Re: Backup/Restore suggestions for XP, and Vista

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance


"Anna" <myname@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OkiSLg3tIHA.5580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Anonymous" <com@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5q1Xj.3224$ah4.2192@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I've had similar replies, including the suggestion to use the
Acronis Workstation version, rather than Home.

Like you, my years of Ntbackup usage have been quite
positive, meeting all my needs for a backup.

However, although Ntbackup will easily protect against
accidental loss, it is either unable, or quite cumbersome
at providing recovery, or bare metal restore.

I have to admit that the backup product from CMS looks
quite attractive though. Because I like the idea of simply
rebooting the backup image for a quick recovery. Watch
this video:
http://www.cmsproducts.com/video/desktop_backup.html

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with E/SATA, and support
would require my upgrade. But, I'd get the functionality
described, in addition to the significantly higher speeds.

One of the Amazon reviewers complaints on Acronis TI
Home was that E/SATA was not currently supported. I
guess I would've thought a backup product would simply
rely on the OS for peripheral access.

I'm currently investigating this "boot from backup" on an
external drive issue. What it takes? (E/SATA, Firewire,
etc?), and what I've have to upgrade. But, I like the idea.

Not only is it easier, but simple testing of a crash recovery
requires no intermediate restore. Much less exposure to
error.

Additionally, because the backup image is stored in native
format(non-composite), even lost file restores are easier.
And FAT limitations are avoided for users of that archi-
tecture.

Thanks.


Anna wrote:
I'm sure you understand that when we talk about eSATA or just plain SATA
in this context of backup programs, we're simply talking about the HDD
that will be involved in the backup and/or restore process. And that HDD
will be a SATA (not a PATA) HDD. The distinction between SATA & eSATA is
simply the connector that a SATA HDD will be connected to. The "e" in
eSATA stands for "external". A number of motherboards are equipped with an
eSATA port and a number of desktop computer cases are similarly equipped.
The eSATA port is considered a more secure SATA connector than the
"regular" or "normal" SATA connector and the eSATA data cable will be
equipped with an eSATA connector, not a "regular" SATA connector. But for
all practical purposes a SATA HDD will perform just as well connected to
either type of port - SATA or eSATA.

The important point to remember here is that connecting a external SATA
HDD to *either* a SATA or eSATA port will give the user SATA-to-SATA
connectivity (as opposed to USB connectivity for example). Obviously we're
presuming that the PC has SATA capability, i.e., it supports SATA hard
drives.

Having SATA-to-SATA connectivity is most advantageous when using an
external SATA HDD as the recipient of the backed-up contents of one's
internal day-to-day working HDD. There are two significant advantages...
1. The data transfer rate is considerably higher than, for example, a USB
external HDD device.
2. Assuming the SATA HDD contained in a SATA external enclosure is the
recipient of the cloned contents of the user's internal HDD through the
use of a disk-cloning program, e.g., the Acronis one that has been
mentioned, the SATA HDD will be a bootable device even though it's being
used in an external capacity. The system will treat that drive as an
*internal* HDD because of its SATA-to-SATA connectivity notwithstanding
the fact that it is physically external to the machine.

(BTW, that CMS device you mention is really nothing more than an external
enclosure that provides both USB & SATA connectivity. There are scores of
similar enclosures on the market. You can simply install your own SATA HDD
into the enclosure.)

The Acronis True Image program that has been recommended to you is a fine
program with many satisfied users. You should consider it, especially
since there's a trial version available.

However, for a variety of reasons, the disk-cloning program we greatly
prefer is the Casper 4 program. If you (or anyone coming upon this thread)
want some details about that program I'll post such.
Anna


"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u6jcxcvtIHA.4376@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Just to be complete, Anna, you should point out that he doesn't HAVE to
use SATA or eSATA for backups, however. He could instead just use his
existing setup, and get an external USB HD enclosure (containing a
regular PATA hard drive) for backup purposes too (i.e., for storing and
restoring a backup image). That's what I'm doing over here, and it
works great. Granted, it's not as fast, but it doesn't really take me
that long, either.


"Anonymous" <com@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Mj7Xj.931$qH4.828@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I'm not fully up to speed on E/SATA, but I've been reading.

Your comments/explanations will help with that understanding.

I think it was another thread of yours where I read about
the interface being "glitchy". Or, at least, the interface when
added with a upgrade card, I think.

The thread concerned another's question concerning whether
a 3.0 ATA unit would synchronize at the existing 1.5 level.

As I said, I'm researching the details. But, that was the first
indication I'd seen of any faults.

I do currently have two external drives in use for backup via
a usb2.0 interface. I'm researching a new strategy because
I don't have a viable crash recovery solution(at least not with-
out a ton of rebuild work involved). And while researching
the new path, thought I'd upgrade to an ATA interface to
gain the extra speed. Although, I'm not unhappy with the
usb throughput.

Thanks.


First of all, understand that the SATA/eSATA interface is not "glitchy".
By & large it makes for a day-in day-out stable connection between the HDD
and the system (the motherboard) and yields the advantages I have
enumerated. That previous thread you referred to re possible
incompatibilities between the older SATA HDDs (with the 1.5 Gb/s data
interface) and the newer (so-called) SATA-II HDDs (with the 3.0 Gb/s data
interface) is of no relevance re the issue under discussion here. So put
any of your doubts to rest as to any "faults" re using an external SATA
HDD for backup purposes.

Since you already have USB external enclosures I would see no reason why
you shouldn't use them as recipients of the disk clone (or disk image)
assuming you would be using a disk cloning or disk imaging program in
establishing & maintaining a comprehensive backup program. This would be
the same setup as the one "Bill in Co." is using (as well as many other
users) and it would basically serve the purpose.

My recommendation for using an external SATA HDD with SATA-to-SATA
connectivity for that purpose would yield the advantages I detailed above,
but obviously it would entail an add'l cost to the user should the user
already have a USB (or Firewire) external enclosure containing an existing
HDD. Whether the user would want to incur the add'l expense in purchasing
the components I have indicated to secure the advantages I've indicated is
obviously a decision that would have to be made by him or her.
Anna




Yeah, I assumed that there were other vendors, beside CMS,
with a similar offering.

The usb externals have performed well for me over the years.
I just agonize over the work that will be required for a bare
metal recovery. I just think it's time for me to address such
a possibility/eventuality.

I was steering toward an external ATA solution because it is
bootable, and for a speed increase. (although the speed is
not really an need issue).

I like the CMS product because the backup image looks
identical to the source drive. IOW, it's natively organized,
as opposed to a single extent composite. In the time of a
failure, this swap seems like a much better solution to gain
lost access quickly. Without fumbling/waiting for a recov-
ery.

But, your explanation/comments have helped me understand
some of the issues, and technicalities behind the curtain.

One thing that I'm still stuck on though. Assuming an EHDD
boot for recovery, how are all OS C:\ references resolved
subsequently. Is the EHDD assigned C:\ as the boot drive?

Or, are all C:\ references resolved on the fly?

Thanks....


.

Relevant Pages