External back up device
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Joseph Blewewtt - 06 Oct 2008 15:57 GMT I am at last solvent enough to invest in an external backup device. I'm running an iMac G5 Power PC running OS X v 10.4.11.
Any recommendations for this set up. Present disk size is 149gb.
Thanks,
Joe
--
TaliesinSoft - 06 Oct 2008 16:15 GMT > I am at last solvent enough to invest in an external backup device. > I'm running an iMac G5 Power PC running OS X v 10.4.11. > > Any recommendations for this set up. Present disk size is 149gb. First upgrade to Leopard.
Then get the largest drive you can afford. Partition it into two volumes, one the same size as your internal drive and the other whatever is left. Run SuperDuper! once a day to back up to the same size partition. Run Time Machine to the other.
This setup will give you the ability to quickly recover from a crash of the internal drive and will allow you to step backward in time to recover from those "oops I deleted the wrong file" or "I really liked what I had in this document last week" kind of mistakes.
 Signature James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com
Tim Powys-Lybbe - 06 Oct 2008 17:24 GMT In message of 6 Oct, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> > I am at last solvent enough to invest in an external backup device. > > I'm running an iMac G5 Power PC running OS X v 10.4.11. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > SuperDuper! once a day to back up to the same size partition. Run Time > Machine to the other. While I think this is excellent general advice and thoroughly agree, a problem with SuperDuper is that it will not run while the machine is asleep.
On the other hand Data Backup from
http://www.prosoftengineering.com/downloads/
does say that it will backup while the machine is asleep. I am currently testing this before buying.
> This setup will give you the ability to quickly recover from a crash of the > internal drive and will allow you to step backward in time to recover from > those "oops I deleted the wrong file" or "I really liked what I had in this > document last week" kind of mistakes. Fully agreed.
 Signature Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Nick Naym - 06 Oct 2008 17:50 GMT > In message of 6 Oct, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Fully agreed. I've read that there are problems with most "clone" backup software. Unfortunately, I can't find but one (a bit old by now) article about it (though I do recall seeing at least one other, more-recent one):
<http://blog.plasticsfuture.org/2006/04/23/mac-backup-software-harmful/>
 Signature iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.4)
Richard Maine - 06 Oct 2008 18:18 GMT > I've read that there are problems with most "clone" backup software. > Unfortunately, I can't find but one (a bit old by now) article about it > (though I do recall seeing at least one other, more-recent one): > > <http://blog.plasticsfuture.org/2006/04/23/mac-backup-software-harmful/> I recall reading that. Reskiming it now, I see the same thing I recall from earlier. The author is highly focused on a single issue. He does mention what that issue is and, as far as I can tell, accurately reports things. He even mentions it as a caveat that his one pet issue is *ALL* that he is evaluating. He does not evaluate the user interface, convenience, reliability, or anything else except for his one pet issue of metadata. But if you just skim without reading carefully (I did skim it this time, but I knew what I was looking for), in particular if you just look at the summary ratings, you can get a very misleading impression.
This is not in any sense a general review of the software; it is a report on his one pet feature.
In particular, "there are problems" severely overstates the case in my opinion.
Note also that, even if that one pet feature is what one is looking at, the author does rate SuperDuper as "highly recommended", which is to say that he found no problem at all with it. That's not the main reason I like SuperDuper, or even super high on my list (I could easily live with the creation date not gettng restored), but I suppose it is an extra plus.
 Signature Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
Nick Naym - 06 Oct 2008 19:23 GMT >> I've read that there are problems with most "clone" backup software. >> Unfortunately, I can't find but one (a bit old by now) article about it [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > the creation date not gettng restored), but I suppose it is an extra > plus. I, too, only skimmed it...but IIRC (and I really need to go back and read it carefully), the author claimed that all -- except SupperDuper! -- could NOT reliably capture all metadata. (I believe -- in a later, more-recent article from another source -- I read that SuperDuper! and Carbon Copy Cloner were both up to the task.)
Currently, I am making TM backups on an external HD; I recently got another external to use with SuperDuper! AFAIK, both apps run on schedules (SD!, I believe, can be set by the user; TM requires a 3rd-party add-on (I'm using "TimeMachineEditor") to change its hourly routine).
 Signature iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.4)
E Z Peaces - 06 Oct 2008 20:02 GMT >>> I've read that there are problems with most "clone" backup software. >>> Unfortunately, I can't find but one (a bit old by now) article about it [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > article from another source -- I read that SuperDuper! and Carbon Copy > Cloner were both up to the task.) I downloaded CCC the other day. The author said subsequent testing had vindicated CCC.
I've had problems with Spotlight after cloning. With SuperDuper I can put the target in privacy and rebuild the Spotlight index later. CCC seems to erase the file that keeps Spotlight from indexing.
> Currently, I am making TM backups on an external HD; I recently got another > external to use with SuperDuper! AFAIK, both apps run on schedules (SD!, I > believe, can be set by the user; TM requires a 3rd-party add-on (I'm using > "TimeMachineEditor") to change its hourly routine). A second external, I like that. One disk means all your backup eggs are in one basket, and I think maybe bigger baskets are more likely to break.
Recently I bought a disk from a family with 80, 120, and 160 GB models, each for about the same price. The 80 was the most popular and the only one without failure complaints.
billy@MIX.COM - 06 Oct 2008 21:20 GMT > I've read that there are problems with most "clone" backup software. From an article I wrote last April 1st -
Here's a report about how various backup utilities handle various things, including ACLs -
http://inik.net/node/151
And, since it's almost a year old, here's a tool you can use to run your own tests on whatever you'd like, today -
http://www.n8gray.org/blog/2007/04/27/introducing-backup-bouncer/
And some additional Mac filesystem info to help in understanding the above -
http://macos-x-server.com/wiki/index.php?title=Filesystem_metadata_support
Billy Y..
Jolly Roger - 06 Oct 2008 18:00 GMT > a > problem with SuperDuper is that it will not run while the machine is > asleep. Technically, nothing runs while the machine is asleep.
Did you mean to say that SuperDuper will not automatically wake the machine up to run scheduled backups?
 Signature Send responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Tim Powys-Lybbe - 06 Oct 2008 21:02 GMT In message of 6 Oct, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > a problem with SuperDuper is that it will not run while the machine > > is asleep. > > Technically, nothing runs while the machine is asleep. Technically, I suppose, if the machine wakes up then it is never asleep?
> Did you mean to say that SuperDuper will not automatically wake the > machine up to run scheduled backups? Yes, the manual has it:
If your Macintosh is asleep when the time comes to run the backup, SuperDuper's scheduling won't wake it up, so the backup won't run.
They then say you should use the Power Saving timer to wake the beast up, but my (new) machine won't wake up with this. So the backup does not happen overnight. Then when I do kick the machine into activity, it tried to do the backup then, which just gets in the way so is disabled.
SilverKeeper appears to wake the machine to do its backup at the appointed minute but I am not confident it does it always. Or, once it stops doing a backup, it never restarts on subsequent days.
And, as I said, DataBackup is said to wake the machine up and I was hoping to do a few experiments before the appointed 2.30 am, but no time as yet.
 Signature Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Jolly Roger - 06 Oct 2008 21:27 GMT > In message of 6 Oct, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If your Macintosh is asleep when the time comes to run the backup, > SuperDuper's scheduling won't wake it up, so the backup won't run. This is because SuperDuper uses cron to schedule backups. Given the author's penchant for using system utilities like cron, it seems he could also schedule a corresponding wake or power on event with pmset.
 Signature Send responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
John McWilliams - 07 Oct 2008 03:08 GMT >> In message of 6 Oct, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > author's penchant for using system utilities like cron, it seems he > could also schedule a corresponding wake or power on event with pmset. In any event, a way around all of this is to simply set TM in motion when you've done your last task, game, whatever, for the evening. Then brush your teeth, iron your pj's and put it to sleep.
 Signature john mcwilliams
TaliesinSoft - 06 Oct 2008 21:22 GMT > Did you mean to say that SuperDuper will not automatically wake the > machine up to run scheduled backups? I have several SuperDuper! backups scheduled for the middle of the night. Before I go to bed I put my Mac to sleep. When I wake in the morning and check all of the SuperDuper! runs have completed.
 Signature James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com
Tim Powys-Lybbe - 06 Oct 2008 21:39 GMT In message of 6 Oct, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> > Did you mean to say that SuperDuper will not automatically wake the > > machine up to run scheduled backups? > > I have several SuperDuper! backups scheduled for the middle of the night. > Before I go to bed I put my Mac to sleep. When I wake in the morning and > check all of the SuperDuper! runs have completed. Fascinating. Their manual, as I've already posted, says:
If your Macintosh is asleep when the time comes to run the backup, SuperDuper's scheduling won't wake it up, so the backup won't run.
So I wonder what is going on, or is the manual telling porkies?
 Signature Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
TaliesinSoft - 07 Oct 2008 00:03 GMT > In message of 6 Oct, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > So I wonder what is going on, or is the manual telling porkies? I just now had an email exchange with Dave Nanian, co-author of SuperDuper! and he asserts that I must have a scheduled wake up event so that the computer is not asleep when the backup is to run. I have no recollection of creating such an event and even where one would create it. I'll post my further exchanges with Dave Nanian when he responds.
 Signature James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com
Tim Powys-Lybbe - 07 Oct 2008 00:20 GMT In message of 7 Oct, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I just now had an email exchange with Dave Nanian, co-author of SuperDuper! > and he asserts that I must have a scheduled wake up event so that the > computer is not asleep when the backup is to run. I have no recollection of > creating such an event and even where one would create it. I'll post my > further exchanges with Dave Nanian when he responds. It's in System Preferences, then go for the Energy Saver tool, in the Hardware section, then see the Schedule button on the lower right hand side. (The fact that it does not work properly on this machine is why I have been looking for an alternative program that does wake the mahine from sleep.)
 Signature Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
TaliesinSoft - 07 Oct 2008 01:29 GMT > In message of 7 Oct, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > have been looking for an alternative program that does wake the mahine > from sleep.) I checked the Schedule option in Energy Saver and there are not checks in the boxes boxes for either the "Start up or wake" or "Sleep" options.
 Signature James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com
Jolly Roger - 07 Oct 2008 02:46 GMT > > In message of 7 Oct, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I checked the Schedule option in Energy Saver and there are not checks in the > boxes boxes for either the "Start up or wake" or "Sleep" options. What does 'pmset -g sched' output?
 Signature Send responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
TaliesinSoft - 07 Oct 2008 03:06 GMT [responding to my having stated in regards to my computer waking from sleep in order to run SuperDuper!]
>> I checked the Schedule option in Energy Saver and there are not checks in >> the boxes boxes for either the "Start up or wake" or "Sleep" options. > > What does 'pmset -g sched' output? Here's what happened (empty lines inserted to prevent unwanted wrapping)....
====================
Last login: Mon Oct 6 14:37:00 on console
The-Acrobatic-Aardvark:~ adventures$ pmset -g sched
No scheduled events.
The-Acrobatic-Aardvark:~ adventures$
====================
 Signature James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com
Jolly Roger - 07 Oct 2008 03:17 GMT > [responding to my having stated in regards to my computer waking from sleep > in order to run SuperDuper!] [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The-Acrobatic-Aardvark:~ adventures$ > ==================== So how ure are you that your computer actually sleeps?
 Signature Send responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
TaliesinSoft - 07 Oct 2008 03:30 GMT >> [responding to my having stated in regards to my computer waking from sleep >> in order to run SuperDuper!] [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > So how ure are you that your computer actually sleeps? Before retiring for the evening I select "Sleep" from the Apple menu. The response to that is the screen blanking and the external drives quieting down.
 Signature James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com
Jolly Roger - 07 Oct 2008 05:23 GMT > >> [responding to my having stated in regards to my computer waking from > >> sleep [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > response to that is the screen blanking and the external drives quieting > down. Then I have to wonder if (a) something else may be waking the machine up and/or (b) your backups aren't actually occurring each and every night.
 Signature Send responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
TaliesinSoft - 07 Oct 2008 05:30 GMT [responding to my stating in regards to SuperDuper! performing my nightly backups despite that the computer is sleeping]]
>> Before retiring for the evening I select "Sleep" from the Apple menu. The >> response to that is the screen blanking and the external drives quieting >> down. > > Then I have to wonder if (a) something else may be waking the machine up > and/or (b) your backups aren't actually occurring each and every night. When I awake the computer in the morning there are Growl notifications indicating that each of the four scheduled backups have completed successfully.
<http://growl.info/>
 Signature James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com
Király - 07 Oct 2008 08:27 GMT > When I awake the computer in the morning there are Growl notifications > indicating that each of the four scheduled backups have completed > successfully. > > <http://growl.info/> Rather than relying in Growl to tell you that the backups are done, Have you actually *tested* them? As in examined them to see if a file you created yesterday is there today?
 Signature K.
Lang may your lum reek.
TaliesinSoft - 07 Oct 2008 14:54 GMT > TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you actually *tested* them? As in examined them to see if a file you > created yesterday is there today? I have four SuperDuper! backups scheduled, one each at 1, 2, 3, and 4 a.m. Last night I put the computer to sleep at 12:30 a.m. via the Sleep command under the Apple menu. This morning I woke the computer from sleep at 8 a.m., responding to the request for my password. The four Growl notifications, one for each of the backups were displayed. I then opened SuperDuper! and displayed the Scheduled Copies window which showed that each of the four backups had taken place. I verified that they had taken place by examining each of the four corresponding SuperDuper! log files. And, as pointed out earlier in this thread, I have no scheduled wakeup events.
I have posted substantiating screenshots and logs in my taliesinsoft iDisk Pubic folder within a folder titled "SuperDuper! Screenshots" This information is easily reached from the Finder's Go menu:
Select from the Finder menu Go>iDisk>Other Users Public Folder... and then enter "taliesinsoft" (without the quotes) in the pane.
Here are the names of the drives involved....
Cowboy -- my internal drive
Pancho -- my external drive
Sidekick -- my Time Machine drive
Lefty -- a bootable backup of Cowboy
Willie -- a bootable backup of Cowboy
Merle -- a backup of Pancho
Campfire - a backup of Sidekick
 Signature James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com
Király - 07 Oct 2008 17:50 GMT > I have posted substantiating screenshots and logs in my taliesinsoft iDisk > Pubic folder within a folder titled "SuperDuper! Screenshots" Well, two possibilities.
1) Something is waking your Mac up in the middle of the night. None of that stuff would run if it was asleep the whole time.
2) Your Mac is staying asleep all night, the backups are not running, and the false log files are being generated upon wake.
#2 seems too far fetched for me. But have you actually examined your backups (not just the logs) to see if your new files are actually being copied over?
 Signature K.
Lang may your lum reek.
TaliesinSoft - 07 Oct 2008 18:19 GMT > TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > backups (not just the logs) to see if your new files are actually being > copied over? I have checked and indeed the SuperDuper! backups occurred. I've also noted that when the computer is supposedly asleep Time Machine continues to create hourly backups which, to my understanding, it shouldn't be doing. Last night, during the time the computer was supposedly sleeping, there were Time Machine backups at 1:06, 2:07, 3:06, and 7:08, Interestingly there were no such Time Machine backups during the time in which SuperDuper! was creating a clone (via smart backup) of the regular Time Machine backup file.
 Signature James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com
Jolly Roger - 07 Oct 2008 20:15 GMT > > TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Machine backups during the time in which SuperDuper! was creating a clone > (via smart backup) of the regular Time Machine backup file. This makes me think the computer itself is not really sleeping. Drives and displays can sleep independently from the computer itself. So I'd start looking at your Energy Saver settings. The command 'pmset -g' will show you exactly what settings are currently in use. What do they say?
 Signature Send responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
TaliesinSoft - 07 Oct 2008 22:35 GMT [responding to my description of the activities that occur on my computer after it has been put to sleep with the Apple menu Sleep command]
> This makes me think the computer itself is not really sleeping. Drives and > displays can sleep independently from the computer itself. So I'd start > looking at your Energy Saver settings. The command 'pmset -g' will show > you exactly what settings are currently in use. What do they say? Here's what I get whenentering the suggested command.....
====================
Last login: Tue Oct 7 16:11:47 on console
The-Acrobatic-Aardvark:~ adventures$ pmset -g
Active Profiles:
Battery Power -1
AC Power -1*
Currently in use:
sleep 0
sms 1
acwake 0
displaysleep 5
autorestart 0
hibernatefile /var/vm/sleepimage
hibernatemode 3
womp 1
halfdim 0
disksleep 10
lidwake 1
ttyskeepawake 1
====================
And I ain't got the foggiest what most of those mean! :-)
 Signature James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com
Jolly Roger - 07 Oct 2008 22:50 GMT > Currently in use: > sleep 0 Aha! There it is, clear as day. The computer itself is not set to sleep.
> sms 1 > acwake 0 > displaysleep 5 The display will sleep after five minutes of inactivity.
> autorestart 0 > hibernatefile /var/vm/sleepimage > hibernatemode 3 > womp 1 > halfdim 0 > disksleep 10 The hard disk will sleep after 10 minutes of inactivity.
> lidwake 1 > ttyskeepawake 1 Now I've always thought the Sleep command in the Apple menu resulted in computer sleep regardless of these settings. Perhaps, though, something on your system is causing that not to be the case. Perhaps when you choose the Sleep command, the computer does not sleep. Or perhaps you don't always put your computer to sleep that way at night.
At any rate, certainly, with these settings if you simply allow the computer to idle long enough, the display and hard drive will sleep, while the computer remains awake. This would allow backups and other things to happen.
 Signature Send responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Richard Maine - 07 Oct 2008 22:35 GMT > This makes me think the computer itself is not really sleeping. Drives > and displays can sleep independently from the computer itself. That's what I'm thinking. Or that, even if it goes to sleep, something wakes it up. There are an awful lot of things that can wake the systems from sleep. If I put mine to sleep and then get up, quite often just the jostling of me getting up from the chair wiggles the rodent enough to wake the system (anyway, I think that's what's doing it).
 Signature Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
Jolly Roger - 07 Oct 2008 22:46 GMT > > This makes me think the computer itself is not really sleeping. Drives > > and displays can sleep independently from the computer itself. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > jostling of me getting up from the chair wiggles the rodent enough to > wake the system (anyway, I think that's what's doing it). Right. I would be interested to know if there are any system log entries having to do with wake or sleep (actually any log entries *at all*) between the hours the computer should be asleep and the morning when James wakes it up. Have you looked at the system log, James?
 Signature Send responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
TaliesinSoft - 08 Oct 2008 17:21 GMT > I would be interested to know if there are any system log entries having > to do with wake or sleep (actually any log entries *at all*) between the > hours the computer should be asleep and the morning when James wakes it > up. Have you looked at the system log, James? Although I consider myself fairly well versed in the "overpinnings" of the Macintosh interface I'm not very versed in the "underpinnings". I'll be more than happy to examine the system log if given a bit of guidance as to how to displaly it.
 Signature James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com
Peter James - 06 Oct 2008 19:06 GMT > > I am at last solvent enough to invest in an external backup device. > > I'm running an iMac G5 Power PC running OS X v 10.4.11. > > > > Any recommendations for this set up. Present disk size is 149gb. > > First upgrade to Leopard. Unfortunately, I can't afford both leopard and an external drive. Will staying with tiger make a lot of difference?
> Then get the largest drive you can afford. Partition it into two volumes, one > the same size as your internal drive and the other whatever is left. Run [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > those "oops I deleted the wrong file" or "I really liked what I had in this > document last week" kind of mistakes. Noted, thanks. I see that the Lacie external drive seems to be recommended at UK £99. Reasonable?
 Signature He spoke with a certain what-is-it in his voice, and I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled. P.G. Wodehouse 1881 -1975
Gregory Weston - 06 Oct 2008 19:29 GMT > > > I am at last solvent enough to invest in an external backup device. > > > I'm running an iMac G5 Power PC running OS X v 10.4.11. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Unfortunately, I can't afford both leopard and an external drive. Will > staying with tiger make a lot of difference? It takes the recommendation of Time Machine off the table.
> > Then get the largest drive you can afford. Partition it into two volumes, > > one [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Noted, thanks. I see that the Lacie external drive seems to be > recommended at UK £99. Reasonable? The first answer is "depends on the capacity." The second answer is: I won't buy from LaCie. You'll probably get a decent drive, and if you do everything should be fine. But if you get a bad drive - which I did - you will meet LaCie's customer service department and you will die a bitter old man convinced that there is no beauty in the world. They are that bad.
 Signature "Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?" - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix
E Z Peaces - 06 Oct 2008 20:24 GMT >>> This setup will give you the ability to quickly recover from a crash of the >>> internal drive and will allow you to step backward in time to recover from [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > bitter old man convinced that there is no beauty in the world. They are > that bad. I had good luck with a LaCie I bought ten years ago, but I wouldn't risk it again. Amazon UK shows drive enclosures for under ten pounds. There's a lot of published information on the quality of disks, and one could probably buy a fine disk and enclosure with less than 99 pounds. If the enclosure fails and customer service lets you down, it's no big setback.
Jeffrey Goldberg - 07 Oct 2008 19:41 GMT >> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:57:41 -0500, Joseph Blewewtt wrote
>>> Any recommendations for this set up. Present disk size is 149gb. >> >> First upgrade to Leopard.
> Unfortunately, I can't afford both leopard and an external drive. Will > staying with tiger make a lot of difference? TimeMachine, built into Leopard, is a life saver. Last week it saved my a.s in a way that easily covered the initial cost of Leopard.
I really recommend that you go without some luxury for a month and upgrade to Leopard. Once you've done that, by the biggest external drive you can afford. You won't find anything on the market with less than 300GB. While bigger would be better, that is enough for a while if you are just going to use TM instead of the hybrid set-ups that people are recommending. I also like and follow the hybrid solutions people are recommending, but if your budget is very tight, I would go with TM only.
Cheers,
-j
 Signature Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings. http://improve-usenet.org/
E Z Peaces - 08 Oct 2008 02:28 GMT >>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:57:41 -0500, Joseph Blewewtt wrote > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > -j Newegg has approximately 450 external HDs. About half are 320 GB or less.
I don't know how much space TM uses, but is bigger always better? With Tiger, I have 80 GB each for internal and external drives. As I use only 16 GB, I don't foresee a need for anything bigger.
I rejected bigger drives because the models I considered appeared to be less reliable. Cost is another consideration. Instead of paying for a disk with 500 GB I didn't need, I'd rather have money to spend on an additional backup device. (As it is, I have archives on a 20 GB and a 40 GB disk. I wish I knew more about optical media.)
Jamie Kahn Genet - 08 Oct 2008 03:21 GMT > >>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:57:41 -0500, Joseph Blewewtt wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > additional backup device. (As it is, I have archives on a 20 GB and a > 40 GB disk. I wish I knew more about optical media.) For TM in Leopard bigger is absolutely better as TM will backup as many versions of a file as it can fit onto a HD, then if it runs out of space it starts deleting the oldest versions, or oldest files you've deleted off your main HD (but TM has backed up).
Also - if you have two computers or a willing friend and not too much to backup (it sounds like you don't) you might try <http://www.crashplan.com/home.vtl> which I've had a great deal of sucess with. I'd explain how it works, but the video linked to on that page does a better job (and ok - I might just be lazy :-D ).
Regards, Jamie Kahn Genet
 Signature If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Mike Rosenberg - 08 Oct 2008 13:49 GMT > I don't know how much space TM uses, but is bigger always better? With > Tiger, I have 80 GB each for internal and external drives. As I use > only 16 GB, I don't foresee a need for anything bigger. If you're doing a clone backup, you're right, the backup drive only has to be as large as the main drive. TM, though, does archival backups, allowing one to restore files that have long since been remove from the source. The larger the backup drive, the further back into the past one can go.
 Signature I kill Google Groups posts. See http://improve-usenet.org for details. <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude
E Z Peaces - 08 Oct 2008 18:02 GMT >> I don't know how much space TM uses, but is bigger always better? With >> Tiger, I have 80 GB each for internal and external drives. As I use [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > can go. > I like that, but a failure of the backup drive would take out all backups. The same event could spoil files on the internal drive.
At one time, I made daily backups on alternate sets of 8" floppies. I never had trouble with them, but when I began using Macs I found 3.5" floppies unreliable. Sometimes I had to fall back to a third backup I'd squirreled away.
I use old HDs for archives, but I've begun to find them unreliable. The bearing may be the achilles heel of a hard drive on the shelf, as someone has pointed out here.
Maybe I should depend on CD-Rs. Their reputation suffered due to a material used in manufacturing for a period of years about 1990. Some manufacturers estimate a 200-year shelf life for recorded data. The Library of Congress found that the data on CDs 25 years old was as good as that on new ones. I'm not sure whether they were talking about CD-Rs. Apple warns against recording on a CD designed for a faster speed than your drive because the drive could get confused.
DVD-Rs are appealing but the reliability is uncertain. They are more vulnerable than CDs to data damage from flexing. One source tested and estimated that some DVD-RWs would fail within two years. Another source estimates 30 years for a DVD-RW. A medium that could be rewritten and hold 5GB for 30 years could solve a lot of problems.
Jeffrey Goldberg - 08 Oct 2008 17:24 GMT >> Once you've done that, by the biggest external drive you can >> afford. You won't find anything on the market with less than 300GB.
> Newegg has approximately 450 external HDs. About half are 320 GB or less. It is so much easier for me to make a point if people don't bother checking facts. You and the media are out to get me.
> I don't know how much space TM uses, but is bigger always better?
> I rejected bigger drives because the models I considered appeared to be less > reliable. Cost is another consideration. Instead of paying for a disk with > 500 GB I didn't need, I'd rather have money to spend on an additional backup > device. I would think, as a rough rule of thumb, unless you are doing video work (which really requires its own back-up strategy) that there is little gain in a TM volume that is more than twice as large as the source volume. So yes, beyond, say 2X the source volume, you are better off getting a second device.
What I wanted to suggest was that the OP pay to upgrade to Leopard and then see disk size as a second priority.
Cheers,
-j
 Signature Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings. http://improve-usenet.org/
Gregory Weston - 06 Oct 2008 19:25 GMT > I am at last solvent enough to invest in an external backup device. > I'm running an iMac G5 Power PC running OS X v 10.4.11. > > Any recommendations for this set up. Present disk size is 149gb. How serious are you about recoverability? The barely-counts solution that's disturbingly popular (but is definitely better than nothing at all) is a FW hard drive that's at least as big as your internal and SuperDuper! or equivalent. It's very cheap but also doesn't really protect you against anything more than system component failure. Slightly less cheap, but much more robust is to get 2-3 drives. Cycle through them, and always keep one someplace outside your house. If you work in an office, for example, keep one locked in your drawer at work and just bring them back and forth with you when you're cycling them.
Entities that *really* care about their backups - like companies for whom data loss is not merely inconvenient but can put the company out of business and get the execs sued - use tape based solutions. They are more expensive than hard drives and somewhat less convenient. They're also much less prone to mechanical failure during transport and have a storage life that will outlast the computer that replaces your current machine's replacement.
The really critical component of any backup regimen, though, is the user. You have to do it. And you have to test it from time to time.
 Signature "Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?" - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix
E Z Peaces - 06 Oct 2008 19:25 GMT > I am at last solvent enough to invest in an external backup device. > I'm running an iMac G5 Power PC running OS X v 10.4.11. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Joe I made the mistake of buying a Newertech Ministack from OWC. I could have bought the enclosure alone, but I chose one with a disk included.
Thirteen months later the light didn't come on when I switched it on. The first logical troubleshooting step would have been to try the disk in another enclosure. If the disk had been bad, I could have bought a new one immediately. If it had been good, I could have kept it safe and sent the enclosure for repair.
That's when I saw the fine print. Because I'd bought the disk with the enclosure, opening the enclosure would void my warranty.
If I sent it off, how long would it be gone? What if I had a disk crash in the mean time? If they sent a replacement instead of the original disk with my files, I could lose years' worth of priceless files.
Because I had not anticipated sending the disk anywhere, it had auto logon. If I sent it away, I'd have to trust everyone with access to it not to copy it. For example, personal information in the disk might be used to pilfer bank accounts.
The third drawback was the possibility that someone would drop the disk, leading to premature failure.
I found that the external power supply had failed. As it was short-circuit protected, this was probably the only problem. I contacted tech support. I explained my reluctance to ship the disk unnecessarily. I asked advice and got none. After four days the tech offered to sell me a power supply, but I'd have to pay for it even if I sent in the defective one.
They offered a 3-amp version instead if the original 2-amp supply. The Ministack required an unusual connector, so this suggested that a lot of customers had experienced failures.
With the new power supply, the Ministack worked four hours. When it failed the power supply was still good. I shipped the Ministack and original power supply back under warranty. It came back with a new 2-amp supply and a paper with check marks showing that it had passed all tests. Before I connected it to my computer, I switched it on. The drive did not spin up and the light did not come on. Still, I plugged it in to my USB hub. It damaged the hub.
I informed OWC that before I connected it to my computer, I had switched it on and there was no light or noise. Then, because their paper said it worked, I had connected it to my USB and damaged my hub. They said I could send it back, but it probably wouldn't do any good because they thought the problem was something else on my USB. I repeated that the Ministack had failed to come on when it wasn't connected to anything but the power supply. They repeated that sending it back probably wouldn't do any good.
If they had told me at the outset that they did not intend to honor their warranty, they would have saved me a lot of time, trouble, and money. I'll never again buy anything from Newertech or OWC.
I put my disk in a Macally PHR-100AF enclosure. If anything goes wrong someday, I can try the disk in another enclosure. The disk is suspended with rubber mounts. There is no fan, which keeps everything clean and quiet. I've found with a temperature probe that the disk inside doesn't get hot even when backing up 20 gB. PHR models are made for various disk interfaces and computer interfaces. I chose Firewire so I can use it as a boot disk if I want.
|
|
|