Poll on Backup software

SlicEnDicE said:

This is good. There are a few things to consider though.


1. Image backup compression method if any
2. Each VM has to start exactly from same point in time with no internet to avoid any updates.
3. Each backup software size has to be taken into account, since it backs up itself if installed on system.
4. Each test should be ran multiple times to get a more impartial number.
5. There are multiple ways of backing up drives, these differences has to be taken into account
6. Is exact filesystem information retained?
7. Each backup should be restored multiple times from both full backup and incremental backup to get impartial metrics

Click to expand...

1. I allways use default settings because I think it's fairer for newbies.
2. My virtual machine does not have many programs installed, but it is also very stable.
3. In fact, I have tested several times and there will be some fluctuations. the score may only apply to system backups of this device, but it's accurate.
4. I don’t know whether the filesystem information is retained. Maybe I think the most important thing is to be able to restore correctly. On this basis, if it can keep the backup file smaller, I think it is more advanced. For example, I performed the incremental backup immediately after performing the full backup, so the actual incremental change is very small, so the smaller volume means a more accurate judgment of the increment. , a larger size means laziness in judgment, which causes trouble for storage space.
5. I will test the reliability of the restore within the next week

Keep in mind that Macrium backup images can be loaded as VM disks the others can't...this may increase size. It's not laziness.

Macrium for Imaging disks / partitions. Note I use imaging rather than cloning since you can also image the booted OS while running. I'm not sure though whether Macrium handles the Windows storage spaces format -- I gave up with that ages ago - if you need RAID on Windows then use a decent physical RAID controller -- Windows software Raid (storage spaces) seems to break very easily.

For Backing up data whether windows or other I use rsync (or it's GUI Grsync). For free partitioning I use a bootable stand alone version of Gparted.

cheers
jimbo

SlicEnDicE said:

Keep in mind that Macrium backup images can be loaded as VM disks the others can't...this may increase size. It's not laziness.

Click to expand...

There shouldn't be a need for any size increase. Any image that contains the partition layout and all partitions required to boot Windows could in theory be loaded as a VM and run. It's just that Macrium have realised that theory as a practical solution for Hyper-V or VirtualBox with their viBoot utility.

The way viBoot works is to create a differencing disk for the VM to run from, a virtual disk that has the image as its parent. All changes while running are made in the differencing disk, the parent (image) remains unaltered. The only requirement is that the image contains all partitions required for a working system, the same as the requirement for a successful restore.

And this applies to incremental backups and integrity checks also?

SlicEnDicE said:

And this applies to incremental backups and integrity checks also?

Click to expand...

Yes, viBoot can create its differencing disk with any backup set as the parent, that could include any number of differentials and/or incrementals.

The only extra thing added to an image to support verification is a hash number, calculated while backing up. Verification reads the image, recalculating the hash. If it matches the original stored in the image the it passes verification.

Bree said:

Yes, viBoot can create its differencing disk with any backup set as the parent, that could include any number of differentials and/or incrementals.

The only extra thing added to an image to support verification is a hash number, calculated while backing up. Verification reads the image, recalculating the hash. If it matches the original stored in the image the it passes verification.

Click to expand...

So what's that extra 1.8GB then in Macrium images then?

Let me rephrase...

How can you make a 100% replica of changed files (incremental backup) on an NTFS partition?

Just copy the files and you're done?

Edwin said:

To be honest, I'm a bit trepidatious about complicated backup software...,
incremental, differential, coincidental, sentimental...,
high compression, low compression, mid compression, no compression..., (I think there's a lyric in there somewhere!!!)

Feck sakes, I just want to backup C and restore C..., that's all I want to do, really!

I only use EaseUS cuz I got it free about 100 years ago!

Click to expand...

I only do weekly Macrium system images on both of my desktops and I have Macruim scheduled to run a weekly backup of the Moneydance data folder. I also use other backup programs just in case my Macrium image fails. I do the other backups every two weeks although I have been lazy and only made my Macrium images this month.

antspants said:

I believe there is still the free prior version, v7 available on Major Geeks

Click to expand...

Yes, MajorGeeks still has a link to the free version.

Photographer_K said:

Why do so many people vote for Macium?

Click to expand...

Because it's the backup program we prefer the most.

SlicEnDicE said:

Let me rephrase...

How can you make a 100% replica of changed files (incremental backup) on an NTFS partition?

Just copy the files and you're done?

Click to expand...

First you need a reliable way to determine what are the files that changed after the last backup. For files that were deleted, simply omitting them from the new incremental backup is not necessarily going to allow it to be restored correctly, as their omission could, during the restore, either be interpreted as having been deleted or be interpreted as having been kept unmodified. So, at least some metadata will be required for this.

Other possible ambiguities include the fact that looking at NTFS timestamps isn't necessarily enough to make the distinction between files that changed and files that did not change. NTFS Timestamps | Forensicist
Monitoring and logging all the changes in real-time to keep track of them in a database could work, but a more common solution is to just calculate hash codes of the files, and compare these hash codes to the hash codes that have been stored in the metadata [that is associated with the last backup]. A modern incremental backup solution usually does this all automatically for you, in such a way that is transparent to the user [of the backup solution in question].

Also note, this is only about actual files (and folders). NTFS complexities like being denied access when trying to copy some of the files, potential undesired traversal of symbolic links by the copy tool used to do the copying with and/or inability to replicate hardlinks, and running into other possible problems like files being actively written to while the copy task is still in progress, etc., all are textbook examples of why just copying the files might be a terrible choice to make. So, for reasons that should be completely obvious, it greatly depends on whether you know what you're doing with the files stored on the NTFS partition [that you want to create an incremental backup of].

So nobody would backup the MFT and it's backup? How else would you ensure 100% integrity between incremental backups? The full Journaling would be gone and is totally unacceptable in server environments.

SMH!

SlicEnDicE said:

So nobody would backup the MFT and it's backup? How else would you ensure 100% integrity between incremental backups? The full Journaling would be gone and is totally unacceptable in server environments.

SMH!

Click to expand...

I only perform Full and Complete Backup Images, which would backup the MFT I believe.

Josey Wales said:

I only perform Full and Complete Backup Images, which would backup the MFT I believe.

Click to expand...

If the solution is robust, it should.

@hdmi

jfyi, NTFS is a database in its core. No need to have an extra layer DB on top of that.

SlicEnDicE said:

....totally unacceptable in server environments.

Click to expand...

It would be totally unacceptable to use Reflect Home, a personal product, in a server environment. There is a Macrium Reflect Server edition, you know.....

OFC it would...it wouldn't even work.

And home computer data isn't important then? Let's just use Windows File History, it's very reliable.

SlicEnDicE said:

OFC it would...it wouldn't even work.

And home computer data isn't important then? Let's just use Windows File History, it's very reliable.

Click to expand...

I'm no longer using File History as part of my backup strategy. From what I read on the Windows FH forum, FH is no longer being updated and is on the chopping block to be deprecated.

TraderGary said:

I'm no longer using File History as part of my backup strategy. From what I read on the Windows FH forum, FH is no longer being updated and is on the chopping block to be deprecated.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it was sarcasm...I've only got FH to work once, and even then, barely...the rest of the times I had to go manually poke the files in the backup to get anything saved. It is so unreliable that I am surprised they have kept it around this long.

What has always worked though is Robocopy, which is surprisingly robust for what it is.