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 10-25-2007, 04:49 PM
badlydrawnboy badlydrawnboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 90
A different angle on SD & Time Machine integration

Hi Dave,

I'm thinking of upgrading to 10.5. I've read your "Time's Arrow" blog post and all of the threads here concerning SD & Time Machine integration. I realize SD for 10.5 isn't complete yet, and I'm perfectly willing to wait.

However, my question is related to how Time Machine and SD would work together in a Sandbox / Hard Drive configuration. That is, right now in my Mac I have a Sandbox running on a fast boot disk, and my normal "Hard Drive" on another internal disk. I've really grown to love this set-up for its flexibility and security, and another significant advantage is that apps like Photoshop seem to run much faster on a dedicated boot drive without the user directory and other files on it.

I'm confused, though, about how this configuration would work with Time Machine. It seems like it wouldn't... because if Time Machine is running on the Sandbox, it's only going to back up what's on the Sandbox - right? Which does not include any user files, preferences or really anything else except applications & system changes.

And yet Time Machine can't be running on the Hard Drive, since I'm booted on the Sandbox.

So it would seem that if I choose to use 10.5 and Time Machine, I'll have to abandon the Sandbox configuration... which is a real shame. Unless I'm missing something?

But I guess the whole idea with Time Machine is to negate the need for a Sandbox, since one can easily revert to an earlier "snapshot" of the drive with Time Machine in the same way one could do it with Sandbox.

What Time Machine can't do, however, is make my OS install and apps run as fast as they did on a dedicated sandbox drive.

I'd love to hear your thoughts, Dave (and anyone else facing the same dilemma!)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-25-2007, 04:53 PM
dnanian's Avatar
dnanian dnanian is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Weston, MA
Posts: 14,345
Send a message via AIM to dnanian
Time Machine can back up any attached drive, so I don't see a problem there...
__________________
--Dave Nanian
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-25-2007, 05:48 PM
badlydrawnboy badlydrawnboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 90
Dave,

So that means I can tell Time Machine to back up both the Sandbox and the Hard Drive to two separate internal or external drives?

And then I could use SD in the normal way I do now to create a bootable clone of the Hard Drive to yet another drive?

Boy, the amount of drives is sure adding up in this strategy!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-25-2007, 06:15 PM
dnanian's Avatar
dnanian dnanian is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Weston, MA
Posts: 14,345
Send a message via AIM to dnanian
No, from everything I've read Time Machine backs everything up onto one drive.
__________________
--Dave Nanian
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-25-2007, 06:48 PM
badlydrawnboy badlydrawnboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 90
Very cool. That makes things a lot simpler!

I have a Sandbox, a Hard Drive, a Time Machine drive, and another drive for bootable clones of the Hard Drive. I can continue along as I'm doing it now, except I'll have the added benefit of Time Machine too.

That said, since I've gotten in the habit of backing up nightly, I don't imagine Time Machine will be that big of a deal for me. Maybe I won't even use it.

Thanks Dave for your prompt replies (as always). I assume we'll get an email from you when SD is ready for 10.5?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-25-2007, 07:11 PM
dnanian's Avatar
dnanian dnanian is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Weston, MA
Posts: 14,345
Send a message via AIM to dnanian
No, no email about new version -- SD! itself will let you know.

No promises that the Sandbox will work on Leopard -- it should, but don't use it between Tiger and Leopard, eh?

As I've always said, more redundancy is never a bad thing... so, I wouldn't necessarily be reluctant to use Time Machine. Just recognize what it is and isn't good at.
__________________
--Dave Nanian
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-25-2007, 08:09 PM
badlydrawnboy badlydrawnboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnanian View Post
No, no email about new version -- SD! itself will let you know.

No promises that the Sandbox will work on Leopard -- it should, but don't use it between Tiger and Leopard, eh?

As I've always said, more redundancy is never a bad thing... so, I wouldn't necessarily be reluctant to use Time Machine. Just recognize what it is and isn't good at.
I guess my brain isn't working too well today. Thanks for reminding me that I won't be able to use SD to create a Sandbox on 10.5 until SD is available for 10.5! Obviously.

So in the meantime, I guess I'll just do the one-drive thing.

You're probably getting tired of being asked this question, but in terms of the update of SD, are we talking days, weeks or months?

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-25-2007, 08:25 PM
dnanian's Avatar
dnanian dnanian is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Weston, MA
Posts: 14,345
Send a message via AIM to dnanian
It all depends on how our testing goes. Not months.
__________________
--Dave Nanian
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-26-2007, 02:54 PM
MMM MMM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 98
Question

We have a similar question. It's really the only thing that worries us about SD/Time Machine. Right now we have SuperDuper backing up to our external Firewire drive. The ext. drive is set up into partitions, and SuperDuper puts its backup into one of those partitions. The other partitions currently aren't being used. Here's our question; will we be able to tell Time Machine to put its data into one of those other partitions, or will Time Machine want to hog the entire external drive, forcing us to buy a second drive for SuperDuper. According to everything that we've read there is no way to tell Time Machine to use a specific partition on the ext. harddrive, just which 'drive' to use, and this concerns us
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-26-2007, 03:32 PM
dnanian's Avatar
dnanian dnanian is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Weston, MA
Posts: 14,345
Send a message via AIM to dnanian
Yes, you direct Time Machine to a volume (partition). The other partitions won't be touched.
__________________
--Dave Nanian
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-26-2007, 09:37 PM
MMM MMM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 98
Smile

Thank you dnanian We just finished setting up the hard drive for Time Machine and SuperDuper! Looking forward to having both backups
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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
backup file size—SD vs. Time Machine jotaro General 10 06-23-2009 11:00 AM
How will SuperDuper! integrate with Time Machine? Felix General 15 10-23-2007 04:55 PM
Future of SuperDuper? (in light of Leopard Time Machine) backerupper3160 General 10 10-20-2007 11:18 PM
Leopard Time Machine vs. SuperDuper MMM General 5 07-05-2007 06:20 PM
write problems after cloning machine mkrueger General 13 12-31-2004 08:17 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:34 PM.


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