Dual Removable Drives as a Backup Solution(?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter David
  • Start date Start date
D

David

To address my ever-present worries about maintaining current backups,
I am seriously considering buying a new machine with dual removable
hard drives, and then cloning, cyclically, between the two using
Acronis True Image. Before I take this plunge though, could you kind
experts please give me your opinions on whether this approach might be
flawed?

Thank you very much, in advance, for any thoughts,
David
 
David said:
To address my ever-present worries about maintaining current backups,
I am seriously considering buying a new machine with dual removable
hard drives, and then cloning, cyclically, between the two using
Acronis True Image. Before I take this plunge though, could you kind
experts please give me your opinions on whether this approach might be
flawed?
Click to expand...


I currently backup my main partition that contains both WinXP
and data files by cloning it to a large capacity IDE hard drive mounted
in a removable tray (made by Kingwin). It works well, and I can use
the clone either as a file backup or as an emergency bootable
replacement for the main partition. If your intent is to clone the
*entire* hard drive to become the *entire* contents of another hard
drive, Acronis' True Image will do that. But if you want to clone just
one partition from the source drive and/or put the copied partition
among other existing partitions on the destination drive ( perhaps
to keep a time-series of several clones as I do), True Image cannot
do that. Ghost can do that, and Casper XP can do that. I prefer
Casper XP because it's a simpler, smaller, and more user-friendly
cloner than Ghost. Ghost requires Microsoft's .NET Framework
to be installed, it requires re-booting after cloning, and it costs more
than Casper XP. OTOH, Ghost can make image files and it can
do incremental file backups (like True Image), which Casper XP
cannot do. If you want to give Casper XP a try, you can download
a free 30-day copy from www.FSSdev.com/products/casperxp/ .

As with all Win2K/NT/XP clones, don't let the clone see its
"parent" OS when the clone is started up for the 1st time. Thereafter,
it's OK. I keep several clones (made at one or two-week intervals)
on the removable drive, and I can boot and be running with any one
of them in a couple minutes, and I like the simplicity of the method.

*TimDaniels*
 
David said:
To address my ever-present worries about maintaining current backups,
I am seriously considering buying a new machine with dual removable
hard drives, and then cloning, cyclically, between the two using
Acronis True Image. Before I take this plunge though, could you kind
experts please give me your opinions on whether this approach might be
flawed?
Click to expand...


I think it's an excellent backup scheme, and the one I use myself.

But why do you need a new machine? You can do that on any machine.
 
David said:
To address my ever-present worries about maintaining current backups,
I am seriously considering buying a new machine with dual removable
hard drives, and then cloning, cyclically, between the two using
Acronis True Image. Before I take this plunge though, could you kind
experts please give me your opinions on whether this approach might be
flawed?

Thank you very much, in advance, for any thoughts,
David
Click to expand...


David:
Just to second Timothy Daniels' support of your proposed purchase of a
desktop PC with two removable hard drives...

I can virtually guarantee that after you begin working with your system
you'll have but one regret -- and that is that you previous computer(s)
weren't so equipped. It's that good.

We've are strong proponents of equipping one's PC with two removable HDs.
We've been working with this hardware arrangement for more than six years
now and we've installed removable HDs in hundreds of machines. The
flexibility and peace of mind you achieve with this hardware arrangement can
scarcely be overemphasized.

The ATI disk imaging program you plan to use is just fine for disk-to-disk
cloning purposes. While we ourselves use the Ghost 2003 program for most of
our disk cloning operations, we have used the Acronis program as well and
have found it more or less comparable to the Ghost program in terms of ease
of use & effectiveness. We prefer to work with either a boot floppy disk or
boot CD containing the disk cloning program which we can do with the Ghost
2003 program. While you can use a boot CD containing the ATI disk cloning
program, you cannot use a floppy disk.

Another limitation of the ATI program, as Timothy pointed out, is its
inability to directly clone individual partitions from the source to the
destination drive (as you can do with the Ghost 2003 program). At least this
limitation was present in the ATI 8 program; I don't know if that limitation
is still present in the latest 9 version. But I don't think that's a serious
limitation for most users since most users perform disk-to-disk clones and
are not particularly interested in cloning individual partitions.

I trust that additional removable trays or caddies will be available for the
removable HDs ("mobile racks" as we usually call them) your computer will be
equipped with. This will give you that added flexibility I mentioned earlier
in that you can have an unlimited number of HDs at your disposal. It's an
enormous advantage as you will soon learn.
Anna
 
David said:
To address my ever-present worries about maintaining current backups,
I am seriously considering buying a new machine with dual removable
hard drives, and then cloning, cyclically, between the two using
Acronis True Image. Before I take this plunge though, could you kind
experts please give me your opinions on whether this approach might be
flawed?
Click to expand...

I concur with previous posters' comments. At present, I have two large
similar sized HDDs in my PC. I use Acronis TI each weekend to back up
from one to the other. The most important point I've learnt through hard
experience is to keep the second drive disconnected from the system!
When I dared ( many months after the XP SP2 fix was available and
stable), I d/ld the file with the second HDD attached - wiped - thanks
Billy Goat!). I also found that if I had both attached, when I decided
to remove restore points (due to the disk space being taken up), both
HDDs were being addressed at the same time! Keep it external and
unattached!

HTH
 
clot said:
I concur with previous posters' comments. At present, I have two large
similar sized HDDs in my PC. I use Acronis TI each weekend to back up from
one to the other. The most important point I've learnt through hard
experience is to keep the second drive disconnected from the system! When
I dared ( many months after the XP SP2 fix was available and stable), I
d/ld the file with the second HDD attached - wiped - thanks Billy Goat!).
I also found that if I had both attached, when I decided to remove restore
points (due to the disk space being taken up), both HDDs were being
addressed at the same time! Keep it external and unattached!

HTH
Click to expand...


David:
With respect to the above poster's comments re having both hard drives
connected during operations...

As Timothy Daniels pointed out in his previous comments, it is important
that immediately following the disk cloning operation you make the *initial*
boot of the cloned HD (the "destination" disk) with the source HD
disconnected. Obviously this is easy to achieve with removable drives since
a simple turn of the mobile rack's keylock to the OFF position is all that
is necessary. There's no need to enter the BIOS nor any other internal
physical change that's necessary. Again, a major advantage of using
removable hard drives.

After you make that initial boot to the cloned HD there should be *no*
problem thereafter regardless of whether both drives are subsequently
connected, the above poster's comments notwithstanding. To be sure, in most
cases where the cloned HD is the recipient of the clone for backup purposes,
there will usually be no need for that drive to be connected except for
subsequent cloning operations. But there is no harm if it is. Why the above
poster ran into the problems he mentioned I do not know. It certainly has
not been our experience with cloning thousands of hard drives over the
years.
Anna
 
clot said:
I concur with previous posters' comments. At present, I have two large
similar sized HDDs in my PC. I use Acronis TI each weekend to back up
from one to the other. The most important point I've learnt through
hard experience is to keep the second drive disconnected from the
system! When I dared ( many months after the XP SP2 fix was available
and stable), I d/ld the file with the second HDD attached - wiped -
thanks Billy Goat!). I also found that if I had both attached, when I
decided to remove restore points (due to the disk space being taken
up), both HDDs were being addressed at the same time! Keep it
external and unattached!
Click to expand...


..My preference is to go one step further. I not only don't want my backup
drives connected, I don't want to keep them in the computer. If the computer
is ever stolen, I don't want to lose my backups simultaneously.
 
To address my ever-present worries about maintaining current backups,
I am seriously considering buying a new machine with dual removable
hard drives, and then cloning, cyclically, between the two using
Acronis True Image. Before I take this plunge though, could you kind
experts please give me your opinions on whether this approach might be
flawed?
Click to expand...
Thank you all for taking the time to give me such detailed responses!
This indeed now seems like the way that I need to go. And I also
appreciate the precautions -- which I will certainly take to heed.

Ken, you said, "But why do you need a new machine? You can do that on
any machine." Here are my reasons -- do they hold up? First, I have
no bays left in my machine to reconfigure to a dual hard drive
capability. Then I figured, OK, I'll get an external for the backup
drive. But then I read that I probably wouldn't be able to boot from
that drive. So I finally just decided that a new machine with
identical removeables was the simplest solution. But if you can
convince me to work with my existing machine, I'm certainly willing to
listen to your ideas!

Anna, you mentioned boot floppies and/or CDs. I need to study your
response more, ( and should have done so before this post), but I'm
unclear why one should be needed. Could I not just boot from the
cloned HD, (as long as it is isolated from the parent the first time
as you instructed)? OR ... are you referring to a boot floppy/CD for
use when you are preparing to do the actual cloning process?

Thank you all again, so much,
David
 
David said:
Thank you all for taking the time to give me such detailed responses!
This indeed now seems like the way that I need to go. And I also
appreciate the precautions -- which I will certainly take to heed.

Ken, you said, "But why do you need a new machine? You can do that on
any machine." Here are my reasons -- do they hold up? First, I have
no bays left in my machine to reconfigure to a dual hard drive
capability. Then I figured, OK, I'll get an external for the backup
drive. But then I read that I probably wouldn't be able to boot from
that drive. So I finally just decided that a new machine with
identical removeables was the simplest solution. But if you can
convince me to work with my existing machine, I'm certainly willing to
listen to your ideas!

Anna, you mentioned boot floppies and/or CDs. I need to study your
response more, ( and should have done so before this post), but I'm
unclear why one should be needed. Could I not just boot from the
cloned HD, (as long as it is isolated from the parent the first time
as you instructed)? OR ... are you referring to a boot floppy/CD for
use when you are preparing to do the actual cloning process?

Thank you all again, so much,
David
Click to expand...


David:
My comment re using a boot floppy disk or boot CD was in reference to
performing the cloning operation. We enjoy the simplicity and portability of
using these forms of media since, for one thing, we frequently have occasion
to work on machines other than our own. It's just a personal preference and
there's no reason why a user cannot use the graphical Windows interface
provided by the cloning program.

Re your comment that you have no available 5 1/4" bays to install two
removable hard drives...

If you have only one 5 1/4" bay available you could install a single
removable HD in that bay and thus work with one internal HD and one
removable HD. While this arrangement would not yield the same high degree of
flexibility that one would enjoy with two removable HDs, it is a workable
solution. We've installed one removable HD in many machines.
Anna
 
Anna said:
David:
My comment re using a boot floppy disk or boot CD was in reference to
performing the cloning operation. We enjoy the simplicity and
portability of using these forms of media since, for one thing, we
frequently have occasion to work on machines other than our own. It's
just a personal preference and there's no reason why a user cannot
use the graphical Windows interface provided by the cloning program.

Re your comment that you have no available 5 1/4" bays to install two
removable hard drives...

If you have only one 5 1/4" bay available you could install a single
removable HD in that bay and thus work with one internal HD and one
removable HD. While this arrangement would not yield the same high
degree of flexibility that one would enjoy with two removable HDs, it
is a workable solution. We've installed one removable HD in many
machines. Anna
Click to expand...

I'll add to Anna's excellent suggestions - don't rely on one backup. If you
use removable or external drives get two. Better yet also use another method
of backup. Most imaging programs will also image to CD/DVD. This doesn't
have to be done as often but it has the advantage of being more portable
(can be stored somewhere safe) and also gives you more backups over time.
Use different CD/DVDs each time you use this method. If your computer
becomed infected with a virus and you create a backup before you notice the
infection your backup is now no good. If you have several older backups you
will be able to go back in time until you were not infected. That is just
one scenario.
 
David said:
Thank you all for taking the time to give me such detailed responses!
This indeed now seems like the way that I need to go. And I also
appreciate the precautions -- which I will certainly take to heed.

Ken, you said, "But why do you need a new machine? You can do that on
any machine." Here are my reasons -- do they hold up? First, I have
no bays left in my machine to reconfigure to a dual hard drive
capability. Then I figured, OK, I'll get an external for the backup
drive. But then I read that I probably wouldn't be able to boot from
that drive. So I finally just decided that a new machine with
identical removeables was the simplest solution. But if you can
convince me to work with my existing machine, I'm certainly willing to
listen to your ideas!
Click to expand...


I recommend an external USB drive (or better, two of them). They work very
well and they are easy to use. True, you can't boot from it, but there is no
need to. Just make your backups on the external drive. If the original drive
fails, you could either replace it with a backup drive or install a new
drive and restore from the backup to it.

My personal backup scheme uses two identical removable hard drives. I
alternate between the two, and use Drive Image to make a complete copy of
the primary drive.
 
Kerry said:
I'll add to Anna's excellent suggestions - don't rely on one backup.
If you use removable or external drives get two. Better yet also use
another method of backup. Most imaging programs will also image to
CD/DVD. This doesn't have to be done as often but it has the
advantage of being more portable (can be stored somewhere safe) and
also gives you more backups over time. Use different CD/DVDs each
time you use this method. If your computer becomed infected with a
virus and you create a backup before you notice the infection your
backup is now no good. If you have several older backups you will be
able to go back in time until you were not infected. That is just one
scenario.
Click to expand...


Your reason for using more than one set of backup media is a good one, but
I'll add a second scenario:With a single backup drive, the act of backing up
is also the act of destroying your only backup. If something catastophic
happens while you are backing up (for example, a newby lightning strike) you
can lose everything simultaneously.
 
Your reason for using more than one set of backup media is a good
one, but I'll add a second scenario:With a single backup drive, the
act of backing up is also the act of destroying your only backup. If
something catastophic happens while you are backing up (for example,
a newby lightning strike) you can lose everything simultaneously.
Click to expand...

There are many reasons why multiple backups are the way to go. I tell
customers to forget about the term backup and instead use disaster recovery
planning. Then it comes down to what do you need to recover and how long can
it take to recover it. For most home users it's data and several days to
weeks may be acceptable. For some businesses that same plan could put them
out of business. The whole point is to have a plan.
 
Ken Blake said:
Your reason for using more than one set of backup media is a good one, but
I'll add a second scenario:With a single backup drive, the act of backing
up is also the act of destroying your only backup. If something
catastophic happens while you are backing up (for example, a newby
lightning strike) you can lose everything simultaneously.
Click to expand...


David (the OP) and others who might be interested in removable HDs:
Let me just add my thoughts to the above...

The beauty of equipping one's desktop PC with removable HDs - preferably two
as we have discussed - is that there's really no need for any additional
external HD such as a USB/Firewire external HD for backup purposes. Because
the mobile rack contains a removable tray or caddy that contains the HD, you
have available an *unlimited* number of these trays to house an *unlimited*
number of hard drives. Thus, if you wish, you can have an *unlimited* number
of backups by creating multiple clones of this or that HD, and each one can
easily be transported off the premises should that be one's desire.
Anna
 
Anna said:
The beauty of equipping one's desktop PC with removable HDs -
preferably two as we have discussed - is that there's really no need
for any additional external HD such as a USB/Firewire external HD for
backup purposes. Because the mobile rack contains a removable tray or
caddy that contains the HD, you have available an *unlimited* number
of these trays to house an *unlimited* number of hard drives. Thus,
if you wish, you can have an *unlimited* number of backups by
creating multiple clones of this or that HD, and each one can easily
be transported off the premises should that be one's desire.
Click to expand...


However, the disadvantage of using the kind of removable racks you suggest
is that inserting or removing a drive while the system is running is
dangerous, and can damage the equipment. For that reason, I prefer USB
extenal drives, which have all the same advantages that you point out,
without that danger.
 
However, the disadvantage of using the kind of removable racks you suggest
is that inserting or removing a drive while the system is running is
dangerous, and can damage the equipment. For that reason, I prefer USB
extenal drives, which have all the same advantages that you point out,
without that danger.
Click to expand...

Think again, I've seen a USB external drive take down servers every
couple months. I've also seen portable USB drives that don't have their
own power, fault a system and take it down.
 
Ken Blake said:
However, the disadvantage of using the kind of removable racks you suggest
is that inserting or removing a drive while the system is running is
dangerous, and can damage the equipment. For that reason, I prefer USB
extenal drives, which have all the same advantages that you point out,
without that danger.
Click to expand...


Ken:
Actually, in all the years we've been involved in working with removable
hard drives I'm hard-pressed to think of a single incident where inserting
or removing a running removable HD caused physical damage to either the
drive or any component of the system. No doubt the potential is there but
after thousands of hours of working with removable drives we've never
experienced this problem. Have we experienced possible data corruption/loss
as a consequence of inadvertently removing a running HD? You bet. Always a
possibility.

In any event, in my opinion, in no way should this possibility dissuade a
user from using removable hard drives rather than USB/Firewire external hard
drives for systematic backup purposes as has been previously described.
Anna
 
Anna said:
Ken:
Actually, in all the years we've been involved in working with
removable hard drives I'm hard-pressed to think of a single incident
where inserting or removing a running removable HD caused physical
damage to either the drive or any component of the system. No doubt
the potential is there but after thousands of hours of working with
removable drives we've never experienced this problem. Have we
experienced possible data corruption/loss as a consequence of
inadvertently removing a running HD? You bet. Always a possibility.

In any event, in my opinion, in no way should this possibility
dissuade a user from using removable hard drives rather than
USB/Firewire external hard drives for systematic backup purposes as
has been previously described. Anna
Click to expand...



I'm glad to hear that you haven't had problems, but I know others who have.
My opinion is the opposite of yours, because that possibility does exist,
even if it's small..I used to use them myself, and they worked fine, but I
was very careful not to insert or remove them while running.

Besides, I just don't see any reason these days to prefer them over USB
drives. Considering that the price is roughly the same, the speed is
comparable, and they are both easy to use, why run any such risk at all?
Bear in mind that you don't even have to buy special USB drives. You can buy
a USB enclosure and very easily install a standard IDE drive in it yourself.
And the price of the USB enclosure is only very slightly higher than a
slide-in rack.

One additional point: I've also seen/heard of several examples of the
inexpensive slide-in IDE racks failing and having to be replaced. I've never
heard of a USB enclosure failing.
 
Anna said:
David (the OP) and others who might be interested in removable HDs:
Let me just add my thoughts to the above...

The beauty of equipping one's desktop PC with removable HDs -
preferably two as we have discussed - is that there's really no need
for any additional external HD such as a USB/Firewire external HD for
backup purposes. Because the mobile rack contains a removable tray or
caddy that contains the HD, you have available an *unlimited* number
of these trays to house an *unlimited* number of hard drives. Thus,
if you wish, you can have an *unlimited* number of backups by
creating multiple clones of this or that HD, and each one can easily
be transported off the premises should that be one's desire. Anna
Click to expand...

While I agree that multiple hard drives is a good idea it starts to get
expensive with more than two. With a weekly backup to CD/DVD complemented by
one or two removable or external drives daily you have a fairly inexpensive
history to fall back on if something goes wrong. I am firm believer of not
putting all your eggs in one basket. I have seen too many situations where
data was lost even though daily backups were done. The backups were done to
the same set of media over and over with no testing. If your data is
important you need multiple backups. You may need to be able to go back more
than a couple of days. For a home user this can be as simple as copying your
pictures to a new CD once a month. For a business it could mean hourly
backups to a network device and daily backups to tape. It is all dependent
on how important the data is and how often it changes.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with your solution. It is a good one. It may not
be suitable for all situations.
 
Ken Blake said:
I'm glad to hear that you haven't had problems, but I know others who
have. My opinion is the opposite of yours, because that possibility does
exist, even if it's small..I used to use them myself, and they worked
fine, but I was very careful not to insert or remove them while running.

Besides, I just don't see any reason these days to prefer them over USB
drives. Considering that the price is roughly the same, the speed is
comparable, and they are both easy to use, why run any such risk at all?
Bear in mind that you don't even have to buy special USB drives. You can
buy a USB enclosure and very easily install a standard IDE drive in it
yourself. And the price of the USB enclosure is only very slightly higher
than a slide-in rack.

One additional point: I've also seen/heard of several examples of the
inexpensive slide-in IDE racks failing and having to be replaced. I've
never heard of a USB enclosure failing.
Click to expand...


I would guess that over the past five years or so we have installed, or
helped to install, removable HD systems in desktop PCs for more than 100
small to medium-sized businesses. And hundreds more for home users.

I can't recall a *single* failure of the backup system using these removable
HDs that was attributable to some basic failure of the removable HD backup
system and because the user failed to employ an additional external backup
device such as a USB external HD. While we have experienced instances where
a mobile rack containing the HD became defective, I can't think of a single
instance where the data on the drive was adversely affected or the HD itself
became damaged as a consequence of a defective rack. I might add that given
the number of removable HDs we have installed or helped to install over the
years, the frequency of these mobile racks becoming defective has been
relatively negligible. And we have worked with a fairly wide variety of
these mobile racks, including all-plastic and plastic-aluminum models as
well as all-alluminum ones. Based on my experience, the fear of a removable
HD rack becoming defective and jepordizing one's data should not be a major
consideration for any user contemplating using these devices. They are no
more prone to becoming defective than any other PC component.

And Ken, if you have "never heard of a USB enclosure failing", boy, is your
experience different from ours! Over the past three years or so the failure
of USB external HD enclosures has practically reached endemic proportions in
our experience. Hardly a week had gone by in the computer repair shop where
I worked last year where we didn't encounter at least one or two such
defective devices. And we've received many reports from our colleagues over
the alarming defective rate of these USBEHD enclosures.

Simply stated, assuming the user routinely & systematically backs up his or
her system using a disk imaging program to clone the contents of one
removable HD to another removable HD, there is, in my opinion, no need for
additional backup devices such as USB or Firewire external hard drives. As I
previously stated, should the user determine multiple clones are necessary
or desirable for supplemental backup safety's sake, then he or she is
certainly encouraged to create such using additional removable HDs.
Anna
 
Back
Top