Backing up to external HDD

[Hackworth]

OK, rather than backing up my hard disk to CD-R or even DVD-/+R media, I've
decided to get myself an external hard disk and connect it to either my USB
2.0 or Firewire port.

In the even of a catastrophic hard disk failure, I want to be able to
restore the previously backed-up hard disk image from the external USB or
Firewire drive directly to a new hard disk... without having to install
Windows first.

Which software utility will let me do exactly what I want? Is there anything
else that I need to consider to get this to work?

 

[Rod Speed]

OK, rather than backing up my hard disk to CD-R or even
DVD-/+R media, I've decided to get myself an external hard
disk and connect it to either my USB 2.0 or Firewire port.

Yeah, lot to be said for that approach.

In the even of a catastrophic hard disk failure, I want to
be able to restore the previously backed-up hard disk
image from the external USB or Firewire drive directly to
a new hard disk... without having to install Windows first.

Which software utility will let me do exactly what I want?

Ghost 2003 and Drive Image 7 will do that.

Is there anything else that I need
to consider to get this to work?

Just that Drive Image 7 will only do that with Win 2K or XP.
Ghost will do it with the lesser Win98s too.

 

[Hackworth]

Yeah, lot to be said for that approach.



Ghost 2003 and Drive Image 7 will do that.


Just that Drive Image 7 will only do that with Win 2K or XP.
Ghost will do it with the lesser Win98s too.

Thanks. I guess I just need to make sure that my system can boot from the
USB drive, correct?

 

[Rod Speed]

Thanks. I guess I just need to make sure that my
system can boot from the USB drive, correct?

Nope, you dont need to boot from the USB drive.

You can boot from whatever you have, usually the distribution
CD is most convenient, but you can boot from floppys with Ghost,
and then use what you have booted to restore the image from
the external drive, or clone the external drive to the replacement.

 

[Farouk Dindar]

I

OK, rather than backing up my hard disk to CD-R or even DVD-/+R media, I've
decided to get myself an external hard disk and connect it to either my USB
2.0 or Firewire port.

In the even of a catastrophic hard disk failure, I want to be able to
restore the previously backed-up hard disk image from the external USB or
Firewire drive directly to a new hard disk... without having to install
Windows first.

Which software utility will let me do exactly what I want? Is there anything
else that I need to consider to get this to work?

I would recommend Acronis True Image 6

http://www.acronis.com/products/trueimage/

In the event of a crash you will boot up with a CD which has a compact linux
code. (the CD has only 6 megs). This will recognise your USB or fire wire
drive.

Farouk Dindar

 

[Jonathan Sachs]

OK, rather than backing up my hard disk to CD-R or even DVD-/+R media, I've
decided to get myself an external hard disk and connect it to either my USB
2.0 or Firewire port...

Before you do this, I recommend that you consider the following
issues.

First, how inconvenient will it be if you lose all of your data in a
fire or burglary? A burglar will probably steal your external disk
along with your computer, but is much less likely to steal your tapes
or CDs (at least, if you put them away). Off-site storage will protect
you fully against both risks.

Second, how inconvenient will it be when you modify or delete a file,
either accidentally or intentionally, and decide some time later that
you need to get it back? A nonremovable storage medium is "flat" --
each time you make a backup, the preceding backup is lost. Thus it
furnishes no protection against this risk, except over time periods
less than the interval between backups. If you are conscientious, that
means "less than one day"!

I say "WHEN you modify or delete a file," not "IF...", because unless
you never make mistakes, you will do this.

I have not had a catastrophic disk failure for about 10 years, but I
utilize my backup tapes to restore files every few months.

My mail address is jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.

 

[Matt M]

Rod Speed wrote:
....

Ghost 2003 and Drive Image 7 will do that.

Is it possible to make a series of backups on an external drive that has a
larger capacity than your hard disk? For example, with Drive Image 7, can I
make three images (separated by, say, three weeks) of my 40Gb main disk on a
120Gb external disk, and in the event of a disaster, choose which image I
want to restore to the replacement main disk?

Thanks

Matt M

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote:

Is it possible to make a series of backups on an external
drive that has a larger capacity than your hard disk?

Of course you can.

For example, with Drive Image 7, can I make three images
(separated by, say, three weeks) of my 40Gb main disk on
a 120Gb external disk, and in the event of a disaster, choose
which image I want to restore to the replacement main disk?

Yep, just like you can with an internal hard drive for the image files too.

Been doing that for years now with most system.
The only recent change is that now the drive can be
an external USB2 or firewire drive instead of an internal.

 

[Farouk Dindar]

Is it possible to make a series of backups on an external drive that has a
larger capacity than your hard disk? For example, with Drive Image 7, can I
make three images (separated by, say, three weeks) of my 40Gb main disk on a
120Gb external disk, and in the event of a disaster, choose which image I
want to restore to the replacement main disk?

Thanks

Matt M

Hi Matt

With drive image you can do scheduled backup and specify the maximum
number

In your case I would schedule them weekly and specify a maximum of
about 4.

The backups will be numbers 0001 , 002 etc automatically.

During the fifth week the first one will be overwritten

With Acronis True Image I have created folders 1 2 3 and 4.

I have set up win 2000- scheduler to start the program weekly
I will manually go through a few steps to make images in
to the appropriate folder

I have chosen True Image over Drive Image 7 because my
restored win 2000 partition would give me constant errors
whereas True Image restores perfectly.

Farouk Dindar

 

[Lil' Dave]

Have 3 different methods. One image to a local onboard HD, and one image to
a removable HD using DI 2002 (98SE). One image to a Firewire HD shared on
home network using DI 7.0 in that case (XP image).

There are advantages / disadvantages to each method. I know I can restore
individual system files with DI 2002 using image explorer to a temp
directory, then real mode dos move to proper location. Do not know how to
do that with DI 7.0 yet.

In the case of the networked Firewire HD and DI 7.0, the password must be
the same for the user/administrator and access to the network to backup.
For restoration, the network computer with the Firewire HD must be up and
running of course with its own access available to the Firewire HD. DI 7.0
makes a couple of network driver boot diskettes so you can access it for
restoration. Have heard complaints from some about if the HD is removed
from the Firewire case and placed on the ide cable, the data being
scrambled. This is not the case regarding my Firewire harddrive. So, I can
still use it if the Firewire interface fails.

What you need to consider is the amount of data you save now and in the near
future, the target media of adequate size to accomodate it, whether or not
you want to make multiple backups to the same media in regards to capacity,
the backup software in regards to the OS you're backing up, whether or not
you want the backup image on the computer or removable or off-site. For
restoration purposes, you should consider again how easy it is to access the
backup media and its confidence factor in restoration.

Last thing to do is do both a backup AND a restore. You don't want to get
caught with your pants down if the restore failed for one reason or another
in the case of HD failure.
Dave

 

[Jonathan Sachs]

Is it possible to make a series of backups on an external drive that has a
larger capacity than your hard disk?

Certainly it's possible, but it would be very expensive.

I do a monthly full backup and a daily differential backup to tape. I
can keep 12 months of backups for each of my disk drives on a dozen
tapes. How much hard disk space would you need to accomplish that?

And you would still have no backup in case of a physical disaster.

It is my opinion that fixed storage is an appropriate back up medium
in only one situation: as primary backup for a mission-critical
system, with removable storage for secondary backup.

My mail address is jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.

 

[Rod Speed]

Certainly it's possible, but it would be very expensive.

Not necessarily, depending on how deep a series you want.

I do a monthly full backup and a daily differential backup to tape.

Tape has passed its useby date now for personal
desktop systems. And is surprisingly expensive itself.

I can keep 12 months of backups for
each of my disk drives on a dozen tapes.

How many actually need that is another matter entirely.

How much hard disk space would you need to accomplish that?

How many actually need that is another matter entirely.

And you would still have no backup in case of a physical disaster.

It is my opinion that fixed storage is an appropriate
back up medium in only one situation: as primary
backup for a mission-critical system, with
removable storage for secondary backup.

Its also fine in the situation where the stuff you'll slash your
wrists if you lose fits on CDRs or DVDs and you write that
stuff to more than one disk when you get something new
like a new batch of photos etc and just use the external
drive for quick images of the entire drive so you can restore
with the minimum of hassles and maximum speed if the
brown stuff does hit the fan and the main drive dies etc.

Few need anything like that depth of
backups that you have chosen to have.

 

[Jonathan Sachs]

Tape has passed its useby date now for personal
desktop systems. And is surprisingly expensive itself.

This is a bit of a red herring, because nowhere have I claimed that
tape is the only appropriate backup medium. You're absolutely right
that DVDs or even CDRWs can be appropriate, depending on the amount of
data to be saved.

But "surprisingly expensive"? I checked, and was surprised -- DDS3, my
benchmark tape technology, is now only about 3.5x cheaper than the
only readily available, technically comparable alternative, DVD/RW.
Amazon is asking $67.95 for a 10-pack of my preferred brand of DDS3
cartridges -- with 24GB capacity, that comes to $0.28/GB. A 5-pack of
DVD/RWs is $19.95. Each holds 4.7 GB, so that's $0.84/GB.

Please be more careful with your assertions of fact.

DVD/RW has it all over tape for speed, but the 4.7 GB capacity is a
real limiting factor. Anyone who needs to back up more than that at
one time -- not everyone, but lots of people -- will need to hang
around the computer through the whole process to change disks when
necessary. (That person will probably end up not running backups at
all.)

My mail address is jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.

 

[Rod Speed]

This is a bit of a red herring,
Nope.

because nowhere have I claimed that tape
is the only appropriate backup medium.

What you may or may not have said is completely irrelevant to whether
tape has passed its useby date for personal desktop systems now.

You're absolutely right that DVDs or even CDRWs can be
appropriate, depending on the amount of data to be saved.

And so can external hard drives, particularly for automatic
scheduled backup, mainly to make it close to effortless to
handle the failure of the internal hard drive if it dies. With
CDR and DVD as more secure backup of the stuff you'll
slash your wrists if you lose, and easier for offsite backup
to protect yourself against thieves or some physical disaster.

But "surprisingly expensive"?

Yep, particularly when compared with a CD burner today.

Thats plenty big enough for most for the stuff that
you'll slash your wrists if you lose except for personal
video footage etc, in which case DVD is the way to
go for that, also much better priced than tape now.

I checked, and was surprised -- DDS3, my benchmark tape
technology, is now only about 3.5x cheaper than the only
readily available, technically comparable alternative, DVD/RW.

Oh bullshit. Not for the initial purchase price it aint.

Amazon is asking $67.95 for a 10-pack of my preferred brand of DDS3
cartridges -- with 24GB capacity, that comes to $0.28/GB. A 5-pack of
DVD/RWs is $19.95. Each holds 4.7 GB, so that's $0.84/GB.

Pity about CDRs which are plenty big enough
for most except for video footage. Pity about
the cost of the hardware to use those tapes.

Please be more careful with your assertions of fact.

Go shove your head up a dead bear's arse.

No please, thats an order.

DVD/RW has it all over tape for speed,

And the external hard drives being discussed in spades.

but the 4.7 GB capacity is a real limiting factor.

Nope not for personal desktop systems being discussed and
backing up just the stuff you'll slash your wrists if you lose.

Plenty big enough for video footage you create yourself etc.

Anyone who needs to back up more than that at one time -- not
everyone, but lots of people -- will need to hang around the computer
through the whole process to change disks when necessary.

Nope, they use one of those external hard drives for that
and it all happens at a much better speed than tape can
ever do, much quieter, works fine unattended too.

(That person will probably end up not running backups at all.)

Someone with enough sense to use an external hard
drive certainly will, and can schedule that once and have
it done by the PC slave until that schedule is disabled etc.

Like I said, tape has passed its useby
date now for personal desktop systems.

One day even you might notice.

 

[Jonathan Sachs]

Yep, particularly when compared with a CD burner today.

Oh, for heaven's sake! Amazon's price for a 12-pack of CDRWs is
$12.92, which works out to $1.65/GB. That's about twice the cost of a
DVD/RW, and 6x the cost of a DDS3 tape.

Do you really think you are accomplishing anything by making
assertions that anyone disprove with a few mouse clicks? Each one
reduces your credibility further.

My mail address is jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.

 

[Rod Speed]

Oh, for heaven's sake!

Oh, for hell's sake!!!

Amazon's price for a 12-pack of CDRWs
is $12.92, which works out to $1.65/GB.

Pity about the difference in the price of a CD
BURNER and a decent TAPE DRIVE currently.

That's about twice the cost of a DVD/RW,
and 6x the cost of a DDS3 tape.

Pity about the dramatic difference the other way IN THE
COST OF THE HARDWARE TO USE THAT MEDIA IN.

The media aint a lot of use without
something that can write on it you know.

Do you really think you are accomplishing anything by making
assertions that anyone disprove with a few mouse clicks?

Do you really think you are accomplishing anything by
making such a spectacular fool of yourself by ignoring
the cost of the hardware required to write on that media
you are waving the price of about so enthusiastically ?

You aint 'disproved' a damned thing, child.

Each one reduces your credibility further.

You never had a shred of that at all, child.

Keep desperately digging, you'll be out in china any day now.

 

[Jonathan Sachs]

The media aint a lot of use without
something that can write on it you know.

The device isn't a lot of use without the media, either. Let's do the
numbers. (Just once more, because I'm really tired of arguing with
you, and I think everybody else will have got the point by now.)

Consider a user who needs to back up 10 GB of data, which changes at
the rate of 20% a month. (This is, roughly, me.) He wants to make a
monthly full backup and a daily differential backup (as I do) and keep
three months of history (1/4 of what I do). His setup cost for DDS3
tape is roughly:

DDS3 tape drive (we'll assume he doesn't buy one of the steeply
discounted system pulls available on eBay, as I did): $600
10 tapes (he only needs three, but let's be generous): $30
SCSI card (we'll assume he doesn't have one): $30
Total: $660.

For CD/RW's, first off, he finds that his differential backups require
two disks after about a week. So he goes to weekly full backups. He
needs 31 disks for each full backup, and needs 12 sets to cover 3
months, plus an additional 72 disks to do 6 differential backups a
week, a total of 444 disks. Let's cut it close and say 450. He pays:

Typical CD/RW burner: $80
450 CD/RWs at $0.86 each: $387
Total: $467

So yes, the CD solution is cheaper, by about 40%. Will that compensate
our user for having to swap 31 disks to back up his system every week?
Or for the risk of finding that one of those 31 disks is damaged or
misplaced if he ever has to do a full restore? I don't think so.

More to the point, no one will practice a weekly procedure which
requires swapping 31 disks. I've found that any backup system which
requires manual media changing is unworkable; most users simply will
simply blow it off.

I haven't done the numbers for DVD/RWs. I think they'll come out about
the same. The device cost will be intermediate between CD and tape; so
will the cost of media and the number of disks required.

So, once more, in case the point has been lost in all of this fuss:
the cost of backups on CDs, DVDs, and tape are very different in some
situations, not very different in others. Which medium is appropriate
depends largely on the user's needs. For users who need to back up
anything more a small fraction of a modern hard disk, tape is the only
viable solution.

My mail address is jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.

 

[Rod Speed]

The device isn't a lot of use without the media, either.

Yep, its obviously the total cost of the hardware and media
that matters. Pity you ignored the cost of the hardware
required to write the media entirely. Utterly bogus.

Let's do the numbers.

Pity these 'numbers' are only a little
less bogus than the previous obscenity.

(Just once more, because I'm really tired of arguing with you,

Yeah, can get tiring having your utterly bogus 'numbers' exposed.

and I think everybody else will have got the point by now.)

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than this pathetic effort, Sachs.

Consider a user who needs to back up 10 GB of
data, which changes at the rate of 20% a month.

Thats very rarely seen with the personal desktop systems
being discussed. And with the few that do see anything like
that, it would be with those who produce personal video
footage and that stuff is better handled by writing the new
footage to more than one DVD than using tape for backup.

(This is, roughly, me.)

You have always been, and always will be,
completely and utterly irrelevant when we were
discussing the backup of personal desktop systems.

He wants to make a monthly full backup and
a daily differential backup (as I do) and keep
three months of history (1/4 of what I do).

Hardly anyone wants to do anything
like that with personal desktop systems.

What makes a hell of a lot more sense WITH PERSONAL
DESKTOP SYSTEMS is to write the stuff that you'll slash
your wrists if you lose to CDRs or DVDs if its video footage,
and use an external hard drive for complete backups of the
main hard drive for minimum hassle if the main hard drive dies.
You may choose to have the external hard drive big enough
so that it can contain more than one image of the internal
drive so you can gracefully handle the situation where the
system went pear shaped for whatever reason like a virus
but it took you a while to notice that that had happened etc.

And you dont need and endless series of history with that
full backup because if the worst comes to the worst, you
can always just do a clean reinstall and the fact that that
should be an extremely rare event indeed, since you do
have more than one image on the external hard drive, thats
no more than a damned nuisance if say the house burns
down and takes the external drive as well as the PC.

His setup cost for DDS3 tape is roughly:

DDS3 tape drive (we'll assume he doesn't
buy one of the steeply discounted system
pulls available on eBay, as I did): $600

Utterly bogus. You cant compare the price of high
risk pulls with brand new full warranty burners.

And even that utterly bogus price would pay for a very large
external hard drive, and a DVD burner and a CDR burner.

And if you use the real price of a brand new full
warranty DDS3 tape drive, you would have heaps
of cash left over if you avoid the tape drive route.

10 tapes (he only needs three, but let's be generous): $30
SCSI card (we'll assume he doesn't have one): $30
Total: $660.

Totally bogus price. You aint comparing apples
with apples when that price is a high risk pull and
the others are brand new full warranty hardware.

For CD/RW's, first off, he finds that his differential
backups require two disks after about a week.

Only a fool would backup like that. We happened
to be discussing the use of AN EXTERNAL HARD
DRIVE for that full backup. The CD/RWs are only
used for the stuff you'll slash your wrist if you lose.

So he goes to weekly full backups. He
needs 31 disks for each full backup, and needs 12 sets to cover 3
months, plus an additional 72 disks to do 6 differential backups a
week, a total of 444 disks. Let's cut it close and say 450. He pays:

Typical CD/RW burner: $80

Utterly bogus. No one pays anything like that
for a brand new full warranty burner today.

450 CD/RWs at $0.86 each: $387

Utterly bogus. Anyone with a clue uses the CDRWs for
JUST the stuff you'll slash your wrists if you lose and uses
an external hard drive for the complete system backup
to all convenient recovery if the main hard drive dies.

AND that external drive costs a LOT LESS than your DDS3 tape drive.

Total: $467

So yes, the CD solution is cheaper, by about 40%. Will that compensate
our user for having to swap 31 disks to back up his system every week?

More utterly bogus silly stuff when the external hard drive avoids that.

Or for the risk of finding that one of those 31 disks is
damaged or misplaced if he ever has to do a full restore?

More utterly bogus silly stuff when the external hard drive avoids that.

I don't think so.

You obviously aint capable of rational thought.

More to the point, no one will practice a weekly
procedure which requires swapping 31 disks.

Duh. The external hard drive avoids that.

I've found that any backup system which requires manual media
changing is unworkable; most users simply will simply blow it off.

Duh. The external hard drive avoids that.

I haven't done the numbers for DVD/RWs.
I think they'll come out about the same.

And just as utterly bogus.

The device cost will be intermediate between CD and tape;
so will the cost of media and the number of disks required.

Pity you didnt even 'do the numbers' with the config being
discussed, an external hard drive to all fast and completely
automatic full backups of the main hard drive, without the
maintenance hassles that are inevitable with any tape drive,
and at a MUCH lower price than the hard drive, even if you
still use the utterly bogus high risk pull tape drives.

With the dirt cheap burner used for backup to removable
media of the stuff you'll slash your wrist if you lose, with
proper offsite backups of that crucial stuff, so that even
if the entire house burns down, its no more than a pain to
restore to the new PC that comes with the new house etc.

So, once more, in case the point has been lost in all of this fuss:

Wrong. As always. The point has always been that tape has
passed its useby date for backup OF PERSONAL DESKTOP
SYSTEMS. It now only has a place for the backup of servers etc.

the cost of backups on CDs, DVDs, and tape are very
different in some situations, not very different in others.
Waffle.

Which medium is appropriate depends largely on the user's needs.

Yep, and tape is almost never appropriate for
PERSONAL DESKTOP SYSTEMS ANYMORE.

External hard drives are MUCH BETTER VALUE, much more reliable,
much faster, etc etc etc. And a cd burner should be used AS WELL
for the stuff you'll slash your wrists if you lose, with proper offsite
storage of one copy of that stuff, in case the house burns down etc.

With a DVD burner being used instead if the volume
is high enough with say personal video footage etc.

For users who need to back up anything more a small
fraction of a modern hard disk, tape is the only viable solution.

Complete and utter pack of lies. As always from you.

 

[Lil' Dave]

I recently priced a DDS3 scsi tape drive to replace my broke Seagate NS
4/8GB scsi tape drive, just about fell out of my chair when I saw the
prices. Ack!

Tapes are cheaper. But the hardware to run it in is outrageously expensive.
Can you talk about both in the same post?
Dave

 

[Lil' Dave]

I keep a copy of the basic OS install, and four week backups in weekly
increments. Don't need a year's worth. Don't think anyone else in his
right mind does either. Most think I go overboard for home use. Do you
have any idea what kind of use of room storage area you're speaking with 450
cd/rws? Reality check, fella.
Dave