>>> "Anonymous" <com@com.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5q1Xj.3224$ah4.2192@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>>> I've had similar replies, including the suggestion to use the
>>>> Acronis Workstation version, rather than Home.
>>>>
>>>> Like you, my years of Ntbackup usage have been quite
>>>> positive, meeting all my needs for a backup.
>>>>
>>>> However, although Ntbackup will easily protect against
>>>> accidental loss, it is either unable, or quite cumbersome
>>>> at providing recovery, or bare metal restore.
>>>>
>>>> I have to admit that the backup product from CMS looks
>>>> quite attractive though. Because I like the idea of simply
>>>> rebooting the backup image for a quick recovery. Watch
>>>> this video:
>>>> http://www.cmsproducts.com/video/desktop_backup.html
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with E/SATA, and support
>>>> would require my upgrade. But, I'd get the functionality
>>>> described, in addition to the significantly higher speeds.
>>>>
>>>> One of the Amazon reviewers complaints on Acronis TI
>>>> Home was that E/SATA was not currently supported. I
>>>> guess I would've thought a backup product would simply
>>>> rely on the OS for peripheral access.
>>>>
>>>> I'm currently investigating this "boot from backup" on an
>>>> external drive issue. What it takes? (E/SATA, Firewire,
>>>> etc?), and what I've have to upgrade. But, I like the idea.
>>>>
>>>> Not only is it easier, but simple testing of a crash recovery
>>>> requires no intermediate restore. Much less exposure to
>>>> error.
>>>>
>>>> Additionally, because the backup image is stored in native
>>>> format(non-composite), even lost file restores are easier.
>>>> And FAT limitations are avoided for users of that archi-
>>>> tecture.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.


Anna wrote:
I'm sure you understand that when we talk about eSATA or just plain SATA in
this context of backup programs, we're simply talking about the HDD that
will be involved in the backup and/or restore process. And that HDD will be
a SATA (not a PATA) HDD. The distinction between SATA & eSATA is simply the
connector that a SATA HDD will be connected to. The "e" in eSATA stands for
"external". A number of motherboards are equipped with an eSATA port and a
number of desktop computer cases are similarly equipped. The eSATA port is
considered a more secure SATA connector than the "regular" or "normal" SATA
connector and the eSATA data cable will be equipped with an eSATA connector,
not a "regular" SATA connector. But for all practical purposes a SATA HDD
will perform just as well connected to either type of port - SATA or eSATA.

The important point to remember here is that connecting a external SATA HDD
to *either* a SATA or eSATA port will give the user SATA-to-SATA
connectivity (as opposed to USB connectivity for example). Obviously we're
presuming that the PC has SATA capability, i.e., it supports SATA hard
drives.

Having SATA-to-SATA connectivity is most advantageous when using an external
SATA HDD as the recipient of the backed-up contents of one's internal
day-to-day working HDD. There are two significant advantages...
1. The data transfer rate is considerably higher than, for example, a USB
external HDD device.
2. Assuming the SATA HDD contained in a SATA external enclosure is the
recipient of the cloned contents of the user's internal HDD through the use
of a disk-cloning program, e.g., the Acronis one that has been mentioned,
the SATA HDD will be a bootable device even though it's being used in an
external capacity. The system will treat that drive as an *internal* HDD
because of its SATA-to-SATA connectivity notwithstanding the fact that it is
physically external to the machine.

(BTW, that CMS device you mention is really nothing more than an external
enclosure that provides both USB & SATA connectivity. There are scores of
similar enclosures on the market. You can simply install your own SATA HDD
into the enclosure.)

The Acronis True Image program that has been recommended to you is a fine
program with many satisfied users. You should consider it, especially since
there's a trial version available.

However, for a variety of reasons, the disk-cloning program we greatly
prefer is the Casper 4 program. If you (or anyone coming upon this thread)
want some details about that program I'll post such.
Anna


> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:u6jcxcvtIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Just to be complete, Anna, you should point out that he doesn't HAVE to
>> use SATA or eSATA for backups, however. He could instead just use his
>> existing setup, and get an external USB HD enclosure (containing a
>> regular PATA hard drive) for backup purposes too (i.e., for storing and
>> restoring a backup image). That's what I'm doing over here, and it
>> works great. Granted, it's not as fast, but it doesn't really take me
>> that long, either.


"Anonymous" <com@com.com> wrote in message
news:Mj7Xj.931$qH4.828@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> I'm not fully up to speed on E/SATA, but I've been reading.
>
> Your comments/explanations will help with that understanding.
>
> I think it was another thread of yours where I read about
> the interface being "glitchy". Or, at least, the interface when
> added with a upgrade card, I think.
>
> The thread concerned another's question concerning whether
> a 3.0 ATA unit would synchronize at the existing 1.5 level.
>
> As I said, I'm researching the details. But, that was the first
> indication I'd seen of any faults.
>
> I do currently have two external drives in use for backup via
> a usb2.0 interface. I'm researching a new strategy because
> I don't have a viable crash recovery solution(at least not with-
> out a ton of rebuild work involved). And while researching
> the new path, thought I'd upgrade to an ATA interface to
> gain the extra speed. Although, I'm not unhappy with the
> usb throughput.
>
> Thanks.


First of all, understand that the SATA/eSATA interface is not "glitchy". By
& large it makes for a day-in day-out stable connection between the HDD and
the system (the motherboard) and yields the advantages I have enumerated.
That previous thread you referred to re possible incompatibilities between
the older SATA HDDs (with the 1.5 Gb/s data interface) and the newer
(so-called) SATA-II HDDs (with the 3.0 Gb/s data interface) is of no
relevance re the issue under discussion here. So put any of your doubts to
rest as to any "faults" re using an external SATA HDD for backup purposes.

Since you already have USB external enclosures I would see no reason why you
shouldn't use them as recipients of the disk clone (or disk image) assuming
you would be using a disk cloning or disk imaging program in establishing &
maintaining a comprehensive backup program. This would be the same setup as
the one "Bill in Co." is using (as well as many other users) and it would
basically serve the purpose.

My recommendation for using an external SATA HDD with SATA-to-SATA
connectivity for that purpose would yield the advantages I detailed above,
but obviously it would entail an add'l cost to the user should the user
already have a USB (or Firewire) external enclosure containing an existing
HDD. Whether the user would want to incur the add'l expense in purchasing
the components I have indicated to secure the advantages I've indicated is
obviously a decision that would have to be made by him or her.
Anna