PDA

View Full Version : How will SuperDuper! integrate with Time Machine?


Felix
10-13-2007, 06:16 AM
Dave, in view of the 12 Oct 07 article on AppleInsider detailing how Leopard's Time Machine works, can we now get your thoughts on how you envision SuperDuper! and Time Machine playing together?

Must be some synergy between the two apps that I'm overlooking.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/10/12/road_to_mac_os_x_leopard_time_machine.html

dnanian
10-13-2007, 12:41 PM
Have you read the "Time's Arrow" post at http://www.shirt-pocket.com/blog?

Felix
10-14-2007, 06:10 PM
Nope, I don't see anything about "Time Arrow." Better link?

chris_johnsen
10-14-2007, 06:46 PM
Using Time's Arrow (or Time Arrow, if you like) in the search box of the blog to which Dave linked will produce the blog entry as the only result (or first result, respectively).

Direct link to the blog entry in question: Time's Arrow (http://www.shirt-pocket.com/blog/index.php/comments/times_arrow/)

Felix
10-15-2007, 07:07 AM
Thanks, Chris.

Was hoping for something more current (and specific). Several developer builds have been released since that article was written and it should be pretty well firmed up by now how Leopard and SD are going to play together (without violating any NDAs).

dnanian
10-15-2007, 09:27 AM
Other people leaking does not allow me to leak, though, Felix.

The post I wrote a year ago, though, is still quite accurate. The two products work well side-by-side, with one focusing on rapid recovery and one on "temporal" backups...

Felix
10-16-2007, 05:04 AM
Thanks, Dave.

So, it sounds like it'll be business as usual for the SD application and we won't see any major changes.

I was hoping you might have figured out some ingenious and innovative way to more closely integrate SD and Time Machine; thus, making SD the single "go-to" Mac app for backups...whether reconstituting an entire drive after a catastrophe or merely recovering (in a totally intuitive manner) a single file which had been mistakenly discarded a day, week or month ago. A new version of SD which would also be more network friendly for use on drives plugged into the newer AirPort Extremes. Further, a version which would automatically collapse Sparse Images to their smallest size when repeatedly backing up to them. I could go on but you get the idea.

Guess I'll just have to wait another 15 days (or until Leopard's release) to see if indeed you've been working on something which will be totally integrated and poised to blow the competition away. Or whether I'll be running two totally separate backup schemes (certainly not desirable). Or whether Time Machine alone will suffice.

dnanian
10-16-2007, 09:05 AM
We're certainly always working on enhancements, Felix, but there's no real way we can 'integrate' like that with Time Machine -- TM is way too tied into the system.

If you're going to use Time Machine, you'll end up with two totally separate backup schemes. It actually is rather desirable, because they're good at different things, and additional redundancy helps protect your data more, which is the idea, no?

As far as image enhancements go, can't promise that in the next release, but there are various things on our list for the future.

MMM
10-17-2007, 07:27 PM
This is what is so confusing for me (and I'm sure others). The link to the article above says that:

"Time Machine is designed to provide automatic “temporal” backup"

As I understood it the main reason why we still needed SuperDuper is because Time Machine does not make a bootable backup. However since Apple has updated their Time Machine page it now says:

"Time Machine copies the entire contents of the computer to your backup drive. It copies every file exactly (without compression), skipping caches and other files that aren’t required to restore your Mac to its original state."

So if it's copying the entire contents and every file, why wouldn't the backup drive be bootable? :confused:

dnanian
10-17-2007, 07:31 PM
Basically, it's not bootable for the same reason a Retrospect backup (as opposed to "Duplicate") isn't bootable. It's not storing it in a bootable format -- it's storing it in a Time Machine format. Once restored it'll be bootable, assuming everything was copied properly (and it was a full backup) but not until.

MMM
10-17-2007, 07:42 PM
It's not storing it in a bootable format -- it's storing it in a Time Machine format.

OK, that makes sense :)

Thank you dnanian :D

Coolcmsc
10-21-2007, 06:24 PM
Why is it beneficial to be able to boot the backup on the external HD using SD when you can restore the iMAC HD with Time Machine from the external HD?

Is it because, you can run the bootable external SD backup immediately, but the iMAC HD might need to be replaced which would take a while? Of course, eventually, you would have to have your iMAC taken to pieces to change a broken internal HD and neither SD ot TM will save time then......

What say ye?

dnanian
10-21-2007, 06:48 PM
Well, sure it will -- if you have a different Mac around, you can still work on those files with that -- or a loaner Mac.

Coolcmsc
10-22-2007, 05:31 PM
I'll have to buy a second MAC then. At last I have a reason! Thanks, C,

cyberbryce
10-23-2007, 04:42 PM
I'd like to continue to maintain bootable backups with Leopard, but I'd be concerned about how Time Machine works on the backed-up system if you maintain the Time Machine backups on a different partition of the same drive:

When you boot off the backed-up partition, it seems that Time Machine might immediately start trying to save backups of files wherever it left off when it was created. If it just replicates hard links and copies differences, that might lead to confusion but not data loss. Alternatively, Leopard somehow detects the inconsistency, ensuring that Time Machine on the backed-up system leaves the earlier backups alone.

Thoughts?

dnanian
10-23-2007, 04:55 PM
I think it'll work fine...