Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


But..... | 14 comments | Create New Account
Click here to return to the 'But.....' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
But.....
Authored by: germ on May 24, '06 03:04:20PM
Please see this detailed discussion of backup tools on Mac OS X. The conclusion is that SuperDuper and ASR are the only reliable backup tools. Do you agree? If not, why?

[ Reply to This | # ]
But.....
Authored by: sjk on May 24, '06 04:05:12PM

Choosing a "reliable" backup utility (and strategy) will depend on specific requirements and usage. All the utilities mentioned in the plasticsfuture article can be appropriate in certain contexts and it's wise to be aware of the differences. I'm grateful for the article's long overdue analysis of criteria that many users and even some developers tend to overlook, which can be crucial information if [meta]data integrity of backups/restores is a priority.

For me it would be foolish to ignore those details in discussions about pros/cons/comparisons of different OS X backup utilities but other people may not care that much.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Ok
Authored by: zottel on May 24, '06 05:40:46PM

I came to OS X from Unix, and resource forks are the only difference from unix file systems I was aware of. The article you linked to is very good -- thanks for that insight.

I hope my hint is still useful for other users by explaining some stuff like hardlinks to those that didn't know Unix before.

It seems, though, that RsyncX actually isn't the tool of choice if you want to have reliable backups that really back up everything there is.



[ Reply to This | # ]
tool of choice
Authored by: sjk on May 25, '06 02:59:51AM
It seems, though, that RsyncX actually isn't the tool of choice if you want to have reliable backups that really back up everything there is.
RsyncX may be a tool of choice when any information it doesn't preserve is irrelevant for your purposes and works reliably for what it does preserve. It's unreliable if problems occur because of insufficient requirements for specific backup/restore tasks.

I'd like people to realize that certain backup/restore tools may give them a false sense of data integrity because of unexpected, undesirable results that aren't necessarily obvious. And I hope developers become more aware of those integrity issues and make their products less vulnerable to them. Ideally, OS X backup utilities would have a "guaranteed" standard of [meta]data preservation so most users wouldn't have to be concerned with any technical details to ensure reliability.

[ Reply to This | # ]