Backup Software - Backups Backups Backups

Author

Backups Backups Backups

ClassA

2007-03-23, 7:12 pm

We have on this site four servers, and for many years I have been
wrestling with big-name backup software, backup tape drives and tapes.
But, now that large hard disks are so cheap, I think THERE HAS TO BE A
BETTER WAY!

We have some particularly important files, and I set up an ad hoc backup
using PKzip to an attached drive. This is launched in the middle of the
night from a batch file using a scheduler. This works, but I saw that PK
zip can't cope with a very large number of files, as it runs out of
memory. I am now experimenting with it's option '-=', which backs up
files in 'compatibility mode', hoping that this might help with the open
files.

I also have tried cheap synchronization software, called Second Copy,
but this doesn't cope with open files, and it is generally quite flaky.

PKzip, Xcopy, synchronization software, little known backup software,
cheap attached storage. Has anyone out there stirred this pot and pulled
out something that is useful and works, particularly with open files? I
feel I am warm but not there yet.

(PeteCresswell)

2007-03-24, 1:15 am

Per ClassA:
>e have on this site four servers, and for many years I have been
>wrestling with big-name backup software, backup tape drives and tapes.
>But, now that large hard disks are so cheap, I think THERE HAS TO BE A
>BETTER WAY!
>
>We have some particularly important files, and I set up an ad hoc backup
>using PKzip to an attached drive. This is launched in the middle of the
>night from a batch file using a scheduler. This works, but I saw that PK
>zip can't cope with a very large number of files, as it runs out of
>memory. I am now experimenting with it's option '-=', which backs up
>files in 'compatibility mode', hoping that this might help with the open
>files.
>
>I also have tried cheap synchronization software, called Second Copy,
>but this doesn't cope with open files, and it is generally quite flaky.
>
>PKzip, Xcopy, synchronization software, little known backup software,
>cheap attached storage. Has anyone out there stirred this pot and pulled
>out something that is useful and works, particularly with open files? I
>feel I am warm but not there yet.

I'll be following your thread with interest myself.

Been supplementing Retrospect (miserable, wretched, near-criminal UI - but it
does selective restores...) with Second Copy.

Haven't found any flakes in it yet except for the open file thing - and I think
that's a pretty widespread problem.

I'd be interested to hear what problems you've had with Second Copy. I've been
thinking it's pretty good - but I haven't taken the time/trouble to do detailed
testing. In fact I think I lack the technical expertise for such testing.... So
abandoning Retrospect in favor of 100% reliance on SecondCopy would be a giant
leap of faith for me right now.
--
PeteCresswell

Shel

2007-03-24, 1:15 am

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 23:26:49 +0000, ClassA
<dleachman@nospam.stop-choc.co.uk> wrote:

>We have on this site four servers, and for many years I have been
>wrestling with big-name backup software, backup tape drives and tapes.
>But, now that large hard disks are so cheap, I think THERE HAS TO BE A
>BETTER WAY!
>
>We have some particularly important files, and I set up an ad hoc backup
>using PKzip to an attached drive. This is launched in the middle of the
>night from a batch file using a scheduler. This works, but I saw that PK
>zip can't cope with a very large number of files, as it runs out of
>memory. I am now experimenting with it's option '-=', which backs up
>files in 'compatibility mode', hoping that this might help with the open
>files.
>
>I also have tried cheap synchronization software, called Second Copy,
>but this doesn't cope with open files, and it is generally quite flaky.
>
>PKzip, Xcopy, synchronization software, little known backup software,
>cheap attached storage. Has anyone out there stirred this pot and pulled
>out something that is useful and works, particularly with open files? I
>feel I am warm but not there yet.

Acronis True Image compresses if you so choose.

Antonio Donatiello

2007-03-24, 7:14 am

ClassA <dleachman@nospam.stop-choc.co.uk> ha scritto:

>PKzip, Xcopy, synchronization software, little known backup software,
>cheap attached storage. Has anyone out there stirred this pot and pulled
>out something that is useful and works, particularly with open files? I
>feel I am warm but not there yet.

If you are looking for a secure backup you can try our new backup software
Geminisoft Scrinium. We released beta 1 some days ago. Main features.

1) files are zipped individually with internal zip engine;
2) files and file names are encrypted, so you can store your backup
anywhere;
3) complete, incremental, differential backup with archive bit use
4) backup to disk, cd, web (Geminisoft servers)
4) full or individual files restore
5) ready for Windows Scheduled tasks

Open files are simply skipped.

Scrinium is a commercial product. At the end of the beta program it will be
sold at a competitive price.

You can discover all features, download and try it visiting our site
www.geminisoft.com.

--
-antonio-
www.geminisoft.com
(email valida sul mio sito)

Howard Kaikow

2007-03-24, 7:12 pm

"Antonio Donatiello" <antoniodo@blu.it> wrote in message
news:3C13305A200703241116248280001.antoniodo@blu.it...
> ClassA <dleachman@nospam.stop-choc.co.uk> ha scritto:

> Open files are simply skipped.

Use image based backups, nothing is skipped.
There is no longer ANY reason to use file based backups, especially as they
are ridiculously slow compared with an image backup.

Look at Shadow Protect and True Image.

(PeteCresswell)

2007-03-24, 7:12 pm

Per Howard Kaikow:
>Use image based backups, nothing is skipped.
>There is no longer ANY reason to use file based backups, especially as they
>are ridiculously slow compared with an image backup.

But how do you do incrementals? Or do you do the whole nine yards every time?

As cheap as disk drives are, it still seems like if somebody wants 20-30
generations of certain files, that could run into a lot disk space.
--
PeteCresswell

Antonio Donatiello

2007-03-25, 1:14 pm

"Howard Kaikow" <kaikow@standards.com> ha scritto:

>Use image based backups, nothing is skipped.

If you backup in background you can do a backup with partially updated
files.

>There is no longer ANY reason to use file based backups, especially as they
>are ridiculously slow compared with an image backup.

Really? I know an image backup takes a lot of time to be performed.

--
-antonio-
www.geminisoft.com
(email valida sul mio sito)

James Silverton

2007-03-26, 1:17 am

Antonio wrote on Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:24:51 +0200:

??>> Use image based backups, nothing is skipped.

AD> If you backup in background you can do a backup with
AD> partially updated files.

??>> There is no longer ANY reason to use file based backups,
??>> especially as they are ridiculously slow compared with an
??>> image backup.

AD> Really? I know an image backup takes a lot of time to be
AD> performed.

As a matter of interest, just how long would an image backup be
likely to take with, say, 20GB of files and perhaps a 7200rpm
backup disc drive? A file backup with Acronis takes hours.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not

louise

2007-03-28, 1:14 am

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per ClassA:
>
> I'll be following your thread with interest myself.
>
> Been supplementing Retrospect (miserable, wretched, near-criminal UI - but it
> does selective restores...) with Second Copy.
>
> Haven't found any flakes in it yet except for the open file thing - and I think
> that's a pretty widespread problem.
>
> I'd be interested to hear what problems you've had with Second Copy. I've been
> thinking it's pretty good - but I haven't taken the time/trouble to do detailed
> testing. In fact I think I lack the technical expertise for such testing.... So
> abandoning Retrospect in favor of 100% reliance on SecondCopy would be a giant
> leap of faith for me right now.

I agree about Retrospect and yes, it is marvelous for
selective restores and I've been using it for years -
cursing like crazy any time I have to create another script
or set it up on a new computer.

I too supplement Retrospect: I use another external hard
drive and I do an image backup using Ghost about every two
weeks. I usually have two or three full image backups
available so that if I have to go back 5 or 6 weeks, I can.

Then, when "it" happens, and "it" will sooner or later, I
restore my most recent Ghost image and update my data files
using the selective restore from Retrospect. It has worked
very well on two occasions when I suddenly found myself in
need of a new hard drive or a fresh image from a day or more
ago. I think this is a pretty "safe" arrangement.

Then......because I've no offsite backup (office in home), I
got an account with Mozy.com and I upload critical data
files on a daily basis. Mozy works in the background.
This is just a third line of defense in case of fire/flood, etc.

Louise

louise

2007-03-28, 1:14 am

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Howard Kaikow:
>
> But how do you do incrementals? Or do you do the whole nine yards every time?
>
> As cheap as disk drives are, it still seems like if somebody wants 20-30
> generations of certain files, that could run into a lot disk space.
as per my post above, do image backups once a week or so and
do incremental file based backups on a daily basis. Why not
have both? External hard drives are certainly inexpensive
enough.

Louise

louise

2007-03-28, 1:14 am

James Silverton wrote:
> Antonio wrote on Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:24:51 +0200:
>
> ??>> Use image based backups, nothing is skipped.
>
> AD> If you backup in background you can do a backup with
> AD> partially updated files.
>
> ??>> There is no longer ANY reason to use file based backups,
> ??>> especially as they are ridiculously slow compared with an
> ??>> image backup.
>
> AD> Really? I know an image backup takes a lot of time to be
> AD> performed.
>
> As a matter of interest, just how long would an image backup be likely
> to take with, say, 20GB of files and perhaps a 7200rpm backup disc
> drive? A file backup with Acronis takes hours.
>
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland
>
> E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not
20 gig using a 7200 external usb drive and Norton Ghost
would take approximately 1/2 hour.

Louise

(PeteCresswell)

2007-03-28, 7:12 pm

Per louise:
>Then......because I've no offsite backup (office in home), I
>got an account with Mozy.com and I upload critical data
>files on a daily basis. Mozy works in the background.
>This is just a third line of defense in case of fire/flood, etc.

Did you ever try what looks tb an FTP option in SecondCopy?
--
PeteCresswell