Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: kengai on September 14, 2013, 07:10:59 am
-
I use a MacBook Pro and Lightroom 5, with an external hard disk to save the photo files.
To back up the machine I use Time Machine.
To back up the external hd to another hd what software to use?
-
I use Superduper, scheduling it to run at night. (I set the computer to come on right before it is supposed to run.) I use the Superduper option that never deletes files from the backup when I am backing up my images and lightroom catalogs.
I also use Superduper to do a nightly clone of the OS to a firewire drive so I have a bootable backup. Superduper does different kinds of backing up/cloning.
It works for me.
-
I used to use SuperDuper and it is a great product. I ran into an ongoing issue with an error that had something to do with AppleScript. Dave there tried to help but we never got it resolved. As I also owned Chronosync for more complex work, I switched to that for daily and unattended back-ups. One feature it has that SD didn't was a pretty robust verification of data. That can produce more error reporting which is what one would hope for and expect.
SuperDuper cost less and is vastly easier to use than Chronosync. If all you need is simple cloning, I'd get SuperDuper a try. If you need to sync folders and need more complex backup functionality, or you need to clone specific folders among multiple machines over a network, Chronosync is the way to go.
Stick with Time Machine too. It is a life saver if you want to 'go back in time' to recover something where SuperDuper can't provide that functionality. TM plus SD is a very good 'belt and suspender's' backup strategy.
-
+1 for SuperDuper for sole-proprietors/very small businesses.
I use TM, but for me it is an additional layer of protection, mostly for times when, for whatever reasons, I don't get my daily back-ups done.
I clone my system drive every night.
I maintain two backups of all Libraries (I use Aperture) and camera files. Each week I rotate the backup media, keeping one set off-site and never having the working copy and both back-ups in the same physical location. Each night SuperDuper updates the backups of all Libraries and camera files. I have SuperDuper programmed to run when I plug in my back-up drives.
If I lose my computer, I lose a day's work. If I lose my studio, I lose a week's work.
One note about SuperDuper: it is much easier to maintain a regime based on drives (or partitions) than on folders or files. Today's drive throughput is very fast (USB3, Thunderbolt, SSDs) and drives are (imho) a bargain. I recommend buying drives in triplicate, dedicating one drive to your working copy, and using the other two for SuperDuper clones (as back-ups).
-
I use Synk pro, best backup software in my opinion.
-
SuperDuper cost less and is vastly easier to use than Chronosync. If all you need is simple cloning, I'd get SuperDuper a try. If you need to sync folders and need more complex backup functionality, or you need to clone specific folders among multiple machines over a network, Chronosync is the way to go.
Both handy tools but used as Andrew says in different ways. Though I've found Chrono sync to be a bit rubbish of late as it doesn't do it job properly by failing to delete files from the back up when deleted from source. Apparently this happens if you ask Chronosync to sync folders that Chronosync didn't originally back up from scratch - causes a lot of problems for me. :(
-
Then there is Carbon Copy Cloner.
-
Then there is Carbon Copy Cloner.
+1...I got tired of the error notifications that Chronosync seems to pop. Never used SuperDuper...
-
I though CCC worked like Super Duper by backing up an entire drive at a time, as opposed to being able to back up individual folders like Chronosync can do. For example I use Crhronosync to back up my LR Catalogue.
-
I use CCC, TM and Dropsync for folders and moves to my NAS
-
I though CCC worked like Super Duper by backing up an entire drive at a time, as opposed to being able to back up individual folders ...
CCC can do both , entire drives and individual folders - both either locally or remotely. It can mirror as well as backup. CCC is an excellent product. DropSync is good, very good BUT the interface is such that you have to be very careful not to make a mistake such as confusing ' source and target ' which is quite easy to do.
-
CCC can do both , entire drives and individual folders - both either locally or remotely. It can mirror as well as backup. CCC is an excellent product.
Their website needs an overhaul then as there's no obvious indication that CCC can do that. May try it out as Chronosync has become too painful of late.
DropSync is good, very good BUT the interface is such that you have to be very careful not to make a mistake such as confusing ' source and target ' which is quite easy to do.
That's a serious design fail right there. :o
-
Jeremy,
You're right about the overhaul..
If you download the software, the option to choose a folder is in the drop down box. Screenshot enclosed.
All best,
M
ps link to their documentation pdf
http://www.bombich.com/software/docs/CCC/Carbon%20Copy%20Cloner%20Documentation.pdf
-
Ta for the reminder and top tip. I seem to recall trying the 30 day trial before, but found Chronosync better to use.
That is until is had issues deleting files from mirrored folders/drives.
-
As a testimony to Bombich software, I'm copying below a brief, self-explanatory email exchange below. I emailed Mike Bombich on a Sunday evening - on Monday, 09:30 NY time I received the reply and the solution. Yup, I know, egg on my face … but full credit to him.
quote
… CCC installed and worked perfectly .. I then installed Windows 7 64-bit & Parallels 6. Everything functions perfectly but I can no longer access CCC. It refuses to load - giving an error message and the error report copied below. The VM is not running when I launch CCC.
unquote
----
From: Mike Bombich (Bombich Software support staff)
Subject: CCC - Parallels 6
I think Rogue Amoeba's AirFoil is causing this widespread problem. Do you have that installed?
http://rogueamoeba.com/utm/2011/08/20/well-shoot/
Mike
-
I use rsync, a utility that is included with the OS.
-
Hi,
An other vote for CCC.
I have been using it for a long time.
If you are already on Mavericks I will recommend to be super careful. Not because I know of any issue, but because is fairly new.
Best regards,
J. Duncan
-
I vote for CCC. Excellent piece of software and Mike is a really nice guy. :)
-
DropSync is good, very good BUT the interface is such that you have to be very careful not to make a mistake such as confusing ' source and target ' which is quite easy to do.
I've not had that problem and I use it daily. In fact I use Dropsync to write backup files when shooting my Canon tethered to C1 Pro since C1 will not allow recording the the camera card and the computer at the same time. I set it for .5 seconds to run the backup and it works great.
-
I use rsync, a utility that is included with the OS.
Geeky you. I use rsync on my Linux boxes :)
CCC use to be rsync based. I have not review it's internals, some maybe still is.
Best regards,
J. Duncan
-
I use a MacBook Pro and Lightroom 5, with an external hard disk to save the photo files.
To back up the machine I use Time Machine.
To back up the external hd to another hd what software to use?
I question your premise: that to create another backup, that you want to back up the backup.
Let me explain, in a longwinded fashion:
I've been working with computers for more than fifty years, almost as long as I've been making photographs. I retired about 15 years ago, and, when non-profits find out about my computer R&D experience, and, more to the point, my briefer time as a CIO, they want me to consult. I always agree.
I love to consult before the disaster. It's not so much fun to be called in after the disaster.
Many of the disasters revolve around backup. Or rather, the backup that wasn't. Or sometimes, the backup that backed up the wrong files. More than occasionally, the backup that stopped backing up, but never told me. And, most sadly, the restore that didn't.
When called in after the fact, I do my best to facilitate the (too often partial) recovery. When called in early, I stress that backups are only as dependable as the monitoring systems. IMHO, set and forget backups are great for generating a feeling of confidence, but taking confidence to your board after a failed recovery is cold comfort.
You should monitor your backup system to make sure it's doing what you think it is. The only sure way to do that is with trial restores. With cloning systems, that means wiping out a version of the backed-up system. Most people are scared to do that, and don't. With systems like Time Machine, that store data in a proprietary chunked format, it means file-level trial restores. Most people won't do that either. If you do it religiously, forget what I'm about to say.
My advice: rather than back up the files that Time Machine produces, do a parallel backup from your originals to another target using a file-based backup program like GoodSync. Then you'll be able to test the backup (and you should) by opening the backed up files. Thus you'll have two independent backup paths: the Time Machine one, which is great for recovering from too-quick finger motions, and the file-based one, which is verifiable.
Here's a fuller discussion. (http://blog.kasson.com/?page_id=3060)
Jim
-
Geeky you. I use rsync on my Linux boxes :)
CCC use to be rsync based.
My understanding is that CCC is a very large AppleScript! ;D
-
My advice: rather than back up the files that Time Machine produces, do a parallel backup from your originals to another target using a file-based backup program like GoodSync. Then you'll be able to test the backup (and you should) by opening the backed up files. Thus you'll have two independent backup paths: the Time Machine one, which is great for recovering from too-quick finger motions, and the file-based one, which is verifiable.
The other thing to think about is archiving as well as backing up. The main problem with back up s is that the source can be damaged/corrupted without your knowing and all that happens then is you back up bad data. Archiving is slightly different you make a copy of your work just like a back up, but after initial back up it is not touched again. The major problem with archiving is when do you do it because you can end up doing work to images for quite some time after first copying them to the computer.