Currently Being ModeratedMay 4, 2011 8:10 PM (in response to Doug_S)
I'd love to hear what you guys think.
I think that what you're proposing to do isn't really a backup solution and shouldn't be confused with one. If all you want is redundancy in your storage devices, you'd be much better off with RAID level 1, which isn't a backup either. It's not clear why you don't like the idea of RAID. It will give you some protection from a drive failure. It will give you no protection at all from unwanted changes to files, and neither will your disk-synching idea, which is essentially the same thing implemented at the application level rather than the driver level.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 4, 2011 8:17 PM (in response to Doug_S)
I tend to agree with your opinion of RAID and not Linc's. I think you are correct to avoid it. There are many pitfalls in setting it up properly.
Personally what I do is to use both SuperDuper and TimeMachine. I feel that using both at the same time seems to get me good protection. I know I have been able to recover everything that I have had to so far.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 4, 2011 10:02 PM (in response to Linc Davis)
True, it's not technically backup in the traditional sense. What I'm looking for is data protection and redundancy, which is a factor of backups. So in that sense it kind of is, but I see your point.
Anyway, the reason I'm avoiding RAID is because:
1. It can be a pain to manage.
2. It's horribly inflexible.
3. It's protection is limited.
4. It brings it's own set of hazards.
5. RAID arrays can be very expensive once they start getting complex.
I will likely end up going RAID partially in the end simply because I have a 2 TB external and it's filling fast. I can grab a 3 TB now but I've heard reliability issues so instead I'm thinking two 4TB (2x2TB) RAID0 arrays that I sync.
This gives me the benefit of RAID in a simple form, which bypasses the larger array complexities, while leaving me still fully protected and highly flexible. It also doesn't have the inherent risks of RAID because if one of the arrays goes down it will in no way effect the other.
Honestly, I'm not worried about file changes. At all. I'm the only one who's touching the files (well, not true, but everyone else only has read-access). I also tend to not delete things (which is why I have a 2 TB drive that's filling fast). Expansion is my main concern and RAID expansion can be a nightmare unless you go for some of the more expensive systems that are easier to manage. With ease of management comes a hefty price.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 4, 2011 10:07 PM (in response to Allan Eckert)
Whatever I do Time Machine will still be used if only because I like the versioning you get as an added bonus. I have yet to use it to restore my system but I have, on more than one occasion, used it to recover a PSD I've saved over.
I was a bit concerne that SuperDuper hasn't been updated for a while but it seems the dev is still rather active on the project, which is my concern.
I need to look into this all a bit more. Mostly I'm wondering if jumping to a 3 TB would be enough to solve my space issues and whether they're reliable enough. The last thing I need is to buy two 3 TB drives and have them fail a few weeks after I get rid of my other copies.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 4, 2011 10:15 PM (in response to Doug_S)
I use a 1 TB Time Capsule with Time Machine which does a backup very hour.
I also use Super Duper with a 1 TB LaCie S+ARCK USB Desktop Hard Drive.
I am glad I had both when my Time Capsule overheated and had to be replaced.
Apple replaced it and transferred al of my information onto the new TC for free.
The new TC gives me more information than before when backing up.
This works fine for me.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 4, 2011 10:18 PM (in response to Doug_S)
I'm using CCC, Carbon Copy Cloner to make bootable clone backup.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 4, 2011 11:48 PM (in response to Doug_S)
Let me chime in for support of a RAID. I use a RAID and I am very happy with it. I use an older version of this http://eshop.macsales.com/item/NewerTech/GM8Q7H20T128/ and it has been running for at least a year without any problems. I use it as my Documents folder on my iMac. It is connected via Firewire 800. I also have a Drobo, but I use it only for Time Machine backups.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 5, 2011 12:05 AM (in response to Stanley Horwitz)
I was actually just looking at OWC's Qx2 with the idea in mind of dropping a couple Samsugn 2 TB drives in and RAID10 it. Mostly because it's looking like I can't get what I'd like out of having two separate drives short of copying and pasting from one drive to the other.
is there a reason you don't use the Drobo for anything other than Time Machine? I've actually been debating a Drobo simply because of the ease of use (I don't need the speed benefits of RAID) but I've heard mixed things about reliability.
This is the problem I'm hyper-paranoid because I've lost drives in the past. Right now I have one 2 TB drive just sitting on my desk. If anything happened all of that date would be gone. It needs to be improved but if I'm going to do that I want to know that that the changes of data loss go from likely to highly improbable. It's tech, there is no 100% guarantee. But I'd like a 99.999%.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 5, 2011 3:47 AM (in response to Doug_S)
As others have said, a RAID (or DROBO) as your primary storage is NOT a substitute for backing up your data. I bought my RAID array at least one year prior to my DROBO. At the time I bought my RAID array, 1TB drives were the largest capacity disks. I put two of them in and RAIDed them. Works great. Neither of those disks have failed.
In my DROBO, I have two 1.5TB disks. One of those failed about six months ago. Replacing it was a smooth process, but the process to rebuild the data was slow (like around 30 hours ish) if I remember correctly. I use my DROBO for backups because it is the only way I can double the capacity of my RAID array affordably. I also find that the DROBO is a little too slow for my taste for use as a primary storage device. The rule of thumb for Time Machine is that your TM machine drive is at least as big as your primary storage. I don't quite meet that rule now because I also use my DROBO to back up my iMac's boot disk, in addition to my iMac's RAID array, but I also use it to back up my MacBook Pro via wi-fi. I like my DROBO because it offers me the ability to grow my storage easily. It has two vacant slots where I can pop in a pair of new disk drives. For backups, I don't much care that it is slow. A full backup of my RAID and iMac's boot drive takes three days, but it works. I am not a power user, but I suspect if I used it for primary storage, I would find it too slow.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 5, 2011 6:27 AM (in response to Doug_S)
The best way to protect your data is to back it up using multiple Different methods. That way a flaw in one methodology should not affect the others.
SuperDuper or Carbon Copy Cloner are good choices for creating a full bootable clone. They can also be used to backup to a networked file system (not bootable, but still a copy of your data).
Time Machine is good for backing up your data on an hourly basis.
If you have an off-site storage area (at least for critical data) that is also a very good idea as that protects against theft, fire, floods, huricanes, tornados, etc...
If you are interested in rsync, then look more closely at Carbon Copy Cloner. It actually uses rsync, and if you want to roll your own rsync, then at least get the copy of rsync inside of CCC, as it is the most Mac compatible up-to-date rsync.
As for storage, as long as you have "Backup in Depth", then any collection of external disks is fine. I've got Drobos, iomega, G-Drive, and a bunch of misc generic drive enclosures with commodity disks inside. It is the "Backup in Depth" that counts, more than what you use as storage devices.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 5, 2011 9:50 AM (in response to Doug_S)
I very much agree with BobHarris: the most important thing is "Backup in Depth", that is, multiple backups in multiple locations. After experiencing catastrophic failure with RAID, I'll never use it again. Fortunately, at the point where it failed, I had one complete backup that was only about a week old, so overall loss wasn't horrible. I also don't trust software backup solutions, especially those that use proprietary file formats. Many years of storing and maintaining data has taught me (the hard way) that manual backups are the safest. I keep no data at all on my system drive, but only applications. That I do back up with SuperDuper and then check it for integrity. I also keep an external archive of application install DMGs along with their registration codes. As for data, I keep a minimum of four external drives for each type of data. Two are stored at home and the other two are stored separately off-site. I manually copy new and changed files to one drive and then replicate to the others. The process isn't automated at all, but it generally takes less than an hour each time I do it and I haven't lost any data in years.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 5, 2011 2:50 PM (in response to danegeld)
I'm starting to wonder if that wouldn't be the best solution. There's not much I actually care about protecting on my computers, it's mostly the stuff on my external I'm really concerned with. Dragging and dropping from one to the other would be a bit of a pain but it would definitely work.
It seems that when I try to add some level of automation is when it really becomes difficult.
What do you guys think about 3 TB HDDs? Specifically the Western Digital Green drives? I heard they, and all other 3 TB drives, had a high rate of failure when they first game out but it's been a year so I'm wondering if they're a bit safer now, as long as you don't rely on them to house the only copy of your data.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 6, 2011 12:30 AM (in response to Doug_S)
They'er, as well as 2T stuffs working fine as external and internal drives as far as I've been using.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 6, 2011 12:36 AM (in response to kaz-k)
Thanks for the feedback. I think what may be my best option, for now, is two 3TB HDDs in separate firewire enclosures and I'll just manually copy files from one to the other as necessary. It's not ideal but given how often I actually move files about it shouldn't be an issue.
Thanks everyone for the help!