superduper or Time machine

tonyzero · 1 Aug 2009 at 13:52

whats best to use superduper or Time machine or even both ?

is there any benefit it using both.

J1234 · 1 Aug 2009 at 14:13

I'd personally use Time Machine, it's all integrated etc.

tonyzero · 1 Aug 2009 at 14:18

Justin said:
I'd personally use Time Machine, it's all integrated etc.

can you boot from time machine if the main HD failed ?

Will_3rd · 1 Aug 2009 at 14:21

Super Duper or Carbon Copy Cloner are good for making clean disk images that you can boot and restore from.

I found personally that Time Machine is good for recovering individual files, but swallows a quite considerable amount of disk space.

Could use both on conjunction as Time Machine is easy to get files back from and you don't have to crack open an image and hunt for a file, but Time Machine feels like a bit of unfinished product for me.

Feek · 1 Aug 2009 at 15:04

Both.
I use Time Machine but also run SuperDuper! once a day to clone my boot drive. That way if my main drive fails then I can simply boot from the SuperDuper!'d drive and I've got a data backup on my Time Machine.

LordSplodge · 1 Aug 2009 at 15:10

Feek said:
Both.
I use Time Machine but also run SuperDuper! once a day to clone my boot drive. That way if my main drive fails then I can simply boot from the SuperDuper!'d drive and I've got a data backup on my Time Machine.

This.

Remember the Rule of Three. Data does not exist unless it is in three places. Preferably with at least one of them offsite.

Spyhop · 1 Aug 2009 at 16:08

What's special about three? More like Rule Of >1, the higher the better.

LordSplodge · 1 Aug 2009 at 17:13

wush said:
What's special about three? More like Rule Of >1, the higher the better.

>2 would be more accurate then!

Spyhop · 1 Aug 2009 at 17:16

whatwhat

LordSplodge · 1 Aug 2009 at 17:38

wush said:
whatwhat

Well if you value your data then it existing it two places still isn't enough. Data + Local Current Backup + Offsite Current* Backup = piece of mind.

I wouldn't trust just two copies of my important data.

* As current as possible given the data's offsite nature.

Spyhop · 1 Aug 2009 at 18:17

LordSplodge said:
Well if you value your data then it existing it two places still isn't enough.

Well if you really value your data then it existing in less than five places isn't enough.

How valuable it really is, the how, the where and the accessibility determines the acceptable number of copies, not a hard and fast rule. 2 can meet this criteria just as 3, 4, 5 .. can.

LordSplodge · 1 Aug 2009 at 21:16

wush said:
Well if you really value your data then it existing in less than five places isn't enough.

How valuable it really is, the how, the where and the accessibility determines the acceptable number of copies, not a hard and fast rule. 2 can meet this criteria just as 3, 4, 5 .. can.

Yes but you get diminishing returns the more copies you make so there comes a point where the time to keep the copies up to date outweighs the benefits in reduced risk of data loss.

Two copies is fine as long as one of them is stored offsite.

Oh and ironically I have just lost my NAS but still have access to the data on it in other locations! Thankfully the data is fine on the NAS just the host OS is foobared.

Rambaud · 2 Aug 2009 at 15:41

Feek said:
Both.
I use Time Machine but also run SuperDuper! once a day to clone my boot drive. That way if my main drive fails then I can simply boot from the SuperDuper!'d drive and I've got a data backup on my Time Machine.

Likewise.

Just bought a new 1Tb drive just for Time Machine. Took over 4 hours to transfer the files to it via Firewire.

I find it's the VM files which take up the most time & space.

artaxerxes · 4 Aug 2009 at 14:28

Carbon Copy Cloner - for a full (incremental so swift backup) - for my MacBook.

If I had a desktop it would be Time Machine and Carbon Copy Cloner