• HD synch?

    From Robert Baer@robertbaer@localnet.com to alt.computer on Mon Sep 13 23:51:47 2021
    Must be a law, data grows.

    I never image a drive for backup; I clone it.
    AFAIK the process takes the same amount of time.
    But usage differs greatly; a clone is immediately usable, like the original.
    An image must be "restored" to yet another place/media, and _that_ restoration then is usable.

    Now as data grows, time needed for backup grows, now eating
    TERRORbytes of space and eating hourzz of time.


    I would love an edge by syncing the copy to the original on a regular
    basis instead of cloning on a regular basis.

    A program in the background could be ideal; copy incremental data as
    and when needed, or chunk away on a regular basis.

    Suggestions, please?


    Thanks, R. Baer
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Win32 NewsLink 1.114
  • From Paul@nospam@needed.invalid to alt.computer on Tue Sep 14 06:02:09 2021
    Robert Baer wrote:
    Must be a law, data grows.

    I never image a drive for backup; I clone it.
    AFAIK the process takes the same amount of time.
    But usage differs greatly; a clone is immediately usable, like the original.
    An image must be "restored" to yet another place/media, and _that_ restoration then is usable.

    Now as data grows, time needed for backup grows, now eating
    TERRORbytes of space and eating hourzz of time.


    I would love an edge by syncing the copy to the original on a regular basis instead of cloning on a regular basis.

    A program in the background could be ideal; copy incremental data as
    and when needed, or chunk away on a regular basis.

    Suggestions, please?


    Thanks, R. Baer

    When you Image a drive (convert a whole drive to a .container file),
    there is

    Full
    Differential
    Incremental

    It is the incremental option,

    Full Incr Incr Incr... Full Incr Incr Incr...

    that gives the small addition to the Full each day.

    During restoration to the third day, you'd use three files

    Full Incr Incr

    to get to the "state" of the second Incr. Because an Incr
    is never rewritten, your file "notes.txt" could be stored
    in all three files, and the metadata knows that the
    third one is the one to keep during a restore.

    On a backup product that has Incremental Forever, there
    don't have to be quite as many file groups. The Full
    and a set of Incr, can be squashed together (synthetically)
    to make a new Full, ready to have more Incr collected.

    *******

    The other type is Differential. Backups are measured
    against the Full. Each Differential tends to stand on its
    own two legs.

    Full Diff1 Diff2 Diff3... Full Diff1 Diff2 Diff3...

    This gives a more bulky operation each day, but still
    well short of what a Full takes.

    During restoration to the third day, you'd use two files

    Full Diff2

    and that would return you to the state of Diff2.

    *******

    On Windows, both of those sequences can be done "hot"
    during the backup. VSS (Volume Shadow Service) allows
    tracking of the work to be done. This is unlike the
    old "Ghost" program, where a reboot and an offline
    backup was done. Certain files, like pagefile.sys
    and Windows.edb are not captured, but this does not
    affect system operation. Windows.edb cannot be captured,
    because the subsystem that has it open (Search Indexer)
    refuses to quiesce it on demand.

    Incremental backup costs money. Differential backup
    can be acquired for free.

    On a Windows 10 system, an Incremental might be 1GB per
    day, as there is some maintenance activity that creates
    file differences. Your "notes.txt" file is a small
    contributor to the size of the Incremental file collected.

    *******

    An example of cloning, where only new files are written,
    would be something like Linux RSYNC. On Windows, Robocopy
    or Richcopy might do it. The problem with some of these
    solutions, is whether they handle the metadata properly
    or not. The backup softwares, generally they seem to do a
    good job. That's because the metadata on a volume, is also
    a file, and so the metadata can be backed up as an incremental
    file change.

    But for programs which might choose to record files
    individually, the onus would be on the developer to make
    sure that during restoration or recovery, all aspects of
    the file (ownership, permissions, ACLs) are restored properly.
    And for crappy situations like Windows 10 with reparse points,
    this requires the developer understand everything that
    Microsoft has done. At one time, Retrospect did file by file
    recording to tape, as an example, then later, it could
    also use a disk drive for the copy it kept. The first time
    I used Retrospect, it took me a solid two days (16 hours)
    of work, scripting everything, and even then, a couple partitions
    never seemed to back up properly and would throw some error.

    That doesn't mean every product works like that.

    For example, the version of Acronis a few years back,
    I ran a trial of it, and the workflow was particularly
    easy to get it set up. The current version seems to be
    getting a bit bloated and silly (they're trying to
    trick customers into a subscription model of sorts).

    *******

    All of the ideas above, have mounters, and allow recovery
    of single files. You don't have to restore the capture
    entirely, to get at a single file. Most of the imaging
    .container formats have the file directory at the end
    of the recording, during "mount" that is consulted for
    a file map, and when you navigate through the virtual
    partition, all the files show up in File Explorer for you.
    Even Acronis would do that. So would Macrium.

    (Full and Differential are Free, Incremental requires a license)

    https://www.macrium.com/reflectfree

    Backup at Home

    Reflect 7 Free

    Download Free <===

    When you install that, it will prompt you to create
    rescue media. The rescue media boots and it is necessary
    for "bare metal restore", when the drive C: used to be
    on is ruined or dead. You make the CD so you have something
    to boot from. It's a good idea to make that right away,
    as the files to make the media will not be on Microsoft
    servers forever. Some of the early versions of the
    WinPE files, like for WinPE 3, are no longer available.
    The process of making the rescue media is automated,
    but there are some options the user can select.

    If you want to, you can also boot the CD and do the backup
    if you want. The backup runs from C:\Program Files for
    sure, but the emergency boot media is also fully functional.

    By selecting an option on the left hand side, you can
    have all disk drives on the computer recorded into
    a single container file. I don't necessarily recommend
    this, from a file reliability point of view however.
    Macrium has a Verify function, and if you keep old
    backups around, sometimes running a Verify indicates
    the .container file has become corrupted. In one case, this
    was a function of the computer having bad RAM, and
    that's how I detected there was a RAM problem, when
    the computer could no longer make "good" backups.

    *******

    Some versions of Windows have File History, which occasionally
    dumps to an external disk for capture. But this is an
    acquired taste, navigating the thing and tricking it into
    coughing up the file you need. This would mainly be for your
    user profile area, and not for capturing the entire C: partition.

    *******

    For more examples of software, try here. Some of the
    software featured in the reviews here, these were the
    "good" versions, and later versions available today
    aren't quite as nice. For example, the two links underneath
    item #2, are probably better versions than the current ones
    for download from the supplier site.

    https://www.raymond.cc/blog/10-commercial-disk-imaging-software-features-and-backuprestore-speed-comparison/

    Page 2 has a table of test data, for the programs.
    Easeus had the fastest incremental. Aomei had the fastest Full.
    You can see for the slowest programs, they're sometimes
    five times slower than the fast ones.

    The programs have several jobs to do:

    Lightweight compression (like LZ4 maybe) - hard on CPU, not multithreaded.
    Compute checksum over image file - MD5 maybe, limits peak transfer rate.
    (Copy the data clusters sequentially...)

    For things like computing a checksum, some processors are
    faster at this than others. Then your backup runs faster.

    The compressors used, do not save a lot of space. They are
    not there to make the absolute tiniest file, instead they
    are there to take compressible material (your "notes.txt")
    and make that smaller. Only the files on the disk are
    backed up, and the white space is not recorded. This means
    if, after a restore, you want to run Recuva UnDelete, that's
    not going to work on a freshly restored volume. No program
    is supposed to "record deleted material", that's logically
    a silly thing to do. If you want deleted material recorded
    too, check the Preferences for "Forensic Copy", and select
    that. Note that Forensic Copy is not tested by the developer
    all that well, and I caught mine not making Forensic copies
    when I told it to. Forensic just records everything and
    is a "giant space waster" :-) But if you insist that
    Recuva work for you, that's one way to do it.

    *******

    Windows File History, probably comes closest to your
    carefree requirement. But the various OSes do it different
    ways (Win10 one might be better than the Win7 one), and
    thus this is an "uneven" solution and depends on what
    you're running, as to whether this option is worth
    entertaining. The good version, it prompts you to
    "connect the backup drive now, so I can dump the
    collection to your backup disk". The backup drive
    does not have to be connected continuously. Windows
    is probably using the VSS shadow capability, to record
    file differences, and when it gets enough of them,
    it'll request an opportunity to dump what has
    been collected.

    Robocopy can do mirroring, such that the state of
    the clone drive matches the source drive. But it
    does not do a good job on C:\Windows and is not
    a replacement for a Full. It would do a good job
    on C:\users\username\Downloads for example. And
    you would want to be exited from Excel and Word,
    when doing a run in that case. There are lots of
    similar things, that will make a mess if you don't
    do them properly. This is one reason I harp on the
    backup programs above, first, because the automation
    tends to handle the rough edges better. If you
    craft a crappy solution like our "xcopy brethren"
    might, the mess you make is yours to clean up :-)
    While it is possible to manually make VSS snapshots,
    to "freeze" file content and make the syncing safe,
    it's above my pay scale to tell you how to do that.
    And you're unlikely to get every detail and nuance
    of the permissions right, if hand crafting a solution
    using bailing wire and binder twine.

    The above just scratches the surface. I'm not an
    expert in this stuff, just a user like you. It takes
    a lot of work, to prove the method you select, actually
    works, and I do recommend you test it. It helps to
    have two drives you can use for scratch purposes, to
    test safely. Not a lot of people have drives just
    sitting around for this sort of work.

    Paul
    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Win32 NewsLink 1.114
  • From Robert Baer@robertbaer@localnet.com to alt.computer on Tue Sep 14 23:15:38 2021
    Paul wrote:
    Robert Baer wrote:
      Must be a law, data grows.

      I never image a drive for backup; I clone it.
      AFAIK the process takes the same amount of time.
      But usage differs greatly; a clone is immediately usable, like the
    original.
      An image must be "restored" to yet another place/media, and _that_
    restoration then is usable.

      Now as data grows, time needed for backup grows, now eating
    TERRORbytes of space and eating hourzz of time.


      I would love an edge by syncing the copy to the original on a
    regular basis instead of cloning on a regular basis.

      A program in the background could be ideal; copy incremental data as
    and when needed, or chunk away on a regular basis.

      Suggestions, please?


        Thanks, R. Baer

    When you Image a drive (convert a whole drive to a .container file),
    there is

       Full
       Differential
       Incremental

    It is the incremental option,

       Full Incr Incr Incr...    Full Incr Incr Incr...

    that gives the small addition to the Full each day.

    During restoration to the third day, you'd use three files

       Full Incr Incr

    to get to the "state" of the second Incr. Because an Incr
    is never rewritten, your file "notes.txt" could be stored
    in all three files, and the metadata knows that the
    third one is the one to keep during a restore.

    On a backup product that has Incremental Forever, there
    don't have to be quite as many file groups. The Full
    and a set of Incr, can be squashed together (synthetically)
    to make a new Full, ready to have more Incr collected.

    *******

    The other type is Differential. Backups are measured
    against the Full. Each Differential tends to stand on its
    own two legs.

       Full Diff1 Diff2 Diff3...  Full Diff1 Diff2 Diff3...

    This gives a more bulky operation each day, but still
    well short of what a Full takes.

    During restoration to the third day, you'd use two files

       Full       Diff2

    and that would return you to the state of Diff2.

    *******

    On Windows, both of those sequences can be done "hot"
    during the backup. VSS (Volume Shadow Service) allows
    tracking of the work to be done. This is unlike the
    old "Ghost" program, where a reboot and an offline
    backup was done. Certain files, like pagefile.sys
    and Windows.edb are not captured, but this does not
    affect system operation. Windows.edb cannot be captured,
    because the subsystem that has it open (Search Indexer)
    refuses to quiesce it on demand.

    Incremental backup costs money. Differential backup
    can be acquired for free.

    On a Windows 10 system, an Incremental might be 1GB per
    day, as there is some maintenance activity that creates
    file differences. Your "notes.txt" file is a small
    contributor to the size of the Incremental file collected.

    *******

    An example of cloning, where only new files are written,
    would be something like Linux RSYNC. On Windows, Robocopy
    or Richcopy might do it. The problem with some of these
    solutions, is whether they handle the metadata properly
    or not. The backup softwares, generally they seem to do a
    good job. That's because the metadata on a volume, is also
    a file, and so the metadata can be backed up as an incremental
    file change.

    But for programs which might choose to record files
    individually, the onus would be on the developer to make
    sure that during restoration or recovery, all aspects of
    the file (ownership, permissions, ACLs) are restored properly.
    And for crappy situations like Windows 10 with reparse points,
    this requires the developer understand everything that
    Microsoft has done. At one time, Retrospect did file by file
    recording to tape, as an example, then later, it could
    also use a disk drive for the copy it kept. The first time
    I used Retrospect, it took me a solid two days (16 hours)
    of work, scripting everything, and even then, a couple partitions
    never seemed to back up properly and would throw some error.

    That doesn't mean every product works like that.

    For example, the version of Acronis a few years back,
    I ran a trial of it, and the workflow was particularly
    easy to get it set up. The current version seems to be
    getting a bit bloated and silly (they're trying to
    trick customers into a subscription model of sorts).

    *******

    All of the ideas above, have mounters, and allow recovery
    of single files. You don't have to restore the capture
    entirely, to get at a single file. Most of the imaging
    .container formats have the file directory at the end
    of the recording, during "mount" that is consulted for
    a file map, and when you navigate through the virtual
    partition, all the files show up in File Explorer for you.
    Even Acronis would do that. So would Macrium.

    (Full and Differential are Free, Incremental requires a license)

    https://www.macrium.com/reflectfree

       Backup at Home

       Reflect 7 Free

       Download Free  <===

    When you install that, it will prompt you to create
    rescue media. The rescue media boots and it is necessary
    for "bare metal restore", when the drive C: used to be
    on is ruined or dead. You make the CD so you have something
    to boot from. It's a good idea to make that right away,
    as the files to make the media will not be on Microsoft
    servers forever. Some of the early versions of the
    WinPE files, like for WinPE 3, are no longer available.
    The process of making the rescue media is automated,
    but there are some options the user can select.

    If you want to, you can also boot the CD and do the backup
    if you want. The backup runs from C:\Program Files for
    sure, but the emergency boot media is also fully functional.

    By selecting an option on the left hand side, you can
    have all disk drives on the computer recorded into
    a single container file. I don't necessarily recommend
    this, from a file reliability point of view however.
    Macrium has a Verify function, and if you keep old
    backups around, sometimes running a Verify indicates
    the .container file has become corrupted. In one case, this
    was a function of the computer having bad RAM, and
    that's how I detected there was a RAM problem, when
    the computer could no longer make "good" backups.

    *******

    Some versions of Windows have File History, which occasionally
    dumps to an external disk for capture. But this is an
    acquired taste, navigating the thing and tricking it into
    coughing up the file you need. This would mainly be for your
    user profile area, and not for capturing the entire C: partition.

    *******

    For more examples of software, try here. Some of the
    software featured in the reviews here, these were the
    "good" versions, and later versions available today
    aren't quite as nice. For example, the two links underneath
    item #2, are probably better versions than the current ones
    for download from the supplier site.

    https://www.raymond.cc/blog/10-commercial-disk-imaging-software-features-and-backuprestore-speed-comparison/


    Page 2 has a table of test data, for the programs.
    Easeus had the fastest incremental. Aomei had the fastest Full.
    You can see for the slowest programs, they're sometimes
    five times slower than the fast ones.

    The programs have several jobs to do:

       Lightweight compression (like LZ4 maybe) - hard on CPU, not multithreaded.
       Compute checksum over image file - MD5 maybe, limits peak transfer rate.
       (Copy the data clusters sequentially...)

    For things like computing a checksum, some processors are
    faster at this than others. Then your backup runs faster.

    The compressors used, do not save a lot of space. They are
    not there to make the absolute tiniest file, instead they
    are there to take compressible material (your "notes.txt")
    and make that smaller. Only the files on the disk are
    backed up, and the white space is not recorded. This means
    if, after a restore, you want to run Recuva UnDelete, that's
    not going to work on a freshly restored volume. No program
    is supposed to "record deleted material", that's logically
    a silly thing to do. If you want deleted material recorded
    too, check the Preferences for "Forensic Copy", and select
    that. Note that Forensic Copy is not tested by the developer
    all that well, and I caught mine not making Forensic copies
    when I told it to. Forensic just records everything and
    is a "giant space waster" :-) But if you insist that
    Recuva work for you, that's one way to do it.

    *******

    Windows File History, probably comes closest to your
    carefree requirement. But the various OSes do it different
    ways (Win10 one might be better than the Win7 one), and
    thus this is an "uneven" solution and depends on what
    you're running, as to whether this option is worth
    entertaining. The good version, it prompts you to
    "connect the backup drive now, so I can dump the
    collection to your backup disk". The backup drive
    does not have to be connected continuously. Windows
    is probably using the VSS shadow capability, to record
    file differences, and when it gets enough of them,
    it'll request an opportunity to dump what has
    been collected.

    Robocopy can do mirroring, such that the state of
    the clone drive matches the source drive. But it
    does not do a good job on C:\Windows and is not
    a replacement for a Full. It would do a good job
    on C:\users\username\Downloads for example. And
    you would want to be exited from Excel and Word,
    when doing a run in that case. There are lots of
    similar things, that will make a mess if you don't
    do them properly. This is one reason I harp on the
    backup programs above, first, because the automation
    tends to handle the rough edges better. If you
    craft a crappy solution like our "xcopy brethren"
    might, the mess you make is yours to clean up :-)
    While it is possible to manually make VSS snapshots,
    to "freeze" file content and make the syncing safe,
    it's above my pay scale to tell you how to do that.
    And you're unlikely to get every detail and nuance
    of the permissions right, if hand crafting a solution
    using bailing wire and binder twine.

    The above just scratches the surface. I'm not an
    expert in this stuff, just a user like you. It takes
    a lot of work, to prove the method you select, actually
    works, and I do recommend you test it. It helps to
    have two drives you can use for scratch purposes, to
    test safely. Not a lot of people have drives just
    sitting around for this sort of work.

       Paul
    Just figuring out takes research to figure out what to do for what
    you want for end result.

    Could take weeks to make that map. Expensive start-up.


    Thanx.
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Win32 NewsLink 1.114