Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 64

Thread: SuperDuper! 2.1, 2.14, 2.5

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    Yes Rick, very ugly.

    I tried out SuperDuper 2.5 on 2 boot drives with 10.4.11. So it works just fine. Have yet to try it out in Leopard. k

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    NW Montana
    Posts
    8,197

    Default

    Downloaded and installed v2.5. Have not tested.
    That's ugly. Just having the second device plugged in slowed the data rate that much? Wow.
    Would having a FW Device like a cam plugged in but not on do this. I suppose I can test it.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    rwm,

    I did test that very thing yesterday, several other FW devices plugged in but not on, both FW800 and FW400. Did not slow down the running FW800 drive. Another thing I have to remember. k

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,818

    Default

    Yep,
    Randy's onto something. I remember reading that some people encountered problems with FCP with other FW devices on the bus. If I recall correctly something light an iSight when you're trying to capture could can drop frames, typically a problem with not getting enough sustained throughput.

    So it be worthwhile unplugging some of the other devices to see. Or at least getting them on another bus. With FCP for instance, I've never seen a problem with my iSight which is plugged in full-time, but that's because it's plugged into the mb FW port, while my video camera is on a PCI card -- separate buses.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    Very true Eric. iSight is the one FW device that I only plug in when I'm going to use it. Forgot about that. k

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    I erased my backup 10.4.11 internal boot drive with Tiger DU. On to SuperDuper 2.5 on my Cuda1T in Leopard. I cannot change the repair permissions in SD. I chose the full backup which repairs permissions on the Cuda1T (took 23' for 182GB) and then erases/initalizes the old BU internal volume, a 500GB Maxtor 7HMLIII-16MB cache drive.

    I got about 1/4 done when I decided to STOP, in order to check on the progress of my kids returning from Bombay, India. They get into SFO at 630pm tonight. Plus I wanted to update QuickTime via Leopard's Software Update and change to Smart Update within SD. I actually STOPped 2 more times in Smart Update and finished this morning. I let it run all night, estimated a total of 7 hours by only factoring in one repair permissions. Took a long time for 182GB.

    To be safe, I did an option-boot with the DiskWarrior 4.0 CD in, chose it, and it booted. Ran DW Rebuild Directory ONLY on the 2 Leopard volumes, and for good measure the Tiger boot volume. Then shutdown. Turned off the external Cuda1T and then booted to the internal Leopard volume. Works great, haven't tested everything yet, but nearly so. I know my printer still does not work in Leopard. And it reboots to 10.4.11 (my main internal drive) and back to 10.5.1 with no problems.

    One change in SD 2.5, previous versions would copy my custon volume icons and color label to the cloned volume. It no longer copies the icons but does copy the color label.

    I plan to wait for at least 10.5.2 and maybe a new printer before going all Leopard. k

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    Correction, in Options -> General, you can uncheck repair permissions. I would not do that in Tiger but seems unnecessary to repair permissions in Leopard and saves a lot of time. k

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    NW Montana
    Posts
    8,197

    Default Just so I know

    I assume SuperDuper works better if the drives being copied from or copied to are idle? Defiantly better reads/writes. But... Does it hurt anything to work away on my computer even the boot drive while it is being copied? Thanks, Randy

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    Personally I don't do anything on the boot drive while it is being copied. It is trying to copy that drive and you are changing things. k

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    NW Montana
    Posts
    8,197

    Default

    OK, Good that was my thought as well. But sitting today waiting and watching SD copy got me wondering. Thanks,

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    on the landline, Mr. Smith
    Posts
    7,787

    Default

    Be safe. Reboot to kill all processes, log in to your admin account, start SD - and nothing else -and walk away until it is done.

    Insight: Today I was cloning the drive on my MBP at work. Could not partition the drive because DU balked and said that there was a process running and the drive could not be unmounted. After a reboot, same problem. Keep in mind I was not booting to the drive in question. What was running?

    No idea. Booted to Safe Mode so that no processes or apps would start automatically, and presto. Partitioned, cloned, done. Was using CCC, but the same basic info and practices for all cloning tools.
    "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    Good practices Unc. k

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    NW Montana
    Posts
    8,197

    Default Yes Thanks

    Insight: Could not partition the drive because DU balked and said that there was a process running and the drive could not be unmounted. After a reboot, same problem. Keep in mind I was not booting to the drive in question. What was running?
    Yesterday I was repartitioning a drive because my System folder had out grown it's targeted backup partition. After DU and SD telling me it could not unmount a volume.... I shutdown the computer and all applications, rebooted, scratched my head and after several attempts (almost yelled for help ) then remembered the data file to my Palm Desktop application was on the partition that would not unmount. Put in back on the boot drive and everything was happy. I just need to practice these things.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,010

    Default

    Kaye, I have a question for you about SuperDuper. I wondering if it can handle items at a volume's top (root) level in the same way as the default behavior of CarbonCopyCloner 2.3.

    Cloning with CCC 2.3, if items exist on the top level of the destination volume that are not on the top level of the source volume, it will leave those items untouched by default and not erase them.

    This is very helpful and has become a key aspect of my backup system. It allows me to maintain large quantities of archived material in separate folders at the top level of my main backup drive and also include a clone of my internal system & data volume- without having to partition the drive into separate volumes. I can then clone this main backup drive to the other two rotating backup drives- leaving me with 4 versions of my system & data volume, and three versions of my archived folders- plus 3 versions of a Retrospect daily backup.....

    Unfortunately the new CCC 3 is built differently and eliminated that default behavior (turns out a lot of people were using this "feature" in much the same way as I am). There is a 'workaround' but it is inelegant and unnecessarily complicated. The dev may at some point put the feature back in but it must not be easy to do since it hasn't been done yet, and a bunch of people were clamoring for it.

    Since CCC 2.3 is PowerPC only and CCC 3 is UB, the thought is CCC 2.3 may not play too well on Intel or Leopard-

    Therefore, I'm investigating alternatives to CCC in preparation for an eventual migration to Intel/10.5 and wondering if SuperDuper can be set to leave untouched specific folders at the top level of the destination volume..

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    Boots,

    I don't know the answer to that. You might ask the author of SD. Probably the very same as your post. k

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    on the landline, Mr. Smith
    Posts
    7,787

    Default

    Hey boots,

    Trying to wrap my brain around this.....so, do you need selective erasing?
    "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,010

    Default

    Thanks Kaye, I'll investigate the documentation and maybe contact the dev.

    Hi Unc,
    I guess it is, now that you put it that way- selective erasing. Items at top level of destination that are not present on source are not erased during clone of source to destination. Below are screenshots of (left) the source volume, and (right) the destination volume. As you can see, the items marked in red on the destination volume are not present on the source volume. These are not erased during clone of source to destination- using CCC 2.3, but are (without complicated workaround) with CCC 3. I'm hoping SuperDuper can mimic same default behavior of CCC 2.3.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,010

    Default

    I contacted SuperDuper's developer; unfortunately it does not have this particular feature.
    Am waiting to hear back from Mike Bombich as to whether future versions of CCC3 will re-introduce this particular feature...

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    That is unfortunate Boots. k

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    My first glitch with SuperDuper, in this case v2.5 Smart updating 10.4.11 from my primary to my backup boot drive. A warning window appeared after I was about one third of the way thru with words to the effect that it was unable to continue.

    i could not figure out what the problem was so I quit SuperDuper and thought about it for a day or so. Eventually I remembered reading something on MacFixIt about a conflict with VirusBarrier X5 (which I do use) but went for months with no problems. Well the latest version of VirusBarrier X5 which supposedly fixed the conflict, in my case, caused the conflict in both 10.4.11 and 10.5.4. The fix according to MacFixIt is to disable real-time scanning in VirusBarrier prefs temporarily. That disable survives a Restart and a Shut Down and Start Up. I must be the only one on this forum using both applications. VirusBarrier can also cause a conflict with Time Machine (which I don't use).

    Once disabled, I again ran SuperDuper Smart update and the update continued to completion with no problems. It appeared that the glitch did not cause a loss of data on either drive. k

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •