So, another quick update on our progress on the Leopard version of SuperDuper! (which will work better than the 2.1.4 on Tiger, for those of you still there).
Link Hard
I'm happy to say that we've worked through the last few issues with hard links and the complexities of copying Time Machine backups. Yesterday, I was able to copy and restore an over 7 million file Time Machine drive successfully, and restore it. After some scanning, Time Machine picked up exactly where it left off, happily accepting the "new" drive as the right one.
This means that you can successfully copy your Time Machine backup to a different drive as a backup, or to a new, larger drive, without losing your history.
It also means, as I mentioned last post, that SD! is properly handling some of the new on-disk representations in Leopard.
Another test cycle
Now that we've successfully passed our internal tests for this, we're going to package it up (with some other new stuff I haven't talked about) and roll it to our external testers for them to bang on to make sure we haven't missed anything.
Good progress
So, we're making good progress. I'll write about some of the wackiness we've run into later on (example: did you know that journaling has to be on to be able to successfully copy a drive with hard links? Me neither.), but for now, back to the grind.
26 Nov 2007 at 01:31 pm | #
Fantastic news! I’m waiting on SuperDuper to be fully Leopard-compatible before I make the jump (and after it saved my butt this past week with an iBook G4 logic board failure, I feel justified in my cautious paranoia). I know I’m not the only one waiting, too: I’ve seen several people online say that they’re waiting as well. And while everyone (me included) wants the update rightthissecond!, we’d all rather you take your time with it, and make sure that it’s all set.
Also, 7 million files? I’d have to duplicate my boot volume to get within an order of magnitude of that.
26 Nov 2007 at 01:45 pm | #
It’s not the largest test we’ve done here, either—that would be a 70+ million file copy… (yes, really).
26 Nov 2007 at 02:16 pm | #
How does one get on this external tester list. I have several clients using your solution...4 just bought new MBP’s and want to use leopard....Is it possible to get a beta copy to test?
One has gone through 3 MBP’s this year.....He likes to leave them in Airports or drop them....so SD is crucial to him to be able to restore to a new MBP every couple of months.
I have 12+ years in Mac Consulting and am a developer/hardware certified ACTC ACHDS
26 Nov 2007 at 02:20 pm | #
Is there any update yet on when SD! will be available for Leopard. I don’t care about Time Machine as I can’t use it over my network SMB shares anyway and would like to start backing up my Mac again.
26 Nov 2007 at 02:33 pm | #
Brian—we’re already full-up with testers, sorry…
Nick—it’s coming along nicely. As I’ve said previously, the issue isn’t just Time Machine, but also the fact that Leopard allows these capabilities to any application, and as such they have to be handled properly.
26 Nov 2007 at 05:49 pm | #
Will the Leopard version of SuperDuper allow me to do a straight backup of my start up disk? I plan to have one external drive back up via Time Machine and another via SuperDuper. On the SuperDuper backup I don’t care about capturing Time Machine’s history. I just want a backup up to that date.
26 Nov 2007 at 06:02 pm | #
Yes, absolutely: a “straight backup” is also possible.
26 Nov 2007 at 06:51 pm | #
Sign over my desk: “You can have it right, or you can have it now. But you can’t have it right now.” I’ll happily wait until SD! is ready. Meanwhile, p’raps I can avoid doing something stupid to my confuser…
26 Nov 2007 at 07:26 pm | #
Thank you for the info. Uncertainty is one of the worst things the mind faces. Folks will fill the void - too often, too much of it bad.
26 Nov 2007 at 08:49 pm | #
Glad things are moving along. SD is the last remaining app keeping me from Leopard. As others have done here, I too will offer my services as a tester if it will help the cause in any way.
-gb
26 Nov 2007 at 09:42 pm | #
I never thought I’d be waiting for a backup program to be compatible with an entire operating system I want to install.
That’s how good SD! is.
Rock on.
26 Nov 2007 at 11:27 pm | #
Are the problems with the current release of SuperDuper simply that the backup might not work (like all releases of Apples .Mac Backup, heh), or that it might actively corrupt your main system or the files on your internal disk?
If the former, it seems like there’s nothing to be lost by using SuperDuper on Leopard even before the fully Leopard compatible version is released.
27 Nov 2007 at 06:33 am | #
Thanks for the progress update - I know several people who are waiting for SuperDuper to be ready before updating (and even advised a client to do the same despite the fact he’s already bought Leopard). I use FileVault, and it seems I can’t use the full restore function in Time Machine anyway…
(I run three backups, one to make an unencrypted backup of the FileVault (which takes about 10 minutes every week), one for everything else on the PowerBook, and one of my portable external HD… it doesn’t look like Time Machine can handle this)
Thanks also for taking the time to make sure it works properly!
Anzir
27 Nov 2007 at 09:14 am | #
>for those of you still there
I am sure there are _lots_ of us still here, and certainly I for one am most appreciative of the quality testing you guys are doing.
I just keep checking my RSS to see what the news is and wait, cheerfully, until SD is ready - thanks lots for your work.
-Alan
27 Nov 2007 at 09:57 am | #
Mark—it’s that the backup won’t be bootable, and Smart Update won’t be smart. The files are there, but restoration is difficult. But it won’t corrupt the source.
Thanks again for your patience, everyone.
27 Nov 2007 at 12:07 pm | #
Dave:
Take your time! It’s very comforting to know you’re going to this level of effort to “get it right.” Thanks for the updates.
Bill Harwood
27 Nov 2007 at 02:38 pm | #
Keep on your great work, SuperDuper! is definitely worth the wait, there’s simply no alternative. Thank you!
27 Nov 2007 at 08:04 pm | #
Still here. With you all the way. SuperDuper! is worth the wait! Keep on crankin’! Thanks for all the hard work. You’ve got the best product out there. Who says so? We all do!
28 Nov 2007 at 05:34 am | #
Thanks for the continous update Dave, and also for the good news. I too am waiting for SD to be ready before making the switch. Like others have said, take your time.
Keep smiling
Arif
28 Nov 2007 at 05:41 am | #
thanks for the update and i keep waiting :D
28 Nov 2007 at 11:17 am | #
Thanks for the update, and it seems like a lot of work. SD is an awesome product that I’ve come to live by. From a business perspective, it would seem that this is a major upgrade. I know that when it comes to shareware, we’re all conditioned to pay for the product once and then to receive free updates for the life of the product, unlike commercial software, where we expect to pay for upgrades. This means that you have to have an ever-expanding base of new customers to make money, and therefore justify the expense of continuing development. I’d glad pay for an upgrade and I’d wager that so would a lot of these other folks, if it meant that you could increase staff or otherwise ramp up development capabilities. Do you or anyone also posting have an opinion about this? Maybe it’s as “simple” as converting SD from a shareware product to a commercial status.
28 Nov 2007 at 02:21 pm | #
Dave -
Thanks a lot for these updates. One question, why is this just a small point update? 2.1.4 to 2.1.5 seems like it should be 2.5 or something. You mentioned adding in a few other things as well. Give yourself and the program more credit!
Good luck on the beta testing.
28 Nov 2007 at 02:53 pm | #
Hal: there’s really not much difference between “shareware” and “commercial” software—we are commercial, it’s just we allow a certain amount of stuff for free.
Chris: numbering’s more of an art than a science… we tend to increase the .number when we’re adding significant new functionality.
28 Nov 2007 at 03:51 pm | #
I told myself I wasn’t going to be the “early adopter” this time around, but I caved to the hype and enthusiasm and had Leopard installed within 24 hours of release… but I did a full restore (via SD, of course) back to Tiger once I found out that SD wasn’t going to cover my butt yet. That’s how important SD is to me!!
28 Nov 2007 at 09:55 pm | #
Dave,
Thanks for all your efforts - and thanks for a truly awesome product that is worth every cent.
I can’t wait to get the Leopardized SD!
No surprise to find that you use Expression Engine (I’m not affiliated - just an EE customer) to run your site . . . great software flocks together.
29 Nov 2007 at 12:58 am | #
A FYI story for you: I installed Leopard on the day it came out. I’d done a complete backup with SD the day before. I hadn’t done any more backups afterwards, waiting for the new version.
Last week, I restarted my MBP and it didn’t come back up. Went to the Apple store, they tried 3 different disk utilities, and told me I probably needed a new hard drive (day before thanksgiving, so I’d have been out for a few days..)
As a last resort, I plugged in my SD drive and booted up from it. I was able to do a smart update, and run the standard disk utility. I don’t know if it was SD, or one of the disk utilities, but the drive seems to be fine now and SD seems to be doing smart backups just fine. I haven’t tried to boot up from SD again since I added Leopard files to the mix, but so far so good.
In other words, SD saved my butt, so thanks.
29 Nov 2007 at 03:31 pm | #
What I’m currently doing (and I’ll let you know if it works) is using SD while booted in Leopard but NOT backing up this boot disk. I did a bonheaded thing. Before updating one machine (G5) to Leopard, I of course used SD under Tiger to back up to an external drive. Well it wasn’t formatted to boot non Intel, after updating the OS, I found I could not boot it. Too late to put that toothpaste back in the tube, I formatted another drive correctly, I’m not attempting to close with SD, the older driver (wrong format) to the new drive (correct format) all while SD runs under Leopard. If it doesn’t work, no big deal, I can’t booth off the original anyway.
Love the product, can’t wait for the update. I’m sure it will be worth the wait.
29 Nov 2007 at 05:15 pm | #
Like the others in this list of comments I’m waiting on SD (patiently - really!) to upgrade to Leopard. I’ve got a partition that I use for testing apps on Leopard and I think that they’ve got it mostly worked out - SO - as soon as SD is ready then I’ll migrate.
Take your time - make it right. It would have been nice if Apple had done the same!
Thanks Dave for a terrific piece of software.
01 Dec 2007 at 02:39 am | #
SD has been my peace of mind for several years now. I couldn’t wait to update to 10.5.1, but sorely miss SD! Time machine is OK but I don’t feel I can trust it like I trust SD! But I don’t mind waiting until you are satisfied SD! is ready for the big time.
Being able to migrate the Time Machine history to a larger drive is is really good news, Dave!
Jake
01 Dec 2007 at 02:55 am | #
Fabulous news! Once again, thank you for the update.
<geek enabled="yes">
After the release, please share some of the wacky things that you’ve run into. I love to hear how things REALLY work under the hood. You’re touching stuff that I’ve not touched under OS X. Other Un*x machines, yes, but OS X has some fun wacky things.
</geek>
01 Dec 2007 at 03:24 am | #
Hello!
I have just a short question: do I only have to click on the “Time marches on"-button to get my SD updated?
Thomas
01 Dec 2007 at 10:37 am | #
I’m not sure what you mean! What “time marches on” button?
01 Dec 2007 at 11:26 am | #
Thanks for all your work Dave! We appreciate it...and, yep, we’re loyal to SD.
01 Dec 2007 at 11:54 am | #
Hello!
In the top of this page I can click on the words “time marches on”. But I think I understand -by “quick update” you mean an information update, not a real update of the program, dont`t you?
Thomas
01 Dec 2007 at 12:22 pm | #
Yes, that’s just a refresh of the page.
01 Dec 2007 at 05:40 pm | #
Great that you are working on Superduper!, but why focus on Time Machine compatibility? Why not make that for a future update? Seriously, I’m pretty sure most folks just want to be able to copy their system files and don’t give a crap about backing up the Time Machine backup. I paid for Superduper! and now I can’t use it just to make a “simple” backup of my system drive. I think you all have your priorities screwed up!
For those of you who say they are willing to wait… how noble of you. As for me, I want/need to use the software I paid for to backup my system. A month should be enough time for Shirt pocket to FIX that.
Just get the darn thing out with a disclaimer that it won’t work to backup Time Machine! We can deal with Time Machine later. Especially since there are quite a few people who have given up on Time Machine due to being so buggy. It’s December 1st already - Tick tock....
Cheers
01 Dec 2007 at 05:54 pm | #
Again, it’s not so much “Time Machine” compatibility as “Leopard” compatibility. It’s hard to make something that’s “Leopard compatible” without actually being compatible with its on-disk structures, some of which Time Machine uses (but can be used by any application.
01 Dec 2007 at 07:46 pm | #
Hal, I can’t guess whether David is going to ask for payment again.
However, it “feels like” I should pay again, and I shall when the update comes out (whether or not he requests it).
01 Dec 2007 at 08:04 pm | #
No need to guess, John. We’ve specifically said it’s a free update.
02 Dec 2007 at 06:06 am | #
Just like some of the others, I am waiting for the updated SuperDuper before making the switch over to Leopard. Once burned, twice shy!
Hope the testing is coming along nicely - all the best!
02 Dec 2007 at 10:05 pm | #
Looking forward to the Leo release. I have many friends I’ve turned on to SD, and I’ll make sure I get the word out to them as soon as it’s out.
Keep up the good work.
Scott
03 Dec 2007 at 05:24 am | #
Dave: maybe it says it somewhere else on the blog, but will registered users be notified via email once the upgrade is available?
Thanks,
W.
03 Dec 2007 at 05:45 am | #
We all know about the advantages of SuperDuper over other cloning solutions, but for those who switched to Leopard and are “not backing up until SD is available”, I’d recommend that you use Carbon Copy Cloner, which:
a) Is slow…
b) Is Free (accepts Donations)
c) Works with leopard.
It’s a nice tool to just keep your bootable drive cloned somewhere else. Of course, CCC completely lacks the ability to “update” (Smart Update™
a cloned drive, therefore you’ll have to “let the thing erase and re-clone everytime).
At least do that once a week.
This may save you, should you experience a hardware failure (knocking on wood) in the days before SD! is ready to roll on Leopard.
Good luck and patience; remember the golden rule: the more you ask, the more it will take.
03 Dec 2007 at 05:54 am | #
Have been using SD for a long time, and recommend it far and wide, As always, Dave - you rock. I appreciate your careful work on the update.
Leopard is cool and Time Machine seems to be quite good. SD will be the perfect complement to it ... looking forward to having the both running side by side.
In particular, Time Machine can’t (yet) backup to a network drive (at least, not officially ...) and does not generate bootable images. The combination of having Time Machine handle the local backups to my attached Firewire drive and SD handle the backups to my network drive (along with other as needed backups) will be ideal.
03 Dec 2007 at 07:12 am | #
I’m also eagerly awaiting the arrival of Leopard compatible SuperDuper. In the meantime, I’m using CCC to back up my main drive. BTW, CCC does do SMART UPDATE contrary to what some folks posted earlier, and it can even archive deleted items into your backup drive.
03 Dec 2007 at 07:25 am | #
@ksrhee:
CCC doesn’t do “smart update” and is not smart at all. What it does do is compare source vs. target and overwrite new or modified files. This is what CCC says when you select your Source and Target and select the option “Copy Everything from source to target”; the option to “erase the target volume” is unchecked (CCC checks that by default).
NOTE: Ophelia is my Source and “Clone” is my errr… clone?
Here’s the text:
“The entire contents of “Ophelia” will be copied onto “Clone”, merging the contents of the two volumes. Items on “Clone” will be overwritten by items at the same path on “Ophelia”. “
So, it will be “overwritting” Clone items, but will not remove any file from clone, as it will be merging. This operation takes way (way way) more than SD! to perform. This is just a copy/rsync script behind the scenes.
If, on the other hand you select “Copy Selected Items”, new options arise (all unchecked by default).
I checked: Delete items that don’t exist on the source.
I left unchecked: Archive modified and deleted items.
The resulting text:
The selected items from “Ophelia” will be copied onto “Clone”. Items on “Clone” will not be overwritten if they are newer than items at the same path on “Ophelia”. Any items that exist on “Clone” that do not exist at the same path on “Ophelia” will be deleted. Deleted items and the earlier version of modified files will not be archived.
This more or less could be called a “smart” update, yet for some reason, it takes WAY much more than SD!. I will perform a series of tests when SD! for Leopard is available.
03 Dec 2007 at 07:59 am | #
Users will not be notified by mail, no—we don’t send out bulk mail (because we’re then reported as spammers, even though we only send it to users who request info when registering, and it takes a long, long time to get off those lists).
However, the application itself will notify you when run, and of course I’ll post here on the blog.
03 Dec 2007 at 05:16 pm | #
Martin:
CCC does do smart update. The wording might be ambiguous and it will be changed for the next version. It will make the exact clone of your source and target drive if you picked copy selected files and check everything in the source, and also check the option delete items that don’t exist on the source. If you check the archive option as well, then it will also archive the deleted items in the target as well in a separate folder (which is a nice feature BTW).
One of the new users realized that in order to change any of the setting to stick, you have to unlock the control at the left bottom of the program. If you make selections while it’s still locked, the program won’t obey your choices.
03 Dec 2007 at 06:26 pm | #
Dave,
Thanks so much for all your hard work on the leopardization of SD!
I hate to interrupt your coding work, but am wondering if you have ANY workaround suggestions for me: I have a MacBook Pro that needs a new LCD. It’s running leopard. I have an SD clone of it on a big external Seagate drive, and Time Machine on another partition of that drive.
I also have a relatively new mac mini.
I booted the mini from the cloned drive so I could send the MBP back to Apple for repair, but I experienced a few issues with the clone (not surprising, I know, since you’re still working on it).
HOWEVER, I’m wondering:
If I can successfully boot my mini from that SD clone again, can I THEN restore it with the most recent save of Time Machine, and work from that?
Any ideas? Thoughts?
Thanks!
- nolafilm
03 Dec 2007 at 06:30 pm | #
Why wouldn’t you just boot from your Leopard DVD and restore the whole thing from Time Machine.
03 Dec 2007 at 06:53 pm | #
great point - forgot to mention i left my leopard DVD in New Orleans (where I work a couple weeks a month)
03 Dec 2007 at 07:01 pm | #
OK, well, no—you can’t really do that, no. You really need to either clean install Leopard and migrate from the Time Machine copy or use the Leopard DVD to install it. Perhaps you can find a user with a DVD…
03 Dec 2007 at 07:24 pm | #
thanks and good luck with the new release!
04 Dec 2007 at 12:58 pm | #
@ksrhee,
Thanks. I stand corrected then.
04 Dec 2007 at 03:09 pm | #
Any chance of an update on progress? Some idea of release date? Thanks!
04 Dec 2007 at 07:37 pm | #
Dave,
If I were you, I’d spend the time you wish to communicate with us on updating the blog several times a week, and telling people in the Discussions area who are asking the same questions over and over again to click a link to that blog. You can get something like TypeIt4Me to generate that canned response on the Discussions area.
I think the long-form essays you write in the blog are more instructive than assembling information from gleaning a plethora of Discussion responses. I believe that almost everyone here would prefer that you write a blog post frequently that describes your progress to one-on-one replies. Many of the questions you answer are obviously written by people who haven’t even taken the time to read anyone else’s question causing you to waste time repeating answers.
Now, I believe your first priority is getting SuperDuper! working in Leopard and then you’ve got things like sleep and being a human being to take care of. There’s some kind of festive thing coming up and you may want to spend it with this group of people you kind of know, but they are not your co-workers. Who are they? Umm, . . . family.
So here is my gift to you: let this plea be your license to b**ch-slap anyone who asks the SD! equivalent of “Are we there yet?” and tell them to RTFB (Read The F-f-f-f-f. . . fine Blog!)
Happy Holidays!
from another Dave
04 Dec 2007 at 09:19 pm | #
What macFanDave said!
05 Dec 2007 at 03:40 am | #
Just like many others here, I had originally upgraded to Leopard, only to switch back to Tiger once I realized SD wasn’t compatible yet. SD is so important (and totally awesome)!! Please take as long as it takes to get it right. It is definitely worth the wait. My Leopard disk will be waiting…
05 Dec 2007 at 04:28 am | #
What macFanDave & timothy.lance said…
We need more frequent updates as posts… It has been, what, 6 weeks since 10.5’s release?
I know I am confused as to why you guys didn’t have Leopard beta discs leading up to release… that some progress could have been made on… Aren’t you ADC members? It seems that you had to wait until everyone else to go buy a retail copy?
SD is such an important app in the mac community, I am just surprised that it is almost the 2nd week of December and a Leopard-compatible version still doesn’t exist.
05 Dec 2007 at 06:01 am | #
Mr. Eric,
What you’ve got to understand is that having an updated version of stuff like Fetch, Transmit, Path Finder, Yojimbo, xTorrent, NetnewsWire, VLC, Adium, heck even CandyBar has been updated (albeit for a price), etcetera… is not very mission critical. You could live with a bug in any of those applications under leopard; if needed you could’ve found alternatives. But you’ve got to understand that SuperDuper cannot “just have a bug”, because of all possible bugs, that is the one that you’re goinf to find out when it’s too late.
Compare SD to the airbags in a car. You don’t want to find out a manufacture defect when it’s too late, do you?
06 Dec 2007 at 10:37 am | #
Martin,
Just to correct you- Carbon Copy Cloner (3.0.1) DOES allow incremental backups, which makes it
1. fast
2. free
3. Leopard compatible.
http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macgems/2007/10/ccc3/index.php
Martin Marconcini says:
03 Dec 2007 at 05:45 am | #
We all know about the advantages of SuperDuper over other cloning solutions, but for those who switched to Leopard and are “not backing up until SD is available”, I’d recommend that you use Carbon Copy Cloner, which:
a) Is slow…
b) Is Free (accepts Donations)
c) Works with leopard.
It’s a nice tool to just keep your bootable drive cloned somewhere else. Of course, CCC completely lacks the ability to “update” (Smart Update™ a cloned drive, therefore you’ll have to “let the thing erase and re-clone everytime).
06 Dec 2007 at 10:43 am | #
Martin,
One more thing-
I don’t believe “Smart Update” is a TM of SuperDuper!, so no ™ needed.
06 Dec 2007 at 10:52 am | #
@Christopher,
Yes, I’ve already seen CCC 3.x and it’s much better than previous versions; I still miss some of the SD! stuff and I like some of the CCC features like the ability to archive deleted items. It’s like having a small sub-backup of your backup. It would be nice to be able to put those somewhere else instead of the same drive. My Clone drive is “as big” as my internal drive. (Hint for Dave)
I already standed corrected regarding CCC, it has been a long time since I ever needed it. It’s a much polished application now (the blue theme is quite out of place yet looks nice, in mu humble opinion of course).
The good news is that this brings more competition for SD! therefore, we’ll possibly be seeing the features we always wanted to have… whatever those are.
Regarding the Trademark symbol, ™, it was just kind of Ironic. You take things too seriously.
Peace out.