Time machine vs superduper

I'm bringing in my MBP for a new harddrive at the Apple Store. I only have enough external storage to backup with either SuperDuper or Time Machine. Which one should I go with in order to be back up and running quickly? For my desktop, I use both and plan to use both in the future when I buy new storage.
Connected to this question would be, for those who have had a hardrive replaced, do they give you the latest OS X or just what you were running previously? I'm only running 10.5.8, and if they are going to bump me to the latest, I would just use Time Machine rather than a SuperDuper clone.
Thanks for the help!

SuperDuper! (and CarbonCopyClone) create bootable backups. That means if the internal disk comes back erased, use the option key to boot from the clone and clone back to internal.
TimeMachine needs SL reloaded on internal to actually read the TM backup.
I would go with SuperDuper.
I have never needed the Genius Bar, but would guess that they return what was given them in OSX, unless you specifically request a different OSX.

Similar Messages

Time Machine and SuperDuper on External Hard Drive?

Hi!
I really need a back up solution and after reading a lot of different articles and forums I think using Time Machine and SuperDuper may be the best option for me so I'm looking for advice:
Should I partition an external hard drive and have part of the partition for Time Machine and part for my SuperDuper clone? If I do this how much space should I give to each partition (the computer is 250GB and I'm using about 90GB, I mostly deal with documents, photos and music, I don't have movies or many huge files on my computer)
Will a 500GB external hard drive be sufficient and if the Time Machine partition becomes full as I assume it will in a few months if I understand correctly it will just start overwriting older back ups?
I know the ideal might be to have an external hard drive dedicated to time machine and one dedicated to SuperDuper but to be honest I can't afford 2 hard drives at the moment so I plan to partition (unless you strongly advise against it) and I'll also back up extremely important files with Dropbox. I'm at that stage where I just need to start doing back ups and I like the idea of it happening in the background via Time Machine and doing a weekly clone with SuperDuper. I'd like to get started immediately.
Any advice or problems I should be aware of would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance!

Effie Darrow wrote:
Should I partition an external hard drive and have part of the partition for Time Machine and part for my SuperDuper clone?
imagine that drive croaks. both backups will be lost @ the same time ...
If I do this how much space should I give to each partition (the computer is 250GB and I'm using about 90GB, I mostly deal with documents, photos and music, I don't have movies or many huge files on my computer)
see this read about how much space you should give TM: http://web.me.com/pondini/Time_Machine/1.html.
as for a SD clone, the size of your startup disk will suffice.
Will a 500GB external hard drive be sufficient
see above
and if the Time Machine partition becomes full as I assume it will in a few months if I understand correctly it will just start overwriting older back ups?
deleting them, yes.
I know the ideal might be to have an external hard drive dedicated to time machine and one dedicated to SuperDuper
that would indeed be ideal.
but to be honest I can't afford 2 hard drives at the moment
USB drives are dirt cheap right now but stay away from WD drives.
good luck !
JGG

Should I use Time Machine or SuperDuper to revert?

Just before "upgrading" to iTunes 11, my iMac was backed up - twice - I have an external hardrive partitioned for use with both Time Machine and SuperDuper.
After fooling around with iTunes 11, I now need to revert to one of my back ups. I believe my options are:
A. Use my Time Machine backup to revert to my system as it was just before the software was updated.
B. Boot from the SuperDuper clone, and reverse clone it, writing the pre-upgrade files over the present system.
Assuming each back up is identical, is there any advantage to using one method over the other?
-gw

I have not upgraded the OS since making my backups. All I've done is:
Ugrade iTunes from 10.7 to 11.something, and,
Totally screwed up my iTunes library.
OK, maybe I'll loose a few emails and text doucments which I can live without.
So, I believe my next step is to boot from the SuperDuper clone, and write the clone to my iMac, using "Erase, then Copy"
BTW, I tried to find a forum devoted to Time machine, but couldn't find one. I just discovered there is a "Time Machine" subcategory under the "Mac OS 10.6 Snow Leopard" forum. That is where I probably should have posted this question - and if an administrator wants to move it there, that would be fine by me.
Message was edited by: Gary Wright4 for brevity

Time Machine or Superduper

I have been using Superduper for years. Last year I bought a second hard drive so I could ALSO use Time machine.
I am really trying to clean up the rats next of cords and I am thinking maybe I only need one external hd.
Can anyone comment on which one they think is better? or should I format my drive into 2 sections and use both?
thanks for any info.
Also the drives I am using now are both smaller drives, and older.
Can anyone suggest a good external that is also quiet?
thank you.

Laura Drew1 wrote:
I have been using Superduper for years. Last year I bought a second hard drive so I could ALSO use Time machine. ...Can anyone comment on which one they think is better? or should I format my drive into 2 sections and use both?
It depends on the goals of your backup.
Is your goal to have one backup that is immediately bootable? Then you want SuperDuper.
Is your goal to have a backup that contains multiple versions of files no more than an hour old, and you can wait a bit to rebuild a bootable disk from it? Then you want Time Machine.
Do you want both goals? Then you want both.
I'm one of those who uses both.
About the drives, sure you can use one big drive and partition it. But the danger is that you put all your eggs in one basket. If the drive dies, ALL your backups are gone.
It's actually OK to do that, as long as you have multiple copies of that drive. You could clone your backup in turn to a second drive set up the same way, store the second drive off site, then you avoid total disaster.
Can anyone suggest a good external that is also quiet?
I like the Mercury Elites from OWC
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/firewire/1394/USB/EliteAL/eSATAFW800_FW400USB

Restore From TIme Machine or SuperDuper?

Odd corruption has @ 60% of my apps quitting upon launch. Tried repairing disk and permissions using disk utility and disk warrior. They say the disk is okay and the permissions have been repaired, but no improvement. . Time to restore.
Question is, 10 days ago, I replaced my original 150 GB hard drive with 2 WD 640s. I did a Time Machine back up the night before to external drive as safety, inserted a 640 into the second internal drive bay, then used SuperDuper to clone the original 150 GB drive onto it. Removed the original, then put in the second 640. Put all the data on the second 640, leaving just 25 GB of system and essential files on the boot drive.
I have not made a Time Machine back-up of the new system since then. It ran like a champ for 10 days, but then I tried installing Safaristand and SIMBL, and either that or a Firefox automatic update seemed to screw things up.
My question is, am I better off restoring the boot drive from the Time Machine copy I made the night before switching disks, or putting my original 150 GB disk back in the computer and making a SuperDuper clone of the same system onto the corrupted boot drive?

I ended up trying Time Machine since it saved me the hassle of opening the machine and swapping out discs. Worked fine with the little side tasks of preserving and restoring some library stuff, since in the interim I had moved my data to a second internal drive. Lesson as always: back up more often.
Thanks.

Time Machine or SuperDuper? Or BOTH?

I am about to start with a backup regimen and I was wondering if SuperDuper might be a better bet than TM.... or is it a good idea to use both?

Your best bet is both . . . to separate drives, if possible.
Many of us run both a clone (I use CarbonCopyCloner, with a daily update) plus TM.
That not only gives me a bootable backup, plus TM's hourly copies of changed/deleted items.
See this thread for more details: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1957176&tstart=0

Renew system from time machine or superduper

Hi
Is it possible to just replace the system settings namely IP address from TM or Superduper?
Ta

IP addresses are typically assigned dynamically. If you want to look at your old configuration, you could just boot the Superduper drive and look.
Regards

Using Time Machine & Superduper as backup solutions

I have a 2 TB firewire drive that I have partitioned into a partition for Time Machine and Superduper. My thought is to have a bootable backup using Superduper and use Time machine for individual user file storage and recovery. I also have Parallels running and the Vista environment under Parallels is about 200 GB. Time machine is always backing up that file if I have Parallels running, so i am excluding Windows Vista.pvm which is that environment. What else can I exclude safely from Time Machine that is just redundent if I am using Superduper.
I am going to schedule Superduper to run at 2:00 AM each day.
Any concerns or suggestions about my approach or are their any alternatives that would be better.

EricGAnderson wrote:
I am sure that I don't need a lot of system files
Yes, you do. First, they don't take up much space (they're only backed-up when they change); second, you can't do a full system restore without them. See Time Machine - Frequently Asked Question #11, especially the pink box.
Superduper may be just as easy a way to restore a file like an app that does not change from month to month.
A "simple" app, yes. A "complex" one (typically one that came with its own installer), no. Those put other files in other places, and/or "helper" apps; if you don't also restore all of them, the app won't work properly.
Again, the space saved is rarely significant.
Message was edited by: Pondini

Is there a need for Aperture Vaults if I'm using Time Machine and/or SuperDuper?

Hey all
What's the benefit of Aperture Vaults if I'm using Time Machine or SuperDuper for my regular backups?
John

John,
Aperture vaults are snapshots of a certain moment. So you can create a collections of vaults saved at specific intervalls, say one each year, or before you upgrade your system. If you keep your older vaults, you will be able to restore images from many years back. If your library is huge, you may only notice years later that an important image got corrupted.
Time machine backups are very convenient and you can go back in time easily, but you can never be sure, how much back in time your backup will go. You have no control over which older versions will be deleted, when TM runs out of space.
Clones are great, i.e. if you create bootable clones. This way you will be able to revert to a previous system without reinstalling. With respect to Aperture libraries cloning your library will give you the same benefits as vaults.
My experience tells me, that a mixture is good. If you can, keep three backups, and not all in the same place.
I keep one backup at my office and two at home. I have a bootable clone, a TimeMachine backup, and occasionally create a new vault. My most important images are in my dropbox and synced to all my macs.
regards
Léonie

HT201250 Can I use Time Machine to backup a LaCie Hard Drive connected to an Airport Extreme onto a My Book that is connected directly to a Mac Mini?

I have a LaCie 2TB hard drive connected to a Airport Extreme Base Station. I also have a 1TB MyBook connected to a Mac Mini. My question is can you backup selected files (photos) from the LaCie drive to the MyBook drive using Time Machine, or any other software? If it will cost a fortune, I guess I can always just copy the newer files over.

Thank you for such a lightning-fast response Niel :-) Can I just double check with you the following ...?
The external drive where my iPhoto library is located has three partitions - Time Machine Backup, Pictures (where the iPhoto library is located) and SuperDuper Bootable Clone.
When you say 'Remove the external drive from the list of items set to be excluded from the backup, and then add everything else on it' - am I correct in thinking that I should remove Pictures partition from the items to be excluded but leave the Time Machine Backup and SuperDuper Bootable Clone as excluded items?
On my 2TB external drive (the one I'm backing up to) there are 5 partitions - Time Machine Backup, SuperDuper Clone, Pictures, Photo Archive and Document Archive. The Time Machine Backup is 700GB of which I still have 473GB available - when I include the Pictures folder that contains the iPhoto library that will use up another 148GB but I think there's still plenty of room to use it.
When you say if the partition contain the iPhoto library isn't dedicated to it it may be easier to create one which is, the only item I have on the Pictures volume is the iPhoto library so I think that it's dedicated to it. I was going to add images from the Pictures folder on my MacBook Pro but haven't done so at this stage so I won't do so. It wouldn't matter though, would it, if I copied the images from the Pictures folder on my MBP to the 'Photo Archive' partition of the EHD?
Thank you once more for your reply.
Tricia

New MacBook Pro - continue with Time Machine backups or start over?

I'm unsure of how I should proceed here ...
My old (late 2008 aluminium unibody MacBook) died last month and I now have a shiny new MB Pro. I transferred my data from one of two backup drives I have using Migration Assistant but did not transfer the Pictures folder because the new MB Pro only has a 256GB PCIE drive whereas I had upgraded my old MacBook to a 750GB hard drive. The Pictures folder was 175GB - it obviously couldn't be transferred in its entirety so at this stage I haven't transferred anything at all from my Pictures folder.
Both backup drives I use are 1TB Lacie Rugged external hard drives. I have them partitioned as follows -
Time Machine Backup - 475 GB
SuperDuper Backup - 350 GB
Pictures - 175GB (I only have the iPhoto Library on the Pictures backup)
I was thinking that I could simply continue with the existing backups, however, I realise that will be impossible because the existing backups all include the Pictures folder as part of the 'normal' backup process.
So, should I wipe my backup drives and start all over from scratch with the new MB Pro? Obviously, I don't need such a large space for the Time Machine and SuperDuper backups now so I could re-partition the drives and allocate more space to the Pictures folder (which is the one that continues to grow).
Does anyone else have experience of using their iPhoto Library on an external drive with the smaller PCIE drives in the MB Pro?
I would be very grateful for any suggestions as to how I should proceed.
Tricia

Many thanks for your response Ingo2711. It seems as if we faced pretty much the identical situation.
I've never taken much notice of Time Machine - just let it do its own thing. However, when I go to System Preferences - Time Machine - Options - Exclude these items from Backups and then choose the Pictures folder it shows that the space saved is only 1.47GB (my Pictures folder on my old MacBook is about 175GB). I clicked on the Pictures folder in Finder and discovered that it had one folder in it which is the folder I use for Desktop and Screen Saver and that the size of that folder is, in fact, 1.47GB.
So, am I right in thinking that I can just allow Time Machine to do a full backup without excluding anything and it will see that the new system is different from the previous one or am I missing something? I really don't want to lose the previous backups in case I ever need to go back to something.
Cheers
Tricia
BTW, I'm going to download iPhoto Library Manager and see if I can put my photos in chronological order by year and then just keep the current year's photos on my new Mac and keep the rest on the Pictures partition of my backup drive (which is connected via USB 3) - I'm hoping that the access to the external drive won't be so slow over USB 3.

Set up new external drive-clone startup drive alongside Time Machine backup

I want to clone the boot drive to a 1 TB WD MyBook external (via firewire), using SuperDuper, with the rest of the 1TB drive used for Time Machine backups. I am currently formatting the drive to Mac OS Extended (journaled), and plan to set two partitions. I was planning on setting the first partition to 320 GB, and the remainder to a partition for Time Machine.
*Do I need to set the first partition to the specified drive size (320 GB), or can I set it to the available capacity (just below 300 MB)?*
I've read that SuperDuper and Time Machine work nicely side by side - e.g., creating boot clone image, and Time Machine backups. Will Time Machine and SuperDuper work without any issues once the formatting and partitions are completed, or is there some other setup required.
*Is this accurate?*

NibblesNBits wrote:
Thanks for the quick response - I hadn't looked at the FAQ, but the first thing I did after selecting the drive was the same things outlined in step B. This was where the failure was detected. I see in step B, the words "This may not work if the drive is already set up with a non-Apple Partition Map Scheme, such as is used on Windows". *Does "May not work...." mean the "Format Failure" message will be displayed?*
Yes.
Anyway, after failing step B, I did set two GUID partitions, which was what steps C and D listed.
No, that's two different things. The *Partition Map Scheme* applies to the entire drive. If your drive came set up for Windoze, it's probably MBR (Master Boot Record), which will not work with Time Machine.
And, last night I repeated step B - this morning repeated step C, D, E, F. Again, the only thing that indicated there was a problem was step B.
Excerpt from FAQ
B. Select the Erase tab, then confirm. This will erase the entire disk. (If you want, you can select Security Options, then Zero-Out Data to physically erase the entire disk by writing over everything. This will take quite a while, and shouldn't be necessary, especially on a new disk.) This may not work if the drive is already set up with a non-Apple Partition Map Scheme, such as is used on Windows. If that happens, just continue with item C.
Correct. But you must select GUID in step D, before you get to the Format(s) in step E.
So, try making only one partition in step C, with GUID, and format it +Mac OS Extended+ in step E. After that completes, you can split that single partition into two (which should be very quick).

Configure Time Machine to only backup changes?

After I setup an exernal drive on my network, I started using Time Machine. However, I did not know how slow my computer would become when it backs up and it backs up constantly. This is on my home computer, and there isn't that much irreplaceable data, I just want to backup documents and my photo library as they change. But it seems like Time Machine keeps backing up too much. I may not make any new documents or import any new files, and yet when time machine is backing up it says it's backing up several gigabytes; and it does so while slowing down my internet and computer processes.
All I want to do is have it backup documents and photos/media. I know you can choose to exclude certain things, but is there a way to configure it so it only backs up the things that I choose?

Try a program called: SuperDuper!
It is free, and there is a paid version with more features, but with SuperDuper! you can:
Choose only what you want to back up, or like with Time Machine, back up everything.
Unlike Time Machine, there are not any files to choose from by "going back in time" to grab a file that you did last week.
However, it will give a "snapshot" of what is going on at the time of the SuperDuper! backup. And, the backup is bootable You can start your computer, or ANY computer with the SuperDuper! backup disk by holding down the alt/option key during the boot, and select the SuperDuper! drive. You can boot from there and actually use it to do work.
SuperDuper! - a great alternative backup solution you should check out. It is made by "Shirt Pocket." Here's a link to information about SuperDuper! and on that page is a download link: http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.html
By the way, I use both Time Machine AND SuperDuper!
Good luck!

Why does Time machine not delete old backups

I dont understand Why time machine is not deleting old backups. As it worked first time with the same size backup drive as the drive its backing up, I assumed it would just delete the old backup as needed. Do I need a bigger backup drive?

Roglee wrote:
I just want it to delete the old backup & replace it so i just have a copy. I guess i could just re format the drive each time but that just seems a waste of my time when TM should do this for me!
If this is all you want to do, turn off Time Machine, download SuperDuper! and use it for free. This will clone whatever drive you want and the free trial will erase your back up drive each time. I can't remember if it will let you choose what to back up or if it wants the entire drive. Also, I'm not sure if the Scheduler works with the free trial. Below are some verbiage for SuperDuper!. Looks like if you want Scheduling you will have to purchase a license.
Download Now!
You can download SuperDuper! v2.7.1 right now and back up and clone your drives for free— forever!
Buy Now!
Buy now to unlock scheduling, Smart Update (which saves a lot of time), Sandboxes, scripting and more!
Time Machine will keep making back ups and when it determines it needs space, it will delete older back ups. But it doesn't delete older ones each time it backs up.

Did Time Machine put 274 GB of data in my Volumes directory?

My first hint that something was wrong was that Carbon Copy Cloner complained that my 600GB encrypted disk image wasn't big enough to hold my backup.
I knew that couldn't be write. My data was roughly 300GB.
So I fired up the superb (free) OmniDiskSweeper and found there were 274GB of data in my /Volumes directory (hidden system folder, to visit it with Finder use "Go To Folder" and type Volumes.
That Folder normally holds Unix Aliases, not files.
It turned out to hold two copies of my hard drive, one fairly complete, the other a mere 40GB, both dated within one day of Jan 26, 2011. They were named after my Time Capsule hosted Time Machine image.
I'm pretty sure TIme Machine put them there during a Time Capsule backup. I've never seen reports of this, but I have seen reports of similar behaviors with disrupted Time Machine backups to a local firewire drive.
I deleted the 600,000+ files and OmniDiskSweeper reported Volumes now uses 12kb.
Has anyone else heard reports of this? I'd guess I'm not the only person who's experienced this, though some friends claim I'm cursed. I don't think it impacted my backups much, neither Time Machine nor SuperDuper nor CarbonCopyCloner actually copy the /Volumes folder, there's not supposed to be anything important there.

Maybe a good tip to prevent dopplegangers hidden in Bombich CCC website?
http://help.bombich.com/kb/dmg-and-remote/a-caveat-for-backing-up-to-a-remote-ma cintosh-that-has-no-user-logged-in
I am going to do this and see if it prevents this problem from happening
A copy of the link's text follows because he sometimes deprecates a real gem posted in his support site.
A caveat for backing up to a remote Macintosh that has no user logged in
For "improved detachability", Mac OS X will unmount any non-internal volumes that are attached to the system when you log out. So, for example, if you log out of your computer while a USB or Firewire hard drive enclosure is attached, you can detach those hard drive enclosures from the system without having to manually unmount them first. This is a good thing — it would be annoying if you had to log back in to your system just to eject a drive. The downside of this, though, is that if you have a scheduled backup task that runs when no user is logged in, the destination volume may be unavailable. For a local backup, CCC will attempt to manually mount the destination volume. When the destination of your backup task is a remote Macintosh, though, CCC will not be able to mount that volume prior to backing up.
If you anticipate backing up to a remote Macintosh that may be sitting at the loginwindow, you can change the behavior of Mac OS X to not unmount detachable volumes. To change this behavior, run this command in the Terminal application on the remote machine:
sudo defaults write /Library/Preferences/SystemConfiguration/autodiskmount AutomountDisksWithoutUserLogin -bool YES
Note for Snow Leopard users: This workaround does not work on Snow Leopard 10.6.0 to 10.6.3. If you require this functionality, please apply the 10.6.4 update (or the latest available) for the best experience.

Time machine vs superduper

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for