Prev: The growth of WiFi
Next: MiFi & Macbook Pro Problem
From: Chris Ridd on 22 Mar 2010 10:58
On 2010-03-22 14:40:53 +0000, eastender said:

> In article <80pbotFoaqU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote:
>
>>> SuperDuper is just the tool for that.
>>
>> The only downside I can think of is that a full clone of a large (and
>> aren't they all, nowadays?) boot disk is going to take a while. Would a
>> faster rpm drive make a noticeable difference, if it was only attached
>> via USB?
>
> I'm using SuperDuper to backup a 200GB partition and it takes about 13
> minutes for a typical day's activity (just backing up what's changed).
> I've switched from using Time Machine as I've always had a full bootable
> copy before on other machines and didn't realise TM didn't do that...

That's pretty decent. I'm using the free version of SD that doesn't do
incrementals, and assumed the OP was similarly cheap :-)

--
Chris

From: eastender on 22 Mar 2010 11:43
In article <80pesrFb4eU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote:


> That's pretty decent. I'm using the free version of SD that doesn't do
> incrementals, and assumed the OP was similarly cheap :-)

Ah. I bought SD a few year's ago - it's been one of the best 'extras'
I've ever bought, and has saved my bacon a couple of times. Get it
before the pound falls further...

E.
From: J. J. Lodder on 22 Mar 2010 11:56
Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote:

> On 2010-03-22 13:56:03 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
> > Steve <hamrun(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The aim
> >> would be to have an overnight bootable backup created automatically.
> >
> > SuperDuper is just the tool for that.
>
> The only downside I can think of is that a full clone of a large (and
> aren't they all, nowadays?) boot disk is going to take a while.

Yes, unless you can do incremental BUs
either by paying for SuperDuper
or by being called Antonio Pappalardo.
(thanked in SDs credits for extraordinary service
beyond the normal call of duty)

Count on transferring about 40 GB/h over USB2
in real life. Filling up a 2 TB USB2 disk
will take several days.


> Would a
> faster rpm drive make a noticeable difference, if it was only attached
> via USB?

No,

Jan
From: Andy Hewitt on 22 Mar 2010 11:56
Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote:

> On 2010-03-22 14:40:53 +0000, eastender said:
[..]
> > I'm using SuperDuper to backup a 200GB partition and it takes about 13
> > minutes for a typical day's activity (just backing up what's changed).
> > I've switched from using Time Machine as I've always had a full bootable
> > copy before on other machines and didn't realise TM didn't do that...
>
> That's pretty decent. I'm using the free version of SD that doesn't do
> incrementals, and assumed the OP was similarly cheap :-)

This is a subject that is *very* well covered in many different forums.

However, it's probably worth noting (yet again), that SD and TM are
completely different methods of backup. IMHO they shuld not be
considered as one better than the other, or one to replace the other
(whichever way round you do it).

SD is normally used to create a clone backup of a system drive. It can
do this in a number of ways, but the most popular is the 'Smart' update.
This keeps a working clone of a volume using the least time consuming
method - by only updating changed files to make the copy appear
identical to the source.

Of course this also means that any deleted files in the source are also
deleted from the backup. Another caveat to consider, is that a clone
that is updated regularly also has the chance of being as useless as the
source drive in the event of a failure. For example, say a system file
became corrupt, and rendered the system unbootabe, but your backup clone
also contains this corrupt file as well because you backed it up every
day. You're stuffed.

Of course you can tell SD not to delete old files, but keep adding new
ones instead. This may end up as an unbootable backup though.

TM, OTOH, although not bootable, keeps a complete history of your system
volume, as well as any attached drives that you wish to include. This
means that you can recreate a system volume back to a 'recovery' point,
before the corruption became apparent, and have a working system again.
Indeed, you can retrieve any file that you saved, and maybe later
deleted, or may have been overwritten at some point.

For those reasons, I have my system broken down into a variety of
backups.

I use SD to keep a bootable clone of my system volume. This is only
updated monthly, or I'll do it manually just before a major OS update.
This is actually on a 2.5" drive, so I could swap that sraight into my
MacBook if necessary.

I use TM for my historical backup, which also includes a few other
locations, such as movies I have on an external drive, and my photo
copies.

I also have two Aperture Vaults on separate hard drives, one is a backup
after every session, and the other is a periodic backup. These are not
included in either SD or TM backups.

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: Elliott Roper on 22 Mar 2010 12:39
In article <1jfri4y.4o2pd8147rymkN%thewildrover(a)me.com>, Andy Hewitt
<thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote:

> Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2010-03-22 14:40:53 +0000, eastender said:
> [..]
> > > I'm using SuperDuper to backup a 200GB partition and it takes about 13
> > > minutes for a typical day's activity (just backing up what's changed).
> > > I've switched from using Time Machine as I've always had a full bootable
> > > copy before on other machines and didn't realise TM didn't do that...
> >
> > That's pretty decent. I'm using the free version of SD that doesn't do
> > incrementals, and assumed the OP was similarly cheap :-)
>
> This is a subject that is *very* well covered in many different forums.
>
> However, it's probably worth noting (yet again), that SD and TM are
> completely different methods of backup. IMHO they shuld not be
> considered as one better than the other, or one to replace the other
> (whichever way round you do it).
>
> SD is normally used to create a clone backup of a system drive. It can
> do this in a number of ways, but the most popular is the 'Smart' update.
> This keeps a working clone of a volume using the least time consuming
> method - by only updating changed files to make the copy appear
> identical to the source.
>
> Of course this also means that any deleted files in the source are also
> deleted from the backup. Another caveat to consider, is that a clone
> that is updated regularly also has the chance of being as useless as the
> source drive in the event of a failure. For example, say a system file
> became corrupt, and rendered the system unbootabe, but your backup clone
> also contains this corrupt file as well because you backed it up every
> day. You're stuffed.
>
> Of course you can tell SD not to delete old files, but keep adding new
> ones instead. This may end up as an unbootable backup though.
>
> TM, OTOH, although not bootable, keeps a complete history of your system
> volume, as well as any attached drives that you wish to include. This
> means that you can recreate a system volume back to a 'recovery' point,
> before the corruption became apparent, and have a working system again.
> Indeed, you can retrieve any file that you saved, and maybe later
> deleted, or may have been overwritten at some point.
>
> For those reasons, I have my system broken down into a variety of
> backups.
>
> I use SD to keep a bootable clone of my system volume. This is only
> updated monthly, or I'll do it manually just before a major OS update.
> This is actually on a 2.5" drive, so I could swap that sraight into my
> MacBook if necessary.
>
> I use TM for my historical backup, which also includes a few other
> locations, such as movies I have on an external drive, and my photo
> copies.
>
> I also have two Aperture Vaults on separate hard drives, one is a backup
> after every session, and the other is a periodic backup. These are not
> included in either SD or TM backups.

Seconded!
TM is fine for undoing little mistakes. SD for always having a bootable
something or a consistent something. Different jobs.

I do bulk SD schedules for things like music and movie assets that are
too big to do with TM as well as a nightly system disk. I'm a fan of
sparsebundles for all of that. Partitions suck and drives are not all
*that* cheap.
Once a fortnight I eject the TM disk, replace it with one of my
off-site drives and do several SD smart updates to sparsebundles on it
before sending it back on holiday.

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: The growth of WiFi
Next: MiFi & Macbook Pro Problem