wales@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/12/87)
I am considering buying the FASTBACK hard-disk backup program. FASTBACK is supposedly very fast, and (because of an "Advanced Error Correction" scheme) very reliable. (At least, that's what the company's own advertising says. :-}) Has anyone out there used FASTBACK? If so, I would welcome any informed comments (good or bad) regarding it. Also, what other comparable disk backup packages are available for IBM's and clones? -- Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department // +1 213-825-5683 3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024 // USA wales@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU ...!(ucbvax,sdcrdcf,ihnp4)!ucla-cs!wales "Sir, there is a multilegged creature crawling on your shoulder."
tim@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (02/13/87)
I have been using FastBack for some time now, it is very fast, in fact when it is backing up small files (less than 2K), the slowest part of the process is the hard disk (65ms Seagate). It formats the disk on the fly using its own format. This allows more information to be put on the disk and also gives you the good error recovery. The amount put on the disk depends on the number of files, it seems not to have minimum cluster size. I have gotten an average of 500K on a floppy for some of my backups. It is not copy protected, but does test your system at installation time. It checks for what kind of floppy drives and how many, "tests" your DMA chip and your CPU. I have heard and seen test failure reports on early PC's due to a bug in the 8088 CPU. I have also heard that sometimes the installer reports a bad DMA when it is actually the CPU. Using DS/DD disks it works fine, I have tried using some SS/DD disks that have worked with no bad spots formatted by DOS and they usually fail under FastBack. It is quite picky about disks. If you are in the middle of a backup and it gets a disk error, it will abort and you will have to start the backup over. A pain if you are on disk 88! It retails for $179, but have seen it in several mail order listings for under $100. -- Timothy Lange PC Learning Resource Center Purdue University Computing Center West Lafayette, IN 47907 317-494-1787 tim@j.cc.purdue.edu
keeshu@nikhefk.UUCP (02/15/87)
In article <4394@curly.ucla-cs.UCLA.EDU> wales@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (Rich Wales) writes: >I am considering buying the FASTBACK hard-disk backup program. > >FASTBACK is supposedly very fast, and (because of an "Advanced Error >Correction" scheme) very reliable. (At least, that's what the company's >own advertising says. :-}) > >Has anyone out there used FASTBACK? If so, I would welcome any informed >comments (good or bad) regarding it. > >-- Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department // +1 213-825-5683 > 3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024 // USA > wales@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU ...!(ucbvax,sdcrdcf,ihnp4)!ucla-cs!wales I've been using Fastback now for about 8 months, and I'm very satisfied with its performance. A complete backup of a 20 Mb disk takes about 12 minutes. Presently I'm using a system with only one diskdrive (360 Kb), so backing up the HD takes a lot of floppies and more time than nessecary due to changing the disks every few seconds. Fastback can use a 1.2Mb floppy if available. The program uses its own recording technique to write to the disk, which allows it to write more than 360Kb on a standard disk. -- Kees | UUCP : keeshu@nikhefk.uucp or : {[wherever]!seismo}!mcvax!nikhefk!keeshu | FIDO : kees huyser at 28/9 or 500/11 | BITNET : u00212@hasara5.bitnet | SNAIL : kees huyser, NIKHEF-K, PO Box 4395, 1009 AJ Amsterdam, Netherlands
luis@grinch.UUCP (02/15/87)
I have been using FASTBACK 5.03 for some time now, and have had NO problems with it what-so-ever. At first it was dificult to figure out how to use the restore program, but eventually I figured that out. It's documentation needs major improvment, but the program is well worth it... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Chanu "Live every day as if it were your last UUCP: ihnp4!sun!altos86!grinch!luis because one day you will be right." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ross@isis.UUCP (02/16/87)
In article <195@grinch.grinch.UUCP> luis@grinch.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >I have been using FASTBACK 5.03 for some time now, and have had NO problems >with it what-so-ever. At first it was dificult to figure out how to use >the restore program, but eventually I figured that out. It's documentation >needs major improvment, but the program is well worth it... > I would generally agree - FASTBACK is a very fast and reliable backup program. HOWEVER, I have had one occasion where FASTBACK was not able to restore a very large file from a set of backup floppies. It aborted with the message "Too many errors" or something like that. This was a file extending over approx 8 floppies (360K). FASTBACK was able to recover from several errors on Floppy 2 but died on floppy 3. I cannot be sure that the diskettes were not somehow damaged between backup and restore. However, now whenever I have an important backup, one I can't live without, after doing the backup I do an FRESTORE in verify mode before I stash the floppies away. This makes me feel a little more confident.
sbanner1@uvicctr.UUCP (02/16/87)
In article <4394@curly.ucla-cs.UCLA.EDU> wales@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (Rich Wales) writes: >I am considering buying the FASTBACK hard-disk backup program. > >FASTBACK is supposedly very fast, and (because of an "Advanced Error >Correction" scheme) very reliable. (At least, that's what the company's >own advertising says. :-}) Hello, I have been using Fastback for the past few months, and I am MOST happy with it. I can backup my 20Meg HardDisk onto standard 360K floppies in from 15-35 minutes (depending on disk fragmentation, and whether I have the disk cache program running [I know a disk cache shouldn't affect this sort of an application, but it DOES]). On average, it takes me about 25 minutes to backup 20Meg of files, and if you forget to swap disks, it tells you (instead of just overwriteing the disk, and messing up your backup; a feature I have been MOST thankful of more than once [30 secs to switch a disk is not much if you are trying to talk to someone else at the same time]). The program also produces a compleate list of all the files you have backed up, with what disk they are on, which is also a nice feature. The one thing (though it is not too big a deal, as it doesn't come up that often), is that it takes much longer to restore files as it does to back them up (it took about 1.5-2 hours [it was 2AM, so it is hard to remember... :-) ], to restore the full 20Meg of files... As I say this is not a big deal, as you don't go around restoring your entire hard-drive every second week (I have only done it once :-). I can't really comment on other backup utilities, as the only one I have ever used, other than Fastback is the Dos utility, and my power supply died halfway through the only backup I started with it (Sort of a good thing I think, I think it would have taken about 6hours if it hadn't died; or at least it seemed that way at the time... :-). S. John Banner ...!{uw-beaver,ubc-vision}!uvicctr!sbanner1 ccsjb@uvvm sbanner1@uvunix.UVIC.CDN #1 1121 Fort St. Victoria BC. Canada V8V 3K9
sbanner1@uvicctr.UUCP (02/16/87)
In article <3237@j.cc.purdue.edu> tim@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Timothy Lange) writes: >Using DS/DD disks it works fine, I have tried using some SS/DD disks >that have worked with no bad spots formatted by DOS and they usually >fail under FastBack. It is quite picky about disks. If you are in the >middle of a backup and it gets a disk error, it will abort and you will >have to start the backup over. A pain if you are on disk 88! Funny, I have never had any problems what so ever, and I use the cheapest ss/dd disks I can buy for my backups (for just about everything actually :-). S. John Banner ...!{uw-beaver,ubc-vision}!uvicctr!sbanner1 ccsjb@uvvm sbanner1@uvunix.UVIC.CDN #1 1121 Fort St. Victoria BC. Canada V8V 3K9
tla@kaiser.UUCP (02/16/87)
I've used Fastback and have limited experience with a few other backup utilities. I am quite happy with Fastback. It is indeed very fast and I have had do no problems with it. Be WARNED that it uses a non-standard disk format. (This is one of the primary ways it gains speed and gets more than 360k on a standard disk). This means that you must use Fastback to get back your files too. You cannot even catalog them without it. But it is by far the fastest backup utility I have used. -- Terry L Anderson AT&T Bell Laboratories -- Liberty Corners UUCP: ...!ihnp4!daimler!kaiser!tla TeleMail: Terry.Anderson (201) 580-4428
aptr@ur-tut.UUCP (02/17/87)
In article <4394@curly.ucla-cs.UCLA.EDU> wales@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (Rich Wales) writes: >Has anyone out there used FASTBACK? If so, I would welcome any informed >comments (good or bad) regarding it. My father currently uses FASTBACK. I have done backups of his 20Meg disk in about 10 minutes. The time does vary on the speed of the operator, and the number of floppy disk drives. FASTBACK will allow you to use two drives so that the program is not waiting for you to swap disks. It also takes care of formatting each backup disk the first time it uses it. One of the nice features about FASTBACK is that it does file by filee backing-up so yuo can easily restore only the files that went bad. BTW, FASTBACK has very nice file restoration procedures that allow individual and batch checking of files. (ok, so I accidentaly killed a few files on my fathers HardCard while I was hacking :-) -- The Wumpus UUCP: {seismo,allegra,decvax}!rochester!ur-tut!aptr BITNET: aptrccss@uorvm Disclaimer: "Who? When? Me? It was the Booze!" - M. Binkley
toma@tekgvs.UUCP (02/17/87)
In article <228@uvicctr.UUCP> sbanner1@uvicctr.UUCP (S. John Banner) writes: ... >The one thing (though it is not too big >a deal, as it doesn't come up that often), is that it takes much longer >to restore files as it does to back them up (it took about 1.5-2 hours >[it was 2AM, so it is hard to remember... :-) ], to restore the full >20Meg of files... As I say this is not a big deal, as you don't go >around restoring your entire hard-drive every second week (I have only >done it once :-). ... It is critical to have a large number (lets say 20 or more) of buffers when running Fastback. When doing a complete disk restoration, booting from a disk with no CONFIG.SYS file, there are an insufficient number of files and FRESTORE thrashes badly. I put a one-liner CONFIG.SYS file with "BUFFERS=20" in it and performance shoots up to that of FASTBACK. By the way, on an AT class machine, it backs up slightly more than 2 megabytes per minute on HD floppies! It will also backup to standard floppies but using 80 tracks (2/3 the capacity, but less than half price for disks), but I haven't tried this. It corrected an error once; for some reason it takes many seconds to do it, but the data was recovered (and the floppy was then tossed out!). Tom Almy Tektronix, Inc.
zu@ethz.UUCP (02/18/87)
In article <1644@isis.UUCP> ross@isis.UUCP (Ross McConnell) writes: >... HOWEVER, I have had one occasion where FASTBACK was not able to >restore a very large file from a set of backup floppies. It aborted with >the message "Too many errors" or something like that. YAMOF: Yet another misfeature of FASTBACK. If you get a read error while restoring you can't have that error ignored. There are some files I don't mind to have some garbage in them (e.g. sources to programs I wrote myself. I keep separate backups of them.) Help me! Tell me that I'm missing something! ...urs UUCP: ...seismo!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!zu
davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (02/18/87)
In article <4394@curly.ucla-cs.UCLA.EDU> wales@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (Rich Wales) writes: >I am considering buying the FASTBACK hard-disk backup program. > It *is* really fast. It uses one DMA channel to write directly to the floppy controller which DOS is reading the hard disk. It uses its own format on the floppies, and it *looks* like an XOR of every sector is written as the last sector on the track. If you have two floppy drives it will toggle between them, eliminating the "operator time" to change disks. After the first backup (when it formats as well as writes) the backups are even faster. Using 1200k disks I see about 1.5MB/sec backup rate on previously used disks, 600KB/sec on fresh disks. Disclamer: a customer only, your milage may vary. -- bill davidsen sixhub \ ihnp4!seismo!rochester!steinmetz -> crdos1!davidsen chinet / ARPA: davidsen%crdos1.uucp@ge-crd.ARPA (or davidsen@ge-crd.ARPA)
wb8foz@ncoast.UUCP (02/18/87)
The Feb 2 INFOWORLD has a review of about 6 backup utilities.
I recommend reading it.
They rated Backup Master above Fastback.
--
decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!wb8foz
ncoast!wb8foz@case.csnet
(ncoast!wb8foz%case.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA)
"SERIOUS?
Bones, it could upset the entire percentage!"
NRO Mossad intercept igniters plutonium Ollie North Tehran ho@calma.UUCP (02/20/87)
Organization:
I heard of a backup program for IBM PC called SpeedyBack which is
1. reasonable fast - about 1 Mbyte/min
2. reasonable cheap - about $30 (esp. compare to FASTBACK)
3. compatible with DOS BACKUP format
The problem is it is not yet available. They are working on providing
device drivers to use other density drives like the Quad density drive.
They will also have an option to use 10 sectors/track on regular DS/DD
floppy to get it over 0.4 Mbyte/floppy. There may be a catalog file
produced after each backup. I am not 100% sure though.
Last thing I heard is they are testing it right now. They may be selling
it next month.
Now the question:
Is there any other backup program for IBM PC which is CHEAP and FAST?
I am using the DOS BACKUP program once in a blue moon.
I just wonder if anybody using it regularly.
FASTBACK is great but I won't spend a fortune on backup program.
I will buy SpeedyBack if it ever comes out :-)
But I also like to know any other alternatives.
Please Email to me. I will summarize.singhal@homxb.UUCP (02/21/87)
Yes FASTBACK is very good and fast but.... 1) There is no way to tell FASTBACK which files or directories NOT to backup. It allows you to specify which files or directories *should* be backed up but that is not the same thing. It implies that whenever I create a new directory, I need to explicitly tell FASTBACK to back it up. There is no way of saying that "Backup all directories except C:\TMP and all files except *.BAK". Consequently you end up backing more files than you want to and this compromises the speed advantage. 2) It does not recognize AT&T PC6300+ as an AT. Therefore you can store only 720K data on a flooppy, and not 1.2 Meg. FASTBACK is fussy about the hardware so make sure that it can work in the "fast" mode on your computer. 3) The documentation is extremely half hearted. It is more of a "Reference Manual" rather than a "Users Guide". 4) If you like to use the file catalog feature (FASTBACK creates a file on your hard disk which lists all the files that have been backed up, which disk the file is on and other useful information) then you are forced to create the directory \FASTBACK. I am fussy about the organization of my hard disk and do not like to be bullied like this. 5) It keeps the floppy disk motor running all the time. This precludes you from doing a relaxed backup. Sometimes I prefer to backup my hard disk in stages. Backup 20 floppys (takes 10 mins but feels like eternity), go for coffee, and then backup the remaining 20. I wonder whether it is safe to keep the floppy motor running for extended periods of time. 6) It does not tell you in advance how many floppys will be needed. If you guess too few, God help you. When you use a floppy for the first time, FASTBACK has to format it and this consumes precious time. DOS formatted floppys are no good. 7) If you want to restore a specific file and you do not use the catalog feature (see item 4 above) then you have to search for that file on every floppy. Even if you do use the catalog feature, in case of a hard disk failure it is no good since the catalog file is kept on your hard disk. There is no easy way of generating the catalog file from the floppys. And please don't suggest that I should backup my catalog file on a separate floppy ! Need I say more. I tried FASTBACK for a few days, and am now happily using another product (DSBACKUP) which may not be as fast but is a whole lot better AND cheaper. ---Sharad Singhal
madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (02/23/87)
In article <609@calma.UUCP> ho@calma.UUCP writes: >Organization: > > >I heard of a backup program for IBM PC called SpeedyBack which is > 1. reasonable fast - about 1 Mbyte/min > 2. reasonable cheap - about $30 (esp. compare to FASTBACK) > 3. compatible with DOS BACKUP format > I'd like to see it compatible with DOS BACKUP! It's been my experience that DOS BACKUP isn't even compatible within itself! Try doing backups on one version of DOS and then switching to another. The other version will insist that you don't have a backup disk in the drive, even though you do. (note - my experiences have been between DOS 2.11 and DOS 3.10. possibly others don't have this problem).
madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (02/23/87)
In article <2405@homxb.UUCP> singhal@homxb.UUCP writes: >Yes FASTBACK is very good and fast but.... > >1) There is no way to tell FASTBACK which files or directories NOT to backup. >It allows you to specify which files or directories *should* be backed up but >that is not the same thing. It implies that whenever I create a new directory, >I need to explicitly tell FASTBACK to back it up. There is no way of saying >that "Backup all directories except C:\TMP and all files except *.BAK". >Consequently you end up backing more files than you want to and this >compromises the speed advantage. This is true. For some people, you'd lose precious speed unnecessarily backing up files. May users (like myself) want the security of a FULL backup. This is where fastback excels. >2) It does not recognize AT&T PC6300+ as an AT. Therefore you can store >only 720K data on a floppy, and not 1.2 Meg. FASTBACK is fussy about the >hardware so make sure that it can work in the "fast" mode on your computer. Why not try forcing it to use 1.2meg? It DOES have a documented switch. The configure program also tests to see just how good your drive is, and really should tell you the maximum amount it can store on diskette. It's possible it's flawed, though, so just set the drive size option. Even if fastback doesn't like the fast mode of your computer, it's been my experience that fastback is not limited by the speed of your computer, but by the speed of your drives. Our backup speeds using an IBM AT w/ 25msec Micropolis drive are phenomenal. They beat the documented speeds by over 20%. >3) The documentation is extremely half hearted. It is more of a "Reference >Manual" rather than a "Users Guide". This is true. You really need a good background to understand several of the sections. If you're afraid of techno-ese language, don't even try to read it. The instalation is set up for beginners, but the manual definitely is not. >4) If you like to use the file catalog feature (FASTBACK creates a file on >your hard disk which lists all the files that have been backed up, which disk >the file is on and other useful information) then you are forced to create the >directory \FASTBACK. I am fussy about the organization of my hard disk and do >not like to be bullied like this. This is its worst problem, and one that I wish they would fix. Remember, however, that many hard-disk style programs think in the same manner. It's a serious failing, but a common one. >5) It keeps the floppy disk motor running all the time. This precludes you >from doing a relaxed backup. Sometimes I prefer to backup my hard disk in >stages. Backup 20 floppys (takes 10 mins but feels like eternity), go for >coffee, and then backup the remaining 20. I wonder whether it is safe to keep >the floppy motor running for extended periods of time. The only thing wrong with leaving the drive running is that if you leave a diskette in the drive, it will wear out the diskette quickly. If you take the diskette out, no harm done, even for pretty long periods of time. >6) It does not tell you in advance how many floppys will be needed. If you >guess too few, God help you. When you use a floppy for the first time, >FASTBACK has to format it and this consumes precious time. DOS formatted >floppys are no good. This is definitely a pain, but we took care of it by buying a lot of blank floppies to use ONLY for backups. Just buy about enough to back up the whole drive, and you'll be sure to have enough. Eventually you'll even need them all. >7) If you want to restore a specific file and you do not use the catalog >feature (see item 4 above) then you have to search for that file on every >floppy. Even if you do use the catalog feature, in case of a hard disk failure >it is no good since the catalog file is kept on your hard disk. There is no >easy way of generating the catalog file from the floppys. And please don't >suggest that I should backup my catalog file on a separate floppy ! Another big failing. Again, not a problem if you really only use it for complete system backups. >Need I say more. I tried FASTBACK for a few days, and am now happily using >another product (DSBACKUP) which may not be as fast but is a whole lot better >AND cheaper. I'm hooked on fastback. Remember that there are a few other things about fastback that make it very favorable. For instance, it recovers damaged diskettes. Name even ONE other backup program that does that. And if you know of one, how good is it? Several independent reviewers actually tried passing diskettes through staplers (the example that Firfth Generation Systems, who make fastback, give in their ads). It performed flawlessly in every case that I read about. This gives the added security that we bought the backup program for in the first place. >---Sharad Singhal %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% - Jim Frost * The Madd Hacker - UUCP: ..!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!madd | ARPANET: madd@bucsb.bu.edu CSNET: madd%bucsb@bu-cs | BITNET: cscc71c@bostonu -------------------------------+---+------------------------------------ "Oh beer, oh beer." -- Me | [=(BEER) <- Bud the Beer (cheers!)
owen@gt-eedsp.UUCP (02/24/87)
In article <2405@homxb.UUCP> singhal@homxb.UUCP writes: >Yes FASTBACK is very good and fast but.... >Need I say more. I tried FASTBACK for a few days, and am now happily using >another product (DSBACKUP) which may not be as fast but is a whole lot better >AND cheaper. > I tried DSBACKUP and switched to FASTBACK after a few days..... Guess we all have our different priorities in software... -- Owen Adair, Digital Signal Processing Lab, Ga. Institute of Technology uucp ... !{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!gt-eedsp!owen Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for, nor does it care, what I say here or anywhere else.
bruce@vax135.UUCP (02/25/87)
One of the great claims made about Fastback is that it can recover from damaged disks. Unfortunately, it can also fail horribly. I made a full backup of the hard disk with fastback one time, and used the separate verify procedure in the frestore program to check that the data had been successfully written to the diskettes. Several months later I wanted to restore. When I gave the first diskette to frestore, it reported "too many errors" and gave up. "Well", I thought, "the first diskette just has the root and dos files, I'll start frestore on the second diskette." But no. When I begin with the second diskette, frestore resolutely informs me that it is diskette 2, and I should please insert diskette 1. No combination of control-c, inserting and removing diskettes, and restarting the program will persuade frestore to process diskette 2 from the backup set. Indeed, it recognizes but refuses to process any diskette other than #1 from that backup set. This behavior is somewhat unusual--I have been able to start reading other backup sets in the middle. But flakeyness is not an acceptable property for a backup utility. Fastback has other problems too. For instance, when I restore files, the archive bit in the directory is not set properly, so it appears that the file has never been backed up. The archive bit is also handled poorly in incremental backups: fastback immediately marks the file as backed up. If the backup process fails (for instance, when fastback cannot successfully format a disk), the file is not backed up, but will not be taken on a subsequent incremental backup. I still use fastback because of its speed, but for critical data I find a dos-formatted backup to be more secure. If the diskette can be read by dos I can retrieve the data, using an editor if need be. -B.
ericf@uwvax.UUCP (02/26/87)
I've been using FASTBACK for a while, and I like it, except that if an
unrecoverable error occurs on a floppy (like track 0 bad), two things
happen that are very unpleasant:
1. FASTBACK terminates. It would be nice if it could keep track (no pun
intended) of where it was, and just say "Try another floppy", and pick
up where it left off.
2. As it terminates, it erases the FASTBACK.CAT file, so if you're doing
incrementals, you lose the easily accessible map to the backup (the
floppies also contain a catalog, but then you have to trudge through
them all to find one file to restore).
This problem is particularly annoying when you're doing an incremental, and
you can't restart it, since files backed up get their archive bit turned off,
so they won't get backed up again unless you do a full backup. In addition,
if you're doing a full backup, you essentially have to start from scratch.
Aside from that, I've been really happy with FASTBACK - it is fast. Does
anyone know if the FASTBACK folks are addressing the above issues?
-Eric Feigenson
ericf@rsch.wisc.edu
{seismo, harpo, ihnp4, allegra}!uwvax!ericfrick@beowulf.UUCP (03/02/87)
In article <1777@vax135.UUCP> bruce@vax135.UUCP (Bruce Hillyer) writes:
[Bruce indicated that he has had numerous reliability problems
with Fastback...]
Some observations that might be of some help:
1. I had lots of reliability problems with an earlier
version of Fastback; now have 5.13 ($10 upgrade), and
it is rock solid. One of the biggest headaches before
was that I would get nearly through with a 20+ diskette
backup and then have Fastback tell me "...fatal error
formatting..." (or some such), at which point it would
erase the catalog and exit!
Since upgrading, however, no such problems.
2. The problem you mention about trying to recover from
very old backup disks can easily have been due to
drifting drive characteristics. I had this problem
over and over until I finally trashed my Qumes (*never
again*) and am now using *good* drives.
Also, while on the line, I would like to offer readership my personal
approach to backups using Fastback (this stuff is personal preference,
of course, but if you're new to Fastback, it might be worth
considering):
I normally backup the entire hard disk -- minimizes record
keeping, simple rule to follow, etc. Do backups every
week or so, depending on activity.
I alternate backup sets; I always have latest backup
and one previous. Have had occasion to thank the stars
for this, too, when I had to recover a prior version of
a certain file. Lots of diskettes required, but I
bought 100 for $.29 apiece just for this purpose (see
back of PC Magazine, etc.).
I do not number my disks, but simply keep each batch in
order, with rubber band around (not too tight, though!).
I place a small post-it note on front of batch,
indicating date.
Finally, immediately following a backup, I rename the
catalog file to something like 870301.cat, so that later
Fastback runs do not delete the previous catalog. This
also permits doing interim backups of highly active
subdirectory, without sacrificing primary catalog.
Recovering stuff when you have a good .CAT file on your
hard disk is a joy -- well engineered.