Comments on: Random update

By: anonymous

anonymous — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:32:44 +0000

Use Acronis TrueImage. It “just works” for bare metal backup/restores on Windows and works far faster than a file level utility (about 2.5 GBytes/min on my machine)

Incidentally, they have a version for Linux too. As far as I know it’s the only commercial imaging product for Linux. Bare-metal recovery tools for Linux are sorely lacking

By: gcrumb

gcrumb — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 07:02:07 +0000

Well if that’s the case, it might cost you less in terms of time and effort to simply dump your data in a safe place and accept that the machine might at some point go south. For personal machines I usually just make sure the data’s safe, and treat OS/hardware failure as a chance to try something new. 8^)

By: Rich

Rich — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:58:58 +0000

For the amount we use Windows, we don’t really get that bitrot, but we do get a machine that sits unattended for a very long time, so the odds of catching an imminent failure are pretty low. The data files tend to get moved onto user shares on the fileserver or onto our Linux boxes pretty quickly.

That box got win2k installed on it in 2002 and is still running strong. I’m going to upgrade it to XP soon because I want terminal services and fast user switching, otherwise I’d leave it just as it is!

By: Rich

Rich — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:55:31 +0000

Not even Windows servers! Just a single Windows workstation at home that we use whenever something requires Windows.

Around the office, it’s all enterprise backup suites which Just Work.

By: brianenigma

brianenigma — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:12:13 +0000

Historically, I have never cared about a bare-metal backup/restore. When I backup, I tend to want to back up data and settings. The reasons (for me, at least) are twofold. First, the backups are smaller because only data is being backed up. Second (and more important), is that with Windows (and I’ve carried the process to OS X, even though I doubt the reasoning applies), you get the standard bitrot and have to reinstall the OS once or twice a year anyway–so why back up a possibly flawed OS image when you’ll have to potentially reinstall a fresh one soon?

The major con to this is that you’re not always sure of what and where the “data files” are because different apps and different people put their files in different places.

By: gcrumb

gcrumb — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 05:48:12 +0000

Most often the problem is human error. Statistically, Windows boxes are administered – and operated – by people with less understanding of the system and poorer understanding of good administrative practices. Neither of these assertions apply to you. 8^)

Again, the failure is usually the backup regime, rather than the software used. I’m in an unfortunate situation where I can’t be onsite directly administering the systems I support, so I don’t even try to maintain configurations. I simply show people how to keep multiple copies of their files in safe locations, and assist with restoring them if and when disaster strikes. And I don’t let my clients run Windows servers.

I expect your situation is much more manageable, especially if you’re administering Windows servers. Hence the ‘not exactly’. I should have said before that you’re probably fine doing what your instinct tells you.

By: Rich

Rich — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 05:22:17 +0000

Ok, but do you know why using the Windows Backup utility doesn't work? I know that a Ghost image sucks if you just need to restore a file, and that a tarball of the filesystem sucks if you need to do a bare-metal restore, but it seems to me that a Windows Backup backup of C: and the system state ought to be enough that restoring it over a brand-new install would bring you back to the state you were in when you took the backup.

By: gcrumb

gcrumb — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 05:07:50 +0000

“Am I missing something?”

Not exactly. 8^)

I find backing up Windows a bit of a nightmare. I have yet to see a really reliable backup regime that was reasonable for workstations[*]. I guess you could ghost an image every time you changed the base system, and then just tar up the Documents and Settings folder (assuming that’s where the important data is being stored). But if you’re using Outlook, you need to get its files, which are elsewhere. Oh, and if there’s financial data from any of about half a dozen apps, you’ll need to back that up too. Might as well just tar the whole file system, just to be safe.

It’s not a really sane way to safeguard data on Wiindows, and it can cause as many problems as it solves, but I suppose for some people it’s Good Enough.

[*] Or indeed for small servers. I spent a few very late nights working with a tech in London to try to recover a certain NGO’s financial data following a failed restore operation.