Conference 7.286::atarist

Your approach to HD backups sounds reasonable to me.  If you get a good backup
program the program will allow you to do incremental backups. Incremental
backups is the way to go as far as I'm concerened.

	Ray

>    I am looking for an image backup program to backup a 20mb hard disk
Is "image" backup realy a requirement or do you just want a fast backup of all
the files on the hard drive? If "image" is a requirement, why (I'm just
curious)? 

Will you consider comercial products or are you just looking for public domain
programs?

	Ray

re .1

I just finished reviewing DIAMOND BACK II for ST WORLD magazine and I must say,
it was very impressive.  GEM based, easy to use, very fast image or file backup
capability, full or partial backup/restore and it can even backup SPECTRE
partitions!  It's a commercial product that I can highly recommend and yes, it
runs in 512K.

Another good one is the GOOD BACKUP utility written by (rat's, forget his name)
a nice fella in Maynard, MA who is also a user group president, I hear.  His
program is not GEM based but is still easy to use with most of the features of
the Diamond Back II program and maybe even some it does not have.

Personally, I don't like image backups (don't feel safe with them) but to each
his own.  I don't know of any PD/shareware image backup utils I could recommend
as I always used Turtle before.

good luck

Hutch

    Hi Hutch,
    it's me Rolf the terrible GFA Mailer..... :-))
    
    Can you upload this program for a test? 
    Rolf
    

Diamond Back is a comercial program, so if it's sounds interesting you'll have
to go out and buy it.

	Ray

    Thanks Ray,
    but where can i order it. I have never heard about it.
    I am located in Germany.
    May you have a telephonenumber or some other contact infos.
    
    Thanks for your help.
    
    Rolf
    

    Did you hear about VAULT. A very fast Backup Programm, GEM based,
    should run on a 520 (with 512KB mem.), can splitt files across diskette
    boundaries. And is shareware (I think).
    
    Regards. / Hilmar.

    To clear up a few points:
    
    I have a 'meagre' (;-)) 20Mb Hard disk (which is nearly full), and i 
    wish to  have a complete backup of all the files and directories, so 
    i would imagine that an 'image' backup is not absolutely neccessary.
    The main reason for  this is to clear space, and to cut  down on the
    FOLDER120.PRG, which is  using all of  the little amount of memory i
    currently have! ;-) I'm running into problems like not enough memory 
    to copy files.
    
    However, i have  backed it up  once before,  and got fed up with the
    constant disk swaps, and also having to  work out how much to put on
    one disk kind of peeved me off. :-(
    
    So i'm looking for a program that will, like VMS, ask for 'volume 2'
    or whichever volume to be placed in drive A or B. I suppose what i'm
    really looking  for is a program  that can  sense when the floppy is
    full, and  start the backing  up of files from  the last  incomplete
    copy. I would also like to have a hard-copy listing of the disks and
    their volume  number. And i would like  to utilise both  floppies...
    am i asking too much ;-)
    
    As stated before  TURTLE required  at least 1Mb memory,  and at  the 
    moment i have a 520.
    
    My Hard disk is  only divided into 2 partitions, one of 4Mb, and the
    other of  16Mb. So having to  do partition by  partition  would  not
    really bother me too much.
    
    Is it possible to have insight reviews on Diamond Back II and Vault?
    
    Many thanks in advance,
    
    
    
    				Lewis.
                     

re .9

Lewis, I can't speak about the VAULT program referenced in .8 but I am familiar
with TURTLE, GOOD and DIAMOND BACK II.

Are you *sure* that TURTLE won't run on a 520 (512K memory)?  Make sure you
remove all your desk accessories and AUTO programs to free up maximum RAM.
I have not used TURTLE for awhile but I was almost positive it worked on 520's.

Any decent hard disk backup program will meet your requirements.  The difference
comes in the form of speed and convenience.  From what I have seen, DIAMOND BACK
II is the most versatile of all the commercial offerings.

It's easy to use (GEM menu driven) and you can use formatted or unformatted
floppies.  It will scan your hard disk and tell you how many floppies you will
need before you get started.  It can create a backup journal log which you can
print out and it supports the archive bit for systems with TOS 1.4.  By the way,
for improved floppy AND hard disk speed improvement and other niceties, an
upgrade to TOS 1.4 is *highly* recommended!

DIAMOND BACK II retails for $49.95 but is available via mail order circa $27.

Hope this helps,

Hutch

    Well, 'GOOD' (GOOD Backup, the actual name) is not bad for functionality.
    
    The User Interface needs work, but that's just fluff, and has no real
    bearing on the 'innards'.  These work pretty well, and are
    rom-independent (I believe), which means that the bugs in the ROM will
    not affect file/directory integrity, like TOS is famous for ;-(
    
    I'm not sure about Digital's policy for 'conflict of interest', but if
    you contact me, I'll pass along any info I have on this product (it IS
    written by an employee).  (BTW, I get no profits from this product, and
    am giving you this info in the interest of user satisfaction.)
    
    I believe there's also a demo version around, which will give you the
    flavor, without a financial committment.
    
    That's my bit.
    
    /bryan

Ahem... didn't mean to slight anyone, here.

I agree, GOOD is an excellent utility for accomplishing the task at hand, namely
backing up your hard disk.  It's efficient, fast, and does the job with a
minimum of fuss.  Either of these programs would be an excellent choice.

Hutch

I went round and round on this a few years back, and I have a lot of
opinions about it.  The following is what I learned.

* While all of these programs do "backups" just fine, many of them have
a serious problem with "restore".

The problem here is that no matter how may "folder folder fixes" you
install, in reality, a program that touches every single file and
folder on your system IS going to screw up.  This is especially true on
TOS 1.0, but I think it extends into 1.4 as well.  The TOS file system
chokes on this.  For this reason, file-by-file backup programs,
particulary PD or Shareware ones, have serious drawbacks.  They
particularly have problems CREATING more than 40 folders, which tends
to corrupt the backups disks.  This is known to be true of David
Chiquelin's shareware backup program, and others.

As far as I know, the GOOD Backup Utility is the only file-by-file
backup that bypasses TOS and does it's own implementation of the file
system, and thus bypasses all the folder limits.  For a while I thought
Diamond Back did too, but after reading the Diamond Back column on
GENIE, I saw that Diamond Back users have to make sure they have a
substantial folder fix installed before restores will work.

This "feature" would lead you to do image backups, but then there's my
second point:

* For me, the most important thing in a backup is "confidence of
restore", followed somewhat later by "time it takes me to keep it up to
date".  You should be encouraged ot update the backup as much as possible.

This means that image backups are OUT OF THE PICTURE for me, as is any
sort of tape backup, because it is too difficult to have confidence that
the backup worked.  With disk-based file-by-file backups, it is easy to
just put the disk in the drive and look at the files.

Image backups are bad for another reason.  If you have some  files on
your system that are only accessed once a year or so, (such as income
tax time) and you are doing image backups on a monthly rotation, it is
easy to have a situation where the data is corrupted, and you never know
until you have already cycled through all remaining good copies of the
data, rewriting it with bad data.

Image backups also require copying the ENTIRE disk on every backup,
which often takes more time that an "incremental" backup.

Most file-by-file backups (Diamond Back and others) allow an
incremental mode.  Usually, this means doing a full backup, and then
doing incrementals until the pile of incrementals get's too big, and
then doing another full backup.  I never have time to do an entire full
backup, so this method is no good for me.

Like the others, the GOOD Backup Utility starts with a full backup, and
when it's time to do the incremental, it takes the full backup, removes
from it all the files that are obsolete, and copies over all the new
and changed files, so when you are done with the update, you have the
same files as you would have if you had done a full backup.  You never
have to repeat the full backup.  This method takes only a few minutes
each time you do the backup, since you only copy the data that actually
changed.

To prevent the "sale data is corrupted" problem, the GOOD backup stores
a checksum of each file when it is backed up, and when you go to do the
update, it will scan all the files that are NOT being backed up, to make
sure the checksum hasn't changed.  If the checksum did change, you can
either back up the new file (some programs change their data without
changing the date on the file) or you can go back and see which one is
the good copy.

GOOD is available from "The Computer Bug" in Hadley, MA, (see topic 99)
or from Toad Computers in Severna Park, Maryland (see one of the
roll-your-won topics for their phone number).  It's cheap enough,
compared to the cost of the disks you will backup your data on.

On the other hand, Diamond Back does compression (like ARC), which can
save you in the number of disks you need to do the backup, and also
includes image modes that work for MAC partitions and other things.
Also Diamond Back has a GEM user interface, which can be easier to
understand at times than GOOD's, especially for the computer novice.

    I have two SyQuest 44 MB removable cartridge hard drives.
    
    I backup cartridges from one to the other with a Neodesk macro, which
    does sector copies.
    
    The controller for the drives is an ICD, and it is set to do write
    verifies.
    
    While I make frequent backups of each cartridge (it only takes a few
    minutes), I continue to use the same disks.
    
    I hope this works...  no problems yet.
    
    Gil
    

Jeff Lomicka raises some very good points in note .13, especially in regards to
the potential restore problems he mentioned.  It's obvious this could be a BIG
problem with TOS 1.0 users, though I've never encountered it under TOS 1.4.

I also agree with his warnings about IMAGE type backups.  They may work, but you
never really know for sure!

He won't say it, but Jeff is the author of the GOOD BACKUP UTILITY and also the
president of one of the local user groups (sorry, Jeff, I forget which one).
That's enough to encourage me to risk my $$$ on his program, alone!

Well said, Jeff, and good luck with the GOOD BACKUP UTILITY!

- Hutch

    Thanks to all for your answers,
    
    I am currently uploading the GOOD backup demo Jeff has made available,
    and also VAULT.
    
    I'll try both out as sson as possible and let you all know the results.
    
    I hope they're good.
    
    Regards,
    
    				Lewis.

    re .13
    Hard Disk Sentry Toolkit by Beckmeyer Development Tools bypasses TOS
    and the forty folder problem.
    
     

Another feature of the GOOD backup that Jeff failed to mention in .13 
and that I find to be very important is that GOOD incorporates disk 
caching.  This feature provides a great speedup of floppy opeations 
during backups that would otherwise involve a lot of seeking back and 
forth betweeen directory areas and file areas. 

    Yes i saw that, just as it said "Not enough memory to create cache..."
    ;-)
    
    This seems to be exactly what i want, however because it only looks
    on C: (which is my small partition with hardly nay files) i have
    some questions...
    
    a) Will it utilise both A: and B: drives to write to?
    b) Will it create a 2nd volume when asked, and not fail if there is
       not enough room on the 1 volume (floppy)?
    c) Will it (aka BACKUP) use A: as volume 1, B: as volume 2, A: as
       volume 3... etc...
    
    If so, it seems to be what i am looking for...
    
    Thanks,
    
    				Lewis.

>    This seems to be exactly what i want, however because it only looks
>    on C: (which is my small partition with hardly nay files) i have
>    some questions...
 
	That is just a restriction on the demo version.
   
>    a) Will it utilise both A: and B: drives to write to?

	You can select any drive letter as the drive to write to, but
	not the way you want.  (See my answer to "c".)

>    b) Will it create a 2nd volume when asked, and not fail if there is
>       not enough room on the 1 volume (floppy)?

	Of course.    Also, If a file is larger than a floppy, it will be split
	across multiple floppies.  Progressively smaller files are
	selected until there are no more files that fit on the disk,
	before it goes on to the next disk.  This is a sore point of
	Diamond Back users.  They get a choice of "split files to fill
	disks" or "no split", which tends to leave a lot of blank space
	on the disks.  GOOD will NOT split a file unless it is actually
	larger than what will fit on the floppy disk, and it will pack
	the disks with as much as it can fit by choosing smaller and smaller
	files to fill it.

	If it does ask for additional disks, you can have GOOD format
	them for you, or you can stop the backup at that point until you
	get around to actually buying and/or formatting more disks, and
	pick up the backup again later, wherever it left off.

>    c) Will it (aka BACKUP) use A: as volume 1, B: as volume 2, A: as
>       volume 3... etc...

	No.  This is the same question as "a".  I think, however, that
	you fill find, as I did, that with GOOD this feature is not needed.
	I thought a lot about doing that, but it turns
	out, you only do the full backup once, and with the incremental
	update scheme that GOOD uses, you can't readily predict what disk will
	be needed next, so there was no real advantage to automatically
	switching between the two drives.  Of course, you can select any
	drive you want as the destination drive, even another hard drive,
	but it won't switch back and forth between two drives in a
	single backup.

	WHen you update the backup, GOOD will only ask for the disks
	that:
		a - contain a file that needs to be deleted. (Because
		you have deleted them from the hard drive, or modified them.)
	or
		b - contain enough free space to copy over some new files.
	
	Except for the first backup, rarely does it actually ask for
	every disk, so there is no advantage in preloading the next disk
	in the alternate drive.

    Jeff,
    
    Thanks for the answers, and for the demo.
    
    I've gone ahead and got a colleaugue with a MASTERCARD to order it
    so it should come through in about 2/3 weeks. I'll look forward to
    recieving the fully functional program.
    
    Regards,
    
    		
    				Lewis.