I do a full system backup monthly, but never really plan to use this. I use a simple P2P setup, and our main computer runs only a few programs, mainly PM and AC. Because Windows computers accumulate crud over time and slow down, if I were to have a failure or want to move to a new computer, I have always installed a fresh copy of software and then added the data, rather than using the full system copy. It can be done relatively quickly.
Is there anything wrong with this approach?
Everyone has their own approach but since you asked, I would say yes. First, I would say I agree that installing a fresh copy of Windows is a good way to go IF you are talking about a home computer or a client. When you are talking about Windows Server 2008 with Active Directory and Exchange Server and SQL, it is MUCH, MUCH quicker to pop in the Windows Install CD, browse to yesterdays backup, click restore, eat lunch and come back to a perfect computer.
I do a full system backup monthly, but never really plan to use this.
I don't understand. Best practices would dictate that you do a full system backup nightly. You prove my point by saying you don't plan to use it. Then why do it? I think it is great that you do a full system backup, but once a month is not nearly enough. At least do once a week.
A lot of people forget the other value of backups especially doing many backups. I back up one year of data rotating weekly on the NAS. When I combine that with my TWO nightly backups, I have every file for a full year. There is probably just as much a chance that a user or even you will mistakenly delete a file or a file will become corrupt. If you notice today that this file is missing, it may have been deleted three weeks ago and you have now been unknowingly doing backups that don't contain that file. It's nice to have backups from three to four months ago.
