I got so fed up with Retrospect that I switched over to a file
copy app called SecondCopy.

Nifty little app, but I still want the integrity of a single
database - yet don't want to confront Retrospect again if I can
help it.

My only "Must Have" is the ability to painlessly restore a given
file as of a given date.   Having to eyeball multiple backup
session lists doesn't count: I want a list that shows all
versions of all files or the functional equivalent thereof.

Any suggestions?
--
PeteCresswell

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Oct 22, 2:00 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
> I got so fed up with Retrospect that I switched over to a file
> copy app called SecondCopy.
>
> Nifty little app, but I still want the integrity of a single
> database - yet don't want to confront Retrospect again if I can
> help it.
>
> My only "Must Have" is the ability to painlessly restore a given
> file as of a given date.   Having to eyeball multiple backup
> session lists doesn't count: I want a list that shows all
> versions of all files or the functional equivalent thereof.
>
> Any suggestions?
> --
> PeteCresswell

Yikes.  I like what you're sayin' but I'm not sure of any application
that does so.

I'm a big fan of ION by Universe Point.  Keeps files in their original
format and is pretty easy to view when it comes to searching for
backups and files.

www.universepoint.com

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Ferget about file based backup.
Switch to image based backup.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Per Howard Kaikow:
>Ferget about file based backup.
>Switch to image based backup.

Couple other people have said that.

How does an image-based application support incremental backups
and the flip side: retrieving a version of a file as of a certain
date?
--
PeteCresswell

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Most image based backup programs allow you to mount the image as a disk
drive and access individual files and folders. So, in a sense they are both
types in one interface. The downside of files and folders in an image based
program is that if the image is damaged or corrupt, you lose all you files
and folders. A file based program does not have that problem. At most a
corrupt file means you lost that file.

I find that both are useful and necessary. I use a replication system
running automatically to make copies of key folders for quick replacement
without the need to mount an image. Second, I do daily full image backups as
well: also automatically. Images are a bit more fragile than files, and
there is no easy way to check them except to try to restore them. It doesn't
always work - so that's why I keep a week's worth of them. It sucks up a lot
of disk space on the backup drive, but it's cheap theses days.

Most image programs will do an incremental backup as well. They do not make
backup to DVD well, or quickly, especially if they span several disks. A
several disk image can require hundreds of disk swaps to restore it. They do
not restore each disk all at once. Back up to an internal (best) or external
(good enough, perhaps) hard drive.  I hope this helps.

PS   I use Acronis True Image, but there are better choices for networks -
much more costly. And I use a freeware Karen's Replicator for each local
machine. Generally set it to replicate all key stuff every hour. It only
takes a minute or two to run, and users don't even notice it. I am retired a
few years and I don't do the network thing any longer, so I can't help you
much more there.



"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message
 news:0s82i31qaeglm2kef34u4bbntk15b6o527@
4ax.com...
> Per Howard Kaikow: 
>
> Couple other people have said that.
>
> How does an image-based application support incremental backups
> and the flip side: retrieving a version of a file as of a certain
> date?
> --
> PeteCresswell

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Per Wandering:
>PS   I use Acronis True Image, but there are better choices for networks -
>much more costly. And I use a freeware Karen's Replicator for each local
>machine. Generally set it to replicate all key stuff every hour. It only
>takes a minute or two to run, and users don't even notice it. I am retired 
a
>few years and I don't do the network thing any longer, so I can't help you
>much more there.

I'm doing the replicator thing (something called "Second Copy)
and will continue to do so.

But there's a fallacy in those things:  a file or sector on the
archive disk gets hosed and you never know until you need to
access it.   OTOH with a database-based backup utility like
Retrospect (which I'm trying to get away from) or any one of a
dozen others, the application keeps track of file integrity.

The replicator approach is just too easy/simple/cheap not to use
- but I do want to get back to supplementing it with a "real"
backup utility.
--
PeteCresswell

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Howard Kaikow: 
>
> Couple other people have said that.
>
> How does an image-based application support incremental backups
> and the flip side: retrieving a version of a file as of a certain
> date?
Here's what I do - and it hasn't failed me yet, although it
may sound a bit cumbersome until you get used to it.  There
is also a somewhat sizable initial expenditure, but all this
will last for years.

I have two external hard drives (USB).  I prefer external
drives for backup because I've had the experience of a bad
power supply hosing most of the hardware in my system until
the problem was properly diagnosed.  A usb hard drive which
is turned off when not in use, is much less vulnerable to
hardware disasters.

On one hard drive, I run Retrospect (I know, I have a
love/hate relationship with it also).  I backup every night
and  therefore, have at least two months of files available
to restore if need be.

On the other hard drive, I run Norton Ghost.  I image my
drive every few weeks and usually keep about 3 images
available so that I can go back in time if I need to.  If I
had to restore from scratch, I'd restore the Ghost image and
then update the files I need using my Retrospect backup disk
- I've done it and it worked.

Then.....just for "good luck", I use Mozy (mozy.com) to
backup crucial files (email, a database etc.) on a daily
basis to an external location.  Mozy runs in the background
and rarely causes any kind of major slowdown.  I scheduled
it to run at a time I'm not usually at the computer.

This probably sounds like overkill, but it is a system I
evolved over the years and there have been occasions,
although rare, that I've been glad to have each piece of it.

I too am waiting for a user friendly (or at least courteous)
Retrospect-like program.  But I've been waiting for that for
several years.  Retrospect really works extremely well if
you can tolerate the confusing setup maneuvers it requires.

Louise

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

This is almost exactly how I do it, using different software. Sometimes,
though, the file or two I need is not part of the file based backup, but is
on the image. Acronis allows you to either mount the image as a new drive
letter and do what you will with the contents, and then unmount it, or to
simply open it in Explorer and treat it like any other folder set. Of course
you can't write to the image files that way, only copy what you need.

Good luck!

--

Blessings & peace  --- Ray
"louise" <louise@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:5pppncFs8hl6U1@mid.individual.net...
> (PeteCresswell) wrote: 
> Here's what I do - and it hasn't failed me yet, although it may sound a
> bit cumbersome until you get used to it.  There is also a somewhat sizable
> initial expenditure, but all this will last for years.
>
> I have two external hard drives (USB).  I prefer external drives for
> backup because I've had the experience of a bad power supply hosing most
> of the hardware in my system until the problem was properly diagnosed.  A
> usb hard drive which is turned off when not in use, is much less
> vulnerable to hardware disasters.
>
> On one hard drive, I run Retrospect (I know, I have a love/hate
> relationship with it also).  I backup every night and  therefore, have at
> least two months of files available to restore if need be.
>
> On the other hard drive, I run Norton Ghost.  I image my drive every few
> weeks and usually keep about 3 images available so that I can go back in
> time if I need to.  If I had to restore from scratch, I'd restore the
> Ghost image and then update the files I need using my Retrospect backup
> disk - I've done it and it worked.
>
> Then.....just for "good luck", I use Mozy (mozy.com) to backup crucial
> files (email, a database etc.) on a daily basis to an external location.
> Mozy runs in the background and rarely causes any kind of major slowdown.
> I scheduled it to run at a time I'm not usually at the computer.
>
> This probably sounds like overkill, but it is a system I evolved over the
> years and there have been occasions, although rare, that I've been glad to
> have each piece of it.
>
> I too am waiting for a user friendly (or at least courteous)
> Retrospect-like program.  But I've been waiting for that for several
> years.  Retrospect really works extremely well if you can tolerate the
> confusing setup maneuvers it requires.
>
> Louise
>
>
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Per louise:
>This probably sounds like overkill, but it is a system I
>evolved over the years and there have been occasions,
>although rare, that I've been glad to have each piece of it.

Except for the Mozy part, it's pretty close to what I'm doing
except for the number of drives.

I would opine that three or four drives are significantly safer
if one always keeps at least one drive offsite and makes a rule
that the offsite drive will never, ever be connected to the PC
being backed up if all the other drives are toast - without
backing it up first on another machine.

This little twist came out of my experience with a rogue USB
card.  It was frying drives as they were connected and I wiped
out two of them before it dawned on me what was happening.
--
PeteCresswell

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per louise: 
>
> Except for the Mozy part, it's pretty close to what I'm doing
> except for the number of drives.
>
> I would opine that three or four drives are significantly safer
> if one always keeps at least one drive offsite and makes a rule
> that the offsite drive will never, ever be connected to the PC
> being backed up if all the other drives are toast - without
> backing it up first on another machine.
>
> This little twist came out of my experience with a rogue USB
> card.  It was frying drives as they were connected and I wiped
> out two of them before it dawned on me what was happening.
I agree - and I do keep my most valuable files (email,
database and all "my documents") off site by having them
back up to Mozy every night.  I have an at home business and
don't travel regularly to another site, so Mozy has been my
compromise.

Your suggestion would be even more thorough and if the op
can do it, it would be ideal.

Louise

Louise

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]