Add'l. hard drive for backup?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bob N.
  • Start date Start date
B

Bob N.

We are running five machines without any kind of server and that is starting
to make me nervous. I'm no technician but am wondering if adding an
additional HD to the fastest machine and using it for backup only makes any
sense.

For instance, could each machine then save it's own data only and at the
same time "send" a copy to the add'l HD? Are there any additional benefits
to a setup like this? Thanks for any insight.
 
you can use NTBackup to backup any mapping drives on the HD.

--
For more and other information, go to http://www.ChicagoTech.net

Don't send e-mail or reply to me except you need consulting services.
Posting on MS newsgroup will benefit all readers and you may get more help.

Robert Lin, MS-MVP, MCSE & CNE
Networking, Internet, Routing, VPN, Anti-Virus, Tips & Troubleshooting on
http://www.ChicagoTech.net
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties.
 
As you may have guessed I'm not a techie. Please tell me what you mean by
"master image backup". I am just looking for ways to simplify our setup in
case of a minor/major disaster. In addition to HD crashes I worry about
viruses, imcompatibilities etc. While my first concern is about protecting
data I also worry about all the other things that any small company without
an IT department probably should be, but probably doesn't until their back
is against the wall.
 
(I hope none of this comes off as condescending. I hate
it when car mechanics do it to me, and I try not to do it
to other people. The post gets kind of long, but I'm
trying to be as complete as I can for you.)

Essentially, there are two reasons people would want to
backup their hard drive: 1) backup the user data (word
docs, excel sheets, etc) in case the hard drive crashes or
file corruption 2) master image recovery (essentially, if
everything went kablooey and you needed to set the whole
machine up again). If you're just wanting to protect your
documents and such, then simply using a ZIPdisk or CDRW
(rewritable CD drive and disk) would suffice. If you are
worried about something more drastic, then you would need
to setup some form of automated backup function that will
take daily "images" of your hard drive, and store about a
week's worth of images on it. As you might surmise, the
second one is much more complicated, in that you would
need much more storage space on whatever backup media you
used (secondary hard drive, DAT tape deck, CDRW,
whatever). The limitations posed by this are based on the
size of each computer's "master image" (all the files that
tell your computer what kind of operating system its using
and the like), and the size of your back storage media.

The questions I would have, if I were a techie undertaking
this project would bve as follows:

Are all the computers the same brand/model/hardware setup?
Do all the computers use the same software configuration
(operating system, applications, etc)?

If the answer to either of these questions is "yes", then
our task becomes very easy. Basically, you would set up
one machine "clean", as if you had just installed
everything from the box and hadn't actually started using
the machine. You would then make a backup copy of that
machine's hard drive and store it in a dry, clean place.
(Symantec's Ghost works wonders for this type of
function) The advantage here is obvious: only need to
store ONE piece of media, and all systems can be recovered
from the ONE piece.

If the answer to either is no, then we get a little more
complicated. A "no" on the first question means that you
can *probably* make due with one image, but you'll need to
reinstall the drivers specific to each machine when you do
a recovery. Not too big of a deal, but a little more work
than our scenario above. A "no" to the second one,
though, means that we pretty much need to have a backup
copy of each system, and that gets more tedious.

Now, assuming that we have a yes to both of the above, our
next concern would be file backups, essentially making
sure that our daily work doesn't get lost due to some act
of nature or otherwise. What can be done here is we could
set up one of the machines as a "file server".
Essentially, everyone's daily work would be stored on one
machine. That machine would then be subject to daily
backups as I detailed a bit further up. But again, then
we only have one machine and one piece of hardware to
worry about, rather than all of them.

So I guess the short answer to your question is that it
*can* be done, but the ease of implementation depends
entirely on how your network is setup. Hope that helped a
bit, and didn't confuse you too much.
 
Great answer! (Condescend all you want). You've given me exactly the answer
I was looking for...and a lot to think about. The computers we have are
different. I'm sure we'll need a master image of each one. I need to know
what you mean by "all the files that
tell your computer what kind of operating system its using and the like".
Do you mean a master image of the OS, the OS and all software programs on
that particular computer, OR everything including all data? How should the
various pieces be distributed for backup purposes?

It may cost some money now to do what you say but I'm sure will cost much
more if we're unprepared for whatever might happen (and yes, I've heard
some, but I'm sure not all, of the horror stories).

Going back to one of my earlier questions, if a seperate HD was added to the
fastest machine and used for backup only, is that a good idea? I don't want
to lose the Recycle Bin save function if possible. Thanks for your help!
 
-Originally posted by Bob N.-
The computers we have are different. I'm sure we'll need
a master image of each one.
Click to expand...

Just for the sake of my own curiousity, in what way are
they different? Different OS and software configurations
and/or different types of hardware?
I need to know what you mean by "all the files that
tell your computer what kind of operating system its
using and the like".
Click to expand...

Most simply put: what your C drive looks like right after
you've installed all the software you want that machine to
use, without actual user files (word docs, jpgs, etc) on
it. By having a copy of this, you will ensure that
nothing from potential "non-secure" sources has been
installed. No sense in recovering an image that already
has the source of corruption on it.
How should the various pieces be distributed for backup
purposes?
Click to expand...

As I said, it works best if all of your user data files
are located in one space (a file server), that way you can
perform a single backup on one location nightly.
Going back to one of my earlier questions, if a seperate
HD was added to the fastest machine and used for backup
only, is that a good idea?
Click to expand...

IMO, no. You'd be better off buying a CDRW drive
(rewritable CD drive) and fifty blank disks, assuming that
your master image of each machine is takes less than 700
MB once compressed with Ghost. I'd recommend looking up
on Norton/Symantec's website about that for their
explanation on how that works. However, a second hard
drive would be a wonderful spot to use as your file server.

My issue with using a hard drive as opposed to a CDRW is
that the hard drive, if attached to the network for any
purpose, is exposed to any file corruption you might
encounter across your network due to worms or virii. A
CDRW, once you pull it out of the machine, is only
susceptible to physical dangers: breaking it, scratching
it, whatever.

Essentially, what I would envision is this: After backing
up all of your user files to one source (a CDRW, for
example), you would setup each machine "clean". You would
then create a "Ghost Image" for each machine which you
would setup on a CD of its own. Then you would set that
in a safe storage area. The only time you would ever
touch this is when the software environment for the
machine changes or when you need to restore a system.
Afterwards, you would setup one of the machines as a file
server, and dump all the user files you'd backed up into
this repository, and set up network mappings on all of the
stations to this file server. At the end of each night, a
backup script would be setup to copy all of the user
files. You could copy over this every other week or so,
and you'd be good to go.

Of course, if you have money to toss at the problem, you
could always just hire me. :)
 
We're using Windows as the OS. Two are XP Pro's, two are Win 2000 and I
think the last one is 98. All were bought at different times and so I'm sure
have different HD's, CPU's, modems, ram etc. One has a scanner that I don't
think has been used in a long time. One also has a cd-rewriter. The
different computers have different software installed based on what each
user needs.

I understand your comment about using an additional HD as a backup I think.
I guess if everything is backed up to it and a virus got through (we do have
Norton Anti-Virus 2003 installed on each computer) then the virus could be
passed on to all the computers. My first thought though was to use the
additional HD as a sort of repository, in place of a full-blown fileserver,
to gather all the data and then back it up from that HD.

Could the additional HD be used instead of a fileserver? Fileservers are
pretty expensive and we don't know anything about them. Also, I heard or
read somewhere that one isn't necessary until a lot of computers are
connected to a network. I'm trying not to over complicate this. Also, is any
special software needed to do the backups?
 
Bob N. said:
OK, but other than if the HD crashes, what else will I gain by doing this?
Nothing?
Click to expand...

Bob,

you could recover older versions of files.

By the way, I'm not all that enthusiastic about the reliability
of NTBackup. If you use it, test all functions, particularly
restoring.

This actually holds for all backup systems. My personal
experience is that backup programs are even less reliable than
other kinds of software. Some diversity could form a
counter-strategy. For example, back up some highly important
data to DVDs on top of your general backups.

Another remark---if you put the backup hard disk in one of your
computers then you could lose that computer along with all your
backups if that machine burns out or gets stolen.

Consider at least two external disks for backup that can be kept
in a safe place most of the time.

Hans-Georg
 
You are confusing me a little by your comment, "Another remark---if you put
the backup hard disk in one of your
computers then you could lose that computer along with all your
backups if that machine burns out or gets stolen."

What do you think about the idea of backing up everything on the network to
one additional HD on the fastest machine so that all data would reside
there? The final step would then be to copy it over to a cd-rewrite for
external storage. Is this a reasonable plan?
 
Bob N. said:
You are confusing me a little by your comment, "Another remark---if you put
the backup hard disk in one of your
computers then you could lose that computer along with all your
backups if that machine burns out or gets stolen."

What do you think about the idea of backing up everything on the network to
one additional HD on the fastest machine so that all data would reside
there? The final step would then be to copy it over to a cd-rewrite for
external storage. Is this a reasonable plan?
Click to expand...

Bob,

usually backups don't fit on one or a few DVDs (not to mention
CDs). If they did, I would gladly back everything up to DVD-RW.

That's why I use hard disks as backup media, because tapes have
become too expensive.

But if you put an extra backup hard disk in one of your
computers, your backup isn't entirely safe. What if that
computer burns out and kills all its hard disks at the same
time? Or what if some crook breaks into your office and steals
exactly that computer? Then some of your data would be
irretrievably lost. Not to mention somebody stealing all
computers or the building burning down. Also just one backup
isn't enough, if only for the simple reason that everything
would be lost if a data error happens to occur during the backup
process, so both the original and the backup would now be lost
at the same time.

This is why I recommend at least two external hard disks. You
can use them interchangingly for backup, then store them in a
safe place at all other times. If one gets destroyed or erased
during a backup, you'd still have the other in the safe place.
Large external hard disks are not much more expensive than
internal ones.

Hans-Georg
 
OK, with your help I think I finally understand the process.

What is the advantage of using a HD for backup as oppposed to, say, a DVD?
Is it more accurate, should we ever have a total disaster, when restoring?
Is it simpler to set up or less expensive than a DVD?

Will it make a restoration faster or does it just have more capacity than a
DVD?
 
Bob N. said:
OK, with your help I think I finally understand the process.

What is the advantage of using a HD for backup as oppposed to, say, a DVD?
Is it more accurate, should we ever have a total disaster, when restoring?
Is it simpler to set up or less expensive than a DVD?

Will it make a restoration faster or does it just have more capacity than a
DVD?
Click to expand...

Bob,

usually backups don't fit on one or a few DVDs (not to mention
CDs). If they did, I would gladly back everything up to DVD-RW.

That's why I use hard disks as backup media, because tapes have
become too expensive.

Hans-Georg
 
Back
Top