Internal or External drive for back-ups?

[Crackles McFarly]

I want to be able to backup less than 80GB of data including basically
a mirror image so as to avoid re-installing the OS and other things.

Should I go with a cheap internal 80-ish GB hard drive OR an external
drive that is NEAR 80gb????

I know the Internal ones are cheaper but sometimes cheaper isn't the
best as we all know.

thanks

 

[spodosaurus]

I want to be able to backup less than 80GB of data including basically
a mirror image so as to avoid re-installing the OS and other things.

Should I go with a cheap internal 80-ish GB hard drive OR an external
drive that is NEAR 80gb????

I know the Internal ones are cheaper but sometimes cheaper isn't the
best as we all know.

thanks

What happens when there's a catastrophic malfunction and your backups
are on an internal drive?

Why not just buy and external case and an 80Gb+ drive and backup to
that? When the backup is finished unplug it and put it away in another room.

Ari

--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

 

[JAD]

I want to be able to backup less than 80GB of data including basically
a mirror image so as to avoid re-installing the OS and other things.

Should I go with a cheap internal 80-ish GB hard drive OR an external
drive that is NEAR 80gb????

I know the Internal ones are cheaper but sometimes cheaper isn't the
best as we all know.

thanks

'External' is the only way to go for backing up. otherwise your NOT backing up, your just
copying the drive for later potential failure. I really don't like to use hard drives for
backups, but since the advent of GIGS of data, it becomes a necessity.

 

[Me]

'External' is the only way to go for backing up. otherwise your NOT
backing up, your just copying the drive for later potential failure. I
really don't like to use hard drives for backups, but since the advent of
GIGS of data, it becomes a necessity.

External is the only ???

why not an 80+ gig added to a vacant connector internal SATA or IDE. No case
cost then.

 

[isaac4all]

I will strongly advice you go for an external drive. BECAUSE
1. You can backup your files.
2. easily use your files in another system without making the hard
disk a slave
3. You do not have to always have to open your computer.
4. You can keep your hard disk away with your backed up files in a
very safe place.

THOSE ARE THE FOUR REASONS I STRONGLY RECOMMEND YOU TO GET AN external
hard disk.

Here are website to get computer components cheap at a reduced price
TigerDirect
http://click.linksynergy.com/fs-bin/click?id=x1ijFJ9Dvfc&offerid=102327.10000056&type=4&subid=0

So as an computer engineer that is the solution.

Isaac okoye
Information Rules the World
http://www.finditall100free.ds4a.com/onlines.htm

 

[Phil_12345]

External is the only ???

why not an 80+ gig added to a vacant connector internal SATA or IDE. No case
cost then.

An internal drive is always on (spinning - unless you disconnect the
power) when ever your system is on - so basically it has the same risk
of failure as your system drive at any time. If you look around,
there are many 500 GB external USB drive (including HD enclosure) for
around 100 bucks or so.

 

[John Weiss]

An internal drive is always on (spinning - unless you disconnect the
power) when ever your system is on - so basically it has the same risk
of failure as your system drive at any time.

Not necessarily true. Most modern computers have power-saving settings that
turn off unused HDs. The HD with the OS may continue spinning, but data drives
not being written to will spin down.

 

[Phil_12345]

John Weiss wrote:


Not necessarily true. Most modern computers have power-saving settings that
turn off unused HDs. The HD with the OS may continue spinning, but data drives
not being written to will spin down.

Here is just my opinion is that the power-saving 'feature' is the
devil in disguise: too many spind up/spind down cycles is not that
healthy for the HD either; not to mention that the HD would pull more
power to when spind up. I believe it's best to keep the HD
constantly on because it's would use very little power due to momentum
and less stress on the mechanism. BTW, more HD in the system would
also generate more heat.

Back to the internal/external backup drive topic - internal drive also
has the risk of failure when other components in your system goes
kapupp - especially the powersupply; or bad power surge, ....

Anyway, each person has his/her own way of backing his/her system and
depend on how valuable the data.

 

[harikeo]

'External' is the only way to go for backing up. otherwise your NOT backing up, your just
copying the drive for later potential failure. I really don't like to use hard drives for
backups, but since the advent of GIGS of data, it becomes a necessity.

I use internal and external drives. I have 1 working copy and 2 backup
copies of my data.

T:\ -- Internal Drive SATA
W:\ -- USB Drive
\\server\ -- Internal Drive SATA

Using Second Copy it's a breeze to make different profiles but the
general idea is below.

T:\Data\*.* --> W:\Backup Data\
W:\Backup data\*.* --> \\server\backup$\Backup Data

 

[John Weiss]

I use internal and external drives. I have 1 working copy and 2 backup
copies of my data.

My data is mirrored on 2 computers (desktop and laptop), is backed up on a
separate internal HD, and imaged on an external HD.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

I want to be able to backup less than 80GB of data including basically
a mirror image so as to avoid re-installing the OS and other things.

Should I go with a cheap internal 80-ish GB hard drive OR an external
drive that is NEAR 80gb????

I know the Internal ones are cheaper but sometimes cheaper isn't the
best as we all know.

thanks

You don't say whether the HDs are PATA or SATA. If they are
SATA, you can use eSATA connections with an external enclosure
to turn any SATA HD into an external HD. Data transfer is faster
than USB 2.0, and you can boot from the external HD in an
emergency if it contains a clone of the OS. You would then have
the safety of a removable HD with the speed and bootability of an
internal HD. Kingwin makes such an enclosure for eSATA:
http://kingwin.com/product_pages/z135eu_bk.asp
Check Nextag.com and PriceGrabber.com for prices using the
model no. as the search term. PriceGrabber lists retailers asking
$28-$30 for them.

Of course, the same could be done with a "removable caddy"
or "mobile rack", but it requires the use of a 5 1/2" expansion bay.
Just slide in the tray holding the HD whenever you want to use it.
Kingwin also makes an extensive line of such equipment:
http://kingwin.com/mobileracks.asp . Search online again for
"street prices".

When you make a clone (an exact sector-for-sector copy
of an entire partition), don't start up the OS on that clone for the
first run while the original OS's HD is still connected. After the
first run is made, you can shut down and re-connect the "parent"
OS's HD, and the clone OS can view its "parent" with no problems.
The reverse, the "parent" OS seeing its clone before the clone
is run for the first time, is OK.

*TimDaniels*

 

[spodosaurus]

External is the only ???

Yes. Otherwise your data is only copied, not backed up.

why not an 80+ gig added to a vacant connector internal SATA or IDE. No case
cost then.

If a PSU failure, power surge, theft, etc occur what happens to that
other internal drive and your data?

Ari


--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

 

[KlausK]

I want to be able to backup less than 80GB of data including basically
a mirror image so as to avoid re-installing the OS and other things.

Should I go with a cheap internal 80-ish GB hard drive OR an external
drive that is NEAR 80gb????

I know the Internal ones are cheaper but sometimes cheaper isn't the
best as we all know.

thanks

Why on earth would someone use an internal HD for backups?

 

[Crackles McFarly]

You don't say whether the HDs are PATA or SATA. If they are
SATA, you can use eSATA connections with an external enclosure
to turn any SATA HD into an external HD. Data transfer is faster
than USB 2.0, and you can boot from the external HD in an
emergency if it contains a clone of the OS. You would then have
the safety of a removable HD with the speed and bootability of an
internal HD. Kingwin makes such an enclosure for eSATA:
http://kingwin.com/product_pages/z135eu_bk.asp
Check Nextag.com and PriceGrabber.com for prices using the
model no. as the search term. PriceGrabber lists retailers asking
$28-$30 for them.

Of course, the same could be done with a "removable caddy"
or "mobile rack", but it requires the use of a 5 1/2" expansion bay.
Just slide in the tray holding the HD whenever you want to use it.
Kingwin also makes an extensive line of such equipment:
http://kingwin.com/mobileracks.asp . Search online again for
"street prices".

When you make a clone (an exact sector-for-sector copy
of an entire partition), don't start up the OS on that clone for the
first run while the original OS's HD is still connected. After the
first run is made, you can shut down and re-connect the "parent"
OS's HD, and the clone OS can view its "parent" with no problems.
The reverse, the "parent" OS seeing its clone before the clone
is run for the first time, is OK.

*TimDaniels*

Did not know this...thanks

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Did not know this...thanks

I still don't know what your exact situation is,
but if you intend to make clones for archiving,
and since you have an 80GB HD, you could
make multiple backup clones and store them on
a HD that has a multiple of 80GBs - say, 240GBs
to hold 3 clones, or 320GBs for 4 clones. At
least for the Casper cloning utility, the destination
partition doesn't need to have the same or more
capacity than the source partition. As long as the
data on the source partition doesn't take more
space than the destination partition's capacity,
Casper will do the cloning successfully.

My own WinXP Pro runs in a 40GB partition,
and I clone those 40GBs periodically to HDs that hold
160GBs, i.e. 4 clones per HD. When I fill the 4th
primary partition on a HD and I need another partition,
I just overwrite the 1st partition. The "parent" partition
has a boot.ini file that has selections for 3 HDs - one
for the "parent" HD ("rdisk(0)"), and 4 selections for
each partition on "rdisk(1)" and "rdisk(2)". That way,
I can use the boot.ini in any partition of any of my 3
HDs to boot any of the 9 OSes in my system.
So not only do I have the files from each of the
backup epochs, I can boot the entire OS from each
of those epochs without having to do a "restore" on
an image from some archival medium. To maintain
some degree of physical safety for one of the backup
HDs, I keep that HD on a removable tray. The other
backup HD is internal, but I keep it unpowered until
I need to do a backup on it. Power is controlled by
a DPST toggle switch. I "disappear" the "parent" HD
with another toggle switch before I put the clone on its
first test run.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Frank McCoy]

'External' is the only way to go for backing up. otherwise your NOT backing up, your just
copying the drive for later potential failure. I really don't like to use hard drives for
backups, but since the advent of GIGS of data, it becomes a necessity.

Um ... An internal drive will do just as well for backup as an external
one; and it's cheaper.

Whether you're backing-up or copying mainly depends on your personal
definition of what each is, and how often you do it. If often and
automatic, it has the advantage of your latest stuff being saved. OTOH,
it also means that often you might be saving the mistakes and crap that
happened before you noticed.

*Proper* backup would require at least one external drive and one to two
*other* drives (or partitions) which could be either internal or
external. For complete safety, you need at least *two* external drives,
and preferably two other drives (or partitions) which could be internal.

Back up changes to one of the second sets as often as possible.
Back up all changes in another at a periodic rate (say every day or at
least every week).
Back up *everything* in one of the external drives at least once a week
(If you have room, you can do it in one or more partitions on that
drive.) Take that drive *off location* to someplace safe, and rotate it
with another drive that you keep there; bringing back the old backup
drive for the next time.
If you have the drives (or partitions) to spare, also make local backups
of everything at the same periodic rate ... Then you don't have to go
off-site to get the last backup.

That, of course, is for the really paranoid.
*I* just backup things changed to another internal drive which is used
for nothing else ... Pretty much just as secure as an external drive and
faster. However, the external drive does have the advantage of being
much easier to get stuff off of when using another system if things go
wrong with your main one. Just plug it in; no cabling and opening
cases. It also has the (minor) safety feature of having its own
power-supply (but sometimes that's a disadvantage as well.)

 

[Crackles McFarly]

I still don't know what your exact situation is,

I have less than 80 gb of info on my master drive.
I want to clone an exact copy of all the data to another drive in case
this drive fails.
In other words, clone it so that I can hook up that drive and boot as
though nothing ever happened.

And for real, about 80gb is all I need now.

 

[ohaya]

I have less than 80 gb of info on my master drive.
I want to clone an exact copy of all the data to another drive in case
this drive fails.
In other words, clone it so that I can hook up that drive and boot as
though nothing ever happened.

And for real, about 80gb is all I need now.

Hi,

You can try Terabyte Unlimited's CopyWipe (it's free):

http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/copywipe.php

Jim

 

[JAD]

Um ... An internal drive will do just as well for backup as an external
one; and it's cheaper.

Um...no its not....and cheaper when backing up your data,,,is sick reasoning..cheaper yet,
get a used harddrive from the second hand store.....

 

[Frank McCoy]

Um...no its not....and cheaper when backing up your data,,,is sick reasoning..cheaper yet,
get a used harddrive from the second hand store.....

I'm talking cheaper for the same security; and that means a NEW drive.
Stop putting up straw-men.

flip-flop

Nope.
Just saying that if you want *proper* backup, it has to be done
*OFF-SITE* every once in a while, with exchanges done between the
off-site backup and the local one, if not write-once media. You need
either removable media or removable drives for that.

However, a person backing up and keeping the drive locally, might as
well use an internal drive; since it's there anyway and subject to the
same hazards. Possibly even *more* hazards for the external drive, as
it isn't protected inside the computer case. Hazards like being knocked
over, knocked off a shelf, kicked, spillage, being accidentally
unplugged, etc.