Carbon Copy Cloner 3.4.5 vs. SuperDuper! 2.6.4

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by fatespawn, May 7, 2012.

  1. fatespawn macrumors member

    fatespawn

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoish
    #1
    So, I found a couple of threads on these programs, but both programs have morphed over time. 2007 and 2010 threads are obsolete now. I'm curious about perspectives on both of these programs.

    I used to use CCC back when I had a PowerMac G5 and cloned my internal HD to another internal HD. It worked very well but "scheduling" backups wasn't supported back at that time. So, I forked over the $19 (now $27.95) for SuperDuper! That way, my backups could be scheduled regularly.

    Well, with the advent of Time Machine, I didn't really keep up with the progress of either program - though I continued to clone my "Data Drive" with SuperDuper! every few days.

    Anyway, my backup setup might be a bit more anal than many folks out there, but if folks are interested, here's what I have.

    First, I have a 2009 MacPro so, physical HD real estate isn't an issue. I boot from an SSD and have my user folder and all data stored on another 3TB drive. Time Machine does it's incremental backups to another internal drive but excludes many of my larger folders like Movies and Home Videos. Those are cloned, but due to lack of space, I don't incrementally back them up with TM.

    So, I've re-fell-in-love with CCC. I had a HD fail last week and SuperDuper choked on the bad sector of my Data Drive and shut down mid-stream. I didn't know what had changed, so I tried CCC. CCC passed right over the bad sector and continued the backup (2 TB total) and simply reported the error at the end (lost edits to one home movie, and two e-mails...).

    Great! So, Now I have a new drive installed and all is well. I also discovered a new feature (new to me at least) on CCC. CCC (like TM) lets you create a Temp-folder for any deleted data from your original drive. This creates a psudo-time machine style backup that you access through the finder. It will continue to fill up the drive until it's down to 15GB. This is really a huge benefit and I don't think SD has the same feature though it offers a different backup scheme called sandboxing - I'll leave that for someone else to describe.

    Anyway, I just thought some folks would like a recent review of these two programs. Since CCC has added scheduling and the temporary folder option, I think CCC is in the lead now with new features (ad supported like everything else iOS these days) and I am waiting for SuperDuper! to catch back up.

    Hope this helps someone. Opinions on CCC would be welcome since I'm "new" to it again. Success or failure stories?
     
  2. robgendreau macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    #2
    I don't think clones are that necessary except in certain situations.

    Many people use either of these for scheduled backups, which is fine. But Macs come with Backup, which can do much of the same. It's not a clone per se, but as long as the copied files are the same it doesn't matter to most of us most of the time.

    I'm wondering what you get out of cloning those big files that you exclude from TM that you wouldn't get by just copying them?

    Rob
     
  3. pknz macrumors 68020

    pknz

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Location:
    NZ
    #3
    I use both.

    At home I use SuperDuper! as it has an easy schedule option.

    At work I use CCC, a while back it was able to recognize a couple of file formats that SuperDuper didn't pick up.
     
  4. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #4
    The huge advantage is... if you have a HD failure, you have a bootable clone to work from

    I have been able to switch over and work from a clone immediately with no lost down time

    I use TM and CCC both for different reasons
     
  5. curby macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    #5
    I'm looking for a cloning solution at the moment. Can you share the reasons why/when you use each over the other? Thanks!
     
  6. Fishrrman macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #6
    "I don't think clones are that necessary except in certain situations."

    You're very lucky to have not been IN such a "situation" yet.

    "The huge advantage is... if you have a HD failure, you have a bootable clone to work from
    I have been able to switch over and work from a clone immediately with no lost down time"

    Exactly.

    There is NOTHING that can replace the advantage of having a cloned backup "at hand" and ready to boot from in a "moment of extreme need".

    Time and time and time again, I see reports right here on MacRumors from folks who -- in a such a moment of extreme need -- try to access their Time Machine backups and..... can't. For whatever reason, they can't "get to" the files they've backed up using TM.

    If they had had a cloned backup from either CCC or SuperDuper, they could be booted up and running in little more than the time that it takes to plug in the backup and turn it on.

    A note about the original review:
    Some time ago, I recall reading that if SuperDuper encounters an error or problem while doing a backup (such as bad sector), it will abort the whole process. CarbonCopyCloner, however, "skips over" the problem, and tries to keep on going. I've seen SuperDuper "choke" while doing a backup myself. I realize that (theoretically) if some files cannot be copied the result is not a true "clone" of the original, but the folks who author SD should give the user the option to "continue past a bad file" if that is revealed during a backup.
     
  7. qveda macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    #7
    I have a home drive for OS + apps, and a second drive for all else. I'd like to separate categories of data that might need different frequencies of backup. e.g.

    1) old or large files that I might only need to back up weekly or don't want TM to use up too much disc space copying these every hour.

    2) from frequently changing and important files (photoshop, LR, email etc) where I might want to use TM.

    3) personal , legal, financial files that only need backup weekly, but might want to back up to an external mirror drive so I can swap them and put one 'off premises'.

    4) some categories I might want to back up to two different external drives.

    5) and I definitely want to back up my home OS+apps drive to a bootable clone.

    seems that having these kinds of categories on separate partitions or HD's might allow for easier scheduled backups - right ? but that has its disadvantages (cost, inflexibility of partitions). QUESTION: do either CCC or SD allow for backing up Folders to one or more external drive locations ?
     
  8. yukio macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    #8
    Carbon Copy Cloner does, and easily.

    SuperDuper does, but it involves editing scripts. Not insurmountable, but not quite as easy as CCC either.
     

Share This Page