What do you use for backup today?

Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

Except for a show of public relations, Microsoft could not care
less about anything except protecting its monopoly power.

Anyway, individual Windows applications can store their
configuration information in any way they choose.

Not if they are going to be installed on my system.

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),

Long ago, probably in my Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 days, I would
install Windows to a different folder.

I also went through the renaming Program Files phase.

After playing with Windows for tens of thousands of hours, I do it
Microsoft's Way.

Coincidentally, yesterday a related problem came up. I installed
Age of Empires into Program Files\ instead of into Program
Files\Microsoft Games\. Unfortunately, apparently the no CD patch
was expecting it to be installed in ...Microsoft Games\.

but other than that I don't do much. Software I can usually
reinstall from scratch,

Some programs can require a significant amount of configuring,
just depends on your personal preferences I guess. I have always
enjoyed configuring Windows and programs. Nowadays it is much more
involved

I mostly forget about program data, except for making a complete
copy of the Windows partition.

I also have a backup folder called Installation, with subfolders
Desktop (icons from the desktop), Favorites (Internet shortcuts),
and Launch (program shortcuts).

Properly named program shortcuts are very useful since nowadays I
start programs by saying "start name", for example "start
browser" or "start discussion".

Mxsmanic wrote:
spodosaurus writes:


Actually, yhey probably did not (the VAST vast VAST majority do not)
support hardware RAID, but windows simply recognised the chips and
installed the drivers automagically.


Well, no, that's not what the manual says. The manual says that
hardware provides RAID levels 0, 1, and 0+1, plus an Intel Matrix mode
that I know nothing about.

You still haven't said what board it is. And what the manual claims does
not indeed necessarilly reflect the actuality of the situation.

It says nothing about any requirement for
supporting software, except that special drivers are required if you
are running Windows 2000 or XP. People are using these boards for
other operating systems with RAID, so it's not a Windows feature, it's
a board feature.

The vast majority of these chips requires drivers for RAID, whereas true
hardware RAID does not. It doesn't matter if the drivers are available
for other OSes. A case in point: Promise's 'hardware' RAID PCI cards are
not truly hardware RAID. Hence, they won't open source or port drivers
for some of their cards to linux, because they're afraid of people
finding out just how little their 'hardware' actually does.


However, for reasons already stated, I've not attempted to configure
RAID, anyway, so I don't know for sure.


The drivers then interact with
whatever the chip's setting sare (RAID 0,1,5) and away you go. I made
this mistake with linux and an old promise RAID controller built into my
motherboard. Because it seemed to work seemlessly, I thought it was
hardware RAID. In fact, it is not.


Then what was the controller doing?

The same thing that an IDE controller does: whatever the OS tells it to
do THROUGH THE DRIVER. True hardware RAID is completely transparent and
does not require drivers for the RAID functionality.



The cheapest hardware RAID you're
likely to find is a 3Ware card. They're quite good, too.


I've debated trying RAID in the past. However, it brings up so many
hardware and software issues that I've shied away from it. I prefer
to keep things as simple as possible. And while RAID protects against
drive failure, it doesn't protect against anything else (accidental
deletion, destruction of the machine, etc.). I see it more as a
solution for systems that must be online continuously, 24 hours a day,
rather than as a substitute for normal backup.

Normal backups are rarely done on desktop PCs more often than once a
week. If you can afford to lose a week's work, then just backup to an
external hard drive. I cannot afford a drive crash, so I use RAID.


--
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/

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:48:58 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

kony writes:

Raided drives using PCI card not motherboard dependant (plus
identical spare raid card), a 3rd copy on non-raided drives
(offline system only plugged into lan or power for this
purpose), a 4th copy on DVD (formerly CDR). 3rd copy
updated less often, 4th even less. Then there's basic
records and such, smaller file sets also on flash media.
Basically the plan revolves around getting the more frequent
backups done quicker as I find that makes it more likely to
get done regularly.

Sounds pretty stable. Is this for a desktop system or a server?

The server has the raided drives, one of the (now retired
from regular uses) desktops has 3rd copy.


Tape made more sense in the past, IMO,
but after HDD prices plummeted per capacity they can be
cheap to throw into old boxes- plus "old" boxes are quite a
bit more suitable since it's been a few years since the
typical board started supporting 48bit LBA, large HDDs.

Removable disks seem like an intelligent choice. I'm just looking
into the cost and difficulty of getting it to work for me. I was
thinking that a removable external disk would work, coupled with
software that can completely clone the working drive to the external
disk periodically. That would provide pretty good protection against
drive failure, and fair protection against destruction of the machine
(depending mainly on how closely a replacement machine could match the
original hardware). It doesn't provide non-stop uptime, but I don't
need that on a desktop; as long as I can be up and running within 2-4
hours, that would suffice.

Yes that would work. My main item of priority was
segregating data such that the more frequent backups only
covered newer material. I really don't need 10 copies of
exactly the same files on DVD for example, only the things
that change or are added. Then again, the time it takes to
fuss through doing it in very strategic manner can be more
valuable than a few GB of drive space. Supposedly Japan now
has 20-odd or maybe it was 30+ GB DVDs now so hopefully in
the next couple years those will make it into the US market.

John Doe writes:

Not if they are going to be installed on my system.

You generally don't have any knowledge or control of how the
information is stored. Most products don't document the way they
store their configuration information, and Windows imposes no
restrictions on how they can do it. The registry is a convenience
that applications can use, but they are not required to use it.

Long ago, probably in my Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 days, I would
install Windows to a different folder.

I also went through the renaming Program Files phase.

After playing with Windows for tens of thousands of hours, I do it
Microsoft's Way.

I believe I originally chose \Software because I had some sort of
problem with a folder name that contained a blank.

Some programs can require a significant amount of configuring,
just depends on your personal preferences I guess. I have always
enjoyed configuring Windows and programs. Nowadays it is much more
involved

In the days when I used computers for the sake of using computers,
configuration was fun, as there wasn't much else to do. Now that I
use computers as tools rather than as ends in themselves, I prefer to
do things as simply as possibility for the sake of time and stability.

spodosaurus writes:

You still haven't said what board it is.

Both server and desktop have Asus boards. The desktop is a P5GDC
Deluxe, the server is a P4-something-E Deluxe (I don't have the name
in front of me). Both provide on-board RAID support for SATA drives.

Normal backups are rarely done on desktop PCs more often than once a
week. If you can afford to lose a week's work, then just backup to an
external hard drive. I cannot afford a drive crash, so I use RAID.

I usually schedule backups in terms of rate of change, rather than
elapsed time. The more rapidly data changes on a system, the more
frequently it needs to be backed up, so that the potential loss from a
failure is held constant at whatever value one chooses.

On desktops, you have a lot of control over what changes and when, so
the scheduling of backups can be leisurely and irregular. On servers,
you just need to back up everything as often as possible, in most
cases. My server is far more static, so I back it up far less often;
about the only things that change continuously are the logs and e-mail
spools, but my e-mail client downloads the e-mail every 30 seconds and
the logs are not hugely important, so daily backups don't make a lot
of sense.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Ted writes:

Softwa Acronis True Image 8. Nice easy to use software. (also offers
good
recovery prog which I used to recover my daughters lappy when Windoz went
walkies)

Several people have talked about Acronis, so I'm considering that, if
I can come up with $49.

What about UNIX? What would be the equivalent for that? I think that
standard dump may well do the job, if I have enough spare space on a
drive--I could just dump everything to one huge file, and then copy
the file somewhere for safekeeping.

Indeed, since I have two machines, conceivably I could save one with
Acronis and the other with dump, then copy the resulting files over
the LAN to the opposite machines. That way, unless all disk drives in
both machines fail at the same time, I'm fully covered. Does that
make sense?

sorry can't help on the UNIX.

I suppose you could just dump the lot, if its just data, whereas Acronis is
a full recovery software including Windoz and all applications. It has
additions like making the installing of a new hard drive (C) easy, if and
when required. Plus of course the boot recovery side. This I have found very
good.

Being a Brit the $49 is a good buy with the current exchange rate.

Ted writes:

sorry can't help on the UNIX.

I think dump will do it, based on the man page, but I'll have to try
it.

I suppose you could just dump the lot, if its just data, whereas Acronis is
a full recovery software including Windoz and all applications. It has
additions like making the installing of a new hard drive (C) easy, if and
when required. Plus of course the boot recovery side. This I have found very
good.

Being a Brit the $49 is a good buy with the current exchange rate.

I've decided to go with Acronis, based on what I've read here and
quite a few reviews on the Web that say it's superior to Norton Ghost.

rather than using any backup media..... how abt just
distributing data across a home network to several PCs
so that you have multiple data sets? redundancy that
is?

Yeah it not removable.... but its easier. No?

Mxsmanic wrote:

In the days when I used computers for the sake of using
computers, configuration was fun, as there wasn't much else to
do. Now that I use computers as tools rather than as ends in
themselves, I prefer to do things as simply as possibility for
the sake of time and stability.

Yep. Besides the fact Windows has become obese, having more to do
with my computer helps me go with the flow.

And stability is a concern, especially given the fact we get no
clue which files are important and which are needless.

In Windows 3.1, I experimented with all sorts of file purging. Now
Microsoft Windows has more files than I could ever keep up with.

Also involved with doing less configuring might be having learned
enough of the basics.

John Doe writes:

Yep. Besides the fact Windows has become obese, having more to do
with my computer helps me go with the flow.

All software tends to bloat with time. Windows is both a bit bloated
and a bit overcomplex, but all operating systems get that way. It's
still the best choice for a desktop OS today, and it's a considerable
improvement over its predecessors (the Windows 9x series of operating
systems had a completely different architecture and were markedly
inferior to the current NT-based series).

And stability is a concern, especially given the fact we get no
clue which files are important and which are needless.

If you don't know what a file is for, leave it alone. If you
absolutely must experiment, you can try changing the name of a file to
see what breaks, but this is a risky undertaking.

In Windows 3.1, I experimented with all sorts of file purging. Now
Microsoft Windows has more files than I could ever keep up with.

Windows 3.1 was garbage compared to Windows XP. I'd much rather run
the latter, even if I don't know exactly what each file is for.