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.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

You have rejected probably the best solution out of hand.  A 2.5" external d
rive
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 Cobi
an
Backup job to collect all the various little config files and the like on th
e
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.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

> 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.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

> >> 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.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]