How often do you do a system (image) backup?

[newpball]

How often do you do a system (image) backup?

Also how many generations do you keep?

[Bjs]

Weekly and daily ... resetting corrupted pos systems is a pain without daily backups

Generations ... 52.

[racer-x]

I do one after a fresh OS install. Then one after all my must have programs are installed. I keep those two images for backup. Been doing it that way for as far back as I can remember (back in the old boot floppy disk with Norton Ghost days), always worked great.

I also keep multiple OS images so I can switch back and forth between different OS's as needed. Only takes about 5 min to restore an image.

[valvehead]

I keep three consecutive backup sets for each computer. Each set contains a monthly full image and daily incrementals. I also have images that were made just after initial installation, but they are so old that I don't think I'd ever use them.

I'm hoping to upgrade my RAID 6 array to ZFS at some point. I need a lot more storage space, and I'd like to start making offsite/offline backups weekly. It's going to cost a chunk of money to get all the drives I need, so I haven't followed through yet.

[Dougster]

I keep an original OS install and I do a weekly backup. I keep the last 3 generations.

[zoobie]

I only do file backups.

[fritzi93]

System Image: about once a month. I used to do it more often. Always keep at least two consecutive backup images. Plus an image of a fresh install with all my programs configured.
Files: much more often. Important new files are backed up immediately, otherwise weekly.

[johns0]

I only do file backups.

Same here.

[hech54]

Original system backup(out of the box) and once more after all of my favorite programs are installed.

[p_l]

Twice a month. One full backup, followed by 5 semi-monthly differential backups, then begin the pattern again, eliminating those that are over two and a half months old except for an original OS-plus-installed-programs image.

Files with SyncToy (yup).

[Alice_Phoebe]

Generaly once a week, sometimes more often when i have free time

[sum_guy]

I do them before I do major updates or again after new installs of software, I guess you could say "as needed backups".

[Clockwork]

Every Sunday. Laptops twice a month.

[pandy]

No sense to backup system, backup your data and keep data on different place than system (at least on separate partition).
There is sense to create backup of clean system after installation and later restore if necessary this backup and as such receive clean system (to save time).

[Clockwork]

No sense to backup system,

Installing OS's hasn't been my idea of fun for about 15 years or so.

[racer-x]

It's also nice to know that in my case, switching back and forth from Win7 to Win8.1 is just 5 min away with the help of a saved image.

Another benifit is you never need to defrag the OS partition. When you restore it, it packs everything tight and always runs nice and smooth. No need to run anivirus either.....

[newpball]

Another benifit is you never need to defrag the OS partition.

I wonder who still uses a mechanical drive for the OS?

[johns0]

Lot of people still use platter drives,i do.

[pandy]

No sense to backup system,

Installing OS's hasn't been my idea of fun for about 15 years or so.

You don't need to install system as you have clean copy... and from time to time it have sense to restore system as modern OS caching so many things that at same point memory leaks are common... you will be amazed how big difference in terms of responsivity is between few year old system and fresh...

[drjtech]

No sense to backup system

Once a week a do a bare metal recovery image of all my systems, servers and workstations. The "system" is more than just the OS - it's all the software that I have installed. registered and configured. It takes less than thirty minutes to restore from an image versus the better part of a day to install the OS, bring it up to date with patches, install the myriad of programs, activate and configure the programs, etc.

I keep my data off the OS partition and do file backups to drives connected to other systems.

[hello_hello]

Another benifit is you never need to defrag the OS partition.

I wonder who still uses a mechanical drive for the OS?

I do. I can't say I've ever tried using a SSD but the PC's are on almost 24/7 and I'm not fussed about how long it takes to boot them. I've got to make a coffee some time. I really don't care if Firefox takes 5 seconds or 5 nanoseconds to open because once programs are running they usually stay running until the next reboot.

I'd really like to be able to move large video files around nice and quickly, but SSDs are still expensive and there's always going to be the external drive bottleneck when it comes to backing-up/saving files. It doesn't matter how fast the internal drives are, if the external drives contain platters and they're connected via USB.


Back to the original topic......
About once per year I restore the previous image, update everything, then make a new one. I don't include user/data files in the image. They're synced to an external drive each day. I use a synchronisation program to automate that part. It even backs up the new operating system images.

[pandy]

No sense to backup system

Once a week a do a bare metal recovery image of all my systems, servers and workstations. The "system" is more than just the OS - it's all the software that I have installed. registered and configured. It takes less than thirty minutes to restore from an image versus the better part of a day to install the OS, bring it up to date with patches, install the myriad of programs, activate and configure the programs, etc.

I keep my data off the OS partition and do file backups to drives connected to other systems.

Seem i was misunderstood (blame my English) - System for me equal to OS + Applications (unless your apps are updated each week)...

So clean OS install + all apps i use - side to this unless you are application collector how many of them you are using (side to this i prefer portable ones).

[Nelson37]

Never. Unnecessary waste of time.

Important files are duplicated on other drives in other PC's.

Drives are checked for errors, APC handles power problems, viruses are avoided. If the OS has been on a drive long enough for the drive to fail, the OS will benefit greatly from a re-install. I tell folks it's like moving, gives you a chance to get rid of all the crap you haven't unboxed since your last move. Old apps, devices, drivers, etc. Fresh install often gives a performance boost.

For most customers, imaging a drive just isn't practical. Backup critical data with multiple copies, 2-3 per week, plus at least one over a month old. Many accounting data errors are not discovered until end of month processing, and often not fixable without backup.

[hello_hello]

Important files are duplicated on other drives in other PC's.

Drives are checked for errors, APC handles power problems, viruses are avoided. If the OS has been on a drive long enough for the drive to fail, the OS will benefit greatly from a re-install. I tell folks it's like moving, gives you a chance to get rid of all the crap you haven't unboxed since your last move. Old apps, devices, drivers, etc. Fresh install often gives a performance boost.

I'd have to disagree with all of that.

Drives die prematurely. Computers get infected. If I set up a PC for someone I image it when I'm done, and if they manage to make a mess of it I restore the image. I got sick of spending time cleaning PCs, especially the ones used by younger relatives who'll click okay without thinking if there's a dialogue box in their way.

Things go wrong unexpectedly. I've installed program updates and drivers that have messed things up. Windows update is a total crap shoot. Restoring an image is a much faster way to recover from disaster than starting from scratch. If you have files stored on a second PC then you have a second one to use if one develops problems. Not everyone has that luxury.

I keep my PCs pretty lean. No unnecessary programs starting with Windows. When I create images it's right after installing Windows and then again after installing programs so restoring an image is just like doing a fresh install. I've been doing that for a long time. I've never noticed a speed increase after restoring an older image.

[Nelson37]

Customers won't make the images often enough, and I don't need them. People will not generally pay for preventative maintenance with no obvious benefit, they pay to get their immediate problem solved. For images to work in a business environment, they would need to be made almost daily. Average users just aren't going to do that. Home users absolutely not, and most I wouldn't trust to do it properly without screwing it up.

Also, without a second hard drive large enough to contain the image file, IMO this is just silly. Total drive failure is the one case where this might be handy, putting the backup file on the same medium as your primary data is kinda pointless.

It's like constantly mirrored drives, If you screw something up you get two copies of it, if a drive dies you have a backup with Exactly the same usage pattern, wear and tear, and expected lifetime.

Recovering from a bad update is not something I consider a major problem. Usually easily reversible. Most minor problems are.

I'm closing in on thirty years of field experience. Fresh install with only needed apps almost always goes faster. The programs you use today, and printers, scanners, AV, etc. are different from what you used 3 to 5 years ago. Accumulated debris of unused progs and files frequently slows performance.

The amount of time spent doing frequent full image backups is just not cost-effective, IMO. That's why most of my customers don't pay me or one of their employees to do it. Multiple data backups, yes. Multiple pc, yes. I have 5, altogether.

For a home user, the accumulated time would be better spent learning how to prevent and/or repair minor problems. If I can teach a 12 year old to solve their problems, most adults can learn how.

[hello_hello]

I run two RAID-0 volumes. The second has a partition with a clean Windows install so I can easily boot from it if need be. Imaging the C partition on the first volume while writing the image to the second takes about five minutes. Restoring an image takes two or three minutes. I don't maintain business computers but in the "immediate problem solving" department that's about as quick as it gets. If I'm restoring an image to a PC with a single mechanical hard drive it admittedly takes a bit longer as I'd probably need to boot from a CD and restore the image from an external drive. Even if eventually a clean install would be ideal, it's still a fast way to recover from disaster, even if it is only temporarily.

You don't need a huge second drive to store an image. These days they'd easily fit on a USB stick.

The programs you use today, and printers, scanners, AV, etc. are different from what you used 3 to 5 years ago. Accumulated debris of unused progs and files frequently slows performance.

I always create two images. One immediately after installing Windows, drivers and running Windows Update, and another after installing the required software. I'd generally only install Windows from scratch again after a major service pack release.

Although I'd defy anyone to prove that "accumulated debris" slows performance. Unless unwanted software is actually running, it's very unlikely to make a difference, especially these days as hard drive capacities are fairly large. Sure, if there was a lot of junk starting with Windows or there was a serious problem with the OS it might be a different story, but other than that I don't see how.

I have a couple of virtually identical PCs. Same MB etc, just a different CPU, so I install Windows and programs on one, image it, then restore the image to the second PC. Once it's booted and I've given it a unique network name and adjusted the drive letter assignments etc it's also good to go. That mightn't be typical for most home users, but for businesses I'd assume rolling out a single image to multiple PCs wouldn't be too unusual.

[Cornucopia]

@hello_hello, I've got to disabuse you of a few fallacies:
1. Raid-0 gives increased performance but DECREASED safety from failure. Just the thing you DON'T want for backup storage. I suggest you use Raid-1 or Raid-10.
2. Easy to prove "accumulated debris": every thing added to the Windows Registry adds to the slowdown of your PC. More apps, even non-running ones, more slow-down. For true "lean, mean, power workstation" performance, create separate boots/partitions/drives and use functional "suite" subsets of apps in each (e.g. "Video", "Photo", "Audio", "Programming", "3D animation", "Design"...) and then maybe a "Universal" combined one that is somewhat more bloated. This is easily demonstrable with timer & CPU/mem utilization utilities.

Scott

[Nelson37]

RAID-0 is living dangerously, regular image backups more necessary. Most of my customers simply won't do regular images, and I won't let them run RAID-0 in a business environment. Most of mine are small, rarely have even two identical PC's.

Defiance offered. Install 3-5 years worth of software, both intentional and with the users knowledge, and much more besides that they don't even realize. Check the DLL files in system32, and compare that against the original list, also check for updated and/or changed versions of the originals, THEN try and determine exactly which DLL files belong to which program to sort them out. Multiple printer drivers, Brother and HP especially sometimes cause erratic function. Not just startup files but registry entries as well are an accumulated debris problem. A common HP fix is to manually delete ALL hp-related files, and start over. That's from factory tech support, many times. I'm warranty-qualified on their older models.

Done this enough times to have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that over time, the OS slows, while some cleanup can be done there is a time-effectiveness issue where a re-install is more cost effective, assuming you have a large enough problem to do an image restore in the first place, which a mechanically defective drive is about the only one. Install only the latest version of many softwares instead of multiple accumulated updates, accounting software in particular. Printer drivers another common issue where latest instead of archived is better. Video cards less of a common problem, but very much more sensitive to getting the most recent version.

Multiple unused utilities and diddly-crap software that was never used, or at least isn't any more, just leave them out.

Just buying the necessary drives to do several different PCs is prohibitive, USB sticks not feasible for any reasonable amount of storage, and, they just won't do it. I have to raise hell to get regular data backups made, which CAN fit on simple, inexpensive USB sticks with automated software. Drive images won't fit on a stick, and they also contain the possibility of running it in the reverse direction and causing a large and very unnecessary problem.

It's a blunt instrument, I don't use hammers, my customers do. That's why they call me.

[cornemuse]

File backups only.

I prefer a smaller hdd 'C' drive, as I tend to actually back up things when I run out of room.

(I bought several 160 g WD hdds {IDE!!} several years ago when they >160's< started getting scarce. Still have one brand new).

-c-

[hello_hello]

@hello_hello, I've got to disabuse you of a few fallacies:
1. Raid-0 gives increased performance but DECREASED safety from failure. Just the thing you DON'T want for backup storage. I suggest you use Raid-1 or Raid-10.

I'm not using it for backup storage as such. Files are also saved to a single external drive.

2. Easy to prove "accumulated debris": every thing added to the Windows Registry adds to the slowdown of your PC. More apps, even non-running ones, more slow-down. For true "lean, mean, power workstation" performance, create separate boots/partitions/drives and use functional "suite" subsets of apps in each (e.g. "Video", "Photo", "Audio", "Programming", "3D animation", "Design"...) and then maybe a "Universal" combined one that is somewhat more bloated. This is easily demonstrable with timer & CPU/mem utilization utilities.

Back in the dark ages I spent lots of time running registry cleaners and defragging hard drives until I finally came to the realisation any performance boost could generally be attributed to the placebo effect, and even if there was one I'd probably need to use the PC continuously for about 700 years before the total amount of time gained through any performance boost equalled the amount of time I'd lost running a registry cleaner and defrag program. Restoring an image restores it in a defragged state.

I went looking for a Registry benchmark program and found this one.
http://bitsum.com/regbench.php
Then I fired up the old E6750 PC. I checked and it's been just over two years since I saved the last image (time flies) which means two years of installing, uninstalling and updating software. First I ran a benchmark and saved the screenshot, then I rebooted to the install of XP on the second drive (it's almost never been used and has no software installed except a couple of small utilities). I ran a second benchmark on the HKLM hive and here's the results:

Random access keys per second 82101.81
Average random access time per entry 0.012180 ms
Average random read time per byte 0.000210 ms


Random access keys per second 84246.00
Average random access time per entry 0.011870 ms
Average random read time per byte 0.000210 ms


Maybe some of the registry performance difference I'd need to have super-human senses to detect when using the PC could be attributed to the second copy of the OS residing on slightly larger, and probably slightly faster, hard drives (both installs are confined to a 40GB partition).

The quadcore benchmarked a tad slower, but probably because it was busy decoding a 1080p video at the same time and there were quite a few programs open. Still, only managing to randomly access 79 thousand registry keys per second.... it's a wonder software runs at all.

Random access keys per second 79051.38
Average random access time per entry 0.012650 ms
Average random read time per byte 0.000220 ms


If you have suggestions re timer & CPU/mem utilization utilities I can run on each copy of Windows to show the level of performance decrease after 2 years of installing and uninstalling software I'm happy to try it.

RAID-0 is living dangerously, regular image backups more necessary. Most of my customers simply won't do regular images, and I won't let them run RAID-0 in a business environment. Most of mine are small, rarely have even two identical PC's.

I'll confess I have limited experience with RAID-0 but based on that limited experience I don't consider it to be living too dangerously. Hard drives are pretty reliable these days. Although that'd be a reason for creating images anyway, wouldn't it?
The PC I mentioned previously has had the same four hard drives installed and running as two RAID-0 volumes for it's entire life and it's run 24/7 for long periods. Last I checked, which wasn't that long ago, the total hours on count for the hard drives was about four years. They're probably about 8 years old (320GB and 500GB drives). The four drives in this PC would be at least 3 years old. My first PC running RAID-0 was an old Athlon. The MB died but the hard drives are still working and used occasionally as "portable" drives.

Defiance offered. Install 3-5 years worth of software, both intentional and with the users knowledge, and much more besides that they don't even realize. Check the DLL files in system32, and compare that against the original list, also check for updated and/or changed versions of the originals, THEN try and determine exactly which DLL files belong to which program to sort them out. Multiple printer drivers, Brother and HP especially sometimes cause erratic function. Not just startup files but registry entries as well are an accumulated debris problem. A common HP fix is to manually delete ALL hp-related files, and start over. That's from factory tech support, many times. I'm warranty-qualified on their older models.

That doesn't really explain why any of it should effect a PC's performance. The HP fix sounds more like a fix and not really a performance boost as such. As I said earlier though, I've got a clean Windows install and a two year old Windows install running on the same PC and I'm happy to benchmark them. And yes, there's dll files all over the place. I've installed every runtime imaginable. And Java, and several flavours of dot net.....

Done this enough times to have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that over time, the OS slows, while some cleanup can be done there is a time-effectiveness issue where a re-install is more cost effective.....

How is restoring an image of only the OS less cost effective?

Just buying the necessary drives to do several different PCs is prohibitive, USB sticks not feasible for any reasonable amount of storage, and, they just won't do it.

How large are you expecting image files to be? The largest I've ever created would probably only be about 6GB. That was imaging XP. If you doubled that for newer Windows bloat and bulky software it'd still only be 12GB. My most recent "fresh" image of XP with all my usual software installed along with drivers and Windows updates came in at 2.9GB.

It's a blunt instrument, I don't use hammers, my customers do. That's why they call me.

I'm not sure what that means exactly? They call you for a demolition and rebuild?