Advice/opinions on my usage of ISR

[chrome_sturmen]

I thought I would welcome opinions and/or advice on the way that I use first defense.

When I install an operating system, the first thing I do is get drivers, updates, and get the system configed to my liking. Then I go about setting up all my programs, which may take about a month of on and off work, I prefer to take the time to set up everything I might use, no matter how seldom, rather than set up things as needed, I dont like to need a program then realize I need to first install and configure it.

Once everything's set up, I try to keep an image with acronis, and now an archive or duplicate snapshot with isr. But I have found that even with these measures, there is potential for things to go wrong, and you may wind up needing to reinstall windows.

I was thinking, that maybe having one setup with everything installed, is like keeping all your eggs in one basket. So here is my (tentative) idea:

The snapshot on which I have everything installed, I plan to disable automatic startup of my firewall/antivirus and any other security apps, and keep the snapshot offline. I'll use this snapshot to hold all my installed applications, and with no security apps running, it's likely to run smooth and quick when i'm transcoding video, doing audio work etc, I figure.

I am building another snapshot, just for net surfing, with this one, i'll have all my security apps running and this setup will be hardened. I'll install on this one just things related to the net ( newsreader, email client, file sharing programs, etc)

Then, I have built an xp snapshot with only drivers and my prefered configuration, just for games. It's amazing how light this snapshot runs.

Also, I have snapshots of both windows server 2003, and xp, that are fresh from windows setup with nothing on them. These snapshots I dont touch, as i'll use them in future if need be, to build new snapshots from.

So that's it, I figure maybe this way, all my eggs wont be in one basket, and if I lose one snapshot (that isnt duplicated or archived) at least i'll still have other snapshots to work with and will not have lost 100% functionailty.

I am curious to know other's takes on this way of seeing it, criticisms/opinions are welcome ;)

[vhick]

well, fd-isr is a very very complex software for everybody's need. it depends on the user what fd-isr suite his/her needs.

there's many topic that discussing this.

mine, i have 3 snapshot (sometimes 4 or 5). one i the primary created by fd-isr. i didn't touch this because when i need to reinstall everything or i have to created a fresh snapshot for special purposes, i copy to this snapshot in a snap. my second is for my general purposes. my third is the exact copy of my second, if everything messed up. i easily boot to this working snapshot. if i ever wanted to test a new software the interested to me, i create a new snapshot from my second or in my third snashot to test. and if ever wanted to play games (that is not used internet) i created a new one. i also freeze the secondary because of high risk surfing.

you can also archive your every snapshot to external medium for security and assurance if all messed up.

imaging the drive is a good practice. i can't remeber who said (either sir erikalbert or sir peter) said that fd-isr for software failure and drive imaging for hardware failure.

thanks!...;)

[Peter2150]

Sir peter hmm, he says looking around to see who that might be.::)

Hi C-S

The beauty of FDISR, is usage is only limited by imaginations. Once you get it set up the way you like it, image it, and then play.

One thought is not keeping all those snapshots on disk, but in archives. You might find it quicker to copy from the archive to one snapshot, use it as defined, and then update the archive if appropriate, and then update your primary, with another archive. You would of course have to do that from a slimmed down secondary. Might make things much faster. The image of course is in case while playing you mess up.

Have fun

Pete

[Longboard]

@chrome-sturmen
Sounds good.
If I might make a suggestion: keep an archive copy of each set-up off line (external HD)
Once the archives are created: simple matter to keep each updated.
Then if anyone is lost: copy over and alakazam: back to most recent baseline. :)

{QUOTE-> imaging the drive is a good practice <-QUOTE}
I agree
May be slightly redundant, but just an extra safety margin.

I update each archive copy of each set-up when I'm in each of those set-ups about 2x/wk.
Make new image of whole disc 2x/month.

Time cost: about 30 minutes/month.(heh when imaging with IFW and phylock can still be on box working.)
Safety margin: priceless.

I am hoping that the new release of BING/IFW will support incrementals/differentials and so time cost will be further reduced.

Regards.

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> @chrome-sturmen
Sounds good.
If I might make a suggestion: keep an archive copy of each set-up off line (external HD)
Once the archives are created: simple matter to keep each updated.
Then if anyone is lost: copy over and alakazam: back to most recent baseline. :)


I agree
May be slightly redundant, but just an extra safety margin.

I update each archive copy of each set-up when I'm in each of those set-ups about 2x/wk.
Make new image of whole disc 2x/month.

Time cost: about 30 minutes/month.(heh when imaging with IFW and phylock can still be on box working.)
Safety margin: priceless.

I am hoping that the new release of BING/IFW will support incrementals/differentials and so time cost will be further reduced.

Regards. <-QUOTE}

Hi Longboard

As an aside, I gave up on incrementals and differentials. They can significantly reduce space, but I found in my tests times were actually longer.
Probably due to having to compare current image to disk to see whats changed.

Pete

[chrome_sturmen]

pete, I agree with you about the incremental backups, whos to say that the program that monitors your images to make differential backups is functiong properly? I prefer full backups each instance.

[vhick]

{QUOTE-> Sir peter hmm, he says looking around to see who that might be.::) <-QUOTE}]

just showing appreciation sir!;)

[Longboard]

{QUOTE-> pete, I agree with you about the incremental backups, whos to say that the program that monitors your images to make differential backups is functiong properly? I prefer full backups each instance. <-QUOTE}

Agree
I am just hoping that Terabyte may have some "new" take on incrementals/differentials that may not reflect other issues as noted.
:)

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> ]

just showing appreciation sir!;) <-QUOTE}

Thanks Vhick. Most of the time, I try, other times, I am trying.:D