Topic: Best Backup solutions? (Read 12413 times)

jrdiandrea · « **on:** May 12, 2012, 06:52:41 am »

I need to find a solid, automatic backup program to back up my external drive that holds all my music, video, docs, etc. This is intended as a redundant backup to take off site. I will swap drives once a week keeping a copy at my office.

I have tried using "Karens Replicator" without much success. It copied some of the video but not all. It copied NONE of my music folders/files.

I don't mind paying for a program at all (Karens was free) but want the best dependable program that I can schedule to run nightly to copy all folders & files successfully. Also, it is important that it is very intuitive as I am not very techinacally advanced. While I get around well.....it needs to be easy to navigate. I'm no IT guy!

Thanks, in advance, for any suggestions.

JR

hulkss · « **Reply #1 on:** May 12, 2012, 11:30:19 am »

Just use the built-in backup utility in Windows 7. It works great.
There are many tutorials online.

It will make a system image, a repair disk, and run regular backups.

jrdiandrea · « **Reply #2 on:** May 12, 2012, 11:32:52 am »

Ok. I'll look into it.

Thank you.

DarkPenguin · « **Reply #3 on:** May 12, 2012, 01:55:09 pm »

Try SyncBack. It might be a bit too complex but give it a shot.

jrdiandrea · « **Reply #4 on:** May 12, 2012, 02:02:44 pm »

Thanks for your response, DarkPenguin. This looks like a really robust program. Yea.....it may be a bit much for me to figure out, but if it works consistently, I would be willing to give it a shot.

Scolex · « **Reply #5 on:** May 12, 2012, 02:08:15 pm »

I use Acronis True Image and have never had any trouble.

bwaldron · « **Reply #6 on:** May 12, 2012, 04:30:01 pm »

I also use SyncBack for file-based backups. It is feature-laden, but I don't find it overly complex. I use Acronis for image backups.

jrdiandrea · « **Reply #7 on:** May 12, 2012, 05:34:20 pm »

Well, I tried both and was actually more comfortable with Sync back. Don't know why but it seemed to function so much more fluidly. I also like the fact it displays what's being processed.

Thx to all. It was a huge help. Won't get into the pain I've had to deal with this week but looks like I'm heading in the right direction!

Alex B · « **Reply #8 on:** May 12, 2012, 05:40:15 pm »

Karen's Replicator is one of the easiest programs (though thus a bit limited). It is not developed anymore*, but in my experience it works fine. It should be able to copy any files that are not open for writing by some other application or the OS. I have often installed and configured Replicator when my relatives and friends have needed an easy backup solution. For example, my retired father uses it (he is not a computer literate). All he has to do is to plug in an USB memory stick and click the replicator icon on the desktop. Replicator runs then through a preconfigured backup process and copies the new and updates the changed files automatically. I'd guess that the above mentioned problems could be cured by reconfiguring the program.

Syncback SE and Pro are great programs that can do quite a bit more than Replicator, but they are not anyhow easier to configure.

Acronis True Image is one of the best programs for creating disk images, but it isn't a solution for backing up individual files.

I use all three for different purposes.

Quote from: jrdiandrea on May 12, 2012, 06:52:41 am

I'm no IT guy!

I'd actually recommend to hire an IT guy. Once the backup system has been configured correctly it should be easy to use.

* http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=63821

rick.ca · « **Reply #9 on:** May 12, 2012, 06:24:32 pm »

Quote from: Scolex on May 12, 2012, 02:08:15 pm

I use Acronis True Image and have never had any trouble.

Then you can't be using the 2012 version. I understand it has ever handled backup versions/generations properly. For the developers of a popular full-featured backup system, it's astonishing how poor Acronis' quality control is. And how slowly they respond to crippling bugs. I only use it because I'm stubborn and have invested countless hours in trial & error, disabling all of it's buggy frill features, and in mastering a third-party script system for managing the backup versions. For anyone considering it, don't take my word for it—visit the support forum before you buy.

pcstockton · « **Reply #10 on:** May 12, 2012, 06:26:59 pm »

i still use the archaic SyncToy to good effect.

jmone · « **Reply #11 on:** May 12, 2012, 06:27:57 pm »

I use Sync Toy for my media library and WHS to backup all my PC's (less the media library) to a 5 drive NAS that I can take offsite if needed. I run Drive Bender on both the WHS and Win7 Media Server PC to "glue" all the media drives into one pool on each box and I then manually run Sync Toy as needed so the WHS has the latest snapshot of the media (the good thing is you can preview any of the changes before the commit is done). The WHS also does the usual incremental Daily, Weekly, Monthly backups of the PC's (and could also do so for the media but I deliberately exclude them).

Scolex · « **Reply #12 on:** May 12, 2012, 06:37:09 pm »

Quote from: rick.ca on May 12, 2012, 06:24:32 pm

Then you can't be using the 2012 version. I understand it has ever handled backup versions/generations properly. For the developers of a popular full-featured backup system, it's astonishing how poor Acronis' quality control is. And how slowly they respond to crippling bugs. I only use it because I'm stubborn and have invested countless hours in trial & error, disabling all of it's buggy frill features, and in mastering a third-party script system for managing the backup versions. For anyone considering it, don't take my word for it—visit the support forum before you buy.

Sorry to hear that I am using 2011 with a weekly version chain (hybrid full and incremental backup) on a weekly schedule.
I also have everything important on 2 different machines or I would backup more often.

rick.ca · « **Reply #13 on:** May 12, 2012, 07:09:14 pm »

Quote

Sorry to hear that I am using 2011 with a weekly version chain (hybrid full and incremental backup) on a weekly schedule.

Don't upgrade (to 2012, or 2013 when it's released) without verifying all the bugs are fixed. And don't 'verify' by trying it yourself. It seems many tried 2012 and had great difficulty getting back to 2011. I'm not sure, but my version chain problems may stem from having two drives to back up. Before switching to the third party solution, it was trashing backups regularly by 'forgetting' which backup set went with which drive. I don't really understand the issue, but the experienced users who authored the script solution say the program has never worked properly by itself.

Scolex · « **Reply #14 on:** May 12, 2012, 07:18:24 pm »

Quote from: rick.ca on May 12, 2012, 07:09:14 pm

Don't upgrade (to 2012, or 2013 when it's released) without verifying all the bugs are fixed. And don't 'verify' by trying it yourself. It seems many tried 2012 and had great difficulty getting back to 2011. I'm not sure, but my version chain problems may stem from having two drives to back up. Before switching to the third party solution, it was trashing backups regularly by 'forgetting' which backup set went with which drive. I don't really understand the issue, but the experienced users who authored the script solution say the program has never worked properly by itself.

I am backing up 3 drives, sure glad I didn't upgrade when I was thinking about it recently. (Docs/Music/Photos drive and Video drives)

To the OP I retract my recommendation unless 2011 is still available.

rick.ca · « **Reply #15 on:** May 12, 2012, 09:04:31 pm »

Quote

I am backing up 3 drives, sure glad I didn't upgrade when I was thinking about it recently.

Sorry to belabour this, but now I'm curious. By 'weekly version chain', do you mean a daily incremental backup with a new version chain (i.e., in addition to the previous one) automatically started every week? In other words, do you have a backup set for each week for however many weeks you want?

I'm still not sure I'm finding the right words. Maybe the attached will help. These are the files for the one backup routine for my C: drive. The script I use simply shifts the files down one folder each week, leaving \set0 empty. This is the destination folder for the backup set. Not finding any files, ATIH happily makes a new full backup—and a new chain is started.

This is what I understand the program to be incapable of by itself. It can be set to create a new full backup every week (or any period), but only by destroying the previous week's backup. If it fails, you're left with no backup. Multiple versions can be maintained using multiple backup routines, but I believe this is one scenario where it would eventually destroy all versions by mixing-up the backup sets. Maybe this is one of the bugs introduced in the 2012 version, and this method is still available in 2011. $:-\$

Gl3nn · « **Reply #16 on:** May 13, 2012, 12:06:56 am »

I've been happily using Viceversa Pro for a while now. Never an issue.

http://www.tgrmn.com/

Scolex · « **Reply #17 on:** May 13, 2012, 12:26:23 am »

Rick I am not certain this is how it works but it is my understanding.

Hypothetical dates for my scheme starting from scratch
1/1/12 3am full backup of selected files/folders (validate)
1/8/12 3am compare files/folders in backup with files/folders set to backup and then backup all files that have a modified date after 1/1/12 3am
1/15/12 3am compare files/folders in backup with files/folders set to backup and then backup all files that have a modified date after 1/8/12 3am
1/22/12 3am compare files/folders in backup with files/folders set to backup and then backup all files that have a modified date after 1/15/12 3am
1/29/12 3am compare files/folders in backup with files/folders set to backup and then backup all files that have a modified date after 1/22/12 3am
2/5/12 3am full backup of selected files/folders (validate and clean up)

I don't keep the backup here at home so I can't verify this ATM.

I was mistaken I went in to verify my settings and am actually using a custom scheme but it is basically the same as the version chain other than
a couple of tweaks to adjust time frame between full backups and cleanup. Personally I don't need to know the details as long as it works and I can do partial recovery.
Luckily that is all I have ever had to do since I started keeping copies and backups.

Before I started keeping a backup I lost about 3 years worth of pics about 2.5 of those were of my Dad's last years.
After that I told myself I will never again not have at least 1 backup. I currently have 1 backup and the non system drives on my 2 machines are basically identical.

ATIH?

glynor · « **Reply #18 on:** May 13, 2012, 01:31:03 am »

Yet another vote for SyncBack SE along with Acronis True Image.

They're awesome. I've been using them both for years.

rick.ca · « **Reply #19 on:** May 13, 2012, 02:59:13 am »

Quote from: Scolex on May 13, 2012, 12:26:23 am

Rick I am not certain this is how it works but it is my understanding.

After your 2/5/12 full backup, do you still have the previous backup versions? In other words, can you still restore a version of a file from 1/1/12 even though it has changed since then? What I want for my 'System' drive is the ability to restore any daily version of a file from the previous six weeks. And I want to do that with weekly full backups, as a six-week chain is far to long (and when it ends, I wouldn't want it replaced with just a full backup for one day).

ATIH?

'Acronis True Image Home'.

Scolex · « **Reply #20 on:** May 13, 2012, 10:05:54 am »

Rick
No after the full backup on 2/5 the previous versions are removed after validation.
If I were backing up my system drive instead of just docs, photos, music, and video and I would run a more frequent scheme.
I move user folders to my Docs/Photos/Music drive so my user info is also in the backup.
After installing windows, the apps I use and have run all updates I create a bootable image and burn it to a BD-RW which is good enough for me.
I do fairly frequent reformat and re-installs so having the image on disc is a big time saver.

bwaldron · « **Reply #21 on:** May 13, 2012, 12:26:41 pm »

Quote from: rick.ca on May 12, 2012, 07:09:14 pm

Don't upgrade (to 2012, or 2013 when it's released) without verifying all the bugs are fixed.

I'm still using True Image 2009 as it does everything I need it to. Thanks for the heads up on later versions.

Magic_Randy · « **Reply #22 on:** May 13, 2012, 12:39:29 pm »

I use Genie Backup along with Acronis True Image.

I use Acronis True Image for the image backups.

I use Genie Backup with the Mirror option for my media. The Mirror option only backups and deletes based on changes maintaining a mirror of the source. As an example, if I add a new album, it only backups the new album. If I move an album, it deletes the album from the old location and adds it to the new location.

Does anyone using SyncBack SE know if it has an option similar to the Genie Mirror option?

rjm · « **Reply #23 on:** May 13, 2012, 05:48:00 pm »

I am a long term very happy customer of Super Flexible File Synchronizer. The name is dumb but the software is brilliant. Among its many options is the ability to only copy the portions of a file that changed. I synchronize my 4 GB JRiver thumbnail cache between several computers every day and could not do this without this feature. It takes 15 seconds instead of many minutes to copy the cache because MC typically changes very little in the cache. I have a very complicated media drive backup structure and SFFS handles it perfectly. One of my media drives has over 300,000 files. It would take forever over a network to scan for changes but SFFS has an option that runs a process on the server to dramatically speed this up.

DoubtingThomas · « **Reply #24 on:** May 13, 2012, 06:07:05 pm »

BTW Acronis True Image v10 will work with Windows7 using a hack I found on the ATI forums.

ATI doesn't manage filenames well, so I wrote a post-backup program to do auto renaming for me.

lise · « **Reply #25 on:** May 14, 2012, 09:22:01 am »

Quote from: Crescent on May 13, 2012, 12:06:56 am

I've been happily using Viceversa Pro for a while now. Never an issue.

http://www.tgrmn.com/

Me too. It's easy to use and there are various ways to backup.

1. You can mirror a source to a target. This does what it suggests: it makes an exact copy of the source on the target, removing anything in the target that no longer exists in the source. I use this for my laptop. The way I see it if I deleted files from my laptop I don't ever want them back. I want an exact copy of what I have.

2. You can augment a target. As far as I understand this one copies the source to the target but does not remove older files or single files from the target.

3. synchronization. I this for movies. I have two external drives: one attached to the computer where I create my ISOs and VOBs, and the other external is on the computer in the theatre that plays them back. The synchronization method ensures both externals are identical by taking the most recent or new files one one and copying them onto the other. So when I create vobs, I run the Vice Versa and it copies the vobs onto the theatre external drive. When MC creates the sidecar files and cover art for those vobs, Vice versa copies those to my source external. Synchronization keeps a database so it always knows what's newer, most recent, etc.

4. There is also an option to keep archives of removed files on the target. So if a file on the target is older and is being replaced by the source's newest file, Vice Versa will keep a copy of the older replaced file for you in a directory of your choice. You can tell the program how many archives to keep, so if you want 1 months worth to guard against viral infection or something and you backup daily then you set it keep 30 copies.

The program comes with a scheduler that can be run whenever you want. There is also a real-time option that can monitor changes as you make them.

glynor · « **Reply #26 on:** May 14, 2012, 09:38:32 am »

Quote from: bwaldron on May 13, 2012, 12:26:41 pm

I'm still using True Image 2009 as it does everything I need it to. Thanks for the heads up on later versions.

If you migrate to an SSD at some point in the future, you'll want to upgrade. Starting with True Image 2011, Acronis included logic to automatically align cloned images properly on SSDs to work properly. Otherwise, if you clone or restore an install from a spinning disk over to an SSD, it will be misaligned, and will degrade performance and could cause other problems.

Also, YMMV, but True Image 2012 has been very stable for me. The 2011 release was a little iffy (I had lots of trouble with it dealing with USB and Firewire drives, for example), but 2012 has been very solid, and hasn't seemed to suffer from as many of the little UI bugs. I also like the new restore/clone boot process, and much of the UI fluff has been tweaked and ironed out.

I'm sure there might still be problems (though a new build did come out within the past month or two), but I haven't encountered much.

Vocalpoint · « **Reply #27 on:** May 14, 2012, 09:41:13 am »

We use Macrium Reflect for all workstation imaging (all done weekly with nightly incrementals). For the actual media - I use a three pronged approach:

1. All media is edited locally and a play/view copy is sent to our main server
2. All media is then sent to master "on-site" archive drives for music, video and imaging
3. The onsite drives are then replicated using Syncback SE to another complete set of off-site archive drives
4. Offsite drives are taken to the office (or bank) every two weeks.

My rule: Three copies of everything - and then you are truly backed up.

VP

glynor · « **Reply #28 on:** May 14, 2012, 09:45:21 am »

Quote from: Magic_Randy on May 13, 2012, 12:39:29 pm

Does anyone using SyncBack SE know if it has an option similar to the Genie Mirror option?

Yes. And it can do the same in a two-way sync scheme as well. I'm not sure what features the Genie Mirror includes, by SyncBack has a TON of flexibility in the ways it can sync.

For example, I've explained this elsewhere, but a quick recap is this:

1. I have a large RAID-5 volume that serves as my main "media drive" at home (Drive M).
2. I have a set of separate big-honking WD Green drives which I use with an external SATA drive dock connected to the same machine.
3. I have SyncBack set to sync the contents of Drive M over to these external disks. I keep one of them at work, and another at home (syncing daily), and then I bring the work one home every so often and swap.

However, the SyncBack sync is set up so that not-only does it sync the new stuff from Drive M over to the external disk, but if anything new shows up on the portable backup disk, it syncs that back over to Drive M. This is handy when I bring that drive home from work. Every so often, I happened to have ripped or downloaded something new at work. I don't have to worry about migrating that manually. I just bring the drive home, plug it in, and it'll sync back to Drive M.

Getting that set up properly can be a little fiddly depending on what you want, but the functionality works great.

About the only thing it can't do is a three-way sync. I mean something similar to Dropbox, where you might have three or four (or 10) different drives you want to keep all perfectly in sync. You can accomplish it with a very systematic and well-timed sync scheme, but that's troublesome to set up.

rick.ca · « **Reply #29 on:** May 14, 2012, 04:11:06 pm »

Synchronization is different from backup. Those seeking backup solutions should consider carefully which best suits their needs. Synchronization is easy to understand and implement, and there are good freeware solutions. But when the need is for backup, it suffers one fundamental flaw. Errors, corruption and accidental deletion in the source will be synchronized to the destination. Backup will do the same, but retains all versions of files from previous backups so files can be restored from any point in time (for which backup has been retained). Many synchronization programs have the ability to save multiple versions of files, but they don't normally include any facility for restoring a set of files to a selected point in time.

Synchronization will work fine for recovering from a known event for which you can easily identify the affected files—like the accidental deletion of files that you're aware of when it happens, or the catastrophic loss of a data drive. But that's just one sort of thing that can go wrong. Equally likely is the corruption of one or more files that isn't apparent until some time later—when you discover a file no longer exists, that change you made last week turns out to be a really bad idea, or a program just stops working properly because of something that happened in the past. Synchronization can provide some of the same kind of protection by maintaining multiple versions of the sync. For example, if a few versions of a weekly sync is all you need (i.e., if restoring from this week's sync doesn't work, hopefully last week's will), or if the destination of a sync is rotated among different drives, then synchronization might be a better choice than the complexity of a backup program.

Quote from: glynor on May 14, 2012, 09:38:32 am

Also, YMMV, but True Image 2012 has been very stable for me. The 2011 release was a little iffy (I had lots of trouble with it dealing with USB and Firewire drives, for example), but 2012 has been very solid, and hasn't seemed to suffer from as many of the little UI bugs. I also like the new restore/clone boot process, and much of the UI fluff has been tweaked and ironed out.

If you look at the support forum, you'll see your experience is truly unusual. I really hope it's core features, like recovering from the complete failure of a system drive, are rock solid. But everything else sucks. None of it's 'frill' features (e.g., synchronization, nonstop backup, automatic cleanup). It doesn't support backup generations at all. That doesn't matter to those for whom a 'generation' means a backup set on a separate drive (of which there may be many, perhaps with one or more rotated off-site). To an average home user who may have jut one external drive dedicated to backup, it's an inexcusable omission. The UI seems nice and, to it's credit, is much more user-friendly than that of it's competitors. But it's hopelessly error-prone in maintaining anything but the simplest archive files. I just lost (again!) all but one previous generation of my media backup (the one that takes 12 hours to create) because it got confused and mixed-up data sets. Among it's countless bugs are stupid but important little things—like a settings telling it to wake the computer and keep it awake during unattended backups. Those were being lost whenever the computer was rebooted. Failing to remember to reset them would guarantee the next backup would not run. Such a bug in MC would be fixed within an hour of being reported. It took Acronis eight months!

I do continue to use Acronis, and it has important characteristics I couldn't find in alternatives. The priority of a running backup can be lowered so the computer is usable for other things. I'm a single machine user, so that's important to me. Although a bit flaky, it has a nice UI for selecting files to restore. Although I hope I'll never need it, I pray it will earn it's previous good reputation should I need to recover from a failed system drive. I wouldn't mind hearing some happy stories in that regard. I'll feel really stupid putting up with all it's flaws if when I really need it, it fails. $:-\$

Vocalpoint · « **Reply #30 on:** May 14, 2012, 04:27:33 pm »

Quote from: rick.ca on May 14, 2012, 04:11:06 pm

I do continue to use Acronis, and it has important characteristics I couldn't find in alternatives. The priority of a running backup can be lowered so the computer is usable for other things. I'm a single machine user, so that's important to me. Although a bit flaky, it has a nice UI for selecting files to restore. Although I hope I'll never need it, I pray it will earn it's previous good reputation should I need to recover from a failed system drive. I wouldn't mind hearing some happy stories in that regard. I'll feel really stupid putting up with all it's flaws if when I really need it, it fails. $:-\$

I used to be an Acronis user as well - right up until I needed to actually recover/restore a backup some years ago. As soon as I experienced that first failure (along with other crazy crap like their boot CD not working if one had a wireless mouse/keyboard etc etc) - I immediately dropped the product, my account and everything else that tied me to Acronis and moved the entire infrastructure over to Macrium and have never looked back. I also have never had a data restore fail either.

Acronis has somehow built up a following that continues to baffle me - considering how flaky a product they build and how horrible a support structure they have.

VP

Magic_Randy · « **Reply #31 on:** May 14, 2012, 04:36:15 pm »

Quote from: glynor on May 14, 2012, 09:38:32 am

If you migrate to an SSD at some point in the future, you'll want to upgrade. Starting with True Image 2011, Acronis included logic to automatically align cloned images properly on SSDs to work properly. Otherwise, if you clone or restore an install from a spinning disk over to an SSD, it will be misaligned, and will degrade performance and could cause other problems.

Also, YMMV, but True Image 2012 has been very stable for me. The 2011 release was a little iffy (I had lots of trouble with it dealing with USB and Firewire drives, for example), but 2012 has been very solid, and hasn't seemed to suffer from as many of the little UI bugs. I also like the new restore/clone boot process, and much of the UI fluff has been tweaked and ironed out.

I'm sure there might still be problems (though a new build did come out within the past month or two), but I haven't encountered much.

Thanks...

bwaldron · « **Reply #32 on:** May 14, 2012, 04:37:54 pm »

Thanks, Glynor. I actually am looking at replacing my system drive with an SSD in the near future, so this is timely.

Quote from: glynor on May 14, 2012, 09:38:32 am

If you migrate to an SSD at some point in the future, you'll want to upgrade. Starting with True Image 2011, Acronis included logic to automatically align cloned images properly on SSDs to work properly. Otherwise, if you clone or restore an install from a spinning disk over to an SSD, it will be misaligned, and will degrade performance and could cause other problems.

Also, YMMV, but True Image 2012 has been very stable for me.

hulkss · « **Reply #33 on:** May 14, 2012, 07:39:33 pm »

What am I missing?
The built-in backup utility in Windows 7 seems to work great.

JustinChase · « **Reply #34 on:** May 14, 2012, 07:40:21 pm »

Quote from: rjm on May 13, 2012, 05:48:00 pm

... It would take forever over a network to scan for changes but SFFS has an option that runs a process on the server to dramatically speed this up.

any idea if this will work with unRAID (Linux)?

jgreen · « **Reply #35 on:** May 14, 2012, 08:52:31 pm »

SynchBack is not too complex for anybody (unless you're one of Shakespeare's Monkeys--that's a little dumber than NBC's Monkees). I'm a paid customer of Acronis, but do you want to know what happens if your backup is off by A SINGLE BIT? No backup!!

SycnchBack saves things in plain language, which means, among other things, that you don't have to buy the latest version just to access your backups. There's always a use for Acronis, as long as software can serve as a boat anchor.

Scolex · « **Reply #36 on:** May 14, 2012, 11:20:01 pm »

jgreen
I am not saying one is better than the other but I would hardly consider Acronis boat anchor material.
Plain language?
No software changes the language of the item backed up the only difference is the container and/or the compression level/type.
I don't use compression for critical files due to the inherent possibilities of corruption no matter the software/format, drives are cheap and memories or items related to memories are priceless IMHO so if I need more backup space I buy a drive.
The latest version is not needed if anything the latest version can cause issues if the backup was created with an older version.
I have run into more trouble with new version conversions than just about anything else.

rick.ca · « **Reply #37 on:** May 15, 2012, 01:23:01 am »

Quote from: hulkss on May 14, 2012, 07:39:33 pm

What am I missing?
The built-in backup utility in Windows 7 seems to work great.

I thought so too, until I got a 3 Tb drive to serve as a backup drive and discovered Windows Backup doesn't work with a GUID Partition Table. Soon thereafter, I found myself in Aronisland, where I compounded the problem by deciding if I have to pay for a real backup program, I may as well expect it to behave like one.

jgreen · « **Reply #38 on:** May 15, 2012, 04:22:50 pm »

I'm sorry, I meant "no container". If a container is off by even one bit (like a much-needed Acronis backup of mine was), you have a bit-based boat anchor.

I now copy directory structures to my backup disks, I don't need to verify the backup other than to click through it, and since all file structures are identical (apart from the disk letter), I don't have to restore anything, I just do a rename in MC.

While I appreciate the incremental backup of Acronis and other containers, for me that's now secondary to actually having a backup. Perhaps one day when I do a second-copy backup, it will be an Acronis container.

glynor · « **Reply #39 on:** May 15, 2012, 04:52:43 pm »

Quote from: rick.ca on May 14, 2012, 04:11:06 pm

If you look at the support forum, you'll see your experience is truly unusual. I really hope it's core features, like recovering from the complete failure of a system drive, are rock solid. But everything else sucks. None of it's 'frill' features (e.g., synchronization, nonstop backup, automatic cleanup). It doesn't support backup generations at all.

I must admit, I don't use it for those kinds of things. I use it to do basically two things:

1. Clone disks when needed (proper SSD support is essential).
2. Regularly back up my C and U partitions (U is my "users" drive where My Documents and similar things live), keeping older versions of stuff around for a little while.

The automatic cleanup does seem to be working fine on my systems, FWIW. For Sync and other stuff, I use SyncBack, so I've never even played with that stuff, and the nonstop backup always seemed... I don't know, not what I wanted.

I have restored from my backups a handful of times (both individual files from Windows and once a whole partition from their boot environment), and never ran into trouble, but I haven't used it for many advanced things. I have those two disks, backing up to a third big-honking-disk, and that's it on both machines I use. With 2011 I had some trouble getting it to reliably do the backups (it would crap out and stop for seemingly no reason), but the current version has been fine... So far anyway.

Frankly, the one time I needed to restore a whole partition, I fully intended to re-install Windows from scratch on the system anyway, I just wanted to get it up and running long enough to save the stuff I needed. That worked fine.

I also have images of my systems when they're "fresh" in various stages saved on separate disks, and I've used those a few times. Also fine.

Quote from: Vocalpoint on May 14, 2012, 04:27:33 pm

moved the entire infrastructure over to Macrium and have never looked back. I also have never had a data restore fail either.

I just checked out their products a bit.

Their site is a little thin, but the Pro Edition looks pretty nice. How does the WinPE Recovery system work? Many of my machines no longer have optical drives (and even if they did, I can't be relied upon to keep a working recovery disc from getting lost or damaged).

I need a nice, graphical, easy-to-use, bootable USB drive function. I've played with WinPE systems before though, and they were always flaky and slow, and usually difficult to set up. I'd also prefer the boot environment fit on a 512MB flash disk, because that's what I'm using now. But, I suppose I'd be willing to buy a new USB stick for just that purpose if it'll work on a 4-8GB one I can get cheap.

And, I didn't see anything about properly aligning cloning from spinning disks to SSDs (though I didn't look hard). This is a killer for many other imaging software solutions. Does it do this right?

Vocalpoint · « **Reply #40 on:** May 15, 2012, 05:08:17 pm »

Quote from: glynor on May 15, 2012, 04:52:43 pm

I just checked out their products a bit. Their site is a little thin, but the Pro Edition looks pretty nice.

Agreed. But they do focus on what's important.

Quote from: glynor on May 15, 2012, 04:52:43 pm

How does the WinPE Recovery system work? Many of my machines no longer have optical drives (and even if they did, I can't be relied upon to keep a working recovery disc from getting lost or damaged).

I need a nice, graphical, easy-to-use, bootable USB drive function. I've played with WinPE systems before though, and they were always flaky and slow, and usually difficult to set up. I'd also prefer the boot environment fit on a 512MB flash disk, because that's what I'm using now. But, I suppose I'd be willing to buy a new USB stick for just that purpose if it'll work on a 4-8GB one I can get cheap.

Macrium goes one better by embedding the backup environment right into your C drive so you can access it directly. They offer to add the WinPE environment as a boot option. You can also use the WinPE bootable disc via optical or USB. It's very easy to operate plus gives the user a lot of extra tools for running diagnostics, working partitions, viewing files and a lot more - right from the PE environment. I have used it many times and it works great.

Quote from: glynor on May 15, 2012, 04:52:43 pm

And, I didn't see anything about properly aligning cloning from spinning disks to SSDs (though I didn't look hard). This is a killer for many other imaging software solutions. Does it do this right?

Check here:

http://www.macrium.com/help/v5/How_to/Conversions/Convert_to_a_solid_state_disk.htm

Looks like it's good to go.

VP

glynor · « **Reply #41 on:** May 15, 2012, 05:46:38 pm »

Quote from: Vocalpoint on May 15, 2012, 05:08:17 pm

Check here:

http://www.macrium.com/help/v5/How_to/Conversions/Convert_to_a_solid_state_disk.htm

Looks like it's good to go.

So, not automatically, but they posted essentially the same workaround you used to have to use with Acronis (and still do with Ghost, as far as I know, but I haven't looked at it in ages). Kind-of annoying, but not a dealbreaker I guess.

Quote from: Vocalpoint on May 15, 2012, 05:08:17 pm

Macrium goes one better by embedding the backup environment right into your C drive so you can access it directly. They offer to add the WinPE environment as a boot option. You can also use the WinPE bootable disc via optical or USB. It's very easy to operate plus gives the user a lot of extra tools for running diagnostics, working partitions, viewing files and a lot more - right from the PE environment. I have used it many times and it works great.

Hmmmm.... That (the C-drive stuff) would be mostly-useless for me. Typically if I have a disaster where I can't get Windows to boot, it is due to physical drive failure (or the whole board died, but that's not a backup-solvable problem). I suppose for people who aren't as experienced and might hose their windows partition on their own, that could come in handy. For me, if I get to that point, it usually means the BIOS won't even see the C drive disk, at which point a recovery partition on the C drive is junk.

Does the full feature-set work in their trial edition, or does that just give you the free stuff? I'd be willing to try it out and see how the USB booting works.

I'm just a little skeptical because I've seen that flaky or ugly so many times. Acronis 2012, while not perfect by any means, does do that right IMHO.

glynor · « **Reply #42 on:** May 15, 2012, 05:58:29 pm »

I should add...

What I really WANT is this, and maybe this product could do that:

I want the system to essentially regularly "clone" my C drive over to my big recovery disk (currently 2TB, but I switch them out a lot and will probably go to a 3TB before too long). I want it to make that a fully-working, bootable version of my C drive, not a fancy compressed image. I don't want to use mirroring RAID because of what rick.ca addressed above (what if I delete something on purpose but accidentally). I want to be able to schedule it, and have it run regularly, but not "constantly". So cloning via regular means doesn't work because it requires a reboot (it is fine if it needs to reboot once the first time, but after that, it should be schedule-able).

Then, on that same disk (which is always WAY bigger than my combined C+U drives' used space) I want to have it backup both drives via a traditional incremental compressed image system to R:\backup\<etc>. That way it would serve as both a regular recovery disk, AND as a live-bootable full version of my computer (minus my U drive, which probably didn't die at the exact same moment as my C drive). So, if my C drive fails, I can unplug it, tell the BIOS to boot to the "R drive" instead. I'll have my computer back right then and there without having to buy or dig up a new disk. And, I'd never have to use a fiddly, maybe-it'll-work-but-I'm-hosed-if-it-doesn't special recovery environment.

Whereas if my U drive fails (the bigger disk where most user-data is stored), I'll still have Windows anyway on the C drive, and I can restore what I need (and maybe even mount the image as a "virtual U" drive until I get to it). The incremental image system will give me roll-back capabilities (up to my storage limit) and whatnot.

That would be my dream setup, but I haven't found a way to do it that way yet.

glynor · « **Reply #43 on:** May 15, 2012, 06:05:49 pm »

PS. The above is very simple to accomplish on my Macs. Wink.

hulkss · « **Reply #44 on:** May 16, 2012, 12:09:29 am »

Quote from: rick.ca on May 15, 2012, 01:23:01 am

I thought so too, until I got a 3 Tb drive to serve as a backup drive and discovered Windows Backup doesn't work with a GUID Partition Table.

Glad I saw this before my next Windows computer build (Macs do not have issues with this).

It appears that if I install Windows 7 (must be 64 bit) using UEFI (on a motherboard with UEFI firmware) that a GPT bootable system disk can be built. If this is done, I believe that Windows Backup and Restore will work on GPT drives. Anybody know for sure?

glynor · « **Reply #45 on:** May 16, 2012, 12:54:03 am »

Quote from: glynor on May 15, 2012, 05:46:38 pm

So, not automatically, but they posted essentially the same workaround you used to have to use with Acronis (and still do with Ghost, as far as I know, but I haven't looked at it in ages). Kind-of annoying, but not a dealbreaker I guess.

FYI: This really only applies to disks that were originally formatted under versions of Windows prior to Vista, or are formatted using other operating systems. But, it would also apply to images created of those systems.

However it is still something of a niche-case. To be clear... If you are using only Windows 7 PCs and you formatted the drive originally there, and you clone over to a new SSD, you should be fine no matter what.

Vocalpoint · « **Reply #46 on:** May 16, 2012, 12:02:02 pm »

Quote from: glynor on May 15, 2012, 05:46:38 pm

I suppose for people who aren't as experienced and might hose their windows partition on their own, that could come in handy. For me, if I get to that point, it usually means the BIOS won't even see the C drive disk, at which point a recovery partition on the C drive is junk.

If you a point where the BIOS won't even see the C drive - you most likely have much bigger problems than just recovering data and/or partitions. Been doing this since 1993 - have never actually lost a C drive or have ever seen a hard disk NOT be recognized by the BIOS. While possible - that sort of failure is beyond all backup programs etc.

What I like about the Macrium method - is that I want a clean system image - that is - with NOTHING but Windows on the system drive when I first install a workstation. Having to install the actual imaging software on my C drive defeats the purpose of a clean image since the image will no contain the most-certainly-soon-to-be-dated version of the backup software. Having the facility to image the C partition without having to install any crap on it - is where I want to be.

Quote from: glynor on May 15, 2012, 05:46:38 pm

Does the full feature-set work in their trial edition, or does that just give you the free stuff? I'd be willing to try it out and see how the USB booting works. I'm just a little skeptical because I've seen that flaky or ugly so many times. Acronis 2012, while not perfect by any means, does do that right IMHO.

I believe you get the full edition for 30 days. Not sure if you can get the Full version of WinPE to mess around with during the trial. There are some licensing restrictions apparently...

VP

glynor · « **Reply #47 on:** May 17, 2012, 06:02:10 pm »

Quote from: Vocalpoint on May 16, 2012, 12:02:02 pm

If you a point where the BIOS won't even see the C drive - you most likely have much bigger problems than just recovering data and/or partitions. Been doing this since 1993 - have never actually lost a C drive or have ever seen a hard disk NOT be recognized by the BIOS. While possible - that sort of failure is beyond all backup programs etc.

Drop a drive on the floor a few times, or spill some water on it. There are other ways too. I've had drives here and there just fail to be recognized by the BIOS because they're stupid or broken or whatever (always a good idea to check your cables though, as that's usually the cause). Certainly, the drive is dead then, and you need to throw it away and boot some other way.

My point was that, if the recovery partition is on the same physical disk as the C partition, and that's the drive that allows the computer to boot, that there is a fair possibility that whatever problem causing you to need to recover the C partition will affect the entire physical disk, not just the C partition (leaving the recovery partition alone).

Recovery partitions on the system drive are a handy tool for "my parents" who might do something dumb (like get a bad virus or install some borked driver) that causes the system to fail to boot, and they don't know what to do, so they restore from backup. If that's the problem, I can almost always get the system to boot by fixing the problem instead.

When I need a recovery "disk" is mostly when something happened and the C drive is totally hosed, so having it on the same disk isn't very useful. I like using USB Flash disks because I can make one, stick it on a shelf, and there it will stay until I need it. Plus, I can use one for many different machines.

marko · « **Reply #48 on:** May 19, 2012, 06:39:39 am »

I've been using Genie Backup Manager Pro v8 for a number of years now. It's a pain to set up, but once done, really is "set and forget".

Every now and again, I look at their "Timeline" app. It is tempting, but what really puts me off is the idea that this thing runs constantly, keeping track of changes in real time, updating its back ups as you make changes.

It feels like one of those programs that gets itself deeply involved with your system, must surely be a marked performance hit, and I worry that it could be a pain to remove if a trial didn't work out, so simply don't go there! I've downloaded the setup file at least three times now, but never actually installed the thing.

Is there anyone out there using it? Or similar non-stop backup software? Is there a performance hit? Is my gut feeling that I really won't like this approach correct, or am I missing out on something brilliant?

-marko

MrC · « **Reply #49 on:** May 19, 2012, 09:55:16 am »

I've been a Retrospect user for probably 15 years now, at least.

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: Best Backup solutions? (Read 12413 times)