RAR Files

In article , Ant
wrote:


Aren't BRDs still slow like DVDs and CDs? They take forever to burn and
read.

yep.

"Carlos E.R." wrote

| That's a conundrum. Can backup software be considered "proper" if it's
| backing up to DVD? Didn't backup to optical media become obsolete
| something like 15+ years ago for DVD, and even longer ago for CD-R?
|
|
| Blueray.
|
| Besides external hard disks stored in a safe box, what else is available
| for home users?
|

It sounds like a lot of people here need to do some
housekeeping. I use about 1/2 of a regular DVD for
my regular backup of all data and program settings.
I use DVD's for backup of software, graphics, disk
images, etc. I also keep an old hard disk and a 16
GB USB stick for occasional redundant backup.

I rarely use USB sticks except to travel between
computers. I've never used an external hard disk.
I've never had a failed optical disk, though some are
20 years old. It takes me maybe 10 minutes to do a
backup, while I'm doing other things. I also do a fair
amount with graphics, including RAW photos, so it's
not as though I don't have big files.

If you need 100 GB for backup then might it be
possible that you don't actually need those 327
selfies you took at 6 Flags last year?

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


It sounds like a lot of people here need to do some
housekeeping. I use about 1/2 of a regular DVD for
my regular backup of all data and program settings.
I use DVD's for backup of software, graphics, disk
images, etc. I also keep an old hard disk and a 16
GB USB stick for occasional redundant backup.

I rarely use USB sticks except to travel between
computers. I've never used an external hard disk.
I've never had a failed optical disk, though some are
20 years old. It takes me maybe 10 minutes to do a
backup, while I'm doing other things. I also do a fair
amount with graphics, including RAW photos, so it's
not as though I don't have big files.

if your *entire* backup can fit on only *half* of a dvd, then you do
*not* have big files or very many files for that matter.

the operating system is bigger than that, never mind user files.

If you need 100 GB for backup then might it be
possible that you don't actually need those 327
selfies you took at 6 Flags last year?

100 gig is nothing these days.

Mayayana wrote:
[...]
It sounds like a lot of people here need to do some
housekeeping. I use about 1/2 of a regular DVD for
my regular backup of all data and program settings.

The problem is often to figure out where the heck the data and program
settings are stored for each of your umpteen programs. This *used* to be
simple, but nowadays, especially with Windows 8 and 10, it's all over
the place. Yes, I can find out where and so can you and probably most
others here, but it's still a mess. (Example: Microsoft's Windows Live
Mail and Thunderbird happily put their message store where Windows
8's/10's 'backup' method ('File History') will *not* look for things to
backup.)


I use DVD's for backup of software, graphics, disk
images, etc. I also keep an old hard disk and a 16
GB USB stick for occasional redundant backup.

I keep most photos (since 2003) on-line and on backup, so that's most
of my storage/backup/archival, but of course these don't change and the
amount per period of time is limited, so the incremental backups/archival
operations are not that big.

I rarely use USB sticks except to travel between
computers. I've never used an external hard disk.
I've never had a failed optical disk, though some are
20 years old. It takes me maybe 10 minutes to do a
backup, while I'm doing other things. I also do a fair
amount with graphics, including RAW photos, so it's
not as though I don't have big files.

If you need 100 GB for backup then might it be
possible that you don't actually need those 327
selfies you took at 6 Flags last year?

My (5-weekly) full backup is some 40GB, including all crap that all
kinds of software put somewhere in/below C:\Users\Frank\AppData. My
(weekly) incrementals are some 4GB. (My News server's (Hamster)
databases are some 2.5GB, so 4GB incrementals ain't that bad! :-))

My daily backup - which excludes said "crap" and my News server's
database - ranges from some 150-300MB. Small enough to keep a copy in
the cloud.

And then there's some 'continuous' backup done by 'File History'.

On 2019-06-27 10:16 a.m., nospam wrote:
In article , Mayayana
wrote:


It sounds like a lot of people here need to do some
housekeeping. I use about 1/2 of a regular DVD for
my regular backup of all data and program settings.
I use DVD's for backup of software, graphics, disk
images, etc. I also keep an old hard disk and a 16
GB USB stick for occasional redundant backup.

I rarely use USB sticks except to travel between
computers. I've never used an external hard disk.
I've never had a failed optical disk, though some are
20 years old. It takes me maybe 10 minutes to do a
backup, while I'm doing other things. I also do a fair
amount with graphics, including RAW photos, so it's
not as though I don't have big files.

if your *entire* backup can fit on only *half* of a dvd, then you do
*not* have big files or very many files for that matter.

the operating system is bigger than that, never mind user files.

If you need 100 GB for backup then might it be
possible that you don't actually need those 327
selfies you took at 6 Flags last year?

100 gig is nothing these days.

I remember that brief moment in time when my having a 30MB HD in my IBM
PS/1 made me somewhat cooler than my cousin with his 20MB HD in his
Model 30 PS/2.


--
Rabid Robot
Google is your enemy (https://kek.gg/u/z6fQ)
"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this
world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."
- John 16:33

"Rabid Robot" wrote

| If you need 100 GB for backup then might it be
| possible that you don't actually need those 327
| selfies you took at 6 Flags last year?
|
| 100 gig is nothing these days.
|
| I remember that brief moment in time when my having a 30MB HD in my IBM
| PS/1 made me somewhat cooler than my cousin with his 20MB HD in his
| Model 30 PS/2.
|

Hard disk size is not the same as data storage.
You're equating how much storage you have with
how much data needs to be backed up.

On 2019-06-27 1:55 p.m., Mayayana wrote:
"Rabid Robot" wrote

| If you need 100 GB for backup then might it be
| possible that you don't actually need those 327
| selfies you took at 6 Flags last year?
|
| 100 gig is nothing these days.
|
| I remember that brief moment in time when my having a 30MB HD in my IBM
| PS/1 made me somewhat cooler than my cousin with his 20MB HD in his
| Model 30 PS/2.
|

Hard disk size is not the same as data storage.
You're equating how much storage you have with
how much data needs to be backed up.

I'm doing no such thing; I'm simply sharing an anecdote.

--
Rabid Robot
Google is your enemy (https://kek.gg/u/z6fQ)
"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this
world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."
- John 16:33

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Hard disk size is not the same as data storage.
You're equating how much storage you have with
how much data needs to be backed up.

all of it. disk space is cheap.

in the event of a disaster, it's easy to copy everything back, versus
having to rebuild everything if only a subset was backed up.

nospam wrote:
In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Hard disk size is not the same as data storage.
You're equating how much storage you have with
how much data needs to be backed up.

all of it. disk space is cheap.

Yes for old spinning HDDs, but not SSDs (still expensive for huge sizes).


in the event of a disaster, it's easy to copy everything back, versus
having to rebuild everything if only a subset was backed up.

Are you referring to disk images? If so, then yes if the hardwares the same.
--
Quote of the Week: "Oh, look what Kyle got me, it's a red Mega... Ants
in the pants? Ants in the pants?! Ants in the Pants?!! ..." --Eric
Cartman in South Park's Damien Episode (Season 1; Episode 8)
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org /
/ /\ /\ \ http://antfarm.ma.cx. Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

"Ant" wrote

| in the event of a disaster, it's easy to copy everything back, versus
| having to rebuild everything if only a subset was backed up.
|
| Are you referring to disk images? If so, then yes if the hardwares the
same.

nospam is not referring to anything. He/she just likes
to argue and will go on for days if you respond. The
unqualified and thus senseless argument that "space is
cheap these days" is a favorite topic.

In article , Ant
wrote:

Hard disk size is not the same as data storage.
You're equating how much storage you have with
how much data needs to be backed up.

all of it. disk space is cheap.

Yes for old spinning HDDs, but not SSDs (still expensive for huge sizes).

ssd is usually not the best choice for a backup, since the additional
speed is normally not needed.

in the event of a disaster, it's easy to copy everything back, versus
having to rebuild everything if only a subset was backed up.

Are you referring to disk images? If so, then yes if the hardwares the same.

not specifically, and in some cases, the hardware can be different.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

The
unqualified and thus senseless argument that "space is
cheap these days" is a favorite topic.

nothing senseless about it. space *is* cheap

8tb is $139
https://www.newegg.com/black-seagate-expansion-8tb/p/N82E16822178951

i've seen 8tb for less, but that's what comes up just now, without
trying to find the best deal.

that would hold about 2000 of your dvds, in a helluva lot less space.

actually more like 4000 dvds, since you said you only use half the
space for a backup (about 2gb each), and once the dvd is written, you
can't use the remaining space anymore.

plus, it's a ****load faster and a lot more reliable.