View Single Post
  #1  
Old 02-17-2010, 03:49 PM
El_Flailey El_Flailey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5
Seemingly simple question - are Sparsebundle Backups Smaller/Compressed vs. Source?

This seems like one of those questions that's so obvious it would be instantly findable, but the user guide, this forum's search, and the wide world of google have all left me unsure.

My situation is as follows:

* Backup up main desktop HD to a sparsebundle DMG on a largish firewire external. (then backing *that* up to the cloud via Mozy, FWIW)

* Settings: SuperDuper >> Copy "Macintosh HD" to "NAME_OF_SPARSEBUNDLE" >> "Backup - all files

* No other settings except smart update is selected under "Advanced" -- it's basically right out of the box otherwise.

* The Mac's internal HD shows 80GB used

* The sparse bundle shows 64.6GB as its size.

*** This seems like too much of a spread (15GB!) to account for the normal smallish stuff like caches and a few certain system files, etc. I have done a run through the source HD looking for an errant gigantic cache file or similar and don't see anything suspicious.


I wasn't aware of heavy compression for Sparse Bundles, not that heavy at least. Also not aware of any hidden setting for excluding files/folders from my backup outside of a script, which this isn't, unless it's some kind of default script.

So -- guesses on what accounts for the size discrepancy, anything I should I be nervous about or fix?



[SYSTEM: Mac, 2ghz Intel Core 2 Duo / 4GB SDRAM / OSX 10.5.8 / SUPERDUPER 2.6.2]

________
SPIRIT AMX
________
Medical marijuana states

Last edited by El_Flailey; 03-16-2011 at 06:41 PM.
Reply With Quote