tomc@mntgfx.mentor.com (Tom Carstensen) (10/05/88)
-- FOR YOUR INFORMATION --
I had used DiskFit 1.41 for quite a while now, I'd thought I'd
test out Redux, to see how it compares.
Overall there pretty comparable, Redux does have more flexibility
on selecting specific file not to back-up, etc.
BUT!!! The TWO MAIN REASONS I found Redux WORTHLESS compared
to Diskfit:
1. When I did an incremental backup with Redux (after about
2 days of disk usage) It asked me FOR EVERY SINGLE DISK
except for about 4-5 out of my 60 disk backup set !!!!
It had to update folder info on all these disks, which
just took a second, but it VERY ANNOYING to have to pull
out and insert all those disks!. Diskfit never
performed this bad.
2. Diskfit keeps it's back-up in Finder compatible format.
Quite nice.
I'm staying with Diskfit. It's simple and it works extremely
well.
:------------------------------------------------------------:
: | GEnie: T.CARSTENSEN :
: Thomas Carstensen | Delphi: CARSTENSEN :
: Mentor Graphics | CompuServe: 177000,403 :
: 8500 SW Creekside Pl. | :
: Beaverton, OR 97005-7191 | tomc@pdx.MENTOR.COM :
: (503) 626-7000 | ...{sequent,tessi,attunix, :
: | apollo}!mntgfx!tomc :
:------------------------------------------------------------:
: . . . 20 minutes into the future . . . :
: - Max Headroom :
:------------------------------------------------------------:bruceh@mntgfx.mentor.com (Bruce Holm) (10/05/88)
In article <1988Oct4.162537.8158@mntgfx.mentor.com>, tomc@mntgfx.mentor.com (Tom Carstensen) writes: > -- FOR YOUR INFORMATION -- > > I had used DiskFit 1.41 for quite a while now, I'd thought I'd > test out Redux, to see how it compares. > > Overall there pretty comparable, Redux does have more flexibility > on selecting specific file not to back-up, etc. > > BUT!!! The TWO MAIN REASONS I found Redux WORTHLESS compared > to Diskfit: > > 1. When I did an incremental backup with Redux (after about > 2 days of disk usage) It asked me FOR EVERY SINGLE DISK > except for about 4-5 out of my 60 disk backup set !!!! > It had to update folder info on all these disks, which > just took a second, but it VERY ANNOYING to have to pull > out and insert all those disks!. Diskfit never > performed this bad. > > 2. Diskfit keeps it's back-up in Finder compatible format. > Quite nice. > > I'm staying with Diskfit. It's simple and it works extremely > well. I own and use Redux for my hard disk backups. I will agree with Tom that it can be a pain to feed in all your diskettes for a few seconds (while it updates folder info). BUT, I find the feature he touched on briefly to be THE feature that sold me on Redux...that is its very flexible file selection for backup and restores. It provides a very friendly user interface using a checkbox scheme. Beside each folder name is a folder icon. Clicking beside this icon produces a popup menu for marking or unmarking all the contents of the folder, opening it or closing it. If you chose not to mark all the contents and open the folder, you can mark any or all files individually. When the folder is opened, each file/folder inside it is displayed below the folder name but indented slightly. Beside each file name is a mini-icon indicating the type of file (application/document/...) and a checkbox allowing you to mark it for backup/restores. REdux supplies extensive filtering control over which files/folders are to be viewed. All those modified after a particular date, all those starting with a certain string value, or ending with..., or only applications, or only system stuff, or...and the list goes on. After the first time you backup your hard disk, during any subsequent backup sessions, Redux will indicate which files/folders have been modified since the last backup. This greatly assists in the selection process. There may be times when you don't want to do an incremental backup of ALL files modified since the last backup. I know I don't always want to incrementally backup everything. In addition to my master backup, I do multiple subset backups of the files I use most frequently. This prevents me from incrementally backuping up every couple weeks. I just incr. backup my much smaller subset(s). Redux also provides a macro language that allows for making and tailoring scripts for automating your backups/restores. I call Redux a VERY flexible backup utility program, probably the most flexible now available. It has two modes of operation: a simple user mode for those who don't want power but just want a quick and easy way to do backups at the push of a button. Then there is the power user mode which provides all the features mentioned above. User preferences are preserved. I don't find Diskfit's method of storing files in Finder format to be something I miss. Redux is so easy to use, I don't have a need to by-pass it and read stuff off directly in the Finder. If I wanted that, I would just use the Finder for doing my backups. Redux compresses the file data to preserve space. SUMMARY: In defense of Diskfit (I have not used it but have read several reviews of it), if all you want is a push the button and leave it alone while it backups up everything on your hard disk, then this is the program for you. But if you want basically complete control over what gets backed up, down to the individual file or folder, then Redux is an excellent choice. --Bruce Disclaimer: I am in no way connected or affiliated with MicroSeeds, Inc. the makers of Redux. I am only a satisfied owner and user of Redux! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** These are my opinions, & not necessarily those of Mentor Graphics Corporation ** Bruce Holm, Design/Analysis Div. | USENET: bruceh@pdx.MENTOR.COM Mentor Graphics Corp. | UUCP: ...!{sequent,tessi,apollo}!mntgfx!bruceh (503) 626-7000 | GENIE: BHOLM (rarely used) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** These are my opinions, & not necessarily those of Mentor Graphics Corporation ** Bruce Holm, Design/Analysis Div. | USENET: bruceh@pdx.MENTOR.COM Mentor Graphics Corp. | UUCP: ...!{sequent,tessi,apollo}!mntgfx!bruceh
singer@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (10/07/88)
In article <1988Oct5.085923.97@mntgfx.mentor.com> bruceh@mntgfx.mentor.com (Bruce Holm) writes: >In article <1988Oct4.162537.8158@mntgfx.mentor.com>, tomc@mntgfx.mentor.com (Tom Carstensen) writes: [arguments on DiskFit vs. Redux] I've tried both DiskFit and Redux, and I prefer DiskFit for the following reasons: 1) Diskfit backs up in Finder format. This is handy, because I can easily restore a single file from backup without having to fire up the backup application. It works like this: - Use a text editing DA to open DiskFit's report, which tells me where the file I want resides in the backup. - Use DiskTop to copy from the backup. The whole process takes about thirty seconds. 2) DiskFit allows you to automatically exclude folders from a backup by putting their names in square brackets ( [ ] ). Therefore, if I create a new folder that I don't want backed up, I just name it, for example, "[Junk]". The next time I back up with DiskFit, I know that [Junk] and all folders and files within it will be skipped. Redux doesn't have this ability; in fact, it is rather curiously missing the ability to wild-card folder names. , which at the very least is annoying. 3) I've been able to crash Redux on several occasions. I have never crashed DiskFit. I don't trust backup software that crashes. --Rich Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. Internet: singer@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!singer Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305 Any opinions stated in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of Symantec Corporation or its employees.
felix@AI.SRI.COM (Francois Felix INGRAND) (10/09/88)
In article <446@husc6.harvard.edu>, singer@endor (Rich Siegel) writes: >In article <1988Oct5.085923.97@mntgfx.mentor.com> bruceh@mntgfx.mentor.com (Bruce Holm) writes: >>In article <1988Oct4.162537.8158@mntgfx.mentor.com>, tomc@mntgfx.mentor.com (Tom Carstensen) writes: > > 3) I've been able to crash Redux on several occasions. I have never >crashed DiskFit. I don't trust backup software that crashes. > > --Rich > >Rich Siegel I do not trust people who are not more specific about the condition of a crash. I have been using Redux for a while without crash. My point here is not to say that Redux is better than Diskfit (I have never tried Diskfit), but to say that when you are saying that a software crashes, you have to understand that hundred of people will not buy it for this very reason. Actually, it make sense, I will not buy a Backup software which crashes... But Redux never crashed with me. So, who is right, who is wrong? You or me? probably both... but did you crashe it under a plain system, or a system running 34 Inits, Cdevs, and other almost bug free software... Please, be more specific, -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Francois Felix INGRAND SRI International, AIC 333, Ravenswood Avenue felix@AI.SRI.COM MENLO PARK, CA 94025
Mark_Peter_Cookson@cup.portal.com (10/11/88)
Just to throw in my 2 cents here, I just finshed backing up my 140 meg Jasmine with Redux 1.01 after I restored it with FastBack after, I beleive, the latest SUM bug fix trashed the HD so bad that even SUM could not bring it back.... Well, Redux is VERY nice, and A LOT more powerful than FastBack 1.02, but, and this a big but when it comes to backing up, the same HD (obviousy, and all the same files) took Redux THREE HOURS!!! to backup. The same HD took FastBack 88 minutes.... Quite a difference. I should also point out that Redux took 102 disks to FastBack's 123 (including catalog disk). Looks like FastBack is a lot faster (I only had 112 meg on the HD, forgot to mention that too), but at the waist of quite a lot of disk space.... I think I will stick with Redux from now on, but I sure don't want to EVER have to full backup (or God forbid a full restore again) with Redux. For speed, FastBack has everyone beat hands down. However, Redux's scripting language looks really nice and I will be having some fun playing around with it. If only the two packages could get together everything would be VERY nice. I would settle for 88 minutes, 123 disks and Redux's backup options and scripting language. Am I dreaming or would you think that this would be nice also??? Mark Cookson
julian@riacs.edu (Julian E. Gomez) (10/11/88)
In article <1988Oct5.085923.97@mntgfx.mentor.com> bruceh@mntgfx.mentor.com (Bruce Holm) writes:
" I don't find Diskfit's method of storing files in Finder format
" to be something I miss. Redux is so easy to use, I don't have
" a need to by-pass it and read stuff off directly in the Finder.
" If I wanted that, I would just use the Finder for doing my backups.
" Redux compresses the file data to preserve space.
The lack of a critical floppy (or storage medium) is a definite plus in
a backup system. Most backup programs store the files in some kind of
proprietary archive format, and then put a directory of that archive
somewhere else. If that directory disk goes for any reason, you're
screwed (this is exactly what happened to me two years ago). Since
DiskFit makes Finder floppies, there is no critical floppy. If you
lose the report file, it will take some icon dragging to get everything
back, but you will get everything back.
--
"Have you ever wondered if taxation without representation was cheaper?"
Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez
julian@riacs.edudorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) (10/12/88)
In article <985@hydra.riacs.edu> julian@hydra.riacs.edu.UUCP (Julian E Gomez) writes: >The lack of a critical floppy (or storage medium) is a definite plus in >a backup system. Most backup programs store the files in some kind of >proprietary archive format, and then put a directory of that archive >somewhere else. If that directory disk goes for any reason, you're >screwed Both Fastback & Redux can recover and reconstruct the "critical disk" from the backup set. Although I haven't tried it on Redux, I know Fastback can even recover from a partial backup set with holes in the middle of the backup set and missing disks at either end. BTW: Even though diskfit uses finder format for the backup files what does it do if the file is bigger than the floppy? Seems to me that you would then need diskfit anyways to recover the file. -- David M. O'Rourke dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu "If it doesn't do Windows, then it's not a computer!!!" Disclaimer: I don't represent the school. All opinions are mine!
ngg@bridge2.3Com.Com (Norman Goodger) (10/13/88)
The basic purpose of backing up your hard disk is recovery of your files should you crash, or have a hardware problem. The merits of having a slew of backup options such as Redux provides is worthless if the backup will NOT restore your data when you need it. If you should damage the directory of the Redux backup, its useless. And you can have one really useless backup. This will NOT happen with Diskfit. The very worst that can happen with DiskFit is you wind up Finder copying your files back to your Hard disk, With Redux you have the chance of losing the whole backup. I really wish Backup software authors would realize the importance of leaving file formats alone. Its to easy to flush a Redux backup down the drain, and I know a couple people that have done it already. The ability to have a multitude of ways to backup your data is worthless if the integrity of the backup cannot be maintained. Its also to me would be a major pain to insert a slew of floppies, even for 5 seconds if all the backup set really needed was 2 or 3 disks of the set to update files that really changed. I think that if DiskFit ever expands the backup options and maintains the backup integrity as it does now...it will be the best and in comparison to Redux, it still is....
holland@mips.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) (10/14/88)
Something else to consider is what happens if the backup is interupted. I was on disk number 85 with DiskFit when my Mac crashed (don't know whose fault it was). When I rebooted and restarted my backup, DiskFit asked me for disk 85 - what a relief. I also second the reasons other people have praised DiskFit: standard file format - for safer backup (more ways to restore data) convenient incremental backup - it reuses floppies and only asks for the necessary disks. Some backup programs just add more disks, and apparently Redux requests all disks. Fred Hollander Computer Science Center Texas Instruments, Inc. holland%ti-csl@csnet-rela The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.
hoofb@psu-cs.UUCP (Bruce Hoof) (10/14/88)
In article <9937@cup.portal.com> Mark_Peter_Cookson@cup.portal.com writes: >Just to throw in my 2 cents here, I just finshed backing up my 140 meg Jasmine >with Redux 1.01 after I restored it with FastBack after, I beleive, the latest >SUM bug fix trashed the HD so bad that even SUM could not bring it back.... > >Well, Redux is VERY nice, and A LOT more powerful than FastBack 1.02, but, and >this a big but when it comes to backing up, the same HD (obviousy, and all the >same files) took Redux THREE HOURS!!! to backup. The same HD took FastBack >88 minutes.... Quite a difference. I should also point out that Redux took >102 disks to FastBack's 123 (including catalog disk). Looks like FastBack is > ... But what's 21 disks when it comes to time and information. For those of us who Join a User Group large enough to have a store with generic disk, the price per disk is as low as $1.05. Is < $23 worth the hour and a half you will save using FastBack?. Bruce Hoof -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DISCLAIMER: I am not attached to any organization. I am just a poor student getting through school. Hopefully soon. -----------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Bruce Hoof | uunet \ hoofb@psu-cs (LOCAL) Computer Science Student | ucbvax }!tektronix!psu-cs!hoofb (UUCP) Portland State University CS | gatech / hoofb@cs.pdx.edu (CSNET) Portland Center for Advanced | ihnp4 / hoofb%cs.pdx.edu@relay.cs.net (ARPANET) -----------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
dtw@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Duane Williams) (10/15/88)
In article <446@husc6.harvard.edu>, Rich Siegel writes: | 2) DiskFit allows you to automatically exclude folders from a backup | by putting their names in square brackets ( [ ] ). Therefore, if I | create a new folder that I don't want backed up, I just name it, for | example, "[Junk]". The next time I back up with DiskFit, I know that | [Junk] and all folders and files within it will be skipped. The [FolderName] convention seems like a pretty stupid idea to me. Being able to specify a list of folders to be excluded is very nice. Having to change their names in order to do so is not nice at all. DiskFit should allow the user to specify the names of folders/files to be excluded in some less ad hoc manner, preferably involving a wildcard mechanism. Why not a simple text file containing a list of folder/file names? -- uucp: ...!seismo!cmucspt!me.ri.cmu.edu!dtw arpa: dtw@cs.cmu.edu
Mark_Peter_Cookson@cup.portal.com (10/18/88)
Well, after backing up once with Redux, I could not, get this, get it to back up "changed" files. I can see no way, and none is outlined in the manual. The best I could do is script "Check all file older than one day." but that would leave me with a one day gap between when I made my backup and what was really on it. But, I figured that I could live with that for a while, so I went ahead to backup and the stupid thing just hung there. It didn't even spin the disk in the internal drive (I was running without any INITs since the program is such a memory hog, though I was trying to back up 100 meg of stuff. So I couldn't get Redux to do any incremental backups for me so I had to start all over again with FastBack. This time I turned on the "Verify while writing" option, just to see how slow FastBack could go, and with that it still only took "149 minutes and 46 seconds...which includes a 5 minute and 34 second wait for user to insert disks." So that is not too bad. I can live with that. I was hoping that Redux would do more (mainly allow you to backup files you made the same day as the backup). But it wouldn't, so I will do it with FastBack and just uncheck all the files I don't want backed up. I have never used DiskFit, but I like speed, and data recovery posibility and with FastBack I get both. FastBack IS fast, and with its own special format it will recover something like 1/5 the disk sectors on the disk if they go bad due to long periods of unuse (after all, the file may have been written right, and verified, but remember that first disk that all the files on it never changed and then finally two years later your HD dies and you try and back it up only to find that it chokes on the first disk and so on....). FastBack will help, but not solve cases like these. (By the way, this has happened to me before, a real bummer until I started using FastBack.) So, that is why I throw a third back up program into these wars.... Mark Cookson
ngg@bridge2.3Com.Com (Norman Goodger) (10/19/88)
In article <1988Oct13.185904.94@mntgfx.mentor.com>, bruceh@mntgfx.mentor.com (Bruce Holm) writes: > Yes, this is a nice feature. But what about large files bigger than a floppy, > such as PageMaker 3.0? > > What a pain! My 40Meg HD has maybe 50+ folders on the top level. I would not > enjoy renaming all those I wished to omit from the backup list...putting [] > around each name. If its one or two folders, fine. But if I want to backup > only a few folders (a dozen, let's say), then forget it. No thanks, I'll > stick with Redux's method of just clicking the mouse on a checkbox beside the > file or folder name...much quicker!...(not to mention more versitile.) It >allows you to start from either a non checked starting point or an all checked > starting point (then unchecking). > --Bruce > Bruce, it sounds like you are creating your own pain...50+ folders on the Root? You have to be kidding.. Returns to the Finder must be the excuse you use to get a cup of coffee or something, either that you avoid the Finder like a plague...with that many folders on the desktop, it sure slows things down. As far as trying to bracket some of the folders you don't want to have Diskfit backup, there is a simple workaround if you really want to simplify things instead of making all those checks in Redux is create a folder with brackets around it, and marquee to select groups of Folders and move them into the brackets and backup with Exclude Folder selected. When done, replace the folders back with perhaps the putaway command....easy..perhaps faster than the speeding checkbox... -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-Sysop FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division
kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (10/20/88)
In article <10101@cup.portal.com> Mark_Peter_Cookson@cup.portal.com writes: > >I have never used DiskFit, but I like speed, and data recovery posibility and >with FastBack I get both. > >Mark Cookson Fastback should change their ad which makes it sound like a program that can back up only a 10-megabyte disk. Until I started reading this newsgroup I always wondered who their market was since I hadn't even heard of a 10-MB disk drive. That may sound funny, but I often considered buying 3rd party backup software and was never willing to try Fastback because my hard disk drives were larger than 10 Mbytes. (blush) Shirley Kehr
bruceh@mntgfx.mentor.com (Bruce Holm) (10/22/88)
In article <130@bridge2.3Com.Com>, ngg@bridge2.3Com.Com (Norman Goodger) writes: > > Bruce, it sounds like you are creating your own pain...50+ folders on the > Root? You have to be kidding.. Returns to the Finder must be the excuse you > use to get a cup of coffee or something, either that you avoid the Finder > like a plague...with that many folders on the desktop, it sure slows things > down. > > As far as trying to bracket some of the folders you don't want to have Diskfit > backup, there is a simple workaround if you really want to simplify things > instead of making all those checks in Redux is create a folder with brackets > around it, and marquee to select groups of Folders and move them into the > brackets and backup with Exclude Folder selected. When done, replace the > folders back with perhaps the putaway command....easy..perhaps faster > than the speeding checkbox... No, it's not a pain. I use the Finder all the time. Returns to the Finder only takes ~5-10 seconds, depending on when you start counting. How else do you manage 30+ Meg of s/w? I can't see burying files down into so many levels of folders that you can't find them without using a "Find File" type DA. I am not trying to say which way is better...obviously, everyone has their own disk management syles and preferences. But the way I happen to arrange the folders on my h/d does not "create my own pain". It works for me. What works for you is what counts. I just don't like the idea of moving folders around or renaming them all, just to protect them from backups...and then what if you don't remember what was in some of the folders? Especially if they got 5-10 levels of folders inside? Sure, you can open them, but think of all the windows that will clutter your screen. I know I don't have one of those BIG screen monitors. But if it works for you, great! Do it! --Bruce -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** These are my opinions, & not necessarily those of Mentor Graphics Corporation ** Bruce Holm, Design/Analysis Div. | USENET: bruceh@pdx.MENTOR.COM Mentor Graphics Corp. | UUCP: ...!{sequent,tessi,apollo}!mntgfx!bruceh