Encrypted Existence
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 87
Hello all. Is Fabs autobackup 4 tech portable?...or will I have to install it on every machine? Thanks.
fabs autobackup 4 tech
- Thread starter Encrypted Existence
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 3,440
- Location
- Manchester UK
I am not sure as to the answer. But for the size of the file, and the time taken to install, I would just install it on the machines your backing up.
Either that, or place it on your network, nas box etc. Then use the network to direct to the app, and then backup.
Alternatively, place it on a ext hard drive, and backup to that.
Either that, or place it on your network, nas box etc. Then use the network to direct to the app, and then backup.
Alternatively, place it on a ext hard drive, and backup to that.
Xander
Banned
- Reaction score
- 66
- Location
- Niagara region, Ontario
All the previous incarnations have been portable. I don't have the Tech version yet but I can't see why it wouldn't be, especially when the biggest advantage would be running it from a BartPE disc and pulling files off of an offline system for every user.
glricht
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 805
- Location
- Zephyrhills, Florida
It's portable. I run it all the time off a USB flash drive.
iisjman07
Active Member
- Reaction score
- 6
- Location
- South End Of The UK
It is indeed portable; one of the beautiful things about Fabs
Martyn
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 116
- Location
- Bedfordshire UK
Yes and a fantastic bit of kit. One of the most useful and time saving tools I've purchased.
It is portable. but it is SLOW to recover the backup.
I slave a client's drive to my server and use it to take the backup. This takes about as long as one would expect.
When the machine is ready to get the backup restored, I run Fab's from a pendrive and point it to my server to get restored. At this point it becomes a complete turtle.
17gig? that takes all day. (I recently went to a gigibit switch just to see if it would help, nope)
I slave a client's drive to my server and use it to take the backup. This takes about as long as one would expect.
When the machine is ready to get the backup restored, I run Fab's from a pendrive and point it to my server to get restored. At this point it becomes a complete turtle.
17gig? that takes all day. (I recently went to a gigibit switch just to see if it would help, nope)
- Reaction score
- 3,440
- Location
- Manchester UK
I had a similar type of issue many months ago, only mine would stop my network connection from the server (Win 7 x64, 6gb). Solution was to install a new gigabit network card. The transfer is now back to normal speed.
Example, 8Gb (which I did this afternoon, took all of 7 minutes to transfer from the server back to the machine it came from).
Now, I still either slave to the server, 16Gb flash drive, use a external drive or a combination. Depending on the size of the backup.
Example, 8Gb (which I did this afternoon, took all of 7 minutes to transfer from the server back to the machine it came from).
Now, I still either slave to the server, 16Gb flash drive, use a external drive or a combination. Depending on the size of the backup.
Encrypted Existence
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 87
Shortly after I started this thread I purchased fab's autobackup 4 tech. I like it! It will surely make my life easier.
Martyn
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 116
- Location
- Bedfordshire UK
I use an external usb hard drive and it works fine with much more data than that to transfer
I have a dedicated repair machine with the side permanently off, with several high capacity drives. I just "Fabs" the data across to those using conventional SATA or IDE.
Regards.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk ........ Whilst proclaiming the machine fixed, grabbing the cash and running like hell.
Regards.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk ........ Whilst proclaiming the machine fixed, grabbing the cash and running like hell.
16k_zx81
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 54
- Location
- South Australia
I use an external usb hard drive and it works fine with much more data than that to transfer
Yep +1 to this. I use it regularly and never noticed it being any slower than any other file copy method.
May have been a faulty drive? Or bisquillions* of really small files?
*Possibly not a real number.
Last edited:
Yep +1 to this. I use it regularly and never noticed it being any slower than any other file copy method.
May have been a faulty drive? Or bisquillions* of really small files?
*Possibly not a real number.
I Have tested the drive a few times thinking just that. I will attempt a new network card tomorrow as was previously suggested.
BTW love bisquillions.
Similar threads
