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

[Nelson37]

First, I am not interested in your personal results, I service dozens of customers with hundreds of PC's. As I have tried to explain to many people many times, it is a numbers game, percentages, averages. I am telling you what I have seen and experienced, and what other techs who taught me have shown and proven to be the case. Each and every one Exactly and Precisely aware of the danger of running Raid-0, and would laugh you out of the room for suggesting it in a business environment.

It is not necessary for you to understand the performance problems, your test for this performance issue tells me all I need to know. I am not guessing or making estimates, and I pay little to no attention to benchmarking programs. The ones that matter are the ones that people pay me money to get working, and that those people who sign checks are happy about when they work faster.

Drives needing imaged run into hundreds of gigabytes in real-world scenarios, in places where absolutely zero professional technicians would waste 30 seconds of their or their customer's time discussing Raid-0.

I am a professional, not a hobbyist, and I do not and would not follow the procedures you are suggesting. Every place I have worked doing as you are suggesting would get you fired.

For a home-user's toy, that does not really need to be functional in order to maintain a cash flow, it doesn't really matter, you can do as you wish and maintain it as you please. But, in the real world, those methods just don't work.

[racer-x]

Anyone who says that imaging an OS is an unnecessary waist of time obviously doesn't have kids. I can't tell you how many times I've restored my wife and son's PC/laptops. It only takes 5 to 10 min to restore an image to fix a gummed up OS. That's a no-brainer to me. Re-installing Windows is such an old and outdated remedy.

Actually, in my wife's case, I recently (about 8 months) installed Linux and have yet to fix anything there. Windows is another story however..........

[hello_hello]

First, I am not interested in your personal results, I service dozens of customers with hundreds of PC's. As I have tried to explain to many people many times, it is a numbers game, percentages, averages. I am telling you what I have seen and experienced, and what other techs who taught me have shown and proven to be the case. Each and every one Exactly and Precisely aware of the danger of running Raid-0, and would laugh you out of the room for suggesting it in a business environment.

Likewise, I'm not interested in meaningless anecdotes.
You can talk about the danger of running RAID-0 all you like. I'm fully aware there's an increased risk of failure, but I'd at least expect a hint as to the hard drive failure rates you've experienced in preference to a tech laughing antecdote if you want me to take your opinion seriously.

It is not necessary for you to understand the performance problems, your test for this performance issue tells me all I need to know.

Please share with the group.

I am not guessing or making estimates, and I pay little to no attention to benchmarking programs. The ones that matter are the ones that people pay me money to get working, and that those people who sign checks are happy about when they work faster.

The ones you pay attention to are the ones people pay you to "get working". Well I guess going from not working to working could be considered an increase in performance. If I was writing cheques I'd be hoping for at least a little placebo for my money. It's human nature.

For a home-user's toy, that does not really need to be functional in order to maintain a cash flow, it doesn't really matter, you can do as you wish and maintain it as you please. But, in the real world, those methods just don't work.

Sorry, I was under the impression the original post asked videohelp forum members how often they image their setups in the real world, not an imaginary one, and likewise.... do as you please if you can get people to pay you for it. I'm not sure how relevant to this thread it is though.

[Nelson37]

First, not many kids running around an office environment.

Second, I had two, and taught them how to avoid problems, and fix their own PC when they didn't. Sometimes I'd have to spend a few minutes fixing it myself. Correcting something a teenager did is what I call a no-brainer.

Compared to the waste of time making image backups whenever a new app is installed, and their storage requirements, and the general ease of simple OS repairs, restoring an image backup is the lazy man's way out.

Some people making image backups more than once a week. That adds up to a lot of time, fairly quickly. What do they do when they find out the real problem was some app installed many months ago? How much storage space you gonna devote to multiple backups?

Like I said, do it whatever way you wish. I won't waste any of my time on such crap, I just make sure critical data is backed up with multiple copies. The OS and installed apps is not critical data, and all of that is too large for some 10 minute backup on cheap USB sticks.

For the most part, Linux is not a usable OS. It's a toy. Xenix or Unix, sure, on rare occasions, but Linux? I have no use for it other than a curiosity, and for the general public it's a non-starter. Defines "waste of time". Got a little old lady who bought a new PC with Linux, had to buy a new printer for starters, took her about three months to have a real need for a small program that would not run on her new PC, no way, no how. She wasted her money and got ripped off, it was sad. There are extremely rare occasions where it is somewhat feasible but once the user finds out the limitations, generally a no-go.

[newpball]

For the most part, Linux is not a usable OS. It's a toy.

To borrow a phrase from a fellow Videohelp member: This is comedy gold!

Google:


Facebook:


All running Linux!

[Clockwork]

For the most part, Linux is not a usable OS. It's a toy.

Dismissed.

P.S. ~ Thanks for the hearty belly laugh. I needed a good knee slapper.




People claiming to be "techies" and having "customers" on the internet...yuh-huh...

[Nelson37]

How many Linux systems have you personally seen in earning usage in a business environment? Myself? Zero. Xenix, 2, Unix, 3, and some variant called Pick, 1. Linux systems in a business, for a lark and not real usage, 1. Commercially sold Linux systems, in a home environment, 1. That's in 27 years earning my living, as a PC tech, also includes the experiences of many others over parts of that time. Several techs using Linux as an experimental toy, for a very specific job it can be fine. However a PC needs to do many jobs, with lots of hardware and software, and Linux just can't do that. Don't know any pro who has ever spent a lot of time on it, or has any interest in doing so.

Go ask your local mechanic if he wants to learn all about how to fix a Ferrari, or a Studebaker. There are people making money doing so, and people who will pay to have this done, but it's not useful "for the most part". Not that many multi-million dollar data farms around where I live, nor, "for the most part" in the rest of the world.

If you can not understand that no one cares how fast a registry scan runs, but they DO care how fast their database, e-mail, accounting program, scheduling system, or photo and video systems run, I'm not sure how to explain it to you.

Raid failures - multiple controller hardware failures, often requiring replacement with exact specs, causing downtime. Software failures downing entire array fairly rare, but total data loss. Incompatibility problems not noted by manufacture not real common, but can cause non-obvious failure modes and intermittant, hard-to-trace issues, with only one tech dept having the actual answer. Raid-0 starts with twice the chance of HD failure, plus twice the probability of data loss from bad sectors, plus much higher chance of partition or other low-level errors as the system is much more complex, for somewhat higher read times and almost always slower write times, also problems with drives often needing to be precisely matched down to the batch of the model number. i could explain to you my Novell nightmare but you probably never heard of them, or what a CNA is, either. I stopped investing my time with Novell for the same reason I never invested any in Linux. No money in it, unless I want to move to a very large city, and then very limited job opportunities. For the most part.

Go get on the phone and call some PC support outfits in your area, tell them you have a PC in a small business and want to install RAID-0, for the primary drive, and see what they say. Don't believe me, make the friggin call. Call 4 or 5, get some information outside of your experience. Tell me how many Linux systems you see pre-installed on new PC's, below $10,000, for sale. Go on, I'll wait. I have to run to my imaginary bank to deposit some imaginary checks, anyway, but you know what? I will be laughing for real at a bunch of wannabes that don't know, that they don't know.

[newpball]

Xenix, Novel.......

Someone has been living under a rock for 30 years?

It starts to reach embarrassing levels.

[racer-x]

Boy, I'm glad I'm just a happy idiot playing with toys, instead of a miserable SOB claiming to know more than everyone else.

Get over it, it's not worth blowing a gasket.

[hello_hello]

If you can not understand that no one cares how fast a registry scan runs, but they DO care how fast their database, e-mail, accounting program, scheduling system, or photo and video systems run, I'm not sure how to explain it to you.

What I need to have explained is if the speed at which the registry can be "scanned" doesn't matter, why are unnecessary/obsolete registry entries blamed for slowing performance? Both Cornucopia and yourself included "accumulated debris" in the registry as a reason for slowdowns. I seriously doubt they make the slightest difference. How do obsolete registry entries slow down a database, e-mail, accounting program, scheduling system, or photo and video system?

Raid failures - multiple controller hardware failures, often requiring replacement with exact specs, causing downtime. Software failures downing entire array fairly rare, but total data loss. Incompatibility problems not noted by manufacture not real common, but can cause non-obvious failure modes and intermittant, hard-to-trace issues, with only one tech dept having the actual answer.

Most people would probably use the RAID capabilities built into their motherboard when running RAID in a home PC. Maybe even when using their personal PC for business. If your MB dies you're probably not going to be able to use the existing RAID volume with a different MB/controller any more than you can connect a single drive containing Windows to a different MB and expect it to boot. That's why you backup data files and create images whether you run a single drive or RAID.

Raid-0 starts with twice the chance of HD failure, plus twice the probability of data loss from bad sectors, plus much higher chance of partition or other low-level errors as the system is much more complex, for somewhat higher read times and almost always slower write times, also problems with drives often needing to be precisely matched down to the batch of the model number.

I've been using RAID-0 almost since motherboard controllers started implementing it. Early controllers weren't always super fast, but still pretty reliable. Over the last ten years I've mostly used Intel Matrix RAID and it's been 100% reliable running RAID-0. You don't need to use disks of the same size, brand or model. I generally use drives of an equal size, create a single RAID-0 volume and partition it, but you can do fun stuff like creating a RAID partition on a group of drives running as a RAID-1 volume, then create a second RAID partition on the same group of drives running as RAID-0. The best of both worlds.

When running two drives as RAID-0, both read and write speeds for large files are about twice those of a single drive.
According to the HDTune benchmark I just ran on the pair of 1TB WD Black drives running as a RAID-0 volume in this PC, the transfer rate was 250MB/s max, 101MB/s min and 188MB/s average. A single 2TB Hitachi drive (pre AF drive) benchmarks at 123MB/s max, 49MB/s min and 93MB/s average.

I bought a pair of Seagate drives years ago and both failed within weeks, but aside from that pair I've not had any drives running as a RAID-0 volume fail on me yet. I've replaced some to increase capacity but so far I've not had a RAID-0 volume fail. It'll no doubt happen one day just as it would running a single drive, but drives usually either die fairly early or they outlast their warranty so after a month or two of use I stop worrying about any increased chance of failure and enjoy the speed. The WD Black drives have a 5 year warranty.

Go get on the phone and call some PC support outfits in your area, tell them you have a PC in a small business and want to install RAID-0, for the primary drive, and see what they say.

I couldn't car less what they say, because I've been running drives that way for years. My imaging software runs from within Windows and that includes a BartPe boot disc if need be (it's old software and won't image the Windows partition it's running on). Once a RAID volume is created Windows sees it as a single drive/partition and so too does any software running on Windows, including imaging software. I can install Windows and programs on a single drive/partition, image it, and from there I could add more drives to the PC, use them to create a single RAID-0 volume and restore that image to it. The sky's the limit. Well 6 drives as a single volume is the limit for the controller in this PC, but likewise I can image a RAID partition and restore it to a single drive in a pinch. An image can set you free.

[johns0]

Hey guys,just stay to the thread subject about making backups.

[Nelson37]

I offered a way to independently verify what I am telling you with professionals who make a living doing it the right way, and your statement is you don't need to do that, because it works for you. Great. Have at it. You are bitching at me, accusing me of saying I know more than you do, which is true but I didn't say it, yet you are actually afraid to make a phone call or three, to totally independent techs, to verify feasibility.

This is why fanboys do not make good technicians. They simply do not understand that making something work once, they way they do it, is not a sufficient justification to say that many, most, or all should achieve the same results.

You can find dozens if not hundreds of problems I have solved, right here on this board. Strange, haven't seen you geniuses very often doing that. More often lately, I find myself wondering why I bother. I got a lot of good info from this place a long time ago, so I figure to pay back with what I can do. The dumbass quotient is just getting to high, and I realize I just don't give a shit anymore.

Recent post in computer section about a virus removal. I know what he needs to do, and posted guidelines Long ago that would solve his problem. But, I have decided I will let the fanboys handle such things from now on.

You're up. Go fix it. Impress all here with your skills and abilities. I'm done.

[racer-x]

Yes and if that guy had a previously made system image, he would have fixed his PC long ago. That's a perfect example of why imaging an OS is a good idea. Maybe he'll read this thread and will learn from it.

@ Nelson37, I don't normally post in the computer section, this poll just happens to be there. I have read some of your posts in the past and I think you know your stuff very well. However you shouldn't under estimate other people's abilities just because your view is different.

[hello_hello]

Nelson37,
You stated creating images is a complete waste of time. That might be true for the computers you maintain but it's certainly not true for everyone. I can't imagine why you wouldn't image the OS partition immediately after installing Windows and running Windows update even if you don't want to image it with programs installed. How could restoring that image not be easier than installing Windows from scratch again, if that's what's required?

It ain't rocket science. RAID-0 increases the chance of failure compared to a single drive. The more drives you use in a volume, the greater the probability it'll fail. Nobody is arguing. It's a fact. It's been acknowledged a couple of times. Why keep arguing about it when nobody has disagreed? Why keep arguing about it as though it's been suggested RAID-0 is the only choice? I've already pointed out the Intel controller would let you create a RAID-1 partition using a pair of hard drives and their remaining capacity could be used for a second, RAID-0 partition if you like. Whatever your particular level of paranoia allows in combination with an ability to backup files and/or image your OS partition..... or not as the case may be. Connect as many drives a you like and run whatever configuration you prefer. It's personal choice.

I've no doubt so called professionals would generally recommend not using RAID-0 due to the greater risk of failure, especially for installing an OS. You're not telling me anything I don't know, yet I tested RAID-0 myself a long time ago and within minutes decided I'd probably never own a PC with a single hard drive again. I haven't just made it work once, I've used nothing but RAID-0 volumes in PCs for at least 10 years. I'm not accusing you of anything, but I'm not about to take something as gospel based solely on anecdotal evidence, especially when simple questions such as the reason for obsolete registry entries decreasing performance remain ignored.

I've spent more than my fair share of time fixing computer problems and helping others to solve theirs in (other) forums but I'm over it and don't have much interest in it any more. That's largely due to every computer forum having at least one self proclaimed expert who knows everything and won't listen to anyone. https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/372240-Win8-1-Wireless-Problems?p=2393866&viewfull=1#post2393866

[Clockwork]

Just to be sure, nobody here is suggesting that RAID of any kind is a backup...right?

[hello_hello]

Just to be sure, nobody here is suggesting that RAID of any kind is a backup...right?

It can be used for backing up as long as you use one of the RAID levels that can recover from a drive failure. RAID-1 is like using a single drive with a "mirror" drive duplicating the first. RAID-5 requires at least 3 drives but includes error correction to recover from the failure of a single drive. I can't remember how RAID-10 works exactly but it's something along the lines of RAID-1 combined with RAID-0 and requires at least four drives (I think). They're the failure tolerant levels most commonly supported by MB controllers, as far as I know. Standalone RAID network storage would no doubt support other RAID levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels#Comparison

[newpball]

Raid 1 is duplication, a good thing but it's not a backup.

A backup is a snapshot copy of the data and putting it somewhere else!

[hello_hello]

If you backup files to a hard drive and want to ensure they won't be lost, you need to put them on more than one drive. Two drives would be reasonably safe. The more the merrier, although I suspect the chances of a "duplicate" drive failing after the first drive fails, but before the first drive can be replaced, would be fairly low. RAID-1 would automate the process of duplicating files using more than one drive, which sounds like the definition of creating a backup copy to me.

[cornemuse]

Xenix, Novel.......

Xanax! Nembutal!

-c-!

[Clockwork]

RAID-1 would automate the process of duplicating files using more than one drive, which sounds like the definition of creating a backup copy to me.

Uhhh....no.

File corruption or accidental file deletion is mirrored to the other RAID drives. There's no backup to go back to.


Honestly, most home users running RAID without backup are "doing it wrong".
RAID for POS machines is essential. For home users, an SSD should take care of 99% of cases.

The other 1% of benchmarking, neurotic, hardware nerds and assorted shut-ins...yeah, sure...use RAID setups if it makes you feel better.

[Constant Gardener]

I back up the most-used computer about once a month, but my real strategy is to have multiple copies of important stuff in many locations. Different machines, different media, different sites.

My up-to-date system-disk backup proved rather useless last week when my seven-year-old motherboard died. Bought a new one. I figured it was time to a clean install of Win8 and update it to 8.1 - and not install any software that's been unused for years.

[hello_hello]

RAID-1 would automate the process of duplicating files using more than one drive, which sounds like the definition of creating a backup copy to me.

Uhhh....no.

File corruption or accidental file deletion is mirrored to the other RAID drives. There's no backup to go back to.

I think it's just arguing the semantics of what constitutes a backup. If my files live on my PC's drive and I back them up to an external drive are they not backed up unless it's a single drive? All backup methods are some sort of compromise between convenience and reliability. Short of saving files to a medium that can't be erased and storing the backups offsite in a bunker capable of surviving a nuclear strike there's no guarantee there'll always be a backup to go back to.

Honestly, most home users running RAID without backup are "doing it wrong".
RAID for POS machines is essential. For home users, an SSD should take care of 99% of cases.

I run RAID at home and I backup. Who's claimed they don't backup or don't need to?
I've got 4TBs of hard drives in this PC, currently with a combined total of about 30% free space. Lots of large files that'll eventually be moved to external drives and replaced with more large files that'll eventually be replaced with large files too. SSDs aren't cheap enough yet.

The other 1% of benchmarking, neurotic, hardware nerds and assorted shut-ins...yeah, sure...use RAID setups if it makes you feel better.

Seriously? A recommendation to use a SSD followed by that? Why wouldn't benchmarking, neurotic, hardware nerds and assorted shut-ins prefer to use SSDs if they're faster? You're not making sense.

[Clockwork]

I run RAID at home and I backup. Who's claimed they don't backup or don't need to?

I'm not suggesting you made the claim, although you're saying that RAID is a form of backup.
I'm saying that I see all too frequently advice that having RAID1...is good enough.

[Clockwork]

Seriously? A recommendation to use a SSD followed by that? Why wouldn't benchmarking, neurotic, hardware nerds and assorted shut-ins prefer to use SSDs if they're faster? You're not making sense.

Are you having a separate conversation? Who's saying to not use SSD's?

I'm saying that Junior setting up a dual SSD RAID-0 for Mom is going to make Mom angry when one of her Facebook friends sends her a malicious link that hoses her computer (encryption drive-locking malware and such)....and she has no recourse to turn back events to a computer in a usable state.

Rule should be:

Firstly, back up entire drive or important files using a backup scheme of your choice and a schedule that suits your convenience.
Secondly, see if adding a RAID setup can improve performance beyond what an SSD upgrade can provide.

...in that order.

[hello_hello]

Seriously? A recommendation to use a SSD followed by that? Why wouldn't benchmarking, neurotic, hardware nerds and assorted shut-ins prefer to use SSDs if they're faster? You're not making sense.

Are you having a separate conversation? Who's saying to not use SSD's?

Nobody's been referring to running SSD's in a RAID configuration here. At least I haven't.
For me the assumption's always been we're talking about running mechanical drives in a RAID configuration when SSD's can't provide enough capacity but "better than single HDD performance" is desired.

When I build a new PC soon I'm toying with the idea of a SSD for installing the OS and a RAID-0 configuration or two for moving large files arouund. Until now I've creating a small partition on the RAID-0 volume for installing Windows and programs and the remainder is used for files. The small partition is the one I image. I'm still not sure I need the speed of a SSD for running the OS as I tend to boot the PC, open all the regularly used programs and leave it running for days at a time. I might give one a try though. If it doesn't excite me much I can always put it in an older PC used as a media player so it'll boot much faster.