USB backup program

What is a good backup program for using a USB flash
drive? I am using Ghost 2003 right now and love it, but
for the fact it doesn't recognize USB flash drives.

Thank you,

On Feb 11, 1:31*pm, George Mooth <gmooth...@comcast.net> wrote:
> What is a good backup program for using a USB flash
> drive? I am using Ghost 2003 right now and love it, but
> for the fact it doesn't recognize USB flash drives.
>
> Thank you,

Norton 360 has a backup section.

BTW: Flash drives are not really very reliable for backups since the
flash chips have a limited life span (1000 writes,) can easily be re-
formatted by defective USB ports and can be erased by static
electricity.

Perhaps you need to upgrade Ghost, its now on version 12, if you 'love it'

"George Mooth" <gmoothdoh@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:t151r3dp134d2hn686s57r98cr84q441vq@4ax.com...
>
> What is a good backup program for using a USB flash
> drive? I am using Ghost 2003 right now and love it, but
> for the fact it doesn't recognize USB flash drives.
>
> Thank you,

"smlunatick" <yveslec@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffd32eb5-539d-440f-ab4f-ddb0549311c4@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 11, 1:31 pm, George Mooth <gmooth...@comcast.net> wrote:
> What is a good backup program for using a USB flash
> drive? I am using Ghost 2003 right now and love it, but
> for the fact it doesn't recognize USB flash drives.
>
> Thank you,

Norton 360 has a backup section.

BTW: Flash drives are not really very reliable for backups since the
flash chips have a limited life span (1000 writes,) can easily be re-
formatted by defective USB ports and can be erased by static
electricity.

-------------

Whilst what you say is theoretically true, if the backup verifies OK then it
is unlikely that the FLASH memory will fail before it is read. In practice,
the life of the memory far exceeds what you state because the 1000 write
life applies on a per cell basis. Wear levelling logic of a practical FLASH
memory means that the actual total number of writes than can take place will
exceed 1000 writes easily.

Also on a practical note, the memory will most likely be scrapped and
replaced by a larger/faster model long before the life limits are reached.

As far as the memory being erased by a defective hardware, this applies to
any backup medium. A backup is not a backup unless it's backed up.

Practiacal FLASH memory units should be protected against static (though the
actual chips themselves may not be).

> "smlunatick" <yveslec@gmail.com> wrote in message
> BTW: Flash drives are not really very reliable for backups since the
> flash chips have a limited life span (1000 writes,) can easily be re-
> formatted by defective USB ports and can be erased by static
> electricity.



"M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:47b41720$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> Whilst what you say is theoretically true, if the backup verifies OK then
> it is unlikely that the FLASH memory will fail before it is read. In
> practice, the life of the memory far exceeds what you state because the
> 1000 write life applies on a per cell basis. Wear levelling logic of a
> practical FLASH memory means that the actual total number of writes than
> can take place will exceed 1000 writes easily.
>
> Also on a practical note, the memory will most likely be scrapped and
> replaced by a larger/faster model long before the life limits are reached.
>
> As far as the memory being erased by a defective hardware, this applies to
> any backup medium. A backup is not a backup unless it's backed up.
>
> Practiacal FLASH memory units should be protected against static (though
> the actual chips themselves may not be).


Our experience over the past few years involving hundreds of users and
scores of different makes & models of USB flash drives (a/k/a thumb drives,
pen drives, etc.) had led us to recommend that where "mission-critical" data
involved, the user is strongly encouraged not to *solely* rely on
backups/storage purposes involving these devices. We make the same
recommendation re archived material, e.g., photos, videos, irreplaceable
data of any kind. Where critical data of any type is involved we strongly
recommend copying such to other media as well, e.g., CDs, DVDs, HDDs, etc.

Simply stated we have found these USB flash-type devices seem to have an
unusually high rate of failure notwithstanding the published specifications
of these devices that would seem to suggest differently.
Anna

In article <ffd32eb5-539d-440f-ab4f-ddb0549311c4@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, smlunatick <yveslec@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 11, 1:31=A0pm, George Mooth <gmooth...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> What is a good backup program for using a USB flash
>> drive? I am using Ghost 2003 right now and love it, but
>> for the fact it doesn't recognize USB flash drives.
>>
>> Thank you,
>
>Norton 360 has a backup section.
>
>BTW: Flash drives are not really very reliable for backups since the
>flash chips have a limited life span (1000 writes,) can easily be re-
>formatted by defective USB ports and can be erased by static
>electricity.
add 3 more zeros to that and youd be correct.

"Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
news:eGybizybIHA.3696@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>> "smlunatick" <yveslec@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> BTW: Flash drives are not really very reliable for backups since the
>> flash chips have a limited life span (1000 writes,) can easily be re-
>> formatted by defective USB ports and can be erased by static
>> electricity.
>
>
>
> "M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:47b41720$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>> Whilst what you say is theoretically true, if the backup verifies OK then
>> it is unlikely that the FLASH memory will fail before it is read. In
>> practice, the life of the memory far exceeds what you state because the
>> 1000 write life applies on a per cell basis. Wear levelling logic of a
>> practical FLASH memory means that the actual total number of writes than
>> can take place will exceed 1000 writes easily.
>>
>> Also on a practical note, the memory will most likely be scrapped and
>> replaced by a larger/faster model long before the life limits are
>> reached.
>>
>> As far as the memory being erased by a defective hardware, this applies
>> to any backup medium. A backup is not a backup unless it's backed up.
>>
>> Practiacal FLASH memory units should be protected against static (though
>> the actual chips themselves may not be).
>
>
> Our experience over the past few years involving hundreds of users and
> scores of different makes & models of USB flash drives (a/k/a thumb
> drives, pen drives, etc.) had led us to recommend that where
> "mission-critical" data involved, the user is strongly encouraged not to
> *solely* rely on backups/storage purposes involving these devices. We make
> the same recommendation re archived material, e.g., photos, videos,
> irreplaceable data of any kind. Where critical data of any type is
> involved we strongly recommend copying such to other media as well, e.g.,
> CDs, DVDs, HDDs, etc.
>
> Simply stated we have found these USB flash-type devices seem to have an
> unusually high rate of failure notwithstanding the published
> specifications of these devices that would seem to suggest differently.
> Anna

You point about having a backup of anything critical is crucial regardless
of the medium chosen. The archival life of all the media you mentioned is
unbelievably short. Even writing it on paper gives you an archival life of
less than 20 years.

"GMAN" <glenzabr@dontspammebro.xmission.com> wrote in message
news:fpc7kf$nr5$3@news.xmission.com...
> In article
> <ffd32eb5-539d-440f-ab4f-ddb0549311c4@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
> smlunatick <yveslec@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Feb 11, 1:31=A0pm, George Mooth <gmooth...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> What is a good backup program for using a USB flash
>>> drive? I am using Ghost 2003 right now and love it, but
>>> for the fact it doesn't recognize USB flash drives.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>
>>Norton 360 has a backup section.
>>
>>BTW: Flash drives are not really very reliable for backups since the
>>flash chips have a limited life span (1000 writes,) can easily be re-
>>formatted by defective USB ports and can be erased by static
>>electricity.
> add 3 more zeros to that and youd be correct.

The published average read/erase/write cycle of normal FLASH memory cells is
1000 cycles. There are a bank of special cells that hold the housekeeping
data for the FLASH memory chip as a whole that are lifed at 100,000 cycles,
but they are vastly more expensive to manufacture and occupy much more
silicon real estate. Every FLASH memory chip requires one such bank*. The
failure of just one of the housekeeping cells can render the whole memory
useless (depending on which cell fails).

The imporant issue is that the quoted life is an average, which means that
in general, half will last longer and half will last shorter, with a few
cells having a very long life and (importantly for our purposes) a few will
have a very short life.

*FLASH memory for critical applications will have 2 such banks, but this
puts the price beyond the average user (most of the increase being the logic
that monitors the 2 banks and decides which is valid if there is a
discrepancy and that such memory is generally only available to
military/aerospace specifications).

> news:eGybizybIHA.3696@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> "smlunatick" <yveslec@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> BTW: Flash drives are not really very reliable for backups since the
>>> flash chips have a limited life span (1000 writes,) can easily be re-
>>> formatted by defective USB ports and can be erased by static
>>> electricity.


>> "M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:47b41720$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>> Whilst what you say is theoretically true, if the backup verifies OK
>>> then it is unlikely that the FLASH memory will fail before it is read.
>>> In practice, the life of the memory far exceeds what you state because
>>> the 1000 write life applies on a per cell basis. Wear levelling logic
>>> of a practical FLASH memory means that the actual total number of writes
>>> than can take place will exceed 1000 writes easily.
>>>
>>> Also on a practical note, the memory will most likely be scrapped and
>>> replaced by a larger/faster model long before the life limits are
>>> reached.
>>>
>>> As far as the memory being erased by a defective hardware, this applies
>>> to any backup medium. A backup is not a backup unless it's backed up.
>>>
>>> Practiacal FLASH memory units should be protected against static (though
>>> the actual chips themselves may not be).


> "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
>> Our experience over the past few years involving hundreds of users and
>> scores of different makes & models of USB flash drives (a/k/a thumb
>> drives, pen drives, etc.) had led us to recommend that where
>> "mission-critical" data involved, the user is strongly encouraged not to
>> *solely* rely on backups/storage purposes involving these devices. We
>> make the same recommendation re archived material, e.g., photos, videos,
>> irreplaceable data of any kind. Where critical data of any type is
>> involved we strongly recommend copying such to other media as well, e.g.,
>> CDs, DVDs, HDDs, etc.
>>
>> Simply stated we have found these USB flash-type devices seem to have an
>> unusually high rate of failure notwithstanding the published
>> specifications of these devices that would seem to suggest differently.
>> Anna


"M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:47bbe5cc$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> You point about having a backup of anything critical is crucial regardless
> of the medium chosen. The archival life of all the media you mentioned is
> unbelievably short. Even writing it on paper gives you an archival life
> of less than 20 years.


Yes, I will freely admit in the PC world *all* recipient media is vulnerable
in one way or another.

But I wanted to make the point that the user should be *especially* cautious
in using the ubiquitous flash-type devices as the sole device for the
repository of critical and/or irreplaceable data of one kind or another.
There just seems to be, in our experience, an unusually high rate of failure
with these devices, the kind of failure we just haven't seen with CDs, DVDs,
or even HDDs.

So again, we strongly urge users that where critical data of any type is
intended to be backed up to a flash-type device, we strongly recommend
copying such to other media as well, e.g., CDs, DVDs, HDDs, etc.
Anna

> There are a bank of special cells that hold the housekeeping data for the
> FLASH memory chip as a whole that are lifed at 100,000 cycles,

I believe you are referring to "Super Talent's" new solid-state
HDDs. 100,000 write cycles and 100 year life - altho they're
only given a 5 yr warrantee !!

But instead of spending $3,500 for a single 128 GB drive; I'll
prefer 3 cheap external USBs ($100 ea) used in rotation.

Ed