Shirt Pocket Discussions

Shirt Pocket Discussions (http://www.shirt-pocket.com/forums/index.php)
-   General (http://www.shirt-pocket.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Confused about "Cloning" and "Sharing" (http://www.shirt-pocket.com/forums/showthread.php?t=591)

jfahrner 08-03-2005 06:26 AM

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

dnanian 08-03-2005 08:32 AM

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?

jfahrner 08-04-2005 03:46 AM

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

dnanian 08-04-2005 08:42 AM

Ah, because on a Safety Clone, you want the aliases to resolve to the original volume!

Glad you like SD!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:37 PM.

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