Question about backups with Ghost

Timothy Daniels wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And you really need full duplication of the PC anyway,
because drive failure is only one of the failure possibilitys.

Thats something Timmy has never managed to grasp.

Multiple PCs and a router are something Timmy hasn't the space

Bull****.

and the money for, either.

More bull****.

Bob Davis wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I've never believed that clones make much sense
instead of images. Clones do allow you to come up
a little more quickly on a drive failure, but you wouldnt
get that with your quite complex backup system, it
would be just as quick to restore the image instead.

What I like about a disk clone is that I can insert the drive and extract
one file quickly.

You can do that with any decent modern imager.

Perhaps you can do that with the image file, too, but using Ghost 2003 it
would be more difficult.

Nope, just as easy.

Yes it is. It'll go flat on its face with a
failure of the raid hardware for starters.

I tried to explain why that isn't so,

And you got that just plain wrong. While the basic system can
come up quite quickly, the secondary backup mechanism will
go flat on its face within the hour if the raid hardware has failed.

If you used True Image for the complete backup system, it wouldnt.

but I give up.

Yeah, you're clearly too thick to be able to work it out for yourself.

I don't need the RAID hardware at all to recover, just a working IDE
controller. The clones are all on IDE single drives.

Pity about the secondary backup mechanism which
will go flat on its face within the hour in that config.

Timothy Daniels wrote

If you choose to install several HDs as I have, give a
thought to using "round" cables - they save a lot of room
inside the case and they allow for easier cable routing
and better case ventilation. These cables have a ground
wire twisted together with each of the 40 signal wires to
emmulate the 40 ground wires in 80-wire ribbon cable,
and I haven't experienced any problems with round cables
in 3 years of use. I use the ones with the aluminum braid
for extra shielding, and I've found SVCompucycle to have
a good combination of selection and price:
http://www.svc.com/cables-ata-100-133-round-cables.html .

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to use sata drives.

That way you get even thinner cables and dont flout the standard.

In spades with removable bay kits.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Yes it is. It'll go flat on its face with a
failure of the raid hardware for starters.

I tried to explain why that isn't so,

And you got that just plain wrong. While the basic system can
come up quite quickly, the secondary backup mechanism will
go flat on its face within the hour if the raid hardware has failed.


I've done it before and it didn't "go flat on its face."


Yeah, you're clearly too thick to be able to work it out for yourself.


Okay, thanks for the useful input.

Bob Davis wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Yes it is. It'll go flat on its face with a
failure of the raid hardware for starters.

I tried to explain why that isn't so,

And you got that just plain wrong. While the basic system can
come up quite quickly, the secondary backup mechanism will
go flat on its face within the hour if the raid hardware has failed.

I've done it before and it didn't "go flat on its face."

Dont believe you have WITH RAID HARDWARE FAILURE.

The problem is that while you can certainly replace the boot
drive that used to be a raid0 array with a simple IDE drive,
without the RAID HARDWARE the other raid0 array that is
used for the secondary backup is no longer there anymore.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Bob Davis wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Yes it is. It'll go flat on its face with a
failure of the raid hardware for starters.

I tried to explain why that isn't so,

And you got that just plain wrong. While the basic system can
come up quite quickly, the secondary backup mechanism will
go flat on its face within the hour if the raid hardware has failed.

I've done it before and it didn't "go flat on its face."

Dont believe you have WITH RAID HARDWARE FAILURE.

The problem is that while you can certainly replace the boot
drive that used to be a raid0 array with a simple IDE drive,
without the RAID HARDWARE the other raid0 array that is
used for the secondary backup is no longer there anymore.

I see where you're coming from now. First, the C: drive is on the ICH5R
controller, and D: (interim backup, 1st archive) is on the Sil3112
controller. I suppose both could die at once, if the mobo blitzed out for
example, but that wouldn't render the second array useless. Another mobo of
the same model or a PCI Sil3112 controller would bring the array to life
again. But even without those options I'm covered.

My business databases are copied to my notebook (on the network) frequently
and, something I failed to mentioned earlier, the important ones to the PDA
every time it syncs (continually when on the cradle). I likely wouldn't
lose anything, as when I'm finished editing photos I immediately put them up
on my FTP site for clients to download, so that is also a backup. They
usually stay up there at least one month.

That said, it would take more time to recover if both arrays died, and yet a
better way would be set up a cheap desktop and connect it to the LAN, setup
another firewire drive or something like a Buffalo Terastation and keep it
up continually.

Bob Davis wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Bob Davis wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Yes it is. It'll go flat on its face with a
failure of the raid hardware for starters.

I tried to explain why that isn't so,

And you got that just plain wrong. While the basic system can
come up quite quickly, the secondary backup mechanism will
go flat on its face within the hour if the raid hardware has failed.

I've done it before and it didn't "go flat on its face."

Dont believe you have WITH RAID HARDWARE FAILURE.

The problem is that while you can certainly replace the boot
drive that used to be a raid0 array with a simple IDE drive,
without the RAID HARDWARE the other raid0 array that is
used for the secondary backup is no longer there anymore.

I see where you're coming from now. First, the C: drive is on the
ICH5R controller, and D: (interim backup, 1st archive) is on the
Sil3112 controller. I suppose both could die at once, if the mobo
blitzed out for example, but that wouldn't render the second array
useless. Another mobo of the same model or a PCI Sil3112 controller
would bring the array to life again. But even without those options
I'm covered.

I didnt say that you werent covered, JUST that the secondary
backup mechanism WOULD FAIL until you could replace the
raid hardware. So recovery isnt as EASY as you claimed.

If you didnt have the secondary backup on a raid0 array, a hard
drive or controller failure would be a LOT easier to handle.

And if you had a more sensible approach to backup using
True Image instead of that dinosaur approach you currently
have, you wouldnt even need the secondary backup at all,
and you could recover from any failure MUCH more easily.

Your backup scheme is unnecessarily complicated for no
good reason at all given that the speed of the backup ops
are irrelevant when automated and happen in the background.

My business databases are copied to my notebook (on the network)
frequently and, something I failed to mentioned earlier, the important
ones to the PDA every time it syncs (continually when on the cradle). I
likely wouldn't lose anything, as when I'm finished editing photos I
immediately put them up on my FTP site for clients to download, so that
is also a backup. They usually stay up there at least one month.

Sure, THAT part of your backup scheme isnt anywhere near
as poorly designed as the backup of your main system.

That said, it would take more time to recover if both arrays died, and
yet a better way would be set up a cheap desktop and connect it to the
LAN, setup another firewire drive or something like a Buffalo Terastation
and keep it up continually.

And simplify your backups by using True Image instead
of the dinosaur approach you are currently using thats
WAY past its useby date now and is unnecessarily
complicated for no nett advantage what so ever.

The only thing that makes any sense is to use True Image
to do incremental images over the lan to that drive on the
lan and you can get it to do some short term backups
of stuff you are working on with the file level backup
system it has as well. Then if anything dies, its just
a matter of replacing what has died, with a spare hard
drive if its a hard drive thats died, or the hardware if its
something like the motherboard or PSU or raid hardware
and run the images back into the replacement.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Bob Davis wrote:
"Timothy Daniels" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote:
Makes more sense to image instead of clone, ensure
that a virus cant get into the system, and protect the
images so that even a virus cant touch them if it does.


It makes more sense to keep a clone available for
immediate booting in case the primary HD fails if your
needs are immediate - such as stock daytrading or
software development assignments for college or taking
an online course. There's nothing like just resetting the
boot order and booting up a clone instead of rounding
up another drive and restoring an image file.

I like it so I can insert the mobile rack and extract a file quickly.
On occasion I delete something and don't realize it in time to
extract it from the recycle bin, and can recover it quickly from one
of my five clones that go back five weeks. Although I'm using an
image to copy my notebook's HD, I've never tried to restore anything, so
I'm not sure if Ghost 2003 can extract one file.

Yes it can, and so can any decent modern imager.

Only the Windows version can do that. The DOS version can't

In any case - If someone needed to recover one file, they'd have to be
pretty stupid to begin with.


In that case it isn't really important, as I don't keep anything
important there anyway, and do the imaging to save time in case of a HD
failure.

It makes more sense to use images instead of clones, basically
because you can keep more of them on the same number of hard drives.


This does make sense Rod. I'm amazed again.

alanm wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Bob Davis wrote
Timothy Daniels wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Makes more sense to image instead of clone, ensure
that a virus cant get into the system, and protect the
images so that even a virus cant touch them if it does.

It makes more sense to keep a clone available for
immediate booting in case the primary HD fails if your
needs are immediate - such as stock daytrading or
software development assignments for college or taking
an online course. There's nothing like just resetting the
boot order and booting up a clone instead of rounding
up another drive and restoring an image file.

I like it so I can insert the mobile rack and extract a file quickly.
On occasion I delete something and don't realize it in time to
extract it from the recycle bin, and can recover it quickly from one
of my five clones that go back five weeks. Although I'm using an
image to copy my notebook's HD, I've never tried to restore
anything, so I'm not sure if Ghost 2003 can extract one file.

Yes it can, and so can any decent modern imager.

Only the Windows version can do that. The DOS version can't

So use the Win version to do that, stupid.

In any case - If someone needed to recover one
file, they'd have to be pretty stupid to begin with.

Wrong. It isnt hard to edit what you didnt
intend to edit and discover that later etc
or discover that you need the original again.

In that case it isn't really important, as I don't
keep anything important there anyway, and do
the imaging to save time in case of a HD failure.

It makes more sense to use images instead of clones, basically
because you can keep more of them on the same number of hard drives.

This does make sense Rod. I'm amazed again.

Your problem, as always.

"alanm" wrote in message
...

In any case - If someone needed to recover one file, they'd have to be
pretty stupid to begin with.

Uh, well, I've done it before. I've seen a corrupted CDX (index) file in
Foxpro that keeps the DBF from loading properly, rendering it useless--and
by the time I've discovered it the bad files have been copied to D: by
automatic backup (batch file). I'll simply insert the mobile rack with the
most recent clone and copy the file group for that table over to C:. It may
be a bit out-of-date, but keeping 99% of the records is better than nothing.

In that case it isn't really important, as I don't keep anything
important there anyway, and do the imaging to save time in case of a HD
failure.

It makes more sense to use images instead of clones, basically
because you can keep more of them on the same number of hard drives.


This does make sense Rod. I'm amazed again.

I have opted for the disk clone method in the past because if the drive
fails you've only lost one backup. Rod's right, though, that the image-file
concept is more efficient. I am copying to image files now for my notebook
in Ghost, but have never had to test it.

I can see the value of using a Windows-based clone program, like a recent
Ghost version or TI. From what I've read TI has some advantages over Ghost,
price being one. I must say that I have found my old standbys, Ghost 2002
and 2003, to be reliable and trustworthy--and have bailed my butt out of big
trouble more than once in that time.