Re: Backup Software rcommendation

[Guest Brian A.]

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:%23CEUvifjIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Brian A. wrote:

>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>> news:O%23$O7SfjIHA.4908@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>> Daave wrote:

>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>> Daave wrote:

>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> and perhaps even consider giving Casper a try (except for the

>>>>>>> potential low level conflict problem I've already covered here).

>>>>>>

>>>>>> As long as you're not running these programs simultaneouly, I'm

>>>>>> pretty sure there won't be any conflict.

>>>>>

>>>>> Nope, that's not it. See, both programs will have low-level, in the

>>>>> background, disk access concurrently running tasks to continuously

>>>>> monitor and access the drives, and a PC Magazine article cautioned

>>>>> against such potential conflicts (but not singling out any particular

>>>>> cloning or imagining program) - all of which makes sense. That

>>>>> doesn't necessarily mean there will (for a certainty) be conflicts,

>>>>> but it does seem likely.

>>>>

>>>> Then all you need to do is disable any background processes.

>>>>

>>>> Or simply uninstall. You can always reinstall. Or for that matter,

>>>> restore an image, which will have the same efeect.

>>>

>>> Yes, I am fully aware of all these options, but you have to admit, they are

>>> a

>>> bit of a PIA. It would be interesting to see if anyone else has tried

>>> having both installed together, but if I get a wee bit more motivated, I

>>> will

>>> jump in and give it a try. :-)

>>

>> If I had a disk that needed cloning I'd give it a shot, although it would be

>> internal in the same box or over a network, I don't and never have used an

>> external enclosure that houses only one disk. Perhaps I can test it in a VPC

>> where I have Acronis Echo as well, that's if Casper supports Virtual.

>

> I think the best backup for one's source hard drive IS an external USB hard

> drive enclosure, since it's only powered on when you make the backup - so its

> life is very long, as it hardly gets much use at all (as in contrast with an

> internal drive).

>

 

Now your digging Bill. You've mentioned your an EE many times over the years

which means you should no what initial startup surge "can" do. My point on that

statement is directed at shortened lifetime of the product, not that it will

instantly explode or fail after a few startups.

On my personal home network, the machine I use, which I built in 2001, is

since 2003 used for the backups/images and has been running almost constant

since, maintenance and required reboots are the only time it gets powered down

and back up again. Although maintenance gives it some down time rest (3 times a

year planned schedule), required reboots don't.

Granted that mechanical and electrical products that are in high volume use,

have the higher risk of crapping out before something that gets a jolt here or

there to wake up. It all boils down to: any one can go before the other for any

numerous amount of reasons.

 

 

--

 

 

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience }

Conflicts start where information lacks.

http://basconotw.mvps.org/

 

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Brian A. wrote:

> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> news:%23CEUvifjIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> Brian A. wrote:

>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>> news:O%23$O7SfjIHA.4908@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>> Daave wrote:

>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>>> Daave wrote:

>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> and perhaps even consider giving Casper a try (except for the

>>>>>>>> potential low level conflict problem I've already covered here).

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> As long as you're not running these programs simultaneouly, I'm

>>>>>>> pretty sure there won't be any conflict.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Nope, that's not it. See, both programs will have low-level, in

>>>>>> the

>>>>>> background, disk access concurrently running tasks to continuously

>>>>>> monitor and access the drives, and a PC Magazine article cautioned

>>>>>> against such potential conflicts (but not singling out any particular

>>>>>> cloning or imagining program) - all of which makes sense. That

>>>>>> doesn't necessarily mean there will (for a certainty) be conflicts,

>>>>>> but it does seem likely.

>>>>>

>>>>> Then all you need to do is disable any background processes.

>>>>>

>>>>> Or simply uninstall. You can always reinstall. Or for that matter,

>>>>> restore an image, which will have the same efeect.

>>>>

>>>> Yes, I am fully aware of all these options, but you have to admit, they

>>>> are

>>>> a bit of a PIA. It would be interesting to see if anyone else has

>>>> tried

>>>> having both installed together, but if I get a wee bit more motivated,

>>>> I

>>>> will jump in and give it a try. :-)

>>>

>>> If I had a disk that needed cloning I'd give it a shot, although it

>>> would

>>> be internal in the same box or over a network, I don't and never have

>>> used

>>> an external enclosure that houses only one disk. Perhaps I can test it

>>> in

>>> a VPC where I have Acronis Echo as well, that's if Casper supports

>>> Virtual.

>>

>> I think the best backup for one's source hard drive IS an external USB

>> hard

>> drive enclosure, since it's only powered on when you make the backup - so

>> its

>> life is very long, as it hardly gets much use at all (as in contrast with

>> an

>> internal drive).

>

> Now your digging Bill. You've mentioned your an EE many times over the

> years

 

Which is true.

> which means you should know what initial startup surge "can" do.

 

"Can do" is the operative word here. The way you're slanting it, you

assume that the surge from turning on the enclosure HD is worse than leaving

it on all the time (in terms of life expectancy), which, I believe, is a

debateable point.

 

For an incandescent light bulb, however, you may have a point. :-)

> My point on

> that statement is directed at shortened lifetime of the product, not that

> it

> will instantly explode or fail after a few startups.

 

Understood. But I think you missed my point too. A hard drive has a

limited lifetime in constant use, right? Like a few years (give or take).

So the less you use it, the longer it lasts, right? Right. :-)

 

As to whether or not turning it off and on (only when needed) results in a

shorter lifetime.... I wouldn't assume so. It might. But it equally well

might not (and that's what I've been assuming).

 

Or, to put it another way, does it really make much sense to keep your

backup drive running all the time along with the main drive, given that the

life expectancy of these drives is a few years? Or does it make more sense

to use it only when it's needed?

 

UNLESS your surge argument trumps that. If you have a source supporting

that (like from Western Digital, or whatever) that would be nice to see.

> On my personal home network, the machine I use, which I built in 2001, is

> since 2003 used for the backups/images and has been running almost

> constant

> since, maintenance and required reboots are the only time it gets powered

> down

> and back up again. Although maintenance gives it some down time rest (3

> times a year planned schedule), required reboots don't.

 

OK, and there may be room for some debate here. But for me it works best

to shut the machine down each night.

 

As to its life expectancy (including the monitor), there may be some room

for debate here, too.

> Granted that mechanical and electrical products that are in high volume

> use,

> have the higher risk of crapping out before something that gets a jolt

> here or

> there to wake up. It all boils down to: any one can go before the other

> for

> any numerous amount of reasons.

[Guest Brian A.]

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:ukNugihjIHA.2304@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>

>>> I think the best backup for one's source hard drive IS an external USB hard

>>> drive enclosure, since it's only powered on when you make the backup - so

>>> its

>>> life is very long, as it hardly gets much use at all (as in contrast with an

>>> internal drive).

>>

>> Now your digging Bill. You've mentioned your an EE many times over the

>> years

>

> Which is true.

 

I wasn't doubting it and never had a reason to.

>

>> which means you should know what initial startup surge "can" do.

>

> "Can do" is the operative word here. The way you're slanting it, you assume

> that the surge from turning on the enclosure HD is worse than leaving it on

> all the time (in terms of life expectancy), which, I believe, is a debateable

> point.

>

> For an incandescent light bulb, however, you may have a point. :-)

 

C'mon Bill, take the twist out and/or read the entire thread before

responding. As an EE, you know very well the intent of my response, at least

you should have after reading through this post of the thread.

>

>> My point on

>> that statement is directed at shortened lifetime of the product, not that it

>> will instantly explode or fail after a few startups.

>

> Understood. But I think you missed my point too. A hard drive has a

> limited lifetime in constant use, right? Like a few years (give or take).

> So the less you use it, the longer it lasts, right? Right. :-)

> As to whether or not turning it off and on (only when needed) results in a

> shorter lifetime.... I wouldn't assume so. It might. But it equally well

> might not (and that's what I've been assuming).

>

> Or, to put it another way, does it really make much sense to keep your backup

> drive running all the time along with the main drive, given that the life

> expectancy of these drives is a few years? Or does it make more sense to use

> it only when it's needed?

>

> UNLESS your surge argument trumps that. If you have a source supporting that

> (like from Western Digital, or whatever) that would be nice to see.

>

 

It's not argument, it's fact that the initial surge of energy delivered to

power up any elctrical component is a factor in the life expectancy of that

component. I don't believe I've missed any of your points, if I have I

apologize for that and would like you to point them out and explain what I have

missed in accordance to what you mentioned and my response to that mention

>> On my personal home network, the machine I use, which I built in 2001, is

>> since 2003 used for the backups/images and has been running almost constant

>> since, maintenance and required reboots are the only time it gets powered

>> down

>> and back up again. Although maintenance gives it some down time rest (3

>> times a year planned schedule), required reboots don't.

>

> OK, and there may be room for some debate here. But for me it works best to

> shut the machine down each night.

>

 

To each their own is the way I see it, each purpose/demand = demand/purpose,

if there is no demand there is no purpose, as is if there is no purpose there is

no demand.

> As to its life expectancy (including the monitor), there may be some room for

> debate here, too.

>

 

I'm sorry, this appears to have gone into left field and really shouldn't be

continued here.

 

 

--

 

 

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience }

Conflicts start where information lacks.

http://basconotw.mvps.org/

 

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Brian A. wrote:

> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> news:ukNugihjIHA.2304@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>

>>>> I think the best backup for one's source hard drive IS an external USB

>>>> hard

>>>> drive enclosure, since it's only powered on when you make the backup -

>>>> so

>>>> its life is very long, as it hardly gets much use at all (as in

>>>> contrast with

>>>> an internal drive).

>>>

>>> Now your digging Bill. You've mentioned your an EE many times over the

>>> years

>>

>> Which is true.

>

> I wasn't doubting it and never had a reason to.

>

>>

>>> which means you should know what initial startup surge "can" do.

>>

>> "Can do" is the operative word here. The way you're slanting it, you

>> assume that the surge from turning on the enclosure HD is worse than

>> leaving

>> it on all the time (in terms of life expectancy), which, I believe, is a

>> debateable point.

>>

>> For an incandescent light bulb, however, you may have a point. :-)

>

> C'mon Bill, take the twist out and/or read the entire thread before

> responding. As an EE, you know very well the intent of my response, at

> least

> you should have after reading through this post of the thread.

>

I assume the intent was to strongly suggest or imply that the life

expectancy of an external hard drive enclosure is shorter if you turn it on

and off than it would be if you left it on all the time. Is that not your

assertion?

 

The point is, I don't think that is true. Sure, I can see the possibility

(due to the surges as you said), but it would be nice to have an article

documenting the results of a test for a hard drive under these two different

scenarios.

>>> My point on

>>> that statement is directed at shortened lifetime of the product, not

>>> that it

>>> will instantly explode or fail after a few startups.

>>

>> Understood. But I think you missed my point too. A hard drive has a

>> limited lifetime in constant use, right? Like a few years (give or

>> take).

>> So the less you use it, the longer it lasts, right? Right. :-)

>> As to whether or not turning it off and on (only when needed) results in

>> a

>> shorter lifetime.... I wouldn't assume so. It might. But it equally

>> well

>> might not (and that's what I've been assuming).

>>

>> Or, to put it another way, does it really make much sense to keep your

>> backup

>> drive running all the time along with the main drive, given that the life

>> expectancy of these drives is a few years? Or does it make more sense

>> to

>> use it only when it's needed?

>>

>> UNLESS your surge argument trumps that. If you have a source supporting

>> that

>> (like from Western Digital, or whatever) that would be nice to see.

>>

>

> It's not argument, it's fact that the initial surge of energy delivered to

> power up any electrical component is a factor in the life expectancy of

> that

> component.

 

Of course it is. No argument on that point.

> I don't believe I've missed any of your points, if I have I

> apologize for that and would like you to point them out and explain what I

> have missed in accordance to what you mentioned and my response to that

> mention

 

Well, the discussion here (I thought) was about which leads to a longer life

for a hard drive. Leaving the hard drive on all the time, or turning it

off and on, and not using it very often. And some documented studies may

have that info somewhere, but I don't know.

>>> On my personal home network, the machine I use, which I built in 2001,

>>> is

>>> since 2003 used for the backups/images and has been running almost

>>> constant

>>> since, maintenance and required reboots are the only time it gets

>>> powered

>>> down

>>> and back up again. Although maintenance gives it some down time rest (3

>>> times a year planned schedule), required reboots don't.

>>

>> OK, and there may be room for some debate here. But for me it works

>> best to

>> shut the machine down each night.

>>

>

> To each their own is the way I see it, each purpose/demand =

> demand/purpose,

> if there is no demand there is no purpose, as is if there is no purpose

> there

> is no demand.

>

>> As to its life expectancy (including the monitor), there may be some room

>> for

>> debate here, too.

>

> I'm sorry, this appears to have gone into left field and really shouldn't

> be

> continued here.

 

Perhaps so. If we're talking about the life expectancy (or MTBF) of a hard

drive, that's one thing, but for the computer and some of its other

components, that may well be another.

[Guest Brian A.]

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:OJxqKRXjIHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

 

 

Perhaps so. If we're talking about the life expectancy (or MTBF) of a hard

drive, that's one thing, but for the computer and some of its other

components, that may well be another.

 

Had to respond here, any attempt from you last errors out.

 

Nooo, none of the above has to do with the Subject line.

 

----

----

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience }

Conflicts start where information lacks.

http://basconotw.mvps.org/

 

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

----

----

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Re: Backup Software rcommendation

 

Brian A. wrote:

> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> news:OJxqKRXjIHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

>

> Perhaps so. If we're talking about the life expectancy (or MTBF) of a

> hard

> drive, that's one thing, but for the computer and some of its other

> components, that may well be another.

>

> Had to respond here, any attempt from you last errors out.

>

> Nooo, none of the above has to do with the Subject line.

 

Brian, I believe we *were* talking about the potential advantage of using an

external USB drive enclosure (and TI or Casper) for backup purposes, over an

internal drive. The fact that we touched the hardware issue doesn't seem

like a big deal to me.