Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-unix!ctnews!pyramid!hplabs!hpcea!hpda!hpsmtc1!kwallich
From: kwallich@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (Ken Wallich)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: backup utilities
Message-ID: <11540123@hpsmtc1.HP.COM>
Date: 4 Feb 88 19:31:45 GMT
References: <945@pbhyc.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 153


>I would like a recommendation for a harddisk back-up utility for the mac.
>I saw some stuff on Fastback out here awhile back.  Seemed like I remember
>it being mostly negative.  Can anyone give the pros and cons?  What
>do you use and like?

----------

Since the last round of postings got rather religious, and strongly
favored DiskFit, I refrained from posting.  I currently use Fastback,
and am more or less pleased with it.  At work here, we also have a copy
of DiskFit, so I have used, and read the documentation on it too, and
I find it to be an inferior product.  I will try to give some of the
pro's and cons of each product here.  Note that I don't think Fastback
is the end all of backup programs either, but I have been using it for
a few months, and have stored and restored lots of things with no
mishap.  If the product is unstable, I certainly haven't run across any
problems (I'm running it on a MacII with a CDC WrenIII 160meg drive).
DiskFit also has proven itself reliable, and conviently does archive, and
incremental (well, not really, it just updates its archive) backups.
I find it's not usable for special (read partial) backups, or any partial
restorations.  Anyway, here's my list:

DiskFit Pros:
o Does resonably fast backups.
o Uses a minimum number of diskettes (it re-writes over the old files)
o Is set up to easily do day-to-day backups
o Stores it's backup files as "normal" mac files, and whenever possible
  the file is simply a duplicate of that on your harddisk (you can use
  the finder to copy them)
o You can automatically exclude applications, or documents from a backup
o You can automatically exclude folders (and all folders and files under
  the folder)

DiskFit Cons:
o It writes over your old files.  Note that this is a pro above, in that
  it uses a minimum number of diskettes, but I have worked on minicomputers
  for 10 years now, and any backup program that altered a previous backup
  set doesn't seem very trustworthy to me.  You really need to keep TWO
  incremental backups this way, and alternatly use them (the documentation
  recommends this).  Your hoping that if the program screws up and
  destroys a backupset this way, you'll find out about it before the
  next backup.
o You can't backup up a folder, or any other set of files individually.
  The only capability is to backup ONE FILE, or ALL APPLICATIONS, or
  ALL DATAFILES, or ALL FILES, or ALL FOLDERS not surrounded by '[]'s
  This means if I want to backup one folder, I have to surround all the
  other folders above and next to this one with brackets.  Pretty
  unfriendly to me.
o You can only restore an ENTIRE HARD DISK using diskfit.  If you want
  to just restore a file, or set of files, you gotta find them on your
  backup, copy them one by one to your hard disk (using the finder),
  and hope you can remember what folder they went in, since diskfit
  won't put them back for you.  Oh yeah, if the file was split up,
  the file could be on lots of non-consecutive volumes.  Real easy to
  find folks!
o You are frequently asked to put in a prior disk when doing a backup.
  Your disk insertions could look like this:  1-2-3-4-1-4-2-5-1-4-5-6 etc.
  This means your brain must be quite active, and you have to be able
  to get to all the previous disks quickly, if you want to complete your
  backup in less than an evening.  Note that on incrementals, you only
  have to insert the disks that have changed, but may have to insert a
  particular disk several times.
o Prompts you for EACH disk insertion, and requires a RESPONSE.  For a
  100 disk backup, that's over 100 button presses (see previous con).
o Doesn't tell you how many disks it needs until AFTER you start your
  backup (and even then, it's usually off by 1-3 disks).

Fastback pros:
o Does resonably fast backups.
o Allows the selection of a full archive, changed files only, or a selection
  of any combination of files and folders (gives you a visual map of the
  file structure, and you pick everything, or pick the folders you want.
  Everthing under a folder is selected, but you can selectivly deselect
  portions thereof).
o File restores are just like backups.  You are given the structure of
  everthing on your backup disks (if there were incrementals, ALL versions
  of the file are there, so you can get an older one if you know the last
  one you backup up was corrupted), and you can pick and choose what to
  restore (or restore everything), and the files go back where they came
  from (folder structure is kept)
o Automatically formats every disk inserted, unless it's part of the current
  backup set.  (i.e. if you insert a disk written during this backup set
  it won't write on it.)
o Since disks are written sequentually, with no backtracking, you can
  safely insert disks ahead of time on a 2 drive system, and have no
  time wasted waiting for disk insertions.
o Has a "master catalog" with the entire backup structure, and can rebuild
  the catalog from the backup discs if the catalog gets wasted.
o Incremental backups are incremental.  Changed files go on new media (if
  the last disk of the last backup isn't full, it fills it, then you use
  "virgin" media).  This means you have all the versions of a file until
  you decide to make a new full archive.
o Correctly estimates the number of discs it's gonna need (and you can
  get that information BEFORE you start your backup).

Fastback cons:
o Can use up lots of disks, since it is incremental.
o Unchanging files (like applications) have to be selected manually, 
  if you want to keep a special archive of them.
  Depending on your file structure, this can be real bitch.  I created
  an "application backup", and add new applications to it, as I install
  them.  Since you can backup only changed files, and selectivley delete
  a subset of those, my "regular" incremental backups all my changed
  data files.  This requires a bit of setup time before the backup,
  something diskfit eliminates. (You gotta pay for functionallity 
  someplace :-).     
o Since you can't just do incrementals for ever, you eventually have
  to do a full archive again (and again...).  With diskfit, you never
  have to do another full archive (unless you want redundant archives,
  but even then only 2 or 3 full archives are necesssary, then NEVER
  AGAIN).
o Fastback puts its backups in non-standard format, so you cannot access
  the files on a backup set without fastback.  I invision this as a BIG
  problem if, for instance, you version of fastback blows up when you
  install a new system and finder.  You must then back off to
  a previous system release to access any of your backup files.

The reason I find fastback handy is:  1) I don't change lots of megabytes
of information every day, so I have rather small increments in floppy
buildup. 2) I usually want to restore a file, or set of files from a backup
which fastback excels at, and diskfit falls on its face over.  I often
wish to backup a set of application files (take for instance Video worksII),
and want to store the whole set of files, and be able to restore them where
they came from.  This is done easily, swiftly, and automatically with
fastback, and requires lots of setup and manual intervention with diskfit.

If your backup and restore requirements are different (you waste your
hard disc, and need to do archival restores weekly, for instance :-)
then diskfit may be for you.  No one has ever had a reliablilty problem
with it, and I in general like SuperMac's products.  Fastback on the
PC, however looks pretty dorky (what PC software doesn't :-), and if I
used that as a guide, probably wouldn't have tried it, but the Mac
version was obviously written with the mac in mind, and ain't as bad
as preported.  From the postings here, however I feel I am in the
minority (on the other hand, to date nearly 100 postings have been
aired this month on "processor wars".  This number of postings occur
every month when someone says "so, give me the REAL scoop on why your
processor is better than THEIR processor", so I guess you can question
the majority too [Note lots of :-) (-:'s intended.  I just hate to see
all this bandwidth EVERY MONTH to a subject best served in other news
groups...])

Note that this is from my personal experiance only, and that I have
no affilation with anyone of consequence. 

--------------------
Ken Wallich			*My views are mine, and mine alone*
Consultant			"Slimey? Mud Hole? my HOME this is!"
DCI 				kwallich@hpsmtc1.HP.COM
@Hewlett Packard		...hplabs!hpsmtc1!kwallich

"If we weren't all crazy, we'd all go INSANE"