 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
07-19-2009, 10:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Time Machine running 5X faster than SuperDuper
I recently purchased a Buffalo LinkStation NAS for backups and performed a Time Machine backup then a backup using SuperDuper.
The Time Machine backup completed in about 10-12 hours. The SuperDuper backup is now on hour 45 and is reporting about 85% complete. Can anyone suggest why the SuperDuper backup is running so much slower than the Time Machine? Here are some of my system statistics: Mac OSX 10.5.7 Backing up 300 GB of used space on a 1 TB HDD NAS is connected over gigabit ethernet 
|
| Tags |
| slow, superduper, time machine, timemachine |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Super Slow Time Machine After SuperDuper Restore | kipshaw | General | 5 | 07-12-2009 03:45 PM |
| Using SuperDuper for an offsite Time Machine backup | toy | General | 1 | 07-26-2008 01:02 PM |
| SuperDuper causing Time Machine to fail | jrdub | General | 2 | 02-26-2008 11:22 PM |
| Time Machine stopped working - SuperDuper involved? | adriansmith | General | 18 | 02-20-2008 04:48 PM |
| Will Time Machine make SuperDuper obsolete? | JAC II | General | 9 | 11-07-2007 04:54 PM |
Threaded Mode