?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Can anyone recommend some good software for taking full and incremental backups from a notebook computer running Microsoft Windows 2000 or XP?

I just got through a manual full backup of Numerramar - about 15Gb of files in 8 big 1.5-2Gb pieces, plus sundry large AVIs.

BTW: I've been hearing a lot and reading a little about WinFS, the new file system of Windows Longhorn, and what little has been put out about WinFX. It all looks interesting and promising, but not having laid my hands on any developer tools yet, it's hard for me to formulate a complete opinion. Have any of you done either (looked at dev tools or formed an opinion)?

(The reasons for my backups are left as an exercise for the reader...)

--
Banazir

Comments

( 17 comments — Leave a comment )
rsmit212
Jul. 18th, 2005 03:50 pm (UTC)

I use Second Copy 2000. It's pretty configurable to save and backup only what you want to and only what has changed.
banazir
Jul. 18th, 2005 07:08 pm (UTC)
Second Copy 2000
Interesting - thanks; I'll have a look at it.
Incrementality is definitely a #1 priority for me, as my HD fills up with 10-30Gb of stuff a year, but it only changes by at most 2Gb per week, 500Mb most weeks.

--
Banazir
gondhir
Jul. 18th, 2005 04:33 pm (UTC)
(The reasons for my backups are left as an exercise for the reader...)

Now that you have tenure, you're going to put all the dirt on the dept you've been accumulating for years on your blog?

Just to spite "Ivan Tribble"?
banazir
Jul. 18th, 2005 04:48 pm (UTC)
Cutting off your Neskimo nose to spite your Neskimo face
Now that you have tenure, you're going to put all the dirt on the dept you've been accumulating for years on your blog?
ROFL! Try reading the post again, Tejas man.

Just to spite "Ivan Tribble"?
"Professor Big Britches was different animal entirely. We interviewed him for a senior position. Upon reading his LiveJournal, however, we found that he associates with entire coven of people who act out sundry personae of Middle-earth, from J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. One of his personal friends was a "wizard", one of the blue-robed ones mentioned in the obscure Unfinished Tales; another, a yellow dragon; still another believed that he was a Dwarf, despite the fact that he is over six feet tall and only recently acquired a beard. Several of these people even seemed to be students in Dr. Britches' own discipline! As for Dr. Britches himself, he and seemed to delight in making deliberate typographical errors and inscrutable oblique references to ever popular culture, film, and television phenomenon we could think of. Upon painstaking perusal of several of his blog entries, we learned he fancied himself a hobbit. How he ever got tenure is quite beyond us."

--
Banazir
gondhir
Jul. 18th, 2005 05:20 pm (UTC)
Re: Cutting off your Neskimo nose to spite your Neskimo face
ROFL! Try reading the post again, Tejas man.
I read it fine the first time. You're backing it up as insurance in case of preemptive strikes by the League of Shadows.

Re: WinFS:
Sounds to me like Microsoft trying to come up with a file system that is unusable in other OSes (unlike FAT/FAT32) and that will result in the creation of files that are unusable in other file systems.

"...each photo could include additional information, so that it could be searched by, for instance, who is in the picture; a set of folder-like views could then be created automatically with sorted photos by person."

Information that would not be accessible and that would actually be a hindrance on anything other than WinFS.
banazir
Jul. 18th, 2005 05:36 pm (UTC)
Rash Algol: a critique of WinFS and content-based indexing
I read it fine the first time. You're backing it up as insurance in case of preemptive strikes by the League of Shadows.
I am not!
I'm interested in putting Longhorn beta (or Release Candidate Umpteen Quijillion or Public Preview or whatever they want to call it) on Hirilonde, aka the New Dell (Inspiron 6000). Excelsior!

Sounds to me like Microsoft trying to come up with a file system that is unusable in other OSes (unlike FAT/FAT32) and that will result in the creation of files that are unusable in other file systems.
It's intended to subsume FAT16/FAT32 and NTFS. The question is how the downward compatibility (file allocation, addressing) will work. It's said to be journalling, and about time. If it "supports" conversion of modern Linux file systems (ReiserFS and ext3 especially), I'm all for it, but I am (as you may know) very big on shareable file systems, hence my big FAT32 scratch drives on almost every machine, even before I decide whether to dual-boot and what to dual-boot.

"...each photo could include additional information, so that it could be searched by, for instance, who is in the picture; a set of folder-like views could then be created automatically with sorted photos by person."

Information that would not be accessible and that would actually be a hindrance on anything other than WinFS.

Content-based indexing is the wave of the future!
Content-based indexing is coming!

(Old zurich31/alpenglow in-joke: our former boss used to make proclamations such as "LVD is coming!")

--
Banazir
twinofhugin
Jul. 18th, 2005 05:41 pm (UTC)
Re: Cutting off your Neskimo nose to spite your Neskimo face
it's actually a pretty cool concept that a bunch of people have tried to get working (I'm not sure how the gnome VFS guys are coming along) and it's a really interesting way of approaching the filesystem problem, especially on large disk volumes.
gondhir
Jul. 18th, 2005 05:47 pm (UTC)
Re: Cutting off your Neskimo nose to spite your Neskimo face
Possibly. I don't think there's enough information out there to make a good determination of the (de)merits of WinFS. Perhaps I just tend to think that MS has a hiddn agenda in everything they do.

The sad thing is that I'm usually right...
banazir
Jul. 18th, 2005 07:05 pm (UTC)
Microsoft is the new Carnivore!
I'm mainly concerned about stability and ease-of-use, as usual. To me, the small incremental gains in functionality through nifty or innovative features (even if they are things that other OSes have had for some time) are worth the small pain of upgrading.

OTOH, I hate bloat, and features are my bane, because banazir's user personality is to suck the marrow out of OSes by pushing functionality, new features, and most especially system resources to the utter limits of the hardware and kernel. More on this tendency later.

--
Banazir
gondhir
Jul. 18th, 2005 09:08 pm (UTC)
Re: Microsoft is the new Carnivore!
Microsoft is the new Carnivore!

That may indeed be close to the mark. You may be mainly concerned about stability and ease-of-use, but personally, for me, Windows fails on both of those.

Stability. Does anyone in their right mind actually praise Windows on its stability WRT other OSes?

Ease-of-use: For one thing, everytime a new version of Windows comes out, they take the same programs/utilities and put them in COMPLETELY different places. Why? And then they take the same features within those programs/utilities and put them in COMPLETELY different parts of the program.

Another thing, MS programs have a tendancy to think that they're smarter than you and know what to do better than you. This tendancy is getting more and more pronounced with every new version. MS Word is a good (bad?) example of this. I find it almost impossible to get MS Word to STOP altering my text as I type. You have to make, like, 5 different changes in 3 different windows in order to stop it. And ever new version (or CURRECT versions; these days, there's, like, 3 different versions of everything every time something comes out).

These days, I do all my writing in OSX's TextEdit, set to PLAIN TEXT (it has the capability to do fonts and underlines and stuff). The only thing it does beyond a straight text editor is it underlines words it thinks are misspelled. It then lets me fix them on my own if I feel like. After I'm done, if it's a paper for class, I then convert it to an RTF with bold and underline and centered titles, etc.


But my main disagreement with Windows security. Quite apart from the fact that it's notably unsecure to outsiders, XP itself compromises your security quite on its own. As a "feature". It's like ET, it wants to phone home and will do so by whatever means are neccesary (including but not limited to co-opting a Speak 'n' Spell, an umbrella and who knows what else). Windows Media Player, IE, even Search feed data back to Redmond. And if you don't "activate" it by sending more data to Redmond, the thing won't even run.

My parents have XP and everytime I'm on it, it feels like I'm Aragorn with the palantir, trying to wrest control of the thing from Sauron.

IMO, Windows 2000 Pro is apogee of Windows. It was stable, it was secure, you could play games/music/videos/DVDs on it, and it didn't act like a tool of the MSA (Microsoft Security Agency). It's all downhill from here. And that's why I refuse to get XP.
banazir
Jul. 19th, 2005 07:55 pm (UTC)
Did I say I LIKE Windows?
For the record, I don't think Windows is more stable than most other operating systems. I think that the application availability balances out its (considerable) instability, and that the slight edge it has in ease-of-use (commonality of interface, transparency) tips the scales slightly in its favor over other operating systems.

Right now, as much as I regret to say it: if I could run only one operating system, it would be Windows XP Pro. Fortunately, I am not limited to a single choice.

There's a lot to be said for simplicity, as you rightly point out, and a lot to be said against zhi2 zhuo2 cong1 ming2 (self-subposed intelligence) on the part of the OS, or of its designers, for that matter. "cong1 ming2 fan3 bei4 cong1 ming2 wu4", as we Chinese say (intelligence opposes itself, i.e., smart is as smart does).

Most Linux advocates point out, again rightly, that if you want to trust your OS, you should in principle know what it does, and be able to tell. More practically: you should not have to turn off things or constantly have to deny your OS the right to "spy" upon you or to report your doings, cookies, data, etc. without your explicit authorization.

And so I agree with your Aragorn analogy: "Long have you installed spyware; long have I endured it - no more."

Win2K Pro was indeed an apogee of Windows stability. I've actually gone back to it on two out of three of my working notebook computers because of this. As far as I can tell, WinXP's designers put a lot of thought and effort into security, but its feature bloat has opened up a commensurate number of holes. The frequency of updates serves only as demonstration of this. It has a smaller memory footprint, it is less of a power hog (very important on notebooks!), and it has a comparable response time. Some of my hardware (e.g., my Winnov Videumcam) doesn't even work on WinXP! To these, I will add that what scottharmon calls the "Playskool theme" is a minor incremental interface improvement (IMO; some such as zurich31 consider it a step backward).

Essentially, my only reason for using WinXP is to keep up with drivers and developer tools: I don't trust the Legacy Effect insofar as Visual Studio 2005, .NET framework, and server/Active Directory/WinFS features go. This is a big deal, a dealbreaker when it comes down to brass tacks. Eventually, I expect Win2K to be left behind. It probably will, deliberately if not because of genuine obsolescence. Long before that, I and many others will have despaired of maintaining three versions of Windows: Longhorn, XP, and 2000 (four if you count WinXP Home). Call it part of Microsoft's successful psychological warfare. And perhaps this reason, cynical as it is, rings truest.

--
Banazir
scottharmon
Jul. 19th, 2005 05:32 am (UTC)
Re: Cutting off your Neskimo nose to spite your Neskimo face
"...each photo could include additional information, so that it could be searched by, for instance, who is in the picture; a set of folder-like views could then be created automatically with sorted photos by person."

And how the heck is this information going to get there? Am I supposed to enter it all---heck no, if I don't do it now, why would I do it then?
banazir
Jul. 19th, 2005 06:25 pm (UTC)
Automated Content-Based Indexing: IE, IR, repurposing, and learning
Have a look at:

If you think about it, a lot of the IR and IE work that has gone into automatically building bibliographies and citation indices, and a lot of the R&D on content repurposing, is applicable to the semantic FS problem. It's just taking some time to percolate, just as text and web mining took time to assimilate its theoretical foundations from adjacent and overlapping topics (e.g., computational learning theory and supervised inductive learning) and from related methodologies (statistical queries, hidden Markov models, dynamic Bayesian networks).

Of course, I am a machine learning optimist. Therefore, first thing I look at is where representations can be improved given what definitions, type, structure, and archival mechanisms and media we have; only then is it time to think about knowledge acquisition (be it via learning, collaborative classification, elicitation, "guessing" with post-editing, or good old-fashioned data entry).

--
Banazir
twinofhugin
Jul. 18th, 2005 05:18 pm (UTC)
WinFS support has been removed from the immediate release of longhorn and Microsoft has stated that it will be available as a patch / add on for both Windows XP and Longhorn "at a later date"

It's an attempt at at database like file system, the basic concept there is instead of identifying files in a tree like structure, you identify and sort by file type in a more relational-database format and retrieve files from the filesystem using a SQL like query language. It signifigantly abstracts storage and sorting of files. To get more of an idea of what I'm talking about, look here : http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/7/a/27ab8218-e3d8-4261-b8e4-6ffc7bd8f199/winfsschemadiagram.vsd&e=10053
banazir
Jul. 18th, 2005 05:40 pm (UTC)
WinFS for WinXP
Hrm... availability for WinXP? Any idea how that will work?

It's an intriguing upgrade, though I would want to retain file sharing (SMB-based, NetBEUI, or by whatever other means will work) to a Linux system.

This sounds very promising, but it's either going to just work, like Samba, or be the biggest file corruption fiasco since the Macintosh File System to Hierarchical File System (MFS/HFS) debacle of the late 1980s.

--
Banazir
twinofhugin
Jul. 18th, 2005 06:02 pm (UTC)
Re: WinFS for WinXP
there would probably be a new way to query files remotely for sharing purposes... you could even mark some entities as shared so a remote agent could query "show me all shared files that I can access on the remote computer, show me all shared music files I can access on the remote computer, show me all shared music files by this artist that I can access on the remote computer"...

it'd be something a lot more than your typical mount //10.0.0.3/shares /mnt/samba though. require a lot of changes. be really neat though.
banazir
Jul. 18th, 2005 07:20 pm (UTC)
Content-based indexing and other database features in a file system
Yes, I'm sure it could be implemented as a front-end application. I suppose the point is that the file table actually keeps this metadata.

As I think about it, the basic functionality doesn't seem all that new to me. Everything from Norton Commander/Midnight Commander to present-day content management systems such as Wikis, PHPnuke, and Smarty do similar things. The point is that those require MySQL and PHP, whereas if I understand correctly, this will embed the DBMS engine within the file system parts of the kernel.

--
Banazir
( 17 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

December 2008
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

KSU Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GEC) Lab

Teunciness

Breakfast

Science, Technology, Engineering, Math (STEM) Communities

Fresh Pages

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Naoto Kishi