Hello, 

There are other things to consider.  What would you do if the system disk failed? You would need an image backup of all system partitions on that disk in order to easily recover to a replacement disk.   2nd question?   Is your primary FOLDER backup repository on that same disk? In a different partition?  Will the frequency of full/diff/incr backups be suitable if you included the repository data in the image backup.  If repository is on another disk, how will you recover ALL the data on that disk in the event that second disk failst?     


L.W. (Dan) Danz, Overland Park KS
Reflect v8.1.7784+ on Windows 11 Home 23H2 22631.2715+  

+x

 

Dan Danz - 15 September 2023 9:20 PM

There are other things to consider.  What would you do if the system disk failed? You would need an image backup of all system partitions on that disk in order to easily recover to a replacement disk.   2nd question?   Is your primary FOLDER backup repository on that same disk? In a different partition?  Will the frequency of full/diff/incr backups be suitable if you included the repository data in the image backup.  If repository is on another disk, how will you recover ALL the data on that disk in the event that second disk failst?     

Thanks! I understand that the system recovery needs to be addressed as well. Just wanted to keep it simpler and limit the question to data backup.
I have data both on the system disk and two other disks. The backup repository (I guess that means the disk where the backup is stored, i.e. what I called primary backup disk) is a separate disk. Does this change the feasibility of my scenario?
I'm sorry I don't understand the question about frequency of backups, could you elaborate?
Also, the last question I don't understand. The primary backup would be used as the default backup if my data disk(s) failed. The secondary backup would be used for the purpose of the unlikely event that both the data disks and the primary backup disk failed at the same time.

One alternative option you can consider would be instead of designating a primary and secondary disk, just swap the two disks out periodically, so that the disk that is the destination of your backup job (what you're calling your "primary backup disk") alternates.  Thus, if you swap the disks every month, one disk would have backups from January, March, May, July, etc., while the second disk would have backups from February, April, June, August, etc.  One benefit of doing it this way is that the two backup disks would only be in the same location very briefly, and you would never have the source computer and both backup disks in the same location all at once.  Consider the consequences of something bad happening (ransomware attack, electrical surge, house fire, etc.) while you have the two disks and your computer in the same location, when you are transferring data from the "primary" to the "secondary" disk.

Some users do make a "secondary" copy of a "primary" Reflect backup, but my impression is that those users do not use Reflect for this purpose (instead using robocopy, syncthing, etc.).

                                

+x

 

JK - 15 September 2023 10:39 PM

One alternative option you can consider would be instead of designating a primary and secondary disk, just swap the two disks out periodically, so that the disk that is the destination of your backup job (what you're calling your "primary backup disk") alternates.  Thus, if you swap the disks every month, one disk would have backups from January, March, May, July, etc., while the second disk would have backups from February, April, June, August, etc.  One benefit of doing it this way is that the two backup disks would only be in the same location very briefly, and you would never have the source computer and both backup disks in the same location all at once.  Consider the consequences of something bad happening (ransomware attack, electrical surge, house fire, etc.) while you have the two disks and your computer in the same location, when you are transferring data from the "primary" to the "secondary" disk.

Some users do make a "secondary" copy of a "primary" Reflect backup, but my impression is that those users do not use Reflect for this purpose (instead using robocopy, syncthing, etc.).

I clone the repository disk monthly, but because the 4 disks {1 live, 3 in rotation} are BaraCuda SMR disks, the clone takes 6+ hours.  I like your scheme. It could use one BDF with alternate repository volumes scheduled to run every backup period,  rather than 3 different BDFs each with a different target,  scheduled to repeat run every 3 months. 


L.W. (Dan) Danz, Overland Park KS
Reflect v8.1.7784+ on Windows 11 Home 23H2 22631.2715+  

If you want to back up the entire contents of a disk or partition, make an image backup. You can still extract individual files and folders from it. The only exception would be if you had complex custom NTFS permissions in your data set, in which case a File & Folder backup can be easier to restore those. If you don't understand what I'm talking about here, then it won't apply to you. But if you only want to back up a subset of the data on a partition, then an F&F backup might be preferable. For a given amount of data, an image backup is typically much faster than File & Folder, fyi.

Reflect has a "directory synchronization" option if you choose to generate a PowerShell script from a definition file. That can be used to have Reflect replicate the main destination folder to a secondary location after the backup completes. Otherwise, there are certainly other ways to sync files across locations. And as noted above, you could alternatively have a destination rotation strategy.

+x

 

lakises - 15 September 2023 10:17 PM

+x

 

Dan Danz - 15 September 2023 9:20 PM

There are other things to consider.  What would you do if the system disk failed? You would need an image backup of all system partitions on that disk in order to easily recover to a replacement disk.   2nd question?   Is your primary FOLDER backup repository on that same disk? In a different partition?  Will the frequency of full/diff/incr backups be suitable if you included the repository data in the image backup.  If repository is on another disk, how will you recover ALL the data on that disk in the event that second disk failst?     

Thanks! I understand that the system recovery needs to be addressed as well. Just wanted to keep it simpler and limit the question to data backup.
I have data both on the system disk and two other disks. The backup repository (I guess that means the disk where the backup is stored, i.e. what I called primary backup disk) is a separate disk. Does this change the feasibility of my scenario?
I'm sorry I don't understand the question about frequency of backups, could you elaborate?
Also, the last question I don't understand. The primary backup would be used as the default backup if my data disk(s) failed. The secondary backup would be used for the purpose of the unlikely event that both the data disks and the primary backup disk failed at the same time.

Yes the repository is where you store backups.

Some users backup the critical system partitions on a less frequently scheduled image backup than a separate, more frequent backup of separate data partitions. If you backed up all of the disk in the same backup, you'd have to do it at the needed frequency for the data which increases repository size.
 
You have answered the last question as long as you understand that to replace a failed data  disk your scheme requires you to copy data from the surviving data disk to the replacement disk.

I think in terms of IMAGE backups instead of F&F backups. 

The questions were rhetorical, to make sure you considered other factors.


L.W. (Dan) Danz, Overland Park KS
Reflect v8.1.7784+ on Windows 11 Home 23H2 22631.2715+  

+x

 

jphughan - 15 September 2023 11:32 PM

If you want to back up the entire contents of a disk or partition, make an image backup. You can still extract individual files and folders from it. The only exception would be if you had complex custom NTFS permissions in your data set, in which case a File & Folder backup can be easier to restore those. If you don't understand what I'm talking about here, then it won't apply to you. But if you only want to back up a subset of the data on a partition, then an F&F backup might be preferable. For a given amount of data, an image backup is typically much faster than File & Folder, fyi.

Reflect has a "directory synchronization" option if you choose to generate a PowerShell script from a definition file. That can be used to have Reflect replicate the main destination folder to a secondary location after the backup completes. Otherwise, there are certainly other ways to sync files across locations. And as noted above, you could alternatively have a destination rotation strategy.

Thanks! Would these "complex custom NTFS" permissions include my setting when I have multiple users on the computer (family members) with their dedicated default data folders (created automatically by Win 10 Pro) as well as further data folders on disks other than the system disk, where I have manually set restrictions as to who can access the folder. E.g. e:\dataJohn is a folder that only John and admins and system can use.

+x

 

Dan Danz - 15 September 2023 11:33 PM

+x

 

lakises - 15 September 2023 10:17 PM

+x

 

Dan Danz - 15 September 2023 9:20 PM

There are other things to consider.  What would you do if the system disk failed? You would need an image backup of all system partitions on that disk in order to easily recover to a replacement disk.   2nd question?   Is your primary FOLDER backup repository on that same disk? In a different partition?  Will the frequency of full/diff/incr backups be suitable if you included the repository data in the image backup.  If repository is on another disk, how will you recover ALL the data on that disk in the event that second disk failst?     

Thanks! I understand that the system recovery needs to be addressed as well. Just wanted to keep it simpler and limit the question to data backup.
I have data both on the system disk and two other disks. The backup repository (I guess that means the disk where the backup is stored, i.e. what I called primary backup disk) is a separate disk. Does this change the feasibility of my scenario?
I'm sorry I don't understand the question about frequency of backups, could you elaborate?
Also, the last question I don't understand. The primary backup would be used as the default backup if my data disk(s) failed. The secondary backup would be used for the purpose of the unlikely event that both the data disks and the primary backup disk failed at the same time.

Yes the repository is where you store backups.

Some users backup the critical system partitions on a less frequently scheduled image backup than a separate, more frequent backup of separate data partitions. If you backed up all of the disk in the same backup, you'd have to do it at the needed frequency for the data which increases repository size.
 
You have answered the last question as long as you understand that to replace a failed data  disk your scheme requires you to copy data from the surviving data disk to the replacement disk.

I think in terms of IMAGE backups instead of F&F backups. 

The questions were rhetorical, to make sure you considered other factors.

Thanks again! When you wrote: "... as long as you understand that to replace a failed data disk your scheme requires you to copy data from the surviving data disk to the replacement disk." Isn't this the case always, I mean to copy data from the backup disk to the new disk on the computer (I assume that's what you mean with "replacement disk"). Or is there something more complicated in the method I suggested as compared to some other strategy?

+x

 

lakises - 16 September 2023 9:29 AM

+x

 

Dan Danz - 15 September 2023 11:33 PM

+x

 

lakises - 15 September 2023 10:17 PM

+x

 

Dan Danz - 15 September 2023 9:20 PM

There are other things to consider.  What would you do if the system disk failed? You would need an image backup of all system partitions on that disk in order to easily recover to a replacement disk.   2nd question?   Is your primary FOLDER backup repository on that same disk? In a different partition?  Will the frequency of full/diff/incr backups be suitable if you included the repository data in the image backup.  If repository is on another disk, how will you recover ALL the data on that disk in the event that second disk failst?     

Thanks! I understand that the system recovery needs to be addressed as well. Just wanted to keep it simpler and limit the question to data backup.
I have data both on the system disk and two other disks. The backup repository (I guess that means the disk where the backup is stored, i.e. what I called primary backup disk) is a separate disk. Does this change the feasibility of my scenario?
I'm sorry I don't understand the question about frequency of backups, could you elaborate?
Also, the last question I don't understand. The primary backup would be used as the default backup if my data disk(s) failed. The secondary backup would be used for the purpose of the unlikely event that both the data disks and the primary backup disk failed at the same time.

Yes the repository is where you store backups.

Some users backup the critical system partitions on a less frequently scheduled image backup than a separate, more frequent backup of separate data partitions. If you backed up all of the disk in the same backup, you'd have to do it at the needed frequency for the data which increases repository size.
 
You have answered the last question as long as you understand that to replace a failed data  disk your scheme requires you to copy data from the surviving data disk to the replacement disk.

I think in terms of IMAGE backups instead of F&F backups. 

The questions were rhetorical, to make sure you considered other factors.

Thanks again! When you wrote: "... as long as you understand that to replace a failed data disk your scheme requires you to copy data from the surviving data disk to the replacement disk." Isn't this the case always, I mean to copy data from the backup disk to the new disk on the computer (I assume that's what you mean with "replacement disk"). Or is there something more complicated in the method I suggested as compared to some other strategy?

I said "copy" as opposed to "restore from backup".   As I understand it, you are creating mirrors of your repositories (maybe that's the disconnect).  I'm not clear whether the repository disks themselves are to be backed up by Reflect (which might be overkill).  If not, then when one of them fails, you won't be able to restore from a backup image of it, you will be forced to install a new disk and copy or clone the contents of the surviving mirror of that disk to the new disk.    On the other hand, if a DATA or SYSTEM disk fails, you can restore its latest image from a chosen backup image on  one of the repository mirrors.   Also, you're thinking of File-and-Folder backups for some things.  The will let you restore only those folders if a DATA or SYSTEM disk fails.  You'll have to have a backup image if the original disk, and if you don't have it, then you'll have to build the new disk from scratch and then you can restore the F&F backup.  A previous update to this post by @jphughan

Your interpretation of "replacement disk" is correct -- but you're not thinking of a REPOSITORY disk failure when you say "I mean to copy data from the backup disk to the new disk", I think you mean if a DATA or SYSTEM disk fails, you will RESTORE data to the new DATA or SYSTEM disk from its backup image files on one of the mirrored REPOSITORY disks.   That's a given and excellent use of Reflect, but RESTORE is not available with your present scheme if a REPOSITORY disk fails.  In your mind, keep REPOSITORY disks separate from DATA or SYSTEM disks, and don't say BACKUP DISKS because it's not specific enough. or is it me that's confused?


L.W. (Dan) Danz, Overland Park KS
Reflect v8.1.7784+ on Windows 11 Home 23H2 22631.2715+