Should I run superduper and time machine?

[Dingo Dave 69]

I am upgrading my macbook to a 500GB drive. Previously I had a 120GB drive in it and used an 500GB external drive for time machine with a partition for a superduper clone too.

I am wondering, is there really a need to use both? Do I really need to use superduper if I am using time machine?

 

[old-wiz]

I use both; if your system HD crashes, you can immediately boot from the SuperDuper clone, whereas with time machine you have to do a restore.
I have 2 external firewire drives; one is partitioned with time machine in one partition and the other partition for Super Duper. The other HD has a Super Duper partition and another partition where I backup my home directory regularly. Never hurts to have redundant backup; each has good points.

 

[Fishrrman]

RE: Should I run superduper and time machine?

RE:
"I am wondering, is there really a need to use both? Do I really need to use superduper if I am using time machine?"

One could almost turn this question around to "why bother with Time Machine when you have SuperDuper?"

I use SuperDuper and wouldn't bother with TimeMachine (even though I don't currently run Leopard, and have no intention of installing it on either my g4 or Intel iMac).

With SuperDuper, you have an IMMEDIATELY BOOTABLE (emphasis intentional) copy of your primary hard drive. You can selectively boot from it, and use it to "run maintenence" on your primary hard drive. Can that be done with Time Machine?

Granted, a SuperDuper clone is only as "current" as the last time you did an incremental backup. But again, it's a fully-bootable exact copy of your primary drive.

I _can_ understand why having a "continuously running" backup might be worth it with "mission critical" projects. But for most users, running SuperDuper once or twice a week - or even once daily - should provide for most backup situations.

- John

 

[JNB]

The advantage of TM is that it gives multiple versions of any item throughout system history, whereas SD gives only one, and that would be as of the last cloning.

I'm a firm believer in using both, as I have needed them for different reasons, and used them in different ways. They are most decidedly different solutions and complement each other. You shouldn't look at them in an "either/or" light.

 

[MacDawg]

The advantage of TM is that it gives multiple versions of any item throughout system history, whereas SD gives only one, and that would be as of the last cloning.

I'm a firm believer in using both, as I have needed them for different reasons, and used them in different ways. They are most decidedly different solutions and complement each other. You shouldn't look at them in an "either/or" light.

Absolutely agree JNB
I use Carbon Copy Cloner and Time Machine
They do compliment each other by giving a different perspective on backups

Woof, Woof - Dawg

 

[dukebound85]

Absolutely agree JNB
I use Carbon Copy Cloner and Time Machine
They do compliment each other by giving a different perspective on backups

Woof, Woof - Dawg

me too. i use whatever the apprpraite backup is for the time its needed

 

[Vogue Harper]

The advantage of TM is that it gives multiple versions of any item throughout system history, whereas SD gives only one, and that would be as of the last cloning.

Exactly - I use both for this reason. If you delete a file from the last time you used Super Duper and Time Machine and backed up again using both, with the Super Duper clone that file will be gone for good however, with Time Machine I can go back and retrieve it from the past when it still existed.