Resource forks -- are they what is slowing CCCloner when backing up?

Question

I've been testing CCCloner and SilverKeeper as backup utilities. I've used SK for the last 8 years and haven't noticed anything amiss. In my situation, it searches for changes during an incremental backup about 8 times faster than CCC. Mike Bombich, the author of CCC, has responded to my query about why this is the case with a detailed explanation (see http://forums.bombich.com/viewtopic.php?t=15540, last post), part of which reads:
For the purpose of this conversation, though, the gist is that you have many files that have two data structures -- a data fork and a resource fork. Each of these data structures can change independently of each other. Resource forks, however, do not have modification dates -- the modification date of a file only refers to the data fork. As a result, backup utilities have a choice among three methods for determining whether to backup the resource fork as they scan your filesystem:
a) copy every resource fork, every time, just to be on the safe side
b) copy the resource fork of a file whenever the data fork of the file changes, or when the size of the resource fork has changed
c) compare a checksum of the resource fork on the source and target to determine if the resource fork has actually changed
According to Mike, SK uses method 2 whereas CCC uses Method 3, explaining why it is so much slower for my backups -- because 36,000 of my 58,000 files have "extended attributes" which are probably resource forks.
My question arises because I want to make sure the SK is accurately backing up my PS files. Is it possible that a utility using Method 2, could miss some change in a resource fork of a PS file? To put it another way: are there any instances where PS could change a resource fork, but the data fork is unchanged and the size of the resource fork is unchanged, resulting in Method 2 not backing up that particular file?
I must have backed up in excess of 100,000 PS files over the years, and haven't noticed any problems. But then again, I have rarely had to call on my backups.

Answer 1

Why not use Time Machine instead of some "third party hack" for your backups?
CCCloner is worthless garbage IMHO. I tried to restore a system with it after a HD replacement and it wouldn't work because the owner changed user name and/or password on reinstall of the OS. Thus it wouldn't recognize the Library to copy the files. In fact, it wouldn't grant access to the backup, claiming permissions conflicts. I had to run a CHMOD and CHOWN from Single User Mode to be able to get to backed up files, but the Library and Applications were useless.
From what I know of it, CCC is OK for cloning a brand new hard drive to put in a new machine, but beyond that it's way too complicated in what it does and how.
As far as PS changing data or resource forks, I was never aware that it did. I could be mistaken.
This question would be better answered by the developers of SilverKeeper though.