![]() We are not technical, have been relying on time machine to protect our data and are perplexed about online backups it just seems so many issues to understand, just overwhelming. But I don't understand why time machine can restore all the user installed applications but ARQ can not.Īs the cost of terabyte online backups becomes very affordable, Perhaps there is a large number of users like me, who have precious data to protect and are potential ARQ customers. I understand some applications can be restored by ARQ and some can not, as explained by weaselboy earlier. I also know that there are super duper and carbon copy cloner that can backup the entire drive. Also is there a fundamental reason why ARQ can not backup the entire Machintoh HD? I know it is not the purpose of ARQ and perhaps there is not a need for those who are technically savvy. Offline and immune to hackers and viruses and so on.Assume ARQ allows user to select and add folders in addition to home folder, Is it possible to select folders such that the ARQ backup is equivalent to the time machine backup? That is from time machine like to time machine equivalent. (An encrypted external drive presently, but still). ![]() One of my backups will always be a plain old literal copy of my important files on an external drive. To me, nothing replaces manual verification. I've been burned enough times at work (clients often don't want to spend enough money and effort on backups until they learn that lesson the hard way) that I know to double check and verify everything. An accurate/valid backup of a corrupt file is still a corrupt file when you restore it. The source of the backups (my original files) may have problems. My home server may have a failing drive that's resulting in corrupt data, for example. There are so many things that could go wrong, even if I do trust the program it's wise to manually verify. (EDIT: It turns out that it does.)ĭo I trust that the validation process does whatever it's supposed to do and helps ensure the integrity of my backups? Yes I do, otherwise I'd not have purchased Arq.ĭo I trust it enough to not bother with other backup methods and manually verifying the backups using test restores? Nope, not a chance. I notice that the validation also appears to be a manual-only process? Or at least, I see nowhere in particular that I can configure it to run automatically on a schedule. (Admittedly I don't have any email reports set up. I don't know what precisely it's doing, how it validates stuff, what it does if it finds issues, what it even defines as an issue, if/how it repairs them, and I don't get any sort of report about these actions unless I dig into the program logs. For many of the same reasons you created this post. That way I am also confident that if a file gets corrupted and I don't notice for a month, it's likely I cna get it back from an older version in the backup. I make sure to pick some from the newest restore point, some from the middle of the chain, and some from the oldest available. Myself, I do a test restore if a few random files every now and then. I know it's probably impractical to do a test restore of everything you have on account of time and storage limitations. The offsite datacenter was just implemented when I left the company, so I dint know what the testing schedule there was.īetween this and the occasional need for a file restored for a user, we were confident in the backups. This restore was used to update and wipe clean their test and development environment, so it wasn't a completely regular schedule depending on that was going on at the time. Every six months to a year, we did a test restore of everything from local storage. Every month, we did a test restore of a few random files (both from recent recovery points and also older ones). Even with something like this, I would to test restores.Īs an example, a client I had in the past had Veeam backups locally, and a replication to an offsite datacenter. Some products (like Veeam) have a function where it boots up your virtual machine from the backup, tests that it functions, shuts it down, and emails you the report. Backups are not a "set it and forget it" product and of you treat it that way you run bigger risk of being burned. ![]() If any company or product ceases to exist or function when I need it, I have two others on which I can rely.Īs to ensuring reliability, the only reliable way to test backup integrity is to do test restores as often as you feel you need to. Thus, now I use Arq to my storage server locally, Backblaze for cloud storage, and a straight up regular file copy to a couple of offline drives. The product never failed me, but as you know the company sort of pulled the rug out from under me on that one. I used to just use CrashPlan for everything (personally) and trust it 100%. Tl dr: Do test restores, and use more than one backup methodology.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |