Backup, clone, or whatever?

I'm trying to figure out the most appropriate plan for backing up my images. Currently, the primary storage for my images (25K or so) and Lightroom DB is a WD Passport 2T drive. I back that up to a 2T external DESK HD using Acronis True Image. I also have a 2nd backup onto another Passport drive, but I've recently read an number of horror stories where backup software failed to restore from backup files, so I'm thinking it might be better to just forget about Acronis and copy files directly from one drive to another in Windows Explorer. I don't really need multiple incremental copies of my stuff, I just want the most recently saved version. If my primary goes south, I could just copy the files directly from the backup HD - no restore program needed.

Any thoughts? Are there any compelling reasons why using backup software is preferable to just copying files from one drive to another? What am I missing here?

Simply copying files from one disk to another does have the advantage of not needing any software to restore. You can use a robocopy command to do that. But, what happens if your original gets corrupted and then backed up before you know there's a problem? That's why versioning is important. Since you already have two backup drives, why not do a robocopy to one and use Acronis on the other? I also recommend an off-site backup. I use Crashplan.

Snafoo wrote in post #16510990
... and copy files directly from one drive to another in Windows Explorer.

Free Karen's Replicator makes it easy: Karen's Replicator

online backup via crashplan.com

Thanks for the input, folks! Much appreciated.

Mike_d, yes I think I'll dedicate one drive for incremental backup and the other drive for robocopy.

As for crashplan, well, I live in the sticks and only have a DSL internet connection. At nearly 600 GB, I'm afraid it would take weeks to back everything up. Or I could take the drive to my dad's house and back it up using Google Fiber. Hmmm....

they also offer to send you a 1TB drive that you fill and return, then they seed the initial load for you. I did that, would have taken months otherwise. Of course, if your dad has super high speed available, do it there for free

I'm quite happy with crashplan, especially since they never delete anything unless you do it yourself. Many other online backup services flag missing files for deletion within 30 days. Since I have all files on external drives and my computer is my laptop it was a PITA to synch everything up again after a trip.

Although I use Acronis for my monthly system partion imaging, photo and other non-system files get backed-up with the free version of SyncBack in native file format.

Makes no sense to depend on True Image to restore common files from their proprietary format, IMO. Corrupted .tib files do happen.

http://www.2brightspar​ks.com …I3J7_zBobsCFYNf​3godwhUASg

agedbriar wrote in post #16511441
Although I use Acronis for my monthly system partion imaging, photo and other non-system files get backed-up with the free version of SyncBack in native file format.

Makes no sense to depend on True Image to restore common files from their proprietary format, IMO. Corrupted .tib files do happen.

http://www.2brightspar​ks.com …I3J7_zBobsCFYNf​3godwhUASg

Thanks, Agedbriar. I'll give SyncBack a look.

Snafoo wrote in post #16512279
Thanks, Agedbriar. I'll give SyncBack a look.

I've been using SyncBack for several years. Got it set up to back up all my user files (pictures, mail, etc.) automatically twice a week alternating between two drives. I never look at it until I get an error message that a drive is full, which is when I have around six months' of weekly backups on the drive. Then I kill off half of the weekly backups (older half, of course) and SyncBack carries on.

In this scenario it's necessary to pay for SyncBack SE rather than use the free version - SE allows the automatic naming of backup files by backup date such as "backup12-8-2013".

-js

Free File Sync is free and works fine.