NAS or (very old) PC for backup in Vista?

I'm trying to sort out a backup solution for our two laptops. We don't have
a network at home, per se, but do use a WiFi router for internet access. We
have been using a straight forward USB 2.0 drive for backups but as picture
files get more numerous and huge, we need something considerably faster.
(And I want to be backing-up more often - ideally, daily.)



I have read bits and pieces about network attached storage and, if I went
down that route, I'd probably go with the Freecom 1TB Network Drive Pro. It
seems really good, but pricey.



But I've also read that many people use an old PC for backup storage. I have
an old PC - it may even be a 486, not a Pentium! - so wondered if that would
do, especially if it saved some cash. (I'd need to buy a gigabit LAN & USB
cards (to access a printer through), plus the hard drive but it'd still be
so much cheaper.)



The WiFi router is downstairs and, other than WiFi 'B', can only be accessed
via a Homeplug AV adapter. (For occasional maintenance I can take a laptop
downstairs, obviously.) Would it be possible - for me, a PC amateur - to use
two routers in one network? Could I use a Homeplug AV adapter upstairs to
link a new gigabit router to one laptop and the backup PC or NAS? How naive
am I being? (The second laptop would need less frequent access to the backup
PC/NAS as it has two hard drives.) The first laptop would need best-speed
gigabit access, so the Homeplug AV/WiFi options are no good.



I've spent many hours looking for these answers but have not got anywhere.
Usually the website or book does not address my particular situation
(understandably), or else everything gets way too technical - often because
the business environment is in view. So any help would be much appreciated
(especially, 'This is how I did our home NAS/backup PC' stories).

You might look at using an old PC, maybe not as old as you seem to indicate,
as a Windows Home Server [WHS]. I use an old desktop as one. WHS
automatically backs up my Vista Ultimate laptop and my wife's XP Pro desktop
each night. You can do whole machine recoveries or individual files/folders
from the backups. My WHS also acts as a print server for one of the two
printers (an old HP LaserJet 6L) that we have and as a shared folder/file
archive. We, or anyone else we want to, can access shared files/folders
remotely via a SSL data link. I can, if I wish, also access any PC on my
network via a Remote Desktop proxy built-in to the WHS. Note the Remote
Desktop [RDC] host PC must be running Vista Ultimate/Business or XP Pro/MCE
editions. You can also stream various media from the WHS to users on your
network.

Getting started guide including hardware requirements...

http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ingStarted.pdf

More information...

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...r/support.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro.../features.mspx

WHS Team Blog...

http://blogs.technet.com/homeserver/

WHS forums...

http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/e...owshomeserver/

One possible source of the WHS software (there may be others)...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16832116550

--

Al Jarvi (MS-MVP Windows - Desktop User Experience)

Please post *ALL* questions and replies to the news group for the
mutual benefit of all of us...
The MS-MVP Program - http://mvp.support.microsoft.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights...
How to ask a question
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/555375

"ChrisOfTheOT" <NoSpam@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Og0%236bJKJHA.3460@xxxxxx

Hi
If the computer is 486 you should forget about such an arrangement any
Dollar that you put in it is a waste.
Search eBay there are Dell Optiplex GX270 P-4 class computers that are going
for about $100.
They are small form computers and many of them come with Windows 2000, or
WinXP COA.
By enabling the File sharing they can be used as NAS' as is.
Better Off spending extra $140 and implementing Al's suggestion of WHS.
I have few Optiplexes with Celeron 2GHz and they are running WHS very nice.
http://www.ezlan.net/WHS.html
Jack (MS, MVP-Networking)


"ChrisOfTheOT" <NoSpam@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Og0%236bJKJHA.3460@xxxxxx

"Jack (MVP-Networking)." <jack@xxxxxx> wrote in message: Jack - many thanks for that. Both you and Al say that my old PC is too
ancient so I looked on eBay (UK for me), as you suggested, and found a very
nice Optiplex (actually a GX260) for just £42 including carriage, with XP
Home COA. I'm also please that the Dell is small as space is really tight.

"Sooner Al [MVP]" <SoonerAl@xxxxxx> wrote in message: Al - that sounds pretty much perfect. I looked at WHS on Amazon and it was
£100. With the hard drive - £80ish - we're looking at around about the same
cost as the Freecom network drive, so it's all in the same ballpark. (Unless
there is some sort of deal for upgrading XP Home to WHS, or similar. I
actually have an unused copy of XP Pro. so maybe I could go that way...)

And many thanks for the WHS pdf link - that's just what I need. I'll have a
read and if I get stuck, I'll let you know. (The word 'server' is still
rather scary!)

Anyway, thank you gents. I hadn't expected to get help from two (two!) MVPs
in the same thread. You're a top bunch - thank you again.

Cheers,

Chris

P.S. I appologies for not signing off in my original post. I wrote it
offline, in Word, and just copied over when I went online again. Clean
forgot to sign off - sorry!

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:11:25 +0100, "ChrisOfTheOT" <NoSpam@xxxxxx>
wrote:
Yes, it's possible, but you are needlessly complicating things if you
simply want to do backup. Gigabit is nice but unless you are running
the backups concurrently with other work on the network, it's really
not needed for a non-time sensitive task like backup. The difference
in time to backup a few gb's of data is insignificant.

I see a few issues for you. If you go the PC backup route, you do need
something a little faster. Not a lot faster if it's just for backup,
but nothing past win98 will run comfortably on that 486. OTOH, you can
run win2003 server comfortably (or maybe MS home server) on a P400 1gb
machine if ALL it does is file & print sharing (and backup) for your
tiny network. You could run a desktop OS if your backup scheme is
simple file sharing, but keep in mind that win98 sharing to Vista is
no possible (no 486). If you want to run a "real" backup program
across the network vs. just copy files, you'll need to find later
software for whatever OS you choose.

You can go with a NAS, but it sounds like serious overkill for you. In
addition, you've got a convoluted architecture with multiple routers,
a slower connection to one system doing it's own backups, etc.

If I were you, I'd "go simple". Forget about the gigabit, the
multi-routers, the NAS. Set up a small server and keep all your data
files on it for both systems. Buy a used machine... people are
throwing out machines that will easily perform well as a server (1mhz,
1gb would do it). Buy MS Home server (a scaled down win2003) if you
can't find 2003 at a reasonable price. Access the data via network
shares. Backup that central machine periodically. Problem solved, no
complications.

Chris,

No there is no upgrade path from XP to Windows Home Server simply because
your going from a workstation type OS to server type OS. WHS is very easy to
setup and use though. Just check out the forums I pointed you to if you have
any issues.

Good luck and glad we could help...

--

Al Jarvi (MS-MVP Windows - Desktop User Experience)

Please post *ALL* questions and replies to the news group for the
mutual benefit of all of us...
The MS-MVP Program - http://mvp.support.microsoft.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights...
How to ask a question
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/555375

"ChrisOfTheOT" <NoSpam@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eLLF18TKJHA.1156@xxxxxx

Okay, Al, many thanks again.

Cheers,

Chris


"Sooner Al [MVP]" <SoonerAl@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3EF21747-643D-46D1-AC5F-CF1AA1523AC4@xxxxxx

"+Bob+" <uctraing@xxxxxx> wrote in message Yes, unfortunately I'm going to have to get a more modern (Pentium) box, but
as Jack said, they are very cheap. And since all this machine will be doing
is backups, perhaps Windows XP will be sufficient.

From your post (& Jack & Al's), it seems that the backing up is done from
the 'sever' machine, not from the laptops. Forgive my ignorance, but I had
assumed I'd set the backup process in motion from the Vista 'Back & Restore'
feature on the laptops. From what you're saying, it seems that the server
'draws' the data from each laptop, rather than each laptop 'offering' it to
the server... (Sorry if all that makes me sound stupid - but really, I'm a
genius!)
Fair enough.
I'm stunned - are you saying the gigabit has marginal speed advantage over
USB 2.0? Or have I miss-understood? It that's the case, I'll just get a 1TB
USB drive and be done with it.

Your suggestion of accessing data via the central machine would require that
the laptops are permanently connected to the network (as I understand it),
but I don't think that would be convenient. But, I fear I may not be
understanding properly... *blushes*

Anyway, I have got proper studying to do (!) so I'll have to go for now.
Thanks for the info., Bob, it's much appreciated. I'll be back here
tomorrow.

Cheers,

Chris

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:07:50 +0100, "ChrisOfTheOT" <NoSpam@xxxxxx>
wrote:
No, sorry, I was comparing gigabit to 100mbit network. If you get the
NAS, you can make everything gigabit and the NAS can probably utilize
some of that speed. Note that NOTHING runs at gigabit speeds. Drives
aren't that fast, buses aren't that fast. 100 mbit ethernet is faster
than USB 2 by about a factor of 2 as I recall.

Most desktops and laptops won't go past 60-70mbit speed so the
standard 100mbit network is plenty for two machines to network. The
exception would be someone who has multiple machines all trying to
stream 60mbit at the same time - then you can chew up some more
bandwidth. Also, as the traffic grows, collisions and retries grow.
The gigabit bandwidth helps with that.
Yes, that is what I was inferring. The cleanest arrangement is that
you keep all the data on the server, not the clients. You back up the
server. Clients become somewhat unimportant - if one crashes you can
just use another.

If you decide that that is really not what you want to do, then you
can keep data on the clients - but the downside is that they have to
be hooked up to be backed up from. Depending on what software you use
to back up, you could either pull the data to the server or push it
from the clients.

"Jack (MVP-Networking)." <jack@xxxxxx> wrote in message Just re-read Jack's post re: 'file sharing'. This, I think, is going to be
the most cost effective way to go, and it'll be fairly flexible. (I could
get WHS later, if configuration or setup proves to be too much of a hassle
for me...)

Sorry, Jack, I must have missed this suggestion in all the excitement...

Cheers,

Chris