Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralPortable MacsHardwareNetworking
Applications
Mac ApplicationsEudoraFirefox / MozillaInternet ExplorerOutlook ExpressMS OfficeEntourageExcelPowerPointWordVirtual PCMedia PlayerOther MS Products
Programming
Mac ProgrammingCodeWarriorPerl
Country Specific
Australian Mac GroupUK Mac Group

Mac Forum / Applications / Mac Applications / July 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Backup software - better than Time Machine?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
The NewGuy - 25 Jun 2008 05:36 GMT
I was wondering if many people are using backup software in Leopard that
they feel is superior in some ways to Time Machine?  Or perhaps you're
using Time Machine on one drive and something else on another?  I'm
realizing that with the cost of hard drives so ridiculously low, it
makes sense to have 2 backup hard drives:  one connected all the time,
backing up several times a day to protect against hardware failure
(bootable), and another connected maybe once a day and stored offsite to
protect from theft and fire.
Jolly Roger - 25 Jun 2008 06:17 GMT
> I was wondering if many people are using backup software in Leopard that
> they feel is superior in some ways to Time Machine?  

Yep. I'm still using Retrospect here to do incremental unattended daily
network backups of every computer in my house to tape and hard drive.

Signature

Please send all responses to the relevant news group rather than directly
to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry
SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups.
You'll need to use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts.

JR

The NewGuy - 25 Jun 2008 23:48 GMT
> I was wondering if many people are using backup software in Leopard that
> they feel is superior in some ways to Time Machine?  

I forgot to request the reasons WHY some of you feel your backup systems
(e.g. Retrospect, SuperDuper, Carbon Copy Cloner, Lacie Silverkeeper,
Lacie 1 step) are superior to Time Machine.
TaliesinSoft - 26 Jun 2008 05:48 GMT
> I forgot to request the reasons WHY some of you feel your backup systems
> (e.g. Retrospect, SuperDuper, Carbon Copy Cloner, Lacie Silverkeeper,
> Lacie 1 step) are superior to Time Machine.

I use both Time Machine and SuperDuper! and consider them both to be useful
in somewhat different ways. SuperDuper! creates a bootable backup, allowing
very fast recovery from a failure of one's usual boot drive. Time Machine
allows one to step backward in time to recover a file that perhaps was
written over or deleted.

Signature

James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

The NewGuy - 26 Jun 2008 06:47 GMT
> > I forgot to request the reasons WHY some of you feel your backup systems
> > (e.g. Retrospect, SuperDuper, Carbon Copy Cloner, Lacie Silverkeeper,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> allows one to step backward in time to recover a file that perhaps was
> written over or deleted.

I wonder why Time Machine's designers opted not to make the backup
bootable?  Does it make the backup process more lengthy?  More difficult
to check?  Surely this is an enviable feature to a backup program.
Richard Maine - 26 Jun 2008 07:12 GMT
> I wonder why Time Machine's designers opted not to make the backup
> bootable?  Does it make the backup process more lengthy?  More difficult
> to check?  Surely this is an enviable feature to a backup program.

Gee, that can't have been asked and answered more than a dozen times or
so here in about the last month. :-(

Time machine is not just a clone of the latest backup. It also has all
the historical ones so that you can find versions from various previous
times - the whole "time machine" thing. Having all the historical
versions is not trivially compatible with being imediately bootable and
useable.

You get to choose. Either have multiple versions readily available or
have the backup be a directly bootable and useable clone. I won't say
that the two functions couldn't possibly work together, but I will say
that making them do so is decidely non-trivial and probably negatively
interacts woth lots of other functionalities (such as having the backup
disk be on the network as with Time Capsule; that also wouldn't be
easily compatible with being bootable - well, I've known of net-bootable
systems, but that's why I said "not easily" instead of impossible.)

I'm currently using 3 different backup products for 3 different
purposes.

1. Time machine, for easy recovery of files and a very nice interface.

2. SuperDuper for a bootable, imediately useable backup.

3. Mozy for off-site backup. I fthe house burns down, I'll no doubt have
plenty of other things to worry about, but the data on my computers
won't be an additional worry.

I suppose someday I might drop the SuperDuper, as the other two give me
adequate coverage for most purposes. But that would just leave me with
these extra external drives sitting around gathering dust. I might as
well use them. And the extra backup does noticeably increase the level
of warm fuzzies when I'm doing various things that have increased risk
(such as the 10.4 to 10.5 upgrade).

Signature

Richard Maine                    | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

Jamie Kahn Genet - 01 Jul 2008 07:45 GMT
[snuip]
> 3. Mozy for off-site backup. I fthe house burns down, I'll no doubt have
> plenty of other things to worry about, but the data on my computers
> won't be an additional worry.

I could never get Mozy to stop damaging some of my files and they never
figured out (or more likely just wouldn't tell me) if they were being
damaged on the Mozy server or by the Mozy apps during backup or restore.

After two months of futzing about with Mozy support and getting nowhere
I gave up. I asked for a full refund which I got without any fuss (which
was nice, but didn't make up for all my wasted time and expense for a
great many GBs of data transferred (no all-you-can-eat plans here in NZ
:-( I have to pay for every single MB transferred).

Perhaps it was just my now well known bad luck on Leopard, but I advise
people to trial Mozy extensively with the free version first and try
restoring a multitude of different file types to make sure it's working
ok. One file type that was always damaged by Mozy IME was text
clippings. They were always restored blank :-(

Regards,
Jamie Kahn Genet
Signature

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Howard Brazee - 26 Jun 2008 14:45 GMT
>I forgot to request the reasons WHY some of you feel your backup systems
>(e.g. Retrospect, SuperDuper, Carbon Copy Cloner, Lacie Silverkeeper,
>Lacie 1 step) are superior to Time Machine.

In a comparison like this, two different products can be "superior" to
each other - depending on what your current need is.

For instance, if your hard drive crashes, and you wish to boot into
your backup drive, Time Machine won't do this (you have work ahead of
you).    But Time Machine excels in allowing you easy access to the
file you overwrote last month.

Or an off-site backup will survive your house burning down - but is
slower than the hard drive backup on your desk.
The NewGuy - 26 Jun 2008 17:43 GMT
> >I forgot to request the reasons WHY some of you feel your backup systems
> >(e.g. Retrospect, SuperDuper, Carbon Copy Cloner, Lacie Silverkeeper,
> >Lacie 1 step) are superior to Time Machine.

> For instance, if your hard drive crashes, and you wish to boot into
> your backup drive, Time Machine won't do this (you have work ahead of
> you).    But Time Machine excels in allowing you easy access to the
> file you overwrote last month.

Yes, I think most of us realize the strengths of Time Machine's
incremental backups and its weakness of not allowing a bootable backup.  
Now besides those features, is there any other benefits of using SD, SK,
CCC or Restrospect over Time Machine?
aRKay - 26 Jun 2008 18:07 GMT
> Now besides those features, is there any other benefits of using SD, SK,
> CCC or Restrospect over Time Machine?

Yes!  I ran into big trouble a week or so ago with an application and
decided to use the TM and revert to the application when it was working.

Good idea that flat did not work.  The TM did it thing bringing back a
previous version and the associated .plist.   That dog did not hunt!

I finally had to boot from my SuperDuper backup drive and it worked.

I have yet to find a good use for the the Time Machine. The SuperDuper
has saved me many times and the Time Machine looks nice but is
not very useful in the real world.  If I had to only keep one, the TM
would be trashed
Tom Harrington - 26 Jun 2008 18:23 GMT
In article
<arkayREMOVE-6008DE.12072526062008@news.houston.sbcglobal.net>,

> > Now besides those features, is there any other benefits of using SD, SK,
> > CCC or Restrospect over Time Machine?
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> not very useful in the real world.  If I had to only keep one, the TM
> would be trashed

Not very useful in the real world?  I guess I must have imagined all the
times it's saved me already.  I've restored individual files when
needed, and an entire hard drive when one died suddenly.  Or at least I
imagined that I did...

Signature

Tom "Tom" Harrington
Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002
http://www.atomicbird.com/

Mike Rosenberg - 26 Jun 2008 19:21 GMT
> I have yet to find a good use for the the Time Machine. The SuperDuper
> has saved me many times and the Time Machine looks nice but is
> not very useful in the real world.

On the real world in which *I* live, in which I keep both a SuperDuper!
bootable clone backup and a Time Machine archival backup, the SD backup
has served its intended purpose of doing absolutely nothing but provide
peace of mind, while I've recovered files and an occasional email
probably half a dozen times, so I find it extremely useful.

Oh, and my client who didn't realize until two weeks later that his
Quicken data had gotten corrupted thinks recovering the last uncorrupted
version was worth the price of Leopard right there. Had he been using SD
instead, his backup would have had only the corrupted version.

Signature

I kill Google Groups posts. See http://improve-usenet.org for details.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

Tom Stiller - 26 Jun 2008 21:10 GMT
In article
<arkayREMOVE-6008DE.12072526062008@news.houston.sbcglobal.net>,

> > Now besides those features, is there any other benefits of using SD, SK,
> > CCC or Restrospect over Time Machine?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Good idea that flat did not work.  The TM did it thing bringing back a
> previous version and the associated .plist.   That dog did not hunt!

You do realize that trouble with an application is seldom with the
application itself, but rather with user local date (e.g. associated
plist file(s)) or possibly with something installed in
~/Library/Application Support, yes?

> I finally had to boot from my SuperDuper backup drive and it worked.
>
> I have yet to find a good use for the the Time Machine. The SuperDuper
> has saved me many times and the Time Machine looks nice but is
> not very useful in the real world.  If I had to only keep one, the TM
> would be trashed

Signature

Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint =  5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3  7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

Király - 25 Jun 2008 07:25 GMT
> perhaps you're using Time Machine on one drive and something else
> on another?

Yep.  I'm using Time Machine on one FW drive, and SuperDuper twice
daily on another.

Signature

K.

Lang may your lum reek.

Mike Rosenberg - 25 Jun 2008 13:33 GMT
> > perhaps you're using Time Machine on one drive and something else
> > on another?
>
> Yep.  I'm using Time Machine on one FW drive, and SuperDuper twice
> daily on another.

I'm doing the same thing.

Signature

I kill Google Groups posts. See http://improve-usenet.org for details.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

John Varela - 25 Jun 2008 23:37 GMT
>>> perhaps you're using Time Machine on one drive and something else
>>> on another?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> I'm doing the same thing.

I do something similar.  I have three external drives, one for TM and two
for SuperDuper! backups.  I alternate between the two SuperDuper! drives
(actually one is called SuperDuper and the other is DuperSuper) and try
to remember to make backups on the 1st and 15th of each month.  The two
Super drives are ordinarily not powered up.  Everything is protected by
an APC UPS.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.

John Varela - 27 Jun 2008 00:43 GMT
>>>> perhaps you're using Time Machine on one drive and something else
>>>> on another?
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Super drives are ordinarily not powered up.  Everything is protected by
> an APC UPS.

Oh, and I should mention that I also have all my photos copied to the
iDisk, all my OpenOffice files are automatically backed up daily to the
iDisk, and all the music is copied to an iPod that's kept in one of the
cars.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.

Clive Sinclair - 25 Jun 2008 09:52 GMT
> I was wondering if many people are using backup software in Leopard that
> they feel is superior in some ways to Time Machine?  Or perhaps you're
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> (bootable), and another connected maybe once a day and stored offsite to
> protect from theft and fire.

I use three drives - maybe overkill, but having suffered once before....

TM to a USB 1TB drive

Chronosync to a USB drive attached to a Airport Extreme (only syncs my
home folder)

Superduper to second USB drive

Signature

Clive

We don't die, we just stop paying taxes.

Robert Haar - 25 Jun 2008 11:57 GMT
> I was wondering if many people are using backup software in Leopard that
> they feel is superior in some ways to Time Machine?  Or perhaps you're
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> (bootable), and another connected maybe once a day and stored offsite to
> protect from theft and fire.

I have Time machine running automatically, but only for user files, against
a dedicated third internal drive.

I run Super Duper manually for a a complete system backup against one of two
external USB drives that I rotate, keeping one in my home and one at work.

Also, I copy my photo libraries and personal records to a NAS drive.
TaliesinSoft - 25 Jun 2008 14:41 GMT
> I was wondering if many people are using backup software in Leopard that
> they feel is superior in some ways to Time Machine?  Or perhaps you're
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> (bootable), and another connected maybe once a day and stored offsite to
> protect from theft and fire.

I use a MacBook Pro with a 160 GB drive which I use both at home at at an
office. At each location I have six external firewire 800 drives, two with
160 GB capacity and four with 320 GB capacity. My usage of the drives at each
location is essentially identical.

One of the 160 GB external drives is used as an extension to my internal
drive. The extension at the office contains things that are different from
the extension at home.

The other 160 GB drive at each location contains a SuperDuper! backup of the
internal drive. The home backup being created in the middle of the night and
the office backup being created in the middle of the day.

At each location the 320 GB drives are set up into two mirrored RAID
configurations. One of these configurations is used for Time Machine and the
other is divided into two SuperDuper! partitions, one backing up the internal
drive and one the external drive used as an extensiion.

I should point out that I have a single administrator account and a number of
user accounts, and, in general, the user accounts used at home differ from
the user accounts used at the office. But it should be noted that both the
Time Machine and SuperDuper backups made at each location include all of the
accounts, thus providing redundancy in terms of there being backups at two
different physical locations.

The weak spot in this system, soon to be corrected, is that the 160GB
external drive that is the extension of my internal drive is only backed up
at its home location, the home drive being backed up at home and the office
drive being backed up at the office.

Signature

James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

Mark Conrad - 25 Jun 2008 15:43 GMT
> I was wondering if many people are using backup software in Leopard that
> they feel is superior in some ways to Time Machine?

Everyone has their own approach to the backup problem.

Some people get downright violent when discussing the
pros and cons of various backup and restore schemes  ;-)

As far as I can see, no one approach is ideal, a lot depends
on what your specific backup requirements are.

In my case, I need to backup/restore both my OS X partition,
and my Vista partition, on in one fell swoop, in the same
backup file.

Few others here need to do that sort of backup/restore.

I would  *NEVER*  recommend my particular backup
solution to anyone else here - - - even though my backup
scheme has served me well for many years.

My advice? - - - try several backup and restore schemes,
then decide which scheme, or combination of schemes,
works best for you.

Just for laughs, I will describe in general terms what
scheme I chose to use.

My important hour to hour, and day to day documents, such as
my upcoming medical screening for an aneurysm at 12 noon
today, I merely copy it over to a different Mac, plus I store a
separate copy of all my past/present/future medical junk
to an offsite drive in case my house burns down in all the
wildfires that plague my rural area.

(56 wild fires burning right now, heavy smoke here
   for weeks, but I am used to that happening every year)

My  _bootable_  backup and restore for my MacBook Pro's
160 GB internal drive occupy a 10 GB compressed file.

That 10 GB file is capable of restoring my entire 160 GB
hard drive, both the Mac OS 10.5.3 partition, and the
Vista Ultimate 40 GB partition. (Boot Camp created)

Any time I make major changes in either OS X  or  Vista,
such as spending weeks training my "Dragon" speech
recognition app' to recognize many complex medical
terms such as:

"Pneumonoultramisroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis"

(serious affliction caused by breathing the fine
     silica dust from an actively erupting volcano)

...then I create another major bootable backup.
(takes about 30 minutes)

This happens perhaps once a month, on the average.

Just to repeat again -

My advice? - - - try several backup and restore schemes,
then decide which scheme, or combination of schemes,
works best for you.

Good luck   :)

Mark-
Howard Brazee - 25 Jun 2008 16:31 GMT
>As far as I can see, no one approach is ideal, a lot depends
>on what your specific backup requirements are.

There are several needs that backups can resolve:

1.   I messed up my file, and I want to recover it.
2.   I want to see what was in my file on March 31st.
3.   My computer crashed or was stolen, I need to get all of my data
onto a new computer.
4.   My house just burned down, I need to get my critical data onto a
new computer.
5.   My primary computer is my desktop computer, but I need the data
on my laptop.
6.   My employee just got run over by a lottery - I need his data now.

One thing to remember - you want to test your backup and restore. But
what happens if this test fails?   You back up your disk image, try to
restore on your one computer - and it doesn't work.   It's essential
to find this out now instead of later - but now you've got to go to
your alternate backup and hope it works.

I wonder what procedure we should do with Time Machine if we have
special security needs - so that we have to make sure that file is
completely gone when we are done working with it.
Mark Conrad - 25 Jun 2008 18:57 GMT
> One thing to remember - you want to test your backup and restore. But
> what happens if this test fails?   You back up your disk image, try to
> restore on your one computer - and it doesn't work.   It's essential
> to find this out now instead of later - but now you've got to go to
> your alternate backup and hope it works.

Oh yes indeed, I agree with all of that.

Just for fun, I tested my backup this way:

1) Booted from an external Mac OS X drive.
2) Partitioned the internal drive as one giant
     single partition, destroying the two original
     partitions on the internal drive.
3) Went into Terminal, erased all traces of
    the main partition table and file system on the
    internal drive, overwriting them with hex zeros.

At this stage, my internal drive would not even mount on
the desktop of my Mac, but I was not through yet.

4) Still booted from my external drive, I went back
     into Terminal, and overwrote  _all_  512 byte
     sectors of the internal drive to hex zeros.

I figured I pretty well killed the internal drive. <g>

Drive would not mount, every sector of that drive had
nothing but zeros from the very beginning of that drive,
to the extreme end of that drive.  No trace of any data
or files of any kind.

Last step, recovering from my extreme sabotage
*********************************

5) Took my  _one_  handy-dandy restore file, ran it
     for the usual 30 minutes, and Viola, my Mac internal
     drive came back from the dead, both partitions of that
     internal drive fully bootable and intact, the exact same
     way the internal drive was before I heaped all those
     indignities upon it.

What some people do for fun  :)

Mark-
Tom Harrington - 25 Jun 2008 16:11 GMT
> I was wondering if many people are using backup software in Leopard that
> they feel is superior in some ways to Time Machine?  Or perhaps you're
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> (bootable), and another connected maybe once a day and stored offsite to
> protect from theft and fire.

I think that, for most users, there currently is nothing superior to
Time Machine.  I say that not because of any specific details of how or
when it does backups, but because its extreme convenience means that
many users will actually _do_ backups when they otherwise would not.  
I'm not going to argue the features of TM vs. other options because I'm
sure people could make strong cases that their choice is better for one
reason or another.  But for _most_ users it doesn't matter because that
other choice is going to seem to inconvenient to them to bother with in
preventing some hypothetical future problem.  The best solution is the
one that actually gets used.

For secondary backups I think offsite backup over the internet is the
best option for most-- for reasons similar to the above.  Taking backups
offsite by carrying hard drives around is a good solution if you don't
mind actually doing it on a regular schedule.  Most people won't,
though.  Meanwhile options like Mozy and CrashPlan offer the benefits of
having the backup offsite with the convenience of Time Machine.  So, as
with TM itself, they're much more likely to be used, and a recent
offsite backup is much more likely to be available when needed.

Signature

Tom "Tom" Harrington
Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002
http://www.atomicbird.com/

Shawn Hirn - 26 Jun 2008 00:59 GMT
> I was wondering if many people are using backup software in Leopard that
> they feel is superior in some ways to Time Machine?  Or perhaps you're
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> (bootable), and another connected maybe once a day and stored offsite to
> protect from theft and fire.

I do exactly what you proposed. About once a month, I copy my external
disk drive to another drive via SuperDuper and take that off-site until
the next time I copy it. For daily stuff, I just let Time Machine do its
thing to another external disk drive. This works well for me.
HK - 26 Jun 2008 21:58 GMT
> I was wondering if many people are using backup software in Leopard that
> they feel is superior in some ways to Time Machine?  Or perhaps you're
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> (bootable), and another connected maybe once a day and stored offsite to
> protect from theft and fire.

I use SuperDuper to backup to an external firewire drive. Easy, works,
easy restores, too.
Jim Glidewell - 30 Jun 2008 22:38 GMT
>> I was wondering if many people are using backup software in Leopard that
>> they feel is superior in some ways to Time Machine?  Or perhaps you're
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> I use SuperDuper to backup to an external firewire drive. Easy, works,
> easy restores, too.

And if your primary hard drive fails "soft" (such as corrupting the
/Users directory) you can be left without any good copies whatsoever.

I had long suspected that this was a possible failure mode for
Super-Duper (or any other clone tool). Then I saw this posting by Paul
Fuchs:

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.apps/msg/394fffa7c6432e8d?hl=en>

Multiple SD backups can help in addressing this, but the key is that you
must recognize that you've lost something before the last good Super-Duper
copy is overwritten.

I personally use Retrospect, but I enthusiastically recommend Time
Machine for any Mac user.

Backing up is a thankless job - but the worst case is to do it faithfully
only to find that your backup is corrupt because it is a clone of a
corrupted drive.

My advice is safety of data over convenience. This eliminates S-D as a
sole backup solution.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.