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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #56725

Re: Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web