Use a second hard drive for security

I've been using the method of a second hard drive as an emergency backup (for certain computers) for years. I haven't seen Jon's suggested method - since no link is provided to the atricle - but I simply "image" the drive initially (after the OS andsoftware is installed), and then use a simple batch file to incrementally backup the data files. If the C-Drive fails, I would simply change the first boot device in the BIOS to D-Drive, and the user would be up and running again in a matter of seconds.

On a few isolated computers the second hard drive even pulls double-duty as an off-site backup as well. To do this the second drive is simply installed in a hot-swap docking bay. Two of these will allow a rotation on a weekly or bi-monthly basis.

While I will agree that it is much faster to backup to a HDD in a Hot Swapable removable SCSI Cady and we rotate these around even the largest HDD which is currently 146 GB just isn't big enough for our curent needs so we continue with our automanted Tape Backup system and it still works out a lot cheaper to use this unit and at the moment there isn't the problem of security in removing the backup from the main site for off-site storage as hardly anyone can read the tapes but even with compressed data on the HDD's the data is easly read.

So we use the SCSI HDD's for all internal work and the tape for anything that wil be taken off- site for storage in case of some form of incident that causes the total loss of everything onsite.

A few months ago we investigated the possibility of backing up to DVD but the expence was just too great so we are continuning with the tape option which is much cheeper and far more secure. I realise that the tape isn't 100% secure but most people whomay gain access to out storage data don't have the necessary equipment to read the tape which is a lot more than can be said for any other backup device we have so far tested.

how can i make complet backup of win2k server on dvd rewriter & restore from when when my system failer

thanks
ahmed hassan

When I setup a system from scratch, or if Corp sends out a unit(s), I always make an image. Not for data backup, but for the raw system itself. I still think tape has a place, (for data backup), and especially for incrementals. You can't put everyone, or every situation into the same category. You have to look at each situation, and ask yourself what makes the most sense. It will likely be a blend of both! I keep my Master Image HD on the shelf. My personal PC at home has a spare HD mounted, but I only plug it up when I preform an update or append to the image. If you get hacked, or have a power spike, then a live drive will be a dead/corrupt drive as well!

Ghost requires a floppy drive on the recovery unit. So your out of luck if you're trying to backup notebooks with only 2 spindles. A serious design shortcoming considering the design of modern notebooks.

We've looked at the other backup programs and they all seem to suffer from one fatal flaw or another.

I have had 2 separate drives on computer for about 12 months--I have gotten many viruses because of the issues that I have been involved with
When I am nailed now, all I do is to separate drives re-install OS on main drive and run a virus check on the secondary when everything is done
Sense that time, I have lost nothing that was placed on 2nd drive. Love it

I'm going to have to agree with you on that one
for the reasons you stated in your article and also because a hard drive is a random access device and not serial like a tape drive.

Restoring a single or a couple of files from a backup hard drive is a lot faster and simpler than obtaining it from a serial tape. I just ran into a problem updating Visual Basic with a new MDAC that did not work and had to restore my old MDAC from the backup drive.

If you are using a server-class OS (like Windows
Server) then why not just create a mirror to another drive and then break the mirror set? With that you may even get by without shutting down the system to do an image.

DD will produce a physical copy nicely, but the existing fragmentation will still propagate.
Logical images ( TAR, CPIO) will remove fragmentation when restored to clean media.
ALSO to be considered is the massive volume consumed when major portions of the FS are still sane. Capturing subsets of /(root) can reduce the frequency and volume to be saved/restored,
eg: how many copies of
/usr/man, /tmp, /var, /proc,
need to be be saved? For active development, /usr/local may need much more frequent backups.

I have been looking for a good free/cheap back up software the can do a compress image of a hard drive and/or be able to do a differential back up. I have found a few but they are lacking compression. Another feature I would like is to be able to break up the image so that I can burn it to a CDROM. Any suggestions for me.

I thought that I said that we use HDD for quick and easy backup but these never leave the building and we rely on tape for all off site storage because of the security angle.
While it is true that anyone can read a HDD it is a lot more diffictual to have the equipment & software to read tape so that is what we use for all offsite sorage.
My opinion is that tape still rules for any serious security procedures.

I hate tape backups and zip drives. Hdd's and CDR/DVD is the way to store and backup for me.

All of out tape backup is performed by autoloaders which makes life easy for the IT section. However every day a complete backup is made and these tapes are taken off-site for storage. They replace the tapes from the previous day and those tapes arebrought bacvk in an dplaced in a fire proof safe along with the banks money so they are prety safe there but not as secure as the off-site tapes, after all there are still bank robberies. We also perform incremental backup durring the day just in case something goes wrong so we don't lose part of a days work the poor tape drive is running all the time but it has already paid for itself many times over.
What I really like about these tapes is it is virtually impossible for anyone outside the bank to read them unlike CD's or DVD's or for that matter HDD's and we keep a 5 rotation set all the time we always have 3 sets off-site and the oldest is 3 days old which is not the best but it does save time in the event of a total failure and the destruction of the other 2 sets all of which is very unlikely.
I can't understand just why anyone would prefer a different media for this type of backup as so far everything that I have looked at is insecure and in the case of either CD/DVD to expensive in the long run as it is not possible to rewrite to these for the same time frame as the tape and then someone would have to change these things as well. I prefer to leave it to the autoloaders as it only takes about 10 minutes per day to replaceall the tapes and then we just forget about them.

HDD's fail,... It is a fact of IT life that is unavoidable.

Now I will say this, because I do it, but not exactly for the same reasons as above.

I do use images for machines for fast recovery. Most of my images however are stored on a drive array (of course raid5). Which in turn is backed up to tape.

There are some images that are on "hot standby". That is they are already loaded onto a drive. But their master image is still located on the file server.

At no time though are these images updated/added to. They are simply the bare neccesity to get a system deployed rapidly.

A different archive method "MUST" be used when making backups. That is the whole point of backups. You must backup to a different physical medium.
An example of a fast backup method is SQL. While i use the native backup method in sql to create backups of itself. And those backups are created to a different array attached to the servers. Those backups are also backed up to tape.

The onlyreason they are backed up initially to disk, is for restore speed only. They are not meant to stay on their permementally. In fact only 2 days worth of backups/trans logs stay on the backup array.

For user's: backing up to disk is a very very very very bad thing. It is useless, pointless and a really bad idea. If you have to, make a backup to disk then burn it to cd.

But, mark my words. The backup drive will fail, and so will the primary. Where will you be then.

I manage one server that is reliant on tape only and others that use a combination of mirrored drives and a nightly tape backup.

The mirrored drives are nice because they are hot-swappable and make life easier but the remote tape backups are nicefor off premise security in case of fire, flood etc.

Great idea!
very simple and not to much money.
Got lots of room in the tower and I all ready have Nortons GOAST

Thank You

I agree with Jon wholeheartedly. I long ago took to make my system backups via a second drive via ghost. I only use tape for differential backups and archival of day to day changes.

I tried the suggested command for dd on my Linux server to copy an 80Gb drive. After 9 hours, the operation was still going. A bit of research in Usenet pointed to using a much larger blocksize of 65k - 2048K.

BTW, does anyone here use dump instead of dd for mirroring a disk? Do you continue to run dd on a regular basis or do you use rsync after the initial copy?

Thanks,
William

Like most all debates go, your reply or answer depends upon your unique situation.

To try to give one answer here is meaningless.

You have to take into consideration many factors: the size of your company, the depth and abilities of your IT staff, the importance of the data being backed up, the quantity of the data being backed up, your current IT infrastrucutre, etc.

There is no right answer...except for usually a combination of the two.

Norton's Ghost will backup a W2k server to another partition or drive just fine. This also works as a good quick backup before doing a major update to the server. If something goes wrong just restore the partition to its original state. Critical data should also always be backuped up at least twice. Never completely trust and one backup solution.

Norton's Ghost will backup a W2k server to another partition or drive just fine. This also works as a good quick backup before doing a major update to the server. If something goes wrong just restore the partition to its original state. Critical data should also always be backuped up at least twice. Never completely trust only one backup solution.

I spent 18 years at IBM working in tape development. Yes, tape was cost effective when backing up a mainframe, but for a PC environment a second Hard Drive is a better alternative. The biggest advantage is the amount of time saved. Programs like Ghost will backup a 30 GB HD in about 30 Minutes. The best thing is that after the backup process the hard drive is a direct replacement for the original. My company has used this method for about 5 years and it works very well. Tape could be as good an alternative but first the format process has to be changed, takes too long. And error recovery needs to be equal to that provided by mainframe tape systems. Last the one place where tapes really shine is when you need historical backups. Disks are just too costly when in comes to creating an historical archive of a company's data. The biggest problem with tape is that the device needed to read the tape is separate from the media. Over time the read/write device may disappear and the ability to read the tape will be lost. Because no machines exist that can read and interpret the data recorded.

In conclusion, sadly the time to let tapes die a painful death has come. They are no longer a cost effective alternative to a duplicate or mirrored HD system.

All of our data if of the utmost importance, so it gets a full backup onto tape every night.
I use mirrored drives as C: drive in all my servers, which boot off the mirrored drive. If a corruption occurs, the server will automatically boot to the first drive.

I'm in a similar situation as you, but I'm in an Architectural office.
We backup the file and graphics server on 320gb SDLT tapes (one unit for each server) All backups are full, as incrementals are slow to recover and you're stuffed if a backup fails on one of the incremental days.
Also, a cd is burnt using a chemical reaction and over time the cd's surface will degrade and render the cd unreadable. This may take several years, but it is still an issue.

Hi there. I use 20 gig dds4 tapes daily, both at work and at home.
I also use LTO at work.. LTO is superb 100gb <> 1 hour.. you cannot beat that.
I believe that LTO will be a standard that will last for the next 10 years.