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 / General / General / October 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

External back up device

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Joseph Blewewtt - 06 Oct 2008 15:57 GMT
I  am at last solvent enough to invest in an external backup  device.
I'm running an iMac G5 Power PC running OS X v 10.4.11.

Any recommendations for this set up.  Present disk size is 149gb.

Thanks,

Joe

--
TaliesinSoft - 06 Oct 2008 16:15 GMT
> I  am at last solvent enough to invest in an external backup  device.
> I'm running an iMac G5 Power PC running OS X v 10.4.11.
>
> Any recommendations for this set up.  Present disk size is 149gb.

First upgrade to Leopard.

Then get the largest drive you can afford. Partition it into two volumes, one
the same size as your internal drive and the other whatever is left. Run
SuperDuper! once a day to back up to the same size partition. Run Time
Machine to the other.

This setup will give you the ability to quickly recover from a crash of the
internal drive and will allow you to step backward in time to recover from
those "oops I deleted the wrong file" or "I really liked what I had in this
document last week" kind of mistakes.

Signature

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

Tim Powys-Lybbe - 06 Oct 2008 17:24 GMT
In message of 6 Oct, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> > I  am at last solvent enough to invest in an external backup  device.
> > I'm running an iMac G5 Power PC running OS X v 10.4.11.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> SuperDuper! once a day to back up to the same size partition. Run Time
> Machine to the other.

While I think this is excellent general advice and thoroughly agree, a
problem with SuperDuper is that it will not run while the machine is
asleep.

On the other hand Data Backup from

 http://www.prosoftengineering.com/downloads/

does say that it will backup while the machine is asleep.  I am
currently testing this before buying.

> This setup will give you the ability to quickly recover from a crash of the
> internal drive and will allow you to step backward in time to recover from
> those "oops I deleted the wrong file" or "I really liked what I had in this
> document last week" kind of mistakes.

Fully agreed.

Signature

Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Nick Naym - 06 Oct 2008 17:50 GMT
> In message of 6 Oct, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> Fully agreed.

I've read that there are problems with most "clone" backup software.
Unfortunately, I can't find but one (a bit old by now) article about it
(though I do recall seeing at least one other, more-recent one):

<http://blog.plasticsfuture.org/2006/04/23/mac-backup-software-harmful/>

Signature

iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) € OS X (10.5.4)

Richard Maine - 06 Oct 2008 18:18 GMT
> I've read that there are problems with most "clone" backup software.
> Unfortunately, I can't find but one (a bit old by now) article about it
> (though I do recall seeing at least one other, more-recent one):
>
> <http://blog.plasticsfuture.org/2006/04/23/mac-backup-software-harmful/>

I recall reading that. Reskiming it now, I see the same thing I recall
from earlier. The author is highly focused on a single issue. He does
mention what that issue is and, as far as I can tell, accurately reports
things. He even mentions it as a caveat that his one pet issue is *ALL*
that he is evaluating. He does not evaluate the user interface,
convenience, reliability, or anything else except for his one pet issue
of metadata. But if you just skim without reading carefully (I did skim
it this time, but I knew what I was looking for), in particular if you
just look at the summary ratings, you can get a very misleading
impression.

This is not in any sense a general review of the software; it  is a
report on his one pet feature.

In particular, "there are problems" severely overstates the case in my
opinion.

Note also that, even if that one pet feature is what one is looking at,
the author does rate SuperDuper as "highly recommended", which is to say
that he found no problem at all with it. That's not the main reason I
like SuperDuper, or even super high on my list (I could easily live with
the creation date not gettng restored), but I suppose it is an extra
plus.

Signature

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

Nick Naym - 06 Oct 2008 19:23 GMT
>> I've read that there are problems with most "clone" backup software.
>> Unfortunately, I can't find but one (a bit old by now) article about it
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> the creation date not gettng restored), but I suppose it is an extra
> plus.

I, too, only skimmed it...but IIRC (and I really need to go back and read it
carefully), the author claimed that all -- except SupperDuper! -- could NOT
reliably capture all metadata. (I believe -- in a later, more-recent
article from another source -- I read that SuperDuper! and Carbon Copy
Cloner were both up to the task.)

Currently, I am making TM backups on an external HD; I recently got another
external to use with SuperDuper! AFAIK, both apps run on schedules (SD!, I
believe, can be set by the user; TM requires a 3rd-party add-on (I'm using
"TimeMachineEditor") to change its hourly routine).

Signature

iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) € OS X (10.5.4)

E Z Peaces - 06 Oct 2008 20:02 GMT
>>> I've read that there are problems with most "clone" backup software.
>>> Unfortunately, I can't find but one (a bit old by now) article about it
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> article from another source -- I read that SuperDuper! and Carbon Copy
> Cloner were both up to the task.)

I downloaded CCC the other day.  The author said subsequent testing had
vindicated CCC.

I've had problems with Spotlight after cloning.  With SuperDuper I can
put the target in privacy and rebuild the Spotlight index later.  CCC
seems to erase the file that keeps Spotlight from indexing.

> Currently, I am making TM backups on an external HD; I recently got another
> external to use with SuperDuper! AFAIK, both apps run on schedules (SD!, I
> believe, can be set by the user; TM requires a 3rd-party add-on (I'm using
> "TimeMachineEditor") to change its hourly routine).

A second external, I like that.  One disk means all your backup eggs are
in one basket, and I think maybe bigger baskets are more likely to break.

Recently I bought a disk from a family with 80, 120, and 160 GB models,
each for about the same price.   The 80 was the most popular and the
only one without failure complaints.
billy@MIX.COM - 06 Oct 2008 21:20 GMT
> I've read that there are problems with most "clone" backup software.

From an article I wrote last April 1st -

 Here's a report about how various backup utilities handle various
 things, including ACLs -

 http://inik.net/node/151

 And, since it's almost a year old, here's a tool you can use to run
 your own tests on whatever you'd like, today -

 http://www.n8gray.org/blog/2007/04/27/introducing-backup-bouncer/

And some additional Mac filesystem info to help in understanding the
above -

http://macos-x-server.com/wiki/index.php?title=Filesystem_metadata_support

Billy Y..
Jolly Roger - 06 Oct 2008 18:00 GMT
> a
> problem with SuperDuper is that it will not run while the machine is
> asleep.

Technically, nothing runs while the machine is asleep.

Did you mean to say that SuperDuper will not automatically wake the
machine up to run scheduled backups?

Signature

Send responses to the relevant news group rather than 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. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

Tim Powys-Lybbe - 06 Oct 2008 21:02 GMT
In message of 6 Oct, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > a problem with SuperDuper is that it will not run while the machine
> > is asleep.
>
> Technically, nothing runs while the machine is asleep.

Technically, I suppose, if the machine wakes up then it is never asleep?

> Did you mean to say that SuperDuper will not automatically wake the
> machine up to run scheduled backups?

Yes, the manual has it:

 If your Macintosh is asleep when the time comes to run the backup,
 SuperDuper's scheduling won't wake it up, so the backup won't run.

They then say you should use the Power Saving timer to wake the beast
up, but my (new) machine won't wake up with this.  So the backup does
not happen overnight.  Then when I do kick the machine into activity, it
tried to do the backup then, which just gets in the way so is disabled.

SilverKeeper appears to wake the machine to do its backup at the
appointed minute but I am not confident it does it always.  Or, once it
stops doing a backup, it never restarts on subsequent days.

And, as I said, DataBackup is said to wake the machine up and I was
hoping to do a few experiments before the appointed 2.30 am, but no time
as yet.

Signature

Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Jolly Roger - 06 Oct 2008 21:27 GMT
> In message of 6 Oct, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>   If your Macintosh is asleep when the time comes to run the backup,
>   SuperDuper's scheduling won't wake it up, so the backup won't run.

This is because SuperDuper uses cron to schedule backups. Given the
author's penchant for using system utilities like cron, it seems he
could also schedule a corresponding wake or power on event with pmset.

Signature

Send responses to the relevant news group rather than 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. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

John McWilliams - 07 Oct 2008 03:08 GMT
>> In message of 6 Oct, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> author's penchant for using system utilities like cron, it seems he
> could also schedule a corresponding wake or power on event with pmset.

In any event, a way around all of this is to simply set TM in motion
when you've done your last task, game, whatever, for the evening. Then
brush your teeth, iron your pj's and put it to sleep.

Signature

john mcwilliams

TaliesinSoft - 06 Oct 2008 21:22 GMT
> Did you mean to say that SuperDuper will not automatically wake the
> machine up to run scheduled backups?

I have several SuperDuper! backups scheduled for the middle of the night.
Before I go to bed I put my Mac to sleep. When I wake in the morning and
check all of the SuperDuper! runs have completed.

Signature

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

Tim Powys-Lybbe - 06 Oct 2008 21:39 GMT
In message of 6 Oct, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> > Did you mean to say that SuperDuper will not automatically wake the
> > machine up to run scheduled backups?
>
> I have several SuperDuper! backups scheduled for the middle of the night.
> Before I go to bed I put my Mac to sleep. When I wake in the morning and
> check all of the SuperDuper! runs have completed.

Fascinating.  Their manual, as I've already posted, says:

 If your Macintosh is asleep when the time comes to run the backup,
 SuperDuper's scheduling won't wake it up, so the backup won't run.

So I wonder what is going on, or is the manual telling porkies?

Signature

Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

TaliesinSoft - 07 Oct 2008 00:03 GMT
> In message of 6 Oct, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> So I wonder what is going on, or is the manual telling porkies?

I just now had an email exchange with Dave Nanian, co-author of SuperDuper!
and he asserts that I must have a scheduled wake up event so that the
computer is not asleep when the backup is to run. I have no recollection of
creating such an event and even where one would create it. I'll post my
further exchanges with Dave Nanian when he responds.

Signature

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

Tim Powys-Lybbe - 07 Oct 2008 00:20 GMT
In message of 7 Oct, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

<snip>

> I just now had an email exchange with Dave Nanian, co-author of SuperDuper!
> and he asserts that I must have a scheduled wake up event so that the
> computer is not asleep when the backup is to run. I have no recollection of
> creating such an event and even where one would create it. I'll post my
> further exchanges with Dave Nanian when he responds.

It's in System Preferences, then go for the Energy Saver tool, in the
Hardware section, then see the Schedule button on the lower right hand
side.  (The fact that it does not work properly on this machine is why I
have been looking for an alternative program that does wake the mahine
from sleep.)

Signature

Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

TaliesinSoft - 07 Oct 2008 01:29 GMT
> In message of 7 Oct, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> have been looking for an alternative program that does wake the mahine
> from sleep.)

I checked the Schedule option in Energy Saver and there are not checks in the
boxes boxes for either the "Start up or wake" or "Sleep" options.

Signature

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

Jolly Roger - 07 Oct 2008 02:46 GMT
> > In message of 7 Oct, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> I checked the Schedule option in Energy Saver and there are not checks in the
> boxes boxes for either the "Start up or wake" or "Sleep" options.

What does 'pmset -g sched' output?

Signature

Send responses to the relevant news group rather than 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. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

TaliesinSoft - 07 Oct 2008 03:06 GMT
[responding to my having stated in regards to my computer waking from sleep
in order to run SuperDuper!]

>> I checked the Schedule option in Energy Saver and there are not checks in
>> the boxes boxes for either the "Start up or wake" or "Sleep" options.
>
> What does 'pmset -g sched' output?

Here's what happened (empty lines inserted to prevent unwanted wrapping)....

====================

Last login: Mon Oct  6 14:37:00 on console

The-Acrobatic-Aardvark:~ adventures$ pmset -g sched

No scheduled events.

The-Acrobatic-Aardvark:~ adventures$

====================

Signature

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

Jolly Roger - 07 Oct 2008 03:17 GMT
> [responding to my having stated in regards to my computer waking from sleep
> in order to run SuperDuper!]
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> The-Acrobatic-Aardvark:~ adventures$
> ====================

So how ure are you that your computer actually sleeps?

Signature

Send responses to the relevant news group rather than 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. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

TaliesinSoft - 07 Oct 2008 03:30 GMT
>> [responding to my having stated in regards to my computer waking from sleep
>> in order to run SuperDuper!]
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> So how ure are you that your computer actually sleeps?

Before retiring for the evening I select "Sleep" from the Apple menu. The
response to that is the screen blanking and the external drives quieting
down.

Signature

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

Jolly Roger - 07 Oct 2008 05:23 GMT
> >> [responding to my having stated in regards to my computer waking from
> >> sleep
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> response to that is the screen blanking and the external drives quieting
> down.

Then I have to wonder if (a) something else may be waking the machine up
and/or (b) your backups aren't actually occurring each and every night.

Signature

Send responses to the relevant news group rather than 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. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

TaliesinSoft - 07 Oct 2008 05:30 GMT
[responding to my stating in regards to SuperDuper! performing my nightly
backups despite that the computer is sleeping]]  

>> Before retiring for the evening I select "Sleep" from the Apple menu. The
>> response to that is the screen blanking and the external drives quieting
>> down.
>
> Then I have to wonder if (a) something else may be waking the machine up
> and/or (b) your backups aren't actually occurring each and every night.

When I awake the computer in the morning there are Growl notifications
indicating that each of the four scheduled backups have completed
successfully.

<http://growl.info/>

Signature

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

Király - 07 Oct 2008 08:27 GMT
> When I awake the computer in the morning there are Growl notifications
> indicating that each of the four scheduled backups have completed
> successfully.
>
> <http://growl.info/>

Rather than relying in Growl to tell you that the backups are done, Have
you actually *tested* them?  As in examined them to see if a file you
created yesterday is there today?

Signature

K.

Lang may your lum reek.

TaliesinSoft - 07 Oct 2008 14:54 GMT
> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> you actually *tested* them?  As in examined them to see if a file you
> created yesterday is there today?

I have four SuperDuper! backups scheduled, one each at 1, 2, 3, and 4 a.m.
Last night I put the computer to sleep at 12:30 a.m. via the Sleep command
under the Apple menu. This morning I woke the computer from sleep at 8 a.m.,
responding to the request for my password. The four Growl notifications, one
for each of the backups were displayed. I then opened SuperDuper! and
displayed the Scheduled Copies window which showed that each of the four
backups had taken place. I verified that they had taken place by examining
each of the four corresponding SuperDuper! log files. And, as pointed out
earlier in this thread, I have no scheduled wakeup events.

I have posted substantiating screenshots and logs in my taliesinsoft iDisk
Pubic folder within a folder titled "SuperDuper! Screenshots" This
information is easily reached from the Finder's Go menu:

Select from the Finder menu Go>iDisk>Other Users Public Folder... and then
enter "taliesinsoft" (without the quotes) in the pane.

Here are the names of the drives involved....

Cowboy -- my internal drive

Pancho -- my external drive

Sidekick -- my Time Machine drive

Lefty -- a bootable backup of Cowboy

Willie -- a bootable backup of  Cowboy

Merle -- a backup of Pancho

Campfire - a backup of Sidekick

Signature

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

Király - 07 Oct 2008 17:50 GMT
> I have posted substantiating screenshots and logs in my taliesinsoft iDisk
> Pubic folder within a folder titled "SuperDuper! Screenshots"

Well, two possibilities.

1)  Something is waking your Mac up in the middle of the night.  None
of that stuff would run if it was asleep the whole time.

2)  Your Mac is staying asleep all night, the backups are not running,
and the false log files are being generated upon wake.

#2 seems too far fetched for me.  But have you actually examined your
backups (not just the logs) to see if your new files are actually being
copied over?

Signature

K.

Lang may your lum reek.

TaliesinSoft - 07 Oct 2008 18:19 GMT
> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> backups (not just the logs) to see if your new files are actually being
> copied over?

I have checked and indeed the SuperDuper! backups occurred. I've also noted
that when the computer is supposedly asleep Time Machine continues to create
hourly backups which, to my understanding, it shouldn't be doing. Last night,
during the time the computer was supposedly sleeping, there were Time Machine
backups at 1:06, 2:07, 3:06, and 7:08, Interestingly there were no such Time
Machine backups during the time in which SuperDuper! was creating a clone
(via smart backup) of the regular Time Machine backup file.

Signature

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

Jolly Roger - 07 Oct 2008 20:15 GMT
> > TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Machine backups during the time in which SuperDuper! was creating a clone
> (via smart backup) of the regular Time Machine backup file.

This makes me think the computer itself is not really sleeping. Drives
and displays can sleep independently from the computer itself. So I'd
start looking at your Energy Saver settings. The command 'pmset -g' will
show you exactly what settings are currently in use. What do they say?

Signature

Send responses to the relevant news group rather than 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. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

TaliesinSoft - 07 Oct 2008 22:35 GMT
[responding to my description of the activities that occur on my computer
after it has been put to sleep with the Apple menu Sleep command]

> This makes me think the computer itself is not really sleeping. Drives and
> displays can sleep independently from the computer itself. So I'd start
> looking at your Energy Saver settings. The command 'pmset -g' will show
> you exactly what settings are currently in use. What do they say?

Here's what I get whenentering the suggested command.....

====================

Last login: Tue Oct  7 16:11:47 on console

The-Acrobatic-Aardvark:~ adventures$ pmset -g

Active Profiles:

Battery Power        -1

AC Power        -1*

Currently in use:

sleep        0

sms        1

acwake        0

displaysleep    5

autorestart    0

hibernatefile    /var/vm/sleepimage

hibernatemode    3

womp        1

halfdim    0

disksleep    10

lidwake    1

ttyskeepawake    1

====================

And I ain't got the foggiest what most of those mean!    :-)

Signature

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

Jolly Roger - 07 Oct 2008 22:50 GMT
> Currently in use:
>  sleep        0

Aha! There it is, clear as day. The computer itself is not set to sleep.

>  sms        1
>  acwake        0
>  displaysleep    5

The display will sleep after five minutes of inactivity.

>  autorestart    0
>  hibernatefile    /var/vm/sleepimage
>  hibernatemode    3
>  womp        1
>  halfdim    0
>  disksleep    10

The hard disk will sleep after 10 minutes of inactivity.

>  lidwake    1
>  ttyskeepawake    1

Now I've always thought the Sleep command in the Apple menu resulted in
computer sleep regardless of these settings. Perhaps, though, something
on your system is causing that not to be the case. Perhaps when you
choose the Sleep command, the computer does not sleep. Or perhaps you
don't always put your computer to sleep that way at night.

At any rate, certainly, with these settings if you simply allow the
computer to idle long enough, the display and hard drive will sleep,
while the computer remains awake. This would allow backups and other
things to happen.

Signature

Send responses to the relevant news group rather than 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. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

Richard Maine - 07 Oct 2008 22:35 GMT
> This makes me think the computer itself is not really sleeping. Drives
> and displays can sleep independently from the computer itself.

That's what I'm thinking. Or that, even if it goes to sleep, something
wakes it up. There are an awful lot of things that can wake the systems
from sleep. If I put mine to sleep and then get up, quite often just the
jostling of me getting up from the chair wiggles the rodent enough to
wake the system (anyway, I think that's what's doing it).

Signature

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

Jolly Roger - 07 Oct 2008 22:46 GMT
> > This makes me think the computer itself is not really sleeping. Drives
> > and displays can sleep independently from the computer itself.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> jostling of me getting up from the chair wiggles the rodent enough to
> wake the system (anyway, I think that's what's doing it).

Right. I would be interested to know if there are any system log entries
having to do with wake or sleep (actually any log entries *at all*)
between the hours the computer should be asleep and the morning when
James wakes it up. Have you looked at the system log, James?

Signature

Send responses to the relevant news group rather than 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. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

TaliesinSoft - 08 Oct 2008 17:21 GMT
> I would be interested to know if there are any system log entries having
> to do with wake or sleep (actually any log entries *at all*) between the
> hours the computer should be asleep and the morning when James wakes it
> up. Have you looked at the system log, James?

Although I consider myself fairly well versed in the "overpinnings" of the
Macintosh interface I'm not very versed in the "underpinnings". I'll be more
than happy to examine the system log if given a bit of guidance as to how to
displaly it.

Signature

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

Peter James - 06 Oct 2008 19:06 GMT
> > I  am at last solvent enough to invest in an external backup  device.
> > I'm running an iMac G5 Power PC running OS X v 10.4.11.
> >
> > Any recommendations for this set up.  Present disk size is 149gb.
>
> First upgrade to Leopard.
Unfortunately, I can't afford both leopard and an external drive.  Will
staying with tiger make a lot of difference?

> Then get the largest drive you can afford. Partition it into two volumes, one
> the same size as your internal drive and the other whatever is left. Run
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> those "oops I deleted the wrong file" or "I really liked what I had in this
> document last week" kind of mistakes.
Noted, thanks.  I see that the Lacie external drive seems to be
recommended at UK £99.  Reasonable?

Signature

He spoke with a certain what-is-it in his voice, and I
could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far
from being gruntled.
P.G. Wodehouse 1881 -1975

Gregory Weston - 06 Oct 2008 19:29 GMT
> > > I  am at last solvent enough to invest in an external backup  device.
> > > I'm running an iMac G5 Power PC running OS X v 10.4.11.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Unfortunately, I can't afford both leopard and an external drive.  Will
> staying with tiger make a lot of difference?

It takes the recommendation of Time Machine off the table.

> > Then get the largest drive you can afford. Partition it into two volumes,
> > one
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Noted, thanks.  I see that the Lacie external drive seems to be
> recommended at UK £99.  Reasonable?

The first answer is "depends on the capacity." The second answer is: I
won't buy from LaCie. You'll probably get a decent drive, and if you do
everything should be fine. But if you get a bad drive - which I did -
you will meet LaCie's customer service department and you will die a
bitter old man convinced that there is no beauty in the world. They are
that bad.

Signature

"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
  - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

E Z Peaces - 06 Oct 2008 20:24 GMT
>>> This setup will give you the ability to quickly recover from a crash of the
>>> internal drive and will allow you to step backward in time to recover from
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> bitter old man convinced that there is no beauty in the world. They are
> that bad.

I had good luck with a LaCie I bought ten years ago, but I wouldn't risk
it again.  Amazon UK shows drive enclosures for under ten pounds.
There's a lot of published information on the quality of disks, and one
could probably buy a fine disk and enclosure with less than 99 pounds.
If the enclosure fails and customer service lets you down, it's no big
setback.
Jeffrey Goldberg - 07 Oct 2008 19:41 GMT
>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:57:41 -0500, Joseph Blewewtt wrote

>>> Any recommendations for this set up.  Present disk size is 149gb.
>>
>> First upgrade to Leopard.

> Unfortunately, I can't afford both leopard and an external drive.  Will
> staying with tiger make a lot of difference?

TimeMachine, built into Leopard, is a life saver.  Last week it saved my
a.s in a way that easily covered the initial cost of Leopard.

I really recommend that you go without some luxury for a month and upgrade
to Leopard.  Once you've done that, by the biggest external drive you can
afford.  You won't find anything on the market with less than 300GB.
While bigger would be better, that is enough for a while if you are just
going to use TM instead of the hybrid set-ups that people are
recommending.  I also like and follow the hybrid solutions people are
recommending, but if your budget is very tight, I would go with TM only.

Cheers,

-j

Signature

Jeffrey Goldberg                     http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
 I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings.
 http://improve-usenet.org/

E Z Peaces - 08 Oct 2008 02:28 GMT
>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:57:41 -0500, Joseph Blewewtt wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> -j

Newegg has approximately 450 external HDs.  About half are 320 GB or less.

I don't know how much space TM uses, but is bigger always better?  With
Tiger, I have 80 GB each for internal and external drives.  As I use
only 16 GB, I don't foresee a need for anything bigger.

I rejected bigger drives because the models I considered appeared to be
less reliable.  Cost is another consideration.  Instead of paying for a
disk with 500 GB I didn't need, I'd rather have money to spend on an
additional backup device.  (As it is, I have archives on a 20 GB and a
40 GB disk.  I wish I knew more about optical media.)
Jamie Kahn Genet - 08 Oct 2008 03:21 GMT
> >>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:57:41 -0500, Joseph Blewewtt wrote
> >
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> additional backup device.  (As it is, I have archives on a 20 GB and a
> 40 GB disk.  I wish I knew more about optical media.)

For TM in Leopard bigger is absolutely better as TM will backup as many
versions of a file as it can fit onto a HD, then if it runs out of space
it starts deleting the oldest versions, or oldest files you've deleted
off your main HD (but TM has backed up).

Also - if you have two computers or a willing friend and not too much to
backup (it sounds like you don't) you might try
<http://www.crashplan.com/home.vtl> which I've had a great deal of
sucess with. I'd explain how it works, but the video linked to on that
page does a better job (and ok - I might just be lazy :-D ).

Regards,
Jamie Kahn Genet
Signature

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

Mike Rosenberg - 08 Oct 2008 13:49 GMT
> I don't know how much space TM uses, but is bigger always better?  With
> Tiger, I have 80 GB each for internal and external drives.  As I use
> only 16 GB, I don't foresee a need for anything bigger.

If you're doing a clone backup, you're right, the backup drive only has
to be as large as the main drive. TM, though, does archival backups,
allowing one to restore files that have long since been remove from the
source. The larger the backup drive, the further back into the past one
can go.

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

E Z Peaces - 08 Oct 2008 18:02 GMT
>> I don't know how much space TM uses, but is bigger always better?  With
>> Tiger, I have 80 GB each for internal and external drives.  As I use
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> can go.
>  

I like that, but a failure of the backup drive would take out all
backups.  The same event could spoil files on the internal drive.

At one time, I made daily backups on alternate sets of 8" floppies.  I
never had trouble with them, but when I began using Macs I found 3.5"
floppies unreliable.  Sometimes I had to fall back to a third backup I'd
squirreled away.

I use old HDs for archives, but I've begun to find them unreliable.  The
bearing may be the achilles heel of a hard drive on the shelf, as
someone has pointed out here.

Maybe I should depend on CD-Rs.  Their reputation suffered due to a
material used in manufacturing for a period of years about 1990.  Some
manufacturers estimate a 200-year shelf life for recorded data.  The
Library of Congress found that the data on CDs 25 years old was as good
as that on new ones.  I'm not sure whether they were talking about
CD-Rs.  Apple warns against recording on a CD designed for a faster
speed than your drive because the drive could get confused.

DVD-Rs are appealing but the reliability is uncertain.  They are more
vulnerable than CDs to data damage from flexing.  One source tested and
estimated that some DVD-RWs would fail within two years.  Another source
estimates 30 years for a DVD-RW.  A medium that could be rewritten and
hold 5GB for 30 years could solve a lot of problems.
Jeffrey Goldberg - 08 Oct 2008 17:24 GMT
>> Once you've done that, by the biggest external drive you can
>> afford.  You won't find anything on the market with less than 300GB.

> Newegg has approximately 450 external HDs.  About half are 320 GB or less.

It is so much easier for me to make a point if people don't bother
checking facts.  You and the media are out to get me.

> I don't know how much space TM uses, but is bigger always better?

> I rejected bigger drives because the models I considered appeared to be less
> reliable.  Cost is another consideration.  Instead of paying for a disk with
> 500 GB I didn't need, I'd rather have money to spend on an additional backup
> device.

I would think, as a rough rule of thumb, unless you are doing video work
(which really requires its own back-up strategy) that there is little gain
in a TM volume that is more than twice as large as the source volume.  So
yes, beyond, say 2X the source volume, you are better off getting a second
device.

What I wanted to suggest was that the OP pay to upgrade to Leopard and
then see disk size as a second priority.

Cheers,

-j

Signature

Jeffrey Goldberg                     http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
 I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings.
 http://improve-usenet.org/

Gregory Weston - 06 Oct 2008 19:25 GMT
> I  am at last solvent enough to invest in an external backup  device.
> I'm running an iMac G5 Power PC running OS X v 10.4.11.
>
> Any recommendations for this set up.  Present disk size is 149gb.

How serious are you about recoverability? The barely-counts solution
that's disturbingly popular (but is definitely better than nothing at
all) is a FW hard drive that's at least as big as your internal and
SuperDuper! or equivalent. It's very cheap but also doesn't really
protect you against anything more than system component failure.
Slightly less cheap, but much more robust is to get 2-3 drives. Cycle
through them, and always keep one someplace outside your house. If you
work in an office, for example, keep one locked in your drawer at work
and just bring them back and forth with you when you're cycling them.

Entities that *really* care about their backups - like companies for
whom data loss is not merely inconvenient but can put the company out of
business and get the execs sued - use tape based solutions. They are
more expensive than hard drives and somewhat less convenient. They're
also much less prone to mechanical failure during transport and have a
storage life that will outlast the computer that replaces your current
machine's replacement.

The really critical component of any backup regimen, though, is the
user. You have to do it. And you have to test it from time to time.

Signature

"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
  - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

E Z Peaces - 06 Oct 2008 19:25 GMT
> I  am at last solvent enough to invest in an external backup  device.
> I'm running an iMac G5 Power PC running OS X v 10.4.11.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Joe

I made the mistake of buying a Newertech Ministack from OWC.  I could
have bought the enclosure alone, but I chose one with a disk included.

Thirteen months later the light didn't come on when I switched it on.
The first logical troubleshooting step would have been to try the disk
in another enclosure.  If the disk had been bad, I could have bought a
new one immediately.  If it had been good, I could have kept it safe and
sent the enclosure for repair.

That's when I saw the fine print.  Because I'd bought the disk with the
enclosure, opening the enclosure would void my warranty.

If I sent it off, how long would it be gone?  What if I had a disk crash
in the mean time?  If they sent a replacement instead of the original
disk with my files, I could lose years' worth of priceless files.

Because I had not anticipated sending the disk anywhere, it had auto
logon.  If I sent it away, I'd have to trust everyone with access to it
not to copy it.  For example, personal information in the disk might be
used to pilfer bank accounts.

The third drawback was the possibility that someone would drop the disk,
leading to premature failure.

I found that the external power supply had failed.  As it was
short-circuit protected, this was probably the only problem.    I
contacted tech support.  I explained my reluctance to ship the disk
unnecessarily.  I asked advice and got none.  After four days the tech
offered to sell me a power supply, but I'd have to pay for it even if I
sent in the defective one.

They offered a 3-amp version instead if the original 2-amp supply.  The
Ministack required an unusual connector, so this suggested that a lot of
customers had experienced failures.

With the new power supply, the Ministack worked four hours.  When it
failed the power supply was still good.  I shipped the Ministack and
original power supply back under warranty.  It came back with a new
2-amp supply and a paper with check marks showing that it had passed all
tests.  Before I connected it to my computer, I switched it on.  The
drive did not spin up and the light did not come on.  Still, I plugged
it in to my USB hub.  It damaged the hub.

I informed OWC that before I connected it to my computer, I had switched
it on and there was no light or noise.  Then, because their paper said
it worked, I had connected it to my USB and damaged my hub.  They said I
could send it back, but it probably wouldn't do any good because they
thought the problem was something else on my USB.  I repeated that the
Ministack had failed to come on when it wasn't connected to anything but
the power supply.  They repeated that sending it back probably wouldn't
do any good.

If they had told me at the outset that they did not intend to honor
their warranty, they would have saved me a lot of time, trouble, and
money.  I'll never again buy anything from Newertech or OWC.

I put my disk in a Macally PHR-100AF enclosure.  If anything goes wrong
someday, I can try the disk in another enclosure.  The disk is suspended
with rubber mounts.  There is no fan, which keeps everything clean and
quiet.  I've found with a temperature probe that the disk inside doesn't
get hot even when backing up 20 gB.  PHR models are made for various
disk interfaces and computer interfaces.  I chose Firewire so I can use
it as a boot disk if I want.
 
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



©2008 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.