Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #21375 > unrolled thread

How to find the SuperDuper schedule

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps

Contents

  How to find the SuperDuper schedule micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> - 2014-03-08 10:27 -0500
    Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2014-03-08 19:07 +0000
      Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-08 14:41 -0500
      Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-08 22:35 +0000
      Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-03-08 17:59 -0500
        Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2014-03-09 00:42 +0000
          Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-09 01:08 +0000
            Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-09 11:51 -0400
          Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-03-09 02:54 +0000
            Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-03-08 23:25 -0500
            Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-09 17:39 +0000
          Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-08 22:43 -0500
          Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-03-08 23:30 -0500
        Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2014-03-08 19:28 -0600
          Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2014-03-09 07:35 +0000
            Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-03-09 13:01 -0400
            Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-09 17:36 +0000
              Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2014-03-09 19:23 +0000
                Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-09 15:47 -0400
                Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-09 20:11 +0000
                  Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2014-03-09 22:53 +0000
                    Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2014-03-10 13:43 -0400
      Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-03-08 20:23 -0800
        Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> - 2014-03-09 18:58 -0400
          Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-09 19:09 -0400
            Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2014-03-10 13:48 -0400
    Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2014-03-09 10:19 +0000
      Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> - 2014-03-09 18:24 -0400
        Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2014-03-10 07:13 +0000
          Re: How to find the SuperDuper schedule micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> - 2014-03-10 14:23 -0400

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#21375 — How to find the SuperDuper schedule

I should add to my previous post, and to the previous thread, that I'm
thinking what might account for the lack of files in the SuperDuper
backup is that conceivably, after he screwed up, SuperDuper ran and
carried the screwup over to the backup.   

That seems unlikely because I'm pretty sure we put only one entry in the
schedule for Super Duper, and as the last paragraph way below says, that
was to run at 9:30PM.  He screwed up around 11 in the morning and called
me around 2, and I had him disconnect his backup drive.  So when would
it have copied over his error?

Does SuperDuper have an option to immediately copy over any change from
the source hdd to the target?    I'm sure we didn't knowingly sign up
for that, and iirc there were only a small number of clearly labeled
choices.    Why woudl we have to give a time of day if it was going to
work every time there was a change in the source HDD? 

Thanks. 



---------------

Related to my previous thread.  But a specific topic. 

My friend who had the problem with his mail on Thursday had bought
SuperDuper but that was 2 years ago and we can't remember what it was
scheduled to do.   I click on SuperDuper and there isn't a menu.  There
are 2 or 3 buttons that are greyed out, including Schedule.  How I know
when it was scheduled to run and when it actually ran?

At one point on Thursday when I wasn't there or using Team Viewer, a box
came up that said the next scheduled run time was 9:30PM that day, but
is there no full schedule I could look at? 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#21382

In article <kcdmh918veltql9377nnsl81kc90uhmh22@4ax.com>,
micky  <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>I should add to my previous post, and to the previous thread, that I'm
>thinking what might account for the lack of files in the SuperDuper
>backup is that conceivably, after he screwed up, SuperDuper ran and
>carried the screwup over to the backup.   

SuperDuper only retains the latest backup? It isn't like Time Machine?


Patty

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21383

In article <531b6a58$0$52826$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Patty Winter
<patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:

> >I should add to my previous post, and to the previous thread, that I'm
> >thinking what might account for the lack of files in the SuperDuper
> >backup is that conceivably, after he screwed up, SuperDuper ran and
> >carried the screwup over to the backup.   
> 
> SuperDuper only retains the latest backup?

it clones what's currently there.

anything deleted on the source drive is deleted on the target drive and
any corrupted files are copied to the target drive, along with (almost)
everything else.

> It isn't like Time Machine?

no. time machine makes multiple incremental snapshots so you can go
back in time to recover files you deleted or to a previous version.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21386

In message <531b6a58$0$52826$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> 
  Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:

> In article <kcdmh918veltql9377nnsl81kc90uhmh22@4ax.com>,
> micky  <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>I should add to my previous post, and to the previous thread, that I'm
>>thinking what might account for the lack of files in the SuperDuper
>>backup is that conceivably, after he screwed up, SuperDuper ran and
>>carried the screwup over to the backup.   

> SuperDuper only retains the latest backup? It isn't like Time Machine?

It is not at all like Time Machine. Time Machine makes incremental
backups, Super Duper does not (or at least not by default).

-- 
"Getting married for sex is like buying a 747 for the free peanuts." -
Jeff Foxworthy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21387

Patty Winter:
> SuperDuper only retains the latest backup? It isn't like Time Machine?

Correct. In one mode, the only one I know and use, SuperDuper clones
the entire hard drive on its first run and, if it's a bootable drive,
makes the clone bootable. In subsequent runs it copies only what is
necessary to keep the clone identical to the original HD. The beauty of
this is that if the (internal, we'll suppose) HD fails, after a new
drive is installed, SD clones the backup to the new internal drive and
one is back in business. It's the best recovery system I know from a
catastrophic failure.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21388

In article <080320141759423553%star@sky.net>, Davoud  <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote:
>
>In one mode, the only one I know and use, SuperDuper clones
>the entire hard drive on its first run and, if it's a bootable drive,
>makes the clone bootable. In subsequent runs it copies only what is
>necessary to keep the clone identical to the original HD. The beauty of
>this is that if the (internal, we'll suppose) HD fails, after a new
>drive is installed, SD clones the backup to the new internal drive and
>one is back in business. It's the best recovery system I know from a
>catastrophic failure.

So, great if your your HD fails, but no help if you've accidentally erased 
a file you want. I know which problem is more apt to happen in my life. :-)


Patty

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21389

On 2014-03-09, Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:
>
> In article <080320141759423553%star@sky.net>, Davoud  <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote:
>>
>>In one mode, the only one I know and use, SuperDuper clones
>>the entire hard drive on its first run and, if it's a bootable drive,
>>makes the clone bootable. In subsequent runs it copies only what is
>>necessary to keep the clone identical to the original HD. The beauty of
>>this is that if the (internal, we'll suppose) HD fails, after a new
>>drive is installed, SD clones the backup to the new internal drive and
>>one is back in business. It's the best recovery system I know from a
>>catastrophic failure.
>
> So, great if your your HD fails, but no help if you've accidentally erased 
> a file you want. I know which problem is more apt to happen in my life. :-)

Right on. I find Time Machine (or a similar facility) to be much more
valuable for day-to-day backups. The fact that I can restore entire
volumes from Time Machine backups is a bonus for me that I'll rarely use
in comparison.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21404

On 2014.03.08, 20:08 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2014-03-09, Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:
>>
>> In article <080320141759423553%star@sky.net>, Davoud  <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote:
>>>
>>> In one mode, the only one I know and use, SuperDuper clones
>>> the entire hard drive on its first run and, if it's a bootable drive,
>>> makes the clone bootable. In subsequent runs it copies only what is
>>> necessary to keep the clone identical to the original HD. The beauty of
>>> this is that if the (internal, we'll suppose) HD fails, after a new
>>> drive is installed, SD clones the backup to the new internal drive and
>>> one is back in business. It's the best recovery system I know from a
>>> catastrophic failure.
>>
>> So, great if your your HD fails, but no help if you've accidentally erased
>> a file you want. I know which problem is more apt to happen in my life. :-)
>
> Right on. I find Time Machine (or a similar facility) to be much more
> valuable for day-to-day backups. The fact that I can restore entire
> volumes from Time Machine backups is a bonus for me that I'll rarely use
> in comparison.

When my HD died on my prior iMac, I recovered entirely from TM.  No 
issues (possibly was not as fast as SD or CCC).  OTOH, I was using my 
computer while the recovery went on in the background.

I've installed CCC and I'll be making clone partitions sometime in the 
next few days when I have enough time to read through all the options 
and the effects and limitations of the various options.  (eg: turn this 
one on and then some other option works differently or not at all or to 
no effect...).  Need to grok all that first.


-- 
   Privacy has become an essential personal chore that most
   people are not trained to perform.
                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21393

Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:
> So, great if your your HD fails, but no help if you've accidentally erased 
> a file you want. I know which problem is more apt to happen in my life. :-)

That's why I use both SuperDuper and Time Machine, each backing up to a 
different drive. When it comes to backing up I'm a belt and suspenders 
kind of guy.

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21397

Patty Winter:
> > So, great if your your HD fails, but no help if you've accidentally erased 
> > a file you want. I know which problem is more apt to happen in my life. :-)

Király:
> That's why I use both SuperDuper and Time Machine, each backing up to a 
> different drive. When it comes to backing up I'm a belt and suspenders 
> kind of guy.

Bingo. Two kinds of backups for two different purposes.

I lost an important file to a floppy disk failure on my Osborne I in
the early 80's, even though the machine had two drives and I could have
backed it up. I learned my lesson then and don't recall having lost an
important file since.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21409

On 2014-03-09, Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
> Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:
>> So, great if your your HD fails, but no help if you've accidentally erased 
>> a file you want. I know which problem is more apt to happen in my life. :-)
>
> That's why I use both SuperDuper and Time Machine, each backing up to a 
> different drive. When it comes to backing up I'm a belt and suspenders 
> kind of guy.

I really dislike SuperDuper's practice of rewriting my cron table
entries with tab delimiters when you use it for scheduled backups. So I
stopped using it for regular backups.

Time Machine lets me recover individual files on an ad hock basis, or do
entire system restores if needed. And since I can tell Time Machine to
backup to multiple destinations (I think that is a recently-added
feature - perhaps in 10.7 or 10.8), and I have Time Machine backup
everything to sparse disk image bundles, I don't feel as much of a need
to use a second utility.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21394

In article <531bb8fb$0$52771$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Patty Winter
<patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:

> So, great if your your HD fails, but no help if you've accidentally erased 
> a file you want. I know which problem is more apt to happen in my life. :-)

superduper and time machine protect against two different failure
modes. using both is a good strategy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21398

Davoud:
> >In one mode, the only one I know and use, SuperDuper clones
> >the entire hard drive on its first run and, if it's a bootable drive,
> >makes the clone bootable. In subsequent runs it copies only what is
> >necessary to keep the clone identical to the original HD. The beauty of
> >this is that if the (internal, we'll suppose) HD fails, after a new
> >drive is installed, SD clones the backup to the new internal drive and
> >one is back in business. It's the best recovery system I know from a
> >catastrophic failure.

Patty Winter:
> So, great if your your HD fails, but no help if you've accidentally erased 
> a file you want. I know which problem is more apt to happen in my life. :-)

That can only be incaution. There are so many ways to duplicate a file
to your main drive or a backup drive while you're working on the file
that that just shouldn't happen.

Further, there is a pretty good chance that the file is readily
accessible on your latest SuperDuper clone. Or on your Time Machine
backup.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21390

On 2014-03-08 22:59:42 +0000, Davoud said:

> Patty Winter:
>> SuperDuper only retains the latest backup? It isn't like Time Machine?
> 
> Correct. In one mode, the only one I know and use, SuperDuper clones
> the entire hard drive on its first run and, if it's a bootable drive,
> makes the clone bootable. In subsequent runs it copies only what is
> necessary to keep the clone identical to the original HD. The beauty of
> this is that if the (internal, we'll suppose) HD fails, after a new
> drive is installed, SD clones the backup to the new internal drive and
> one is back in business. It's the best recovery system I know from a
> catastrophic failure.

I'm a long time user of both SuperDuper! and Time Machine, SuperDuper! 
for recovery from a drive failure and Time Machine for recovery of a 
prior versiion of a file.

As a somewhat amusing aside, I keep a SuperDuper! clone on a portable 
drive and when I go to the Genius Bar at the Apple store I take that 
drive with me as it is far easier than lugging my iMac. At the Genius 
Bar I  can then boot from that portable drive and if any changes are 
made to correct a problem I can then take the portable drive home and 
restore my iMac drive from it. I've received a number of "That's a 
great idea" remarks from different Geniuses!

-- 
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21400

In article <bo1ug6Fm67eU1@mid.individual.net>,
TaliesinSoft  <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
>
>I'm a long time user of both SuperDuper! and Time Machine, SuperDuper! 
>for recovery from a drive failure and Time Machine for recovery of a 
>prior versiion of a file.

But you can also restore everything from TM, right? Just not as
conveniently...


Patty

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21407

TaliesinSoft:
> >I'm a long time user of both SuperDuper! and Time Machine, SuperDuper! 
> >for recovery from a drive failure and Time Machine for recovery of a 
> >prior versiion of a file.

Patty Winter:
> But you can also restore everything from TM, right? Just not as
> conveniently...

Perhaps I've looked in the wrong places, but my understanding is that
TM is for file backup and SD (and Carbon-Copy Cloner) are for making
full-disk clones for system *and* file recovery (but see next
paragraph). That's the way I use the two pieces of software and their
associated hard drives.

As for recovering a file from TM, the interface is unnecessarily
elaborate, but it's not difficult, either. Once more, file recovery is
not SD's forte unless you catch the fact that you have a damaged or
missing file before the next SD backup, because the next backup will
have the same damaged file or the same file will be missing.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21408

On 2014-03-09, Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:
>
> In article <bo1ug6Fm67eU1@mid.individual.net>,
> TaliesinSoft  <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
>>
>>I'm a long time user of both SuperDuper! and Time Machine, SuperDuper! 
>>for recovery from a drive failure and Time Machine for recovery of a 
>>prior versiion of a file.
>
> But you can also restore everything from TM, right? Just not as
> conveniently...

Yep, you can. And I find it very convenient too. 

If you have a recovery partition (introduced in Mac OS X 10.7 Lion), you
can start the Mac with the Command-R keys held down (or hold down the
Option key, then select the recovery partition), and then choose
"Restore From Time Machine Backup" in the recovery assistant. Otherwise,
if you start the Mac from the system installer disc/application, you can
choose Utilities > Restore System From Backup. In either case, if the
Time Machine volume is connected to the computer or available on a
shared network volume, you can select it. You'll be presented with a
screen showing the dates of all of the backups contained on the Time
Machine backup volume. It's pretty simple.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21412

In article <bo3n4eF2ji2U1@mid.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger  <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>On 2014-03-09, Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:
>>
>> But you can also restore everything from TM, right? Just not as
>> conveniently...
>
>Yep, you can. And I find it very convenient too. 
>
>if you start the Mac from the system installer disc/application, you can
>choose Utilities > Restore System From Backup. In either case, if the
>Time Machine volume is connected to the computer or available on a
>shared network volume, you can select it. You'll be presented with a
>screen showing the dates of all of the backups contained on the Time
>Machine backup volume. It's pretty simple.

And if you select the most recent backup, TM will go back and find
all the older parts it needs to do a complete backup?


Patty

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21414

On 2014.03.09, 15:23 , Patty Winter wrote:
> In article <bo3n4eF2ji2U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger  <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-03-09, Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> But you can also restore everything from TM, right? Just not as
>>> conveniently...
>>
>> Yep, you can. And I find it very convenient too.
>>
>> if you start the Mac from the system installer disc/application, you can
>> choose Utilities > Restore System From Backup. In either case, if the
>> Time Machine volume is connected to the computer or available on a
>> shared network volume, you can select it. You'll be presented with a
>> screen showing the dates of all of the backups contained on the Time
>> Machine backup volume. It's pretty simple.
>
> And if you select the most recent backup, TM will go back and find
> all the older parts it needs to do a complete backup?

Yes.

Since TM is incremental it only backs up changes hour to hour (or less 
often if you use a utility to invoke it).  So recovery is the original 
files that never changed and the latest versions of files that did 
change - but not files that you deleted unless you then go "back in 
time" to find them manually.

Also caches and any folders that you've selected to be excluded from 
backups will not be backed up so of course not available when doing 
recovery.  Should not be an issue - but it's worth looking at your 
"Exclude" list (Sys Prefs/TM/Options) from time to time to see if there 
is anything to add or remove from the exclude list.

-- 
... it may be that "in the cloud" really isn't the best term
    for the services these companies offer.  What they really
    want is to have us "on the leash."
                   -David Pogue, Scientific American, 2014.02

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21418

On 2014-03-09, Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:
>
> In article <bo3n4eF2ji2U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger  <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>On 2014-03-09, Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> But you can also restore everything from TM, right? Just not as
>>> conveniently...
>>
>>Yep, you can. And I find it very convenient too. 
>>
>>if you start the Mac from the system installer disc/application, you can
>>choose Utilities > Restore System From Backup. In either case, if the
>>Time Machine volume is connected to the computer or available on a
>>shared network volume, you can select it. You'll be presented with a
>>screen showing the dates of all of the backups contained on the Time
>>Machine backup volume. It's pretty simple.
>
> And if you select the most recent backup, TM will go back and find
> all the older parts it needs to do a complete backup?

Yep. Works great in my experience. You end up with a new system
configured just like the old one.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.apps

csiph-web