Backing up to external HDD

[Jonathan Sachs]

I keep a copy of the basic OS install, and four week backups in weekly
increments. Don't need a year's worth. Don't think anyone else in his
right mind does either. Most think I go overboard for home use.

I say again: if you have decided on this approach after considering
your needs and the available options carefully and realistically, you
have done everything I could ask. But...

Do you
have any idea what kind of use of room storage area you're speaking with 450
cd/rws?

That was exactly my point! Please read my message again -- I hope
you'll see that I was demonstrating the impracticality of backing up
on CDs, as Rod proposed, in a fairly typical situation.

The point I'm trying to make is not that tape is the true and only
good backup medium, or that any other particular type of backup is
inherently bad. It's that because a backup procedure is meant to be a
safeguard against failure, it must itself be failure-resistant if it
is to be useful.

A good backup system must not only be mechanically reliable; it must
be procedurally reliable as well. It must not depend on the user's
ability to perform a multi-step procedure correctly every time. Nor on
his ability to predict with complete accuracy how important each of
his files will be at some unspecified time in the future. Nor on
untested assumptions about what types of failure need to be guarded
against.

Many popular procedures fail this test in most of the situations where
they are applied. The one which began this thread, backing up to a
second (nonremovable) hard disk, is a prime example. I'm trying to
promote awareness of this; nothing more.

My mail address is jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.

 

[Rod Speed]

I say again: if you have decided on this approach after
considering your needs and the available options carefully
and realistically, you have done everything I could ask. But...

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, Sachs.

That was exactly my point!

Like hell it was! No one in their right mind would mindlessly
backup a personal desktop PC like that, that level of backup
just aint necessary, so your stupid number of CDs required
is completely and utterly bogus.

Please read my message again

Pointless, its stays terminally stupid/flagrantly
dishonest no matter how often its read.

I hopeyou'll see that I was demonstrating
the impracticality of backing up on CDs,

You didnt. ALL you ever 'demonstrated' was the terminal stupidity
of your approach to mindless backup with a personal desktop PC.

as Rod proposed,

Another flagrant lie. I said very explicitly indeed that I was
ONLY proposing that the stuff you'd slash your wrists if you
lose should go on the CDs. I NEVER suggested that the entire
system should be mindlessly backed up onto CDs every week.
THATS WHAT THE EXTERNAL HARD DRIVE WAS FOR, the
destination for the weekly full backup of the system for quick
and easy recovery if the system hard drive fails etc.

At a total cost for the hardware and the media of MUCH
less than it would cost using a DDS3 tape drive with a
MUCH higher reliability of the main complete backup device.

in a fairly typical situation.

Another lie. Bugger all PERSONAL DESKTOP PCS have a
total of 10GB of data that changes at a rate of 20% a month.

The point I'm trying to make is not that tape is the true and only
good backup medium, or that any other particular type of backup is
inherently bad. It's that because a backup procedure is meant to be a
safeguard against failure, it must itself be failure-resistant if it is to be useful.

And the use of an external hard drive being discussed is all of that
IF THE DATA YOU WILL SLASH YOUR WRISTS IF YOU LOSE
IS ALSO WRITTEN TO MULTIPLE CDRs TO PROVIDE A
DECENT SET OF REMOVABLE MEDIA FOR OFFSITE BACKUP.

And when the CDs are used like that IN CONJUCTION WITH AN
EXTERNAL HARD DRIVE FOR FULL SYSTEM BACKUP AND
EASY RESTORE ON SYSTEM DRIVE FAILURE, YOU DONT
NEED ANYTHING LIKE YOUR MINDLESSLY SILLY 450 CDs.

A good backup system must not only be mechanically reliable;

And an external hard drive leaves a DDS3 tape drive for
dead there, particularly when the DDS3 are pulls from ebay.

it must be procedurally reliable as well.

The external hard drive is that in spades.

It must not depend on the user's ability to perform
a multi-step procedure correctly every time.

The external hard drive is that in spades.

Nor on his ability to predict with complete accuracy how important
each of his files will be at some unspecified time in the future.

Thats completely trivial too, what you create yourself goes
onto the CDs for complete security if say the house burns down.

Nor on untested assumptions about what
types of failure need to be guarded against.

No assumption what so ever when you put what you create yourself
onto multiple CDs and have AN EXTERNAL HARD DRIVE FOR
EFFORTLESS RESTORE IF THE SYSTEM DRIVE FAILS.

Many popular procedures fail this test in
most of the situations where they are applied.
Bullshit.

The one which began this thread, backing up to a
second (nonremovable) hard disk, is a prime example.

Not when YOU ALSO BACKUP WHAT YOU WILL SLASH
YOUR WRISTS IF YOU LOSE TO CDs OR DVDs if the volume
is high enough with say video footage you create yourself.

I'm trying to promote awareness of this; nothing more.

You are in fact desperately attempting to bullshit your way
out of your predicament when your flagrantly dishonest
'analysis' of the purported cost of using tape was exposed.

Flagrantly dishonest to just count the media cost. And flagrantly
dishonest to use a figure of 450 CDs when what was clearly
being discussed was the use OF AN EXTERNAL HARD DRIVE
for quick and easy restore in case of a system drive failure,
and the CDs ONLY BEING USED FOR BACKUP OF THE
STUFF YOU WILL SLASH YOUR WRISTS IF YOU LOSE.