Best Way To Continous Image/back Up?

[Digitalbanana]

Can anyone recommend a software that will do the following for a Windows Vista - soon to be Windows 7 PC? I already have the hardware so only interested in getting software package.

1. Clone a PC's 500GB hard disk so that it can be swapped out and from the original hard drive and be bootable. This I presume takes several hours for a 500GB drive.

2. Do incremental updates hourly on the cloned external drive from requirement 1 to keep all subsequent files backed up on clone drive and retain its bootable feature. Presumably this just takes a few minutes.

Thanks

[webfact]

Storagecraft Shadow Protect Desktop Edition

http://www.storagecraft.com/

It costs around 80$ but it is worth every cent!!!

Will do bare metal restore as well.

[welo]

2. Do incremental updates hourly on the cloned external drive from requirement 1 to keep all subsequent files backed up on clone drive and retain its bootable feature. Presumably this just takes a few minutes.

If I get you right you want to maintain a clone of your primary drive in case the hardware dies.

I assume you are familiar with RAID systems, and decided against it for some reasons?

Have a look at Acronis TrueImage! I use it only for simple Partition backups, but I see a lot of features that go far beyond that and might be usefull to you. Prices start at USD 49.

However, from what I understand the backup will always be made to an archive file, not to a disk. I wonder whether incremental changes to a cloned disk is supported by any program...

welo

Edited August 21, 2009 by welo

[webfact]

2. Do incremental updates hourly on the cloned external drive from requirement 1 to keep all subsequent files backed up on clone drive and retain its bootable feature. Presumably this just takes a few minutes.

If I get you right you want to maintain a clone of your primary drive in case the hardware dies.

I assume you are familiar with RAID systems, and decided against it for some reasons?

Have a look at Acronis TrueImage! I use it only for simple Partition backups, but I see a lot of features that go far beyond that and might be usefull to you. Prices start at USD 49.

However, from what I understand the backup will always be made to an archive file, not to a disk. I wonder whether incremental changes to a cloned disk is supported by any program...

welo

haven't heard of such program yet but it possible to edit an image manually with program specific tools.

Edited August 21, 2009 by webfact

[Crushdepth]

Acronis can be used to create a disk image and to schedule incremental updates. It will consolidate some updates when the backup disk starts to get full, if you set it up right. However the backup image is not bootable in itself - you make a 'rescue disk' CD that you can boot from, and restore the image back onto your main hard drive (which will be bootable, if you imaged the boot/OS partition).

It's quite a good backup programme, I use it to maintain a daily backup image of my work computer. Running backup jobs hourly could get a bit annoying though.

[saintofsilence]

I recently purchased Paragon Hard disk manager you can download it for 30 days free trial.

It is very slow when cloning my laptop hard drive but may be better with a desktop

[Naam]

Acronis can be used to create a disk image and to schedule incremental updates. It will consolidate some updates when the backup disk starts to get full, if you set it up right. However the backup image is not bootable in itself - you make a 'rescue disk' CD that you can boot from, and restore the image back onto your main hard drive (which will be bootable, if you imaged the boot/OS partition).

It's quite a good backup programme, I use it to maintain a daily backup image of my work computer. Running backup jobs hourly could get a bit annoying though.

i am using Acronis (the DOS version as i think the version that runs under Win is cràp²) for daily cloning of two additional internal drives (40 gb = 17 minutes each drive). both spare drives are of course bootable and there is no need to swap or fumble around with a bootable CD. in case of problems one just changes boot priority in the BIOS. additional internal drives are of course not possible when it's a laptop.

backing up my most important data (spreadsheet) is done hundreds of times daily. a small self written macro numbers, timestamps the copies and copies them to three drives plus two USB-sticks whenever it is saved.

[bangla]

I assume you are familiar with RAID systems, and decided against it for some reasons?

yeah, raid 1 would be the easiest en fastest way.

[britmaveric]

Acronis is what you need!

[Digitalbanana]

Thnks guys. So Acronis is getting some votes and Storage Craft sounds promising. Yes, I want to do incremental changes to a cloned disk in case the hard disk original fails in my laptop. Nothing more than that really.

Cloning takes hours and until now I have used Farstones DriveClone successfully for this, then use 2bridghtsparks Syncback on the cloned disk for incremental changes to my data but it sometimes makes the clone unbootable probably because it isn't designed to do that.

Earlier on this site someone mentioned NTI backup as a good system also?

[britmaveric]

Also might look at Memeo - came with a backup raid I bought. Basically does autobackups to the file level of whatever you mark.

http://www.memeo.com/

[surface]

I've given the free version of Macrium Reflect a go, and it works well. Images can be access from Windows Explorer to recover individual files.

http://www.macrium.com/reflectfree.asp

The full version is $40 and supports:

Differential disk images and backups

Incremental disk images and backups

as well as much more which can be seen at the above link.

[harrry]

I assume you are familiar with RAID systems, and decided against it for some reasons?

yeah, raid 1 would be the easiest en fastest way.

RAID protects against hard disk failure but cannot help against corruption...(not the thai kind the data kind) If you use raid it is also important that you back up your data regularly.

[thaimite]

I use Acronis True image to back up my drive C every month.

It runs under windows and is quite fast and not too resource hungry. However, I strongly suggest partitioning your drive to put the My documents and other user data on a different drive which has been discussed in length on other recent posts.

This can then be backed up incrementally on a daily basis, without having to make a full bootable image.

For automatic daily backups of my D drive I use SyncbackSE from 2brioghtsparks.com

Edited August 21, 2009 by thaimite

[welo]

I assume you are familiar with RAID systems, and decided against it for some reasons?

yeah, raid 1 would be the easiest en fastest way.

RAID protects against hard disk failure but cannot help against corruption...(not the thai kind the data kind) If you use raid it is also important that you back up your data regularly.

That's a valid point and I can only second that!

Since OP asked about incremental updates to another harddisk that will still be bootable, and he plans to do that several times a day, I assumed that his purpose is mainly for disaster recovery. 'Incremental cloning' will also delete files that are deleted from the source drive.

But it is certainly a good idea to point out the need for real backups since he might mistakingly think the data is safe - whether he goes with RAID or the cloning software.

welo

welo

[Crushdepth]

Also, a RAID1 is only 'hot swappable' into another RAID1 set up with a second blank hard drive ready to be rebuilt on. RAID 1 gives you some redundancy against disk failure but it is not a backup nor is it cloning.

[JSixpack]

I use Acronis True image to back up my drive C every month.

It runs under windows and is quite fast and not too resource hungry. However, I strongly suggest partitioning your drive to put the My documents and other user data on a different drive which has been discussed in length on other recent posts.

This can then be backed up incrementally on a daily basis, without having to make a full bootable image.

For automatic daily backups of my D drive I use SyncbackSE from 2brioghtsparks.com

Partitions are rarely necessary and give a false sense of security, because when a partition fails, it's almost certain that the drive has also failed.

In the case of a corrupt Windows installation, you can do a system restore or repair install, which preserves the data. If you need a reformat and full install, you have your backup on a different drive anyway; or, you can backup your data first.

You can backup data incrementally on a daily basis without creating any extra partitions. In that case, you'd backup the folders in the same way as you are doing now. You can also include only files more recent than your last full image.

[webfact]

I'll second that. To partition a HDD dive is not a good idea. It will cause the problems as described above!

HDD cost almost nothings these days. Leave your C-Drive unpartitioned and have a second drive as D and/or a third one as E.

With Tweak UI you can move My Documents to another drive if you like to do so.

Using programs like Shadowprotect or Acronis you will "feel" the difference.

Edited August 24, 2009 by webfact

[welo]

Partitions are rarely necessary and give a false sense of security, because when a partition fails, it's almost certain that the drive has also failed.

Since the OP's question were already answered I guess he will not mind if we go a bit offtopic

Whereas I agree there is a certain risk that unexperienced users might see partitions as different physical devices and this leading to false decisions when it comes to backups, I personally still consider partitions as useful.

Separating system and data on two different partitions has the following benefits IMHO:

• Repair installs and fresh installs are easier to handle. No need to move/copy gigabytes of data around before/after a successfull install. Of course you always need a backup of sensitive data, but nowadays we talk about massive mp3 and movie collections - some users don't bother to backup them and accept to lose them if really something goes wrong, they just backup the family photos and documents to a DVD but would still like to keep other data e.g. when upgrading the OS.
  

• Structure is more obvious and understandable compared to separating data on the same drive in different folders. This is espacially true for inexperienced users who love to create folders at root level.
  
• System (and swap file) will always reside on the faster part of the harddrive (harddisk speed is faster on the outer parts of the disk where the first partition is located)
  
• OS/System backups are easier to handle since a created disk image does not contain data. I still do quick backups with imaging software before doing major changes to the OS (service packs, OS upgrade). In case anything goes wrong I can easily revert back to a working system, which is always a good thing if you run into unexpected problems. System restore & Repair install are just not reliable enough.
  

Edited August 24, 2009 by welo

[Crushdepth]

I like to put my OS and data on separate partitions. If the OS needs to be reinstalled you can blow that partition away without worrying about losing your documents. However, a backup must be on a separate physical disk! My boss discovered he'd been backing up to the same physical disk when the disk died earlier in the year.

[JSixpack]

Partitions are rarely necessary and give a false sense of security, because when a partition fails, it's almost certain that the drive has also failed.

Since the OP's question were already answered I guess he will not mind if we go a bit offtopic

Whereas I agree there is a certain risk that unexperienced users might see partitions as different physical devices and this leading to false decisions when it comes to backups, I personally still consider partitions as useful.

Separating system and data on two different partitions has the following benefits IMHO:

• Repair installs and fresh installs are easier to handle. No need to move/copy gigabytes of data around before/after a successfull install. Of course you always need a backup of sensitive data, but nowadays we talk about massive mp3 and movie collections - some users don't bother to backup them and accept to lose them if really something goes wrong, they just backup the family photos and documents to a DVD but would still like to keep other data e.g. when upgrading the OS.
  If you got two partitions, C: and D:, and you're keeping your data on D:, and the disk crashes, or if you're installing a new disk, you still got to move your data back onto D: from the backup, whether it's KB or GB. Easier just to image it all and let the image restore copy it back for you--the fastest way of copying anyway.
  If you don't want to image your movies and music, you can exclude those folders or filetypes, no problem. Or you can let those reside on the backup drive itself.
  If you're doing a repair install, your data is intact on the same partition, so no need to move any data at all.
  
  

• Structure is more obvious and understandable compared to separating data on the same drive in different folders. This is espacially true for inexperienced users who love to create folders at root level.
  I though you were talking about yourself personally.
  That was in the Win98 days whence the partitioning religion derives. Nowadays most all data goes into the My Documents folder. Applications put it there by default.
  If users have another partition, they just end up scattering their data over the two partitions and what's been backed up and what hasn't becomes a question. Why wouldn't they still create folders at both root levels? In fact, the 2nd partition complicates things.
  But anyway you can just map a folder to a drive letter if that's a big issue for you. A utility like Vsubst will keep folders mapped through reboots and manage the mapping easily.
  
  
• System (and swap file) will always reside on the faster part of the harddrive (harddisk speed is faster on the outer parts of the disk where the first partition is located)
  With one partition, the swapfile is going to be on that partition by default! Anyway, users are hardly going to notice that very slight increase in speed and there are SO many other ways they could get a much bigger increase. Better just to move the swapfile to the 2nd drive where you keep your backups. Besides, if you really believe that, then you'd recommend the swapfile be on the first partition alone and by itself, w/ the OS on another partition.
  So, not worth it really.
  
• OS/System backups are easier to handle since a created disk image does not contain data. I still do quick backups with imaging software before doing major changes to the OS (service packs, OS upgrade). In case anything goes wrong I can easily revert back to a working system, which is always a good thing if you run into unexpected problems. System restore & Repair install are just not reliable enough.
  The first image is slower--and so what? w/ 2 partitions, you got to back up D: anyway--but after that you're just doing incremental images, which are quite fast enough and they backup the changed data as well. So that way you make sure your data has an immediate backup too; and should your restore go south and destroy your partition table (yep!), or your drive suddenly fail, you can then easily restore everything at once. Much safer.
  
  

Sorry, you're just not going to be able to make a really logical case. However, I'm leaving this discussion now, having been 'round and 'round with it before.