Best backup solution for M1 MACs?

[Quackers]

My experience is that TM works fine with the M1.
It will recover your files, apps, settings etc etc but it won't recover the "system".
You need to re-install macOS first via the recovery utilities or via DFU mode (with a second Mac capable of running the later versions of Apple Configurator 2).
I've done this a couple of times and it was very successful with regard to the migration of data.

 

[old-wiz]

Carbon Copy cloner 5.1.23​

✅ Bootable backups on macOS Big Sur
CCC can now make bootable backups of a Big Sur startup disk on Intel-based Macs. Support for System volume cloning on Apple Silicon Macs is disabled for now because Apple's APFS replication utility does not currently work on that platform. When Apple fixes that, we'll post an update to CCC that restores support for making bootable backups on Apple Silicon Macs.

So ATM We must wait for a fix ...

Super-Duper has the same problem - can't deal with BigSur boot disks. Apple apparently made it all but impossible for an application such as CCC or SD to create a bootable backup. Maybe they are trying to force us to go to TimeMachine? I have been using SuperDuper for many years on a variety of Macs, but Big-Sur screws it badly.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Super-Duper has the same problem - can't deal with BigSur boot disks. Apple apparently made it all but impossible for an application such as CCC or SD to create a bootable backup. Maybe they are trying to force us to go to TimeMachine? I have been using SuperDuper for many years on a variety of Macs, but Big-Sur screws it badly.

I think it is more about creating better security in MacOS. If Apple wanted us all to move to Time Machine, that still wouldn't allow people to put from an external drive if the internal drive went bad. Hopefully, CCC can get it figured out at some point. I would like to have a bootable backup again.

 

[fivenotrump]

We've never had the need for bootable backups. We use Time Machine to backup to Synology NAS and local USB disks, also to cloud.

 

[allanri]

I have a Synology NAS as target for Time Machine backups. And so far so god for me. I also like that the disc where I have the partition for my TM backup is a raid 1 array so I have redundancy.

That's what I thought too!! However, I tried to do a restore from backup using the Migration Assistant just now, and Migration Assistant says there are no volumes found on the backup drive.

 

[VitoBotta]

I don't create complete images of the boot drive anymore but before I was using Carbon Copy Cloner for that since Time Machine has proven unreliable more than once.

At the moment I only do regular backups of the data with Arq, one backup to a local disk, and two offsite (Wasabi and Backblaze B2).

 

[BornAgainMac]

From what I have read about Carbon Copy Cloner , it doesn’t do any bootable backup any more with macOS Big Sur because Apple changes system volume signing ...

So CCC makes a backup , but it’sn bootable ...
It is very frustrating because I have used CCC by almost 10 years ...

I believe changes are made with even Time machine that you have to restore your operating system from scratch first and then restore. The bootable restore of yesteryears is obsolete.

 

[Fallinangel]

Does that mean that when I use CCC to make full boot drive images of my future Mac Studio, I can't restore it to the latest backup image from the Recovery Partition and Disk Utility when something goes wrong?
Or is the image itself simply not boot-able anymore, say when mounted an booted to on the same or another Mac?
The latter seems like less of a handicap, than if you couldn't restore from an image.

 

[Mike Boreham]

CCC makes bootable clones of Monterey, but it is no longer the default option for CCC.......you have to use the Legacy Bootable Backup Assistant

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/monterey-carbon-copy-cloner-users-thread.2302964/page-8

 

[allanri]

That's what I thought too!! However, I tried to do a restore from backup using the Migration Assistant just now, and Migration Assistant says there are no volumes found on the backup drive.

Actually, I've been struggling with this all afternoon. I wanted to try to restore my system from a Time Machine backup from yesterday ... I'd installed a pile of development tools on my machine that I wasn't happy with, and tried to use System Restore to restore to an earlier backup. It wouldn't do it from my Synology NAS Time Machine backup, and said I had to use the Migration Assistant instead. So, I fired MA up, and it was also unhelpful ... several times, it couldn't find my NAS; when it could, it found my backups, but said the 'Backup was in use, Try later", or at other times, it simply said "No Volumes Found". I'm able to restore specific files or directories from Time Machine from my desktop, but if I ever lose my hard drive, I don't know how I'm going to get back all my settings and data.

 

[Sumo999]

Carbon Copy Cloner bootable clones are obsolete in the M1 paradigm, officially rendering CCC garage ware.

 

[Mike Boreham]

Carbon Copy Cloner bootable clones are obsolete in the M1 paradigm, officially rendering CCC garage ware.

It is a matter of usage and preference. Personally I have never been a fan of bootable clones and always preferred to install and migrate, which is how CCC default clones are used, and how a full system TM restore works. Since the locked System Volume arrived only the Apple ASR tool can copy the System volume and then only to an erased destination. Both CCC and Superduper! use ASR for bootable clones.

CCC is more useful than ever to me.

 

[leman]

I was always a bit puzzled that people use CCC... isn't it using rsync under the hood? Why not just use rsync directly?

 

[Mike Boreham]

I was always a bit puzzled that people use CCC... isn't it using rsync under the hood? Why not just use rsync directly?

The justification used to be that CCC did incremental backups, while rsync was a whole volume every time. With SSD speeds a whole volume backup every time is not the problem it was in the olden days. I have no idea what the situation with rsync is now. Apple System Restore is the only way of cloning the System Volume and like rsync it is the whole volume every time. Both CCC and SD use ASR for the System Volume.

Even when CCC or SD are making a bootable clone, they can incrementally update the -Data volume, but not the System Volume. So if there has been a macOS update they have to make a new Clone onto an erased destination.

 

[leman]

The justification used to be that CCC did incremental backups, while rsync was a whole volume every time. With SSD speeds a whole volume backup every time is not the problem it was in the olden days. I have no idea what the situation with rsync is now. Apple System Restore is the only way of cloning the System Volume and like rsync it is the whole volume every time. Both CCC and SD use ASR for the System Volume.

Rsync was always able to do incremental backups. Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but isn't CCC incremental backup feature uses rsync anyway? I though CCC just adds the GUI and some postprocessing, e.g. for making bootable clones.

 

[spiderman0616]

I used to use an online solution, but have resorted back to Time Machine in the last few years. I back my Mac up on a 500GB SanDisk drive via Time Machine either when I think about it here and there or right before a big update. I have never restored from one of these backups until last week when I bought a new M1 Pro 14" Pro and traded in my M1 MacBook Air.

Long story short: while setting up the new Mac, right at the beginning it asked me if I had a volume available to restore from. I said yes and pointed to the Time Machine drive from my old computer. It took about 15 minutes, did the restore, asked me if I wanted to claim all the other older TM backups (I did) and that was it. I had zero problems with any logins, licensing, or anything else. It just worked.

I think where I've had trouble with Time Machine in the past is that I was using a drive that just didn't work well with it--one of the old WD ones. Now that I've switched to a compact solid state drive, it works perfectly and quickly every time.

 

[Mike Boreham]

I think where I've had trouble with Time Machine in the past is that I was using a drive that just didn't work well with it--one of the old WD ones. Now that I've switched to a compact solid state drive, it works perfectly and quickly every time.

I think Time Machine has improved enormously since being totally revamped to APFS. My experience of whole system restores with HFS+ Time machine was very poor, and I always used a CCC clone in preference. Since TM went all APFS I have done several whole system restores from TM without problem.
Unfortunately many people have the scars from old HFS TM and it hasn't had the recognition it deserves. IMHO.

 

[Mike Boreham]

Rsync was always able to do incremental backups. Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but isn't CCC incremental backup feature uses rsync anyway? I though CCC just adds the GUI and some postprocessing, e.g. for making bootable clones.

Yes I never used rysnc, but a bit of Googling shows you are right. It is more capable than I realised and yes, looks like CCC does make use of it (credit). So what you say is basically correct but I think using rsync and using CCC (especially all the features of v6, many of which never get much mention) are worlds apart.

 

[spiderman0616]

I think Time Machine has improved enormously since being totally revamped to APFS. My experience of whole system restores with HFS+ Time machine was very poor, and I always used a CCC clone in preference. Since TM went all APFS I have done several whole system restores from TM without problem.
Unfortunately many people have the scars from old HFS TM and it hasn't had the recognition it deserves. IMHO.

I think a good chunk of my problems came from what you just described because it does sound consistent with my experience. I haven't had a Time Machine backup become corrupted or flat out fail in several years, which matches up roughly with when they switched to the new file system. In the old days, macOS would mistake my years-old Time Machine volume for a brand new one, and then it would ask me to reformat the drive and reset Time Machine all over again. This often took several hours, so I eventually switched to something else.

 

[leman]

I think Time Machine has improved enormously since being totally revamped to APFS. My experience of whole system restores with HFS+ Time machine was very poor, and I always used a CCC clone in preference. Since TM went all APFS I have done several whole system restores from TM without problem.
Unfortunately many people have the scars from old HFS TM and it hasn't had the recognition it deserves. IMHO.

Today's Time Machine is a completely different software from the HFS+ era. These days Apple does a filesystem level backup, directly copying snapshots. It's very fast and should be more reliable than a direct file copy. I still do redundant backups to be safe

 

[Spindel]

Actually, I've been struggling with this all afternoon. I wanted to try to restore my system from a Time Machine backup from yesterday ... I'd installed a pile of development tools on my machine that I wasn't happy with, and tried to use System Restore to restore to an earlier backup. It wouldn't do it from my Synology NAS Time Machine backup, and said I had to use the Migration Assistant instead. So, I fired MA up, and it was also unhelpful ... several times, it couldn't find my NAS; when it could, it found my backups, but said the 'Backup was in use, Try later", or at other times, it simply said "No Volumes Found". I'm able to restore specific files or directories from Time Machine from my desktop, but if I ever lose my hard drive, I don't know how I'm going to get back all my settings and data.

Did it sort it self for you?

When I got my M1 Mini I just booted up and ran a system restore from my TM back up

 

[pshufd]

Time Machine. I've been using it since around 2008 and it has never let me down.

 

[Tagbert]

just use carbon copy cloner and an external thunderbolt 3 ssd - to create bootable backups
it is a little bit more expensive but so much easier to use

The problem I have with that is that it is a one and done snapshot. I prefer an incremental backup system that works automatically. Any system where I need to remember to manually make backups and where there is a significant time gap between backups seems risky to me.

 

[Tagbert]

Super-Duper has the same problem - can't deal with BigSur boot disks. Apple apparently made it all but impossible for an application such as CCC or SD to create a bootable backup. Maybe they are trying to force us to go to TimeMachine? I have been using SuperDuper for many years on a variety of Macs, but Big-Sur screws it badly.

The reasons why you can’t use these to create bootable disks is that Mac OS has a couple of separate partitions for the OS and for updates that cannot be modified by normal processes. This is for security to make it much harder for malware to infect the OS itself.

 

[Tagbert]

Whichever system you chose to make local backups, I also recommend BackBlaze as an additional, offsite backup. It backs up your files to the cloud so, if there is some local catastrophe (fire, flood, theft) you have a backup that is not vulnerable. For $6/month they will backup all the files on your computer and any external drives directly connected. (But not network drives). It works in the background doing incremental backups. The first backup may take many days or even a couple of weeks. The connection is restricted to not saturate your network.

Restoration can be done through their website to download small numbers of files. If you ever needed to do a full restore, they will overnight a hard drive with your files on it for around $100. I would consider that pretty cheap insurance if you get into that kind of trouble.