Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Carbon Copy Cloner or SuperDuper?
- Thread starter Ace2617
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, I'm sure Superduper does this and my few tries with Carbon Copy have done that too I think. In other words, your target backup volume only needs enough space to copy the files that you have included in your backup set. It is not a one-to-one disk block copy; it seems to be done on a file basis, and only updating those files that have changed. I don't know if there is any kind of intelligent record of which blocks within a file have changed, which the OS would provide to a backup program.
Actually there are a number of configurable options for Carbon Copy Cloner
You can change the settings to:
- Run shell scripts before and/or after the clone
- Delete the contents of the target location and create a fresh new clone
- Create a normal clone
- Use SafetyNet to cache any deleted or modified files on the target as space allows (sort of an incremental backup)
- Make a bootable clone
- Use as backup software to only copy certain files
Last edited:
You can make clones to different kinds of disk image files with Carbon Copy Cloner (presumably SuperDuper, too)
1.) The growing disk image (read/write)-> Good for incremental backups as the disk image size has the ability to grow in size. Has the size of the files on the source minus some stuff an average user doesn't need.
-> 1 TB HDD, 100 GB of files on it -> little less than 100 GB on disk image
2.) Disk image (read only) -> Good for making a fast clone to a disk image like a snapshot that you don't change afterwards. Has the size like 1.) and isn't meant to get modified, although you could convert that image to read/write.
-> 1 TB HDD, 100 GB of files on it -> little less than 100 GB on disk image
3.) The compressed disk image (read only) -> Good for archiving as the final disk image is getting a smaller size. Compression while writing always takes some serious amount of time, but is non-destructive to your files. Decompression while opening is almost as fast or slow as an uncompressed read only image. Has around 20% to 30% less size, depending on what kind of files are on your source due to different compression ratio for different file types.
Beware that a normal disk image is temporarily written with the full size of your files on disk, then another compressed disk image is made of it. Therefore you'll need to have almost twice the space temporarily available on the drive you're writing to. Especially if writing to the internal drive with the system on it, you can observe quite funny things happen while you are running out of space. Carbon Copy Cloner gives you a warning before it will start writing to a drive with too less space. Well, none is keeping you from ignoring warnings...
-> 1 TB HDD, 100 GB of files on it -> around 80 GB on disk image with temporarily needed 180 GB while writing
Writing a block level copy of a drive to a disk image is no longer possible with Carbon Copy Cloner. Block Copy was dropped with the release of version 4. To make an identical copy of a drive, one could use the Terminal command dd, the great ddrescue or another third party tool.
-> 1 TB HDD, 100 GB of files on it -> 1 TB on disk image
Last edited:
Guys, I started using CCC today and I've a question I need to ask:
Does CCC ever affect the source drive, or does it only sync the destination drive?
example:
Day 1: I use CCC to make a backup of my MacBook on a portable HD and don't use my MacBook again until day 3 (no edits occur in it).
Day 2: I boot this portable HD from another Mac and use it. I make several modifications in it (add new files and/or edit/delete already existing ones).
Day 3: I go back to my original MacBook (the one which hasn't been used since day 1) and plug my portable HD and use CCC.
Will (a) those edits that occurred on day 2 on the destination drive (my portable HD) be reflected back to the source drive (my MacBook)?
Or is it (b) that CCC will simply re-create the exact same backup it made on day 1, from my MacBook to my portable HD, and I will thus lose any edits that occurred on my portable HD on day 2 while using it from another Mac?
If it's (b), is there anything (any workaround you can think of) we can do to achieve (a)?
Does CCC ever affect the source drive, or does it only sync the destination drive?
example:
Day 1: I use CCC to make a backup of my MacBook on a portable HD and don't use my MacBook again until day 3 (no edits occur in it).
Day 2: I boot this portable HD from another Mac and use it. I make several modifications in it (add new files and/or edit/delete already existing ones).
Day 3: I go back to my original MacBook (the one which hasn't been used since day 1) and plug my portable HD and use CCC.
Will (a) those edits that occurred on day 2 on the destination drive (my portable HD) be reflected back to the source drive (my MacBook)?
Or is it (b) that CCC will simply re-create the exact same backup it made on day 1, from my MacBook to my portable HD, and I will thus lose any edits that occurred on my portable HD on day 2 while using it from another Mac?
If it's (b), is there anything (any workaround you can think of) we can do to achieve (a)?
@jdocdp Correct answer is (b). As long as you don't sync your target back to the source, CCC doesn't modify the source.
CCC has an option to preserve newer files on the target (check out the advanced settings). Depending on your modifications, this might work for you or not. Take care that you don't end up with two broken versions of your OS with no additional backup.
CCC has an option to preserve newer files on the target (check out the advanced settings). Depending on your modifications, this might work for you or not. Take care that you don't end up with two broken versions of your OS with no additional backup.
If I am understanding you correctly...
You would have to boot from the "destination" drive and use it to clone back to your original "source" drive
Then you could reboot from the original "source" drive and have the two be the same
Got it. Thank you.
Hmm, that's very interesting. Have you, by any chance, actually tried and tested this yourself? If not I will and report back.
Thanks guys.
Some additional notes for @jdocdp. @MacDawg explained how to keep whole drives, even bootable drives, in sync.
That is heavily tested by myself and nothing else like normal cloning of a bootable drive that you'd do back and forth. You wouldn't need to care about where you did the changes and won't have to deal with restrictions while cloning if you had modified the system, even SIP protected files and folders.
Of course errors could occur, if one of your drive gets defective. Even if CCC can compare file checksums, you probably would get more safety if you'd keep at least one or better two additional backup(s) offline that you don't clone back and forth and that you could attach and use without strict volume recognition, e.g. rotational once per week.
Then there is a slightly different use case of keeping two or more known folders in sync. If they are not protected by Apple SIP and don't contain running components, you could do that back and forth without booting another drive.
You can do that with CCC, but there are many other sophisticated tools available for this task and most of them rely on rsync, like CCC does, too. With CCC you could set up two or more backup tasks and schedule them to the frequency you need to keep the folders in sync. AFAIK, there is no 'backup on change' trigger with CCC so far, just the 'if drive gets attached' trigger. In the file selector dialog, you can setup what to protect, exclude or overwrite.
Then there is an option called something like 'replace corrupted files'. That takes file checksums into account. SafetyNet saves you from unintentionally overwriting files and is making a backup history with versions of each overwritten file.
If you'd set the paths for syncing folders with CCC from /source/sync_folder/ to /target/sync_folder/ you would end up with /target/sync_folder/sync_folder/. The correct setup is /source/sync_folder/ to /target/. This was confusing me long time ago, but it makes sense, as the whole sync_folder with contents inside goes to target that simply contains the sync_folder.
Yes, just try yourself what is working best for you, have an offline backup ready. Happy cloning.
That is heavily tested by myself and nothing else like normal cloning of a bootable drive that you'd do back and forth. You wouldn't need to care about where you did the changes and won't have to deal with restrictions while cloning if you had modified the system, even SIP protected files and folders.
Of course errors could occur, if one of your drive gets defective. Even if CCC can compare file checksums, you probably would get more safety if you'd keep at least one or better two additional backup(s) offline that you don't clone back and forth and that you could attach and use without strict volume recognition, e.g. rotational once per week.
Then there is a slightly different use case of keeping two or more known folders in sync. If they are not protected by Apple SIP and don't contain running components, you could do that back and forth without booting another drive.
You can do that with CCC, but there are many other sophisticated tools available for this task and most of them rely on rsync, like CCC does, too. With CCC you could set up two or more backup tasks and schedule them to the frequency you need to keep the folders in sync. AFAIK, there is no 'backup on change' trigger with CCC so far, just the 'if drive gets attached' trigger. In the file selector dialog, you can setup what to protect, exclude or overwrite.
Then there is an option called something like 'replace corrupted files'. That takes file checksums into account. SafetyNet saves you from unintentionally overwriting files and is making a backup history with versions of each overwritten file.
If you'd set the paths for syncing folders with CCC from /source/sync_folder/ to /target/sync_folder/ you would end up with /target/sync_folder/sync_folder/. The correct setup is /source/sync_folder/ to /target/. This was confusing me long time ago, but it makes sense, as the whole sync_folder with contents inside goes to target that simply contains the sync_folder.
Yes, just try yourself what is working best for you, have an offline backup ready. Happy cloning.
If you want to sync folders, then I'd recommend Chronosync. You can copy from say Source A to Target B (with various options), or synch (bidirectional copying) A and B. Here's an example if say you wanted to keep your Home folder in synch between two Macs: https://www.econtechnologies.com/ch...-sync-desktop-documents-public-downloads.html
And it can make bootable clones, etc as well.
https://www.econtechnologies.com/chronosync/creation-assistants.html
And it can make bootable clones, etc as well.
https://www.econtechnologies.com/chronosync/creation-assistants.html
I've not used it myself, but have looked at it in the past and heard good things about the software
I'm curious why you don't like SuperDuper?
In my experience CCC has some features that SD doesn't and vice versa.
Does it make bootable clones like CCC?
Also, what about speed? Is it faster or slower than CCC?
I would give it a try if it's of high quality as CCC is, or better.
When I did this I just used Finder. Drag the files over. First use Disk Utility to format the new from and make in a notable APFS type, then copy the files with finder.
I used SuperDuper several years ago, but switched to Carbon Copy Cloner because (if I remember correctly) it had better functionality for backing up to a network drive (such as a NAS). When I had questions setting everything up, CCC's support was excellent.
I also use Time Machine. Redundancy is a key to a robust backup setup, and I think this should apply to software applications as well as physical hard drives.
I also use Time Machine. Redundancy is a key to a robust backup setup, and I think this should apply to software applications as well as physical hard drives.
I don't remember the details, but it just didn't seem as user-friendly as CCC. For my particular use case, I was struggling with Super Duper for 30 minutes ... couldn't figure it out, so I tried CCC, and it immediately worked the way I wanted it.
In relation to SuperDuper and recovery partition, check out this from the horse's mouth:
https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/13803/superduper
Shirt Pocket (Developer)
We fully support recovery volumes from HFS+ or APFS volumes, to APFS volumes. Please see this blog post for a full explanation:
https://www.shirt-pocket.com/blog/index.php/shadedgrey/comments/forward_into_the_past
https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/13803/superduper
Shirt Pocket (Developer)
We fully support recovery volumes from HFS+ or APFS volumes, to APFS volumes. Please see this blog post for a full explanation:
https://www.shirt-pocket.com/blog/index.php/shadedgrey/comments/forward_into_the_past
Will CCC also clone attached drives? I have an iMac with 1TB of SSD storage. I have mounted a 2TB HDD to the back of it for cold storage. Will CCC also copy over this data?
I had a strange instance where I deleted a 17GB Photo Library and ... no matter what I did, I couldn't reclaim the lost space. I turned off Time Machine, and ... just couldn't get that 17GB of space back. Well, come to find out, due entirely to my ignorance, CCC 5 uses local snapshots! CCC 5 had a week of local snapshots in my "tmutil listlocalsnapshots /" area. Trying to use tmutil to delete them didn't work, found out I had to go to CCC 5, click the drive under Volumes, and there I could manage the snapshots - I reclaimed some 30GB of space this way. (This only applies to me because I'm working on a backup solution and re-doing everything.
Just an FYI to those who may have wondered.
But the fact that CCC 5 has its own local snapshots has me second guessing whether or not I want Time Machine... I'm leaning towards just CCC 5 because it is so much faster and I REALLY like it.
Just an FYI to those who may have wondered.
But the fact that CCC 5 has its own local snapshots has me second guessing whether or not I want Time Machine... I'm leaning towards just CCC 5 because it is so much faster and I REALLY like it.
I've been using CCC quite happily for a while. Backing up my internal drive etc and more recently using it to backup a big RAID 5 volume in bits to a series of drives in a USB enclosure that I should probably get rid of. However just recently I got a 2014 mac mini to host the RAID due to the TB2 connections whilst my trusty 2015 MBP15 had to go back to Apple for the bulging battery problem.
However, Softraid was predicting a HDD failure in the mini. I bought an SSD and tools from Amazon to replace the HDD but whilst waiting for delivery, I used a Samsung 500G external SSD to clone the mini's HDD. I booted from the SSD and it seemed to run fine, nice and fast. However, I noticed problems with access to drives and volumes. Sometimes Finder would refuse to recognize drives saying that 'the original wasn't there', or sometimes it'd take ages to copy over small files, and at other times, in what seemed to be the best case scenario, it'd copy/ move etc but I had to authenticate with my password each time. It's the clone's problem, as when I reboot back to the internal HDD, it's fine. I emailed CCC support, and so far they haven't been able to give me an answer.
During my googling, I read somewhere that Superduper! offers a more complete cloning. So I downloaded the trial, cloned the HDD to a SD card of all things. And it runs fine, faster than the HDD and no issues with access/ permission. I'll probably use Superduper! to clone the HDD to the SSD when it arrives (or just do a clean install).
However, Softraid was predicting a HDD failure in the mini. I bought an SSD and tools from Amazon to replace the HDD but whilst waiting for delivery, I used a Samsung 500G external SSD to clone the mini's HDD. I booted from the SSD and it seemed to run fine, nice and fast. However, I noticed problems with access to drives and volumes. Sometimes Finder would refuse to recognize drives saying that 'the original wasn't there', or sometimes it'd take ages to copy over small files, and at other times, in what seemed to be the best case scenario, it'd copy/ move etc but I had to authenticate with my password each time. It's the clone's problem, as when I reboot back to the internal HDD, it's fine. I emailed CCC support, and so far they haven't been able to give me an answer.
During my googling, I read somewhere that Superduper! offers a more complete cloning. So I downloaded the trial, cloned the HDD to a SD card of all things. And it runs fine, faster than the HDD and no issues with access/ permission. I'll probably use Superduper! to clone the HDD to the SSD when it arrives (or just do a clean install).
This may be caused by specific settings of CCC or specific attributes of the target drive. The more details you provide, like OS, exact disk drive model, file system, ownership settings, maybe screenshots of CCC settings, the more likely it is, that someone can help to figure out what happened.
All fairly standard settings. But it's all moot now anyway, as my internal SSD arrived and armed with iFixit instructions I swapped the HDD for the SSD in about 15 minutes rather painlessly. This is when I found out SuperDuper! doesn't include a recovery volume unlike CCC - lucky I still had that clone.