Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Over the past few years the capacity of disk drives (and the amount of
space typically used on them) has greatly increased, and now it is
getting more and more difficult to figure out how to back up these
drives.
 
What type of hardware (and software) do you use on your systems for
backup?
 
Up to now, I've used HP DDS tape drives (DAT drives) for backup.  But
DDS2 is limited to 4 GB, and DDS3 is limited to 24 GB, and that's
getting to be to small to hold even one backup on a single tape (or
even on several tapes in some cases).
 
So, what else is there?  These DAT drives already cost me a fortune in
the good old days, and today they cost nearly as much as the rest of
the computer, when I can find them ... and even DDS4 is still limited
to 40 GB.  DLT drives are several times more expensive at the cheap
end, although they do have capacity to hold an entire drive of data.
 
Are there other practical alternatives?  What about external USB
drives, can that work?  Old stuff like Zip drives and so on is
history, as it has even less capacity than tape.  Archiving to CD or
DVD is also too low in capacity.  It's getting to the point that the
only affordable option seems to be some sort of disk-to-disk copy (or
RAID for those who can afford it), but it would be nice to have
removable media that could be put in a safe place.
 
So what is everyone else building into their new machines for backup?
And do you just use standard backup tools like ntbackup on Windows or
dump on UNIX, or do you use special software purchased separately?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
 
> Over the past few years the capacity of disk drives (and the
> amount of space typically used on them) has greatly increased,
> and now it is getting more and more difficult to figure out how
> to back up these drives.
> What type of hardware (and software) do you use on your systems
> for backup?
 
I have a second hard disk drive, 1/6 size of the main. I also have
a recently purchased DVD writer.  
 
I don't use software. I just copy the stuff.
 
Have fun.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I've settled into using a Maxtor One Touch USB/firewire drive with  
Retrospect software from Dantz (software comes with the drive). This is the  
easiest backup procedure I've ever used. Just push a button. Or for that  
matter I could auto-set it to back up daily.
  Additionally I make a Ghost image backup on the USB/firwire drive as well.
 
--  
Jan Alter
bearpuf@verizon.net
or
jalter@phila.k12.pa.us
"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message  
news:Xns96943D331B2E7wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
> Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Over the past few years the capacity of disk drives (and the
>> amount of space typically used on them) has greatly increased,
>> and now it is getting more and more difficult to figure out how
>> to back up these drives.
>> What type of hardware (and software) do you use on your systems
>> for backup?
>
> I have a second hard disk drive, 1/6 size of the main. I also have
> a recently purchased DVD writer.
>
> I don't use software. I just copy the stuff.
>
> Have fun.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe writes:
 
> I don't use software. I just copy the stuff.
 
What about things like the registry?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Over the past few years the capacity of disk drives (and the amount of
> space typically used on them) has greatly increased, and now it is
> getting more and more difficult to figure out how to back up these
> drives.
>  
> What type of hardware (and software) do you use on your systems for
> backup?
 
All backups, as well as shared files, are transfered to my linux server  
with software RAID 1 (2x80 and 2x120). Further, I have a 200GB drive in  
a 3.5" enclosure that I back up all this data onto for an 'off site'  
backup one a month, minimum.
 
>  
> Up to now, I've used HP DDS tape drives (DAT drives) for backup.  But
> DDS2 is limited to 4 GB, and DDS3 is limited to 24 GB, and that's
> getting to be to small to hold even one backup on a single tape (or
> even on several tapes in some cases).
>  
> So, what else is there?  These DAT drives already cost me a fortune in
> the good old days, and today they cost nearly as much as the rest of
> the computer, when I can find them ... and even DDS4 is still limited
> to 40 GB.  DLT drives are several times more expensive at the cheap
> end, although they do have capacity to hold an entire drive of data.
>  
> Are there other practical alternatives?  What about external USB
> drives, can that work?  
 
Yes. You can send entire ghost images to them or just create a backup  
plan. I wonder if any of the commercial (or freeware) backup software  
will let you set the USB HDD as a destination for the files, or if these  
softwares are able to incrementally update onlt the files that are new  
or have changed? I know there's a technique in linux to do this, and I  
should REALLY look into it soon.
 
> Old stuff like Zip drives and so on is
> history, as it has even less capacity than tape.  Archiving to CD or
> DVD is also too low in capacity.  It's getting to the point that the
> only affordable option seems to be some sort of disk-to-disk copy (or
> RAID for those who can afford it), but it would be nice to have
> removable media that could be put in a safe place.
 
Even windows sofware RAID is quite cheap. Unlike hardware RAID, you need  
to use the manufacturer's windows drivers.
 
>  
> So what is everyone else building into their new machines for backup?
> And do you just use standard backup tools like ntbackup on Windows or
> dump on UNIX, or do you use special software purchased separately?
 
 
--  
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo
 
I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my  
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in  
hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone  
marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow  
transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

generally I let the transmission handle this, I prefer automatic.....oh
wait.....wrong direction...I ghost a 10gig os partition every week to
another off box HD(1394 external). data and project files are burned to CD
and also stored in a separate partition on the off box drive.
 
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eq3fd1dmrsbre7ako2g64e14u2sq9a09rt@4ax.com...
> Over the past few years the capacity of disk drives (and the amount of
> space typically used on them) has greatly increased, and now it is
> getting more and more difficult to figure out how to back up these
> drives.
>
> What type of hardware (and software) do you use on your systems for
> backup?
>
> Up to now, I've used HP DDS tape drives (DAT drives) for backup.  But
> DDS2 is limited to 4 GB, and DDS3 is limited to 24 GB, and that's
> getting to be to small to hold even one backup on a single tape (or
> even on several tapes in some cases).
>
> So, what else is there?  These DAT drives already cost me a fortune in
> the good old days, and today they cost nearly as much as the rest of
> the computer, when I can find them ... and even DDS4 is still limited
> to 40 GB.  DLT drives are several times more expensive at the cheap
> end, although they do have capacity to hold an entire drive of data.
>
> Are there other practical alternatives?  What about external USB
> drives, can that work?  Old stuff like Zip drives and so on is
> history, as it has even less capacity than tape.  Archiving to CD or
> DVD is also too low in capacity.  It's getting to the point that the
> only affordable option seems to be some sort of disk-to-disk copy (or
> RAID for those who can afford it), but it would be nice to have
> removable media that could be put in a safe place.
>
> So what is everyone else building into their new machines for backup?
> And do you just use standard backup tools like ntbackup on Windows or
> dump on UNIX, or do you use special software purchased separately?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Over the past few years the capacity of disk drives (and the amount of
> space typically used on them) has greatly increased, and now it is
> getting more and more difficult to figure out how to back up these
> drives.
>  
> What type of hardware (and software) do you use on your systems for
> backup?
>  
 
I have an iOmega external, Firewire drive the same size as my main HD. I  
use iOmega's Automatic Backup Pro software. It will backup data or the  
whole system. The key is that is will backup open files, so it get  
everything. This software was part of the package with the drive.
 
Clyde

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message  
news:eq3fd1dmrsbre7ako2g64e14u2sq9a09rt@4ax.com...
> Over the past few years the capacity of disk drives (and the amount of
> space typically used on them) has greatly increased, and now it is
> getting more and more difficult to figure out how to back up these
> drives.
>
> What type of hardware (and software) do you use on your systems for
> backup?
>
> Up to now, I've used HP DDS tape drives (DAT drives) for backup.  But
> DDS2 is limited to 4 GB, and DDS3 is limited to 24 GB, and that's
> getting to be to small to hold even one backup on a single tape (or
> even on several tapes in some cases).
>
> So, what else is there?  These DAT drives already cost me a fortune in
> the good old days, and today they cost nearly as much as the rest of
> the computer, when I can find them ... and even DDS4 is still limited
> to 40 GB.  DLT drives are several times more expensive at the cheap
> end, although they do have capacity to hold an entire drive of data.
>
> Are there other practical alternatives?  What about external USB
> drives, can that work?  Old stuff like Zip drives and so on is
> history, as it has even less capacity than tape.  Archiving to CD or
> DVD is also too low in capacity.  It's getting to the point that the
> only affordable option seems to be some sort of disk-to-disk copy (or
> RAID for those who can afford it), but it would be nice to have
> removable media that could be put in a safe place.
>
> So what is everyone else building into their new machines for backup?
> And do you just use standard backup tools like ntbackup on Windows or
> dump on UNIX, or do you use special software purchased separately?
 
 
Mxmanic:
No doubt you'll get a slew of responses to your query each one touting his  
or her favorite backup scheme, so let me give you my "take" on this  
subject....
 
In my opinion, the best backup system for the average home user and even  
small business owner in most cases is having his or her desktop computer  
equipped with two removable hard drives and using a disk imaging program
such as Symantec's Norton Ghost or Acronis True Image to "clone" the  
contents of their working hard drive to another removable hard drive. There  
are other advantages in having two removable hard drives on one's desktop
computer but the most significant one is providing a near fail-safe backup  
system. The speed, flexibility and peace of mind you get with this  
arrangement far outweighs (for most users) the relatively small additional  
cost of equipping one's desktop computer with this hardware configuration.  
Note that the removable hard drive mobile racks we are discussing are  
designed to be installed in desktop computers and not laptop or notebook  
computers. The size, weight, and design considerations of laptops/notebooks  
do not allow for this hardware configuration.
 
Using this setup, backing up your hard drive is simple, straightforward,  
fast, and most important of all -- effective. By easily and relatively  
quickly making a clone of your hard drive, using a software program like  
Symantec's Norton Ghost or Acronis True Image, programs which are  
specifically designed for this purpose, you get, what seems to me, the  
ultimate backup solution given the present state of personal desktop  
computer technology. Unlike backup programs that merely back up your data  
files - that is, the files you've created in the various programs and  
applications you use - by cloning your hard drive, you're backing up your  
operating system, your registry, all your programs and applications, your  
configuration settings, your data files - in short, everything on the hard  
drive from which you're making (for all practical purposes) a bit for bit  
copy.
 
And you're doing all this in one fell swoop, the result of which is the  
creation of an exact duplicate of your working hard drive. And for *added*  
safety you can remove this newly-cloned hard drive from the premises, not to  
mention making unlimited additional clones you desire for near-absolute  
security.
 
While it is true that backup software programs can backup the files you have  
created in your various programs, they are unable to backup your operating  
system and (for the most part) the programs installed on your computer. As  
others have pointed out more that once, many, if not most, computer users  
have invested substantial time and effort in customizing Windows and  
configuring their applications to work the way they want to and putting all  
of that back the way it was can be a difficult, frustrating, and  
time-consuming effort.
 
So when the day comes - as it *surely* will - that your hard drive fails  
because of some mechanical or electrical defect, it's a wonderful feeling to  
know that you have a perfectly good copy of that failed hard drive that you  
simply shove in the computer, boot up, and you're off and running. Or if you  
ever get some miserable computer virus that plays havoc with your system, or  
for some unknown reason this or that system file is missing or becomes  
corrupt resulting in an inoperable computer, isn't it nice to know that you  
have at hand a perfectly good virus-free clone of your hard drive? And then  
simply clone that "good" previously cloned hard drive to the virus-infected  
one so that once again you now have two perfectly good hard drives. And in  
the case where the hard drive is kaput because of some mechanical/electronic  
failure, you purchase a new hard drive, simply remove the defective drive  
from the removable tray, plop in the new one, make two simple connections,  
shove it in the computer and then clone your good hard drive to the new one.  
And the added beauty of this arrangement is that you do all this from the  
comfort of your computer chair. There's no need to open your computer case  
and get into the "guts" of your computer to make complicated cable  
disconnects/connects. Everything is done  outside of your computer because  
each hard drive resides in a tray (caddy) that you simply slide into the  
computer's mobile rack.
 
There's *no* need to partition and format the new drive; *no* need to  
reinstall your operating system on the new drive; *no* need to reinstall  
your programs and data files. None of this is necessary. By simply cloning  
the
previously-cloned hard drive to the new drive you once again have two  
functioning hard drives at your disposal. And a simple turn of the mobile  
rack's keylock allows the user to boot to either hard drive following the  
cloning operation.
 
As previously indicated, these mobile rack devices are two-piece affairs -  
the rack itself and the inner tray or caddy (in which the hard drive  
resides) that slides into the rack. They come in all-aluminum models or a  
combination of aluminum-plastic ranging in price from about $15 to $50.  
Naturally, your desktop computer case will need two 5¼" bays that are  
available to house the mobile racks. Mobile racks come in various versions,  
depending upon whether the hard drive to be housed is an IDE/ATA, SATA, or  
SCSI device. A Google search for "removable hard drive mobile racks" will  
result in a wealth of information on these products and their vendors. I'm  
aware of many users who have been using inexpensive plastic mobile racks  
without any problems whatsoever. Unfortunately, there is no industry  
standard involving the design and construction of the racks nor the inner  
trays that contain the hard drive.Consequently, there is (usually) no  
interchangeability of these trays among the various manufacturers of mobile  
racks. Indeed, there is frequently no interchangeability of the inner trays  
among different models from the same manufacturer. This lack of  
interchangeability may not be an issue if the user will be purchasing a  
particular model of mobile rack for a single computer, however, if the user  
will have access to other computers, he or she may want to settle on a  
specific brand and model of mobile rack that will provide for tray  
interchangeability amongst different computers.
 
As I've previously indicated, the cloning process itself is easy and  
relatively fast. Using Symantec's Norton Ghost 2003 cloning program as an  
example, with the two removable hard drives connected to the computer, you  
simply boot up your desktop computer with the bootable floppy disk (my  
preferred method) that contains the Ghost program and after a few key clicks  
the cloning process begins. The cloning process is practically automatic and  
you need not be in attendance during the actual cloning operation. The size  
(disk capacity) or make/model of your hard drives need not be identical; all  
that matters is that your destination drive contains sufficient capacity to  
receive the contents of your source drive. Incidentally, I've recently been  
experimenting with the Acronis True Image program because of the many  
favorable reports I've come across about this program. Using a bootable ATI  
CD, I find the cloning speed of this program is considerably faster than  
that of Ghost. And so far I've run into no problems with the cloning process  
itself. Depending upon the speed of your processor and hard drives you  
should get cloning speeds of somewhere between 700 MB to 1.5+ GB per minute  
(less if cloning to a USB/Firewire external hard drive).
 
I can virtually guarantee that once you begin working with two removable  
hard drives, you'll have but one regret and only one regret. And that is you  
didn't have this arrangement on your previous computer or computers. While  
the additional cost involved in configuring your desktop computer with two  
mobile racks together with the additional hard drive and disk imaging  
software is not negligible, I can assure you it's money well spent. Frankly,  
when you consider the enormous advantages of having two removable hard  
drives on your desktop computer, the additional cost of so equipping your  
computer in this fashion practically pales into insignificance.
Anna

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

spodosaurus writes:
 
> Even windows sofware RAID is quite cheap. Unlike hardware RAID, you need  
> to use the manufacturer's windows drivers.
 
The motherboards of the last two PCs I've been support hardware RAID
for SATA drives, but I'm wary of trying it out, as things like that
move into the "danger area" of hardware/software interactions that can
cause lots of problems and take forever to sort out.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Doe writes:
 
>> I don't use software. I just copy the stuff.
 
> What about things like the registry?
 
I don't think Microsoft has ever genuinely promoted a modular  
installation or easy backup of program data, that might promote user  
independence. For attempting to preserve my installation, I backup  
the whole Windows partition. I have used PartitionMagic, but  
currently I am using Partition Manager 2005.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe writes:
 
> I don't think Microsoft has ever genuinely promoted a modular  
> installation or easy backup of program data, that might promote user  
> independence.
 
You make it sound deliberate.  In fact, it's just a design flaw, not
something Microsoft has deliberately done.
 
There are generally two models for configuration data: one is the UNIX
model, with configuration files scattered all over the system, and the
other is the Windows model, with everything in one monolithic,
gigantic, proprietary database.  Both have advantages and
disadvantages.  The UNIX model is probably friendlier from the
standpoint of back-up and restore operations, though.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

John Doe wrote:
> troll
>
 
WWWAAAAAAAAHHH!  John is calling me names.   Oh wait, that crying sound is  
his little heart breaking because someone told the truth about him.
 
--  
 
sbb78247
 
Speak the truth and leave shortly there after.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:
> John Doe writes:
 
>> I don't think Microsoft has ever genuinely promoted a modular  
>> installation or easy backup of program data, that might promote
>> user independence.
 
> You make it sound deliberate.  In fact, it's just a design flaw,
> not something Microsoft has deliberately done.
 
In fact (fact according to our federal courts), tying users to
Windows is something Microsoft puts great effort into, to the
point of breaking our laws. And for very good reason. Windows, a
monopoly with an 85% profit margin, is Microsoft's cash cow.  
 
> There are generally two models for configuration data: one is
> the UNIX model, with configuration files scattered all over the
> system, and the other is the Windows model, with everything in
> one monolithic, gigantic, proprietary database.  
 
Program configuration data has always been scattered, and still
is. Not only in the registry, but in files and folders.
Microsoft's Visual C++ is a good example.  
 
 
 
 
 
>
>
>
>  
> Path: newssvr33.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm06.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:43:53 -0500
> From: Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: What do you use for backup today?
> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 22:43:52 +0200
> Organization: Just Mxsmanic
> Message-ID: <vs7gd11pfeu5bkg03aag6cbqv0k45b7bbj 4ax.com>
> References: <eq3fd1dmrsbre7ako2g64e14u2sq9a09rt 4ax.com> <Xns96943D331B2E7wisdomfolly 207.115.63.158> <ebcfd1tq14vbc5ndq9akhu6lv43v6id0vm 4ax.com> <Xns969498163CB5wisdomfolly 207.115.63.158>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 15
> X-Trace: sv3-e29VQd8pKEMKGzerp93MNE6GRlqr0eir1DO9GNRRu+udKA4t/gM0eLzVHAbGP46+4E+j+VK7wvhFvFZ!aTCRtRa8Z3l/KiA2H9MvQJ/unVN3Uncfjg3xPLmDk4seGiAyWZOKFOmEyyNWZmJgSg==
> X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com
> X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
> Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:214098 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:441124
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe writes:
 
> Program configuration data has always been scattered, and still
> is. Not only in the registry, but in files and folders.
> Microsoft's Visual C++ is a good example.  
 
Individual applications have the option of storing configuration data
in any way they choose.  Some Windows programs use the registry,
others still use .INI files, still others have their own proprietary
methods of holding the data.  I rather like programs that hold all the
necessary information in their own directories, since that allows one
to restore them to a system by simply restoring the directory, without
worrying about the registry.  Of course, it's inelegant in other ways.
It's easy to back up and restore, though.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Doe writes:
 
>> Program configuration data has always been scattered, and still
>> is. Not only in the registry, but in files and folders.
>> Microsoft's Visual C++ is a good example.  
>  
> Individual applications have the option of storing configuration
> data in any way they choose.  
 
Microsoft has the power to force the issue, but Microsoft would
rather bind the user to a single installation on one machine.
Fortunately we can still produce files in Windows that can be
removed.  
 
Back to the subject of application data/settings. Some people keep
their programs on a second partition. I have done that before, but
nowadays the operating system installation is massive by itself,
so I do the basic installation/settings plus the most needed
applications, and copy the whole thing.  
 
Good luck.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe writes:
 
> Microsoft has the power to force the issue, but Microsoft would
> rather bind the user to a single installation on one machine.
> Fortunately we can still produce files in Windows that can be
> removed.  
 
I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Anyway, individual Windows applications can store their configuration
information in any way they choose.  The OS does provide a registry
along with API calls to access it in a consistent way, and
applications can store their configuration information in the registry
if they so choose.  The decision to provide a registry was an
attempted technical solution to the problem of incoherencies across
applications in the ways they stored configuration information, making
back up and restore of applications difficult in some cases (because
they stored their information in weird places, or because they even
modified configuration data belonging to other programs).
 
It was a good idea, but it's not without problems of its own.  The
biggest problem is that the registry is a "magic" file that cannot
easily be saved and restored as a block.  It is always allocated to
the system and thus perpetually "busy."  It contains mixed data from
many different applications and so restoration en masse of the file is
likely to cause problems.  Overall, it ends up being no better or
worse than the way things were before (and the way they still are on
UNIX); it's just different.  Unfortunately, even Microsoft is not very
consistent in its use of the registry (try to find all the parameters
for Internet Explorer in the registry, and you'll see).
 
> Back to the subject of application data/settings. Some people keep
> their programs on a second partition. I have done that before, but
> nowadays the operating system installation is massive by itself,
> so I do the basic installation/settings plus the most needed
> applications, and copy the whole thing.  
 
I install applications in a folder I call \Software (I don't like the
default \Program Files folder), but other than that I don't do much.
Software I can usually reinstall from scratch, so the main issue is
just saving configuration data, and unfortunately that often involves