- June 30, 2011 at 12:52 pm
any effective differences between Super-Duper, or Carbon-copy Cloner?
- June 30, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Practically they’re both using rsync at the unix level.
I was reading somewhere that someone did a test and superduper was just a wee bit faster; but practically, no difference – I have clients that use both; I use Superduper.
Both can do scheduled backups, both can do incremental changes.
Apple Master Trainer | Avid Cert. Instructor DS/MC | Adobe Cert. Instructor
You should follow me (filmgeek) on twitter. I promise to be nice.
New- my book (with Richard Harrington and Robbie Carman)- An Editor’s Guide to Adobe Premiere Pro
Compressor Essentials from Lynda.com
(older but still good) Marquee, Media Composer (3.5) and Basic/Advanced Color DVDs (1.0) from Vasst.com
Contact me through my Website
- July 20, 2011 at 9:11 pm
I switched from CCC to SuperDuper a couple of years back. One word of caution; after cloning, it’s worth verifying the sizes of the original and clone drive. I cloned a FCP media drive last year, and found that the clone size was quite a bit smaller. I compared folder sizes until I found out that one very large source video file did not copy over (it can’t even copy over when dragging via Finder, to be fair), but I wish that SuperDuper had alerted me to the fact that a file couldn’t copy instead of just saying that the process was complete with no indication.
There are some differences. I can’t remember what exactly, but the Mac tech. at my last job recommended the change as there were some very specific reasons why SuperDuper was a better match for our needs. Come to think of it, I believe it was specific to the fact that we needed something which could handle automating the backup of a 5.7 TB XRAID array to a network folder, by breaking the backup into modular chunks of folders for different nights of the week.
Log in to reply.