locked
Using Synctoy 2.1 To Backup Shares To A Non-Pooled Hdd RRS feed

  • Question

  • I want to back up my shared folders to a non-pooled internal hard drive(s) in WHS v1. I dont intend to remove the non-pooled hard, its just for redundancy purposes. The built in server backup tool is not capable of dividing up my share folders so that they can fit on my non-pooled drives because my videos folder exceeds the capacity of my largest non-pooled drive.

    I have used SyncToy successfully on Windows 7 and XP, and it seems logical, considering my positive experiences with these OS's, to install it on the WHS, then to set up a task to automate "echo's" to the non-pooled drive.

    What makes me nervous is that there are lots of postings on the www where users have indicated that SyncToy resulted in data corruption. Was that only with SyncToy 2.0 Beta or prior to PP1? Was the problem fixed? Was it because users Source/Destination folders in SyncToy were pointing to D: etc., instead of \\Server\folders?

    So, I would like to know.... Is SyncToy 2.1 safe to use? I know syncToy leaves hidden files on Source/Destination folders - does it work OK with duplication turned on? Should I just stick with duplication, and not back up the folders? Is there a better way? 

    Sunday, March 11, 2012 4:39 PM

Answers

  • ... opinion on reliability of Richcopy vs Built-In DE Folder Duplication.

    On a related note, If WHS does have a critical failure, can you normally get your data back after a reinstall/repair?

    I used robocopy for years to back up my V1 server. I also had duplication turned on, because I'm a suspenders and belt kind of guy. (Leave it alone, Phil. You know it's not going to end well...) But if I could have only one or the other, I'd use robocopy because I could take the created backups off-site. My volume of data is relatively low (almost no video, about .5 TB of lossless audio, maybe 200 GB of photographs, plus this and that) but the principles still apply. The only difference is that if you want to have terabytes of data, you need terabytes of storage to hold it, then you need terabytes of storage to back it up. This is expensive, but the cost is implicit in the decision to gather together these huge volumes of data in the first place. (Which is a polite way to say "if it costs a lot to back up your data, suck it up and do it anyway if the data is actually important; if it's not important, delete it and stop worrying about backing it up.")

    Critical failure: If you have a good backup, it's easy, because you can restore from your backup. If you don't have a good backup, see above. Yes, I'm pretty strident about backups and the decisions around them, and I think consumers make pretty poor decisions in this area because they think first about cost, not their data, then point a finger of blame at Microsoft for not protecting them from their own bad decisions. Sorry, it doesn't work that way...


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)

    • Marked as answer by Roland6543 Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:30 PM
    Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:56 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • I use SyncToy (albeit with WHS2011) but running on a Client rather than the Server to back up between shared folders on two different Servers. I see no reason why you shouldn't do that with WHS1.

    Phil P.S. If you find my comment helpful or if it answers your question, please mark it as such.

    Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:31 PM
  • Thanks to suggestions here, I use robocopy and it's a powerful command line utility that is pretty easy to use. I had nothing but issues with hangs with SyncToy 2.1 from WHS or from a client.
    Sunday, March 11, 2012 10:43 PM
  • I use robocopy and it's a powerful command line utility that is pretty easy to use.
    I feel out of my depth using a command line utility like Robocopy. Could you explain how to set it up so that it copies differences and propagates deletions- similar to Echo mode with Synctoy?
    Monday, March 12, 2012 1:23 PM
  • Try richcopy instead, available here.

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)

    Monday, March 12, 2012 1:44 PM
    Moderator
  • Looks like a useful program. I found a number of users complaining that it doesn't always copy completely and doesn't report errors. I'm sorry if I seem skittish on this matter - it's because I have so much data that I want to find the most reliable method. 

    Would you suggest richcopy over the built in duplication feature?

    Monday, March 12, 2012 7:19 PM
  • Looks like a useful program. I found a number of users complaining that it doesn't always copy completely and doesn't report errors. I'm sorry if I seem skittish on this matter - it's because I have so much data that I want to find the most reliable method. 

    Would you suggest richcopy over the built in duplication feature?

    No. For backups I would recommend the built in backup feature, followed by taking the backup disk off-site. But that wasn't the question you were asking: you were quite specific about backing up to an internal drive, which is not something you can then take off-site. (Not that you could take a DE volume off-site either. :) )


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)

    Monday, March 12, 2012 8:53 PM
    Moderator
  • Would you suggest richcopy over the built in duplication feature?

    No. For backups I would recommend the built in backup feature, followed by taking the backup disk off-site. 

    @Ken Warren Thank you for your comments. Very valuable input.

    Sorry, I should have been more specific. 

    Reconsidering my thinking about a non-pooled drive, and given my goal of reliability and redundancy, I actually meant which would you recommend as the best solution between:
     - RichCopy (to copy to an internal hard drive) 
            vs 
     - WHS Folder Duplication (to its Drive Pool)
    Either way, the drive would stay in the computer case.

    My current opinion is that folder duplication would be the most convenient, and it meets my redundancy requirements in the event of a hdd failure. My reservation is: "What if WHS OS has a critical failure?" Would ALL my (incl. duplicated) data be at risk, or is it a "simple matter of re-installing/repairing WHS, and "presto".... the data is still there? 

    The answer may come down to: Whats the probability of RichCopy (or alternative) corruption vs The probability of a critical WHS failure? If so, that can only be answered from (somewhat subjective) experience. My problem is that I don't have that experience and I'm trying to glean it from others.

    Thanks again.

    Monday, March 12, 2012 10:31 PM
  • Ah. In that case, flip a coin. I like either one equally well. Or rather, I dislike* both equally. :) I'm big on getting at least one copy of your essential data out of your house, and keeping that "out of the house" copy reasonably current. It's way more important than keeping an on-site backup.

    * Why I dislike duplication: It's RAID1 (or might as well be) and RAID is incorrectly seen as being a way to protect your data. It protects against only a single failure mode, namely the loss of one hard drive. While this is overwhelmingly the most common reason for data loss at home, if your data is important you really need to protect against disasters other than drive failure. Why? Because they have a much higher probability of destroying all drives at once, and thus costing you your data no matter what flavor of RAID you're using. Conveniently enough, if you do so, you also happen to protect against drive failure (albeit at a slight increase in inconvenience).


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)

    Tuesday, March 13, 2012 12:10 AM
    Moderator
  • Ah. In that case, flip a coin. I like either one equally well. Or rather, I dislike* both equally. :) I'm big on getting at least one copy of your essential data out of your house

    I believe I'm in good shape regarding essential data, since I use cloud storage for that. My concern right now is the large volume of non-essential data., which is why I'm focussed on reliability and redundancy - I can recreate the data, but its large volume makes it very inconvenient. For my purpose, do you have any opinion on reliability of Richcopy vs Built-In DE Folder Duplication.

    On a related note, If WHS does have a critical failure, can you normally get your data back after a reinstall/repair?

    Tuesday, March 13, 2012 12:54 PM
  • ... opinion on reliability of Richcopy vs Built-In DE Folder Duplication.

    On a related note, If WHS does have a critical failure, can you normally get your data back after a reinstall/repair?

    I used robocopy for years to back up my V1 server. I also had duplication turned on, because I'm a suspenders and belt kind of guy. (Leave it alone, Phil. You know it's not going to end well...) But if I could have only one or the other, I'd use robocopy because I could take the created backups off-site. My volume of data is relatively low (almost no video, about .5 TB of lossless audio, maybe 200 GB of photographs, plus this and that) but the principles still apply. The only difference is that if you want to have terabytes of data, you need terabytes of storage to hold it, then you need terabytes of storage to back it up. This is expensive, but the cost is implicit in the decision to gather together these huge volumes of data in the first place. (Which is a polite way to say "if it costs a lot to back up your data, suck it up and do it anyway if the data is actually important; if it's not important, delete it and stop worrying about backing it up.")

    Critical failure: If you have a good backup, it's easy, because you can restore from your backup. If you don't have a good backup, see above. Yes, I'm pretty strident about backups and the decisions around them, and I think consumers make pretty poor decisions in this area because they think first about cost, not their data, then point a finger of blame at Microsoft for not protecting them from their own bad decisions. Sorry, it doesn't work that way...


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)

    • Marked as answer by Roland6543 Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:30 PM
    Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:56 PM
    Moderator
  • Ken

    I wouldn't have even thought of commenting! Last time there were no comments on the board for almost 24hours - we would not want that to happen again.


    Phil P.S. If you find my comment helpful or if it answers your question, please mark it as such.


    • Edited by Phil Harrison Wednesday, March 14, 2012 1:19 AM spelling
    Tuesday, March 13, 2012 4:56 PM
  • I was "braced" for this one. :)


    ____________

    BullDawg
    In God We Trust
    ____________
    <Phil Harrison> wrote in message news:28c69cf6-a692-4ddb-b5a1-b7126d8ba841@communitybridge.codeplex.com...

    Ken

    I wouldn't have even thought of commenting! Lats time there were no comments on the board for almost 24hours - we would not want that to happen again.


    Phil P.S. If you find my comment helpful or if it answers your question, please mark it as such.


    BullDawg
    Wednesday, March 14, 2012 1:00 AM