AKICIF: Browser bafflement
Karen Lofstrom
automagically imported all the bookmarks from my copy of Netscape 6.2. She
edited the bookmarks in Mozilla, because that was going to be HER browser,
while I used the older Netscape. Lo and behold, all my bookmarks
disappeared. Major bummer. I added a bookmark in Netscape 6.2; it appeared
in her Mozilla.
We want separate bookmarks, not just one file. Where is the bookmark file
stored and HOW do I de-synch the two browsers?
A few years worth of bookmarks, lovingly edited and filed ... damn!
I have two other browsers on my system. I have IE just for web design, so
I can check to see if a page is browser agnostic, and there's the old old
Netscape my daughter WAS using. We didn't have these bookmark problems
with the other browsers.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm different in exactly the same way! Yes." -- K.
Andy Leighton
>
> We want separate bookmarks, not just one file. Where is the bookmark file
> stored and HOW do I de-synch the two browsers?
Well I find this slightly surprising.
My bookmarks are in "c:\documents and settings\andyl\Application
Data\Mozilla\Profiles\default\lcawi74.slt\bookmarks.html"
Some bits obviously will change for you (such as username and probably the
lcawi74.slt).
It might be easiest if you both have specific profiles.
Can you run the profile manager and create a new profile (do not delete
your existing default one as it may well delete the netscape profile
including bookmarks). This should keep the two sets of bookmarks separate.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Danny Low
wrote:
>We want separate bookmarks, not just one file. Where is the bookmark file
>stored and HOW do I de-synch the two browsers?
Here is one possibility. Find the bookmarks.html file that you are
both using. Make a copy of the file. One of you two imports that copy.
That is what I did once when I imported my IE bookmarks into Netscape
and found that the two browsers were now using the same file.
Your mileage may vary as there seems to be some confusion among
browser developers as to whether "import" means "merge" or "replace".
Danny
Don't question authority. What makes you think they
know anything?
Marcus L. Rowland
<lofs...@lava.net> writes
>A few days ago my daughter downloaded Mozilla. When installed, it
>automagically imported all the bookmarks from my copy of Netscape 6.2. She
>edited the bookmarks in Mozilla, because that was going to be HER browser,
>while I used the older Netscape. Lo and behold, all my bookmarks
>disappeared. Major bummer. I added a bookmark in Netscape 6.2; it appeared
>in her Mozilla.
>
>We want separate bookmarks, not just one file. Where is the bookmark file
>stored and HOW do I de-synch the two browsers?
>
>A few years worth of bookmarks, lovingly edited and filed ... damn!
>
>I have two other browsers on my system. I have IE just for web design, so
>I can check to see if a page is browser agnostic, and there's the old old
>Netscape my daughter WAS using. We didn't have these bookmark problems
>with the other browsers.
>
You may need to log in as different users (assuming you are using
Windows); I'm pretty sure you can have different bookmarks, net-nanny
settings, accessibility settings etc. if you do that.
--
Marcus L. Rowland http://www.forgottenfutures.com/
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
"Life is chaos; Chaos is life; Control is an illusion." - Andromeda
Pierre Jelenc
>
> We want separate bookmarks, not just one file. Where is the bookmark file
> stored and HOW do I de-synch the two browsers?
Find bookmarks.html
Set a new "home" directory for Mozilla in config.sys, separate from the
directory hierarchy where Mozilla itself is:
SET MOZILLA_HOME=X:\Path_To_Mozilla_Home
if you want to keep plugins safe as well, add:
SET MOZ_PLUGIN_PATH=X:\Path_To_Mozilla_Home\Plugins
Copy bookmarks.html to the directory defined by MOZILLA_HOME (and the
plugins to MOZ_PLUGIN_PATH if desired).
Reboot. Re-create a default Mozilla profile (it will go into MOZILLA_HOME
and be safe from future updates).
Now Mozilla will keep its user files in the MOZILLA_HOME directory and its
subdirectories.
Finally, import bookmarks.html to Netscape (bookmarks->edit bookmarks->
file->import).
That should do it.
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc | H o m e O f f i c e R e c o r d s
| * Marwood * The Cucumbers *
T h e G i g o m e t e r | * Switchblade Kittens * Pawnshop *
www.thegigometer.com | www.homeofficerecords.com
Karen Lofstrom
> a recipe for keeping Netscape 6.2 and Mozilla bookmarks separate.
Thanks! That looks like that will solve the problem without messing with
user profiles.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------
You cannot truly appreciate Atlas Shrugged until you have
read it in the original Klingon. --Sea Wasp
Keith F. Lynch
> A few years worth of bookmarks, lovingly edited and filed ... damn!
I'm curious why you didn't back up that file.
It's hard to believe people in 2003 are *still* neglecting to make
regular backups.
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.
Loren MacGregor
> Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net> wrote:
>
>>A few years worth of bookmarks, lovingly edited and filed ... damn!
>
> I'm curious why you didn't back up that file.
>
> It's hard to believe people in 2003 are *still* neglecting to make
> regular backups.
Possibly because it is not obvious, in Netscape, either -where- the
file is, or -how- to back it up?
(In Netscape 6+, you can back up your bookmarks by pressing Ctrl+B
or selecting "Bookmarks" from the toolbar, then "Manage Bookmarks."
Click on "Tools," select "Export," then navigate to the
directory where you wish to store the file. The default on Windows
is "My Documents." I recommend renaming the file to something
appropriate, such as "bookmarks050603.htm" for "My bookmarks file as
of May 6, 2003," which will help should you need to recover the file
at any point.)
-- LJM
--
***************************************************************
* Loren J MacGregor - The Churn Works + churn...@att.net *
* Phone: (541) 338-0675 + In search of full-time or contract *
* work in systems administration or technical writing/editing *
***************************************************************
David Dyer-Bennet
> Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net> wrote:
> > A few years worth of bookmarks, lovingly edited and filed ... damn!
>
> I'm curious why you didn't back up that file.
>
> It's hard to believe people in 2003 are *still* neglecting to make
> regular backups.
It's harder than it ever was to get a backup device that's a suitable
size for the common desktop disk sizes!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd...@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
Loren MacGregor
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
>
>>Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net> wrote:
>>
>>>A few years worth of bookmarks, lovingly edited and filed ... damn!
>>
>>I'm curious why you didn't back up that file.
>>
>>It's hard to believe people in 2003 are *still* neglecting to make
>>regular backups.
>
>
> It's harder than it ever was to get a backup device that's a suitable
> size for the common desktop disk sizes!
It can be managed with periodic full backups, and supplemental
backups of changed files, but it's still a pain. When I got them, I
didn't think I'd ever need more than the 8 GB tapes that I had for
my system and for Lauryn's system. <Hollow laugh>
Of course, in most cases the -data files- take substantially less
space than the -program files-, so many people may be satisfied with
backup of the data only.
(Having been bitten by this problem, I would also suggest that
people who are routinely -backing up- their data should attempt
periodically to -restore- the backup. I had been dutifully backing
up data for years without receiving an error, and the logs looked
fine. When I needed to restore after a system crash, I found that
the tapes were thoroughly trashed. Aargh. And ... um ... those who
are dependent on Microsoft Exchange for their office email should
really test restoral frequently.)
Karen Lofstrom
> It's harder than it ever was to get a backup device that's a suitable
> size for the common desktop disk sizes!
Ah, but I do have backups. I just never thought of those as a way to find
my bookmarks, since I had no clue where the bookmarks were stored. I
backup on CD-ROMs.
Unfortunately I've been neglecting the backups, but I have something from
a couple of months ago. So I can find most of the bookmarks ...
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevermore
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> >
> >>Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>A few years worth of bookmarks, lovingly edited and filed ... damn!
> >>
> >>I'm curious why you didn't back up that file.
> >>
> >>It's hard to believe people in 2003 are *still* neglecting to make
> >>regular backups.
> > It's harder than it ever was to get a backup device that's a suitable
> > size for the common desktop disk sizes!
>
> It can be managed with periodic full backups, and supplemental backups
> of changed files, but it's still a pain. When I got them, I didn't
> think I'd ever need more than the 8 GB tapes that I had for my system
> and for Lauryn's system. <Hollow laugh>
I may still have those old 60MB tapes in a box somewhere. The
not-quite-so-old DAT tapes (first-gen) aren't much better.
> Of course, in most cases the -data files- take substantially less
> space than the -program files-, so many people may be satisfied with
> backup of the data only.
Although program really like to squirrel away data in amongst the
program files. Configuration. Email filtering settings. The stored
email itself. And so forth. You have to keep a really careful eye on
them to make sure you know what's where.
You should also avoid taking up hobbies like digital video, digital
audio, or even just digital photography, or the data files will
quickly run the program files off into a little corner somewhere.
> (Having been bitten by this problem, I would also suggest that people
> who are routinely -backing up- their data should attempt periodically
> to -restore- the backup. I had been dutifully backing up data for
> years without receiving an error, and the logs looked fine. When I
> needed to restore after a system crash, I found that the tapes were
> thoroughly trashed. Aargh. And ... um ... those who are dependent on
> Microsoft Exchange for their office email should really test restoral
> frequently.)
This is *such* excellent advice, all of it.
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <m2k7d2l...@gw.dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> > It's harder than it ever was to get a backup device that's a suitable
> > size for the common desktop disk sizes!
>
> Ah, but I do have backups. I just never thought of those as a way to find
> my bookmarks, since I had no clue where the bookmarks were stored. I
> backup on CD-ROMs.
>
> Unfortunately I've been neglecting the backups, but I have something from
> a couple of months ago. So I can find most of the bookmarks ...
And thus you'll actually get to try restoring a few files from a
backup. Good luck!
Bernard Peek
<dd...@dd-b.net> writes
>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
>> Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net> wrote:
>> > A few years worth of bookmarks, lovingly edited and filed ... damn!
>>
>> I'm curious why you didn't back up that file.
>>
>> It's hard to believe people in 2003 are *still* neglecting to make
>> regular backups.
>
>It's harder than it ever was to get a backup device that's a suitable
>size for the common desktop disk sizes!
Apart from a second disk that is. It's simple cheap and fast and will
let you recover from most failure modes if you detect them before the
next backup. It won't help if the place burns down or the machine gets
stolen, but those aren't the commonest failure modes.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
www.diversebooks.com: SF & Computing book reviews and more.....
In search of cognoscenti
Chris Malme
> In message <m2k7d2l...@gw.dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
> <dd...@dd-b.net> writes
> >It's harder than it ever was to get a backup device that's a suitable
> >size for the common desktop disk sizes!
>
> Apart from a second disk that is. It's simple cheap and fast and will
> let you recover from most failure modes if you detect them before the
> next backup. It won't help if the place burns down or the machine gets
> stolen, but those aren't the commonest failure modes.
Disk caddies are cheap, and easily turn a spare hard disk into a removable
backup device.
--
Chris
Minstrel's Hall of Filk - http://www.filklore.com
Filklore Music Store - http://www.filklore.co.uk
Timothy McDaniel
<b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>In message <m2k7d2l...@gw.dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
><dd...@dd-b.net> writes
>>size for the common desktop disk sizes!
>
>Apart from a second disk that is. It's simple cheap and fast and will
>let you recover from most failure modes if you detect them before the
>next backup.
Not necessarily cheap per unit compared with tape, frex, but the speed
and reliability and great size make it far better than tape, In My
Humble Opinion.
>It won't help if the place burns down or the machine gets stolen, but
>those aren't the commonest failure modes.
Removable disks. I did it the older way, with a case that's designed
to be removable. It's IDE, so you can only do it after shutting
down. That's fine with me: I don't leave the system running while I
go to work. There are newfangled disks using, like, USB, but I got
what I got.
Computer Works is the Austin, Texas, Goodwill computer outlet. I saw
some removable disk cases and 4GB or so disk drives. Your local city
might have a similar concept.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com; tm...@us.ibm.com is my work address
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>In message <m2k7d2l...@gw.dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
><dd...@dd-b.net> writes
>>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>
>>> Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net> wrote:
>>> > A few years worth of bookmarks, lovingly edited and filed ... damn!
>>>
>>> I'm curious why you didn't back up that file.
>>>
>>> It's hard to believe people in 2003 are *still* neglecting to make
>>> regular backups.
>>
>>It's harder than it ever was to get a backup device that's a suitable
>>size for the common desktop disk sizes!
>
>Apart from a second disk that is. It's simple cheap and fast and will
>let you recover from most failure modes if you detect them before the
>next backup. It won't help if the place burns down or the machine gets
>stolen, but those aren't the commonest failure modes.
But if you're doing disk-to-disk backup you want at least two backup disks,
since it's kind of a nightmare if your good disk zorches right in the middle
of the backup, giving you a zorched backup disk as well.
(Not so bad if your disks have a lot of excess capacity and you're making
backup save sets, but then you have to reinstall the OS before you can restore
the data and get back on the air.)
-- Alan
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
Ben Yalow
>In article <IJShjcEu...@shrdlu.com>, Bernard Peek
><b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>In message <m2k7d2l...@gw.dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
>><dd...@dd-b.net> writes
>>>It's harder than it ever was to get a backup device that's a suitable
>>>size for the common desktop disk sizes!
>>
>>Apart from a second disk that is. It's simple cheap and fast and will
>>let you recover from most failure modes if you detect them before the
>>next backup.
>Not necessarily cheap per unit compared with tape, frex, but the speed
>and reliability and great size make it far better than tape, In My
>Humble Opinion.
Still pretty cheap. I use a piece of my external 250G hard disk as a
backup area for my internal disk. And it's only $400, with both Firewire
and USB2 interfaces, so I can connect it to both my desktop and laptop
(and, since it drops back to USB1 if it's connected to a USB1 port, I can
pretty much figure on connecting it to any machine built in the last few
years, if I need to rescue the data).
And I use the rest for data files. As DDB said -- if you get into digital
photography, or video, or music, then your data files grow much faster
than program files. Most people have gotten a few tens of gig of program
files -- a few hours of digital video is more than that.
>>It won't help if the place burns down or the machine gets stolen, but
>>those aren't the commonest failure modes.
>Removable disks. I did it the older way, with a case that's designed
>to be removable. It's IDE, so you can only do it after shutting
>down. That's fine with me: I don't leave the system running while I
>go to work. There are newfangled disks using, like, USB, but I got
>what I got.
>Computer Works is the Austin, Texas, Goodwill computer outlet. I saw
>some removable disk cases and 4GB or so disk drives. Your local city
>might have a similar concept.
That system also works.
>--
>Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com; tm...@us.ibm.com is my work address
Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
Keith F. Lynch
> It's harder than it ever was to get a backup device that's a
> suitable size for the common desktop disk sizes!
A bookmark file ought to fit on a diskette with room to spare, even
if a dozen new sites were bookmarked every day since the invention
of the web.
All of my saved email -- 29 years worth, incoming and outgoing,
including several hundred thousand spams -- fits comfortably on
one CD ROM with compression, or on three without.
Loren MacGregor
> In <b9c3jq$g7m$1...@reader1.panix.com> tm...@panix.com (Timothy McDaniel) writes:
>
>>Not necessarily cheap per unit compared with tape, frex, but the speed
>>and reliability and great size make it far better than tape, In My
>>Humble Opinion.
>
> Still pretty cheap. I use a piece of my external 250G hard disk as a
At the moment, $400 is substantially more than my unemployment
take-home per week.
"Cheap" is a highly relative term.
Bernard Peek
<mins...@filklore.com> writes
>Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote in news:IJShjcEu...@shrdlu.com:
>
>> In message <m2k7d2l...@gw.dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
>> <dd...@dd-b.net> writes
>
>> >It's harder than it ever was to get a backup device that's a suitable
>> >size for the common desktop disk sizes!
>>
>> Apart from a second disk that is. It's simple cheap and fast and will
>> let you recover from most failure modes if you detect them before the
>> next backup. It won't help if the place burns down or the machine gets
>> stolen, but those aren't the commonest failure modes.
>
>Disk caddies are cheap, and easily turn a spare hard disk into a removable
>backup device.
It's worth noting that under Windows NT and its successors you can mount
and unmount disks without shutting the system down. That makes it
possible to use a number of disk caddies to make backups.
If you choose to use caddies it's probably best to avoid using
high-speed drives because they generate a lot of heat. That will
probably affect the lifetime of the disks because the cooling in caddis
is usually poor.
Bernard Peek
SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes
>In article <IJShjcEu...@shrdlu.com>, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> writes:
>>In message <m2k7d2l...@gw.dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
>><dd...@dd-b.net> writes
>>>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net> wrote:
>>>> > A few years worth of bookmarks, lovingly edited and filed ... damn!
>>>>
>>>> I'm curious why you didn't back up that file.
>>>>
>>>> It's hard to believe people in 2003 are *still* neglecting to make
>>>> regular backups.
>>>
>>>It's harder than it ever was to get a backup device that's a suitable
>>>size for the common desktop disk sizes!
>>
>>Apart from a second disk that is. It's simple cheap and fast and will
>>let you recover from most failure modes if you detect them before the
>>next backup. It won't help if the place burns down or the machine gets
>>stolen, but those aren't the commonest failure modes.
>
>But if you're doing disk-to-disk backup you want at least two backup disks,
>since it's kind of a nightmare if your good disk zorches right in the middle
>of the backup, giving you a zorched backup disk as well.
That's possible but statistically improbable. A second disk is a good
backup solution but not a perfect one. If you are only backing up data
files then you can probably hold several generations of backup on a
second disk. It's not difficult to write a short batch file to maintain
several generations of backups, particularly if you use a compression
utility like PKZIP. I keep two generations of backup on the spare disk
on this machine and a third on the disk in the server.
>
>(Not so bad if your disks have a lot of excess capacity and you're making
>backup save sets, but then you have to reinstall the OS before you can restore
>the data and get back on the air.)
Reinstalling an operating system is no big deal.
Timothy McDaniel
>In message <00A1F83D...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, Alan Winston -
>SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes
>>disks, since it's kind of a nightmare if your good disk zorches
>>right in the middle of the backup, giving you a zorched backup disk
>>as well.
That disadvantage exists for any backup system.
>>(Not so bad if your disks have a lot of excess capacity and you're
>>making backup save sets, but then you have to reinstall the OS
>>before you can restore the data and get back on the air.)
My disk backups are bootable. On each disk, I have the long-range
backup (a month or several months old) plus the short-range backup
(maybe up to a week old, if I'm not doing much new stuff). I boot to
the long-range backup to do the short-range and vice versa.
Linux neepery: All I need to do is have an /etc/lilo.conf to allow
booting to each of the main (SCSI) disk or backup (IDE) disk systems,
and use LILO to put new boot loaders on each of the two disks, and in
the backup sets change /etc/fstab in each backup to have the backed-up
/, /usr, /var, et cetera, instead of the SCSI originals.
>Reinstalling an operating system is no big deal.
Thou sayest. Last time I installed Linux, it took me the better part
of a week to get back the settings and packages I wanted.
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>In article <yI4$DqOF6k...@shrdlu.com>, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>In message <00A1F83D...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, Alan Winston -
>>SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes
>>>But if you're doing disk-to-disk backup you want at least two backup
>>>disks, since it's kind of a nightmare if your good disk zorches
>>>right in the middle of the backup, giving you a zorched backup disk
>>>as well.
>
>That disadvantage exists for any backup system.
That disadvantage exists for any fixed-media backup system. If you've got,
eg, tapes, you should at least alternate backing up to different tapes, and
yet you only need one drive.
>
>>>(Not so bad if your disks have a lot of excess capacity and you're
>>>making backup save sets, but then you have to reinstall the OS
>>>before you can restore the data and get back on the air.)
>
>My disk backups are bootable. On each disk, I have the long-range
>backup (a month or several months old) plus the short-range backup
>(maybe up to a week old, if I'm not doing much new stuff). I boot to
>the long-range backup to do the short-range and vice versa.
I do tape backups of my VMS server systems. These are easier to put in a
fireproof safe. Meantime, all my user data is on RAID arrays, so I have to
lose multiple disks quickly before I lose data.
>
>Linux neepery: All I need to do is have an /etc/lilo.conf to allow
>booting to each of the main (SCSI) disk or backup (IDE) disk systems,
>and use LILO to put new boot loaders on each of the two disks, and in
>the backup sets change /etc/fstab in each backup to have the backed-up
>/, /usr, /var, et cetera, instead of the SCSI originals.
>
Pretty easily doable under VMS. The disk you booted from is SYS$SYSDEVICE
and nearly all the system files are referred to based on that, so you can
boot from any disk with a system on it. This includes CDs, incidentally.
>>Reinstalling an operating system is no big deal.
>
>Thou sayest. Last time I installed Linux, it took me the better part
>of a week to get back the settings and packages I wanted.
Indeed. It's not the OS, it's the customization. (Reinstall Windows, okay,
doesn't change the registry, but that means even reinstalling the OS doesn't
solve your problems when your registry is hosed up.)
Bernard Peek
>>>Reinstalling an operating system is no big deal.
>>
>>Thou sayest. Last time I installed Linux, it took me the better part
>>of a week to get back the settings and packages I wanted.
>
>Indeed. It's not the OS, it's the customization. (Reinstall Windows, okay,
>doesn't change the registry, but that means even reinstalling the OS doesn't
>solve your problems when your registry is hosed up.)
If it's only that then you have the option of reverting to the previous
version, which is automatically backed up. There's also the version that
was created when the OS was first installed. Finally you also have the
option to reinstall from scratch.
I was reading about some changes in the next version of MS Office. It's
adding "shadow storage" so that if you accidentally overwrite a file you
can recover the previous version without having to ask a sysadmin to
restore files.
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <yI4$DqOF6k...@shrdlu.com>, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> >In message <00A1F83D...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, Alan Winston -
> >SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes
> >>But if you're doing disk-to-disk backup you want at least two backup
> >>disks, since it's kind of a nightmare if your good disk zorches
> >>right in the middle of the backup, giving you a zorched backup disk
> >>as well.
>
> That disadvantage exists for any backup system.
Yes, but it's quite conceivable that somebody might actually try to
run a backup system with just one same-size backup disk. It's
essentially not conceivable, at least by me, that somebody would try
to run a backup system with just one set of tapes.
Timothy McDaniel
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
>In article <b9ejvi$cbk$3...@reader1.panix.com>, tm...@panix.com (Timothy
>McDaniel) writes:
>>In article <yI4$DqOF6k...@shrdlu.com>, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>>In message <00A1F83D...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, Alan Winston -
>>>SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes
>>>>But if you're doing disk-to-disk backup you want at least two backup
>>>>disks, since it's kind of a nightmare if your good disk zorches
>>>>right in the middle of the backup, giving you a zorched backup disk
>>>>as well.
>>
>>That disadvantage exists for any backup system.
>
>That disadvantage exists for any fixed-media backup system.
Let me rephrase a bit: the zorching disadvantage exists for any backup
system. If your good disk zorches right in the middle of the backup,
you have one zorched backup as well, regardless of whether the backup
is disk or tape. You want at least two backup storage devices
regardless of the medium.
>If you've got, eg, tapes, you should at least alternate backing up to
>different tapes
If you've got, e.g., disk, you should at least alternate backing up to
different disks.
> and yet you only need one drive.
I disagree vehemently, for exactly the reasons you adduce, making me
wonder whether I'm missing something in the points you're making.
>>My disk backups are bootable. On each disk, I have the long-range
>>backup (a month or several months old) plus the short-range backup
>
>I do tape backups of my VMS server systems. These are easier to put
>in a fireproof safe.
You apparently missed the part in my previous message where I noted
that my disk backups are in removable disk cases, and the text you
quoted, where I noted at least two backup disks ("each disk"). I keep
the most recent full backup disk at work: they could be put into a
fireproof safe just as easily as tape. I'm told there are USB-based
external disks that are designed to be removable; in that case, they
are certainly just as convenient as tape (removable and safeable).
I have old Jaz disks.
I'm told there's an electrical reason for not disconnecting a disk
drive connected to the IDE cables on a running system, regardless of
whether it's in use, so that's a constraint on me (but not for the
reason you mention: it's not safeability, but because I have to shut
down to do it). But I much prefer to back up a quiescent system
anyway: no annoying inconsistencies in live files and it can fsck
first. So I shutdown the system, boot from the older disk backup,
backup to the new disk area overnight, and shut down before going to
work -- so I'm shutting down the system anyway and I can remove the
disk then.
Given the low failure rate of hard disks compared to tape, and how
rarely I lose something of importance, I think two recent generations
of full backups plus more frequent backups of /home+/root+/etc (on Jaz
fully removable disks) are sufficient for me.
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>In article <00A1F901...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
>Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
>>In article <b9ejvi$cbk$3...@reader1.panix.com>, tm...@panix.com (Timothy
>>McDaniel) writes:
>>>In article <yI4$DqOF6k...@shrdlu.com>, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>>>In message <00A1F83D...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, Alan Winston -
>>>>SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes
>>>>>But if you're doing disk-to-disk backup you want at least two backup
>>>>>disks, since it's kind of a nightmare if your good disk zorches
>>>>>right in the middle of the backup, giving you a zorched backup disk
>>>>>as well.
>>>
>>>That disadvantage exists for any backup system.
>>
>>That disadvantage exists for any fixed-media backup system.
>
>Let me rephrase a bit: the zorching disadvantage exists for any backup
>system. If your good disk zorches right in the middle of the backup,
>you have one zorched backup as well, regardless of whether the backup
>is disk or tape. You want at least two backup storage devices
>regardless of the medium.
We are in violent agreement.
>
>>If you've got, eg, tapes, you should at least alternate backing up to
>>different tapes
>
>If you've got, e.g., disk, you should at least alternate backing up to
>different disks.
We are in violent agreement.
>
>> and yet you only need one drive.
>
>I disagree vehemently, for exactly the reasons you adduce, making me
>wonder whether I'm missing something in the points you're making.
>
No, not really. If lightning strikes during your backup and your disk drive
and _tape drive_ are destroyed, you're pretty hosed. It's probably cheaper to
buy a new tape drive than to send either of your disks to the disk recovery
service. If your disk dies during your tape backup, your tape drive probably
won't, although you have a probably-useless tape and have to go back a
generation.
>>>My disk backups are bootable. On each disk, I have the long-range
>>>backup (a month or several months old) plus the short-range backup
>>
>>I do tape backups of my VMS server systems. These are easier to put
>>in a fireproof safe.
>
>You apparently missed the part in my previous message where I noted
>that my disk backups are in removable disk cases, and the text you
>quoted, where I noted at least two backup disks ("each disk"). I keep
>the most recent full backup disk at work: they could be put into a
>fireproof safe just as easily as tape. I'm told there are USB-based
>external disks that are designed to be removable; in that case, they
>are certainly just as convenient as tape (removable and safeable).
>I have old Jaz disks.
Where we're not communicating, I think, is that I'm not objecting to your
practice, as communicated in a previous post; I was objecting (mildly) to what
you said in the post I was responding to. Thus, my correction to "any
fixed-media backup system."
>
>I'm told there's an electrical reason for not disconnecting a disk
>drive connected to the IDE cables on a running system, regardless of
>whether it's in use, so that's a constraint on me (but not for the
>reason you mention: it's not safeability, but because I have to shut
>down to do it). But I much prefer to back up a quiescent system
>anyway: no annoying inconsistencies in live files and it can fsck
>first. So I shutdown the system, boot from the older disk backup,
>backup to the new disk area overnight, and shut down before going to
>work -- so I'm shutting down the system anyway and I can remove the
>disk then.
>
>Given the low failure rate of hard disks compared to tape, and how
>rarely I lose something of importance, I think two recent generations
>of full backups plus more frequent backups of /home+/root+/etc (on Jaz
>fully removable disks) are sufficient for me.
Sounds fine.
But my initial point - on which you appeared to be correcting me - was that if
you were backing up to (non-floppy) disk you needed at least two backup drives;
it sounds like you have them.
(And I actually have two tape drives, albeit in the same tape library.
Experience shows I can carry on using one even when the other is broken, and I
can manually load tapes if the library is broken, but it's all under
maintenance.)
Timothy McDaniel
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
>We are in violent agreement.
>But my initial point - on which you appeared to be correcting me -
>was that if you were backing up to (non-floppy) disk you needed at
>least two backup drives; it sounds like you have them.
I approve of what you write, but I will attack to the death your right
to say it.
Tim (quoting the Welsh author Llah B. Nyleve) McDaniel
Timothy McDaniel
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>Yes, but it's quite conceivable that somebody might actually try to
>run a backup system with just one same-size backup disk.
I hope that few would be that stupid.
Loren MacGregor
> In article <m23cjph...@gw.dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>>Yes, but it's quite conceivable that somebody might actually try to
>>run a backup system with just one same-size backup disk.
>
>
> I hope that few would be that stupid.
Um. There are actually very few people, outside of computer
experts, who would know (a) the practice is not bright, and (b) why.
There are perfectly intelligent people who are following the
instructions that came with their manual -- one such manual is next
to me as I type -- which explain that it is easy and economical to
back up your data onto the same disk. There is a single warning
that suggests you should be aware of the size of your disk so that
you don't run out of disk space.
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
wrote:
>You should also avoid taking up hobbies like digital video, digital
>audio, or even just digital photography, or the data files will
>quickly run the program files off into a little corner somewhere.
Or anything to do with graphics. :-)
I've got a directory where I'm playing with a particular 3D scene. 768
megs, and it's far from finished.
vlatko
--
http://www.niribanimeso.org/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
wrote:
>It's worth noting that under Windows NT and its successors you can mount
>and unmount disks without shutting the system down.
I've recently heard of hot-plugged-in disk drawer which killed the
motherboard. Under Win2000.
Bernard Peek
Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> writes
>On Thu, 8 May 2003 13:26:21 +0100, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com>
>wrote:
>
>>It's worth noting that under Windows NT and its successors you can mount
>>and unmount disks without shutting the system down.
>
>I've recently heard of hot-plugged-in disk drawer which killed the
>motherboard. Under Win2000.
I've been using some cheap disk drawers for a while. The disks are
locked in place until the power has been switched off. I've never had a
problem with any of them. At a guess the motherboard was killed by a
faulty power switch in the drawer and inadequate protection in the
motherboard. The operating system isn't part of the equation except to
the extent that you wouldn't normally try to hot-swap a disk under
Windows 9x.
One limitation of hot-swapping is that the BIOS may only detect disk
geometry at boot time. If you swap disks they may need to be identical
models. Again, that's not operating-system dependent.
Bernard Peek
<tm...@panix.com> writes
>In article <m23cjph...@gw.dd-b.net>,
>David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>Yes, but it's quite conceivable that somebody might actually try to
>>run a backup system with just one same-size backup disk.
>
>I hope that few would be that stupid.
On the contrary. Although it's not a perfect system it's perfectly
adequate for some purposes and will give a significant degree of
protection against the most common failure-modes. It helps if you have
two or more generations of data on that one disk.
There are three common failure modes. By far the commonest I've seen is
user-error when someone deletes a file accidentally. One backup
generation, even on the same disk, will deal with that.
The next most common is power-failure. I've had that happen several
times but have always recovered without any damage to the data.
The third most common is hardware failure. If a disk fails then one
backup is enough. It's theoretically possible that two disks will fail
simultaneously but the probability is so low that it's not worth taking
special precautions against it. I've been running several computers at
home for the last 15 years and I have had only three irrecoverable disk
failures. Two of those were on second-hand drives that had been used for
reliability testing before I got them.
Timothy McDaniel
<b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>The third most common is hardware failure. If a disk fails then one
>backup is enough. It's theoretically possible that two disks will
>fail simultaneously but the probability is so low that it's not worth
>taking special precautions against it.
Like a surge protector, say? Depending on the failure method, the
failure may not be independent: power surge, fire, flood, et cetera.
David Dyer-Bennet
> In message <icjmbv0daj0s6jo91...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
> Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> writes
> >On Thu, 8 May 2003 13:26:21 +0100, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>It's worth noting that under Windows NT and its successors you can mount
> >>and unmount disks without shutting the system down.
> >
> >I've recently heard of hot-plugged-in disk drawer which killed the
> >motherboard. Under Win2000.
>
> I've been using some cheap disk drawers for a while. The disks are
> locked in place until the power has been switched off. I've never had
> a problem with any of them. At a guess the motherboard was killed by a
> faulty power switch in the drawer and inadequate protection in the
> motherboard. The operating system isn't part of the equation except to
> the extent that you wouldn't normally try to hot-swap a disk under
> Windows 9x.
The relatively cheap disk trays I have are explicitly *not* hot-swap
(and they, also, lock in place to make it hard to make a mistake). So
far, so good (a few years now).
Bernard Peek
<tm...@panix.com> writes
>In article <oXeJkrHd...@shrdlu.com>, Bernard Peek
><b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>The third most common is hardware failure. If a disk fails then one
>>backup is enough. It's theoretically possible that two disks will
>>fail simultaneously but the probability is so low that it's not worth
>>taking special precautions against it.
>
>Like a surge protector, say? Depending on the failure method, the
>failure may not be independent: power surge, fire, flood, et cetera.
Well yes. And you could add global thermonuclear war to that list. I've
never used any sort of surge protection on any machine that I use at
home and have never had any problems. Most of the machines I used at
work have been unprotected too and none of them have ever had a problem
with power strikes.
I have had my work computer room flooded before, to about 2 feet. No
computers were affected. Anyone who loses data on their home computer
because of a natural disaster probably has other things to worry about,
like finding somewhere to live. That doesn't apply to people who operate
businesses from home, I expect them to use the same precautions that any
business user should.
If taking backups gets to be a chore then it won't be done. For that
reason people should take reasonable precautions and only reasonable
precautions. It's up to each user to decide just what is reasonable,
judging the costs and the probable benefits.
Timothy McDaniel
>In message <b9ghpo$29c$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Timothy McDaniel
><tm...@panix.com> writes
>>failure may not be independent: power surge, fire, flood, et cetera.
>
>Well yes. And you could add global thermonuclear war to that list.
In Texas, we have a fair number of lightning strikes, fires, and
floods, but I can't even remember the last time we had a thermonuclear
war.
James J. Walton
On Fri, 9 May 2003, Timothy McDaniel wrote:
> In Texas, we have a fair number of lightning strikes, fires, and
> floods, but I can't even remember the last time we had a thermonuclear
> war.
Parts of Texas are so desolate and ugly, how could you tell?
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
they still don't glow in the dark?
Please invert everything left of the @ to reply
Create a new user for Mozilla for you and copy over her bookmark.htm file
from her user directory. This assures Mozilla will not grab your bookmarks
any more.
Then, copy the bookmark.htm file from your Mozilla directory back to where
it belonged.
http://www.503bartley.com features Son of Liberty Hall, BTW, into which we
have just moved.
Many thanx, again, for the Deluxe tour.
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:13:01 -0000, lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom)
wrote:
>A few days ago my daughter downloaded Mozilla. When installed, it
>automagically imported all the bookmarks from my copy of Netscape 6.2. She
>edited the bookmarks in Mozilla, because that was going to be HER browser,
>while I used the older Netscape. Lo and behold, all my bookmarks
>disappeared. Major bummer. I added a bookmark in Netscape 6.2; it appeared
>in her Mozilla.
>
>We want separate bookmarks, not just one file. Where is the bookmark file
>stored and HOW do I de-synch the two browsers?
>
>A few years worth of bookmarks, lovingly edited and filed ... damn!
>
>I have two other browsers on my system. I have IE just for web design, so
>I can check to see if a page is browser agnostic, and there's the old old
>Netscape my daughter WAS using. We didn't have these bookmark problems
>with the other browsers.
>
>--
>Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> "I'm different in exactly the same way! Yes." -- K.
>
--
Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT.
Karen Lofstrom
> Hiya, kiddo!
Hi backatcha. Sorry I haven't emailed. Life and stuff and things. I had my
last final yesterday and while I still have an incomplete in Discrete Math
to finish, I'm looking forward to getting to do math and nothing else for
a while.
Thanks for recipe, I've saved it, will apply it as soon as I have the
energy. I have slept 16 hours out of the last 24. I am exhausted.
> http://www.503bartley.com features Son of Liberty Hall, BTW, into which we
> have just moved.
Um, that URL doesn't work. I want to see your new digs and perhaps other
raseffarians do too. Correction please?
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT"S A ""K3WL D00D"" AND WH3R3 CAN 1 G3T S0M3!!!!!!!!!!!????????