Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

kevs · Jun 24, 2005, 12:24 PM

What is the Raid for just backing up from one hardrive to another.
I would love the set up of where after changing a file, it would then automatically replace that file that is on your backup hardrive. How complex is that to set up? thanks.

IFLY2HIGH · Jun 24, 2005, 12:39 PM

Hum that is a good question, I'm tagging along for the ride as I'd like info on some software to do that. We have a 500 gig server we use for backup now but would be sweet to have automatic backups. Maybee something Automater could do, but I'd like it to have once a week or every few days.

zerostar · Jun 24, 2005, 01:32 PM

Kevs: I think your asking about a mirror raid? Basically you setup both drives in a mirror raid setup and then you format and use the main drive, when you write a file to the main drive it is automatically written to the second drive as a backup. There are pro's and con's to this setup and a quick search on google will give you the whole lowdown on the setup.

IFLY2HIGH: Sounds like you just need an automated backup solution, we use Retrospect here at work and it backs-up all our machines each night at 2am, there are many solution available from free to quite expensive. Check www.versiontracker.com and search for backup for all the options.

C.J. Moof · Jun 24, 2005, 02:16 PM

RAID 1: Good for saving you from hardware failures. Useless for saving you from human error.

In my experience as a network admin, I see 10 instances of human error (unwanted changes saved, misinterpreted menus, wrong file deleted) for every failed harddrive I see. Yes, drives fail, but not as frequently as someone flattens the photoshop file and uses Save instead of Save As.

I recommend backing up harddrives to other harddrives for home users. At home, I use Retrospect and Synk for this.

OreoCookie · Jun 24, 2005, 03:12 PM

A RAID is not a backup!
It won't protect you from accidental deletion of data, errors in programs, etc.

kevs · Jun 24, 2005, 11:41 PM

Thanks zerostar and CJ
Right now, I have one HD and clone that to 2nd HD once a month.

During the month, every time I change a file, I drag that over to a folder called "backup" on the 2nd hd.

Would a mirror raid eliminate that need? In other words, the minute I'm done writing Word document of changing a photo. I close file. Would this mirror Raid replace the version on the backup HD with new one on the spot?

I just got retrospect, but, honestly, dont like idea of my comupter having to spend an hour each day or so (even at 3am), just to scan and compare 200 GB of data, just to update 5-6 files.

that's why I put this thread up.

Oreo, please expand, Not clear on what you are saying, and it sounds important.I

OreoCookie · Jun 25, 2005, 02:11 AM

A RAID would not eliminate the need to do backups. RAID1 (mirroring) immediately replaces the old file with the new version on both drives, so you don't have a copy for safe-keeping.

Even if you don't like the idea of the kind of backup you mention, this is the way it should be done.

C.J. Moof · Jun 25, 2005, 07:02 AM

Your best bet is to continue to have Retrospect do it's task nightly, and get over the dislike of having your computer work for an hour each night. Consider it a gift to your computer- it exists to have tasks to do.

Don't replace a good Retrospect backup system with a RAID. Eventually, you'll regret it.

kevs · Jun 25, 2005, 11:51 PM

Actually, I had a long talk with A Retrospect techie, and I told him that I only change about 4-6 files a day, and he said that just continuing the drag backup method is ok. that learning and doing the whole Retropect thing for such small volue may be overkill.

Oreo: Well that sounds like what I'm doing now, except I don't have to drag anymore. It sounds pretty good. What do you mean you don't have a copy for safekeeping?

(and what I'm doing now is every month I archive manually my whole documents folder and I keep them in a folder called master backups -- goind back a few years)

jasong · Jun 26, 2005, 11:38 AM

What he means is that all the changes you make to your hard drive are mirrored immediately. So say you make changes to your document and save them, and then realize you just screwed the whole thing up. Using a RAID 1, the moment you hit save, both of your copies were changed. With your current setup you have a good backup until you copy the file over.

RAID 1 is typically used to safeguard against drive failure, not really as a backup method per se.

kevs · Jun 26, 2005, 10:14 PM

thats fine with me. that's how I think of my second HD, as being there if the first drive fails. I keep a folder called "master backups" on the primary drive of all important documents. And am buying a new 250 just to archive photos.

OreoCookie · Jun 27, 2005, 04:09 AM

A RAID1 will only protect against hd failure, but it isn't a backup solution. An incremental backup with a backup software (whatever it might be) is your best bet. If you have a system like that in place already, don't change it. It is much better than copying directories manually. It is also much better than cloning your drive, because you always can go back several time-steps (backups) without wasting too much space.

kevs · Jun 27, 2005, 09:09 PM

Oreo:
that's fine with my 10GB documents folder. How do expect me, a photographer, to have multiples archives of my 150 GB of images?

Mithras · Jun 27, 2005, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by kevs

Oreo:
that's fine with my 10GB documents folder. How do expect me, a photographer, to have multiples archives of my 150 GB of images?

Read this article:
http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rsync_snapshots/

It describes using rsync to create `snapshot' backups, where you appear to have multiple archives, but you actually have only one fully copy of each identical file. So as long as most of your 150GB of images stay the same from one backup to the next, this can work great.

NeilCharter · Jun 28, 2005, 01:23 AM

If you only change 5-10 files a day (i.e. those you actually work on) then you probably only need to back up once a week.

Ideally you really want to back up to 2 sets alternatively (maybe twice a week in total). 2 backup sets protect you if one set becomes corrupted.

Retrospect is probably the best software for the job. As Oreo and others have said if you screw up you can reclaim files that were saved the last time.

I have to agree that Retrospect is not totally intuitive, especially if you do not want certain files and folders backed up. What I do now is have it backup both User folders on my laptop to DVD, excluding enclosing folders that are labeled grey (or not for backup). It is easy to use the standard labeling system in the finder to change the color of the folders I don't want backed up. After many attempts to get Retrospect to work how I want it, this system finally seems to work.

So I wouldn't give up on Retrospect quite yet - it just takes a while to iron out the wrinkles.

Randman · Jun 28, 2005, 01:29 AM

A Burn folder inside a Smart folder might also do the trick for incremental backups.

Jellytussle · Jun 28, 2005, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by kevs

Oreo:
that's fine with my 10GB documents folder. How do expect me, a photographer, to have multiples archives of my 150 GB of images?

How much would you, as a photographer, expect to spend in time and money to replace your 150GB of images?

rsync snapshots are great, but a few caveats:

Since you're using hard links, there's only on actual set of data on the backup, so you might want to have two drives and rotate them for greater peace of mind.

HFS+ 'emulates' hard links by writing them into a sort of database ( i believe, someone correct me if i'm wrong), so it gets pretty inefficient with many links. I use this with a lot of clients, and i find turning off journalling on the backup, and limiting your archive to perhaps 10 versions, is realistic.

In Panther, you'll need a resource fork aware rsync, the RsyncX package has one. In Tiger, Apple made rsync metadata aware, but in a somewhat broken way, so i still use the old one; be careful with paths if you do this.

Randman · Jun 28, 2005, 03:57 AM

I don't do much professional photography but I do some with my writing. And I am paranoid about problems. I use an external hard drive for backups, I keep important files on my iPod shuffle and/or iPod Photo 60GB and I also make DVD copies a few times a year and keep them at the office in case something happened to my stuff at home.

I also use my .Mac Backup for things like Mail, iTunes Playlists and Safari bookmarks.

It may be overkill but once you do the initial setup, backing up doesn't take too long. And with burnable discs and external drives cheaper than ever, it's worth the cost. And I'd rather be safe than sorry.

OreoCookie · Jun 28, 2005, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by kevs

Oreo:
that's fine with my 10GB documents folder. How do expect me, a photographer, to have multiples archives of my 150 GB of images?

You misunderstood my post. An incremental backup only copies those files which have changed since the last backup. So you would not have several copies of the same file, but (if you basically just add files), then your backup wouldn't be much larger than all of the files together.

That's what incremental backups are about. Despite the fact that your backuped files are not a lot larger than the original files, you can recover each individual backup for as long as you keep it.

NeilCharter · Jun 28, 2005, 10:19 AM

If you do have over 150 GB of data, it may be worth investing in a tape drive. They're quite expensive but you can back up at least 40 GB in a single tape. As I said earlier, having 2 backup sets that you rotate is also safer.

If you want to stick to hard-drive backup, I would also consider adding at least a DVD backup. You can set the HD to backup every night and run the DVD backup once a week. It will take a long time to backup the initial set considering you have 150 of images, but, as Oreo said, after that only the new or changed files will be backed up.

Since you have Retrospect, I would invest the time to getting it to run well for you. Schedule the backups so it is convenient for you.

turtle777 · Jun 28, 2005, 10:46 AM

From my understanding, you would want to have a RAID1 if you can't afford any downtime once a HD breaks down. It's not a backup, but rather a safety net in case the HD goes bas, so you can basically continue working without retrieving the backup. Orea, is my understanding correct ?

-t

kevs · Jun 28, 2005, 02:28 PM

Here is my set up:
I have just the internal Mad HD with just the system on it, cloned to an 80GB drive. and I have another copy of that at the bank, and I rotate 1x month.

Have 250 external and another 250 external with just data, and another one I rotate 1x month at bank, ok

and during month I change few files day, maybe 60 files or so in month.
------------------------------
So:
I think having the backup HD's that are at the house with mirror Raid would be great, because if one of the primary drives went totally bad -- kaput -- completely shot -- I could just swap to the secondary backup and not have to even figure out what was changed in last week or so. What could be better than that?

And in meantime, I may purchase additional Hd's and clone to them, put them in the closet and called them
Archives.

Now I got a trial version of Retrospect, which is considered gold standard for backing up, but like I said, even tech there said, it may be overkill for just a single user who is backing up a few dozen files a month to do the whole nine yards procedure of scheduling and automation etc.

I think the incremental thing sounds interesting, but again for my limited needs, the learning curve is quite high. I'ts not rocket science, but it's pretty close. The behemouth manual I printed out in very hard to understand, and the tech support ends pretty soon. So, maybe I'll hunker down and learn it one day, but right now leaning towards not bothering, and just doing it as described above. thanks all for great tips.

kevs · Jun 28, 2005, 10:16 PM

BTW:
should I use disc utility to set up raid, or 3rd party software?

NeilCharter · Jun 29, 2005, 12:28 AM

Seriously dude, isn't going raid a bit extreme. And really is it going to keep you files safe?

You need a backup on external media such as DVD or tape. That can then be kept offsite or in a fireproof safe. Such backups need only be performed once a week or month.

You already have an external drive. This will allow you to backup more frequently.

In both cases incremental backups are essential - once you've backed up all of your files the first time, you will only have to back up those files that have been changed or created.

Your main concern shouldn't be the few files that need backing up each week but the 150 GB that you already have.

OreoCookie · Jun 29, 2005, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

From my understanding, you would want to have a RAID1 if you can't afford any downtime once a HD breaks down. It's not a backup, but rather a safety net in case the HD goes bas, so you can basically continue working without retrieving the backup. Orea, is my understanding correct ?

-t

Yes, the first part is correct.
However, a RAID1 doesn't protect against data corruption/loss caused by programs or the user (e. g. accidental deletion).

OreoCookie · Jun 29, 2005, 07:10 AM

I don't think cloning is a good backup.

Tyler McAdams · Jun 29, 2005, 07:23 AM

Google Raid 1, 3 & 5

Chuckit · Jun 29, 2005, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by kevs

I think having the backup HD's that are at the house with mirror Raid would be great, because if one of the primary drives went totally bad -- kaput -- completely shot -- I could just swap to the secondary backup and not have to even figure out what was changed in last week or so. What could be better than that?

Something that can actually deal with any of the thousand problems more likely to occur than a sudden complete hardware meltdown.

OreoCookie · Jun 29, 2005, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by kevs

I think the incremental thing sounds interesting, but again for my limited needs, the learning curve is quite high. I'ts not rocket science, but it's pretty close. The behemouth manual I printed out in very hard to understand, and the tech support ends pretty soon. So, maybe I'll hunker down and learn it one day, but right now leaning towards not bothering, and just doing it as described above. thanks all for great tips.

The learning curve is not high at all (especially compared to setting up a RAID).

Randman · Jun 29, 2005, 11:04 AM

Once again, create a smart folder in a burn folder. Set the time and content of the folder (for say a week's worth of content) and burn the contents at that week. Reset the folder data ahead one week and forget about it.

kevs · Jun 29, 2005, 04:49 PM

Man, I've never seen so many replies of such valuable material that is flying over my head:

Why raid extreme? and why is it complicated. is it? I though it's pretty simple. One HD mirrors the other.

Why use tape/dvd -- when I have another HD?

"RAID1 doesn't protect against data corruption/loss caused by programs or the user (e. g. accidental deletion)." what does this mean?

"I don't think cloning is a good backup." How can it not be a good backup? It's a perfect copy? excuse my ignorance. maybe I'm missing something here.

"Google Raid 1, 3 & 5" -- Am I supposed to know what that means?

"Something that can actually deal with any of the thousand problems more likely to occur than a sudden complete hardware meltdowns" -- is this a statement, a reply, don't understand it. sorry

"The learning curve is not high at all (especially compared to setting up a RAID)."
funny you say that, called up Apple, and guy did not have a clue, and put me on hold for twenty minutes and then I was discocnnected. Why is it so hard? just one HD is the source, other mirror.

"create a smart folder in a burn folder. Set the time and content of the folder (for say a week's worth of content) and burn the contents at that week. Reset the folder data ahead one week and forget about it."
What's a smart folder, whats a burn folder?? What is Reset folder data??

turtle777 · Jun 29, 2005, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by kevs

Why use tape/dvd -- when I have another HD?

Depends on the amount of data. Read the post !

Originally Posted by kevs

"RAID1 doesn't protect against data corruption/loss caused by programs or the user (e. g. accidental deletion)." what does this mean?

Duh ! I RAID1 mirrors mistakes and bad data written to a disk from a program as well.
It's like using carbon copy paper. If you make a spelling error, it will copy.

Originally Posted by kevs

"Google Raid 1, 3 & 5" -- Am I supposed to know what that means?

Well, I don't know how we could be of more help. Nobody will have time to write you a book about it. All you will ever get is key words, and it's your duty to make something out of it.

Apparently even "Google Raid 1, 3 & 5" doesn't give you a clue, I'm tempted to say "hopeless".

My recommendation: learn how to use the internet, especially Google. You will learn to find answers for yourself.

-t

ghporter · Jun 29, 2005, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by kevs

Oreo:
that's fine with my 10GB documents folder. How do expect me, a photographer, to have multiples archives of my 150 GB of images?

If you've collected as much as 150GB of photographs, you should probably consider offline storage. Not only is offline storage immune to harddrive failures and corruption, but it frees up your drive to save other files.

DVDs currently store about 4GB of raw data, and double layer discs can store about twice that. Sure that's a lot of DVDs, but what is your portfolio worth?

As an alternative, you could save all of your photographs on an external drive and store it in a safe location. The computer security industry recommends both offline and OFFSITE storage of mission critical backups. If your portfolio is worth your time, this is a valid idea. A slightly different version of this is to back up to an external harddrive which you store safely. Of course any hard disk can fail, so it's imperitive that you test the integrity of the external drive frequently.

While it would be a pain to burn all your photos to DVD, it's a one-time exercise that is NOT subject to hard disk problems, and I consider it your best shot.