Should I run superduper and time machine?

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by Dingo Dave 69, Jun 28, 2009.

  1. Dingo Dave 69 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    #1
    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?
     
  2. old-wiz macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Location:
    West Suburban Boston Ma
    #2
    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.
     
  3. Fishrrman macrumors G4

    Fishrrman

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #3
    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
     
  4. JNB macrumors 604

    JNB

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Location:
    In a Hell predominately of my own making
    #4
    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.
     
  5. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #5
    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 [​IMG]
     
  6. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #6
    me too. i use whatever the apprpraite backup is for the time its needed
     
  7. Vogue Harper macrumors 6502

    Vogue Harper

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Location:
    Serenity
    #7
    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.
     

Share This Page