerXP Pro 3 and
> Sony CD Extreme). Even with CD-RW, though, if I use
> multisession, it will fill up too quick due to the session overhead.
Does it really matter ? The overhead isnt that bad.
> Just to clarify my envisioned scheme, my reason for creating
> multisession CDs is as an intermediate off-line repository (which
> doesn't necessarily mirror the files system on the hard drive).
> In this "scratch" disc, I can incrementally amass a collection of
> snapshots of various tasks on my hard drive. Each snapshot consists
> of key hierarchical files needed to rebuild the task in question to
> its current state, bundled together with tar and compressed with
> gzip. At some point, I have enough on the scratch disc to warrant
> burning a more efficient and permanent copy, either as a
> disc-at-once to CD-R, or as a large session.
I think its better to use a decent modern imager that does
incremental images, writing to an external drive if you only
have one laptop. I personally write to another drive on the
lan instead, but that obviously needs more than one PC.
> I then discard the scratch disc to avoid too many copies of the same
> thing spread over too many discs. Some people may question this,
> since I'm throwing away a good fall-back copy, but I believe that
> keeping track of backups is just as important as having backups.
> I've spent a lot of time scratching my head over multiple snapshots
> taken at various times, with large overlap between them. In addition,
> I also have limited space to store extra backups, especially if the data
> on them are not densely packed.
Sure, but thats one big advantage with a decent incremental imager
and a decent external drive. It keeps track of all that for you.
> I realize that using a CD-RW means I don't have to discard the scratch
> disc, but I'm not yet ready to take on the greater risk associated
> with CD-RW's (though admittedly, it is a *perceived* risk from reading
> about them). I also realize that the most recent files are on the
> hard drive, but since the scratch disc doesn't necessarily mirror
> the hierarchy on the hard drive (I choose the hierarchical structure
> to be convenient for stashing snapshots, not for working in),
I do that on the hard drive, for code projects particularly.
> I would like to avoid reassembling the a version of the scratch disc
> from the hard drive. Furthermore, I would have to be aware of a
> corruption in the CD-RW content before even going to the trouble
> of reassembling the scratch disc content. Verifying the scratch
> disc content is not hassle free if the hierarchical structure deviates
> from that of the hard disc. Finally, the scratch disc and its various
> snapshots has to be reliable because it acts as a fall-back for when
> problems arise in the HD content, either due to the hardware, software,
> or my own mistakes. Only after I burn the permanent backup
> onto CD-R is the scratch disc free to be discarded or overwritten.
I think its better to have the hierarchy on the hard
drive for the better speed, and only use the CD or
DVDs for protection against theft of the PC etc.
Basically because the optical media is too slow for convenience.
> If the scratch disc is in fact a multisession CD-R or CD-RW, the
> actual amount of data (as opposed to session overhead) will probably
> fall short of the quantity needed to burn a complete permanent disc,
> so it will probably be a large session on the permanent disc.
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes, I fully agree. I also have a "schedule" of files to backup as
> administrator, too, which include app customization files and options
> that I have identified. I guess I was just going to take the hit of
> losing customizations that I haven't captured.
Yeah, most do use the registry for that now, tho I dont use
much in the way of dinosaur apps that dont myself anymore.
> I was envisioning the scenario in which the HD dies, and I'm actually
> reinstalling everything from scratch after replacing it. A complete
> image of the HD would certainly make that a lot less painful.
> I don't have the resources for that at the moment, though.
I think its time you got that, with a decent external drive.
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Oh, believe me, I completely relate. That is what has led to my
> "schedule" of things to capture in my backups. Not just application
> data, but preferences, both as administrator and user. I've had
> to extend my work to another PC once, and this experience has
> helped me flesh out my "schedule" of useful files to capture.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I use to use my account space in an formal institutional
> setting to stash away my snapshots of tasks, thus
> eliminating the need for a scratch disc and a permanent
> CD. Having access to a LAN makes a world of difference.
Yeah, but you can add that with a decent external drive.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Er...I don't quite follow that last sentence.
You originally said that space on the table top was a consideration
in the para thats still right at the top of the quoting.
I'd personally just wear that for the convenience
that a decent external drive would bring.
> I agree that a decent external drive is a very good thing.
> My workspace right now is small enough that I have to
> stick with a small laptop that I can push around the small
> deskspace. I am constantly disconnecting things like
> the mouse (to use the touchpad), the PDA connector
> (which is 2 wires, one to the docking station and another
> to a power supply for charging the PDA), USB printer
> cable, and sometimes even the power for the laptop.
Surely you must be able to fix that workspace problem ?
An external drive doesnt even have to be on that workspace.
> The external HD is certainly a good path, though the extra connector
> means I will certainly use it less often than I should. As well, I
> was really looking for a replacement for the intermediate scratch
> disc, since the plan was to always make a space-efficient copy on CD
> (disc-at-once or large-track-at once). However, given that the jury
> is still out on the longevity of CD-R,
I dont believe it is anymore, I havent ever lost one and I have
been using them since they came out first and havent even
bothered to keep them out of the sun. I compute in winter
in full sun, basking in the sun literally and the CDRs are just
in jewel cases in big metal CD towers that end up in the sun
in winter. Havent even lost any of those.
> perhaps I should consider an external hard
> drive to be THE backup, rather than the CD-R.
Yeah, that's what I meant.
> I had a Kodak Gold Ultima become unreadable
> after 3 years, in the same CD drive that burned it.
I never have and I dont bother with premium CDRs anymore either.
Just recently had a problem with some of the cheapest that
you can actually see right thru that someone else picked up
for me from the cheapest place in town, but even with those
the only real problem is that some drives wont read them.
> Since I burn only about 1 CD a month on average, that
> amounts to a scary failure rate. It might even be higher,
> I haven't had much occassion to check out all my CDs.
I do, and havent ever had a failure, even when
very slack about looking after them properly.
> I will look further into the use of a nonvolatile memory card
> as a scratch CD and compare that option to forgoing the
> scratch CD in favour of an external HD being THE backup.
> Thanks for your thoughts.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
| |
| Gerard Bok 2006-02-04, 8:45 pm |
| On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 16:20:41 -0500, Toshi1873
<toshi@notanywhere.jp> wrote:
>In article <43e4d4f9.145076@News.Individual.NET>, bok118@zonnet.nl
>says...
>
>TrueImage allows you to mount the image file as a drive letter in
>Windows. At which point you can simply drag-n-drop data files back to
>your replacement system. (A rather neat feature.)
True. But for the average end-user I advise to put the OS on one
partition and user-data on a separate partition.
(And as I am lasy, I apply that layout also to my own PC :-)
You only need to image the OS partition every now and then.
As your data partition will be rather compact (in most cases) it
is quite easy to make a backup, even daily.
And even the totally ignorant end-user can restore a data
partition, so to speak.
Most end users don't even think about hunting for their data in a
multi-gigabyte mounted image :-)
But I noticed others don't agree :-)
--
Kind regards,
Gerard Bok
| |
| Dubious Dude 2006-02-05, 2:45 am |
| Neil Maxwell wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 17:21:32 -0500, Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> One of the big plusses of using an external drive for image backups (I
> like True Image) is for recovery from a HD crash. You can return your
> system to the exact operating condition it was at your last backup,
> and it takes about 20 minutes after the new HD is installed, depending
> on data size.
>
> This has saved me countless hours on crash recovery over the last few
> years.
Yes, it certainly saves alot. A number of days per hard drive death, I
would say. Certainly an option to be considered seriously.
| |
| Dubious Dude 2006-02-05, 2:45 am |
| In-Reply-To: <eC5Ff.19398$Sk1.394758@news20.bellglobal.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <43e59d00@usenet.zapto.org>
Lines: 42
X-Authenticated-User: 724495
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenet.zapto.org
X-Newsmaster-Contact: admin@usenet.zapto.org
Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!inka.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!morpheus.pingos.org!rouhivuori!not-for-mail
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:314401 alt.backup-software:6982 microsoft.public.win2000.general:538666 alt.os.windows2000:137705
Peter wrote:
>
> Absolutely. They can contact me on my e-mail.
Come to think of it, in the past, I've always had access to nontrivial
resources to help bring things up to speed. Either I happened to have
another laptop at the time, access to high speed at the time, and access
to an institutional LAN with big machines to act as halfways stations
download files such as driver, and web browsers to access support sites.
At the moment, this is not the case. So I've captured drivers and
install programs on CD. The instructions for getting the machine up
to speed are on websites scattered among numerous support pages (and
many being inaccurate or ambiguous), so I will be relying on tech
support by phone. <Grave look crosses face>.
Since the laptop is my only PC, I don't actually take it much anywhere.
The problem that will require getting up to speed will likely be a hard
drive crash rather than a lost PC. So the system will be the same as
when the image is made. In the long term, however, I will eventually
upgrade to another PC (laptop or desktop), and I will probably have
high speed. Getting the 2nd PC up to speed will be much easier. I can
using these aforementioned imaging apps that allow letter-drive access
to the image....does anyone know if Cobian backup will do this? People
seem to think well of it, though most of usenet content relating to it
seems to be not in North America.
| |
| Rod Speed 2006-02-05, 2:45 am |
| Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes.com> wrote
> Peter wrote
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> Come to think of it, in the past, I've always had access to nontrivial
> resources to help bring things up to speed. Either I happened to have
> another laptop at the time, access to high speed at the time, and
> access to an institutional LAN with big machines to act as halfways
> stations download files such as driver, and web browsers to access
> support sites. At the moment, this is not the case. So I've captured
> drivers and install programs on CD. The instructions for getting the
> machine up to speed are on websites scattered among numerous
> support pages (and many being inaccurate or ambiguous), so I will
> be relying on tech support by phone. <Grave look crosses face>.
I havent depended on a single machine for a hell of a long time now.
Its such a fundamental part of my life that there has to be redundancy.
And they are so cheap that redundancy isnt expensive.
> Since the laptop is my only PC, I don't actually take it much
> anywhere. The problem that will require getting up to speed
> will likely be a hard drive crash rather than a lost PC.
I think you have to cover even the less likely
possibilitys like theft of the system or a fire etc.
> So the system will be the same as when the image is made.
> In the long term, however, I will eventually upgrade to another
> PC (laptop or desktop), and I will probably have high speed.
> Getting the 2nd PC up to speed will be much easier. I can
> using these aforementioned imaging apps that allow letter-drive
> access to the image....does anyone know if Cobian backup will do this?
Dunno, never used it. You can certainly browse images with Ghost.
> People seem to think well of it, though most of usenet
> content relating to it seems to be not in North America.
I prefer more mainstream apps for stuff that important myself.
I was a bit reluctant about True Image for that reason and
use it because its head and shoulders better than Ghost.
| |
| Dubious Dude 2006-02-05, 2:45 am |
| Rod Speed wrote:
> Gerard Bok <bok118@zonnet.nl> wrote
>
>
>
> No its not if you know what you are doing.
>
>
> No it isnt. If you just want files off the image and dont
> want to restore the entire image, you can browse the
> files from the image with any decent modern imager.
Would you know if Cobian Backup will do this?
> Even if you want to use the Files and Settings Transfer
> Wizard with XP, it isnt that hard to image the new laptop,
> restore the original image, do an install in place to get
> XP running again on the new laptop, run the wizard,
> restore the image you produced of the laptop and
> then import the wizard file on the new laptop.
In the near term, the situation that would probably require
me to rebuild the system (software & OS, not hardware) is
a hard drive crash. So it will be in a Windows 2000
environment. I am thinking about using Cobian Backup
for the image because it is free. But I'm wondering
if Windows 2000 has any native restoration capability along
the lines of the ones you describe above for XP? If not,
I will probably have to build up the system to the point where
Cobian is running again. I use the colorful term "build up"
the system because that's sure what it felt like when I had
to do it in the past. Getting drivers from the web, installing
them piece by piece, etc.. And the instructions were often
not accurate. Admittedly, I was not always cognizant of exactly
what it was that I was doing.
| |
| Dubious Dude 2006-02-05, 2:45 am |
| Gunrunnerjohn wrote:
> You have rejected probably the best solution out of hand. A 2.5"
> external drive won't tax your desk space, and you can make an image
> backup of the entire bootable image, then use something like the
> excellent and free Cobian Backup
> http://www.educ.umu.se/~cobian/cobianbackup.htm to do your data
> files.
Thanks for the pointer to Cobian. I like that it seems to be well
regarded. As for the 2.5" external drive....I looked up Consumer
Reports online (through my municipality's library), I can't seem to
find a review of external drives to see options that are out there (of
various physical and logical sizes). I also looked for a newsgroup
FAQ, but there doesn't seem to be one. Most of what I found on Google
are provided by vendors, so I'm not sure whether there will be a
well-rounded view. Would you be able to point to a good overview of
the options available, in terms of types of drives, vendors, and/or
models? Maybe even RAM disks, if such a review exists, as well as
discussion of the trade-offs. TIA for the thought, in any case.
> I separate my data files and My Documents to a data partition for
> ease of backup, so that my boot volume is really 99% O/S related. I
> then use a Cobian Backup job to collect all the various little
> config files and the like on the boot volume for a single backup.
Luckily, most of my data is in a cygwin user directory. My apps
(the setup programs, that is) are either on CD or in an administrator
directory. The customization files for various apps...I haven't
identified too many of those, but as was suggested in this thread,
much of that resides the registry, which I haven't been backing up.
For some apps, customizations reside in the app's folder in
c:/Program_Files. Apps-related files may be considered the
administrator's "data" files, while real user data is in the user's
cygwin directory. Everything else is installed apps or OS. It's
all quite segmented already, though the hard disk is not partitioned
as you suggested. I have never meddled with disk partitioning, and
I'm wondering if it really makes much difference in my case. I'm
trying to see where the benefit comes in.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes.com> wrote:
| |
| Dubious Dude 2006-02-05, 2:45 am |
| Rod Speed wrote:
>Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes.com> wrote
>
> Yes it can.
>
>
> My laptop support all the commonly used cards from cameras etc as well.
>
>
> I still think you would be better off with a decent external drive.
> Mainly because they are rather better value $/GB etc.
>
>
> I keep mine using a decent password manager that supports
> the use of full encrypted USB keys etc if you want to use them.
> If you dont, its database is obvious so easy to include in a backup.
>
>
> Does it really matter ? The overhead isnt that bad.
It depends on how often you write sessions. Each sesssion has I think
14MB overhead. That dissuades the writing of sessions as needed. One
tends to accumulate many changes before writing an incremental
session, which increases the risk of fogetting where all the changes
are. Unless there is special imaging software that creates
incremental sessions out of incremental images. But my practice until
now has been to forgo matching hierarchical directory structures
between backup and hard drive, which may make it hard to treat the
backup as an image. Considering what I've learned, I may change this
approach, simply to take advantage of the imaging approach.
>
> I think its better to use a decent modern imager that does
> incremental images, writing to an external drive if you only
> have one laptop. I personally write to another drive on the
> lan instead, but that obviously needs more than one PC.
I am indeed starting to think of this as a viable candidate for
my backup routine (external drive, that is).
>
> Sure, but thats one big advantage with a decent incremental imager
> and a decent external drive. It keeps track of all that for you.
Sounds good.
>
> I do that on the hard drive, for code projects particularly.
>
>
> I think its better to have the hierarchy on the hard
> drive for the better speed, and only use the CD or
> DVDs for protection against theft of the PC etc.
I do have the task-oriented snapshots on the main hard drive. I also
consider it to be the appropriate granularity of work for copying to
the auxiliary backup media, be it a 2nd hard drive, or an off-line
CD-R. The aim being to protect against crashing hard drives. So the
auxiliary drive should be updated frequently.
> Basically because the optical media is too slow for convenience.
Yes, it's only a place to stash snapshots.
>
>
> Yeah, most do use the registry for that now, tho I dont use
> much in the way of dinosaur apps that dont myself anymore.
>
>
> I think its time you got that, with a decent external drive.
<snip>
> Surely you must be able to fix that workspace problem ?
Not in the immediate term. In the long term, certainly.
> An external drive doesnt even have to be on that workspace.
Space in general is an issue. Something that needs to be tucked away
each use will not be used as often as it should be. But that is life
at the moment.
>
> I dont believe it is anymore, I havent ever lost one and I have
> been using them since they came out first and havent even
> bothered to keep them out of the sun. I compute in winter
> in full sun, basking in the sun literally and the CDRs are just
> in jewel cases in big metal CD towers that end up in the sun
> in winter. Havent even lost any of those.
>
>
> Yeah, that's what I meant.
Yes I was getting that impression  .
>
> I never have and I dont bother with premium CDRs anymore either.
>
> Just recently had a problem with some of the cheapest that
> you can actually see right thru that someone else picked up
> for me from the cheapest place in town, but even with those
> the only real problem is that some drives wont read them.
>
>
> I do, and havent ever had a failure, even when
> very slack about looking after them properly.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the interesting discussion.
If you can point to any web articles that overview & compare
the different approaches and product options in each, I'd
appreciate it. Thanks for the thought, in any case. I'll
continue searching a bit more.
| |
| Rod Speed 2006-02-05, 2:45 am |
| Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> It depends on how often you write sessions. Each sesssion has I think
> 14MB overhead. That dissuades the writing of sessions as needed.
Does it really matter when 14M is a small part of the total capacity ?
> One tends to accumulate many changes before writing an incremental
> session, which increases the risk of fogetting where all the changes
> are. Unless there is special imaging software that creates
> incremental sessions out of incremental images.
Not clear what you mean by that. You just write the incremental images
to the optical media and let the imager keep track of what its done.
> But my practice until now has been to forgo matching hierarchical
> directory structures between backup and hard drive, which may
> make it hard to treat the backup as an image. Considering what
> I've learned, I may change this approach, simply to take
> advantage of the imaging approach.
Yeah, I would, and get an external drive as well, in your situation.
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I am indeed starting to think of this as a viable candidate
> for my backup routine (external drive, that is).
Yeah, it simplifys things dramatically.
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Sounds good.
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I do have the task-oriented snapshots on the main hard drive.
> I also consider it to be the appropriate granularity of work for
> copying to the auxiliary backup media, be it a 2nd hard drive,
> or an off-line CD-R. The aim being to protect against crashing
> hard drives. So the auxiliary drive should be updated frequently.
And with an external drive you can do that as often as you like.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes, it's only a place to stash snapshots.
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> <snip>
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Not in the immediate term. In the long term, certainly.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Space in general is an issue. Something that needs to be
> tucked away each use will not be used as often as it should be.
Its only the drive itself that doesnt need to be on the
workspace, still connected to the laptop all the time.
Its not relevant that its tucked away out of the workspace use wise.
> But that is life at the moment.
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes I was getting that impression .
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> If you can point to any web articles that overview & compare the
> different approaches and product options in each, I'd appreciate it.
I dont bother with those myself, so I dont keep track of them.
> Thanks for the thought, in any case. I'll continue searching a bit more.
OK.
| |
| Rod Speed 2006-02-05, 2:45 am |
| Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Would you know if Cobian Backup will do this?
Dunno, I'm not game to use products at that
level for something as important as backup.
I'm not even game to use just one imager either, I also
keep separate manual backups of the important stuff,
basically using Roxio Creator Classic and DVDs to
archive entire folder trees of the most important stuff.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> In the near term, the situation that would probably require
> me to rebuild the system (software & OS, not hardware) is
> a hard drive crash. So it will be in a Windows 2000
> environment. I am thinking about using Cobian Backup
> for the image because it is free. But I'm wondering
> if Windows 2000 has any native restoration capability along
> the lines of the ones you describe above for XP?
Not with the files and settings transfer wizard, that came with XP.
2K does come with the standard Backup tho and its quite usable.
> If not, I will probably have to build up the system
> to the point where Cobian is running again.
Again, I would use True Image and an external drive instead.
Very simple to restore to the new hard drive
after you boot a rescue CD on the laptop.
> I use the colorful term "build up" the system because that's
> sure what it felt like when I had to do it in the past. Getting
> drivers from the web, installing them piece by piece, etc..
Yeah, it can be a pretty long winded business,
although I do document the original install properly
in the database so its not that big a deal.
> And the instructions were often not accurate.
Yeah, that's why I always keep my own notes.
> Admittedly, I was not always cognizant
> of exactly what it was that I was doing.
Yeah, can be a problem for people at your level.
| |
| Dubious Dude 2006-02-05, 7:45 am |
| Rod Speed wrote:
>Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes.com> wrote
>
> I think you have to cover even the less likely
> possibilitys like theft of the system or a fire etc.
Agreed. There are many things on hold for now. That's one of them.
<snip>
>
> Dunno, never used it. You can certainly browse images with Ghost.
>
>
> I prefer more mainstream apps for stuff that important myself.
>
> I was a bit reluctant about True Image for that reason and
> use it because its head and shoulders better than Ghost.
Thanks for the perspective.
| |
| Dubious Dude 2006-02-05, 7:45 am |
| Rod Speed wrote:
>Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes.com> wrote
>
> Does it really matter when 14M is a small part of the total capacity ?
Yes, if I wish to update the CD regularly, I'll often have content
amounting to much less than 14M. The ratio session overhead to
real data would be very small. Less than half of the capacity of
the CD might be used for real data.
>
> Not clear what you mean by that. You just write the incremental images
> to the optical media and let the imager keep track of what its done.
As long as the imager doesn't operate on top of the same standard that
requires 14MB overhead per incremental write, it would probably be
worthwhile to use it with optical media.
<snip>
>
> And with an external drive you can do that as often as you like.
<snip>
>
> Its only the drive itself that doesnt need to be on the
> workspace, still connected to the laptop all the time.
>
> Its not relevant that its tucked away out of the workspace use wise.
That makes sense...but space is still a bit of an issue, even tucked
out of the way. It's certainly better than not, though.
> I dont bother with those myself, so I dont keep track of them.
Well, your thoughts are appreciated anyway.
| |
| Rod Speed 2006-02-05, 7:45 am |
| Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes, if I wish to update the CD regularly, I'll often have content
> amounting to much less than 14M. The ratio session overhead
> to real data would be very small. Less than half of the capacity
> of the CD might be used for real data.
Does that really matter if you use RWs ? All it does is double the number.
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> As long as the imager doesn't operate on top of the same
> standard that requires 14MB overhead per incremental write,
> it would probably be worthwhile to use it with optical media.
I think its time to cut to the chase and use an external drive.
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> That makes sense...but space is still a bit of an issue, even
> tucked out of the way. It's certainly better than not, though.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Well, your thoughts are appreciated anyway.
| |
| Rod Speed 2006-02-05, 7:45 am |
| Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Agreed. There are many things on hold for now. That's one of them.
Are you living out of your car or something ?
Makes a difference with the backup scheme.
| |
| Toshi1873 2006-02-05, 3:19 pm |
| In article <43e54bd4.30576421@News.Individual.NET>, bok118@zonnet.nl
says...
> True. But for the average end-user I advise to put the OS on one
> partition and user-data on a separate partition.
> (And as I am lasy, I apply that layout also to my own PC :-)
That's a great method. I used to do that as well.
Unfortunately, on my laptop I have to share files where absolute paths
matter (stupid, hardcoded software that we're not ready to replace). So
when we check things out of our source code system, everyone has to put
them in the same place on C:. As a result, I've gone back to just having
a single partition.
I do have a dedicated U: for my personal files on my home LAN. That's
my equivalent of a separate partition I guess.
(When I do a archival image of the laptop, I simply remove any of my
data directories off of the laptop first. That cuts down on the size
quite a bit.)
| |
| Gerard Bok 2006-02-05, 3:19 pm |
| On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 09:29:00 -0500, Toshi1873
<toshi@notanywhere.jp> wrote:
>In article <43e54bd4.30576421@News.Individual.NET>, bok118@zonnet.nl
>says...
>
>That's a great method. I used to do that as well.
>
>Unfortunately, on my laptop I have to share files where absolute paths
>matter (stupid, hardcoded software that we're not ready to replace).
You can still beat them. Just replicate (e.g.
http://www.karenware.com/powertools/ptreplicator.asp) to a
directory on your data partition :-)
--
Kind regards,
Gerard Bok
| |
| Dubious Dude 2006-02-05, 3:19 pm |
| Rod Speed wrote:
>Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes.com> wrote
>
> Does that really matter if you use RWs ? All it does is double the number.
True enough. I suspect that it will take several CD-RWs, though.
Do-able, though time-consuming, and a book-keeping nightmare waiting
to happen. Which makes an external drive look more attractive.
>
>
>
> I think its time to cut to the chase and use an external drive.
Consumer Reports doesn't compare them, but I think that walking into
a university campus computer store is a good way to get an informed
decision on a good external drive. Thanks.
| |
| Dubious Dude 2006-02-05, 3:19 pm |
| Rod Speed wrote:
>Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes.com> wrote
>
>
>
> Are you living out of your car or something ?
> Makes a difference with the backup scheme.
Strictly speaking, no. Space is simply not very available.
|
|
|
|
|