Quick assessment of 3 Windows tools to read/write Linux filesystems on dual-boot desktops

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 19:32:20 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

Personally, I _don't_ see any advantage - and at least one disadvantage
- to using _imaging_ to back up _data_. (Note I'm certainly not saying
data shouldn't be backed up - only that I see no point in doing so by
_imaging_.)

I wouldn't seriously consider using file backup as my main/only data
backup. I'd end up with nearly 800,000 individual files to keep track
of. Sure, I could use Quickpar to checksum entire folders or even folder
trees, but what a pain. Instead, when I do create a data backup, which
isn't as often as I probably should, I create an image. The image gives
me one file, a container file, to deal with and to make sure its
integrity isn't compromised. As above, Quickpar would be my choice for
not only ensuring the integrity of the file, but for repairing it if it
breaks.

R.Wieser wrote:
[...]

And then are a ton of other backup/archive aspects to deal with,
but I guess they are a bit outside the scope of this thread! :-)

Like "if you store your (only) backups in the same building(/town/country)
as the 'puters they are from than you do not have backups" doctrine ? :-)
Yep, that would go a bit too far. True, but too far. :-)

Elon Musk sends my hourly backups to the moon. Anything less than that
is being totally irresponsible!

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 19:32:20 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

Personally, I _don't_ see any advantage - and at least one disadvantage
- to using _imaging_ to back up _data_. (Note I'm certainly not saying
data shouldn't be backed up - only that I see no point in doing so by
_imaging_.)

I wouldn't seriously consider using file backup as my main/only data

If by "file backup" you just mean copying, I don't see a problem!

backup. I'd end up with nearly 800,000 individual files to keep track

I wouldn't be worried - I know where they all a they're in a folder
tree on my backup drive.

of. Sure, I could use Quickpar to checksum entire folders or even folder
trees, but what a pain. Instead, when I do create a data backup, which
isn't as often as I probably should, I create an image. The image gives
me one file, a container file, to deal with and to make sure its
integrity isn't compromised. As above, Quickpar would be my choice for
not only ensuring the integrity of the file, but for repairing it if it
breaks.

Interesting, especially the repair aspect.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Old soldiers never die - only young ones

In message , Frank Slootweg
writes:
R.Wieser wrote:
[...]

And then are a ton of other backup/archive aspects to deal with,
but I guess they are a bit outside the scope of this thread! :-)

Like "if you store your (only) backups in the same building(/town/country)
as the 'puters they are from than you do not have backups" doctrine ? :-)
Yep, that would go a bit too far. True, but too far. :-)

Elon Musk sends my hourly backups to the moon. Anything less than that
is being totally irresponsible!

And your restore procedure is ... ? (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Old soldiers never die - only young ones

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:08:29 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
[]
I have a slightly different perspective. With multiple computers
available around the house and a whole drawer full of spare drives, I
have no real use for rescue media. I can always write an image to a
spare drive and swap it in for a failed drive, assuming the failed drive
was a boot drive. If it was a data drive, a second computer isn't
needed, nor is rescue media needed to restore an image.

We do indeed have different perspectives/situations. Certainly, if you
just keep a spare drive (I think current usage is that what you are
doing is cloning, not imaging, but that's by the by),

Thanks, but I was the one who corrected *your* improper use of cloning
versus imaging just the other day! I know the difference. ;-)

I very rarely clone a disk. I was going to say that it's not that I'm
opposed to the concept, but I think I *am* opposed because it's so
inefficient. Instead, I use imaging 99.99% of the time because it lets
me put multiple images on a drive. When I need one of them, I simply
write it to a blank drive.

you don't need the rescue medium.

I agree, I don't need any rescue media.

(If you _are_ talking about imaging, you _do_ need the
rescue CD - _or_ another computer - to unpack the image, but if you're
talking about "swap it in for a failed drive", I think that's a clone.)

Yes to imaging, no to rescue media, no to cloning.

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:08:29 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
[]
I have a slightly different perspective. With multiple computers
available around the house and a whole drawer full of spare drives, I
***
have no real use for rescue media.
, assuming the failed drive
***
was a boot drive. If it was a data drive, a second computer isn't
needed, nor is rescue media needed to restore an image.

We do indeed have different perspectives/situations. Certainly, if you
just keep a spare drive (I think current usage is that what you are
doing is cloning, not imaging, but that's by the by),

Thanks, but I was the one who corrected *your* improper use of cloning
versus imaging just the other day! I know the difference. ;-)

I very rarely clone a disk. I was going to say that it's not that I'm
opposed to the concept, but I think I *am* opposed because it's so
inefficient. Instead, I use imaging 99.99% of the time because it lets
me put multiple images on a drive. When I need one of them, I simply
write it to a blank drive.

I think we're in agreement really (and I agree about storing multiple
images). Just your *** bit above - "I can always write an image to a
spare drive and swap it in for a failed drive" - is thus not _quite_ as
simple as it sounds: if all you _have_ is an image (and a blank drive),
then you can't just "swap it in" - you have to unpack the image, for
which you need the (un)imaging software (either on another computer or
on rescue media).

you don't need the rescue medium.

I agree, I don't need any rescue media.

(If you _are_ talking about imaging, you _do_ need the
rescue CD - _or_ another computer - to unpack the image, but if you're
talking about "swap it in for a failed drive", I think that's a clone.)

Yes to imaging, no to rescue media, no to cloning.

Yes to needing the (un)imaging software on _something_ (-:.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Old soldiers never die - only young ones

Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 19:32:20 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

Personally, I _don't_ see any advantage - and at least one disadvantage
- to using _imaging_ to back up _data_. (Note I'm certainly not saying
data shouldn't be backed up - only that I see no point in doing so by
_imaging_.)

I wouldn't seriously consider using file backup as my main/only data
backup. I'd end up with nearly 800,000 individual files to keep track
of.

I think there's confusion about what we - or at least I - mean by
'file[-level]' backup.

What I mean is that the backup is an 'archive' of *files* instead of
an image of a *partition*.

There's no need to 'keep track' of hundred of thousands of files.

I just tell (configure) my backup software what folders/files (not) to
backup and how many incrementals I want for each full backup (currently
4) and how many sets of full+incrementals (currently 11) I want to keep.
That's all.

So my backup software gives me at dated/timed list of at most 44
full/incremental backups. That these backups *contain* hundred of
thousands of files, doesn't mean *I* have to keep track of them, that's
my backup software's job.

[...]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 20:10:37 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 19:32:20 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

Personally, I _don't_ see any advantage - and at least one disadvantage
- to using _imaging_ to back up _data_. (Note I'm certainly not saying
data shouldn't be backed up - only that I see no point in doing so by
_imaging_.)

I wouldn't seriously consider using file backup as my main/only data

If by "file backup" you just mean copying, I don't see a problem!

Ugh. Just the thought of it makes me queasy!

backup. I'd end up with nearly 800,000 individual files to keep track

I wouldn't be worried - I know where they all a they're in a folder
tree on my backup drive.

In this case, 'keep track' doesn't refer to their location, but to their
individual integrity. With a container file holding those 800,000
individual files, I only have to monitor the integrity of a single file.
That makes my life so much easier.

of. Sure, I could use Quickpar to checksum entire folders or even folder
trees, but what a pain. Instead, when I do create a data backup, which
isn't as often as I probably should, I create an image. The image gives
me one file, a container file, to deal with and to make sure its
integrity isn't compromised. As above, Quickpar would be my choice for
not only ensuring the integrity of the file, but for repairing it if it
breaks.

Interesting, especially the repair aspect.

What's your method of monitoring for bit rot and repairing it if/when
you find it? I've been using QuickPar for at least 15 years, (its
copyright says 2003), but I'm all ears if there's a better way. QuickPar
works for files stored anywhe CDs, DVDs, USB drives, hard drives
(HDD/SSD), etc., and the amount or degree of protection is completely
configurable.

Paul,

What you have to watch (and think about) [snip]

No. Really, no. That is why the computer was invented in the first
place: To get tedious tasks outof the hands of humans. A simple
calculation could check-and-catch it. And *at least* disallow it if not told
to ignore/override it.

(I got a Delayed Write Failure and the errant thing dismounted on its own,
which is "better" than crashing, by a country mile.)

Lol. Thats like saying that getten hit by a car is better than the same by
a bus or train, when neither should (have) happen(ed).

As of last night, I managed to put 100,000,000 on a
FAT32 volume :-)

That sounds a lot better. What changed / what did you change ?

I try not to do these tests on real hard drives

Good thinking. :-)

But, you discover such corruption cases, by *testing* the damn thing
first, before you spend half your life filling it
up (only to have it corrupt)

I never tested my 2 TB USB drives before I started using them. I didn't
because I trust(ed) the manufacturer to have done so, to make sure the
product would actually do what it was advertised for.

And that brings us back to that Fat32Format program. I really wonder if
they ever did do the test(s) you are doing now. Somehow I doubt it ...

If you're doing something the least bit unconventional,
*test it* first, before innocent files get hurt.

Again, I expect the author to have done its best in that regard first.
Otherwise I could not even buy myself a big mac without having to send it to
a laboratorium to test for consumability first.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s.
Thanks for sharing those forehead-meets-desk stories. They remind you how
easy some stuff can go sideways. :-( :-)

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 20:25:06 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:08:29 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
[]
I have a slightly different perspective. With multiple computers
available around the house and a whole drawer full of spare drives, I
***
have no real use for rescue media.
, assuming the failed drive
***
was a boot drive. If it was a data drive, a second computer isn't
needed, nor is rescue media needed to restore an image.

We do indeed have different perspectives/situations. Certainly, if you
just keep a spare drive (I think current usage is that what you are
doing is cloning, not imaging, but that's by the by),

Thanks, but I was the one who corrected *your* improper use of cloning
versus imaging just the other day! I know the difference. ;-)

I very rarely clone a disk. I was going to say that it's not that I'm
opposed to the concept, but I think I *am* opposed because it's so
inefficient. Instead, I use imaging 99.99% of the time because it lets
me put multiple images on a drive. When I need one of them, I simply
write it to a blank drive.

I think we're in agreement really (and I agree about storing multiple
images). Just your *** bit above - "I can always write an image to a
spare drive and swap it in for a failed drive" - is thus not _quite_ as
simple as it sounds: if all you _have_ is an image (and a blank drive),
then you can't just "swap it in" - you have to unpack the image, for
which you need the (un)imaging software (either on another computer or
on rescue media).

On multiple other computers. I mentioned it above, in the first 3 words
of the 2nd sentence at the top of this post. "With multiple computers
available around the house and a whole drawer full of spare drives,..."


you don't need the rescue medium.

I agree, I don't need any rescue media.

(If you _are_ talking about imaging, you _do_ need the
rescue CD - _or_ another computer - to unpack the image, but if you're
talking about "swap it in for a failed drive", I think that's a clone.)

Yes to imaging, no to rescue media, no to cloning.

Yes to needing the (un)imaging software on _something_ (-:.

Clarified above, but note that the imaging software is not the same as
rescue media. BTW, I'm not suggesting that most people don't need rescue
media, even if I secretly believe that. Everyone is different and y'all
should do what makes you comfortable. For me, if I ever need rescue
media I'll simply create it on another computer, but going back to at
least my earliest memories of XP, I've never needed rescue media so it's
not high on my list of things to do.

In article , Char Jackson
wrote:

What's your method of monitoring for bit rot and repairing it if/when
you find it?

synology nas with btrfs.

On 2 Oct 2018 19:26:13 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 19:32:20 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

Personally, I _don't_ see any advantage - and at least one disadvantage
- to using _imaging_ to back up _data_. (Note I'm certainly not saying
data shouldn't be backed up - only that I see no point in doing so by
_imaging_.)

I wouldn't seriously consider using file backup as my main/only data
backup. I'd end up with nearly 800,000 individual files to keep track
of.

I think there's confusion about what we - or at least I - mean by
'file[-level]' backup.

What I mean is that the backup is an 'archive' of *files* instead of
an image of a *partition*.

There's no need to 'keep track' of hundred of thousands of files.

I think John just uses a sync tool to make copies of files, one by one,
until everything is copied. That would make me nervous to the point
where I wouldn't even attempt it. That kind of copying is what I thought
you might use, as well, but your description below suggests otherwise.

I just tell (configure) my backup software what folders/files (not) to
backup and how many incrementals I want for each full backup (currently
4) and how many sets of full+incrementals (currently 11) I want to keep.
That's all.

So my backup software gives me at dated/timed list of at most 44
full/incremental backups. That these backups *contain* hundred of
thousands of files, doesn't mean *I* have to keep track of them, that's
my backup software's job.

[...]

So you're not doing file-by-file copying like I assume John is doing,
but you're using incrementals which make me nervous in another way. I
don't like the chain aspect of incrementals and would prefer
differentials myself. When it comes down to it, though, I find that I
just do a full partition backup (image) on an irregular basis.

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 19:32:20 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Frank Slootweg
writes:
Ken Blake wrote:
On 2 Oct 2018 14:43:55 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Another clarification: I don't consider image 'backup' to be real -
i.e. archival type - backup. For me, it's only/mainly for recovery of
the system, not of my data


You're not the first person I've seen who feels that way, but I
disagree. As far as I'm concerned, there's more than one kind of thing
that needs to be backed up, and those things include both data *and*
the system.
[]
No, my "only/mainly" doesn't mean it's unimportant or even just less
important, it means that it's only/mainly used for *that* purpose.
[]
I think we're all agreed that there are advantages in backing up (in the
widest sense) both system and data.


That depends on who you mean by "we all." If you're talking about
regular posters here in these NGs, yes, you're probably right. But if
you're talking about computer users in general, I disagree. Most
people don't even realize that there's a danger of losing everything
on their drive and that they should back up anything.



I assume _everyone's_ agreed that data needs to be backed up, since for
almost anyone that involves irreplaceable items: photographs, documents,
and so on.


Again, who do you mean by "everyone"? If you're talking about computer
users in general, I again disagree.


_Most_ of us also agree that the system (including software) is worth
backing up too. (_Some_ people just say "oh, I'd just reinstall
everything.)

Here's an excerpt from my standard post on backing up:

Should you back up Windows? Should you back up your applications? Most
people will tell you no, since you can always reinstall these easily
from the original media. But I don't think the answer is so clear-cut.
Many people have substantial time and effort invested in customizing
Windows and configuring their apps to work the way they want to.
Putting all of that back the way it was can be a difficult,
time-consuming effort. And you may not be able to find all your
installation media, installation codes etc. Whether you should backup
up Windows and apps depends, once again, on you.

On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 15:59:25 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Char Jackson
wrote:

What's your method of monitoring for bit rot and repairing it if/when
you find it?

synology nas with btrfs.

btrfs looks interesting, but it appears to be Linux only, and Synology
(and QNAP as well) appear to be extremely proud of their NAS products.
Over $900 for an 8-bay Synology unit? For that price, it should come
populated with reasonably sized drives, IMHO. Instead, it's empty.

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 19:32:20 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:
[]
I think we're all agreed that there are advantages in backing up (in the
widest sense) both system and data.


That depends on who you mean by "we all." If you're talking about
regular posters here in these NGs, yes, you're probably right. But if

Yes, you're right to point out the assumption.

you're talking about computer users in general, I disagree. Most
people don't even realize that there's a danger of losing everything
on their drive and that they should back up anything.

And I've on the whole given up trying to change most of them.


I assume _everyone's_ agreed that data needs to be backed up, since for
almost anyone that involves irreplaceable items: photographs, documents,
and so on.


Again, who do you mean by "everyone"? If you're talking about computer
users in general, I again disagree.

And you're right to.

_Most_ of us also agree that the system (including software) is worth
backing up too. (_Some_ people just say "oh, I'd just reinstall
everything.)

Here's an excerpt from my standard post on backing up:

Should you back up Windows? Should you back up your applications? Most
people will tell you no, since you can always reinstall these easily
from the original media. But I don't think the answer is so clear-cut.
Many people have substantial time and effort invested in customizing
Windows and configuring their apps to work the way they want to.
Putting all of that back the way it was can be a difficult,
time-consuming effort. And you may not be able to find all your
installation media, installation codes etc. Whether you should backup
up Windows and apps depends, once again, on you.

You certainly don't need to convince me.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

You'll need to have this fish in your ear. (First series, fit the first.)