David-CZ wrote:The folder already had over 100GB of data in it. There's no point in having a back up system where I risk losing everything simply by interrupting a copying process.
That's like saying that it's no use avoiding transfats because everyone eventually dies of something. If you only have the one backup, you always are at some risk when you are doing a new backup to that disk since you've got to plug it in and spin it up and then write to it. Anything could happen.
Backup family photos and your revisions to your Great American Novel onto robust media like non-erasable CDs and DVDs. Especially with regards to those things that don't change, make two copies and verify they can be read on another drive, store in different locations.
No single hard drive to back things up will be a safe solution because what happens if you have a house break in and the bad guys steal your computers? Or if your main machine is compromised and you are running the backup on that main machine, you will likely have to give that main machine access to the backup network drive. Even if it is running linux, there is no reason why the compromised machine can't encrypt the data remotely. It's better to have the remote machine access your main machine and backup that way, then it would have to be compromised to get caught out.
I'm sure there will be a lot of arguments about what to do and what not to do but certainly the answer isn't to conclude that backing up is pointless. Put the really, really important stuff on offline known-good write-once media and you'll have greater peace of mind.