Backup software - better than Time Machine?
|
|
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.
|
|
|