Working on an entirely new build for my studio.... this is my first time, but I'm speaking with experienced folk to get tips on what equipment and stuff is the best, as well as for gaining information so that I can do a bit more myself next time.
 
But here's the question: What you guys typically back up when backing up your project files? Do you just do EVERYTHING at once? Or do you have some way to compress your entire projects folder, or perhaps only take project files for unfinished songs and everything else is exported audio files?
 
I want to see how you guys do it - so that I don't screw up!

I save all my projects in 'Per Project Folders', and then just back everything up every couple of weeks to an external drive that is normally not connected to my DAW.  With drives being so cheap, I don't bother compressing - more work than it's worth.
I don't worry about settings, applications, or samples.  Those can be downloaded again from the vendors if the PC dies.
 
And when I finish a project (aka album that gets released for sale, or anything else that valuable), i'll take the mastered WAVs, put them in a USB key, and leave it in my safe deposit box (that holds all the important stuff in case my apartment burns down).

Matt said it best.
 
Backup what you can't recover form your vendors.
 
Compression of backed up files would only be of value if you were backing up to the cloud (and/or you pay for data bandwidth usage from you ISP). If you are backing up locally (to an external drive) chances are you are going to be backing up less than a TB and a TB external drive is dirt cheap these days.
 
Don't forget to take a C: drive image at least once a month and back that up to the external drive as well.

I have two backup jobs that run every night; OS is one, everything else is the other.  These start with a full, then run incremental every night for 30 nights.  Then the cycle repeats.
 
After two full cycles, the first cycle gets reduced to a synthetic full.
 
When the drive backup starts getting full (or when I feel like it), I swap it out.  The backup drives are 3T.

I do something very similar to BobF, with a mixture of full, incremental and synthetic backups of my data drives.  For my system drive I take weekly images and keep the last few weeks worth.
 
My scheduled backups run using a different account to the one I normally use.  My own account only has read access to the backups which reduces the risk of both accidental deletion and malware/ransomware affecting my backups.
 
AMB
 

Another clear reason to backup in native file format, rather than some kind of compression, is that the loss of a small piece of data will only result in the loss of one file instead of the entire archive. And another reason not to use a proprietary backup file format, is that the data may be irretrievable somewhere down the line unless you have legacy machines and software available to unpack the brand name format.

slartabartfast
And another reason not to use a proprietary backup file format, is that the data may be irretrievable somewhere down the line unless you have legacy machines and software available to unpack the brand name format.

That's a valid and very interesting point!
 
I have been using the native Windows System Image utility for several years, since Windows 7.  Windows creates a VHD (Virtual Hard Disk) container for the image files.  This can be mounted on the file system and browsed, individual files and folders can be copied if necessary.  Great for disaster recovery and archiving old builds.  This method has been working very reliably, but the only downside is that it is a manual process.  No problems with this so far.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHD_(file_format)
 
But back to the point, I recently tried to open an old image archive that had been made with an older image program called "Power Quest Drive Image" (before it became part of Norton Ghost), that was in a .v2i format file.  No luck, as I don't have PQDI or Norton Ghost installed to browse the .v2i file with.  So it is down the line with that one right now...
 
I also discovered something else regarding proprietary image formats.  I have recently been researching replacement candidates for the Windows System Image.  My big three choices have come down to Macrium Reflect, Paragon Backup and Recovery, and Acronis True Image.
 
Guess what?  Of those three possibilities, Paragon B & R seems to be the only one that can optionally make an image on a VHD file.  The other two use a proprietary archive container.  Paragon has a proprietary pVHD set as the default, as that supports compression and encryption, etc.  But they also offer the user the option to switch the container to VHD, VHDX, or VMDK. 

Giving me loads of ideas, guys! I ended up deciding on the following arrangement:
 
- my 2tb external HDD, which will have all projects files on a 500gb partition (I'm using under 200gb for project files as of now, and tha's after 5 years of using Cakewalk projects, so this should definitely be sufficient for a while), leaving 1.5tb to mass storage (makes me nervous if this fails... I'll find a solution sometime down the road and hope for the best)
 
- a new 120GB SSD where I'll install Windows 10 and all of my software applications (those come up to less than 50gb, so I'm betting I'm hoping I don't pop far over 100gb with everything installed. I heard one ought to keep 25 or 20gb free on an SSD for it to work at its peak.)
 
- my 750gb HDD for which I'll partition 500gb for backing up the audio projects folder, plus two 125gb partitions
that are cyclically backing up the 120gb SSD.
 
 
 
What do you guys think? To me, the dangerous parts of this plan are 1) the idea of not being able to back up my mass of crud from the 2tb hard drive and 2) something happening where a cable or port for the 2tb drive decides to act up while I'm in the middle of working on something and 3) the SSD gets full some how (thought I don't really have THAT many applications, and I'm only looking to install mostly necessities rather than loads of junk this time around).

Just an opinion here, but I think I would prefer having my projects at least on an internal HDD.  Maybe get a larger HDD?
 
The SATA port has more bandwidth than USB.  It is probably more reliable and with potentially less demand on the system performance.  It is my observation that USB can be greedy.
 
I only use external USB drives for file backup & images.  My solution to worry about losing my stuff on my external USB drive was to get two of them (1.0TB each). 
 
Then I just copy select folders, except for images, from one USB drive to the other to mirror my file backups in case one USB drive fails.  I rotate taking c: drive images between the two external USB drives. 
 
My setup:
C: (SSD) > Windows; Program files and data, Cakewalk Project files; Documents; VST's.
D: (HDD) > Cakewalk content; loops & samples; other music app content; archived installers & downloads (This stuff is static, not much change, but I do keep a copy on USB drive)
E: & F: USB 1 & 2 > backups & images

abacab
Just an opinion here, but I think I would prefer having my projects at least on an internal HDD.  Maybe get a larger HDD?
 
The SATA port has more bandwidth than USB.  It is probably more reliable and with potentially less demand on the system performance.  It is my observation that USB can be greedy.
 
I only use external USB drives for file backup & images.  My solution to worry about losing my stuff on my external USB drive was to get two of them (1.0TB each). 
 
Then I just copy select folders, except for images, from one USB drive to the other to mirror my file backups in case one USB drive fails.  I rotate taking c: drive images between the two external USB drives. 

Cool idea, abacab.
 
Your suggestion sounds a bit more like the following -


1 - Get the 120gb SSD and an addditional 1tb HDD to use in conjunction with the 750gb HDD, totalling a little under 2 tb.
2 - The OS and apps are on the SSD, project files can be on the 750gb (perhaps partitioned into a larger sector and a smaller one where Cakewalk content, VST's and sound libraries and stored), 1tb sata drive can house all the additional garbage/mass media, and then EVERYTHING can be backed up onto the external 2tb drive, over night for example. Then it doesn't need to be plugged in constantly either.
And it seems like all my free space'll equal roughly 800gb across all drives (not that that's saying much).
 
Sounds effective to me! I was a little bit hoping that I could save some cash, but $50 for the security of all these projects is actually fine in the long run. Unfortunate thing being that I can't do it immediately because I don't have even the $50 to spend on a 1tb hdd RIGHT now - but in about a month or two, it should also be in my hands.