I've been using the free version of ccc no probs with mavericks ,though it wont copy apple sys software via macbook/extreme wirelessly
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 vs. Super Duper-Which is better?
- Thread starter kapalua12
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've been using the free version of ccc no probs with mavericks ,though it wont copy apple sys software via macbook/extreme wirelessly
Thanks, I just use it to create a clone of my iMac's HD once a month.
Sounds like im going to pull the trigger on the upgrade to mavericks
I started out using CCC years ago, then Mike Bombich disappeared inside the walls of Apple headquarters for two plus years, and the program languished.
That's when I discovered SuperDuper!, and I haven't looked back since.
The thing for me that distinguishes SuperDuper! from Carbon Copy Cloner, is that the developer of SuperDuper! has always seemed to be more detail-oriented and focused on the absolute integrity of backups. SuperDuper has always felt like a more polished and trustworthy program on the backend, having been for a long while the ONLY Mac program to accurately backup all possible metadata. Evetually, other programs like CCC caught up, but that gave me insight into the mindset of the SD! developer, and his focus on perfection.
In essence, I trust the developer of SD more than I do the developer of CCC, even though they are both competent coders.
That's when I discovered SuperDuper!, and I haven't looked back since.
The thing for me that distinguishes SuperDuper! from Carbon Copy Cloner, is that the developer of SuperDuper! has always seemed to be more detail-oriented and focused on the absolute integrity of backups. SuperDuper has always felt like a more polished and trustworthy program on the backend, having been for a long while the ONLY Mac program to accurately backup all possible metadata. Evetually, other programs like CCC caught up, but that gave me insight into the mindset of the SD! developer, and his focus on perfection.
In essence, I trust the developer of SD more than I do the developer of CCC, even though they are both competent coders.
Partitioning a 1 TB external HD for TM and CCC
After reading all the above posts, I've decided to partition my new 1 TB external HD for Time Machine and Carbon Copy Cloner. Can someone please advise on how I should do this? How much HD space should I allocate to each program? Should I set up backups so that certain things aren't duplicated on each partition? Should I, for instance, use Time Machine as the only backup for media (music, movies, etc.)? I'll be backing up my 500 GB Mac Mini. Thanks!
After reading all the above posts, I've decided to partition my new 1 TB external HD for Time Machine and Carbon Copy Cloner. Can someone please advise on how I should do this? How much HD space should I allocate to each program? Should I set up backups so that certain things aren't duplicated on each partition? Should I, for instance, use Time Machine as the only backup for media (music, movies, etc.)? I'll be backing up my 500 GB Mac Mini. Thanks!
Last edited:
I've also used CCC (free version) before upgrading to Mavericks - I've installed the "helper tool" & it seems to work for me with Mavericks.
I'm not using the cloning aspects of it though, merely using it to backup my documents onto a networked drive, so that the Windows laptop can also see them.
I'm not using the cloning aspects of it though, merely using it to backup my documents onto a networked drive, so that the Windows laptop can also see them.
[[ Can someone please advise on how I should do this? How much HD space should I allocate to each program? Should I set up backups so that certain things aren't duplicated on each partition? ]]
CCC backup should be "as big as your hard drive" -- because it's going to be AN EXACT COPY of the "source drive".
TM backup can be whatever's left.
Looks like a 50/50 split is what you need.
CCC backup should be "as big as your hard drive" -- because it's going to be AN EXACT COPY of the "source drive".
TM backup can be whatever's left.
Looks like a 50/50 split is what you need.
That will work fine. You would have trouble with this if you were trying to clone over to a 2013 Retina Macbook because it uses a special build of Mavericks, but with the two 2011 machines, you will be okay.
Indeed I use Time Machine just because it seems to make OsX happy ( otherwise i am pestered with pop-ups and complaints). In 3 years i'd never had a need to retrieve an old deleted file. I must say it feels nice to know tou can do that, anyway i'd never rely on TM to save me in case of disaster with the boot disk.
After years of using SD I recently tried CCC. I was surprised by the complexity and ambiguity of it's Interface. With SD ,you always know what you're doing. It's options are clear and simple. Of course CC works, it even backs up the famous "Recovery Partition" but what's the use when you can have a bootable backup of your whole boot disk ?
In brief I find Super Duper much better than CCC.
After years of using SD I recently tried CCC. I was surprised by the complexity and ambiguity of it's Interface. With SD ,you always know what you're doing. It's options are clear and simple. Of course CC works, it even backs up the famous "Recovery Partition" but what's the use when you can have a bootable backup of your whole boot disk ?
In brief I find Super Duper much better than CCC.
Vote for CCC
I have used CCC for years and love it. No issues experienced.
In addition to CCC, I also use Apple's TM to a 3rd drive, just in case. I've had issues with TM machine backups, however.
I have not used SD, so it may be a good solution, too.
I have used CCC for years and love it. No issues experienced.
In addition to CCC, I also use Apple's TM to a 3rd drive, just in case. I've had issues with TM machine backups, however.
I have not used SD, so it may be a good solution, too.
Silly question iro Destination disk
Hello all,
Apologies for this incredibly noob question - but having looked around at various places, including CCC's help files - I cannot find any confirmation [no doubt since it's so stupid, no-one has bothered asking before!
]
Question: Can CCC use an external drive that already has data on it - without wiping that data? Or does it work in similar fashion to TM, that needs a "clean" disk to write too?
I have an external 1TB drive connected to our router, that we use to store backup copies of family photos; movies etc. on.
If I unplug the External, and pop it into my MBP - and then point CCC over to it, does CCC create a new folder and automatically place the single(?) disk image onto the External? Does it continue to overwrite that single(?) disk image, each time it clones - or does it gradually fill up the disk, as TM appears to?
In short - I want to know if I need to purchase a new external, purely for CCC - or can I continue using the existing external, that already has data on it.
Any clarity would be appreciated!
Hello all,
Apologies for this incredibly noob question - but having looked around at various places, including CCC's help files - I cannot find any confirmation [no doubt since it's so stupid, no-one has bothered asking before!
]Question: Can CCC use an external drive that already has data on it - without wiping that data? Or does it work in similar fashion to TM, that needs a "clean" disk to write too?
I have an external 1TB drive connected to our router, that we use to store backup copies of family photos; movies etc. on.
If I unplug the External, and pop it into my MBP - and then point CCC over to it, does CCC create a new folder and automatically place the single(?) disk image onto the External? Does it continue to overwrite that single(?) disk image, each time it clones - or does it gradually fill up the disk, as TM appears to?
In short - I want to know if I need to purchase a new external, purely for CCC - or can I continue using the existing external, that already has data on it.
Any clarity would be appreciated!
Hello all,
Apologies for this incredibly noob question - but having looked around at various places, including CCC's help files - I cannot find any confirmation [no doubt since it's so stupid, no-one has bothered asking before!
Question: Can CCC use an external drive that already has data on it - without wiping that data? Or does it work in similar fashion to TM, that needs a "clean" disk to write too?
I have an external 1TB drive connected to our router, that we use to store backup copies of family photos; movies etc. on.
If I unplug the External, and pop it into my MBP - and then point CCC over to it, does CCC create a new folder and automatically place the single(?) disk image onto the External? Does it continue to overwrite that single(?) disk image, each time it clones - or does it gradually fill up the disk, as TM appears to?
In short - I want to know if I need to purchase a new external, purely for CCC - or can I continue using the existing external, that already has data on it.
Any clarity would be appreciated!
CCC will overwrite anything on the volume/partition you use as the destination. S the answer to your issue would be to make two partitions on the external drive. Put your photos and movies etc. on one partition and use the other for CCC. CCC will then wipe anything on the CCC partition but leave you other data on the second partition in place. Just make sure when you setup CCC you select the correct partition as the CCC destination.
By default CCC just copies (clones) your internal disk to the external, so the space used on the external will always be the same as the space currently in use on the internal. So the CCC clone on the external will not grow unless the space used on the internal has grown.
However, CCC does have a feature where is can save incremental changes from the internal to the external (similar to what Time Machine does by saving versions). If you enable that option in CCC, then yes, the CCC backup on the external will be larger than the space used on the internal and it will continue to grow as more "versions" of files are copied over.
Thanks for your comprehensive reply! I get it now. Will go ahead and partition - or simply look at getting a 2nd external (at least they appear to be getting cheaper!).
Weaselboy wrote:
[[ CCC will overwrite anything on the volume/partition you use as the destination. ]
Nope, I don't believe this is the case.
CCC now has the option to NOT overwrite and STILL create and maintain an incremental backup.
Example:
- Open CCC
- Select source drive on left, target drive on right
- Under "Handling of data already on the destination", there is a popup menu
- Choose "Preserve newer files, don't delete anything"
Nothing gets deleted on the target volume.
Files do get -added- to the target volume.
[[ CCC will overwrite anything on the volume/partition you use as the destination. ]
Nope, I don't believe this is the case.
CCC now has the option to NOT overwrite and STILL create and maintain an incremental backup.
Example:
- Open CCC
- Select source drive on left, target drive on right
- Under "Handling of data already on the destination", there is a popup menu
- Choose "Preserve newer files, don't delete anything"
Nothing gets deleted on the target volume.
Files do get -added- to the target volume.
You are taking that sentence out of context. Read everything I said. I explained the default behavior is to "clone" source to destination and remove files form the destination that are not on the source.
CCC and SD are not replacements for Migration Assistant. They are more akin to Time Machine, as they are backup solutions. CCC makes bootable clones of your drive, so if your drive were to fail, you can simply boot from the cloned drive and continue operating without any other procedures being required.
One other difference between SD and CCC (and the main reason we break out SD) is that CCC cannot clone Time Machine backup folders. SD can (assuming there is no partition corruption).
Another important difference I'm not sure anyone mentioned: if there is a corrupt file or bad sectors (contained in a file), SuperDuper will fail and stop; whereas CCC will warn you of the problem but continue around that file/sector.
Another important difference I'm not sure anyone mentioned: if there is a corrupt file or bad sectors (contained in a file), SuperDuper will fail and stop; whereas CCC will warn you of the problem but continue around that file/sector.
Additional information: Cloning a Time Machine backup
This has never been an issue for me or anyone I know who uses CCC, since we use CCC instead of TM, so there are no TM backups to clone.
This has never been an issue for me or anyone I know who uses CCC, since we use CCC instead of TM, so there are no TM backups to clone.
We run into this when we recover a customer's failed Time Machine external drive, and they want to get a working copy of Time Machine back (on a new external drive). So, assuming there is no partition corruption (or it was fixed with Disk Warrior), we use SD. *A block-level CCC would work too, but wouldn't use the current partition size of the drive being cloned to AFAIK (it would in effect make a new partition on the new drive), so SD is just more convenient.
My SD backup stopped for just this reason: corrupt file. While I did not understand the console error message, I immediately emailed the developer, and he told me the next day that my hard drive was failing badly and how to get a final SD backup before failure. And, sure enough, the drive did fail 2 days later, but, fortunately, I had a new drive ready to go because of the developer's heads up. No experience with CCC, but I can't say enough good things about SD's customer service/developer.
In addition to the above, I use a program called Sync to sync my work files to a microSD card. It syncs my Documents folder every time a file is modified; which gives me an ongoing backup of my truely valuable files between my regular backups.
In addition, I use Foreversave to keep a history of files so I damn revert to an earlier version if needed.
Both have saved me multiple times and are worth every penny I spent on them.
They are installed on every Mac in our household.