Backup Software for PC

[cocker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

So far my photography backup strategies have been primitive! Every so often I copy my files to an external hard drive (LaCie USB). Its time-consuming and not very elegant. Do people have favourite software (for PC) that they would recommend?

 

Thanks

[marknorton]

Yes, Norton Ghost (no relation!) I do a full backup of all my systems once a month and an incremental every night. It's got me out of trouble a number of times. Remember, it's not a question of IF your hard drive will fail, but WHEN.

 

Of course, you don't want to repeatedly backup archived information; for that, I move it off my active systems to one of my ReadyNAS RAID 5 boxes.

[stunsworth]

Hi Keith

 

I use some software called mirror folder that, well, mirrors, a drive or folder to another drive. This is done automatically when any changes are made to the original drive/folder. It's possible to configure the software not to mirror any deletes from the source - i.e. they remain on the mirror, I have this switched on to cater for moments of stupidity on my part. The url of the supplier is here...

 

MirrorFolder: A real-time backup software

 

So I have all my digital media on an external drive and have that mirrored to another. In fact I've just realised that I only have 4 gig left on the drive the files are copied to, so it's time to use another drive.

 

I've probably move to a raid system later this year and have the data on that mirrored to another hard drive somewhere else in the house.

[cocker]

Thanks Mark & Steve - I'll give them both a look over.

[AlanG]

I thought of mirroring but the problem is that if you make a mistake and delete an image on one drive, it will get removed from the other too. Mirroring really provides redundancy for the hard drive failure but not for the data. (Although the software mentioned above that can exclude the "deletes" on a mrrored drive may solve this objection of mine.) I prefer to make full and incremental backups with specific strategies. (Some are automatic and others I do manually.) In any case, RAID mirroring provides drive hardware redundancy only, I believe.

 

For instance, when I shoot a job, I manually copy the images to two separate drives. But then one of these drives, automatically gets backed up to an internal and external drive as I work on the images. (Incrementally and on daily and weekly schedules so I can always do a restore to a specific point.) And the original images that were initially copied to the 2nd drive are never touched.

 

Eventually, all of the images get placed onto two DVDs for archiving and the files are then converted to hi res jpegs and stored on-line.

 

I uses Acronis True Image software.

 

Here is a comparison between Norton Ghost and True Image. It isn't completely up to date as True Image has a newer version and I don't know if that is so with Ghost.

 

Drive Imaging Reviews: True Image vs Ghost

 

More reviews and info about backing up strategies and True Image:

 

Online secure data backup - Acronis True Image 9.1 Workstation reviews

[stunsworth]

I thought of mirroring but the problem is that if you make a mistake and delete an image on one drive, it will get removed from the other too

 

Not with the software I mentioned. As I said above one of the options is not to mirror deletes.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not with the software I mentioned. As I said above one of the options is not to mirror deletes.

 

I acknowledged that - "(Although the software mentioned above that can exclude the "deletes" on a mrrored drive may solve this objection of mine.)"

 

But it isn't only deletes that are a problem. Maybe you changed the picture by accident in a very significant and irreversible way - such as scaling it way down, converted the bit depth, etc. I think mirroring the way you mentioned it could be great but I want to also have the untouched image along with a backup copy of the images that I have worked on. That's why I have several backup strategies at once and use 6 hard drives.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Keith, I use a program called Second Copy (windoze) that was inexpensive. After each shoot or project, I "mirror" my directory to 2 other drives using this software.

 

It sees what's already there and doesn't recopy, or if you add files to a directory, it does an incremental backup, all automatically.

 

It's easy to use (seriously, guys) and gives me easy backup from drive to drive.

 

It is possible to build the profiles it uses so that they go off automatically. I do this as well. Nifty. Has a log with all the info and gives warnings if something goes wrong.

 

Highly recommended. Did I say cheap?

[stunsworth]

Alan, I think it's more down to your 'workflow' - horrible word - than the software. The same problem could arise if you are doing backups and change a file.

 

The way I work is that I shoot RAW. All my RAW files go into a mirrored directory. If I process a file for say web use, I save a web sized file to a mirrored 'web' directory, that way I always have the web file available even if the original web file is lost. Every file that I resize for web use is also saved to another mirrored directory at full resolution, so I have a copy of that too if the original is lost.

 

If I create what I call a 'print master' that too is saved to a mirrored directory.

 

So I have up to three copies of an image, 1st a copy of the original RAW file, 2nd a full sized 16 bit PSD version, and 3rd a internet Jpeg.

[AlanG]

Your system looks fine to me. It seems it's up to each of us to become a computer and archiving expert if we want to be safe.

 

The main reason I use True Image is not for the automated backups for the image files but for the ability to restore my system and all of my programs if my system drive crashes.

 

For backing up photos, any program or system will probably work if you are careful and diligent about it.

 

The OP asked for favorite software, so that is my suggestion.

[dave_d]

Another option that I have used without any problems is SyncToy by Microsoft. This is a free download: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=E0FC1154-C975-4814-9649-CCE41AF06EB7&displaylang=en

[marknorton]

I agree with Alan, restoring a PC if your hard disk crashes is a major issue, quite apart from the loss of your data files - reinstalling the software, getting the online updates, reconfiguring it all.

 

That's why i do the backups and archives I do. All my archived data is on at least 2 drives and the backup arrangements for my live systems mean I can go back to any point (overnight backup) in the last three months. All done with Norton Ghost (about $50), a separate hard drive in my server for backups only, and as many ReadyNASs as I need (currently 4.5Tb) on the network for archiving.

[farnz]

...Here is a comparison between Norton Ghost and True Image. It isn't completely up to date as True Image has a newer version and I don't know if that is so with Ghost.

Drive Imaging Reviews: True Image vs Ghost ...

Alan,

 

Thanks for the link to the comparison: the author's appalling experience with Symantec support mirrors my own (no pun intended!). I had not heard of the Executive Support function (who qualifies for that??) and was suprised by its eventual door-slamming behaviour.

 

Norton Ghost 10 is the only Symantec product I have left - I've owned basically all of 'em from time to time - and I wouldn't go near them ever again. Typically they are resource hogs, fail regularly (especially Norton Internet Security with false positives), the support is appalling and the applications are uninstallable - after uninstalling them you need to run separate software to flush the remains from your system to stop it from interfering with competitors products.

 

I've owned Ghost 2003 (don't go there!), and Ghost 9, which was a rebadged and bodged version of the excellent DriveImage from PowerQuest who Symantec acquired, but it was raw in the extreme.

 

I've found Norton Ghost 10 to be just okay if it is watched closely although I have also experienced a high incidence of running errors. An automated application it is not.

 

Until Acronis True Image there didn't seem to be another application that offered equivalent functionality but now I'll have a look at Acronis to try to be finally rid of the 'Scourge of Symantec' permanently. Oh happy days!

 

Pete.

[marknorton]

Well, it's a classic case of YMMV. I've had problems with Acronis and use Norton Ghost 10 every night to backup my server and three client PCs, two of which are connected by wireless.

 

Agree with you about Symantec in general and their support in particular.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Mark, I was under the impression the Ghost imaged the disk. Therefore, when restoring to a new disk if there are bad sectors in important places, what happens to the image?

 

I have an older version and found it to be compellingly difficult to use.

[Guest rubidium]

I use Acronis True Image Home v10.0, and it's great. Capable, reliable, and no resource hog. You hardly know it's there. I set mine up to automatically perform "full" disk images monthly, and "incremental" images weekly, but you can set up scheduled tasks to do whatever you want. Nice thing is that you can recover as much as an entire drive, or as little as one file if you happen to accidently delete one.

 

I struggled a couple of years ago to rid my system of all of the tentacles of Norton Internet Security, and in doing so approached the brink of having to do a clean install of Windows XP. Right then and there I swore never to allow another Symantec product on my computers again.

 

Jim

[johnwolf]

Keith,

 

I use NovaBackup (Windows). It's the only product I found that does an automated incremental copy (vs. backup). I like the copy because I can easily restore a single file if I need to. The backup folders look just like my c:drive folders.

 

I dont' back up programs. A nightly run copies new and changed files in my My Documents folder and selected other c:drive folders to an external SATA drive. I swap the drive periodically with another drive and keep one off site.

 

If you decide to backup just your data files (versus your entire drive), you might want to include your email address book, browser favorites, Lightroom catalog, and other essentials in the backup. NovaBackup lets you include any folders and files in the scheduled run. I looked at RAID and other approaches but they all seemed like overkill for my simple needs.

 

John

[marknorton]

Mark, I was under the impression the Ghost imaged the disk. Therefore, when restoring to a new disk if there are bad sectors in important places, what happens to the image?

 

I have an older version and found it to be compellingly difficult to use.

 

The oldest versions were indeed awful (for example Ghost 2003) but the current Version 10 has its roots with PowerQuest who did Partition Magic which is excellent.

 

But, heh, I'm not here to sell Symantec products, the key point for anyone is that you must back up your data. The more automatic and the more reliable that process, the easier it is to sleep easy at night.

[farnz]

... but the current Version 10 ...

Mark,

 

I've just discovered that Norton Ghost 12 was released in June.

 

Pete.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[marknorton]

Pete, yes, I meant it to read the current version I'm using....

 

It looks like Symantec are changing their licencing model and charging for annual use instead of an up front licence fee. I'd only upgrade to 12 if I took up Vista in a big way and that seems unlikely!