Shirt Pocket Discussions  
    Home netTunes launchTunes SuperDuper! Buy Now Support Discussions About Shirt Pocket    

Go Back   Shirt Pocket Discussions > SuperDuper! > General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-03-2005, 05:26 AM
jfahrner
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Confused about "Cloning" and "Sharing"

I'm a little bit confused about how Cloning and Sharing Works.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

The term "Share" is used in SuperDuper for a Symbolic Link, a reference to another file or directory by pathname.

When creating a "Safety Clone", some files are symlinked to the original location, instead of beeing copied. These are the users home directories and third party applications.

Now I read in some topics of this forum, that the backup volume should have the same name than the original volume (e.g. "Macintosh HD"). Ohterwise some applications which use symlinks could reference files from the original disk instead of their counterpart on backup disk, when the system was booted from backup disk. This makes sense to me.

But now I see a problem in "Sharing". Shared files should always be referenced to their original location. But when booting from a backup volume with the same name as the original volume, the symlinks for shared files go to the backup volume.

Isn't this a conflict situation?
On a "Safety Clone", symlinks in Apples applications should go to the backup drive, therefore the same volume name. But shared user directories should go to the original drive, which they don't when the volume name is the same. I'm very confused...

I would use a different name for the backup volume. I think symlinks in applications should always be relative and should not cause a problem. But symlinks in Shares are absolute, and this would cause a problem if original and backup volume have the same name.

Regards
Jochen
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-03-2005, 07:32 AM
dnanian's Avatar
dnanian dnanian is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Weston, MA
Posts: 14,293
Send a message via AIM to dnanian
We do not recommend using the same name for a Safety Clone. In fact, we usually suggest calling it "Sandbox": only name your Backup volume the same as the original (a Safety Clone is not a backup).

Make more sense?
__________________
--Dave Nanian
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-04-2005, 02:46 AM
jfahrner
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Yes, that makes more sense to me.
But when this works best for a safety clone, why not for a full backup?
Why should a full backup have the same name?

BTW: yesterday I partitioned my backup drive into two partitions, one for a full mirror of my internal drive, and one for storing several backup archives as sparsed images. Works great! SuperDuper! is simple but yet powerful!

The things I like:

- Smart Update -> saves time
- custom copy scripts based on standard scripts -> ability to exclude files or to backup single directories
- use of sparse images -> let me create more than one backup set on my backup disk
- save configurations and let them run through applescript -> automate several backup/archiving tasks

As others said before: SuperDuper! is worth every cent.

Regards
Jochen
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-04-2005, 07:42 AM
dnanian's Avatar
dnanian dnanian is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Weston, MA
Posts: 14,293
Send a message via AIM to dnanian
Ah, because on a Safety Clone, you want the aliases to resolve to the original volume!

Glad you like SD!
__________________
--Dave Nanian
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.