Dual Removable Drives as a Backup Solution(?)
David
I am seriously considering buying a new machine with dual removable
hard drives, and then cloning, cyclically, between the two using
Acronis True Image. Before I take this plunge though, could you kind
experts please give me your opinions on whether this approach might be
flawed?
Thank you very much, in advance, for any thoughts,
David
Timothy Daniels
> To address my ever-present worries about maintaining current backups,
> I am seriously considering buying a new machine with dual removable
> hard drives, and then cloning, cyclically, between the two using
> Acronis True Image. Before I take this plunge though, could you kind
> experts please give me your opinions on whether this approach might be
> flawed?
I currently backup my main partition that contains both WinXP
and data files by cloning it to a large capacity IDE hard drive mounted
in a removable tray (made by Kingwin). It works well, and I can use
the clone either as a file backup or as an emergency bootable
replacement for the main partition. If your intent is to clone the
*entire* hard drive to become the *entire* contents of another hard
drive, Acronis' True Image will do that. But if you want to clone just
one partition from the source drive and/or put the copied partition
among other existing partitions on the destination drive ( perhaps
to keep a time-series of several clones as I do), True Image cannot
do that. Ghost can do that, and Casper XP can do that. I prefer
Casper XP because it's a simpler, smaller, and more user-friendly
cloner than Ghost. Ghost requires Microsoft's .NET Framework
to be installed, it requires re-booting after cloning, and it costs more
than Casper XP. OTOH, Ghost can make image files and it can
do incremental file backups (like True Image), which Casper XP
cannot do. If you want to give Casper XP a try, you can download
a free 30-day copy from www.FSSdev.com/products/casperxp/ .
As with all Win2K/NT/XP clones, don't let the clone see its
"parent" OS when the clone is started up for the 1st time. Thereafter,
it's OK. I keep several clones (made at one or two-week intervals)
on the removable drive, and I can boot and be running with any one
of them in a couple minutes, and I like the simplicity of the method.
*TimDaniels*
Ken Blake, MVP
> To address my ever-present worries about maintaining current backups,
> I am seriously considering buying a new machine with dual removable
> hard drives, and then cloning, cyclically, between the two using
> Acronis True Image. Before I take this plunge though, could you kind
> experts please give me your opinions on whether this approach might be
> flawed?
I think it's an excellent backup scheme, and the one I use myself.
But why do you need a new machine? You can do that on any machine.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Anna
"David" <inv...@socrates.edu> wrote in message
news:0cpe72t7k6kralq7s...@4ax.com...
David:
Just to second Timothy Daniels' support of your proposed purchase of a
desktop PC with two removable hard drives...
I can virtually guarantee that after you begin working with your system
you'll have but one regret -- and that is that you previous computer(s)
weren't so equipped. It's that good.
We've are strong proponents of equipping one's PC with two removable HDs.
We've been working with this hardware arrangement for more than six years
now and we've installed removable HDs in hundreds of machines. The
flexibility and peace of mind you achieve with this hardware arrangement can
scarcely be overemphasized.
The ATI disk imaging program you plan to use is just fine for disk-to-disk
cloning purposes. While we ourselves use the Ghost 2003 program for most of
our disk cloning operations, we have used the Acronis program as well and
have found it more or less comparable to the Ghost program in terms of ease
of use & effectiveness. We prefer to work with either a boot floppy disk or
boot CD containing the disk cloning program which we can do with the Ghost
2003 program. While you can use a boot CD containing the ATI disk cloning
program, you cannot use a floppy disk.
Another limitation of the ATI program, as Timothy pointed out, is its
inability to directly clone individual partitions from the source to the
destination drive (as you can do with the Ghost 2003 program). At least this
limitation was present in the ATI 8 program; I don't know if that limitation
is still present in the latest 9 version. But I don't think that's a serious
limitation for most users since most users perform disk-to-disk clones and
are not particularly interested in cloning individual partitions.
I trust that additional removable trays or caddies will be available for the
removable HDs ("mobile racks" as we usually call them) your computer will be
equipped with. This will give you that added flexibility I mentioned earlier
in that you can have an unlimited number of HDs at your disposal. It's an
enormous advantage as you will soon learn.
Anna
clot
> To address my ever-present worries about maintaining current backups,
> I am seriously considering buying a new machine with dual removable
> hard drives, and then cloning, cyclically, between the two using
> Acronis True Image. Before I take this plunge though, could you kind
> experts please give me your opinions on whether this approach might be
> flawed?
>
I concur with previous posters' comments. At present, I have two large
similar sized HDDs in my PC. I use Acronis TI each weekend to back up
from one to the other. The most important point I've learnt through hard
experience is to keep the second drive disconnected from the system!
When I dared ( many months after the XP SP2 fix was available and
stable), I d/ld the file with the second HDD attached - wiped - thanks
Billy Goat!). I also found that if I had both attached, when I decided
to remove restore points (due to the disk space being taken up), both
HDDs were being addressed at the same time! Keep it external and
unattached!
HTH
Anna
"clot" <clo...@ntlglobe.goon> wrote in message
news:e6dZ3fRg...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
David:
With respect to the above poster's comments re having both hard drives
connected during operations...
As Timothy Daniels pointed out in his previous comments, it is important
that immediately following the disk cloning operation you make the *initial*
boot of the cloned HD (the "destination" disk) with the source HD
disconnected. Obviously this is easy to achieve with removable drives since
a simple turn of the mobile rack's keylock to the OFF position is all that
is necessary. There's no need to enter the BIOS nor any other internal
physical change that's necessary. Again, a major advantage of using
removable hard drives.
After you make that initial boot to the cloned HD there should be *no*
problem thereafter regardless of whether both drives are subsequently
connected, the above poster's comments notwithstanding. To be sure, in most
cases where the cloned HD is the recipient of the clone for backup purposes,
there will usually be no need for that drive to be connected except for
subsequent cloning operations. But there is no harm if it is. Why the above
poster ran into the problems he mentioned I do not know. It certainly has
not been our experience with cloning thousands of hard drives over the
years.
Anna
Ken Blake, MVP
.My preference is to go one step further. I not only don't want my backup
drives connected, I don't want to keep them in the computer. If the computer
is ever stolen, I don't want to lose my backups simultaneously.
David
wrote:
>To address my ever-present worries about maintaining current backups,
>I am seriously considering buying a new machine with dual removable
>hard drives, and then cloning, cyclically, between the two using
>Acronis True Image. Before I take this plunge though, could you kind
>experts please give me your opinions on whether this approach might be
>flawed?
>
Thank you all for taking the time to give me such detailed responses!
This indeed now seems like the way that I need to go. And I also
appreciate the precautions -- which I will certainly take to heed.
Ken, you said, "But why do you need a new machine? You can do that on
any machine." Here are my reasons -- do they hold up? First, I have
no bays left in my machine to reconfigure to a dual hard drive
capability. Then I figured, OK, I'll get an external for the backup
drive. But then I read that I probably wouldn't be able to boot from
that drive. So I finally just decided that a new machine with
identical removeables was the simplest solution. But if you can
convince me to work with my existing machine, I'm certainly willing to
listen to your ideas!
Anna, you mentioned boot floppies and/or CDs. I need to study your
response more, ( and should have done so before this post), but I'm
unclear why one should be needed. Could I not just boot from the
cloned HD, (as long as it is isolated from the parent the first time
as you instructed)? OR ... are you referring to a boot floppy/CD for
use when you are preparing to do the actual cloning process?
Thank you all again, so much,
David
Anna
David:
My comment re using a boot floppy disk or boot CD was in reference to
performing the cloning operation. We enjoy the simplicity and portability of
using these forms of media since, for one thing, we frequently have occasion
to work on machines other than our own. It's just a personal preference and
there's no reason why a user cannot use the graphical Windows interface
provided by the cloning program.
Re your comment that you have no available 5 1/4" bays to install two
removable hard drives...
If you have only one 5 1/4" bay available you could install a single
removable HD in that bay and thus work with one internal HD and one
removable HD. While this arrangement would not yield the same high degree of
flexibility that one would enjoy with two removable HDs, it is a workable
solution. We've installed one removable HD in many machines.
Anna
Kerry Brown
I'll add to Anna's excellent suggestions - don't rely on one backup. If you
use removable or external drives get two. Better yet also use another method
of backup. Most imaging programs will also image to CD/DVD. This doesn't
have to be done as often but it has the advantage of being more portable
(can be stored somewhere safe) and also gives you more backups over time.
Use different CD/DVDs each time you use this method. If your computer
becomed infected with a virus and you create a backup before you notice the
infection your backup is now no good. If you have several older backups you
will be able to go back in time until you were not infected. That is just
one scenario.
--
Kerry
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
Ken Blake, MVP
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 14:31:19 -0600, David <inv...@socrates.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> To address my ever-present worries about maintaining current backups,
>> I am seriously considering buying a new machine with dual removable
>> hard drives, and then cloning, cyclically, between the two using
>> Acronis True Image. Before I take this plunge though, could you kind
>> experts please give me your opinions on whether this approach might
>> be flawed?
>>
> Thank you all for taking the time to give me such detailed responses!
> This indeed now seems like the way that I need to go. And I also
> appreciate the precautions -- which I will certainly take to heed.
>
> Ken, you said, "But why do you need a new machine? You can do that on
> any machine." Here are my reasons -- do they hold up? First, I have
> no bays left in my machine to reconfigure to a dual hard drive
> capability. Then I figured, OK, I'll get an external for the backup
> drive. But then I read that I probably wouldn't be able to boot from
> that drive. So I finally just decided that a new machine with
> identical removeables was the simplest solution. But if you can
> convince me to work with my existing machine, I'm certainly willing to
> listen to your ideas!
I recommend an external USB drive (or better, two of them). They work very
well and they are easy to use. True, you can't boot from it, but there is no
need to. Just make your backups on the external drive. If the original drive
fails, you could either replace it with a backup drive or install a new
drive and restore from the backup to it.
My personal backup scheme uses two identical removable hard drives. I
alternate between the two, and use Drive Image to make a complete copy of
the primary drive.
Ken Blake, MVP
> I'll add to Anna's excellent suggestions - don't rely on one backup.
> If you use removable or external drives get two. Better yet also use
> another method of backup. Most imaging programs will also image to
> CD/DVD. This doesn't have to be done as often but it has the
> advantage of being more portable (can be stored somewhere safe) and
> also gives you more backups over time. Use different CD/DVDs each
> time you use this method. If your computer becomed infected with a
> virus and you create a backup before you notice the infection your
> backup is now no good. If you have several older backups you will be
> able to go back in time until you were not infected. That is just one
> scenario.
Your reason for using more than one set of backup media is a good one, but
I'll add a second scenario:With a single backup drive, the act of backing up
is also the act of destroying your only backup. If something catastophic
happens while you are backing up (for example, a newby lightning strike) you
can lose everything simultaneously.
Kerry Brown
There are many reasons why multiple backups are the way to go. I tell
customers to forget about the term backup and instead use disaster recovery
planning. Then it comes down to what do you need to recover and how long can
it take to recover it. For most home users it's data and several days to
weeks may be acceptable. For some businesses that same plan could put them
out of business. The whole point is to have a plan.
Anna
> Kerry Brown wrote:
>
>> I'll add to Anna's excellent suggestions - don't rely on one backup.
>> If you use removable or external drives get two. Better yet also use
>> another method of backup. Most imaging programs will also image to
>> CD/DVD. This doesn't have to be done as often but it has the
>> advantage of being more portable (can be stored somewhere safe) and
>> also gives you more backups over time. Use different CD/DVDs each
>> time you use this method. If your computer becomed infected with a
>> virus and you create a backup before you notice the infection your
>> backup is now no good. If you have several older backups you will be
>> able to go back in time until you were not infected. That is just one
>> scenario.
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:OnEh%23MagG...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Your reason for using more than one set of backup media is a good one, but
> I'll add a second scenario:With a single backup drive, the act of backing
> up is also the act of destroying your only backup. If something
> catastophic happens while you are backing up (for example, a newby
> lightning strike) you can lose everything simultaneously.
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
David (the OP) and others who might be interested in removable HDs:
Let me just add my thoughts to the above...
The beauty of equipping one's desktop PC with removable HDs - preferably two
as we have discussed - is that there's really no need for any additional
external HD such as a USB/Firewire external HD for backup purposes. Because
the mobile rack contains a removable tray or caddy that contains the HD, you
have available an *unlimited* number of these trays to house an *unlimited*
number of hard drives. Thus, if you wish, you can have an *unlimited* number
of backups by creating multiple clones of this or that HD, and each one can
easily be transported off the premises should that be one's desire.
Anna
Ken Blake, MVP
> The beauty of equipping one's desktop PC with removable HDs -
> preferably two as we have discussed - is that there's really no need
> for any additional external HD such as a USB/Firewire external HD for
> backup purposes. Because the mobile rack contains a removable tray or
> caddy that contains the HD, you have available an *unlimited* number
> of these trays to house an *unlimited* number of hard drives. Thus,
> if you wish, you can have an *unlimited* number of backups by
> creating multiple clones of this or that HD, and each one can easily
> be transported off the premises should that be one's desire.
However, the disadvantage of using the kind of removable racks you suggest
is that inserting or removing a drive while the system is running is
dangerous, and can damage the equipment. For that reason, I prefer USB
extenal drives, which have all the same advantages that you point out,
without that danger.
Anna
> Anna wrote:
>
>> The beauty of equipping one's desktop PC with removable HDs -
>> preferably two as we have discussed - is that there's really no need
>> for any additional external HD such as a USB/Firewire external HD for
>> backup purposes. Because the mobile rack contains a removable tray or
>> caddy that contains the HD, you have available an *unlimited* number
>> of these trays to house an *unlimited* number of hard drives. Thus,
>> if you wish, you can have an *unlimited* number of backups by
>> creating multiple clones of this or that HD, and each one can easily
>> be transported off the premises should that be one's desire.
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:%23%23DGfmbg...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> However, the disadvantage of using the kind of removable racks you suggest
> is that inserting or removing a drive while the system is running is
> dangerous, and can damage the equipment. For that reason, I prefer USB
> extenal drives, which have all the same advantages that you point out,
> without that danger.
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
Ken:
Actually, in all the years we've been involved in working with removable
hard drives I'm hard-pressed to think of a single incident where inserting
or removing a running removable HD caused physical damage to either the
drive or any component of the system. No doubt the potential is there but
after thousands of hours of working with removable drives we've never
experienced this problem. Have we experienced possible data corruption/loss
as a consequence of inadvertently removing a running HD? You bet. Always a
possibility.
In any event, in my opinion, in no way should this possibility dissuade a
user from using removable hard drives rather than USB/Firewire external hard
drives for systematic backup purposes as has been previously described.
Anna
Ken Blake, MVP
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:%23%23DGfmbg...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> However, the disadvantage of using the kind of removable racks you
>> suggest is that inserting or removing a drive while the system is
>> running is dangerous, and can damage the equipment. For that reason,
>> I prefer USB extenal drives, which have all the same advantages that
>> you point out, without that danger.
>> --
>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
> Ken:
> Actually, in all the years we've been involved in working with
> removable hard drives I'm hard-pressed to think of a single incident
> where inserting or removing a running removable HD caused physical
> damage to either the drive or any component of the system. No doubt
> the potential is there but after thousands of hours of working with
> removable drives we've never experienced this problem. Have we
> experienced possible data corruption/loss as a consequence of
> inadvertently removing a running HD? You bet. Always a possibility.
>
> In any event, in my opinion, in no way should this possibility
> dissuade a user from using removable hard drives rather than
> USB/Firewire external hard drives for systematic backup purposes as
> has been previously described. Anna
I'm glad to hear that you haven't had problems, but I know others who have.
My opinion is the opposite of yours, because that possibility does exist,
even if it's small..I used to use them myself, and they worked fine, but I
was very careful not to insert or remove them while running.
Besides, I just don't see any reason these days to prefer them over USB
drives. Considering that the price is roughly the same, the speed is
comparable, and they are both easy to use, why run any such risk at all?
Bear in mind that you don't even have to buy special USB drives. You can buy
a USB enclosure and very easily install a standard IDE drive in it yourself.
And the price of the USB enclosure is only very slightly higher than a
slide-in rack.
One additional point: I've also seen/heard of several examples of the
inexpensive slide-in IDE racks failing and having to be replaced. I've never
heard of a USB enclosure failing.
Kerry Brown
While I agree that multiple hard drives is a good idea it starts to get
expensive with more than two. With a weekly backup to CD/DVD complemented by
one or two removable or external drives daily you have a fairly inexpensive
history to fall back on if something goes wrong. I am firm believer of not
putting all your eggs in one basket. I have seen too many situations where
data was lost even though daily backups were done. The backups were done to
the same set of media over and over with no testing. If your data is
important you need multiple backups. You may need to be able to go back more
than a couple of days. For a home user this can be as simple as copying your
pictures to a new CD once a month. For a business it could mean hourly
backups to a network device and daily backups to tape. It is all dependent
on how important the data is and how often it changes.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with your solution. It is a good one. It may not
be suitable for all situations.
Anna
>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
>> news:%23%23DGfmbg...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> However, the disadvantage of using the kind of removable racks you
>>> suggest is that inserting or removing a drive while the system is
>>> running is dangerous, and can damage the equipment. For that reason,
>>> I prefer USB extenal drives, which have all the same advantages that
>>> you point out, without that danger.
>>> --
>>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>>> Please reply to the newsgroup
> Anna wrote:
>> Ken:
>> Actually, in all the years we've been involved in working with
>> removable hard drives I'm hard-pressed to think of a single incident
>> where inserting or removing a running removable HD caused physical
>> damage to either the drive or any component of the system. No doubt
>> the potential is there but after thousands of hours of working with
>> removable drives we've never experienced this problem. Have we
>> experienced possible data corruption/loss as a consequence of
>> inadvertently removing a running HD? You bet. Always a possibility.
>>
>> In any event, in my opinion, in no way should this possibility
>> dissuade a user from using removable hard drives rather than
>> USB/Firewire external hard drives for systematic backup purposes as
>> has been previously described. Anna
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:%23RcNYBd...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I'm glad to hear that you haven't had problems, but I know others who
> have. My opinion is the opposite of yours, because that possibility does
> exist, even if it's small..I used to use them myself, and they worked
> fine, but I was very careful not to insert or remove them while running.
>
> Besides, I just don't see any reason these days to prefer them over USB
> drives. Considering that the price is roughly the same, the speed is
> comparable, and they are both easy to use, why run any such risk at all?
> Bear in mind that you don't even have to buy special USB drives. You can
> buy a USB enclosure and very easily install a standard IDE drive in it
> yourself. And the price of the USB enclosure is only very slightly higher
> than a slide-in rack.
>
> One additional point: I've also seen/heard of several examples of the
> inexpensive slide-in IDE racks failing and having to be replaced. I've
> never heard of a USB enclosure failing.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
I would guess that over the past five years or so we have installed, or
helped to install, removable HD systems in desktop PCs for more than 100
small to medium-sized businesses. And hundreds more for home users.
I can't recall a *single* failure of the backup system using these removable
HDs that was attributable to some basic failure of the removable HD backup
system and because the user failed to employ an additional external backup
device such as a USB external HD. While we have experienced instances where
a mobile rack containing the HD became defective, I can't think of a single
instance where the data on the drive was adversely affected or the HD itself
became damaged as a consequence of a defective rack. I might add that given
the number of removable HDs we have installed or helped to install over the
years, the frequency of these mobile racks becoming defective has been
relatively negligible. And we have worked with a fairly wide variety of
these mobile racks, including all-plastic and plastic-aluminum models as
well as all-alluminum ones. Based on my experience, the fear of a removable
HD rack becoming defective and jepordizing one's data should not be a major
consideration for any user contemplating using these devices. They are no
more prone to becoming defective than any other PC component.
And Ken, if you have "never heard of a USB enclosure failing", boy, is your
experience different from ours! Over the past three years or so the failure
of USB external HD enclosures has practically reached endemic proportions in
our experience. Hardly a week had gone by in the computer repair shop where
I worked last year where we didn't encounter at least one or two such
defective devices. And we've received many reports from our colleagues over
the alarming defective rate of these USBEHD enclosures.
Simply stated, assuming the user routinely & systematically backs up his or
her system using a disk imaging program to clone the contents of one
removable HD to another removable HD, there is, in my opinion, no need for
additional backup devices such as USB or Firewire external hard drives. As I
previously stated, should the user determine multiple clones are necessary
or desirable for supplemental backup safety's sake, then he or she is
certainly encouraged to create such using additional removable HDs.
Anna
Ken Blake, MVP
> And Ken, if you have "never heard of a USB enclosure failing", boy,
> is your experience different from ours!
Clearly our experience has been different. I have no more to add, so I
suppose we'll each go our separate ways on this.
Mike Fields
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
I too have seen a number of them fail -- all the ones
I have seen fail (or heard of) have been ones that tend
to run hot (with poor cooling in the enclosure -- it is
"cuter" to have this slim, sexy enclosure instead of one
that is properly cooled.). That is one of the faster ways
to kill a hard drive -- run it hot (although my last failure
was different -- the power supply in my daughters
system went and took most of the stuff with it - controller
chip on the hard drive has a hole in the top where it
exploded ... )
mikey
Timothy Daniels
> Anna wrote:
>
>> And Ken, if you have "never heard of a USB enclosure failing", boy,
>> is your experience different from ours!
>
>
> Clearly our experience has been different. I have no more to add, so I
> suppose we'll each go our separate ways on this.
There have been many complaints in [comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage]
about failed external USB hard drives. Most of them have been about the
Maxtor One-Touch, but that may be because most of the external USB
drives are Maxtors. And *all* the complaints that I've seen involve the
standing convection-cooled USB drives, perhaps again because most of
the one sold are of that design. I strongly suspect that the rate of failure
is due to overheating - a problem which could be solved by going to a
fan-cooled design with a dedicated power supply so as not depend on
USB power. Kingwin and a number of other manufacturers make such
external enclosures for IDE hard drives which have a USB adapter and
a cooling fan and a "wall wart" power module, and if I were to want an
external USB hard drive, I would brew my own by using such an enclosure.
But if the backup desired is an immediately bootable clone, the only
way to go is with an IDE hard drive - mounted either as another internal
HD or in a removable tray. I have both: A recently made clone resides
on the 2nd internal HD at all times, and what usually amounts to 5 clones
(each made at 1- or 2-week intervals) resides on the HD in the remov-
able tray. With a clone, there is no need to first "restore" an image file
from some other medium to a hard drive - it's already there ready for
booting.
As for failures or file corruptions on a HD in a removable drive, I have
had no problems at all in what is almost 3 years of use. I have not tried
it, but since I sometimes have to shut down my PC due to "frozen"
software by cutting the power, I assume that cutting the power to the
removable hard drive by accident would not cause any harm, either.
*TimDaniels*
David
<TDan...@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:
>
>But if the backup desired is an immediately bootable clone, the only
>way to go is with an IDE hard drive - mounted either as another internal
>HD or in a removable tray. I have both: A recently made clone resides
>on the 2nd internal HD at all times, and what usually amounts to 5 clones
>(each made at 1- or 2-week intervals) resides on the HD in the remov-
>able tray. With a clone, there is no need to first "restore" an image file
>from some other medium to a hard drive - it's already there ready for
>booting.
>
Tim,
Could you please elaborate a bit for me on your process for creating
and maintaining these six clones continuously? Also, are you using
incrementals and/or differentials?
Thank you,
David
Ken Blake, MVP
> "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
>> Anna wrote:
>>
>>> And Ken, if you have "never heard of a USB enclosure failing", boy,
>>> is your experience different from ours!
>>
>>
>> Clearly our experience has been different. I have no more to add, so
>> I suppose we'll each go our separate ways on this.
>
>
> There have been many complaints in [comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage]
> about failed external USB hard drives. Most of them have been about
> the Maxtor One-Touch, but that may be because most of the external USB
> drives are Maxtors
If you say so, I believe you (and Anna). I've never run into such a problem,
perhaps because most of my experience is not with Maxtors, but with
do-it-yourself USB enclosures.
> But if the backup desired is an immediately bootable clone, the only
> way to go is with an IDE hard drive - mounted either as another
> internal HD or in a removable tray.
Why? If you're going to mount it as another internal, it's just as easy to
take it out of the USB enclosure as it as of the slide-in caddy.
Anna
>>> Anna wrote:
>>>> And Ken, if you have "never heard of a USB enclosure failing", boy,
>>>> is your experience different from ours!
>> "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
>>> Clearly our experience has been different. I have no more to add, so
>>> I suppose we'll each go our separate ways on this.
> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>> There have been many complaints in [comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage]
>> about failed external USB hard drives. Most of them have been about
>> the Maxtor One-Touch, but that may be because most of the external USB
>> drives are Maxtors
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:uaL5Brog...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> If you say so, I believe you (and Anna). I've never run into such a
> problem, perhaps because most of my experience is not with Maxtors, but
> with do-it-yourself USB enclosures.
Ken, believe me when I tell you that many, if not most, of the defective USB
drives we encountered were indeed with the USB enclosure itself, i.e., the
enclosure that the user had purchased to install a HD.
Anna
> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>> But if the backup desired is an immediately bootable clone, the only
>> way to go is with an IDE hard drive - mounted either as another
>> internal HD or in a removable tray.
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User writes...
> Why? If you're going to mount it as another internal, it's just as easy to
> take it out of the USB enclosure as it as of the slide-in caddy.
Ken:
I know Tim should respond himself to your comment, but since I'm composing
another response to you...
Tim is obviously referring to the situation where the user has cloned the
contents of his or her boot HD to a USB external HD. As we both know, that
USBEHD is not bootable (we'll pass on the latest reports of various hacks to
make a USBEHD bootable), so should the user need that drive to function as a
boot drive it would be necessary for him or her to uninstall the HD from its
enclosure and install it as an internal HD. On the other hand, had the user
employed removable HDs as we've been discussing, the cloned HD would be
immediately bootable in its mobile rack. There would be no need to undertake
any physical uninstall/install operations with the cloned HD. A simple turn
of the mobile rack's keylock to the ON position would be all that's
necessary. I realize you're aware of this but I wanted to make this clear to
anyone coming upon this thread.
Anna
Ken Blake, MVP
>>>> Anna wrote:
>>>>> And Ken, if you have "never heard of a USB enclosure failing",
>>>>> boy, is your experience different from ours!
>
>
>>> "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
>>>> Clearly our experience has been different. I have no more to add,
>>>> so I suppose we'll each go our separate ways on this.
>
>
>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>> There have been many complaints in
>>> [comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage] about failed external USB hard
>>> drives. Most of them have been about the Maxtor One-Touch, but
>>> that may be because most of the external USB drives are Maxtors
>
>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:uaL5Brog...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> If you say so, I believe you (and Anna). I've never run into such a
>> problem, perhaps because most of my experience is not with Maxtors,
>> but with do-it-yourself USB enclosures.
>
>
> Ken, believe me when I tell you that many, if not most, of the
> defective USB drives we encountered were indeed with the USB
> enclosure itself, i.e., the enclosure that the user had purchased to
> install a HD.
Anna, I believe everything you've said. You've related your experience, and
I certainly don't suggest that you are lying. All I say, once again, is that
we have had different experiences.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
David
Anna,
Thank you, (and everyone else!), for your most insightful perspectives on my question.
(I'm the OP).
Anna, with all the many of these that you have installed, would you be able to give recommendations
re rack and caddy brands and model numbers? In fact, on HDs as well? (I really don't know whether
my question is appropriate or not.)
As a side issue, do you (or anyone) know whether Dell permits one to specify brands and model
numbers? I suspect that is probably a dumb question...
Thanks again!
David
Anna
"David" <inv...@socrates.edu> wrote in message
news:8qko72t29n3aqtraq...@4ax.com...
> Anna,
>
> Thank you, (and everyone else!), for your most insightful perspectives on
> my question. (I'm the OP).
>
> Anna, with all the many of these that you have installed, would you be
> able to give recommendations re rack and caddy brands and model numbers?
> In fact, on HDs as well? (I really don't know whether my question is
> appropriate or not.)
>
> As a side issue, do you (or anyone) know whether Dell permits one to
> specify brands and model numbers? I suspect that is probably a dumb
> question...
>
> Thanks again!
> David
David:
As I previously mentioned, over the years we've worked with a wide variety
of these mobile racks (removable hard drive enclosures) including
all-aluminum, plastic/aluminum, and all-plastic models - representing a
fairly wide range of prices - from about $10 to $80. Truth to tell, we would
be hard-pressed to tell the difference among them, in terms of performance
or durability. By & large they all seem to work.
Many users feel more comfortable using all-aluminum models. While they're
generally somewhat more expensive than the plastic models, the additional
cost is not particularly onerous.
Do a Google search for "mobile racks" and "removable hard drives" and you'll
be pointed to many online vendors carrying various makes & models, e.g.,
Kingwin, Vantec, Lian-Li, etc.
In many cases additional removable trays can be purchased for the mobile
rack, however, frequently the cost of these trays (if they are available)
are such that it's more economical in the long run to purchase the mobile
rack including its removable tray rather than to purchase only the removable
tray itself.
Some of these mobile racks come equipped with LCD temperature displays.
Frankly, we never look for models with those devices. The limited experience
we had with them was negative in the sense that they were prone to give
false readings
and frequently failed. In general, we never found them particularly useful
and of course they add to the cost of the rack.
Virtually all of the mobile racks include a fan and some sort of on-off
keylock switch. Lately we've been working with the Athena Power MR-125
mobile rack for our SATA hard drives - see
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16817123301. It's an
all-plastic device with an unusually large fan (for a mobile rack) and costs
only about $24 incl. shipping from newegg. I believe Athena also makes
mobile racks for PATA HDs as well - see http://www.athenapower.com/.
As far as HDs, I don't have any particular recommendation of one brand over
another one. I have noticed a lot of negative comments in various newsgroups
over the past few months re Maxtor drives, but I really can't say that I've
found those drives more defect prone than any other HD.
I'm not sure I understand your question re Dell. Are you planning to order
mobile racks from Dell? I wasn't aware Dell carried them as an accessory
although I do recall some months ago Dell announced they would be producing
some desktop PCs with removable HDs.
Anna