BounceBack vs Retrospect

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:36:02 -0600, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote
(in article <alpine.OSX.1.00.0802232333380.17240 RemoveThis @hagrid.ewd.goldmark.org>):

> In <0001HW.C3E5C503007C7FD7B01AD9AF RemoveThis @news.supernews.com>, TaliesinSoft wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Me, too. Also, I will take the SD! clones off site, while the TM disks
> are always attached. (And in case of the G5 MacPro it's internal).

As I've mentioned in other threads my computer is a MacBook Pro and I
maintain SuperDuper! and Time Machine backups both at home and at the office,
which in effect is providing me with offsite storage.



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

nospamatall <nospamatall.TakeThisOut@iol.ie> wrote:
> > 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.

No it doesn't.

If you have a file that you save changes to daily, CCC and other cloning
utilities overwrite the previous version of the file in the backup with
the most recent version. If you just ran CCC five minutes ago, and want
yesterday's version of the file, you're out of luck. Same thing for
accidentally deleting a file. Run CCC and it will purge the deleted
file from the backup too.

An archival backup program can retrieve yesterday's, last week's, and
last month's version of that file. It can retrieve a file that you
deleted two months ago and didn't notice unti just now.

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

Try and use CCC to restore an important file that got corrupted three
weeks ago, but you didn't notice until just now.

--
K.

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

nospamatall <nospamatall.DeleteThis@iol.ie> wrote:
> If you use 'copy selected items' instead of 'copy everything from source
> to target' it will not overwrite stuff that has not been modified since
> last backup. In the help menu (browse) the page is called "Using CCC for
> data backup".

Okay, that's good to know. I missed that in the documentation.

But I still won't be using CCC for clones because it doesn't copy ACLs
properly. SuperDuper does the job for me.

--
K.

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

In article <jG5wj.40675$w57.23326@edtnps90>, Kir·ly
<me.DeleteThis@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:

> If you have a file that you save changes to daily, CCC and other cloning
> utilities overwrite the previous version of the file in the backup with
> the most recent version. If you just ran CCC five minutes ago, and want
> yesterday's version of the file, you're out of luck. Same thing for
> accidentally deleting a file. Run CCC and it will purge the deleted
> file from the backup too.

this is also false. ccc 3 can keep older copies if desired.
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

In article <jG5wj.40675$w57.23326@edtnps90>, Kir·ly
<me.RemoveThis@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:

> nospamatall <nospamatall.RemoveThis@iol.ie> wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> No it doesn't.
>
> If you have a file that you save changes to daily, CCC and other cloning
> utilities overwrite the previous version of the file in the backup with
> the most recent version. If you just ran CCC five minutes ago, and want
> yesterday's version of the file, you're out of luck. Same thing for
> accidentally deleting a file. Run CCC and it will purge the deleted
> file from the backup too.
>
> An archival backup program can retrieve yesterday's, last week's, and
> last month's version of that file. It can retrieve a file that you
> deleted two months ago and didn't notice unti just now.

What you mean and describe, is an incremental backup. This is based on
an full (archival) backup, that includes all files. The incremental
backups just save the changed and new files since the last incremental
backup.
A differential backup is also based on a full (archival) backup, but it
stores all files that were changed since the last full backup.

To restore, you need:

full backup + all incremental backups

or

full backup + last differential backup.

Differential Backups are faster to restore, but the growing file size
may require a lot of tape or disk space.

Incremental backups need slightly more time to restore, but may save
you a lot of time. To restore a file that you deleted or changed weeks
ago is usually easier on an incremental backup.

All this is found in Retrospect.

> > I've seen no reason to use any other backup software.
>
> Try and use CCC to restore an important file that got corrupted three
> weeks ago, but you didn't notice until just now.

Well, in that case, you may retrieve all older versions in an
incremental backup and use the last non-corrupted. I did that several
times during the last 15 years and Retrosprect did a great job.

A clone may be usefull in most cases, but it is not the best backup
strategy.
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

Király wrote:
> nospamatall <nospamatall RemoveThis @iol.ie> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> No it doesn't.

Yes it does!

> If you have a file that you save changes to daily, CCC and other cloning
> utilities overwrite the previous version of the file in the backup with
> the most recent version. If you just ran CCC five minutes ago, and want
> yesterday's version of the file, you're out of luck. Same thing for
> accidentally deleting a file. Run CCC and it will purge the deleted
> file from the backup too.

If you check the box marked "Archive modified and deleted items" it will
archive them. Unless there is no room on the disk...

> An archival backup program can retrieve yesterday's, last week's, and
> last month's version of that file. It can retrieve a file that you
> deleted two months ago and didn't notice unti just now.

Depending on disk space, so will CCC. But that's not what I use it for,
I just use it as a bootable backup.
>> I've seen no reason to use any other backup software.
>
> Try and use CCC to restore an important file that got corrupted three
> weeks ago, but you didn't notice until just now.

Again the only restriction is disk space. I haven't used Time Machine
yet, I'm waiting for a while to see what problems arise and when they
are sorted out. But I think that will do that job better than CCC. Well,
more easy to navigate, at least. Even then, though, I'll be making CCC
backups weekly as well.

You obviously had issues with it at some time, but I've found it very
easy to use and reliable, and you're posting here against it for pretty
much the same reason I am arguing for it. Basically trying to assist
others with their stuff. It's better than arguing with wintrolls isn't it?

Andy
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

Király wrote:
> nospamatall <nospamatall RemoveThis @iol.ie> wrote:
>> If you use 'copy selected items' instead of 'copy everything from source
>> to target' it will not overwrite stuff that has not been modified since
>> last backup. In the help menu (browse) the page is called "Using CCC for
>> data backup".
>
> Okay, that's good to know. I missed that in the documentation.
>
> But I still won't be using CCC for clones because it doesn't copy ACLs
> properly. SuperDuper does the job for me.
>

Luckily I don't need that yet, but I think that time might come soon,
with setting up the server. I don't remember SuperDuper very well, just
downloaded and tried it some months back. All I remember is I got very
frustrated with it and dumped it. I think there were just too many
things to choose. I know that can be a good thing too. I think from what
you and others have said here, it must be a good app. So don't take my
defense of CCC as any attack on SD!

Andy
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

In article <fpra4a$pra$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall DeleteThis @iol.ie>
wrote:

> I don't remember SuperDuper very well, just
> downloaded and tried it some months back. All I remember is I got very
> frustrated with it and dumped it. I think there were just too many
> things to choose.

Then you must *really* hate Retrospect. : ) That's unfortunate,
because there are some areas where Retrospect, despite its complex user
interface, is way better than applications like SD and CCC.

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

nospamatall <nospamatall.TakeThisOut@iol.ie> wrote:
> If you check the box marked "Archive modified and deleted items" it will
> archive them. Unless there is no room on the disk...

Well, you are indeed correct! This isn't obvious from the UI. These
are features that didn't exist in previous versions of CCC. I really
should have looked closer at CCC's documentation before posting.

--
K.

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

Király wrote:
> nospamatall <nospamatall DeleteThis @iol.ie> wrote:
>> If you check the box marked "Archive modified and deleted items" it will
>> archive them. Unless there is no room on the disk...
>
> Well, you are indeed correct! This isn't obvious from the UI. These
> are features that didn't exist in previous versions of CCC. I really
> should have looked closer at CCC's documentation before posting.
>

They were there before too, but even more obscure. Unless you had psync
installed, it just had a big button saying 'psync is not installed'
where those options were.

I forgot, I think that's one of the things I like about CCC (not the
obscurity...), that it uses stuff that's already there (asr and rsync)
and an open source program (rsync), all of which are very efficient and
thus it's only 3.4 MB on disk, and uses very little ram or cpu. And he's
added cloning to a network disk (on a mac only I think, cos you have to
transfer a key first).

Something that is a bit bothersome is that I find every time I'm about
to hit the 'clone' button I need to read the description of what is
going to happen very carefully, "The selected items from "imac_g4" will
be copied onto "LacieD2". Items on "LacieD2" will not be overwritten if
they are newer than items at the same path on "imac_g4". Any items that
exist on "LacieD2" that do not exist at the same path on "imac_g4" will
be left untouched." It's kinda like Fermat's last theorem, I don't like
it but can't think of anything better.

Re the Permission tables not being copied, I reckon if a few people
write to him he'll add that.

Andy
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article <fpra4a$pra$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall.RemoveThis@iol.ie>
> wrote:
>
>> I don't remember SuperDuper very well, just
>> downloaded and tried it some months back. All I remember is I got very
>> frustrated with it and dumped it. I think there were just too many
>> things to choose.
>
> Then you must *really* hate Retrospect. : ) That's unfortunate,
> because there are some areas where Retrospect, despite its complex user
> interface, is way better than applications like SD and CCC.
>

Maybe I'm confusing SD with retrospect and doing it an injustice. I
might just have to abandon simplicity at some stage, but it does have a
lot going for it!

A guy called Masanobu Fukuoka said that while most people seem to spend
their lives finding more things to do, each day he strives to do less
and less, so that eventually he won't have to do anything at all.

Andy
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

In article <michelle-D117F9.11225423022008.RemoveThis@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle.RemoveThis@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <1dZvj.40497$w57.11229@edtnps90>,
> me.RemoveThis@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) 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.
>
> Thanks. But SuperDuper makes simply a clone, and not incremental
> backups like Retrospect or Time Machine, right?

Technically, SuperDuper makes an incremental clone, which saves time.

For example, if the source drive contains files

A' B C D E F G H I J' K' L M N O

and the backup drive contains

A D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S

then SuperDuper will...

Overwrite A, J, and K with A', J', and K'
Copy B and C from the source
Delete P, Q, R, and S from the target

That's five files transferred, rather than 15 files.

In the end, SuperDuper will produce an identical copy of the source
drive. It is not designed to archive previous versions of files backed
up. There is an option to retain files already existing in the target,
e.g., files P, Q, R, and S will _not_ be deleted although A, J, and K
will still be overwritten.

Van
--
Van Bagnol / n p c o m p l e t e at bagnol dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels "parang lumalakad ako soo loob ng panaginip"
....thinks "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 

Thank you for your suggestions. Decided to go with BounceBack since
it came with BackUp drive. Had problems which I could not
differentiate as to software
or hardware problems. VERY difficult to get iMac to recognize backup
drive. Using BounceBack. I suspected hardware because of sorry
firewire ports on iMac
(at least my past experience). However in that disk utility could
find BUdrive as could finder that made me suspect software. On the
rare occasions when BB would find & recognize BU drive it would freeze
up before back up was ever completed. Could get thru most of it (27
of 39 MB) but would freeze before I could get the last 2 folders (data
folders) which totaled about 12 MB. Finally was able to use Finder to
very quickly copy and paste them to BU drive (transfer rate
much faster than transfer rate using BB). Makes me wonder... I
wonder if back up software is worth the trouble.

Before you query had only BU drive connected to firewire port and the
other port had no device. Anti-Virus program was disabled. Out of
frustration did try USB
route with same freezeup results.
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect