«

"Zilbandy" <> skrev i meddelandet
news:...
> "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:
>
> >Which software would you recommend for backup and why?
>
> Acronis True Image, because it works and images stored on removable
> usb drives can be restored by just booting from a rescue cd. No need
> to load Windows to recover.
> --

Also, I wonder whether they only accept payments by credit cards.
Some softwares from Symantec are sold on shops in Sweden as well.
Do they offer product support?


--
Luigi Donatello Asero
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv...n-sovrum-1.php
Сегодн� �реда 1 феврапъ 2006
Tänään on keskiviikko, 26. helmikuu 2006
今天二零零å…*年二月一日
星期三

"Gerard Bok" <> skrev i meddelandet
news:...
> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:00:24 GMT, "Luigi Donatello Asero"
> <> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gerard Bok" <> skrev i meddelandet
> >news:...
> >> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 10:02:08 GMT, "Luigi Donatello Asero"
> >> <> wrote:
> >
> >> >I mean, does Symantec have an e-mailadress I can write to for this
kind
> >of
> >> >questions?
> >>
> >> Yes, they have. And they charge it to you as an 'incident'.
> >> Expect around 30 euro ex tax. (Some US $ 35)
> >
> >Do you mean that they charge a customer to give information about a
product
> >which one might want to buy?
>
> They provide free information on their website.
> If you require personal attention, they charge it as an incident.
>
> >I need backup for several things, website files and
> > book-keeping software for example.
>
> In that case, it is probably wise to make sure that your data is
> not stored on the same partition as your OS.
> Say, Windows on C:, your data on D:


Well, if the software automatically replicated data from
the book-keeping software into CDs and I inserted a new CD every time it is
full and kept it inserted while working either on the book-keeping software
or on the website or something else I needed replicated, I would not need
divide the hard disk into several partitions, would I?
In any case, would the software create new partitions automatically or not?

> >> Rule #3: determine your goal.
> >> Retreive all data, no matter how ? Continue your business
> >> operation with minimal disruption ? Provide audit data for future
> >> use ?etc.
> >Continue my business operation with minimal disruption and backup data in
a
> >safe way
>
> OK. Rule #3a.
> Match your requirements with your budget.
> Running a shadow PC, with automatic data replication from your
> main PC usually proves cost effective just after the first
> incident

So, you mean that automatic data replication is more costing effetctive than
paying for recovery for each incident which should happen, don´t you?

--
Luigi Donatello Asero
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv...n-sovrum-1.php
Сегодн� �реда 1 феврапъ 2006
Tänään on keskiviikko, 26. helmikuu 2006
今天二零零å…*年二月一日
星期三

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:25:55 GMT, "Luigi Donatello Asero"
<> wrote:

>"Gerard Bok" <> skrev i meddelandet
>news:...
>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:00:24 GMT, "Luigi Donatello Asero"
>> <> wrote:

>> >I need backup for several things, website files and
>> > book-keeping software for example.
>>
>> In that case, it is probably wise to make sure that your data is
>> not stored on the same partition as your OS.
>> Say, Windows on C:, your data on D:
>
>
>Well, if the software automatically replicated data from
>the book-keeping software into CDs

I think that's a scenario you best forget as soon as possible.
Replicate to a running system.
Backup on other media (like CDR or DVD).

Don't expect book-keeping software to run if you just have copies
of the files. It's probably far more complex. Consult the
software's supplier for a viable way to backup their system.

> something else I needed replicated, I would not need
>divide the hard disk into several partitions, would I?

If you keep data and OS on the same partition you will need to
replicate --and backup-- that entire partition. And that's quite
a challenge as several 'open files' cause problems only the best
backup software can cope with. And it produces datastream with a
very low 'yield'. (Backed up data versus viable data.)

>In any case, would the software create new partitions automatically or not?

It never will. Only an OS installation CD will perform such a
task.

>> >> Rule #3: determine your goal.
>> >> Retreive all data, no matter how ? Continue your business
>> >> operation with minimal disruption ? Provide audit data for future
>> >> use ?etc.
>> >Continue my business operation with minimal disruption and backup data in
>> >a safe way
>>
>> OK. Rule #3a.
>> Match your requirements with your budget.
>> Running a shadow PC, with automatic data replication from your
>> main PC usually proves cost effective just after the first
>> incident
>
>So, you mean that automatic data replication is more costing effetctive than
>paying for recovery for each incident which should happen, don´t you?

As a rule, any (external) recovery will cost you far more than an
extra PC would

Say, you operate a business from (mainly) a single PC and you
want that business to keep running uninterrupted, a second PC
with data replication (and an UPS) would be quite a viable
option.

You have to decide what it would cost you if your (main) PC fails
for 10 minutes, for an hour, for half a day, a day, etc.
That is, the costs of your business being unoperational added to
the costs you incur to restore to a running system.
And keep in mind, that if you run into a hardware failure, you
are likely to need an extra PC anyway.

--
Kind regards,
Gerard Bok

"Gerard Bok" <> skrev i meddelandet
news:...
> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:25:55 GMT, "Luigi Donatello Asero"
> <> wrote:
>
> >"Gerard Bok" <> skrev i meddelandet
> >news:...
> >> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:00:24 GMT, "Luigi Donatello Asero"
> >> <> wrote:
>
> >> >I need backup for several things, website files and
> >> > book-keeping software for example.
> >>
> >> In that case, it is probably wise to make sure that your data is
> >> not stored on the same partition as your OS.
> >> Say, Windows on C:, your data on D:
> >
> >
> >Well, if the software automatically replicated data from
> >the book-keeping software into CDs
>
> I think that's a scenario you best forget as soon as possible.
> Replicate to a running system.
> Backup on other media (like CDR or DVD).
>
> Don't expect book-keeping software to run if you just have copies
> of the files. It's probably far more complex. Consult the
> software's supplier for a viable way to backup their system.

I have the original book-keeping software.
I was talking about backing up files.
I have already talked with software´s supplier and I was told that this
software does not replicate automatically but only afterwards.
Now, please read what they say about this Symantec software
http://www.symantec.com/home_homeoff...006/index.html
> > something else I needed replicated, I would not need
> >divide the hard disk into several partitions, would I?
>
> If you keep data and OS on the same partition you will need to
> replicate --and backup-- that entire partition. And that's quite
> a challenge as several 'open files' cause problems only the best
> backup software can cope with. And it produces datastream with a
> very low 'yield'. (Backed up data versus viable data.)

Fine, and which would be the best backup software in your opinion?

> As a rule, any (external) recovery will cost you far more than an
> extra PC would
>
> Say, you operate a business from (mainly) a single PC and you
> want that business to keep running uninterrupted, a second PC
> with data replication (and an UPS) would be quite a viable
> option.

But in this case if the first PC were attacked the second would be as
well...
> And keep in mind, that if you run into a hardware failure, you
> are likely to need an extra PC anyway.
That´s one of the reasons why the backing up should be made on external
units such as CDs, I think..

--
Luigi Donatello Asero
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv...n-sovrum-1.php
Сегодн� �реда 1 феврапъ 2006
Tänään on keskiviikko, 26. helmikuu 2006
今天二零零å…*年二月一日
星期三

"Luigi Donatello Asero" <> skrev i meddelandet
news:OO2Ef.155049$...
>
> "Gerard Bok" <> skrev i meddelandet
> news:...
> > On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:25:55 GMT, "Luigi Donatello Asero"
> > <> wrote:
> > Don't expect book-keeping software to run if you just have copies
> > of the files. It's probably far more complex. Consult the
> > software's supplier for a viable way to backup their system.
>
> I have the original book-keeping software.
> I was talking about backing up files.
> I have already talked with software´s supplier and I was told that this
> software does not replicate automatically but only afterwards.
> Now, please read what they say about this Symantec software
>
http://www.symantec.com/home_homeoff...006/index.html
They talk about

"automatically backing up everything on your compute"
Do you mean that I could not automatically backup into CDs?
Last but not least if the computer were stolen I would lose my backup if it
were on the harddisk...

--
Luigi Donatello Asero
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv...n-sovrum-1.php
Сегодн� �реда 1 феврапъ 2006
Tänään on keskiviikko, 26. helmikuu 2006
今天二零零å…*年二月一日
星期三

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 13:35:42 GMT, "Luigi Donatello Asero"
<> wrote:

>"Gerard Bok" <> skrev i meddelandet
>news:...
>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:25:55 GMT, "Luigi Donatello Asero"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>> >"Gerard Bok" <> skrev i meddelandet
>> >news:...
>> >> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:00:24 GMT, "Luigi Donatello Asero"
>> >> <> wrote:
>>
>> >> >I need backup for several things, website files and
>> >> > book-keeping software for example.
>> >>
>> >> In that case, it is probably wise to make sure that your data is
>> >> not stored on the same partition as your OS.
>> >> Say, Windows on C:, your data on D:
>> >
>> >
>> >Well, if the software automatically replicated data from
>> >the book-keeping software into CDs
>>
>> I think that's a scenario you best forget as soon as possible.
>> Replicate to a running system.
>> Backup on other media (like CDR or DVD).
>>
>> Don't expect book-keeping software to run if you just have copies
>> of the files. It's probably far more complex. Consult the
>> software's supplier for a viable way to backup their system.
>
>I have the original book-keeping software.
>I was talking about backing up files.
>I have already talked with software´s supplier and I was told that this
>software does not replicate automatically but only afterwards.

That's rather normal for book keeping applications.
You start to enter a transaction. That gets journaled, modifies
several files/accounts and only after the transaction is fully
'booked' your books are in balance again.

Some systems allow a backup to be made at that stage, most only
allow a (valid) backup after the application is closed and all
data is commited unto the disk. And even then you need to verify
that you have a valid backup, as many systems use e.g. registry
settings to keep tabs (and to defend against manipulation of
their files!)

>Now, please read what they say about this Symantec software
>http://www.symantec.com/home_homeoff...006/index.html

Sure. Have you read my sales pitch ?
You realy NEED my product, it's the BEST you'll ever find...

There are 3 kinds of liars: common liars, huge liars and sales
reps. Correction: they don't lie, they 'appetize the picture'

>Fine, and which would be the best backup software in your opinion?

As said earlier: there is no single 'one product fits all'
solution. (And I'm quite happy with that situation as I have to
earn a living as well.)

>> As a rule, any (external) recovery will cost you far more than an
>> extra PC would
>>
>> Say, you operate a business from (mainly) a single PC and you
>> want that business to keep running uninterrupted, a second PC
>> with data replication (and an UPS) would be quite a viable
>> option.
>
>But in this case if the first PC were attacked the second would be as
>well...
>> And keep in mind, that if you run into a hardware failure, you
>> are likely to need an extra PC anyway.
>That´s one of the reasons why the backing up should be made on external
>units such as CDs, I think..

I'm not advocating to employ 'only a backup PC'. If your business
seriously needs an operation PC, you'll need both.
A stand-by PC to take over if the main PC fails.
And off site stored backup(s) to cope with fire, theft,
earthquakes, avalances (in Sweden ?) etc.
And probably for future record keeping.

--
Kind regards,
Gerard Bok

"Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote in
news:nN1Ef.43663$:

....snip...
> Well, if the software automatically replicated data from
> the book-keeping software into CDs and I inserted a new CD every time
> it is full and kept it inserted while working either on the
> book-keeping software or on the website or something else I needed
> replicated, I would not need divide the hard disk into several
> partitions, would I? In any case, would the software create new
> partitions automatically or not?


Backing up to tape, CDs, or DVDs, while feasible, is a PITA. Tedious and
tiresome procedures are the enemy of the iron self-discipline needed to
regularly make backups. For that reason, I put convenience high on the
list. Accordingly I recommend backing up to HD - preferably a removable
one (either get a "caddy" HD system for $25 or so, or, even better, use an
external USB drive - it's best to store the drive offsite or at least some
distance from the computer).

The newer versions of Ghost, Acronis, etc. permit live backups (and
restores) with the system still up, and the latest versions support
incremental and differential backups, and now even partial backups (e.g.,
just the Documents & Settings directory tree)

At less than $1/gigabyte for HDs, backup is now dirt cheap.

Regards,

nemo_outis wrote:

> Backing up to tape, CDs, or DVDs, while feasible, is a PITA. Tedious and
> tiresome procedures are the enemy of the iron self-discipline needed to
> regularly make backups. For that reason, I put convenience high on the
> list. Accordingly I recommend backing up to HD - preferably a removable
> one (either get a "caddy" HD system for $25 or so, or, even better, use an
> external USB drive - it's best to store the drive offsite or at least some
> distance from the computer).

That has got to be one of the dumbest paragraphs you've typed to date.
First you claim traditional backup methods are a PITA, when they're not.
Unless you consider things like swapping media at the end of the day or
when a "change the tape" idiot light comes on some sort of major
undertaking I suppose.

Then you "advise" readers to use a backup media that's exactly as
vulnerable to compromise as their working media is, opening your backups
up to not only malicious attacks and other system failures, but those
lazy, incompetent users you 3elude to above who can't change a tape when
told to do so. You know they're going to want to use "Drive Z" to store
all those MP3's and ****. Suddenly your "backup" media is just another
drive with copies of some of your other data on it. Not really a backup at
all.

You also completely miss the "all your eggs in one basked" problem.
There's a very good reason for doing varied incremental/full backups and
using numerous media Nemo. **** happens. And when you need those backups
but your "hard drive" solution is corrupt or fails you're toast. If your
tape from yesterday fails, you use the prior one. You may still loose some
data, but you're not rebuilding all of it.

Then, if throwing stones at users and suggesting they defeat most if not
all of what making backups is about, you flip flop back to making your
whole crippled "solution" an even BIGGER pain in the ass. You claim it's
too much trouble for people to change tapes or CDs on a regular basis,
but you tell posters they should take an even more more fragile media
and store it off site somewhere. Like they're going to drive 20 miles
every day just to retrieve their USB drive, wait for backups to
complete, then take it back to storage again.

Yeah yeah yeah..... you're about to launch into some tirade about how you
meant this and I don't unsderstand that to defend this unconsidered answer
the same way you try to defend all the other dictionary inspired but
technically inept advice you've given, but the simple facts of the matter
will remain even after I've granted you that last word.

Hard drive backup solutions are less secure and no less a PITA than any
other solution if they're done properly. Hard drive backups are also going
to be less reliable and more expensive if done properly. All in all, hard
drives are a very poor backup media that promote and enable very poor
backup practices. Not a serious consideration at all unless you're better
funded and staffed than most small to medium size businesses, and
certainly almost all individuals.

Borked Pseudo Mailed <> writes:
> nemo_outis wrote:
>
> > Backing up to tape, CDs, or DVDs, while feasible, is a PITA.
> > Tedious and tiresome procedures are the enemy of the iron
> > self-discipline needed to regularly make backups. For that
> > reason, I put convenience high on the list. Accordingly I
> > recommend backing up to HD - preferably a removable one (either
> > get a "caddy" HD system for $25 or so, or, even better, use an
> > external USB drive - it's best to store the drive offsite or at
> > least some distance from the computer).
>
> That has got to be one of the dumbest paragraphs you've typed to date.
> First you claim traditional backup methods are a PITA, when they're
> not.

I disagree--Nemo's dead on on this -- the traditional methods ARE at
PITA. That's why no one does them.

Why? Because windows doesn't include reasonable backup software
that's usable for folks, and people even with dvd writers, aren't keen
on swapping 10 or more DVD's through their system to backup, and not
to mention all external media devices writing to tape or optical disks
tend to be slow. Hell, does windows backup even deal with multiple
disks? I haven't even checked lately, that's how much I've given up
on windows backup. And the general user populace just isn't willing
to spend money on backup software, even if we all agree that htey
should.

Hard drives with true one-button backup are making it convenient
enough for people to take periodic fulls ystem backups without the
hassle of additional media swapping.

Remember, I'm talking about the general user populace here. Among all
things, they're lazy, and hard drive backup is really hte lowest
barrier thing we've seen on the market to date that I can consistently
talk a 50-something-year-old proprietor of a 2-5 man shop (who has all
sorts of other things to worry about) to do regularly.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Borked Pseudo Mailed <> wrote in
news: d.net:

> nemo_outis wrote:
>
....snip Borky's silly posturing...




1. Do tell me how many folks have the patience to back up a 400-
gig drive to CDs.

2. HD backups are many times faster than CDs or DVDs and can be
performed unattended. A decent tape drive will cost several times more
than even a big HD (and that's not counting the SCSI card) and tape is
notoriously unrobust. CDs and DVDs aren't much better and the likelihood
of at least one CD in a set of perhaps 50 failing (or just getting
misplaced/lost) on, say, a primary Ghost backup (rendering recovery
somewhere between difficult and impossible) is quite high.

3. The MTBF of most modern HDs is 100,000 hrs and up. The chance
of a backup drive seeing more than a few percent of that is remote (e.g.
two hours once a week for 10 years: 1%). That both it and the drive it
backs up would fail simultaneously is right up there with being hit with an
asteroid. However, if you're the ultimate paranoid belt-and-suspenders
man, back up to TWO independent HDs (either as true duplicates or
alternated). It's still way faster than CDs, DVDs, or tape (and cheaper
too).

4. Offsite backup for most users is as simple as keeping the home
backup at work (and vice-versa for small offices). Child's play. However,
just keeping the USB HD backup in the garage wll be sufficient "off-site-
ness" for many.

Regards,

PS The overwhelming risk wrt to backup for home users is failure to do it.
Anything that mitigates that primary risk and overcomes inertia, apathy,
and avoidance is a giant step forward. Backup to HDs performs that role
with maximum convenience and entirely satisfactory reliability.