BounceBack vs Retrospect

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

In article , Michelle
Steiner wrote:

> > get superduper because it's simple and *extremely* robust.
>
> Why SuperDuper rather than CCC?

superduper is reliable. very reliable. ccc isn't.

i've had ccc create non-bootable backups and fail to complete the copy
for weird reasons (i don't rememer the specifics at the moment). it
was also slower than superduper.

superduper just works.
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

nospam wrote:
> neither. get superduper because it's simple and *extremely* robust.

SuperDuper is a fine tool, and I use it daily, but it isn't a substitute
for Retrospect or BounceBack because it doesn't do archival backups.

--
K.

Lang may your lum reek.
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> Why SuperDuper rather than CCC?

CCC does not do "smart" updates. Updating a clone with CCC means
that all data is copied over again, which can take a long time.
SuperDuper will only copy files that have changed since the previous
cloning operation, which takes much less time. My boot drive has 100GB
on it. It takes CCC about 90 minutes to update a clone of it.
Superduper takes 10-15 minutes.

SuperDuper 2.5 also is the only backup app that I have found that copies
ACLs that have been inherited from a parent folder. No other backup app
I have ever tried can do that. Not Time Machine, not CCC, not Disk
Utilty, not Retrospect, not asr.

--
K.

Lang may your lum reek.
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

In article , Kir·ly
wrote:

> > Why SuperDuper rather than CCC?
>
> CCC does not do "smart" updates. Updating a clone with CCC means
> that all data is copied over again, which can take a long time.

that used to be true. ccc 3 now does incremental updates.
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> Thanks. But SuperDuper makes simply a clone, and not incremental
> backups like Retrospect or Time Machine, right?

That's right. It's a cloning program only. But it does the cloning job
better than any other app out there, which is why I use it daily.

--
K.

Lang may your lum reek.
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

nospam wrote:
> that used to be true. ccc 3 now does incremental updates.

Really? How? I can't find the setting for that. I can't find anything
in the documentation either. Every time I ran CCC it always re-copied
the whole disk, even when "erase the target volume" is unchecked.

--
K.

Lang may your lum reek.
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:22:54 -0600, Michelle Steiner wrote (in article
):

> SuperDuper makes simply a clone, and not incremental backups like
> Retrospect or Time Machine, right?

I currently run both SuperDuper! and Time Machine as, at least to me, they
serve differing but complimentary purposes, SuperDuper! being best for a full
restore and Time Machine for an incremental restore of a particular file or
folder that may be a version from a time days or weeks or months in the past.

As an aside, I run a "smart" backup of SuperDuper! once each day to a
mirrored RAID setup and an hourly backup of Time Machine to another mirrored
RAID setup. The mirrored RAID configurations protect me from a failure of a
single disk. I have this setup duplicated in two locations, "home" and
"office" so that a total failure in one location is not a total disaster.

--
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft DeleteThis @mac.com
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

Király wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>> neither. get superduper because it's simple and *extremely* robust.
>
> SuperDuper is a fine tool, and I use it daily, but it isn't a substitute
> for Retrospect or BounceBack because it doesn't do archival backups.
>

Carbon Copy Cloner does, and it's free. And it has really good
documentation and web info.

http://www.bombich.com/software/ccc.html

I've seen no reason to use any other backup software.

Andy
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

Király wrote:
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> Why SuperDuper rather than CCC?
>
> CCC does not do "smart" updates. Updating a clone with CCC means
> that all data is copied over again, which can take a long time.

Never happened to me, backups take a few minutes usually, depending on
how much has changed. Also never had a failed backup with it.

> SuperDuper will only copy files that have changed since the previous
> cloning operation, which takes much less time. My boot drive has 100GB
> on it. It takes CCC about 90 minutes to update a clone of it.

You're doing something wrong then.

> Superduper takes 10-15 minutes.
>
> SuperDuper 2.5 also is the only backup app that I have found that copies
> ACLs that have been inherited from a parent folder. No other backup app
> I have ever tried can do that. Not Time Machine, not CCC, not Disk
> Utilty, not Retrospect, not asr.
>

That could be an advantage, i'll remember if I ever have to use ACLs and
need to be sure they are backed up. thanks

Andy
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

nospam wrote:
> In article , Kir·ly
> wrote:
>
>>> Why SuperDuper rather than CCC?
>> CCC does not do "smart" updates. Updating a clone with CCC means
>> that all data is copied over again, which can take a long time.
>
> that used to be true. ccc 3 now does incremental updates.

It did before, but you had to install psync first.
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect