How bad is this SATA hard drive?

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

One of the problems with incremental backup is that they back up new
files and changed files, but don't "un-backup" any deleted files. If
you restore from a series of incremental backups, you will also get
back any files you had deleted. In most instances that may not be a
big problem, but occasionally it might be.

That shouldn't be a problem as long as you use ALL of the incrementals
in the restoration process.

"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
Ken Blake, MVP typed on Sun, 09 Aug 2009 06:52:08 -0700:
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 23:03:58 -0400, "Patrick Keenan"
wrote:

"Jack" replyto@it wrote in message
...

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...

It's not just your immediate problem; you're living with fire. Read
this article on backup I wrote: "Back Up Your Computer Regularly
and Reliably" at
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=314

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

It is not as you think. I have up-to-date backup of my VERY
important data like for example my own programming,
The other data is just the accumulation over the years of various
files, which I access sometimes but I will not kill myself if all
are lost.

Talking more about backup. I read your webpage.
I do have good backup program Acronis but I use it only for the
restoration of my virgin Windows installation including all the main
programs I use.
What do you recommend for the backup storage?
Additional hard drive? External? Always plugged in and use the
incremental backups on it?
Thanks,
Jack

Additionally, a single copy of the backup isn't the best plan,
either. I would suggest that you have more than one extra hard
disks to back up to. There's an external SATA drive carrier that is
reminiscent of a toaster, that's possibly a good idea for this.


Yes, I said much in the same thing in my article, referenced above. It
says "Even better than a single external drive is having two or more
such drives, and using them alternately. With a single drive, every
time you do a full backup, you also destroy your only backup by
overwriting it. That leaves you vulnerable to a problem occurring
while the backup is in progress. Alternating between two backup drives
overcomes that problem. And you can go back one or more generations of
data if you need to restore. Not every home user needs that extra
layer of protection (and extra cost), but almost every business does."

Huh? That is only true if the backup takes up all of the space on the
whole backup drive. But why would you want a backup drive that small for?
I have five netbooks ranging in SSD sizes 4GB, 8GB, and 16GB. And I use
one external 160GB 2.5 inch HDD to backup many backup versions of them.

And when that one backup disk fails, you have.. what?



Oddly enough, I have not had great luck with incremental backups. When
they work, they take forever and takes too long. I'm talking about Paragon
products here. Full backups actually takes far less time to complete, but
takes up more space. But they are more reliable.

I also learned that Paragon Drive Backup (both Personal and Professional)
won't restore even with a recovery CD (it runs under Linux) on one of my
Windows 2000 netbooks. It appears it doesn't like the 800x480 display and
won't run. And running the script and reboot method that is supposed to
also restore doesn't restore either. As it isn't kicking in under Windows
2000.

So I banned it for all of my other netbooks running other OS as well. As
ghost32.exe (v11) works from a BartPE flash drive and has proved 100%
reliable over the years.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2

"Jack" replyto@it wrote in message
...
It is important. My Windows do not start!

Then connect the drive to another system and copy the data off.

Jack

"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
Jack typed on Sat, 8 Aug 2009 18:05:04 -0400:
Bingo!
chkdsk finished its task.
The last screen looks like this:
======
File data verification completed.
CHKDSK is verifying free space (stage 5 of 5)...
Free space verification is complete.
Adding 16103 bad clusters to the Bad Clusters File.
Correcting errors in the master file table's (MFT) BITMAP attribute.
Correcting errors in the Volume Bitmap.
Windows has made corrections to the file system.

204796588 KB total disk space.
137046648 KB in 149854 files.
54292 KB in 4232 indexes.
64456 KB in bad sectors.
237312 KB in use by the system.
65536 KB occupied by the log file.
67393880 KB available on disk.

4096 bytes in each allocation unit.
51199147 total allocation units on disk.
16848470 allocation units available on disk.
======

How that looks to you?

Thanks,
Jack

Sounds like 65MB worth of your files could have been lost to me.
Hopefully nothing very important.

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195)
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

Hello!

It is important. My Windows do not start!

Which is not really a great suprise, when you look at the affected files in
the chkdsk log:

Windows replaced bad clusters in file 5522
of name \WINDOWS\system32\config\software.

= HKEY_LOCAL_MASCHINE\SOFTWARE Registry

Windows replaced bad clusters in file 26441
of name \WINDOWS\system32\ntoskrnl.exe.

= The Windows Kernel itself

Windows replaced bad clusters in file 33028
of name \WINDOWS\system32\drivers\ntfs.sys.

= The (main) NTFS File-System Implementation

Windows replaced bad clusters in file 33050
of name \WINDOWS\system32\drivers\mountmgr.sys.

Mount-Manager (needed for mounting disk into the OS)

Windows replaced bad clusters in file 67799
of name \WINDOWS\system32\config\system.

= HKEY_LOCAL_MASCHINE\SYSTEM Registry Hive


Normally you have no chance to get Windows up and running when *one* of the
files above is damaged (only for the registry files there is a chance that
they can get restored from an internal backup).

If you need your data on the other partition copy it to an external drive
ASAP!


GP

In ,
Patrick Keenan typed on Sun, 9 Aug 2009 22:11:15 -0400:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
Huh? That is only true if the backup takes up all of the space on the
whole backup drive. But why would you want a backup drive that small
for? I have five netbooks ranging in SSD sizes 4GB, 8GB, and 16GB.
And I use one external 160GB 2.5 inch HDD to backup many backup
versions of them.

And when that one backup disk fails, you have.. what?

I still have the running OS on the computer. Of which, I need another
backup drive so I can have another backup. grin

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) - Windows XP SP2

In ,
Patrick Keenan typed on Sun, 9 Aug 2009 22:11:15 -0400:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
Huh? That is only true if the backup takes up all of the space on the
whole backup drive. But why would you want a backup drive that small
for? I have five netbooks ranging in SSD sizes 4GB, 8GB, and 16GB.
And I use one external 160GB 2.5 inch HDD to backup many backup
versions of them.

And when that one backup disk fails, you have.. what?

The original. grin

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195)
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Patrick Keenan typed on Sun, 9 Aug 2009 22:11:15 -0400:

"BillW50" wrote in message
...

Huh? That is only true if the backup takes up all of the space on the
whole backup drive. But why would you want a backup drive that small
for? I have five netbooks ranging in SSD sizes 4GB, 8GB, and 16GB.
And I use one external 160GB 2.5 inch HDD to backup many backup
versions of them.

And when that one backup disk fails, you have.. what?


The original. grin


Murphy says you will discover the "one backup disk" has failed only when
you need to restore from it. grin