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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #56721 > unrolled thread

Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups.

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

Contents

  Super Duper v.  CCC  for rotating/incremental backups. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-19 16:52 -0500
    Re: Super Duper v.  CCC  for rotating/incremental backups. Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-19 16:15 -0800
      Re: Super Duper v.  CCC  for rotating/incremental backups. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-20 00:39 +0000
        Re: Super Duper v.  CCC  for rotating/incremental backups. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-02-20 03:09 +0000
          Re: Super Duper v.  CCC  for rotating/incremental backups. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-20 15:22 +0000
            Re: Super Duper v.  CCC  for rotating/incremental backups. billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-20 16:10 +0000
              Re: Super Duper v.  CCC  for rotating/incremental backups. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-20 16:33 +0000
              Re: Super Duper v.  CCC  for rotating/incremental backups. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-20 17:44 +0000
                Re: Super Duper v.  CCC  for rotating/incremental backups. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-20 17:52 +0000
                  Re: Super Duper v.  CCC  for rotating/incremental backups. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-21 01:32 +0000
                    Re: Super Duper v.  CCC  for rotating/incremental backups. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-21 17:13 +0000
                Re: Super Duper v.  CCC  for rotating/incremental backups. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-20 17:39 -0500
                  Re: Super Duper v.  CCC  for rotating/incremental backups. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-21 01:33 +0000
                    Re: Super Duper v.  CCC  for rotating/incremental backups. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-20 20:44 -0500
              Re: Super Duper v.  CCC  for rotating/incremental backups. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-20 17:37 -0500
      Re: Super Duper v.  CCC  for rotating/incremental backups. Ned Mantei <ned.mantei@biol.ethz.ch> - 2014-02-20 09:21 +0100
    Re: Super Duper v.  CCC  for rotating/incremental backups. billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-20 16:20 +0000
    Re: Super Duper v.  CCC  for rotating/incremental backups. Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2014-02-25 15:49 -0800

#56721 — Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups.

I.
My backups to date (for the iMac) are (roughly):

Projects: burned to DVD partway through and/or at the conclusion of the 
project.  Each is copied and the copy is kept at a friend's house. 
Projects often cover several DVD's (x2 for copies).   Re-burn every 5 
years (±).

Apps: Apps that are downloaded (paid for) are burned to DVD.  License 
data is burned to separate CD/DVD's (and often written down on 4x6's).

E-mail.  Prior year's e-mails are burned to DVD.

Interim:  Time Machine only; some DVD copies of some stuff.

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

II.
But, I'd like to return to a (non-TM) incremental backup as well.  Given 
the well known mystery drops of T-M, I don't want to depend on it.  I'd 
like to return to rotating HD's out of the house to keep at a friend's 
house. (as I used to do with my Windows BUs).

So: HD "A":  Full copy ("clone") + incremental backups over the course 
of 2 weeks; rotate HD "B" back and HD A out.

Repeat.  (Maybe do a HD A, B, C rotation.  TBD).

I'll still make "project" DVD's in duplicate.  (I may get a B-Ray burner 
to cover projects that span more than 1 DVD - that happens more and more 
it seems).

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

III.
In light of such a backup which is better (for baseline + incremental), 
Super Duper or CCC?

At what frequency are the incrementals reasonably applied?  (daily?)

I'd probably still keep T-M going on another drive - it has allowed me 
quick recovery of a given file in the past on several occasions.

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

Anyone using B-Ray burners on a Mac?  Comments?

Thanks.

-- 
    ... 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] | [next] | [standalone]

#56725

In article <gaednTV_Y74tupjOnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:


> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> III.
> In light of such a backup which is better (for baseline + incremental), 
> Super Duper or CCC?

I have both, and they seem comparable. I haven't tested them
side-by-side for speed. I run them at night, so speed is not important
to me.

I use SuperDuper! for making nightly, incremental clones of my startup
drive to an external HD, which will be bootable if my startup drive
fails and swappable with my startup drive so I will have very little
downtime when the startup drive fails. 

I use CCC for making incremental clones of my iTunes and iPhoto
libraries to another external drive (Drobo raid).

If I had to pick one, it would be CCC, because you can use it to backup
an individual folder (plus subfolders) to some other folder located
anywhere. SD! doesn't seem to do that.

> At what frequency are the incrementals reasonably applied?  (daily?)

Nightly. There is no reason not to run a backup every night. If your
startup drive fails, you will need to boot off your clone, then restore
recently modified files from your Time Machine backup. I am not sure
how that is done, since the TM backup is for another drive. Best to
minimize the amount of work lost on the startup drive.

> I'd probably still keep T-M going on another drive - it has allowed me 
> quick recovery of a given file in the past on several occasions.

Same here. Hourly incremental backups are very convenient.

> Anyone using B-Ray burners on a Mac?  Comments?

Well, I got one for Christmas, but I haven't installed it yet. So no
opinions on its usefulness.

-- 
Jim Gibson

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

#56726

Just a note: 

One thing that always drives me nuts with SuperDuper scheduled backups
is that it rewrites all cron table entries (even ones that have nothing
at all to do with SD) using tab characters as delimiters, which means
things are extremely wide, spanning multiple lines. I've asked them
(years ago) to address this, and their response was borderline dismissive. 

-- 
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]

#56729

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> One thing that always drives me nuts with SuperDuper scheduled backups

I can't use the scheduled backups at all. They require the same user 
account to be logged in, in the foregound, and with the screen lock 
off when the scheduled time arrives. I have no idea what user account 
will be in front at any given time. So I can't use the scheduling 
feature.

> I've asked them (years ago) to address this, and their response was 
> borderline dismissive. 

Ditto.

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

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

#56751

In message <le3rm3$343$1@dont-email.me> 
  Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> One thing that always drives me nuts with SuperDuper scheduled backups

> I can't use the scheduled backups at all. They require the same user 
> account to be logged in, in the foregound, and with the screen lock 
> off when the scheduled time arrives. I have no idea what user account 
> will be in front at any given time. So I can't use the scheduling 
> feature.

And my screen is *never* unlocked unless I am using the machine. Not on
any machine I've ever used.

Back in the 80s people would run to the bathroom and leave their
terminals logged in, only to come back and find someone had posted
something to USENET that was designed to get Chuq's attention (and not
in a good way).

-- 
People who would not believe a High Priest if he said the sky was blue,
and was able to produce signed affidavits to this effect from his
white-haired old mother and three Vestal virgins, would trust just about
anything whispered darkly behind their hand by a complete stranger.

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

#56753

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:

> And my screen is *never* unlocked unless I am using the machine. Not on
> any machine I've ever used.

For those unaware of it, run Keychain Access, open its Preferences,
and check the "Show keychain status in menu bar" box.  Then, when you
want to lock your screen, just click on the lock icon and select Lock
Screen.

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

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

#56759

On 2014-02-20, billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>
>> And my screen is *never* unlocked unless I am using the machine. Not on
>> any machine I've ever used.
>
> For those unaware of it, run Keychain Access, open its Preferences,
> and check the "Show keychain status in menu bar" box.  Then, when you
> want to lock your screen, just click on the lock icon and select Lock
> Screen.

Great tip. That's one of the first things I do when setting up any Mac.
Very handy!

-- 
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]

#56763

In message <le59du$6ig$1@reader2.panix.com> 
  billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:

>> And my screen is *never* unlocked unless I am using the machine. Not on
>> any machine I've ever used.

> For those unaware of it, run Keychain Access, open its Preferences,
> and check the "Show keychain status in menu bar" box.  Then, when you
> want to lock your screen, just click on the lock icon and select Lock
> Screen.

⇧^-Eject is much faster.

-- 
At 20:43 the dome of St. Elvis Cathedral shattered... and the Devil
walked the earth again. He'd never really left.

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

#56765

On 2014-02-20, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <le59du$6ig$1@reader2.panix.com> 
>   billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote:
>> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>
>>> And my screen is *never* unlocked unless I am using the machine. Not on
>>> any machine I've ever used.
>
>> For those unaware of it, run Keychain Access, open its Preferences,
>> and check the "Show keychain status in menu bar" box.  Then, when you
>> want to lock your screen, just click on the lock icon and select Lock
>> Screen.
>
> ⇧^-Eject is much faster.

Not sure what keys you mean. All I see is an up arrow followed by a
superscript letter A followed by "-Eject". 

Command-Option-Eject puts the computer to sleep, which isn't the same
thing as locking the screen.

-- 
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]

#56784

In message <bmmtncFevf5U10@mid.individual.net> 
  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2014-02-20, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> In message <le59du$6ig$1@reader2.panix.com> 
>>   billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote:
>>> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>>
>>>> And my screen is *never* unlocked unless I am using the machine. Not on
>>>> any machine I've ever used.
>>
>>> For those unaware of it, run Keychain Access, open its Preferences,
>>> and check the "Show keychain status in menu bar" box.  Then, when you
>>> want to lock your screen, just click on the lock icon and select Lock
>>> Screen.
>>
>> ⇧^-Eject is much faster.

> Not sure what keys you mean. All I see is an up arrow followed by a
> superscript letter A followed by "-Eject". 

Odd, you got the UTF-8 cahracter but not the ^ indicating control?

Control shit and eject turns the screen off. If you do not have stupid
security settings, this locks the screen.

> Command-Option-Eject puts the computer to sleep, which isn't the same
> thing as locking the screen.

My computers never sleep because every time you let a computer sleep you
delay SkyNet.

-- 
He [Vimes]'d never felt really at home with swords, but a cleaver was a
different matter. A cleaver had weight. It had purpose. A sword might
have a certain nobility about it, unless it was the one belonging for
example to Nobby, which relied on rust to hold it together, but what a
cleaver had was a tremendous ability to cut things up.

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

#56801

On 2014-02-21, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <bmmtncFevf5U10@mid.individual.net> 
>   Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-02-20, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> In message <le59du$6ig$1@reader2.panix.com> 
>>>   billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote:
>>>> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>>>
>>>>> And my screen is *never* unlocked unless I am using the machine. Not on
>>>>> any machine I've ever used.
>>>
>>>> For those unaware of it, run Keychain Access, open its Preferences,
>>>> and check the "Show keychain status in menu bar" box.  Then, when you
>>>> want to lock your screen, just click on the lock icon and select Lock
>>>> Screen.
>>>
>>> ⇧^-Eject is much faster.
>
>> Not sure what keys you mean. All I see is an up arrow followed by a
>> superscript letter A followed by "-Eject". 
>
> Odd, you got the UTF-8 cahracter but not the ^ indicating control?

Hmmm... Well it's possible that I misread the ^ for the letter A,
possibly due to the font I use for display. Here's a screen shot:

<http://jollyroger.kicks-ass.org/slrn/control_char.png>

Sure looks like a superscript letter A to me!

> Control shit

LOL!  : D

> and eject turns the screen off. If you do not have stupid
> security settings, this locks the screen.

Nice. I wasn't aware of that key combination. I'll commit
Control-Shift-Eject to memory. Thanks!  : )

>> Command-Option-Eject puts the computer to sleep, which isn't the same
>> thing as locking the screen.
>
> My computers never sleep because every time you let a computer sleep you
> delay SkyNet.

: )

If I don't sleep my 2008 Mac Pro, my energy bill is higher. Plus, I'm
trying to get as much life out of it as possible, and figure after many
years of never letting the thing sleep, it deserves a little rest when
not in use. : D

-- 
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]

#56776

On 2014.02.20, 12:44 , Lewis wrote:
> In message <le59du$6ig$1@reader2.panix.com>
>    billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote:
>> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>
>>> And my screen is *never* unlocked unless I am using the machine. Not on
>>> any machine I've ever used.
>
>> For those unaware of it, run Keychain Access, open its Preferences,
>> and check the "Show keychain status in menu bar" box.  Then, when you
>> want to lock your screen, just click on the lock icon and select Lock
>> Screen.
>
> ⇧^-Eject is much faster.

No eject on my office keyboard but I'll try it later from the family room.

-- 
   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]

#56785

In message <wqGdnYRp67eFGZvOnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2014.02.20, 12:44 , Lewis wrote:
>> In message <le59du$6ig$1@reader2.panix.com>
>>    billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote:
>>> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>>
>>>> And my screen is *never* unlocked unless I am using the machine. Not on
>>>> any machine I've ever used.
>>
>>> For those unaware of it, run Keychain Access, open its Preferences,
>>> and check the "Show keychain status in menu bar" box.  Then, when you
>>> want to lock your screen, just click on the lock icon and select Lock
>>> Screen.
>>
>> ⇧^-Eject is much faster.

> No eject on my office keyboard but I'll try it later from the family room.

F-12 often doubles as eject on keyboards without an eject key. Not sure
about with this shortcut, but worth a shot.



-- 
"Humor is a rubber sword - it allows you to make a point without drawing
blood." - Mary Hirsch

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

#56791

On 2014.02.20, 20:33 , Lewis wrote:
> In message <wqGdnYRp67eFGZvOnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>    Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2014.02.20, 12:44 , Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <le59du$6ig$1@reader2.panix.com>
>>>     billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote:
>>>> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>>>
>>>>> And my screen is *never* unlocked unless I am using the machine. Not on
>>>>> any machine I've ever used.
>>>
>>>> For those unaware of it, run Keychain Access, open its Preferences,
>>>> and check the "Show keychain status in menu bar" box.  Then, when you
>>>> want to lock your screen, just click on the lock icon and select Lock
>>>> Screen.
>>>
>>> ⇧^-Eject is much faster.
>
>> No eject on my office keyboard but I'll try it later from the family room.
>
> F-12 often doubles as eject on keyboards without an eject key. Not sure
> about with this shortcut, but worth a shot.

F12 is marked as eject but doesn't do anything.  I've tried setting it 
up in the past via the keyboard menus (Apple and Logitech) to no avail.

-- 
   Those who have reduced our privacy, whether they are state
   or commercial actors, prefer that we do not reduce theirs.
                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

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

#56775

On 2014.02.20, 11:10 , billy@MIX.COM wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>
>> And my screen is *never* unlocked unless I am using the machine. Not on
>> any machine I've ever used.
>
> For those unaware of it, run Keychain Access, open its Preferences,
> and check the "Show keychain status in menu bar" box.  Then, when you
> want to lock your screen, just click on the lock icon and select Lock
> Screen.


Thanks for that.  I don't need it here but a friend is looking for 
something that simple.

-- 
    ... 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]

#56742

On 20/02/14 01:15, Jim Gibson wrote:
> Nightly. There is no reason not to run a backup every night. If your
> startup drive fails, you will need to boot off your clone, then restore
> recently modified files from your Time Machine backup. I am not sure
> how that is done, since the TM backup is for another drive. Best to
> minimize the amount of work lost on the startup drive.

Daily is definitely good, but the timing can easily vary. My computers 
are in sleep mode when I'm not using them. Similarly, external disks are 
unmounted and turned off except for maybe half an hour per day. After 
the first backup, which takes an hour or two, the incremental backups 
typically take 10--15 minutes. My office computer is thus scheduled to 
run the backup when I am typically off at lunch, and my home computer 
for 8:30 in the evening when it will usually be running because I am 
using it.

Ned

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

#56757

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> writes:

> In light of such a backup which is better (for baseline + incremental), 
> Super Duper or CCC?

CCC can archive old stuff.  As well, it is a more flexible tool.
I've never asked for support on either one, but Mike Bombich's
(CCC) web site is far more informative - lots of good info there.

> At what frequency are the incrementals reasonably applied?  (daily?)

One can never have too many backups.  I do them daily, and then for
things that require a lot of work, several times a day.  I am not
(currently, anyway) using time machine.

> Anyone using B-Ray burners on a Mac?  Comments?

I like DVD-RAM.  Great defect management, does reads after writes,
etc.  The only problem now is they seem to be going the way of the
floppy disk, M/O, etc.  Panasonic will no longer sell me media -
they haven't said so, but I'm guessing they're no longer making
them.  They stopped doing the drives a few years ago.

With plain optical media, I always make two copies.....

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

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

#57298

On 2014-02-19 21:52:47 +0000, Alan Browne said:
> II.
> But, I'd like to return to a (non-TM) incremental backup as well.  
> Given the well known mystery drops of T-M, I don't want to depend on 
> it.  I'd like to return to rotating HD's out of the house to keep at a 
> friend's house. (as I used to do with my Windows BUs).

Have you considered CrashPlan?

Their *free* version allows you to back up to a drive connected to your 
own machine and/or a drive connected to either another machine of yours 
or a friend's machine -- over the network.

I have a two sites, each with a desktop machine and each does Crashplan 
backups to the other.  (i.e., home is backed up to the office, and vice 
versa).  (And the laptops go to both - no locally attached repository 
for the laptops)

Way easier than hauling drives back and forth between them, and fully 
automated.

Just sayin'.   (And re: other conversation, the Crashplan repository on 
the machine at home is on the Drobo there...)

Note that TM does just fine backing up to a networked drive (i.e., the 
laptop backs up to a drive connected to the airport extreme, too), 
Crashplan does not - it really hates a networked drive, and if you want 
to back up over the network, it goes to another *machine* which itself 
has a local drive).  At least, that's my experience.  A Mac Mini would 
be *perfect* for this, but I don't have one...

Any back up plan which requires me to swap drives by hand is a plan 
which is destined for failure.  Time Machine and Crashplan just work.  
I do periodically make a SuperDuper clone, but mainly I use SD for 
cloning drives when swapping them out of machines or getting ready to 
do major software updates like an OS update.

Anyway, that's what works for me.  YMMV, obviously.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web