Backing-Up

[DaveVikingPE]

General question:

Should I have a reasonable expectation that I can drag and drop a 24 GB file into a 40 GB hard drive?

More information: the 40 GB HD actually has 33 GB of free space.

I get a message that the 40 GB HD doesn't have enough room. I've encountered this problem in the past, with another backup HD. In that case, I was trying to use a back up program called Silver Lining to back up my 30 GB of "stuff" onto a 250 GB hard drive. Silver Lining just wouldn't do it. The 250 GB hard drive just didn't have enough free space. I don't understand how this is possible since the 250 GB HD was empty. What I ended up doing was scrapping the idea of using back up software (there went the reasonable expectation that the program would function as advertised) and simply dragged and dropped my folders into the backup device.

I really would've preferred an automated backup routine, but, alas, they don't seem to be all they're cut out to be.

My last effort began with using the Windows XP backup utility. It seemed to be just the thing I needed: drag and drop everything into the backup wizard and... and... oops, the backup wizard only handles files up to 5 GB in size. So, I ended up making lots of little backup files. That was a pain to manage.

Any ideas, thoughts, etc. are welcome.

 

[IRstuff]

Was there a problem with fragmentation? I can imagine that a backup program might be picky about getting unfragmented disk space.



TTFN

 

[PSE]

You may also need to check the size of the virtual memory swap file. That may be interferring with the file transfer. I am unsure if windows takes the size of virtual memory into account when it gives you the amount of "free space" available on the drive.

Regards,

 

[DaveVikingPE]

Nope, nothing with fragmentation or virtual memory swap files. In the case of both backup drives, they were new and out of the package. I didn't think to defrag them. At any rate, that wouldn't be the problem because they backup utility should be able to handle fragmented files.

The XP backup utility only allows (this I discovered) a maximum backup file size of 5 GB - discovered when an error dialog box popped up as I tried to do an intuitively simply backup: i.e., just back up the 20 GB folder containing all my work, in many, well-organized subfolders, of course.

I did not expect this kind of thing to happen at all. I have a feeling that the programmers either were limited to 5 GB for whatever reason or they just didn't think to put those kinds of warnings/limitation info at the front of the user's manual.

Do you folks have similar problems or are you able to backup large files without any problem? What software do you use (Mac and/or PCP? Please let me know.

 

[IRstuff]

I tend to mostly brute-force copy onto another HD. The big issue I've had in the past with backup software is that the results are often compressed. If ANYTHING goes wrong ANYTIME later, your files are hosed. I run Winzip on the individual folders and copy them off. The worst case would be losing one or more folders in a branch.

Fry's Electronics ad from this morning lists a 500GB external HD for $249.99 or get a 200GB drive for $119.99 each.

TTFN

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

These may help you.

http://data-backup-software-review.toptenreviews.com/

http://www.argentuma.com/backup/software/index.html

Helpful SW websites FAQ559-520
How to get answers to your SW questions FAQ559-1091

 

[DaveVikingPE]

Ok, on the one hand, the backup software is near-useless. I, too, prefert brute-forcing rather than some sofisticated backup scheme that, damn, just does not function like I expect it to.

On the other hand, my initial problem was that a 24 GB .zip file was "too big" for my 40 GB (33 GB free) auxiliary HD. That's something I do not understand. What I ended up doing was simply copying by selecting and dragging/dropping my un-zipped folders into the HD and it worked just fine.

Bottom line: I consider it counter-intuitive that a 24 GB file won't fit in 33 GB of free space.

 

[Beggar]

I've had a similar problem.

I tried to drag a 15 GB file to a new 120 GB drive and it wouldn't go, saying the same thing. I found that any file bigger than 4 GB would give the same error.

I'm guessing there's some Windows setting of which I'm not aware.

--------------------
How much do YOU owe?

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

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

 

[IFRs]

You guys and/or gals should look into SecondCopy - cheap, simple, quick, easy and flexible.

http://www.secondcopy.com/

 

[DaveVikingPE]

OK, but if it doesn't "function to our reasonable expectation" we will come after you for recommending it.

 

[CADMILES]

If you can't create a file bigger than 4GB, the drive is probably formatted as FAT32. You would need to convert to NTFS.

 

[DaveVikingPE]

Sounds good, CADMILES; however, since I'm way too lazy to Google for NTFS (I know what FAT32 stands for), what's it all mean?

 

[CADMILES]

DaveVikingPE,
NTFS is the latest, greatest file system for Windows systems after W98. Reportedly, NTFS has no file size limit. That is, you could create a file as large as the partition. I have not tested this myself. There is a conversion utility program provided in WinXP (only in the command prompt window) that Microsoft claims will convert a FAT16 or FAT32 partition to NTFS without loss of data. I believe the command name is CONVERT, but I have never used it myself and I don't know the syntax. Before proceeding with any changes to partition formats, be sure you have a good back-up of any data on that partition. It should be noted that conversion to NTFS is not reversible with the CONVERT command, though some other commercial programs like Partition Magic can, I think, convert back to FAT32. Messing with disk formats is inherently dangerous to your data. Although I share your aversion to laborious web searches, it is worthwhile to educate yourself about this subject for your own protection.

 

[DaveVikingPE]

Great Scott, man, I'm not going to even attempt anything of the kind! That's what them software developers are paid the big bucks to do: write programs that take care of that dangerous stuff and let me do what I need to do effortlessly.

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Hah ... and you call yourself a where's that legendary spirit of adventure


Helpful SW websites FAQ559-520
How to get answers to your SW questions FAQ559-1091

 

[DaveVikingPE]

Yeah? Well I'm not so "adventurous" that I'd sail off the edge of the world, either. What CADMILES is suggesting is far worse than dying of old age (a fate no true Viking can stomach).

 

[CADMILES]

DaveVikingPE,
OK, there are many subjects about which I know just enough to be dangerous, so I find someone competent to handle the high voltage power supply, or whatever. To answer your original question, yes, it is reasonable to expect a hard drive of sufficient capacity to accept your file. Hopefully, you can find some computer guy to fix up your drive with NTFS and get what you need. I think there are only a few people that need to store files of gigabyte size, so the question only rarely arises. I recently bought an external 100GB hard drive and discovered that it was formatted as FAT32. This surprised me at first, but after thinking about it a bit, I guess it makes sense to provide FAT32 because that is a more generally compatible format for the mix of operating systems in current use.

 

[IRstuff]

FAT32 is roughly comparable to NTFS as far as capacity is concerned. I don't think that the file infrastructure is quite the same, though.

I would just get another drive, format it for NTFS and copy everything. Then, format the old drive. Given the prices of HD's today, it's a cheap way to go.

TTFN

 

[looslib]

I have done a CONVERT on the C:\ drive of a computer and it handles it just fine. No loss of data or any problems when done.

NTFS has file security on top of the large file sizes that are on a FAT32 formatted drive.

I run my home computer on NTFS as I have programs that will not load on FAT drives.


"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli
Sr IS Technologist
L-3 Communications

 

[DaveVikingPE]

I am not going to do ANY of that nonsense as it all harkens back to the days of DOS and having to set/reset all manner of things just to get a printer to work and such. - and thus explains why I've been a happy Mac user since 1987.

I believe that I have a reasonable expectation that "plug and play" means "plug and play." I also am not convinced that the problem's on my end...

"I think there are only a few people that need to store files of gigabyte size, so the question only rarely arises."

Don't take this as confrontational, but how can that be? Backup files are, by their general nature, more than a GB in size. And the selling point(s) of all backup software is that they efficiently back up everything into a single file or similar scheme.