Vista BACKUP and UNRAID


Recommended Posts

Being an early adopter (like most people in this forum, I would expect), I migrated to Vista in January.

 

For the most part, everything is good, however, I went to use Microsoft's built-in backup software and find that it will not work with my UNRAID NAS. 

 

UNRAID is completely accessable and works great within Vista, but the problem is that Microsoft backup wants you to "log in" to network storage even though no login is needed for UNRAID.  Has anyone found a solution to this? 

 

I used to use Retrospect 7.5 under Windows XP to backup without issue to UNRAID, but with a solid integrated solution I hate to install additional software which should no longer be necessary.

 

MS Backup works fine with USB storage, but I love the security of backing up to UNRAID because of the multiple levels of redundancy that this affords.

 

 

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Admin - Where are the beta versions located?  I looked through the main lime-technologies website and couldn't find anything there.

 

This will be the first time I have upgraded to a new version, so I would also appreciate it if someone could point me towards the procedure to avoid risking any data on my existing volumes.

 

Link to comment
  • 3 months later...

I do not have Vista, so please forgive some ignorance.  In previous Windows versions and other software, you could often get around this problem by mapping a local drive and using the local drive letter and path as destination.  Does that not work in Vista?

 

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

I know that this doesn't answer your question, but there are alternatives to the built in windows vista backup utility.

 

You might already be familiar with both of these (free) options:

 

 

-kenshin

Link to comment

thanks for posting - robocopy looks interesting.  I have been thinking about trying to find something that does full system backups or images (rather then just backing up certain files) on a regular scheduled basis.

 

i remember hearing that microsoft has something like this for windows home server where you tell it to do regular images of your other systems and if you have 3 vista systems to back up for instance, it does a full image on the first one and then for the second one it does nto need all the basic OS stuff because it has it from the first one, it just backs up the bits that are different.  this way it tremendously cuts down on the file size of doing full system images.

 

any software like this out there now other than windows home server?

Link to comment

I use Norton Ghost when I need incremental backups of the entire system disk.  It runs in the background and after creating a base image, incrementally backs up any changes you make (modify/delete, etc.).  If you need to revert to an old version you can, and it will track the versions for as long as you specify when you set everything up.  You can also restore the entire disk (what ghost is originally famous for Wink)

 

I had it set up to create a new base image the 1st of every month, and incremental backups every 12 hours (tried every 2 hours, but it slowed down the machine it was running on too much).

 

I liked the fact that if I changed a file on accident (or deleted it) I could revert to an old version (If I caught it before the month was over)

 

Acronis True Image does the same thing, some people like it better.  I haven't tried it yet.

 

The downside to both of these utilities, is that it would be difficult to restore the system image of one machine to a second machine.  As with all system images, unless the hardware is the same on both the source and target you need to prepare the source system (sysprep, etc.) for the move.

 

-kenshin

 

 

Link to comment

They were very small (a few thousand KB's) unless I had added a large file to the disk.  Then they would be the size of the new addition (give or take a couple hundred/thousand KB's).

 

I just deleted my backup set yesterday, so I can't check the exact number unfortunately!

 

I'm surprised that Acronis was not the same.  A lot of people seem to like it (especially since it can create password protected archives unlike ghost).

Link to comment

The digg post I linked to above suggested an interesting method of backup up in use files (like those on your system disk).  That was why I added it.  The poster recommended using VSS to abstract the data before copying it.

 

Maybe creating a base image with Acronis/Ghost for all your machines would be best.  You could then use rsync/robocopy to monitor/update a separate backup location.

 

Boy, that functionality you were talking about with windows home server sure is starting to sound nice!

 

On a side note, why do you need to backup all the data on your vista workstations?  I use my file server (now an unraid server :)) for storing all of my critical files (documents, pictures, etc.).  That way I only have one machine that requires incremental backups.  I changed the My Documents and All Documents links in the Windows XP registry on each workstation to point to my file server's network share, so that the users on my network don't even need training, they just use windows as normal, but every time they create/modify a file it is protected in realtime.

 

An added benefit is that the All Documents folder now lives up to it's name.  All the users on the network access the same network folder when they click on that link.

 

-kenshin

Link to comment

i also set my workstations to save data to the unraid server.  the reason i am looking to do backups of my workstations is that i am frequently installing/configuring software and if i were to have a critical problem with a workstation that would normally require a reformat/reinstall of windows, if i have a recent image of the system then i can just restore the image and i'm good to go.

 

the thing that would be nice is to have a backup running for the data on my unraid server.  obviously i am not too concerned about hardware failure with unraid, but if i accidentally overwrite or delete file on the unraid server, then it would be nice to have a backup to restore the file from.  problem with that is that i have a couple terabytes worth of stuff on my unraid so i don't really have another large enough drive to backup the data to.

 

i guess to do that i would need another unraid server to backup my unraid server :)

Link to comment

Acronis True-Image can restore from a network share... there is no need to have the backup and target disk on the same system.

 

If my laptop's disk crashes, all I need to do is install a new hard disk, boot up on the Acronis CD, select the "restore" option, browse on the network for an image to restore from on my unRaid server, and let it do its business.  It will partition and format and load the new disk with my backup.

 

This saves tons of time over re-loading the OS, application software, and then restoring data files.

Link to comment

i also set my workstations to save data to the unraid server.  the reason i am looking to do backups of my workstations is that i am frequently installing/configuring software and if i were to have a critical problem with a workstation that would normally require a reformat/reinstall of windows, if i have a recent image of the system then i can just restore the image and i'm good to go.

 

the thing that would be nice is to have a backup running for the data on my unraid server.  obviously i am not too concerned about hardware failure with unraid, but if i accidentally overwrite or delete file on the unraid server, then it would be nice to have a backup to restore the file from.  problem with that is that i have a couple terabytes worth of stuff on my unraid so i don't really have another large enough drive to backup the data to.

 

i guess to do that i would need another unraid server to backup my unraid server :)

 

Sounds like we have a somewhat similar setup. 

 

Regarding backing up your unraid box; I use an off site web storage service to back up the data on my file server.  There are many good options out there.  I pay about $5.00/month for unlimited storage.  It's not free, but I don't have to worry about the fire sprinklers destroying my local data.

 

I know of at least two companies who offer unlimited storage for that price (carbonite and mozy).  I'm sure if you google it you can find more.  Off site storage really is essential (imho) whether you keep discs/tapes in a safe deposit box, or use web storage.

 

The only problem is that the cheap ones (read: the ones I use) require that you install their background "upload and encrypt" software on a windows machine.  As I have a dedicated appserver running windows this is not a problem for me, however if you need ftp support or something similar it might be worth looking into some of the more expensive services.

 

Also, I agree with Joe L.  I would only add that Ghost and Acronis have similar functionality (Rescue CD for Restoring an image from a network share, etc.).

 

@TheMaster,

 

I promise I will not hijack your thread any further ;)

 

-kenshin

Link to comment

$5/month for unlimited storage?  i didnt know such services existed at that price.  which service do you use?  how long have you been using it?  is it reliable?

 

@Tom: If you think it is necessary, can you move these posts to a separate thread called "Backup Solutions", or something similar?

 

I thought it was pretty amazing as well the first time I saw it.  Now that I have had time to use the service for around 6 months I've realized there are some drawbacks to choosing one of the cheaper "unlimited" services.  The funny thing is that I didn't even realize there were cons until I started researching online.

 

Pros:

  • Reliable offsite storage
  • Unlimited data storage (misleading; it is unlimited but you can only choose one client, and the software does not recognize non fixed disks)
  • Unlimited data transfer (depending on the service you choose)
  • Encrypts your files
    • Using a key of your choice that only you know
    • Or using an automatically generated key

    [*]The application they provide for data transfers supports bandwidth throttling (so you don't make the wife angry :))

 

Cons:

  • There is no ftp\rsync support
  • You must use their application to encrypt and upload your files (windows only on my service)
    • The encrypt process is incredibly resource intensive on my 2.4ghz Celeron
    • There is a slider option for my service that allows you to select fast encryption or slow encryption which is supposed to alleviate this, but even on slow encryption it is still imho a hog

    [*]It's not a true archive, but instead more of a mirror of your current files

    • If you change a file, the change will be uploaded to the server on your next sync (no versioning)
    • If you delete a file, it is kept for 30 days (which is nice), but a true archive would keep it forever (how do you know you will catch it in 30 days?)

     

    To answer your questions directly.  I am using Mozy (PCMag Editor's Choice).  I have been using it for about 6 months now.  I haven't tracked the uptime of the service, however it has never gone down that I know of.

     

    I really am pretty happy overall.  I really really wish that they supported rsync, but I realize that I have to pay more with a different company to do that (with a business model centered around me paying per/GB).  I'd rather spend less and deal with a proprietary windows app :/

     

    Carbonite seems to be very similar to Mozy, though they have an interesting approach to their user interface (shell extensions). 

     

    You can find more info about online backup services in general here: http://www.onlinebackupreviews.com/ and here: http://www.pcmag.com/category2/0,1874,4798,00.asp

     

    I've known that I would be offloading my file server duties from a Windows Server to a dedicated NAS box of some sort for awhile now (I ended up choosing unraid of course :)), so I have been researching a method to assign a network share as a fixed disk in Windows.  Otherwise I won't be able to back up any of the data on my Unraid box unless it is mirrored to a local drive on the Windows box first (what I am trying to get away from!).  The closest thing I have found so far is AOE or iSCSI; not exactly what I need (sarcasm).  There are some threads at the daemon tools forum about creating a virtual device and mapping it to the share which would be perfect, however it doesn't look like it is ever going to be on the dev list.

     

    If you want the service you choose to support unraid (i.e. rsync or ftp or at the very least a network share from windows) you might want to look at some of the more expensive services.  If you want to backup your vista workstations (or are willing to get your hands dirty figuring out how to register a network share as a fixed disk for unraid support) then the $5/month services might work just fine.

     

    Either way I would be interested in what you find/decide.

     

    -kenshin

Link to comment

well i was all excited about mozy - signed up for the free 2 GB account to try and installed the software only to find (as you just stated) that you cannot backup filed from a network share. 

 

so unfortunately mozy will be completely useless to me. bummer. 

 

I like the idea of offsite backups but i don't have a fortune to spend on it so unfortunately, until i can find somethgin better i guess i will just be doin an acronis backup of the critical files from a few drives on my uinraid to another drive on unraid (one designated for backups).

 

not quite what i was looking for but i guess it is my only option.

Link to comment

I completely agree that the no network share thing is a bummer.  I still haven't given up on registering a network share as a fixed disk (probably because I already paid for the service, and have no choice) :D

 

Acronis is a fine option (as you already know) and probably a good idea even if you had offsite storage as it supports versioning.

 

-Kenshin

Link to comment

I completely agree that the no network share thing is a bummer.

 

The reason Mozy doesn't allow network shares to be backed up is that a business user (primarily) could buy one unlimited account and back up his/her entire company's computers.  Mozy wants to sell one account to each machine.  At the prices they are charging, that sounds reasonable.

 

Of course, it completely hoses us individuals who happen to have a NAS ... "bummer" indeed!

 

 

Bill

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.