Ping Anna: Re: Removable Hard Drives for Backup

[David]

Hi Anna, (and anyone else interested),

I initiated a couple of threads almost a year ago, addressed to you, since
you were a long-time advocate of removable HDs as a backup solution.

I just wanted to give feedback, that (after a number of false starts), I
was finally able to get such a system built, have been using it for nearly
six months now, and am very happy with it. I now have three bootable hard
drives, each as a successive clone of the previous. The stress relief that
this has provided is nearly on par with that of Beefeater's gin. <g>

I have come up with a question in the interim though. (I don't in any way
wish to cast doubt on the RHD cloning approach, because at its worst it
would still be far better than what I was doing before.)

But my question is this: Since this approach is effectively that of making
a copy, of a copy, of a copy, ... ad infinitum; what might be the
likelihood of error propagation? I am not even clear whether cloning
software verifies each read/write cycle? (Although even that would not
completely answer the question.)

Can you, or someone please enlighten me on this issue?

Thank you very much,
David

 

[Guest]

But my question is this: Since this approach is effectively that of making
a copy, of a copy, of a copy, ... ad infinitum; what might be the
likelihood of error propagation? I am not even clear whether cloning
software verifies each read/write cycle? (Although even that would not
completely answer the question.)

Hi David,

First off, why are you cloning from cloned drives? Do you need more than
one backup? If so, why not clone again from the original?

Second, yes, most imaging (cloning) software has the ability to "verify" the
"image" (cloned copy). It may be set by default to do that, or you may have
to enable it as one of the options. This should reduce the chance of any
errors occuring.

Keep in mind this limitation: A drive image is only good for use in the
*same* computer system that you took the image from. You shouldn't count on
this image to work in another computer system. That's why frequent backups
(or images) are also needed, in case you want to just restore important files
to a new computer.

Best Wishes,
Kurosh

 

[David]

First off, why are you cloning from cloned drives? Do you need more than
one backup? If so, why not clone again from the original?

Sorry Kurosh, I wasn't very clear was I? I have three, only three, hard
drives, and they are all removable. (Well, to be more precise, only two
bays, but three drives.) So at any time, the RHD that is currently in my
"C" bay *is* my "original", working drive. Periodically, I clone from C to
D, set C aside for safekeeping, and move D to the C position and it now
becomes my new working drive. Then, on the next cloning cycle, I clone from
it to the third RHD which has been inserted into the D bay. I continue to
cycle these three RHDs in this manner, so that there are always three
bootable drives, each of successively later "vintage".

So that is my concern. Each vintage is a derivative of its parent. So,
over time, errors could possibly be induced and propagated, almost in a
genetic sense. I am just wondering, what is the likelihood of backup
failures, over time, using this cloning procedure; as compared with backup
failures using the more traditional approaches?

Do you have any intuitions?

Thanks again,
David

 

[Guest]

So that is my concern. Each vintage is a derivative of its parent. So,
over time, errors could possibly be induced and propagated, almost in a
genetic sense. I am just wondering, what is the likelihood of backup
failures, over time, using this cloning procedure; as compared with backup
failures using the more traditional approaches?

Do you have any intuitions?

Hi David,

It's true that errors could be introduced and propagated. However, the fact
that you are using three drives gives you a lot more breathing space than
most people. First off, Windows has built-in system checks that ensure that
Windows is operable. Next, there is "System Restore" (hope you have that
enabled), which allows you to go back in time to a point before problems
started. And, you're using drive imaging, which allows you to restore your
computer to a fully functional state, even if the current "primary" drive
fails. My only question is, why rotate the drives? Why not use one
"primary" drive, and then image onto the other two drives (as desired)?

As far as how "stable" this system is, compared to other (traditional)
apporaches, this is definitely a lot more stable. Tape or CD/DVD backups are
a lot more error-prone than hard drives. Also, the speed factor is a big
plus; using a hard drive is much faster than other media types. Again, if
you "verify" your backups, you've added another layer of certitude that your
backups are as good as the current system.

A "proper" backup system, in my view, comprises various elements:

1. Drive images (periodically), especially when there are system changes --
new software, hardware, etc. The more images you make, the farther back in
time you can go. There's not much point in going too far back in time, as
you will have to do a lot of work to restore all the programs and hardware
drivers since then; if that becomes necessary, better to start from a "clean
install".

2. Full and incremental (or differential) backups of all data you want to
keep -- a drive image will bring you back from a "crash" fairly quickly, but
you'll lose anything that wasn't backed up since the last image was made.
Backups provide security from file corruption or accidental deletion, and
should be done often enough to satisfy this question: "How far back can I
comfortably go if I lose an important file?" (i.e. one day, one week, one
month, etc.)

3. If possible, "redundancy" in hardware parts -- such as RAID on your hard
drives, spare parts for your computer, etc. Whereas a drive image allows you
to restore a system quickly, anything that happened since the last image was
made will be gone (or will have to be restored from a backup). Having a RAID
system (like RAID 1, or "mirroring") keeps two or more drives in synch -- if
one fails, the other(s) can bring you back to a fully functional system which
is the exact same as when the failure occured. Of course, if there was some
corruption that caused the failure, that corruption would be propogated to
the other RAID drive(s) -- hence the need for a drive image from before the
corruption was introduced.

Best Wishes,
Kurosh

 

[Anna]

Hi Anna, (and anyone else interested),

I initiated a couple of threads almost a year ago, addressed to you,
since you were a long-time advocate of removable HDs as a backup
solution.

I just wanted to give feedback, that (after a number of false starts), I
was finally able to get such a system built, have been using it for
nearly six months now, and am very happy with it. I now have three
bootable hard drives, each as a successive clone of the previous. The >
stress relief that this has provided is nearly on par with that of
Beefeater's gin. <g>

I have come up with a question in the interim though. (I don't in any
way wish to cast doubt on the RHD cloning approach, because at its
worst it would still be far better than what I was doing before.)

But my question is this: Since this approach is effectively that of
making a copy, of a copy, of a copy, ... ad infinitum; what might be the
likelihood of error propagation? I am not even clear whether cloning
software verifies each read/write cycle? (Although even that would >
not completely answer the question.)

Can you, or someone please enlighten me on this issue?

Thank you very much,
David

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:46:01 -0700, Kurosh

First off, why are you cloning from cloned drives? Do you need more >
than one backup? If so, why not clone again from the original?

Sorry Kurosh, I wasn't very clear was I? I have three, only three, hard
drives, and they are all removable. (Well, to be more precise, only two
bays, but three drives.) So at any time, the RHD that is currently in my
"C" bay *is* my "original", working drive. Periodically, I clone from > C
to D, set C aside for safekeeping, and move D to the C position and > it
now becomes my new working drive. Then, on the next cloning
cycle, I clone from it to the third RHD which has been inserted into the >
D bay. I continue to cycle these three RHDs in this manner, so that
there are always three bootable drives, each of successively later
"vintage".

So that is my concern. Each vintage is a derivative of its parent. So,
over time, errors could possibly be induced and propagated, almost in > a
genetic sense. I am just wondering, what is the likelihood of backup
failures, over time, using this cloning procedure; as compared with
backup failures using the more traditional approaches?

Do you have any intuitions?

Thanks again,
David

David:
I'm glad to hear, although not terribly surprised, that you've found the use
of removable hard drives a most desirable hardware configuration for a
desktop PC.

We've been using removable hard drives now for nearly seven years and have
installed or helped to install hundreds - perhaps more than a thousand - of
these devices over the years. Virtually every user who has experienced the
day-to-day use of RHDs - given the choice - would never go back to the world
of internal fixed HDDs. In most cases their only regret is that they did not
install these devices earlier. The flexibility and peace of mind one enjoys
through the use of removable hard drives cannot be overestimated.

As to your specific query re whether there's a possibility of the disk
cloning (or disk imaging) process introducing corruption in one form or
another due to multiple disk clones of disk clones (or multiple disk images
of disk images), all I can tell you is that we've never experienced that
phenomena, i.e., system files corruption, working with a fairly large
variety of disk imaging programs over the years. We, as well as many others,
do have occasion from time to time to create multiple disk clones of disk
clones for one reason or another and I can't recall a single problem arising
from this process that we could trace back to some anomaly in the disk
cloning process that would cause such a problem. So I don't think there's a
cause for concern in this area for you or the typical PC user.

As to your specific use of your three removable HDDs in the manner you set
forth - I find it a most reasonable process for backing up your system
through the use of creating multiple disk clones, assuming for one reason or
another you desire to create a generational disk clone at some particular
point in time. If you did not have this "desire", then (as Kurosh infers)
you would simply clone the contents of your current day-to-day working HDD
to one or the other of your two removable HDDs.

I assume you prefer to create disk clones rather than create disk images.
That's fine, of course, but you might want to experiment with the disk
imaging process for backup purposes. I believe you're working with the
Acronis True Image program, are you not? That program lends itself well to
the disk imaging process. The great advantage of creating disk images rather
than disk clones is the ability to create incremental backups in a fraction
of the time it takes to create a disk clone. So that's a strong incentive
for the user to routinely back up his or her system.

I've covered both the Acronis True Image disk cloning - disk imaging
processes in step-by-step instructions which I posted a number of times in
various MS XP newsgroups including this one. I believe you've seen it, yes?
But if not, and you (or anyone) would like to take a look at it I'll be glad
to post them again.
Anna

 

[David]

Hi David,

It's true that errors could be introduced and propagated. However, the fact
that you are using three drives gives you a lot more breathing space than
most people. First off, Windows has built-in system checks that ensure that
Windows is operable. Next, there is "System Restore" (hope you have that
enabled), which allows you to go back in time to a point before problems
started. And, you're using drive imaging, which allows you to restore your
computer to a fully functional state, even if the current "primary" drive
fails. My only question is, why rotate the drives? Why not use one
"primary" drive, and then image onto the other two drives (as desired)?

As far as how "stable" this system is, compared to other (traditional)
apporaches, this is definitely a lot more stable. Tape or CD/DVD backups are
a lot more error-prone than hard drives. Also, the speed factor is a big
plus; using a hard drive is much faster than other media types. Again, if
you "verify" your backups, you've added another layer of certitude that your
backups are as good as the current system.

A "proper" backup system, in my view, comprises various elements:

1. Drive images (periodically), especially when there are system changes --
new software, hardware, etc. The more images you make, the farther back in
time you can go. There's not much point in going too far back in time, as
you will have to do a lot of work to restore all the programs and hardware
drivers since then; if that becomes necessary, better to start from a "clean
install".

2. Full and incremental (or differential) backups of all data you want to
keep -- a drive image will bring you back from a "crash" fairly quickly, but
you'll lose anything that wasn't backed up since the last image was made.
Backups provide security from file corruption or accidental deletion, and
should be done often enough to satisfy this question: "How far back can I
comfortably go if I lose an important file?" (i.e. one day, one week, one
month, etc.)

3. If possible, "redundancy" in hardware parts -- such as RAID on your hard
drives, spare parts for your computer, etc. Whereas a drive image allows you
to restore a system quickly, anything that happened since the last image was
made will be gone (or will have to be restored from a backup). Having a RAID
system (like RAID 1, or "mirroring") keeps two or more drives in synch -- if
one fails, the other(s) can bring you back to a fully functional system which
is the exact same as when the failure occured. Of course, if there was some
corruption that caused the failure, that corruption would be propogated to
the other RAID drive(s) -- hence the need for a drive image from before the
corruption was introduced.

Best Wishes,
Kurosh

Thank you for your helpful reply, Kurosh.

I have re-read it several times, to be sure that I have assimilated
everything. I understand and agree with everything you have said, except
that I don't understand the reasoning behind your question:

My only question is, why rotate the drives? Why not use one
"primary" drive, and then image onto the other two drives (as desired)?

My reasons for rotating the drives are pretty simple, (and therefore maybe
too simple-minded):

1) This seemed like a pretty straightforward routine, that I could perform
almost mechanically. Knowing my own nature, if I try to get too cute,
(which I unfortunately often do), then I will probably mess the whole thing
up. Currently, a full cloning operation of my entire RHD takes only about
seven minutes, so I haven't yet felt the need to try incremental or
differential backups.

2) HDDs do fail on occasion, (though I myself have not yet personally
experienced that misfortune). But I felt that by rotating the drives I
might reduce the possiblity of this failure mode. In fact, carrying this
thought even further, I usually keep the D drive turned off, except when
performing a cloning operation from C to D.

These are my simple-minded reasons; however if you have some different
ideas, I would certainly be ready to listen to them.

Best regards,
David

 

[David]

David:
I'm glad to hear, although not terribly surprised, that you've found the use
of removable hard drives a most desirable hardware configuration for a
desktop PC.

We've been using removable hard drives now for nearly seven years and have
installed or helped to install hundreds - perhaps more than a thousand - of
these devices over the years. Virtually every user who has experienced the
day-to-day use of RHDs - given the choice - would never go back to the world
of internal fixed HDDs. In most cases their only regret is that they did not
install these devices earlier. The flexibility and peace of mind one enjoys
through the use of removable hard drives cannot be overestimated.

As to your specific query re whether there's a possibility of the disk
cloning (or disk imaging) process introducing corruption in one form or
another due to multiple disk clones of disk clones (or multiple disk images
of disk images), all I can tell you is that we've never experienced that
phenomena, i.e., system files corruption, working with a fairly large
variety of disk imaging programs over the years. We, as well as many others,
do have occasion from time to time to create multiple disk clones of disk
clones for one reason or another and I can't recall a single problem arising
from this process that we could trace back to some anomaly in the disk
cloning process that would cause such a problem. So I don't think there's a
cause for concern in this area for you or the typical PC user.

As to your specific use of your three removable HDDs in the manner you set
forth - I find it a most reasonable process for backing up your system
through the use of creating multiple disk clones, assuming for one reason or
another you desire to create a generational disk clone at some particular
point in time. If you did not have this "desire", then (as Kurosh infers)
you would simply clone the contents of your current day-to-day working HDD
to one or the other of your two removable HDDs.

I assume you prefer to create disk clones rather than create disk images.
That's fine, of course, but you might want to experiment with the disk
imaging process for backup purposes. I believe you're working with the
Acronis True Image program, are you not? That program lends itself well to
the disk imaging process. The great advantage of creating disk images rather
than disk clones is the ability to create incremental backups in a fraction
of the time it takes to create a disk clone. So that's a strong incentive
for the user to routinely back up his or her system.

I've covered both the Acronis True Image disk cloning - disk imaging
processes in step-by-step instructions which I posted a number of times in
various MS XP newsgroups including this one. I believe you've seen it, yes?
But if not, and you (or anyone) would like to take a look at it I'll be glad
to post them again.
Anna

Hi Anna,

Nice to hear from you, and thank you for your always helpful replies.

I hope that I have clarified some of my thoughts in my above response to
Kurosh. I'll try not to be repititious here.

Re your point:

assuming for one reason or
another you desire to create a generational disk clone at some particular
point in time.

I have found that making a "generational clone" is most comforting after I
have made major changes or additions to data files, but before installing
new software program files. For me, pragmatically, this seems to work
better than trying to stick to a fixed calendar schedule.

You are correct, Acronis True Image -- good memory! To be precise, I had
to shelve my copy of A/TI v. 8.0, because it wouldn't handle the new SATA
drives. So I am currently using a temporary floppy of Ghost 2003, provided
by my system builder. However, I plan to order the latest version of
Acronis as soon as I can get to it. (That is, unless you might have a
different recommendation -- which is one of the questions that I wanted to
ask you.)

Yes, indeed, I have seen your step-by-step instructions; and in fact
printed them. But that was almost a year ago. If you have updated them
since, I would like to see them; and perhaps they would be helpful to
others as well.

Thank you very much,
David

 

[Anna]

(SNIP)

Hi Anna,

Nice to hear from you, and thank you for your always helpful replies.

I hope that I have clarified some of my thoughts in my above response to
Kurosh. I'll try not to be repititious here.

Re your point:

I have found that making a "generational clone" is most comforting after I
have made major changes or additions to data files, but before installing
new software program files. For me, pragmatically, this seems to work
better than trying to stick to a fixed calendar schedule.

You are correct, Acronis True Image -- good memory! To be precise, I had
to shelve my copy of A/TI v. 8.0, because it wouldn't handle the new SATA
drives. So I am currently using a temporary floppy of Ghost 2003,
provided by my system builder. However, I plan to order the latest
version of
Acronis as soon as I can get to it. (That is, unless you might have a
different recommendation -- which is one of the questions that I wanted to
ask you.)

Yes, indeed, I have seen your step-by-step instructions; and in fact
printed them. But that was almost a year ago. If you have updated them
since, I would like to see them; and perhaps they would be helpful to
others as well.

Thank you very much,
David

David:
First of all, I do hope that anyone coming upon this thread will investigate
the use of of removable hard drives for their desktop computer(s),
particularly if they are not familiar with those devices. Equipping one's
desktop PC with one or two removable hard drives is such a desirable
hardware configuration for many, if not most PC users that it's a real pity
that only a small fraction of users do so equip their desktop PCs in this
fashion. I've previously provided details on this and similar newsgroups re
installing & using removable HDDs and I'll be glad to do so again should
anyone be interested.

We've just about discontinued our day-to-day use of the Ghost 2003 program,
preferring to use the Acronis True Image program instead. Most of our
contacts have done the same. But I must admit that using the Ghost 2003
bootable floppy disk for creating disk clones still has an appeal for us. So
whatever suits you.

We've been using the ATI v9 program for the most part for both disk cloning
& disk imaging. We really haven't found any significant differences between
the ATI v9 or v10 programs as they involve these two areas - with respect to
both the backup & restoration processes. Some users have reported increased
backup cloning speed with the v10 program but we haven't experienced that to
any degree.

We have been using the Acronis program more & more for disk imaging rather
than disk cloning. The (significant) advantage here is the greater speed of
creating incremental disk images as opposed to creating a disk clone (as
I've stated previously).

I do know that over time I've made some changes (mostly minor, editorial
ones) in the step-by-step instructions for using the ATI program. I'll post
them again in this newsgroup as a separate post rather than add to the
length of this one.

I should add that recently we've been working with the Casper 4.0 disk
cloning program and we've been quite impressed with that program - at least
so far. (Tim Daniels - take note!).

Based on our experience to date we find there are two important advantages
of the Casper 4.0 program as compared with other disk cloning/disk imaging
programs...
1. The program is extremely easy to use - there's virtually no "learning
curve" involved, and,
2. Most importantly - the program incorporates what Casper calls a
"SmartClone technology", the upshot of which is the ability to create
incremental disk clones (*not* disk images) and do so in far less time than
it would take to create a disk clone with other disk cloning/disk imaging
programs. So the user would be creating a disk clone that is bootable &
where all data on the disk is immediately accessible. While other
similar-type programs, e.g., Acronis, have the capability of creating
incremental disk images with about the same rate of speed, with Casper there
is no need for any recovery/restoration process to create a bootable,
functional HDD. It's already at hand as a disk clone. A not-insignificant
advantage given the speed in which an "incremental disk clone" can be
created by the program.

The Casper program is not particularly cheap. As far as I know the program
is available only through direct download from the developer -
http://www.fssdev.com/ for $49.95 (single-license). And this does not
include the "Startup Disk" which costs an additional $9.95 and which would
be important, if not vital, for the user to have.

They do have a 30-day trial available, although this does not include the
"Startup Disk" program. See http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/trial/

You (and others) might want to give that Casper program a try.
Anna

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per David:

2) HDDs do fail on occasion, (though I myself have not yet personally
experienced that misfortune). But I felt that by rotating the drives I
might reduce the possiblity of this failure mode. In fact, carrying this
thought even further, I usually keep the D drive turned off, except when
performing a cloning operation from C to D.

I mentioned this in another thread yesterday....but here goes:

Try to keep one drive stored somewhere that you cannot get to it
conveniently/readily.

Reason: USB cards can go bad and fry drives. I had this happen to me and I'd
toasted almost all of my backups before it dawned on me what was happening.

Now I always keep at least one drive offsite with the mental reservation that in
a backup situation, it will never, *ever* be plugged into the suspect PC until
it's been backed up somewhere else.

 

[David]

[Big Snip]

David:
First of all, I do hope that anyone coming upon this thread will investigate
the use of of removable hard drives for their desktop computer(s),
particularly if they are not familiar with those devices. Equipping one's
desktop PC with one or two removable hard drives is such a desirable
hardware configuration for many, if not most PC users that it's a real pity
that only a small fraction of users do so equip their desktop PCs in this
fashion. I've previously provided details on this and similar newsgroups re
installing & using removable HDDs and I'll be glad to do so again should
anyone be interested.

We've just about discontinued our day-to-day use of the Ghost 2003 program,
preferring to use the Acronis True Image program instead. Most of our
contacts have done the same. But I must admit that using the Ghost 2003
bootable floppy disk for creating disk clones still has an appeal for us. So
whatever suits you.

We've been using the ATI v9 program for the most part for both disk cloning
& disk imaging. We really haven't found any significant differences between
the ATI v9 or v10 programs as they involve these two areas - with respect to
both the backup & restoration processes. Some users have reported increased
backup cloning speed with the v10 program but we haven't experienced that to
any degree.

We have been using the Acronis program more & more for disk imaging rather
than disk cloning. The (significant) advantage here is the greater speed of
creating incremental disk images as opposed to creating a disk clone (as
I've stated previously).

I do know that over time I've made some changes (mostly minor, editorial
ones) in the step-by-step instructions for using the ATI program. I'll post
them again in this newsgroup as a separate post rather than add to the
length of this one.

I should add that recently we've been working with the Casper 4.0 disk
cloning program and we've been quite impressed with that program - at least
so far. (Tim Daniels - take note!).

Based on our experience to date we find there are two important advantages
of the Casper 4.0 program as compared with other disk cloning/disk imaging
programs...
1. The program is extremely easy to use - there's virtually no "learning
curve" involved, and,
2. Most importantly - the program incorporates what Casper calls a
"SmartClone technology", the upshot of which is the ability to create
incremental disk clones (*not* disk images) and do so in far less time than
it would take to create a disk clone with other disk cloning/disk imaging
programs. So the user would be creating a disk clone that is bootable &
where all data on the disk is immediately accessible. While other
similar-type programs, e.g., Acronis, have the capability of creating
incremental disk images with about the same rate of speed, with Casper there
is no need for any recovery/restoration process to create a bootable,
functional HDD. It's already at hand as a disk clone. A not-insignificant
advantage given the speed in which an "incremental disk clone" can be
created by the program.

The Casper program is not particularly cheap. As far as I know the program
is available only through direct download from the developer -
http://www.fssdev.com/ for $49.95 (single-license). And this does not
include the "Startup Disk" which costs an additional $9.95 and which would
be important, if not vital, for the user to have.

They do have a 30-day trial available, although this does not include the
"Startup Disk" program. See http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/trial/

You (and others) might want to give that Casper program a try.
Anna

Thank you very much for the additional feedback, Anna.

I will look forward to your updated "step-by-step" for Acronis, and

I will also check out Casper.

Best regards,
David

 

[David]

Per David:

I mentioned this in another thread yesterday....but here goes:

Try to keep one drive stored somewhere that you cannot get to it
conveniently/readily.

Reason: USB cards can go bad and fry drives. I had this happen to me and I'd
toasted almost all of my backups before it dawned on me what was happening.

Now I always keep at least one drive offsite with the mental reservation that in
a backup situation, it will never, *ever* be plugged into the suspect PC until
it's been backed up somewhere else.

Good to know this Pete. Actually, in my particular situation I do not have
any USB cards -- but that may be a real possibility in the future.

I have certainly had some USB issues with other devices...