SuperDuper! vs. Carbon Copy Cloner

[TaliesinSoft]

I've been using SuperDuper! as my backup application for something like
eight years now. During that time it has served me well, doing
everything I had hoped for and expected. There were quite a few times
when I made use of a backup version.

Recently a friend suggested I ought to be using Carbon Copy Cloner. My
question then is what is there about Carbon Copy Cloner that would make
it preferable to SuperDuper!.

--
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

[Jolly Roger]

In article <b221kd...@mid.individual.net>,

I've wondered the same thing.

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[Leonard Blaisdell]

In article <b221kd...@mid.individual.net>,
TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:

> Recently a friend suggested I ought to be using Carbon Copy Cloner. My
> question then is what is there about Carbon Copy Cloner that would make
> it preferable to SuperDuper!.

What more do you want that SuperDuper doesn't do? Does Carbon Copy
Cloner do all that SD does and more? I'm perfectly happy with SD. It
might clone my toe if I could get it into a USB port.
Has your friend told you how CCC is better? If so, please share.

leo

[nospam]

In article <b221kd...@mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft
<talies...@me.com> wrote:

did he say why?

anyway, here are some differences:

superduper will stop copying if it encounters an error (no point in
continuing when it can't copy everything), while ccc will log the error
and continue. which strategy is better depends on the situation, but
either way, you have an incomplete backup and need to resolve whatever
caused the error.

ccc can clone using a much faster block copy in some cases when copying
an entire drive (not an incremental), otherwise it's slower.

it's vastly easier to select which files to copy with ccc than with
superduper.

superduper is free for basic functionality and paid for additional
features. ccc used to be free but is now paid only. i don't know if the
older free version of ccc is still available.

ccc can archive older versions of files on the target. superduper can't.

superduper skips more stuff than ccc does but it probably doesn't
matter, most of the time.

[isw]

In article <jollyroger-783BB...@news.individual.net>,

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <b221kd...@mid.individual.net>,
> TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
>
> > I've been using SuperDuper! as my backup application for something like
> > eight years now. During that time it has served me well, doing
> > everything I had hoped for and expected. There were quite a few times
> > when I made use of a backup version.
> >
> > Recently a friend suggested I ought to be using Carbon Copy Cloner. My
> > question then is what is there about Carbon Copy Cloner that would make
> > it preferable to SuperDuper!.
>
> I've wondered the same thing.

So have I, but the other way 'round -- I've been happy using CCC for
years.

Isaac

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <b221kd...@mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft
> <talies...@me.com> wrote:
>
> > I've been using SuperDuper! as my backup application for something like
> > eight years now. During that time it has served me well, doing
> > everything I had hoped for and expected. There were quite a few times
> > when I made use of a backup version.
> >
> > Recently a friend suggested I ought to be using Carbon Copy Cloner. My
> > question then is what is there about Carbon Copy Cloner that would make
> > it preferable to SuperDuper!.
>
> did he say why?

[snip]

For me I'll say once more - don't fix what aint broken :-) If either is
working for you (and you should periodically test recovering a few
random files, to make certain your backups _are_ in fact working!), then
why change, unless you're unhappy with your current setup.

General side note for anyone reading this: when it comes to backup, I
recommend:

1) at least two on-site backups using different media and methods
e.g. Time Machine plus CrashPlan <http://www.crashplan.com/> (my
favourite backup application) backups to a separate HD for each
app's backup (NOT the same HD). Or a CrashPlan backup plus CCC or
SuperDuper clone if you want a quick-recovery option.

2) at least one off-site backup, e.g. CrashPlan over the 'net to a
friend's or work computer (PC, Mac or Linux no matter what OS is
being backed up from). Or swap backup HD sets between two locations
like work and home every week. The key is not to have all your
backups right next to your computer and just as vulnerable when
stolen, flooded, destroyed by fire, etc.

Links to CCC and SuperDuper feature listings:
<http://www.bombich.com/ccc_features.html>
<http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.html>


--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[Davoud]

TaliesinSoft:

Given what you said in your first paragraph, the answer is: absolutely
nothing. SD has also performed flawlessly for me for years, and it is
not my habit to try to fix things that aren't broken.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[Ed Anson]

On 6/15/13 2:38 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> 1) at least two on-site backups using different media and methods
> e.g. Time Machine plus CrashPlan <http://www.crashplan.com/> (my
> favourite backup application) backups to a separate HD for each
> app's backup (NOT the same HD). Or a CrashPlan backup plus CCC or
> SuperDuper clone if you want a quick-recovery option.
>
> 2) at least one off-site backup, e.g. CrashPlan over the 'net to a
> friend's or work computer (PC, Mac or Linux no matter what OS is
> being backed up from). Or swap backup HD sets between two locations
> like work and home every week. The key is not to have all your
> backups right next to your computer and just as vulnerable when
> stolen, flooded, destroyed by fire, etc.

I'll second that.

BTW: Along those lines, I'm looking for a better way to do a part of it:

Time Machine backups, to a Time Capsule, is a part of my backup
strategy. Although I use other backup methods (including SD) as well, TM
is the only thing I can get the rest of my family to do -- mainly
because they don't have to do anything. In order to provide an off-site
backup, I periodically clone the TC disk.

Unfortunately, it appears that the only way to clone the TC disk is to
use the Archive function (Airport Utility 5.6) and write to a USB 2
disk. SD does not work for that, apparently because it's a network
drive. Because this is always a full disk copy, it takes about 24 hours
to complete for 1 TB, during which time TC is not available to do backups.

I was hoping that the next generation TC (just announced) would improve
the situation. But it still includes only USB 2 for external drives. I
was shocked to see NO Thunderbolt port.

Does CCC offer a better solution here? Does anyone know a good solution
for this?

/Ed

[nospam]

In article <BoCdnW4lWfrDViHM...@giganews.com>, Ed Anson

<EdA...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Time Machine backups, to a Time Capsule, is a part of my backup
> strategy. Although I use other backup methods (including SD) as well, TM
> is the only thing I can get the rest of my family to do -- mainly
> because they don't have to do anything. In order to provide an off-site
> backup, I periodically clone the TC disk.

that's a huge advantage to time machine. turn it on and it works in the
background, with the user needing to do anything.

> Unfortunately, it appears that the only way to clone the TC disk is to
> use the Archive function (Airport Utility 5.6) and write to a USB 2
> disk. SD does not work for that, apparently because it's a network
> drive. Because this is always a full disk copy, it takes about 24 hours
> to complete for 1 TB, during which time TC is not available to do backups.

the time machine archive on a time capsule (or any shared network
drive) is a disk image (.dmg).

make sure it's not being accessed by anyone and simply drag the dmg to
another hard drive. it will be quicker than doing a file by file copy
but it will still take some time. just do it when nobody else is using
it.

> I was hoping that the next generation TC (just announced) would improve
> the situation. But it still includes only USB 2 for external drives. I
> was shocked to see NO Thunderbolt port.

that would add quite a bit to its already high price. either requires
additional chips. also, the network is typically the bottleneck so it
won't make much of a difference anyway.

> Does CCC offer a better solution here? Does anyone know a good solution
> for this?

no need for either one.

[nospam]

In article <150620131659295615%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam

<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > Time Machine backups, to a Time Capsule, is a part of my backup
> > strategy. Although I use other backup methods (including SD) as well, TM
> > is the only thing I can get the rest of my family to do -- mainly
> > because they don't have to do anything. In order to provide an off-site
> > backup, I periodically clone the TC disk.
>
> that's a huge advantage to time machine. turn it on and it works in the
> background, with the user needing to do anything.

that should say without the user needing to do anything.

[Király]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> ccc can clone using a much faster block copy in some cases when copying
> an entire drive (not an incremental), otherwise it's slower.

I dispute the assertion that a block copy is much faster than a file
level copy. In most cases, it's slower. Block copies copy all of the
volume's empty space, while file copies don't. So unless a volume is
nearly full with millions of little bitty files, a block copy will be
slower.

I tested this with a 500GB volume filled with 450GB worth of large
video files. Block copy was slower by several minutes.

--
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[Király]

CCC has some features that SD! doesn't, like the ability to easily
exclude files you don't want copied. CCC will also copy a 10.7 or 10.8
volume's recovery partition; SD! won't do that.

Unless you want to pay CCC's registration fee to get those features,
don't bother. SD! is a fine program (I use it daily) and if it does what
you need, you don't need to change.

[Tom Stiller]

In article <kpirk0$crv$1...@dont-email.me>, m...@home.spamsucks.ca (Király)
wrote:

> TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
> > I've been using SuperDuper! as my backup application for something like
> > eight years now. During that time it has served me well, doing
> > everything I had hoped for and expected. There were quite a few times
> > when I made use of a backup version.
> >
> > Recently a friend suggested I ought to be using Carbon Copy Cloner. My
> > question then is what is there about Carbon Copy Cloner that would make
> > it preferable to SuperDuper!.
>
> CCC has some features that SD! doesn't, like the ability to easily
> exclude files you don't want copied. CCC will also copy a 10.7 or 10.8
> volume's recovery partition; SD! won't do that.

It's easy enough to create a recovery partition on the target volume and
it only has to be done once. Use your favorite search engine to find
howto instructions. There are several methods and variations; look 'em
over and choose the one you like.

>
> Unless you want to pay CCC's registration fee to get those features,
> don't bother. SD! is a fine program (I use it daily) and if it does what
> you need, you don't need to change.

--

PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf
of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -- Ambrose Bierce

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

CrashPlan once setup to backup to a local HD, networked storage, or over
the internet to a computer anywhere (or even to CrashPlan's own online
storage space that you can pay for, but it's so much cheaper and easier
to backup instead for free to a HD attached to a friend, family's or
work computer), will 'just work'. It can backup to multiple locations,
and will stop and start working seamlessly as it gains and losses
connection to it's backup locations.

Crashplan is free for basic usage (automatic backup to each location
once ever 24hrs, though you can initiate additional backups manually any
time you like), and a paid version - CrashPlan+ for extra features like
constant backup as soon as you create and modify files, and multiple
backup sets (free CrashPlan only allows one choice of files to be backed
up to your backup locations).

Here's a comparison chart:
<http://www.crashplan.com/consumer/compare.html>
As you can see for most users even the free version is more than
adequate. But it is especially nice to have the constant backup and be
able to define a backup set for each backup location in CrashPlan+ ($32
per year), if your work is ongoing hour to hour, minute to minute, and
valuable to you.

CrashPlan can also be setup to put up a dialog, email or tweet you if a
backup destination stays unavailable a user defined duration; and it can
be set to run at varying network speeds or not all, depending on whether
it's backing up over LAN or WAN, and the time of day.

I even use it for my elderly grandmother - her copy (actually the
CrashPlan server which checks with her local copy - so it doesn't matter
if her 'net goes down - I still get notified) emails me if a destination
remains unavailable for 3 days and then 7 so I know if I need to take
action; and it never ever bothers her directly (I don't have her copy
pop-up messages, and I password protect the app - which it allows - so
she cannot accidently run it and change settings). It just works.

Handily you can begin a backup to a HD connected locally, then move that
backup offsite and continue over the internet - useful for large initial
backups, with only small incremental changes to backup afterward.

CrashPlan can be set to keep deleted or changed files forever or a
specified duration. If you've the space it can keep every single change
and deletion you ever make. So you control how it prunes it's backup.

Restoring can be done either over the 'net from the connected backup
location, by walking the backup location over to the source and
connecting locally for faster restore, or with paid CrashPlan+ using a
web-based restore.

It may also be worth mentioning that the backup settings can all be
administered from the CrashPlan website. So if I want to remove a folder
to be backed up, or change the time network usage is kept low, I can do
so from elsewhere.

Possible downsides:

CrashPlan is a Java app, which may be worth mentioning, but it has a
well designed Mac-like UI. Still, Java puts some people off, though I
expect that has more to do with past encounters with PC-like Java apps
and rather crappy ports of Java apps to OS X. CrashPlan works very well,
and if the average user wasn't told it was Java, they'd likely never
notice.

CrashPlan is also less user friendly to setup and restore from than Time
Machine. CrashPlan is more complicated with a lot more settings, and
restore options. But it is also more powerful as a result.

And relevant to your case - it's not backing up as a bootable clone (but
it is keeping backups of past deleted and changed files), as CCC or SD
can do. So if you want the option of a super-quick 'back up and running
in minutes' restore for critical business, it pays to have a clone
backup as well.

[nospam]

In article <kpiqe7$7ac$1...@dont-email.me>, Király <m...@home.spamsucks.ca>

that test is flawed because there aren't very many files to copy.

try it again with an os x volume that has hundreds of thousands of
files.

here's what the author of ccc says:
<http://help.bombich.com/kb/explore/the-block-level-copy>

While each method produces functionally the same result, an initial
backup will take less time with a block-level copy than a file-level
copy. Because a block-level copy transfers the blocks of data in
order, in perfect sequence, the heads of the hard drive are not
tasked with the intensive seeking operations that are required for a
file-level copy.

obviously, an incremental copy where only a small subset of files are
copied will be faster, as will a full copy where there aren't very many
files to begin with.

for the typical scenario, a block copy is going to be faster.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <1l4k0et.16p54p312ekfzfN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,

jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> Here's a comparison chart:
> <http://www.crashplan.com/consumer/compare.html>
> As you can see for most users even the free version is more than
> adequate.

You've convinced me to give it another look. Thanks. : )

[Király]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> for the typical scenario, a block copy is going to be faster.

What's a "typical scenario"? A volume that is 30% full? 50%? 80%? Large
files? Small?

My point is that a block copy may or may not be faster. Optimal
conditions for a block copy being faster than a file copy are millions
of tiny files on a volume that's mostly full. Pretty much any other
conditions will result in a block copy being slower, because of the need
for it to copy all of the volume's free space.

[nospam]

In article <kpj7kl$u12$1...@dont-email.me>, Király <m...@home.spamsucks.ca>

wrote:

> > for the typical scenario, a block copy is going to be faster.
>
> What's a "typical scenario"? A volume that is 30% full? 50%? 80%? Large
> files? Small?

a normal os x install which has is in the range of 500k files for
*just* the system.

my main drive has just over 1 million files and the other drive has
about 500k files.

cloning either of those is absolutely going to be faster with a block
copy. the difference is very noticeable.

> My point is that a block copy may or may not be faster. Optimal
> conditions for a block copy being faster than a file copy are millions
> of tiny files on a volume that's mostly full.

it need not be mostly full. the big win is not needing to walk the file
system and seek the heads to find and copy every single file.

on the other hand, if you just have a handful of files then a block
copy is probably not ideal.

for most scenarios, it will be faster.

> Pretty much any other
> conditions will result in a block copy being slower, because of the need
> for it to copy all of the volume's free space.

the author of carbon copy cloner disagrees with you.

[Davoud]

nospam:

> > for the typical scenario, a block copy is going to be faster.

Király:

> What's a "typical scenario"? A volume that is 30% full? 50%? 80%? Large
> files? Small?
>
> My point is that a block copy may or may not be faster. Optimal
> conditions for a block copy being faster than a file copy are millions
> of tiny files on a volume that's mostly full. Pretty much any other
> conditions will result in a block copy being slower, because of the need
> for it to copy all of the volume's free space.

This is no doubt import to Akamai and others with their storage
capacity, but file copy via SuperDuper works great for me. I hardly
ever have more than 10GB to be backed up, I don't let my disks get very
full, and I can continue to work while the backup is in progress. No
worries, mate.

[Neill Massello]

TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:

> My question then is what is there about Carbon Copy Cloner that would make
> it preferable to SuperDuper!.

In 2006, somebody tested copying software for Mac and found that
SuperDuper did the best job at preserving HFS+ metadata.

<http://blog.plasticsfuture.org/2006/04/23/mac-backup-software-harmful/>

I don't know whether this comparison is still valid seven years later or
whether anybody has tested newer versions of Carbon Copy Cloner for its
thoroughness with metadata. The Release History for version 3.4 (July
2011) states that "CCC will preserve as much filesystem metadata as
possible" when backing up to non-HFS systems, but that doesn't really
answer the question.

[Ed Anson]

On 6/15/13 4:59 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <BoCdnW4lWfrDViHM...@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
> <EdA...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Time Machine backups, to a Time Capsule, is a part of my backup
>> strategy. Although I use other backup methods (including SD) as well, TM
>> is the only thing I can get the rest of my family to do -- mainly
>> because they don't have to do anything. In order to provide an off-site
>> backup, I periodically clone the TC disk.
>
> that's a huge advantage to time machine. turn it on and it works in the
> background, with the user needing to do anything.
>
>> Unfortunately, it appears that the only way to clone the TC disk is to
>> use the Archive function (Airport Utility 5.6) and write to a USB 2
>> disk. SD does not work for that, apparently because it's a network
>> drive. Because this is always a full disk copy, it takes about 24 hours
>> to complete for 1 TB, during which time TC is not available to do backups.
>
> the time machine archive on a time capsule (or any shared network
> drive) is a disk image (.dmg).
>
> make sure it's not being accessed by anyone and simply drag the dmg to
> another hard drive. it will be quicker than doing a file by file copy
> but it will still take some time. just do it when nobody else is using
> it.

The problem is how to make sure nobody is using it during the entire
copy. Especially since copying the whole dmg would take a considerable
amount of time, it is highly likely that a scheduled backup (or 2 or
more) would take place during the copy.

>
>> I was hoping that the next generation TC (just announced) would improve
>> the situation. But it still includes only USB 2 for external drives. I
>> was shocked to see NO Thunderbolt port.
>
> that would add quite a bit to its already high price. either requires
> additional chips. also, the network is typically the bottleneck so it
> won't make much of a difference anyway.

I would personally accept that price increase for the added performance.
Given that the archive process is direct from TC to the external drive,
the network is not a performance issue.

But it looks to me like Apple has quietly deprecated the Archive
function. Note that I have to use an outdated version of Airport utility
to invoke it.

>
>> Does CCC offer a better solution here? Does anyone know a good solution
>> for this?
>
> no need for either one.

Of course I don't need either one, if I copy the whole backup every
time. But I'd prefer incremental backups such as with SD and any other
disk I use.

>

I'm beginning to think that I need to make my own TC-like solution,
perhaps using a Mac Mini with the Server app. It can be configured to
act like a TC, and it has real disk interfaces. Of course, that solution
would cost several times as much as a TC, so I'm a bit reluctant.

/Ed

[bi...@mix.com]

Neill Massello <nmas...@yahoo.com> writes:

> In 2006, somebody tested copying software for Mac and found that
> SuperDuper did the best job at preserving HFS+ metadata.
>
> <http://blog.plasticsfuture.org/2006/04/23/mac-backup-software-harmful/>

Yea, that article woke up many people. Heh.

Then, Nate Gray wrote a collection of test scripts he named
Backup-Bouncer. Anyone could use these to test their backup
tools.

http://www.n8gray.org/blog/2009/09/15/backup-bouncer-020/

Mike Bombich's web site has changed quite a lot, so you'll have
to use the WayBack machine to read what he did with this (or, I
couldn't find it on his current site) -

http://web.archive.org/web/20080331100625/http://www.bombich.com/software/ccc.html

Scroll down a bit to "CCC and Data Fidelity."

When SuperDuper was first released, it was somewhat better
than Carbon Copy Cloner. But, Mr Bombich is no slouch. My
guess is he did some fixes between v2.3 and V3.1, although
he doesn't say so in the above, and then he went on to add
a few more tests to Backup-Bouncer (but you'll have to hunt
down that version of this web page yourself, if you want
more details), and made sure CCC passes them all.

As for SuperDuper's shortcomings -

http://www.n8gray.org/blog/2008/06/02/backup-bouncer-is-working/

I don't know what, if anything, has been done about SuperDuper
ignoring FIFOs and device files... It's not something I often
have to worry about.

As for block-copy as a backup, ASR (Apple Software Restore)
runs like the wind on OS-9. I haven't tried it on OS X, tho.

Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number

[bi...@mix.com]

> When SuperDuper was first released, it was somewhat better
> than Carbon Copy Cloner. But, Mr Bombich is no slouch. My
> guess is he did some fixes between v2.3 and V3.1, although
> he doesn't say so in the above, and then he went on to add
> a few more tests to Backup-Bouncer (but you'll have to hunt
> down that version of this web page yourself, if you want
> more details), and made sure CCC passes them all.

Someone was nice enough to send me this pointer -

http://www.bombich.com/groups/ccc/wiki/7ba51/Improvements_to_Backup_Bouncer.html

Thanks.

[Ant]

On 6/16/2013 12:49 PM PT, Ed Anson typed:

> The problem is how to make sure nobody is using it during the entire
> copy. Especially since copying the whole dmg would take a considerable
> amount of time, it is highly likely that a scheduled backup (or 2 or
> more) would take place during the copy.

Isn't there a way to copy it in safe/basic/clean mode, from a bootable
media, or something to prevent these conflicts?
--
Happy Father's Day to all dads/pas including male alates! :)
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.

[nospam]

In article <kpj7kl$u12$1...@dont-email.me>, Király <m...@home.spamsucks.ca>
wrote:

> My point is that a block copy may or may not be faster. Optimal
> conditions for a block copy being faster than a file copy are millions
> of tiny files on a volume that's mostly full. Pretty much any other
> conditions will result in a block copy being slower, because of the need
> for it to copy all of the volume's free space.

it turns out that block copy *doesn't* copy all of the free space:

<http://www.bombich.com/software/docs/ccc/en.lproj/explore/the-block-lev
el-copy.html>

Does the block-copy method copy unallocated blocks? Are deleted files
copied?

Some unallocated blocks will be transferred, but it is not a goal of
CCC to copy all unallocated blocks. CCC will copy up to the "high
tide" mark on the source volume, that is, to the last block that
contains actual file data. If the source volume's free space is
fragmented, then some unallocated blocks will definitely get
transferred. Any unallocated blocks past the high-tide mark, though,
will not be transferred. If you're hoping to recover deleted files
from your source volume, we recommend that you attempt this from the
original source volume, not the cloned volume.

[nospam]

In article <rtCdneG1I_MriyPM...@giganews.com>, Ed Anson

<EdA...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> Unfortunately, it appears that the only way to clone the TC disk is to
> >> use the Archive function (Airport Utility 5.6) and write to a USB 2
> >> disk. SD does not work for that, apparently because it's a network
> >> drive. Because this is always a full disk copy, it takes about 24 hours
> >> to complete for 1 TB, during which time TC is not available to do backups.
> >
> > the time machine archive on a time capsule (or any shared network
> > drive) is a disk image (.dmg).
> >
> > make sure it's not being accessed by anyone and simply drag the dmg to
> > another hard drive. it will be quicker than doing a file by file copy
> > but it will still take some time. just do it when nobody else is using
> > it.
>
> The problem is how to make sure nobody is using it during the entire
> copy. Especially since copying the whole dmg would take a considerable
> amount of time, it is highly likely that a scheduled backup (or 2 or
> more) would take place during the copy.

it should have one dmg per machine, so maybe you can stagger it when
the associated machine is not in use.

> >> I was hoping that the next generation TC (just announced) would improve
> >> the situation. But it still includes only USB 2 for external drives. I
> >> was shocked to see NO Thunderbolt port.
> >
> > that would add quite a bit to its already high price. either requires
> > additional chips. also, the network is typically the bottleneck so it
> > won't make much of a difference anyway.
>
> I would personally accept that price increase for the added performance.
> Given that the archive process is direct from TC to the external drive,
> the network is not a performance issue.

you might be willing to pay for it but others might not. it's already
more expensive than other wifi routers and that would make it more so.

> But it looks to me like Apple has quietly deprecated the Archive
> function. Note that I have to use an outdated version of Airport utility
> to invoke it.

the latest airport utility is a huge step backwards and they haven't
put back all the stuff they took out. stick with 5.6.

> I'm beginning to think that I need to make my own TC-like solution,
> perhaps using a Mac Mini with the Server app. It can be configured to
> act like a TC, and it has real disk interfaces. Of course, that solution
> would cost several times as much as a TC, so I'm a bit reluctant.

you don't need os x server. time machine supports a shared hard drive
from another mac, including the standard os x. an old mac mini works
well for that.

[Ed Anson]

On 6/16/13 8:20 PM, Ant wrote:
> On 6/16/2013 12:49 PM PT, Ed Anson typed:
>
>> The problem is how to make sure nobody is using it during the entire
>> copy. Especially since copying the whole dmg would take a considerable
>> amount of time, it is highly likely that a scheduled backup (or 2 or
>> more) would take place during the copy.
>
> Isn't there a way to copy it in safe/basic/clean mode, from a bootable
> media, or something to prevent these conflicts?

If we were talking about a disk attached to my system, perhaps so. But
we're talking about Time Capsule, accessed from several independent
systems over which I have little (if any) control. I also have no direct
access to TC's internal drive.

[Ed Anson]

On 6/16/13 8:58 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <rtCdneG1I_MriyPM...@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
> <EdA...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Unfortunately, it appears that the only way to clone the TC disk is to
>>>> use the Archive function (Airport Utility 5.6) and write to a USB 2
>>>> disk. SD does not work for that, apparently because it's a network
>>>> drive. Because this is always a full disk copy, it takes about 24 hours
>>>> to complete for 1 TB, during which time TC is not available to do backups.
>>>
>>> the time machine archive on a time capsule (or any shared network
>>> drive) is a disk image (.dmg).
>>>
>>> make sure it's not being accessed by anyone and simply drag the dmg to
>>> another hard drive. it will be quicker than doing a file by file copy
>>> but it will still take some time. just do it when nobody else is using
>>> it.
>>
>> The problem is how to make sure nobody is using it during the entire
>> copy. Especially since copying the whole dmg would take a considerable
>> amount of time, it is highly likely that a scheduled backup (or 2 or
>> more) would take place during the copy.
>
> it should have one dmg per machine, so maybe you can stagger it when
> the associated machine is not in use.

Since I don't control those machines, this is not an option. Even if the
associated machine is out of use when I start the copy, it might
(probably would) get used before the copy completes.

>
>>>> I was hoping that the next generation TC (just announced) would improve
>>>> the situation. But it still includes only USB 2 for external drives. I
>>>> was shocked to see NO Thunderbolt port.
>>>
>>> that would add quite a bit to its already high price. either requires
>>> additional chips. also, the network is typically the bottleneck so it
>>> won't make much of a difference anyway.
>>
>> I would personally accept that price increase for the added performance.
>> Given that the archive process is direct from TC to the external drive,
>> the network is not a performance issue.
>
> you might be willing to pay for it but others might not. it's already
> more expensive than other wifi routers and that would make it more so.

I can appreciate that. But of course we're not talking about just a WiFi
router. If Thunderbolt is too expensive, why not at least USB 3? What I
would prefer is a good way to do incremental backups of the TC disk. [I
can't believe I'm the only one.] So far I have not found a way to do that.

>
>> But it looks to me like Apple has quietly deprecated the Archive
>> function. Note that I have to use an outdated version of Airport utility
>> to invoke it.
>
> the latest airport utility is a huge step backwards and they haven't
> put back all the stuff they took out. stick with 5.6.

I am. But even that is not a complete solution since it has to take TC
out of service for 24 hours just to do a backup.

>
>> I'm beginning to think that I need to make my own TC-like solution,
>> perhaps using a Mac Mini with the Server app. It can be configured to
>> act like a TC, and it has real disk interfaces. Of course, that solution
>> would cost several times as much as a TC, so I'm a bit reluctant.
>
> you don't need os x server. time machine supports a shared hard drive
> from another mac, including the standard os x. an old mac mini works
> well for that.

I suppose an old mini would work, but it's still a lot more expensive
than TC. With or without Server is not a significant issue, since Server
is pretty cheap. But in addition to the mini I would need compatible
disk drives. Unfortunately, mini only has one of each of FireWire and
Thunderbolt ports, so handling multiple disk drives is a little awkward.
Still, I might be able to make it work. But I'm put off by the cost and
trying to find a more cost effective solution.

/Ed

[nospam]

In article <GqydnUKuu6SHBiPM...@giganews.com>, Ed Anson

<EdA...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >>>> I was hoping that the next generation TC (just announced) would improve
> >>>> the situation. But it still includes only USB 2 for external drives. I
> >>>> was shocked to see NO Thunderbolt port.
> >>>
> >>> that would add quite a bit to its already high price. either requires
> >>> additional chips. also, the network is typically the bottleneck so it
> >>> won't make much of a difference anyway.
> >>
> >> I would personally accept that price increase for the added performance.
> >> Given that the archive process is direct from TC to the external drive,
> >> the network is not a performance issue.
> >
> > you might be willing to pay for it but others might not. it's already
> > more expensive than other wifi routers and that would make it more so.
>
> I can appreciate that. But of course we're not talking about just a WiFi
> router. If Thunderbolt is too expensive, why not at least USB 3?

because usb3 requires additional chips, as does thunderbolt.

usb2 is 'good enough', especially considering wifi speeds.

> What I
> would prefer is a good way to do incremental backups of the TC disk. [I
> can't believe I'm the only one.] So far I have not found a way to do that.

you're not the only one.

> >> I'm beginning to think that I need to make my own TC-like solution,
> >> perhaps using a Mac Mini with the Server app. It can be configured to
> >> act like a TC, and it has real disk interfaces. Of course, that solution
> >> would cost several times as much as a TC, so I'm a bit reluctant.
> >
> > you don't need os x server. time machine supports a shared hard drive
> > from another mac, including the standard os x. an old mac mini works
> > well for that.
>
> I suppose an old mini would work, but it's still a lot more expensive
> than TC.

for a new mac mini it is, but you don't need anything fancy. i've seen
powerpc minis for under $100 and that's more than sufficient to share a
hard drive for time machine.

> With or without Server is not a significant issue, since Server
> is pretty cheap. But in addition to the mini I would need compatible
> disk drives. Unfortunately, mini only has one of each of FireWire and
> Thunderbolt ports, so handling multiple disk drives is a little awkward.
> Still, I might be able to make it work. But I'm put off by the cost and
> trying to find a more cost effective solution.

firewire can be daisy chained. thunderbolt is overkill because of the
network speeds and time machine overhead.

[Calum]

On 15/06/2013 04:18, nospam wrote:

> did he say why?
>
> anyway, here are some differences:

Also, many years ago, SuperDuper used to correctly back up ACLs, while
CCC didn't. I'd assume that's fixed now, but that's why I chose
SuperDuper at the time and have never felt the need to switch.

--
Xbox: GallusNumpty Steam: scottishwildcat

[nospam]

In article <kpmrmr$e8v$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Calum

<com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:

> Also, many years ago, SuperDuper used to correctly back up ACLs, while
> CCC didn't. I'd assume that's fixed now, but that's why I chose
> SuperDuper at the time and have never felt the need to switch.

it has long been fixed.

[Jim Gibson]

In article <b221kd...@mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft

<talies...@me.com> wrote:

> I've been using SuperDuper! as my backup application for something like
> eight years now. During that time it has served me well, doing
> everything I had hoped for and expected. There were quite a few times
> when I made use of a backup version.
>

> Recently a friend suggested I ought to be using Carbon Copy Cloner. My

> question then is what is there about Carbon Copy Cloner that would make
> it preferable to SuperDuper!.

I have been using SuperDuper! happily for many years. Recently, I
decided to give Carbon Copy Cloner a try, as I was working on a fresh
system that had neither, and I had to download one or the other. CCC
has a free trial period with full functionality. I downloaded CCC, and
it worked fine.

CCC has one feature that SD! does not. The top-level source and
destination menus allow you to pick a folder, not just a whole disk. So
I paid the registration fee for CCC ($40) and will be using it to synch
iTunes and iPhoto libraries that I have moved off of my startup disk.

There may be a way to get SD! to do this, but it is not obvious.

--
Jim Gibson

[Ed Anson]

On 6/17/13 3:03 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <GqydnUKuu6SHBiPM...@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
> <EdA...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>> I was hoping that the next generation TC (just announced) would improve
>>>>>> the situation. But it still includes only USB 2 for external drives. I
>>>>>> was shocked to see NO Thunderbolt port.
>>>>>
>>>>> that would add quite a bit to its already high price. either requires
>>>>> additional chips. also, the network is typically the bottleneck so it
>>>>> won't make much of a difference anyway.
>>>>
>>>> I would personally accept that price increase for the added performance.
>>>> Given that the archive process is direct from TC to the external drive,
>>>> the network is not a performance issue.
>>>
>>> you might be willing to pay for it but others might not. it's already
>>> more expensive than other wifi routers and that would make it more so.
>>
>> I can appreciate that. But of course we're not talking about just a WiFi
>> router. If Thunderbolt is too expensive, why not at least USB 3?
>
> because usb3 requires additional chips, as does thunderbolt.
>
> usb2 is 'good enough', especially considering wifi speeds.

But WiFi is not a factor when backing up the disk. That can be done at
the speed of whatever disk interface is available. When limited to USB
2, that is pitifully slow.

>
>> What I
>> would prefer is a good way to do incremental backups of the TC disk. [I
>> can't believe I'm the only one.] So far I have not found a way to do that.
>
> you're not the only one.
>
>>>> I'm beginning to think that I need to make my own TC-like solution,
>>>> perhaps using a Mac Mini with the Server app. It can be configured to
>>>> act like a TC, and it has real disk interfaces. Of course, that solution
>>>> would cost several times as much as a TC, so I'm a bit reluctant.
>>>
>>> you don't need os x server. time machine supports a shared hard drive
>>> from another mac, including the standard os x. an old mac mini works
>>> well for that.
>>
>> I suppose an old mini would work, but it's still a lot more expensive
>> than TC.
>
> for a new mac mini it is, but you don't need anything fancy. i've seen
> powerpc minis for under $100 and that's more than sufficient to share a
> hard drive for time machine.
>
>> With or without Server is not a significant issue, since Server
>> is pretty cheap. But in addition to the mini I would need compatible
>> disk drives. Unfortunately, mini only has one of each of FireWire and
>> Thunderbolt ports, so handling multiple disk drives is a little awkward.
>> Still, I might be able to make it work. But I'm put off by the cost and
>> trying to find a more cost effective solution.
>
> firewire can be daisy chained. thunderbolt is overkill because of the
> network speeds and time machine overhead.

Again, TM and the network are not an issue when backing up the TC disk
to an attached disk.

[nospam]

In article <YOudnZ5GKbo05yLM...@giganews.com>, Ed Anson

<EdA...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> I can appreciate that. But of course we're not talking about just a WiFi
> >> router. If Thunderbolt is too expensive, why not at least USB 3?
> >
> > because usb3 requires additional chips, as does thunderbolt.
> >
> > usb2 is 'good enough', especially considering wifi speeds.
>
> But WiFi is not a factor when backing up the disk.

it is if you're using wifi.

if you're using wired ethernet then it could be. just because it's
gigabit (if you're even using gigabit) doesn't mean you'll get those
speeds. typically it's much less, often around 300-400mbit/s which is
within the range of usb2.

> That can be done at
> the speed of whatever disk interface is available. When limited to USB
> 2, that is pitifully slow.

the overhead is mostly time machine itself, checking for changed files,
copying, then relinking as needed then cleaning up expired snapshots.
it's not all that efficient.

[M-M]

In article <kpmrmr$e8v$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
Calum <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:

> On 15/06/2013 04:18, nospam wrote:
>
> > did he say why?
> >
> > anyway, here are some differences:

Can CCC do incremental backups?
It used to be (maybe still is) that only SD could limit backups to
recently changed files thus saving a lot of time.

--
m-m
Photo Gallery:
http://www.mhmyers.com

[nospam]

In article
<nospam.m-m-263CC...@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com>,

M-M <nospa...@ny.more> wrote:

> Can CCC do incremental backups?

yes it can, and it can also archive the changed files when replacing
them with the newer ones.

> It used to be (maybe still is) that only SD could limit backups to
> recently changed files thus saving a lot of time.

superduper does incrementals in the paid version. the free version
always does a full clone.

[Ed Anson]

On 6/17/13 5:43 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <YOudnZ5GKbo05yLM...@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
> <EdA...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>> I can appreciate that. But of course we're not talking about just a WiFi
>>>> router. If Thunderbolt is too expensive, why not at least USB 3?
>>>
>>> because usb3 requires additional chips, as does thunderbolt.
>>>
>>> usb2 is 'good enough', especially considering wifi speeds.
>>
>> But WiFi is not a factor when backing up the disk.
>
> it is if you're using wifi.

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I needed to be. I'm not talking about the
backup that TM does. I'm talking about backing up the TC disk to a drive
attached to TC. I thought that was clear from the context, but
apparently not.

When backing up the TC disk (using the Archive function), no network is
involved because the data are transferred directly from the TC disk to
the attached external disk. In this context, the USB 2 port is indeed
the main bottleneck. Between that and the inability to do incremental
backups, it takes 24 hours to back up the TC disk. During that time, TM
backups are disabled.

>
> if you're using wired ethernet then it could be. just because it's
> gigabit (if you're even using gigabit) doesn't mean you'll get those
> speeds. typically it's much less, often around 300-400mbit/s which is
> within the range of usb2.
>
>> That can be done at
>> the speed of whatever disk interface is available. When limited to USB
>> 2, that is pitifully slow.
>
> the overhead is mostly time machine itself, checking for changed files,
> copying, then relinking as needed then cleaning up expired snapshots.
> it's not all that efficient.

That is very true for the normal TM backup to the TC disk. Again, it
does not apply to backing up (Archiving) the TC disk to a disk attached
to the TC.

[nospam]

In article <5IWdnec_G8YF5l3M...@giganews.com>, Ed Anson

<EdA...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >>>> I can appreciate that. But of course we're not talking about just a WiFi
> >>>> router. If Thunderbolt is too expensive, why not at least USB 3?
> >>>
> >>> because usb3 requires additional chips, as does thunderbolt.
> >>>
> >>> usb2 is 'good enough', especially considering wifi speeds.
> >>
> >> But WiFi is not a factor when backing up the disk.
> >
> > it is if you're using wifi.
>
> Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I needed to be. I'm not talking about the
> backup that TM does. I'm talking about backing up the TC disk to a drive
> attached to TC. I thought that was clear from the context, but
> apparently not.
>
> When backing up the TC disk (using the Archive function), no network is
> involved because the data are transferred directly from the TC disk to
> the attached external disk. In this context, the USB 2 port is indeed
> the main bottleneck. Between that and the inability to do incremental
> backups, it takes 24 hours to back up the TC disk. During that time, TM
> backups are disabled.

oh, i thought you meant the backup to the time capsule.

when archiving, usb would be the bottleneck.

[TaliesinSoft]

There are occasions when I feel a need to go to the Genius Bar at the
Apple store. Lugging my iMac would be quite a chore. What I do is make
a SuperDuper! clone which I then take. If there aare any changes to
that drive made at the Genius Bar it is a simple task to use
SuperDuper! to clone my internal drive from the one taken to the Apple
store. Sure saves a lot of lugging and gets the job done!

--
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

[dorayme]

In article <b2cq1p...@mid.individual.net>,

Good point. I went on holidays a few months ago, my friend took a
Macbook, I left my own MB home and took a very portable bootable USB
drive (how neat they have become), and booted from it when I needed
all my own stuff, it was just like the real thing, maybe a tad slower
but not that much.

--
dorayme