Automatic backup

[StephenUK]

I know this has been raised before several times, but I can't quite understand what is being said on the forum.

As I increasingly work in UR so the importance of not losing data from UR increases in importance.

I have now set up automatic backup on a daily basis using "VersionBackup", and sometimes backup more often than that manually. Nonetheless, some way of backing up automatically every 20 minutes, for example, would reassure me even more.

I read on the forum that there is nothing to stop backup on an open database, which sounds very helpful. But I also read that because of the large size of the databases it is not practical to implement backup. (At least, I think that is what was being said). Why is that? Why can't, for example, a one gigabyte database be backed up every ten minutes so long as the CPU usage is regulated?

Alternatively, would it not be possible for UR to backup only the actual changes to a database as they go along?

[quant]

my first question to you is, just by any change, are you backing up to the same HDD? ;-)

[StephenUK]

Good question! I assume a kind of hierachy of risk and backup accordingly. I assess my risks as follows:

- risk of bad crash, silly mistake, etc wiping out UR database quite high

- risk of hard disk malfunctioning or being stolen. Much less high, but still appreciable.

- risk of losing all backups around the place - much smaller still.


So I deal with the first level risk by backing up UR to the SAME hard disk at least daily and retaining copies for 20 days so that I have 20 earlier versions.

The second level risk I counter with a weekly backup to rotating external disks. That includes backing up the daily backups.

The third risk I counter by having (sometimes rather old) data offsite.

Much of my data is in fact duplicated in Gmail and that also provides a form of backup externally.

I have thought about backing up UR online, but am not sure if that is really the way to go.

========

So, the "hole" in my backup strategy is anything shorter than a day. At least, I hope that's the only hole!

[$bill]

There can never be enough talk about backups...(I learned my lesson 22 years ago when a coworker was formating a floppy drive and mistakenly reformated my enormous 10mb HD).

UR does not contain all the important information I wish to protect- like my financial information in Quicken/Quickbooks and stuff I have chosen to link UR to. So I need a comprehensive solution to data protection. I prefer to buy specialized backup software that allows me to easily address all of this data as well as backup across the net. (FYI - I use SyncbackSE)

From a data integrity standpoint, UR itself has been very reliable. The undo and recycle bin have protected me from myself. I have developed a good deal of confidence in it.

After reading Google's HD failure experience I became more worried about my desktop. The failures were not predictable and much worse than I expected from the manufacturer's MTBF specs. My portable computer is at high risk so I expect failure (or loss) and plan accordingly.

In my experience Windows on a given system always becomes less reliable with time and benefits from a reinstallation. So as my system ages, I increase the frequency of backup.

I too am considering backing up "online" vs my monthly trip with my USB HD to the bank's vault. Today's muse is Amazons S3 storage using JungleDisk's maped drive.

[StephenUK]

I've certainly not had any problems with UR reliability either. Maybe one way to partly guard against problems during the day prior to nightly backup, is to set up a macro to make a copy of the UR database whenever one has done enough work in UR to make it worthwhile running the macro.

Syncback looks very good and perhaps better than VersionBackup which I have, although I have been very happy with the latter.

Agree about slow degradation of Windows, but what a pain it is to reinstall! Easily put off!

Amazon Jungledisk S3 looks great value and better than any HyperOffice which I have looked at. Also the Amazon brand inspires confidence that it won't diappear.

Still, the question still remains why there is no backup functionality within UR. Since the product aims to become a central and essential repository of nearly all information, automatic backup, especially for the busy, lazy or ill informed, would be very useful. (Or might it give a false sense of security given Quant's very fair question?)

[janrif]

Originally posted by $bill
[snip] I too am considering backing up "online" vs my monthly trip with my USB HD to the bank's vault. Today's muse is Amazons S3 storage using JungleDisk's maped drive.

Do you have any security, i.e. hacking or govt intrusion concerns re: your personal data?

[quant]

Originally posted by StephenUK
Syncback looks very good and perhaps better than VersionBackup which I have, although I have been very happy with the latter.

VersionBackup is for doing several versions of the same thing (file/directory). SyncBack is (one way of use) for backing up and have one version of sth.

Ie. I use VersionBackup for making versions of my urd files (like you do) on the same HDD, and backing up the drive with Syncback to my USB drive.

Are you backing your HDD only once a week? If so, you are wrong on this one:
"So, the "hole" in my backup strategy is anything shorter than a day"
It's like the saying that a chain is as strong as its weakest link. Likewise, if things go wrong (your main HDD failure), you can in the worst scenario lose one week of work.

[$bill]

Originally posted by janrif
Do you have any security, i.e. hacking or govt intrusion concerns re: your personal data?

Govt intrusion by hacking is not a serious concern of mine....though I think my government is too big and intrusive (especially regulatory) already. The Visa card people probably can reconstruct much of my life. I just don't think that I am that important.

I do attempt to protect myself from hacking. Any online backup solution I choose will only have data encrypted with my keys. I use TrueCrypt on my portable computer and for sensitive stuff on the desktop and SSL and VPN technologies when on the internet from the road. I am probably not bulletproof but I hope I am not an easy target.

[$bill]

Originally posted by quant
VersionBackup is for doing several versions of the same thing (file/directory). SyncBack is (one way of use) for backing up and have one version of sth.

SyncbackSE (4.x) does have a 'versioning' feature while Syncback (the zero price version) does not.

[quant]

Originally posted by $bill
SyncbackSE (4.x) does have a 'versioning' feature while Syncback (the zero price version) does not.

true, the reason that I use the free version + free VersionBackup, but some people might prefer one (not that expensive) program ...

[janrif]

Originally posted by $bill
[snip] I use TrueCrypt on my portable computer and for sensitive stuff on the desktop and SSL and VPN technologies when on the internet from the road.[/snip]

Bill am I to understand that TrueCrypt essentially places itself between the keyboard & the HD & encrypts as it goes? (I dont' know much about this stuff) I once tried PGP & really got confused so I haven't experimented since but I'm getting interested in encryption it again.

[$bill]

TrueCrypt creates an encrypted file that acts as a container for other files. When TrueCrypt is running and the file/container is opened with the password then Windows sees the container as just another disk drive - say X: and the files inside the container look and act just like regular files on the x: drive. The files on the x: drive are decrypted and encrypted on the fly.

When truecrypt is not running the container/file that truecrypt created looks just like a (large) normal file which contains random bits of data. The container file can be copied, backed up, etc just like a regular file.

For my travels later this week- I will have my UR files encrypted in a Truecrypt created file. After I logon to my notebook, I will run Truecrypt, enter my password to "mount the disk volume" and run UR. Other than the computing power to encrypt/decrypt the files on the fly, UR will have no idea that they are in an encrypted container.

Hope this overview helps...

[StephenUK]

$Bill - just thought I would report back on my experience yesterday trying out Jungledisk. I liked the interface, but I found that it couldn't cope uploading a 700 Meg UR data file and that the upload, which I left to run all night, had not happened by the next morning.

Although the storage is very cheap, I guess that regular uploading of large files would add to my broadband usage charges, and therefore not be so cheap after all if used regularly.

I think, therefore, I will stick with other solutions.

But for large numbers of small files, perhaps photos, or a smallish UR database, I am sure JungleDisk would work fine. And maybe I was just unlucky - but if something fails first time, I tend to cut my losses unless there is very good reason to persevere.