Carbon Copy Cloner or Time Machine?

[Tagbert]

I use Time Machine for automated local backups with versioning. It's simple and I never need to worry about it. I see it if I need to retrieve a file or if I need to restore a drive or a machine. It doesn't backup the system, but I would just restore the OS first and then restore files from TM.

I also use CrashPlan for offsite backups. I see it as a backup incase of catastrophe (fire, flood, theft, cat). It also backs up. It has never given me any problems. You can restore small numbers of files via download. I love that they also offer a service to copy your files to a hard drive and overnight it to you. This is for those catastrophic loss scenarios were your local drives are all out of commission.

I like having two very different systems who's weaknesses complement each other.

 

[krishnaM]

I am still not clear what is the advantage of CCC over Time Machine for M1 macs, as they both can backup data and neither can make bootable clone

 

[Realityck]

What are the best setting for ccc? I have it but have yet to make a back up, i need to make a back up of my imac, mini and mac pro....

Just start with a backup task, safety net off, so it's a incremental clone of the data. Dependent on version of OS you are using you might be stuck with just the system version you copy on first full clone using (Big Sur/Monterey). For those Apple changed the APFS replication preventing system from being rewritten. Catalina and older clones normally. see the post I made.

 

[MBAir2010]

time machine backs everything up, maybe too much for some users
I have 5 time machine backs up of Snow Leo-MtLion-ElCap-Mojave-Catalina.
and 3 of Mojave on another drive
hope this helped!

 

[bradl]

The one thing that I am not sure that CCC can do that Time Machine can do, is versioning, especially related to point-in-time backups.

CCC basically can create a point-in-time backup - as in, a clone of your drive at the time that you are creating it. Clones of drives have to then be recreated each and every time to back up any new data made since the previous backup. That would mean that you would be backing up the entire drive each and every time.

Time Machine, with how it handles versioning, can not only create incremental backups since the last full backup, but would keep records of any changed file since the full backup. That allows you to go back to certain dates to find revisions of files that you may want to restore. Here's an example as to why that is important.

With the entire 1Password 8 fiasco going on, I was looking to see if I could upgrade to 1Password 7 in an attempt to buy a standalone license so I would not be tied to their subscription model (I am currently on 1Password 6 with a standalone license). In downloading 1Password 7 and starting it, it put my password vault in a read-only mode until I either purchase a subscription, or a standalone license. Well, they turned off the servers that would be used to buy a standalone license, so that was out... but it still left my vault in a read-only mode. Uninstalling 1Password 7 and reinstalling 1Password 6 still left my vault in a read-only mode.

Enter Time Machine. I was able to go back to a backup I made prior to my installing 1Password 7, and restored all changed/modified files that 1Password 7 changed, and I was back in business. That didn't mean that I had to restore my entire Mac from that TM backup, which is what I would have had to do with CCC. If I took an incremental backup, I still would have to restore from the last full backup, then use the incremental backup to get back to where I was. Instead, I was able to go back to a particular date, find all relevant files, restore those (overwriting what was on my Mac), and I was done.

The last time I used it, CCC didn't have that functionality. It did have the functionality to boot from that clone that was created, and that helps for you to get back onto your Mac to figure out what caused it to crash/fail, but to be able to handle versioning can help you from not having to go with the proverbial nuclear option.

BL.

 

[Realityck]

The one thing that I am not sure that CCC can do that Time Machine can do, is versioning, especially related to point-in-time backups.

CCC basically can create a point-in-time backup - as in, a clone of your drive at the time that you are creating it. Clones of drives have to then be recreated each and every time to back up any new data made since the previous backup. That would mean that you would be backing up the entire drive each and every time.

Time Machine, with how it handles versioning, can not only create incremental backups since the last full backup, but would keep records of any changed file since the full backup. That allows you to go back to certain dates to find revisions of files that you may want to restore. Here's an example as to why that is important.

SafetyNet is not designed to offer backup versioning. If you're looking for access to older versions of your files, enable snapshot support on your APFS-formatted backup volume.
see also https://bombich.com/kb/ccc6/protect...stination-volume-carbon-copy-cloner-safetynet

​

 

[bradl]

SafetyNet is not designed to offer backup versioning. If you're looking for access to older versions of your files, enable snapshot support on your APFS-formatted backup volume.
see also https://bombich.com/kb/ccc6/protect...stination-volume-carbon-copy-cloner-safetynet

​

Thanks for the offer, but I'm good. I use Time Machine for my backups, and then double that up by backing up via Time Machine to my Synology NAS, and then using Synology Hyper Backup to backup the volume my TM backups are on. Hyper Backup also has versioning built into it so I can go back to a particular version of the backup I need, select that, then search for the particular version of the files I need to restore, or restore the entire lot.

The only drawback to that is that I am tied to the speed of the network versus the speed of the disk. And with having a MBA, that network speed is the speed of WiFi, or the speed of USB, so I use both a backup to USB and a backup to my NAS in case of failure of the USB drive.

People need to remember that you are never secure with your backup strategy as you are with your latest RESTORE. You can make as many backups as you want, but if they don't work when you restore, your backups are useless and a waste of space.

BL.

 

[ChrisA]

Hi,
What's the best option and why? I have both but wondering what route to take.
Can CCC backup to OneDrive also? That would bee great if it was possible then I have on-site backup and off-site backup.

Time machine is the way to go because it keeps a versioned history,

Here is the the problem with doing "clone the disk" backups...

Let's say you just wrote 20 pages of text and then made a clone backup. You are good. Next day you do some other work and by a freak of nature 10 pages are deleted from the document you wrote yesterday. Then you do a clone backup again. You just overwrote your only good copy of that 20 page story you wrote.

Conning saves even the damaged files and writes over top of the good copies.

Back when we did clone copies on big mainframes we would have 12 or so disks, We used one set on Monday, the other on Tuesday and on Friday we used a rotating set of Friday disks. This system worked well enough and we could recover work that was a few month or so old. But it required a room full of fire safes to store all the disks.

Any system will work as long as you NEVER WRITE OVER A BACKUP that you need to save.

But time machine never writes over data until the entire drive is full. The best why to use TM is to buy the biggest disk drive you can afford that is at least twice as large as the sum total of all your data.

If you need a redundant backup, plug in two TM drives

You need off site backup too. I use a cloud service. Backblaze is good but there are others.

Cloning to a single drive that is not rotated is pointless, you are over writing your only good backup. If the backup fails, you have nothing. So if you like cloning, buy at least three drives and rotate them but TM gives you the same effect using only one larger drive.

 

[ChrisA]

Thanks for the offer, but I'm good. I use Time Machine for my backups, and then double that up by backing up via Time Machine to my Synology NAS, and then using Synology Hyper Backup to backup the volume my TM backups are on. Hyper Backup also has versioning built into it so I can go back to a particular version of the backup I need, select that, then search for the particular version of the files I need to restore, or restore the entire lot.

The only drawback to that is that I am tied to the speed of the network versus the speed of the disk. And with having a MBA, that network speed is the speed of WiFi, or the speed of USB, so I use both a backup to USB and a backup to my NAS in case of failure of the USB drive.

People need to remember that you are never secure with your backup strategy as you are with your latest RESTORE. You can make as many backups as you want, but if they don't work when you restore, your backups are useless and a waste of space.

BL.

I don't think you gain anything by using Hyperbackup for the time machine volumeto a local disk on Synology. Better, I think to set up a mirror onSynology. The Time Machine data is already versioned

 

[bradl]

I don't think you gain anything by using Hyperbackup for the time machine volumeto a local disk on Synology. Better, I think to set up a mirror onSynology. The Time Machine data is already versioned

I have more that gets backed up to my NAS than just my Mac. I have Cloud Station running between my NAS, Mac, and PC, plus have a volume CIFS mounted to my PC and another volume NFS mounted to my Linux box, both of which write files outside of what my Mac has.

BL.

 

[glenthompson]

By 'fully automatic', I mean not having to manually connect to the NAS drive. How does it communicate with your NAS?

I keep the shared drive on the NAS mounted all the time. I have it mount in my login options.

 

[wyrdness]

People need to remember that you are never secure with your backup strategy as you are with your latest RESTORE. You can make as many backups as you want, but if they don't work when you restore, your backups are useless and a waste of space.

This is the problem that I'm having with TimeMachine. It's backing up regularly. It says that the last backup it made to my NAS was an hour ago. But it doesn't seem to be able to restore. If I enter TimeMachine and go back to last week, it gets stuck on "Loading", seemingly forever. That's why I'm looking for options that work as advertised.

Does anyone else have issues like this with TimeMachine? Do you ever check that it can actually restore old files from backup?

 

[DC41]

My Time Machine backs up to my Synology NAS with no problems. But I was having problems access any backup further back than 24 hours. I finally realized that although Time Machine would mount the NAS to do the backup, it wouldn't mount it for recovery. I had to manually mount the NAS in Finder before Time Machine could see further into the past.

I'm a mac newbie, so there might be a better way of doing this, but at least I can access backups all the way to the first one listed in Time Machine.

Another thing I learned is Time Machine takes forever to bring up the folder/file I'm trying to get to once I'm on the right date. I've just learned to be patient.

HTH

 

[Mr. Bear]

I think I’ve stumbled across every weakness that TM has, but from what I’ve read, the main advantage of CCC was bootable backups.

 

[bradl]

I think I’ve stumbled across every weakness that TM has, but from what I’ve read, the main advantage of CCC was bootable backups.

Exactly. That is the big advantage that CCC has. You can't boot from a TM backup. However, that bootable backup is from a single point in time, so you'd have to make multiple Level 0 backups with CCC to get any type of versioning. All of that has to be done manually and takes up A LOT of space.

BL.

 

[Mr. Bear]

To be more specific, I play with fire because I have 7.5tb of data to back up, and most of my backup drives are 8tb. I have an 8tb that's always attached, and I swap between another 8tb and a 12tb. I also have an 8tb at my buddy's house (in case mine gets burned down). I have a 3tb internal drive and an external RAID with about 6tb of data

Some of the weird problems I've had (in no particular order):

Two weeks ago, Time Machine randomly decided that most of my data needed to be re-backed up. So instead of a normal 1-10gb increment, it was 5tb. Did that to one of the 8tb drives, didn't do it to the 12tb or the second 8tb. Until a day or so later, when it did it to the other 8tb.

Similar to this, I've noticed (using Time Tracker) that some snapshots are HUGE (like 100gb) and when I examine what got backed up, most of what it backed up is stuff that hadn't changed.

When I forgot to turn on the RAID when I turned on the computer, TM basically looked at everything as a completely new system. So it did a full backup of the internal drive, and then did a full backup of the RAID when I turned it on later.

Sometimes the incremental backup gets corrupted. So when the backup is about 90.9% complete, the total amount needed to back up also increases. This goes on until the HD is full and then it errors out. So if I needed 10gb backed up, it would behave normally, until it got to 9.09gb, and then it says it needs 10.1gb, 10.2gb, etc. You have to delete the most recent complete snapshot in Time Machine and then it works.

And last, but not least, when I got a new HD for my iMac, and did a restore from backup, but the permissions for all of the content on my RAID (which had not been touched) were set to the dummy user that the shop had put on the HD. That created a variety of annoyances, but when I changed the permissions for that stuff (my Lightroom library - 100k images, so...millions of files?) suddenly TM wanted to back up EVERYTHING from the RAID again.

I've probably wiped and did a clean backup on my three TM drives AT LEAST 5 time this year. On each one.

On the flip side, I haven't lost any data, yet. And when I got my RAID early last year, it was defective, so my multiple Time Machine backups made that an annoyance instead of a catastrophe.

 

[Apple_Robert]

I just recently purchased M1 mini and was little disappointed that I cannot make bootable backups like in past with other macs I had. I am using Time Machine only for regular backups. CCC only backs up the Data Volume on M1 macs. Is there any benefit of having both? In case of hard drive failure, one can restore from either back up, isn't it? Please correct me if I am wrong

It is my understanding that if the internal SSD fails, you won't be booting from any external drive.

 

[400]

Been using both for years but recent upgrade to M1 and still use it (CCC) co familiar. I assume there will be an upgrade at some point but converting my backups to Time Machine then going back to CCC if/when it improves will be a faff.

Though M1 and latest OS seem determined to break anything external and make it almost unusable.

 

[DC41]

Similar to this, I've noticed (using Time Tracker) that some snapshots are HUGE (like 100gb) and when I examine what got backed up, most of what it backed up is stuff that hadn't changed.

What app do you use for "Time Tracker?" I've searched the app store and didn't find anything by that name, and an internet search brings up tons of billing time trackers such as a law firm would use. If you could point me in the right direction I would appreciate it.

Thanks!

 

[Mr. Bear]

What app do you use for "Time Tracker?" I've searched the app store and didn't find anything by that name, and an internet search brings up tons of billing time trackers such as a law firm would use. If you could point me in the right direction I would appreciate it.

Thanks!

Here ya go! https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/36691/timetracker

you might have to get the newer version elsewhere. It’s a little buggy, but good for seeing how big your snapshots are, and what’s in ‘em

 

[Saturn007]

“Here is the the problem with doing "clone the disk" backups...

Let's say you just wrote 20 pages of text and then made a clone backup. You are good. Next day you do some other work and by a freak of nature 10 pages are deleted from the document you wrote yesterday. Then you do a clone backup again. You just overwrote your only good copy of that 20 page story you wrote.

Conning saves even the damaged files and writes over top of the good copies.”

That's not an issue with CCC if you set it up to clone and do incremental backups. You will have both an exact copy of your entire drive and can retrieve earlier versions of any file at the interval you've set. In your example, that includes going back to yesterday's incremental folder (which is titled with date and time it was made) and getting back that 20 page story!

It works wonderfully well. I'm with a couple of others. I use both TM and CCC; the redundancy is helpful, but like the full drive backup of CCC and find that TM takes a long time to retrieve ancient versions.

 

[DPUser]

I record audio with multiple clients.

My backup strategy is Time Machine on HD + Project File Manual Daily Backups to HD x2 + Backblaze Cloud.

 

[DC41]

Here ya go! https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/36691/timetracker

you might have to get the newer version elsewhere. It’s a little buggy, but good for seeing how big your snapshots are, and what’s in ‘em

Hmm... doesn't want to run for me. I'm getting the old "OSStatus error -43" message. I wonder what it can't open? I granted it full disk access. Oh well.

 

[Daverich4]

I think I’ve stumbled across every weakness that TM has, but from what I’ve read, the main advantage of CCC was bootable backups.

They have a work around to make a bootable backup from Big Sur but they don’t recommend it…

”For the reasons noted above, we do not generally recommend that you attempt to make your backups bootable; we recommend that you proceed with a "Standard Backup" instead. You can restore all of your documents, compatible applications, and settings from a standard CCC backup without the extra effort involved in establishing and maintaining a bootable device.”

 

[Realityck]

They have a work around to make a bootable backup from Big Sur but they don’t recommend it…

”For the reasons noted above, we do not generally recommend that you attempt to make your backups bootable; we recommend that you proceed with a "Standard Backup" instead. You can restore all of your documents, compatible applications, and settings from a standard CCC backup without the extra effort involved in establishing and maintaining a bootable device.”

For the time being CCC can only do a APFS clone of the system once, not like Catalina with incremental bootable system updates. If you want a newer system just erase the backup volumes as group, and make a new clone.

I detailed the Big Sur/Monterey method in this post for the CCC 6.0.x here. What is also broken is using CCC to restore the system. To that end I suggest just using a system reinstall of your recent Mac OS version, then just restore everything else using Migration Assistant. I done the last method without any issue with many recoveries.