or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Additional file recovery tools appear in Apple's Leopard
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Additional file recovery tools appear in Apple's Leopard - Page 3

post #81 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiopollution

Here's what I'd like, since I'm using my MBP (on the road) far more than my desktop Mac right now:

An Expresscard/34 flash memory card.
30+ Gig. (Yeah, yeah ... expensive)

It would be perfect, though, as I could just leave it in the laptop all the time and have Time Machine backup my most important data to it. Saves me from carting around a small external HD, too.

The prices of flash memory seems to be dropping quicker than I expected, so it may not be too far away. The current price of four gig cards is what I swear I've seen of one gig cards last year. It's not a substitute for an off-system backup though, if someone steals your computer, they took the system and the backup.
post #82 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

The prices of flash memory seems to be dropping quicker than I expected, so it may not be too far away. The current price of four gig cards is what I swear I've seen of one gig cards last year.

I'd be willing to pay a good price for a 32 Gig card. I would then absolutely avoid looking at the falling prices as the months passed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

It's not a substitute for an off-system backup though, if someone steals your computer, they took the system and the backup.

Of course. My main concern isn't for an off-site backup, though, as I can deal with that when I get home with the laptop and backup to one of my external drives. I like my idea of a flash-based Expresscard solution as it provides for a Time Machine backup that would be constantly available wherever I am without relying on saving the data to a partition on the internal HD. The added bonus is that, being flash-based, I don't have to worry about the data being lost due to excessive shock/failed HD mechanisms/etc.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #83 of 97
A few weeks ago, there was a discussion about an Apple external hard drive and I think this discussion goes to prove something is needed in this area. To me the field is ripe for the leap that the iPod did for music players. I dont know how exactly, if I did I make more money than I do now but I do see a vacuum in the arena.
Report employers of illegal aliens at (866) DHS-2ICE
Reply
Report employers of illegal aliens at (866) DHS-2ICE
Reply
post #84 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core

You have to be kidding.

When a police officer calls for back up, it is because he or she is in harms way. In no case would a call for back up be made for a routine traffic stop.

What is meant by back up is the complete system. Everything included. Not just text files or your favorite pics or tunes. But programs, operating systems, preferences, etc. Companies, major or minor, programmers, ad agencies, media publications, etc., do it all the time. Drive crashes, load up from the backup and you're set to go in minutes.

Everytime I walk out the door with my laptop, I take a copy of every important thing that I did since the last scheduled back up and put it on a key. Key is in my pocket and if the data is extremely sensitive I push a copy on to an external server. But they are still copies. The back up is secured much tighter. Offsite. Under lock and key. Ready to download in the god-forbidden case that I trip over my machine in the pub and have to replace the hard drive or simply retrieve any files that I may inadvertantly deleted.

Upside, if my drive crashes and I have to reinstall, it is a lot simpler and faster to get back to work.

So what is missing? Besides the fact that I am only backing up incrementally now, the chances are that I don't really have a current bootable drive. Sure it has all the old stuff, but to make it work, I would still have to install an OS before I upload from the backup.

From our understanding of Time Machine, it appears that if your drive dies, you get it replaced and you are right back to where you were. Obvious if you have Time Machine set to only work at midnight, you will have lost any input that you made since.

So, if I don't have to install a new system first, update drivers, install programs, set passwords and/or update preferences, a few minutes after hooking up the backup, I am on my way back to the pub, while a poor undergrad sweats all night reallizing the he may still have to retype his thesis because I also fell on top of his backpack when I tripped over mine. I of course could help him, but hey, I am not a student.

In closing, Apple again has done its homework. Research. Innovation. Service. Support.

You could say, there just may be no better backup to have.

Well, you are overdoing it. No police are involved. This is a computer, not a shooting.

In fact, for years, people were advised to just backup their data, and possibly, their passwords, and such. With OS X the Home folder.

I do back up everything. But, you are going for the most disasterous route when you talk about a crash. It is rarely that bad. Many times over the years I've had a partition go down with the other ones still working fine. That's the normal situation. I'm not the only one.

If we are talking convenience, then everything should always be backed up.

If you have been reading my other posts, not just the ones to you, you will see what I'm recommending. But how many people will do the completely correct thing? Do you?

For a business, a complete backup is required. For most users, it would be very nice to do so.

In a college situation, if you can back up to their network, then by all means, do so.

But you seem to be ignoring my points here, even though you seemed to be startled when I mentioned external drives not being carried around. That is, the very fact that I would even mention them. The fact that no one is going to carry one around, unless they are completely anal, means that there will be some long times between that network backup.

Please don't try to tell us that college students are going to run to the nearest node and backup. You know they aren't.

If they aren't hurrying to their next class, they are hurrying to the pub for their next beer. Backup will just have to wait.

Having that other partition to use meanwhile is a good idea, just as long as they don't make it their only idea.

If you think I'm ADVOCATING that, you are sorely mistaken.
post #85 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

I like it. It is Universal. A simple "get info" shows this.

I didn't check before I posted that.


Quote:
For something like that, is a separate partition even necessary? I have several pieces of software that keep the previous version of a file as backups, either in the same directory or in a pre-determined backup directory of the user's choice.

I think Time Machine would work for a seperate partition, but it won't work on the same one.
post #86 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

That external hd is just as likely to fail as your internal one, though likely it will also be due to corruption, rather than to an actual hd failure, allowing you to reformat it.

Whatever's causing corruption can be a sign of more severe impending drive failure. For me any number of disk I/O errors is enough reason to be concerned about a drive's condition. I'll replace internal drives with "too many" bad sectors that SMART monitoring still considers healthy. Even if reformatting could "save" them it's not worth risking future data-corrupting failures (of any kind). And I occasionally run media scans on internal/external drives to check their integrity.

Quote:
I didn't check before I posted that.

It surprised me that you wouldn't know SuperDuper! was Universal by now and that you didn't check.

Quote:
I think Time Machine would work for a seperate partition, but it won't work on the same one.

AFAIK Time Machine will require a dedicated volume. Not sure if that could be a mounted disk image, like SuperDuper! is capable of using. I'm curious about TM's functionality with multiple source/destination volumes/drives, e.g. in this kind of scenario:

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiopollution

My main concern isn't for an off-site backup, though, as I can deal with that when I get home with the laptop and backup to one of my external drives. I like my idea of a flash-based Expresscard solution as it provides for a Time Machine backup that would be constantly available wherever I am without relying on saving the data to a partition on the internal HD.

Will TM support backing up the laptop's internal volume to the hypothetical flash-based card while on the go and to the external drive volume when at home? Could different TM backups synchronize with each other?

In the tradition of Apple-like simplicity I suspect TM will impose some relatively conservative usage constraints that more "demanding" users will find too inflexible for their purposes. I'm hoping it'll conveniently (and reliably, of course) provide incremental backup/restore capabilities that supplement SuperDuper! "disaster recovery" clones which don't have that level of granularity. TM definitely has to prove it's serious about quality/integrity, especially compared with Backup, or I won't trust or use it.
post #87 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk

Will TM support backing up the laptop's internal volume to the hypothetical flash-based card while on the go and to the external drive volume when at home? Could different TM backups synchronize with each other?

I'm not certain about that. Luckily, I'm in a position where I have plenty of external storage to do full backups (using Superduper, or the like) when I'm at home. Having a Time Machine backup with me at all times is just secondary insurance on my mail, contacts, new photos, etc.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #88 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk

Whatever's causing corruption can be a sign of more severe impending drive failure. For me any number of disk I/O errors is enough reason to be concerned about a drive's condition. I'll replace internal drives with "too many" bad sectors that SMART monitoring still considers healthy. Even if reformatting could "save" them it's not worth risking future data-corrupting failures (of any kind). And I occasionally run media scans on internal/external drives to check their integrity.

You're assuming that the corruption is being caused by bad sectors, which is rarely the problem. If it is the problem, then, of course it should be replaced. But meanwhile your backups will have been saved on the other partition, which can now be added to your new drive.

Quote:
It surprised me that you wouldn't know SuperDuper! was Universal by now and that you didn't check.

I have it in my utilities folder. But, as I'm still using my dual G5, until I get my Mac Pro in January, I hadn't bothered to check.

Quote:
AFAIK Time Machine will require a dedicated volume. Not sure if that could be a mounted disk image, like SuperDuper! is capable of using. I'm curious about TM's functionality with multiple source/destination volumes/drives, e.g. in this kind of scenario:


Will TM support backing up the laptop's internal volume to the hypothetical flash-based card while on the go and to the external drive volume when at home? Could different TM backups synchronize with each other?

In the tradition of Apple-like simplicity I suspect TM will impose some relatively conservative usage constraints that more "demanding" users will find too inflexible for their purposes. I'm hoping it'll conveniently (and reliably, of course) provide incremental backup/restore capabilities that supplement SuperDuper! "disaster recovery" clones which don't have that level of granularity. TM definitely has to prove it's serious about quality/integrity, especially compared with Backup, or I won't trust or use it.

It's an interesting question. Perhaps when external drives are changed, it will again ask if you want that drive to be used for backup.
post #89 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

You're assuming that the corruption is being caused by bad sectors, which is rarely the problem.

What other causes of corruption has your data been a victim of? Maybe your definition includes things I'm excluding (e.g. "rogue" software damage)? I know there's potential though it seems I'm fortunate mine never gets corrupted unless it's hardware-related (an infrequent occurrence). Any other causes have been even less than "rarely the problem" for me.

Quote:
But meanwhile your backups will have been saved on the other partition, which can now be added to your new drive.

Sure, if damage is isolated to a non-backup volume.

Anyway, everyone can agree there are different kinds of failures that can occur at different frequencies. And different backup strategies will adequately prepare (or not) for those failures, or even unnecessary for those who have nothing to lose.

If they care enough I encourage my friends to learn basic concepts of backups, without overly technical details, so they might better understand what's important for them and be able to choose and use appropriate tools from sensible recommendations. Frankly, some people will stubbornly accept "catastrophic" data lossage rather than take responsibility to minimize it regardless of any warnings or even after being a victim of it. One friend lost about ten years of personal data, yet that wasn't enough to convince her of the importance of backups. Foolish to me but it's that person's choice.

Quote:
But, as I'm still using my dual G5, until I get my Mac Pro in January, I hadn't bothered to check.

I don't have any Intel Macs yet and haven't even been to the Apple Store here to see 'em lest I be tempted before I can afford to upgrade. I guess the sysadmin in me is curious enough to know which apps I've installed are Universal.

Quote:
Perhaps when external drives are changed, it will again ask if you want that drive to be used for backup.

TM will have to somehow handle the case of attempting to use different drives/volumes for backups on the same or different systems. Hopefully it's possible to expand the allocated space that still allows older data to be preserved/restored. A simple method would reinitialize TM's state when backup space is added or modified, starting from scratch without saving preexisting backup data/history. The option to non-destructively expanding backup space if necessarily would be more ideal, along with the ability to intelligently prune that space over time.
post #90 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk

What other causes of corruption has your data been a victim of? Maybe your definition includes things I'm excluding (e.g. "rogue" software damage)? I know there's potential though it seems I'm fortunate mine never gets corrupted unless it's hardware-related (an infrequent occurrence). Any other causes have been even less than "rarely the problem" for me.

Sometimes an app will freeze, or shut down. Or sometimes there will be a degradation in service. Various problems. It's rare, but these things have happened over the years. I will check the disks and find problems, they get fixed. I may never have a problem with that drive again. It's just that I've had so many drives over the years, and at any one time, that something is bound to happen.

But, I've only had four drives actually fail over the years. Everything else has been corruption of the drive from one software problem or another. Boot sectors, trees, etc. These problems can, and do, happen without a physical problem being present. They are "soft" errors, not duplicable.

You may think your drive is operating well, but if you check it, occasionally, you will find something wrong.

Quote:
Sure, if damage is isolated to a non-backup volume.

And it almost always is.

Quote:
Anyway, everyone can agree there are different kinds of failures that can occur at different frequencies. And different backup strategies will adequately prepare (or not) for those failures, or even unnecessary for those who have nothing to lose.

I agree completely. And I've recommended several strategies here. You and a couple of others keep harping on the one that I've said is the least effective over the long term.

Quote:
If they care enough I encourage my friends to learn basic concepts of backups, without overly technical details, so they might better understand what's important for them and be able to choose and use appropriate tools from sensible recommendations. Frankly, some people will stubbornly accept "catastrophic" data lossage rather than take responsibility to minimize it regardless of any warnings or even after being a victim of it. One friend lost about ten years of personal data, yet that wasn't enough to convince her of the importance of backups. Foolish to me but it's that person's choice.

Precisely. I'll quote from your above paragraph again: "If they care enough". Those are the people who won't do what is required to back their drive up at all. What I've been saying is that those people might be convinced to do something, if it is really simple, and doesn't involve buying anything. For those incorrigible individuals, using another partition might be the only thing they will do. As I said, not great, but better than nothing.

Telling them not to do that, then, is the same as telling them to do nothing at all. If you think that is better, fine.

Quote:
I don't have any Intel Macs yet and haven't even been to the Apple Store here to see 'em lest I be tempted before I can afford to upgrade. I guess the sysadmin in me is curious enough to know which apps I've installed are Universal.

I have at least a hundred apps. I upgrade, and update them all of the time. I really don't care if every single one is universal or not right now. I will find out soon enough when I get my new machine,

Quote:
TM will have to somehow handle the case of attempting to use different drives/volumes for backups on the same or different systems. Hopefully it's possible to expand the allocated space that still allows older data to be preserved/restored. A simple method would reinitialize TM's state when backup space is added or modified, starting from scratch without saving preexisting backup data/history. The option to non-destructively expanding backup space if necessarily would be more ideal, along with the ability to intelligently prune that space over time.

I hope for a lot of things from TM, but this is a first iteration. If they just get it to work reliably this first time, I'll be happy, and wait for the next upgrade, just hoping that it won't have to wait for 10.6
post #91 of 97
Just a short acknowledgment reply to close the discussion that everyone else has abandoned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

I will check the disks and find problems, they get fixed. I may never have a problem with that drive again.

You're right; there are filesystem problems that fsck can repair (or at least find, if irreparable). How silly of me to forget those.

Quote:
What I've been saying is that those people might be convinced to do something, if it is really simple, and doesn't involve buying anything. For those incorrigible individuals, using another partition might be the only thing they will do. As I said, not great, but better than nothing.

Even running "File > Create Archive of " to archive important folders on the same volume is better than nothing, which I've recommended to a few people I knew wouldn't do anything more. That could have been useful for one friend who irrecoverably trashed/deleted his entire ~/Documents folder (doh!), an incident which helped me convince him to run SuperDuper!.
post #92 of 97
There still is no backup system that actually does anything logical, IMO.

I was restoring with Apple's Backup, a whole disk that I reformatted to fix some directory corruption that Disk Utility could not repair. I had told Backup to back up most of the contents of the volume, and it did so.

When I went to Restore, it knew where to restore the Home folder to - so far so good. But it seemed not to know where to restore the items that I backed up from /Applications (third-party apps) and the Utilities folder, and a few from /Library, even though that is where it got them from. It insisted on restoring those to a separate folder, from which I had to drag them into their proper places. If I am going to drag-restore, I might as well have just dragged the items onto the backup volume in the first place.

Backup also doesn't have any way to start deleting the oldest backup file when it is getting short on disk space - it will just fail, saying there isn't enough room. I don't know anyone who would prefer to have a backup from 30 days ago rather than one from last night, but that is what it does.

Then there is the age-old problem of where to run the Restore function from - the backup volume has no OS. So you have to install the new OS and then install Backup onto it (dragging the app there does not work). Where do you get this Backup installer from? Dot-mac, of course, which means you generate prefs files for Safari and everything else, which get overwritten with the copies that you backed up. But... so does Backup's pref file, so when it finishes and goes to write to it, blammo.

So anything that can make it turn-key for the average user would be a godsend. TM is very easy for restoring individual files or folders, but I don't see how it would be straightforward to restore an entire corrupted disk - maybe they figured this out.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #93 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk

Just a short acknowledgment reply to close the discussion that everyone else has abandoned.

I forgot to mention that just lost a hard drive this week. It looks like a total failure. I managed to get it running long enough to freshen my backups before it completely quit a few hours later. This is one of the very rare times that I had to use my backups, but it was well worth having them just for that. I also used it some times just to upgrade hard drives or rearrange partitions.

Now I have to go through the drive maker's warranty system to get a new drive.
post #94 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

I forgot to mention that just lost a hard drive this week. It looks like a total failure. I managed to get it running long enough to freshen my backups before it completely quit a few hours later. This is one of the very rare times that I had to use my backups, but it was well worth having them just for that. I also used it some times just to upgrade hard drives or rearrange partitions.

Now I have to go through the drive maker's warranty system to get a new drive.

I've just thrown them out. With the prices of drives these days, the hassle usually isn't worth it. And, mostly, the failed drive is some well used, old, small, and slow model. If you get the same as a replacement, it often isn't worth the trouble.
post #95 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

I've just thrown them out. With the prices of drives these days, the hassle usually isn't worth it. And, mostly, the failed drive is some well used, old, small, and slow model. If you get the same as a replacement, it often isn't worth the trouble.


It's a three month old, 400GB SATA hard drive, still worth nearly $200 new. I can't afford to just throw it out.
post #96 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

It's a three month old, 400GB SATA hard drive, still worth nearly $200 new. I can't afford to just throw it out.

Well, sorry you got a lemon. It's unusual these days.
post #97 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

Well, sorry you got a lemon. It's unusual these days.

It's unusual, but it does happen. I really don't take my chances, it'll take the loss of three more drives to lose real data.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Additional file recovery tools appear in Apple's Leopard