Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

hajime

macrumors G3
Original poster
Jul 23, 2007
8,175
1,414
Hello, I have to MBP and one 2TB external drive. Can I backup both computers using one external drive? In this case, which program should I use (Time Machine or Super Duper)? Thanks.
 
Sure. As long as the external drive has enough capacity to hold backups of both computers.

One method would be to make two partitions on your external drive. Then use SuperDuper to backup computer #1 to partition #1 and backup computer #2 to partition #2.

Just remember that you can not connect both of your computers to the external drive at the same time.
 
Hello, I have to MBP and one 2TB external drive. Can I backup both computers using one external drive? In this case, which program should I use (Time Machine or Super Duper)? Thanks.
Sure it can. I would partition the drive, with one partition for each backup.

For backups, I recommend Carbon Copy Cloner You can use version 3.5.1 ($40) or 3.4.7 (free, and works well on OS X 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8). Unlike SuperDuper!, CCC also clones the OS X Recovery partition.
 
If you use Time Machine, you don't have to repartition at all. Time Machine will just automatically use the available space.
 
No need to partition the drive. Use time machine and it will create different directories.
 
I think partition is better. If you just use Time Machine with different directories there's nothing to stop time machine on one system from filling the HDD.
Ben's Law of Partitions: Any arbitrary partition size will become unsatisfactory in the future, and require re-partitioning.
If one computer has more changing data than the other, then it will require more space anyway. Let the computers fight it out for space rather than imposing an artificial constraint that will still limit the size of the backups.
 
I think partition is better. If you just use Time Machine with different directories there's nothing to stop time machine on one system from filling the HDD.

Wrong! You are a Windows switcher that won't give up that ghost. :eek:

Time Machine drive should be about twice as big as the internal drive being backed up. That is how it is designed with it's time differences in backup up (going back into time).

Better yet is get a Time Machine, a powered USB2 HUB and two USB2 externals. Use the Time Machine for the internal, The second hard drive as another time Machine and the third whatever you want, just Choose the Right Spectrum for 802.11n Deployments.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Wrong! You are a Windows switcher that won't give up that ghost. :eek:

It has nothing to do with a Windows mindset. I prefer partitioning because I prefer making bootable clones with CCC, which Time Machine can't do. No, you don't need partitions with TM, but you do if you want a bootable clone.

Time Machine drive should be about twice as big as the internal drive being backed up.
This is one of the reasons why I don't prefer TM. With CCC, your backup can be no larger than the drive being backed up.
 
I think everyone is over complicating this for the guy... He just wants to backup two computers. I suggested partitioning because I feel it's simpler.
 
With CCC, your backup can be no larger than the drive being backed up.

While true, it neglects one of the nice benefits of Time Machine by foregoing the ability to move back in time and recover old versions of files and folders. A Clone with CCC or SuperDuper is nothing more than a snapshot of the backed up drive at one point in time. Time Machine, on the other hand, keeps and maintains snapshots at intervals as far back as your hard drive space allows.
 
I'm assuming that the external drive is either USB or Firewire. This would prevent both computers from being connected to the drive at the same time thereby limiting the amount of incremental backups that Time Machine can do anyway.
 
While true, it neglects one of the nice benefits of Time Machine by foregoing the ability to move back in time and recover old versions of files and folders. A Clone with CCC or SuperDuper is nothing more than a snapshot of the backed up drive at one point in time. Time Machine, on the other hand, keeps and maintains snapshots at intervals as far back as your hard drive space allows.
CCC can also provide versioning of backed up files, but many don't require such functionality. For those that do, TM is fine. I've never found a need to "roll back the clock".
 
Time Machine drive should be about twice as big as the internal drive being backed up. That is how it is designed with it's time differences in backup up (going back into time).

One correction: Twice as big as the data you are backing up. If your family has four MacBooks with 500GB hard drive each, but nobody uses more than 100 GB, then you don't need 500 GB x 4 MacBooks x 2 = 4 TB space. And someone using 500-800 GB on his iMac might buy an iMac with 3TB because a bigger drive will be faster; that doesn't mean that person needs 6 TB backup; 1.5TB will be plenty.
 
One correction: Twice as big as the data you are backing up. If your family has four MacBooks with 500GB hard drive each, but nobody uses more than 100 GB, then you don't need 500 GB x 4 MacBooks x 2 = 4 TB space. And someone using 500-800 GB on his iMac might buy an iMac with 3TB because a bigger drive will be faster; that doesn't mean that person needs 6 TB backup; 1.5TB will be plenty.

Yea but some users want to go back far in their Time Machine so I say that to cover bases.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.