Backup program needed
in [Windows XP]
|
From: Bill in Co on 1 Aug 2010 23:47 VanguardLH wrote: > Bill in Co wrote: > >> VanguardLH wrote: >>> Henry wrote: >>> >>>> Running WinXP Pro SP2 on Dell with 3G CPU and 2G RAM. >>>> >>>> I bought a Seagate external hard drive for backup purposes and now I'm >>>> looking for a good backup program. The one that came with the Seagate >>>> isn't very good because it makes you backup on a schedule rather than >>>> when you want and Microsoft's SyncToy is worthless because I don't >>>> have all of my folders under My Documents so I have to make folder >>>> pairs for each folder. >>>> >>>> If there is something free out there that would be great. I'd like to >>>> be able to have the program run and only change the folders/files that >>>> have changed since the last time I backed up. >>> >>> http://www.paragon-software.com/home/db-express/ >>> >>> Doesn't do incremental image backups but will do differential image >>> backups. >>> >>> If you have 5 incremental backups since the prior full backup, all 6 >>> backups must be available and usable to do the image restore; i.e., you >>> need full + incr1 + incr2 + incr3 + incr4 + incr5. Incrementals consume >>> the least disk space but only record the changes made since the prior >>> incremental backup. The longer the chain of backups the more vulnerable >>> you are to loss if one of the incrementals is not usable. >>> >>> Differentials track changes made since the full backup, not from a prior >>> incremental or differential backup. Differentials consume more space >>> than incrementals but are smaller than full backups. Each differential >>> backup gets progressively larger since it records changes between now >>> and the last full backup. Restore only need 2 backups: full + diff. >>> >>> Other free imaging programs usually only let you save full images. >>> Paragon is the only that I know of (so far) where its free version also >>> does something less than a full image, like a differential. I don't >>> know of a free one that does incremental image backups. >> >> But why bother with the incremental or differential backups, and their >> limitations as mentioned, if a full and complete image backup only takes >> about 10 minutes (at least over here, for 20 GB of data on C:). > > A full image consumes more disk space. If you are doing backups, it is > highly unlikely that you want only 1 backup. If all you want is 1 > backup than use cloning. Typically you want a history of backups from > which to choose. For example, if you find that you are infected, it is > likely that several of your backups may be just as infected and you have > to walk back further to find a clean backup. Well, the more disk space > that gets consumed per backup means the less backups you can store on > your storage media for those backups. Incremental and differential > backups give you a greater depth in history of backups from which to > select a restore. Despite being cheap[er], disk space isn't free. If > getting more into the same size storage constrainment wasn't an issue, > utilities to compress multiple files into a .zip, .tar, .rar or other > archival filetype would never had showed up. I keep several generational image backups (spanning over a year or so) on one drive, and use a full complete standalone image backup each time (about 20 GB). Typically each night I just overwrite the previous day's backup IF I know it's clean. But I also have a few somewhat older (a month or two ago) backups on that drive, too, just to cover myself. I guess it comes down to this: how many backups (and going back how far) is normally enough? I'd say that a half dozen, spanning a year, would do it, so disk space isn't much of an issue (5 backups, even at 20 GB, is only 100 GB). And after awhile, it's a simple housekeeping matter to remove the very oldest image backups (like a year old), which you'll never use again anyway. I guess the tradeoff is: would you rather put up with the limitations and potential liabilities of using incrementals and differentials, or rather have a full and complete (and fresh standalone) single image backup (admitedly with the disadvantage of having some fewer backups to fall back on).
From: Daave on 2 Aug 2010 19:45 Bill in Co wrote: > I guess the tradeoff is: would you rather put up with the > limitations and potential liabilities of using incrementals and > differentials, or rather have a full and complete (and fresh > standalone) single image backup (admitedly with the disadvantage of > having some fewer backups to fall back on). As long as the backup archives are validated, I would always opt for more backups.
From: Bill in Co on 2 Aug 2010 21:36 Daave wrote: > Bill in Co wrote: > >> I guess the tradeoff is: would you rather put up with the >> limitations and potential liabilities of using incrementals and >> differentials, or rather have a full and complete (and fresh >> standalone) single image backup (admitedly with the disadvantage of >> having some fewer backups to fall back on). > > As long as the backup archives are validated, I would always opt for > more backups. OK, we'll have to differ on this one. I'd rather use and rely on the completely self contained and standalone single composite image files, rather than use and rely on any "hybrids" (i.e., relying on multiple incrementals or differentials). Sure seems safer to me. (and besides, the last thing I want to due is depend on or keep track of incrementals or differentials). But another price I pay for this is, of course, that it takes longer to write out a completely new image backup file, but then again, at 10 minutes (for 20 GB), I can sure wait. :-)
From: Doum on 5 Aug 2010 08:23 "choro" <choro(a)tvco.net> �crivait news:Mdf5o.26626$pj7.14261(a)hurricane: <snip> > But I feel it is now time to switch over to the new computer I have > built for myself as the motherboard on my old faithful won't support > SATA drives. The new motherboard is equipped with a fast four-core AMD > CPU as well as a very fast DDR3 graphics card plus a generous 4 GB > DDR3 RAM. My old faithful will only take PATA HDs, AGP graphics cards > and much slower memory modules. But it still is my old faithful and I > am finding it hard to switch over to my newer computer. I guess I am > put off by having to reinstall all the programs I have already > installed on my old faithful and all the tweaks I have made on my old > faithful which incidentally is now a full 10 years old. It was and > remains my first true love! > > I also have to admit that I am so happy with my Windows XP/SP3 that I > hesitate to move over to Windows 7. With your new machine, XP-SP3, which is a 32 bits OS, won't use the full 4 gigs of RAM. Install Windows 7 - 64 bits and you will be using the whole 4 gigs and you will get the free utilities you want to do your backups the way you want and even create a system image with all your programs and drivers already installed to restore your machine in case of serious problems. Last year I installed XP-32 bits and Seven 64 bits in a double-boot configuration on a new Core2Quad system with 8 gigs RAM and I rarely boot in XP anymore. By the way, when I create a system image in Seven, it detects the double-boot and includes the XP hard disk in the image. It's your choice... HTH
From: choro on 5 Aug 2010 10:43
Doum wrote: > "choro" <choro(a)tvco.net> �crivait > news:Mdf5o.26626$pj7.14261(a)hurricane: > > <snip> > >> But I feel it is now time to switch over to the new computer I have >> built for myself as the motherboard on my old faithful won't support >> SATA drives. The new motherboard is equipped with a fast four-core >> AMD CPU as well as a very fast DDR3 graphics card plus a generous 4 >> GB DDR3 RAM. My old faithful will only take PATA HDs, AGP graphics >> cards and much slower memory modules. But it still is my old >> faithful and I am finding it hard to switch over to my newer >> computer. I guess I am put off by having to reinstall all the >> programs I have already installed on my old faithful and all the >> tweaks I have made on my old faithful which incidentally is now a >> full 10 years old. It was and remains my first true love! >> >> I also have to admit that I am so happy with my Windows XP/SP3 that I >> hesitate to move over to Windows 7. > > With your new machine, XP-SP3, which is a 32 bits OS, won't use the > full 4 gigs of RAM. > > Install Windows 7 - 64 bits and you will be using the whole 4 gigs > and you will get the free utilities you want to do your backups the > way you want and even create a system image with all your programs > and drivers already installed to restore your machine in case of > serious problems. > > Last year I installed XP-32 bits and Seven 64 bits in a double-boot > configuration on a new Core2Quad system with 8 gigs RAM and I rarely > boot in XP anymore. By the way, when I create a system image in > Seven, it detects the double-boot and includes the XP hard disk in > the image. > > It's your choice... > > HTH Thanks for the info. I have already built myself a Win 7 64 bit machine. The 4 Giga DDR3 RAM is on that machine. I call them my chocholate bars! But the new machine is still sitting under the desk as my number 2 "desktop" though I hardly ever use it even though I paid top dollar and bought top notch components to go into my new machine. One of these days I will get round to moving it on to my desk and hooking it via my KVM as my number 1 machine. It is already connected to my KVM but as my number 2 machine. It's got 2 hard disks of 1 GB each. Nothing on the second HD yet. I am toying with the idea of installing Linux on the second HD. I will still have my old faithful XP/SP3 machine hooked to my KVM as my number 2 machine this time. But I am getting on in years and am not as energetic as when I was even 5 years ago. Another problem is that even though I am retired and at least theoretically have got all the time in the world, the days are still only 24 hours long. And I love talking to young things in their 20s and early 30s. Mind you, these are very nice girls I know socially. What attraction I hold for them I have no idea but they seem to find me interesting. Not for me meeting girls on the Internet and engaging in dirty talk. YUK! -- choro ***** |