|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Feature request - turn off Time Machine on clone
I know you are buried in doing a Leopard compatible version of SD!, but could you consider this for a future feature. In order not to mess up Time Machine, if one boots to a clone to do maintenance on a boot drive, for example, one must quickly turn off Time machine manually (to prevent TM from eating up space by backing up the clone), also, one must turn off .mac synching to avoid losing data, and one must make changes to the drives that spotlight indexes.
So,,,,, would it be possible to make a clone, but with some options, like --- - Turn off TM in clone - Turn off mac synch in clone Since the TM option is an "on/off" switch in a system preference would this be difficult? Just a thought. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
It's something we'll consider for the future, but I haven't had either problem... have you set Time Machine up to ignore your copy?
__________________
--Dave Nanian |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Time machine is set to ignore the clone. But if you boot from the clone, time machine will be on and will copy to the time machine designated disk -- it will do a complete copy of something, eating space on the time machine disk unnecessarily. If there were an option in Superduper to turn off time machine on the clone, one could boot from the clone without having to manually turn off time machine after booting. One wants a copy of one's boot drive only in time machine presumably. Perhaps this is also a time machine issue.
This issue came up with me because of a weird bug in x.5 where if one is using a software raid mirror as boot, on a scheduled shutdown and restart the mirror won't be recognized, os X.5 boots to the clone. The machine was unattended when this happened to me and with time machine on, it took 150 gig of my time machine drive by making a complete fresh copy of something (don't know if it was the clone or the original boot). Had to start time machine over again from scratch. BTW this os x.5 bug doesn't occur if you do a manual restart, only on a scheduled restart after a shutdown. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
That's weird. But it seems like a Time Machine bug, don't you think?
__________________
--Dave Nanian |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Methinks it possible though that someone based in a state that starts with "C" and in a city starting with "C" at an "infinite" address put out a cake that wasn't wholly baked. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
It could be, if it changes the UUID of the drive it's copying to, yes, since the exclusions are done by UUID.
Note that, if you figure out how to accomplish this, you can use an "after copy" shell script to achieve your goal (and others similar things as well)...
__________________
--Dave Nanian |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Windows equivalent to SuperDuper!? | jreffner | General | 21 | 08-13-2009 05:36 PM |
backup file size—SD vs. Time Machine | jotaro | General | 10 | 06-23-2009 10:00 AM |
Will Time Machine make SuperDuper obsolete? | JAC II | General | 9 | 11-07-2007 03:54 PM |
Cloning a Time Machine Volume | barrysharp | General | 5 | 10-30-2007 11:58 PM |
A different angle on SD & Time Machine integration | badlydrawnboy | General | 10 | 10-26-2007 08:37 PM |