You can use them to back up any amount of information, from one file to an entire drive. It doesn't matter whether the drive is internal or external, and it doesn't matter what kind of data is being backed up.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
carbon copy vs. super duper pros and cons?
- Thread starter j2048b
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
THANKS!
now THIS is awesome! will be throwing in about 5-7 tb of space within the next week to back it all up esata style!
Can you provide some further insight as to why you don't recommend putting them on different partitons? I have alot of questions regarding this. What happens when TM eats up all the data within that partition. How will you have space to create another clone? What happens if SD is cloning while TM is trying to do a incremental backup? Can you adjust the size of a partition after its been created as a TM dedicated drive? without damaging the backup file?
I've taken the same path. I've used CCC and I have purchased SuperDuper. But both have major limitations if you want to backup files instead of clone disk images. So I'm using ChronoSynch for my file backups.
What kind of limitations? You can easily backup selected files/folders, as well as volumes. My guess is you're not completely familiar with how they work.
Are you addressing Talmy or me, or both? We both seem to have similar experiences. I am going to assume you are not implying incompetence so I will elaborate. One of my needs is to back up files but also keep a finder level access on the network from several computers. I know I can create clones with selective files folders and volumes with CCC and SuperDuper. But what I want to do is to keep two drives online mounted and in synch. ChronoSynch does this easily. Perhaps this can be done but it was not obvious with SuperDuper.
I've only ever used CCC, and It works well.
It's very simple, and it works fast. It seems to preserve every file, and allow for the backup to be bootable. Selecting 'Delete anything that is not in the same path on the source' will make sure it's a perfect clone of your entire system. It has ad's on the window, but that's no big deal at all.
The only option that it could have to make it better is the option to exclude files or folders from the backup (your entire iTunes library for example). That would make the total backup smaller, you would just have to make sure you backup whatever folders you exclude elsewhere.
It's very simple, and it works fast. It seems to preserve every file, and allow for the backup to be bootable. Selecting 'Delete anything that is not in the same path on the source' will make sure it's a perfect clone of your entire system. It has ad's on the window, but that's no big deal at all.
The only option that it could have to make it better is the option to exclude files or folders from the backup (your entire iTunes library for example). That would make the total backup smaller, you would just have to make sure you backup whatever folders you exclude elsewhere.
It can't be done. Synchronization is unidirectional with SuperDuper! and I believe CCC as well. These are best only for cloning drives, which is a valid approach for backups.
I certainly wasn't implying incompetence, but possible incomplete familiarity with CCC or SuperDuper, as I said. Your original statement was:
This isn't true. They don't have limitations in backing up files. As you've now explained, your intent is to synchronize files, not backup files. There's a difference. CCC and SD are backup tools, not sync tools.
Exactly. CCC and SD are designed to backup (unidirectional) not sync (bidirectional) files/folders. The original post and this thread is about backing up files, not synchronizing files/folders.
You don't need TM at all for this. You can create a bootable backup with CCC or SD, then keep that backup current with regular incremental backups. Many choose to alternate between two backup drives, moving one off-site and keeping the other current with incremental backups, then swapping them periodically.
Last edited:
Fair enough, better precision in my vocabulary would have helped!
When I first started working with these programs, what I wanted to do was have a series of unidirectional copies from a computer to another computer acting as a central server with a third computer having access to those files. Now I just keep things synchronized and it is working well. But for making copies for archival purposes, both CCC and SuperDuper work well.
When I first started working with these programs, what I wanted to do was have a series of unidirectional copies from a computer to another computer acting as a central server with a third computer having access to those files. Now I just keep things synchronized and it is working well. But for making copies for archival purposes, both CCC and SuperDuper work well.
Wait. Are you implying you can create disk images incrementally instead of having to do an entire new disk image every time. (question is regarding reduction in time and upkeep)
Perhaps I need to be more specific:
Can they do incremental backups of an entire disk image?
As in, I could boot my computer up and restore from a specific date with a disk image.
No, they will quickly make an up to date clone of your hard drive by means of an incremental back up on top of a previous cloned copy.
You can't access the previous cloned backups.
I'm sorry for so many questions, Im unfamiliar with all the options.
I's a term "clone" the same as a disk image?
Both CCC and SD can create a bootable copy of your hard drive. Then, you can use incremental backups to keep that bootable copy current by updating it with any changes since the last full or incremental backup. Unlike Time Machine, they don't keep a history of "snapshots" of your drive, which would allow you to scroll back through a history of changes to your drive's contents.