View Full Version : Superduper and Google Desktop

04-05-2007, 10:50 AM
I installed Google Desktop for Mac and tried to clone my drive today using Superduper. The cloning failed, so I stopped the GD indexing and cloning still failed.

I then uninstalled the GD and ran Superduper successfully.

Are there plans to support GD as is done with Spotlight during cloning?
Any workarounds?


04-05-2007, 11:18 AM
I don't really have enough information here, kersch. Could you send the log from the failure to me at the support email address (preferably using "Send to shirt pocket")?

04-06-2007, 08:23 PM
I am having a similar problem but in my case, the Smart Update is just hanging.

04-06-2007, 08:55 PM
Kersch's problem mysteriously went away: my guess is that you have to exclude Google's desktop database if it's updating -- it's likely being constantly written while you're going through the first indexing.

You can use "lsof" to determine what's actually being copied. Search the forums for "lsof" and you'll see how to do it.

04-06-2007, 09:01 PM
Sorry, I am a bit confused. Where exactly do I exclude what I assume you mean to be the GDS index?

If you mean somehow stop GDS from indexing while SD is runnning, I thought I had done that within in GDS but it didn't seem to work.

04-06-2007, 09:08 PM
I don't know where the index is, actually, so it's realy hard for me to help there. But if you think you've stopped it, perhaps it's backing up the index itself? That's what "lsof" will tell you...

04-06-2007, 09:13 PM
The location of the index is not the problem as I know where it is. I was just confused about exactly where I am supposed to "exclude it." However, I took a look at the Help file for SD and I see the procedure for excluding files there, so I will give that a try tomorrow.

I didn't realize you could do that in SD or I would have tried that first. These forumsmake it too easy to cry for help before I read the manual!


04-06-2007, 10:55 PM
Geez, if you really want me to slow down and be less responsive...

04-07-2007, 04:30 AM
No, not that!