Super Duper and Time Machine on same HD

[chefwong]

i'm new to the apple platforum. Have new 15" MBP and I paired it up with a 300GB Lacie rugged portable. Most of my data sits on the SAN on the network.

On the Lacie, I have been using Time Machine as a backup. Recently had to service my the MBP for service and used Super Duper to run on the HD.

I assume the SD does not reset the bit archive but it totally ate up the HD space on the portable. Just tried to run TM but there was not enough space on the HD for TM to run.

For all intents and purposes, for you guys running double combo backups - Time Machine and also Super Duper for bootable backups, is it recommened to just use a seperate HD for each functionality...

Looks like I'm going to have to but I figured I'd just ask

 

[MacDawg]

i'm new to the apple platforum. Have new 15" MBP and I paired it up with a 300GB Lacie rugged portable. Most of my data sits on the SAN on the network.

On the Lacie, I have been using Time Machine as a backup. Recently had to service my the MBP for service and used Super Duper to run on the HD.

I assume the SD does not reset the bit archive but it totally ate up the HD space on the portable. Just tried to run TM but there was not enough space on the HD for TM to run.

For all intents and purposes, for you guys running double combo backups - Time Machine and also Super Duper for bootable backups, is it recommened to just use a seperate HD for each functionality...

Looks like I'm going to have to but I figured I'd just ask

I partitioned my HD
One partition for TM
One for Carbon Copy Cloner

I have had no issues

Woof, Woof - Dawg

 

[sascha h-k]

i use superduper only as tm "looks great", but is more or less useless ...

tm takes to much place on the hdd for nothing.

 

[alphaod]

tm takes to much place on the hdd for nothing.

No it takes up more space because every time you change a file, Time Machine needs to back up the changed file and still retain the original thus taking up more space; if they don't retain the original, then it will be nothing more than a crappy mirroring system which isn't of any use since you can't "go back in time," hence the name Time Machine.

 

[dimme]

I use them both. The thing I like about time machine is it is automatic.

 

[MacDawg]

No it takes up more space because every time you change a file, Time Machine needs to back up the changed file and still retain the original thus taking up more space; if they don't retain the original, then it will be nothing more than a crappy mirroring system which isn't of any use since you can't "go back in time," hence the name Time Machine.

Correct

It is a difference in philosophy

Cloning will theoretically protect from a catastrophic failure and get you back running with a bootable mirrored copy

Time Machine allows you to go back to a previous state, theoretically protecting you against corruptions, deletions, and more

I want both

Woof, Woof - Dawg

 

[bcaslis]

I use both Time Machine and SuperDuper but not on the same backup disk. I have a Time Capsule for Time Machine and an external USB drive for SuperDuper.

 

[sickmacdoc]

I use them both. The thing I like about time machine is it is automatic.

SuperDuper (and Carbon Copy Cloner for that matter) can also perform automatic backups as well- and are actually much more flexible in the ability to schedule backups on whatever interval you want rather than the hourly schedule of the standard TM. Yes there are other utilities that you can change the interval for TM backups, but the built in scheduling in SD and CCC take care of that themselves.

 

[929406]

both are great and serve different purpose, I use SD to backup everything separately as I formatted my internal MBP HD into system, media and others.

One of the best investments I made in backup has been this:

http://www.stardom.com.tw/sohotank_appliance.htm

with multiple firewire 800 connections and a swappable HDs it store all my backups in a Mac like looking device