Using one large disk for image backup and test restoring t..

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I'm trying to work out a reliable, simple, low cost backup strategy for
my home pc.
I'm using Win XP Pro.

[ Drive #1 (74.5 GB) ] %Free
#1 (Active) NTFS C: 39997 MB 25
#2 NTFS E: 39997 MB 36

[ Drive #2 (37.3 GB) ]
#1 FAT32 D: 24152 MB 4
#2 NTFS F: 14001 MB 8

The two hard drives are IDE drives.

What I'd like to do, is install a 250G ide drive which would be used
only for backup data. Use a software application to save at least one
mildly compressed
image of each logical drive to the 250G disk. I also want to do a test
restore of each image after it is saved.
To do the restore, I'm thinking that I can make a 40G partition on the
250G disk, and restore each image into that partition for each test.
For the image of the C: drive, I'd also like to test the restore by
booting XP Pro from the 40G partition on the 250G drive.

Is there problems with using the Image Backup application to restore an
image into the 40G partition on the 250G drive?
I'm worried that the application might insist on disregarding the 40G
partition and just over write the whole 250G space, wiping out all of
the other backup images ?

What is the best image backup application to use to carry out my plan ?

What do others think, is this a workable strategy.
Is there other strategies that better meet my original criteria,
reliable, low cost, simple?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

vr4003@hotmail.com wrote

> I'm trying to work out a reliable, simple,
> low cost backup strategy for my home pc.
> I'm using Win XP Pro.

> [ Drive #1 (74.5 GB) ] %Free
> #1 (Active) NTFS C: 39997 MB 25
> #2 NTFS E: 39997 MB 36

> [ Drive #2 (37.3 GB) ]
> #1 FAT32 D: 24152 MB 4
> #2 NTFS F: 14001 MB 8

> The two hard drives are IDE drives.

> What I'd like to do, is install a 250G ide drive which would be used
> only for backup data. Use a software application to save at least
> one mildly compressed image of each logical drive to the 250G disk.

That should be fine. Its generally better to fully compress, essentially
because you'd normally schedule image creation so you dont care about
the time it takes and you can get more images on the drive that way.
That would allow more than just the last image to be kept etc.

> I also want to do a test restore of each image after it is saved.
> To do the restore, I'm thinking that I can make a 40G partition on the
> 250G disk, and restore each image into that partition for each test.

That will be fine.

> For the image of the C: drive, I'd also like to test the restore
> by booting XP Pro from the 40G partition on the 250G drive.

The main trick with that is to physically disconnect the drive that
contains the C drive for the test, just after the image has been
restored, but before you have booted off it. XP can get very
confused if it can see both the original and the copy on the
first boot after the image has been restored to the test partition.

> Is there problems with using the Image Backup application
> to restore an image into the 40G partition on the 250G drive?

Nope. You just need to be careful when you
specify where you are restoring the image to.

> I'm worried that the application might insist on disregarding
> the 40G partition and just over write the whole 250G space,
> wiping out all of the other backup images ?

Nope, that wont happen. Just check that you're restoring
TO A PARTITION and not to the 250G physical drive.

> What is the best image backup application to use to carry out my plan ?

I like Acronis True Image most at the moment.

> What do others think, is this a workable strategy.

Yes it is, and I use it myself.

The main risk you dont cover is theft of the PC, fire, flood etc.

I cover those risks by writing the stuff I will slash my wrists if
I lose to a single DVD, multiple copys, and keep one out of the
house, so even if all the hardware was stolen, it would just be
a damned nuisance to reinstall everything, but it would be a
nuisance to buy new hardware with the insurance anyway.

> Is there other strategies that better meet
> my original criteria, reliable, low cost, simple?

The main alternative is to have the 250G drive in an
external case connected by USB2, so you can hide it
when you go out etc. Wouldnt help with fire or flood tho.

And not as good for the trial restores either.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

vr4003@hotmail.com wrote

> Thanks for addressing all the questions in my post.

No problem, thats what these technical groups are for.

> Another thing I'm not sure about is when I create the 40G partition on the
> large hard drive, is it designated a NTFS or FAT32 partition at that time ?

Yes, you specify which type of partition you want to create.

> I've got one FAT32 drive, will this be a problem for the image
> restore application, if I create the test restore partition as NTFS
> and then try and restore the FAT32 image into the NTFS partition ?

No, the restore restores the format of the partition that was imaged.

> What about Ghost 9 and BootIt NG, would
> they both be able to do what I want ?

Yes. I prefer True Image myself, but those can do what you want too.

> Initially I thought USB external drives were the obvious way
> to go, but after reading about the problems some have had
> with them, speed compatability, corrupt data, etc. I thought
> I don't have to have the convenience, at least initially.

Yes, internal drives are less hassle.

> I'm comfortable plugging in the extra IDE drive.

> In the longer term, I'm hoping Blu Ray or HD-DVD will become available
> with hardware and media at a price that's viable for the home PC user.

Yes, thats guaranteed. The only real question is when that will happen.