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.
Chronosync vs Carbon Copy Cloner
- Thread starter Miguel Cunha
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ChronoSync for syncing or updating specific volumes or folders, Carbon Copy Cloner for full system backups.
I use both CS and CCC. Both are top quality products. CS is primarily a synchronisation tool, whilst CCC is a Time Machine alternative. But, there is considerable overlap in functionality. For you, "Best" depends on the details of what you want to do. Try them both.
I totally agree with @Silencio with what CS and CCC are best at.
I totally agree with @Silencio with what CS and CCC are best at.
I like both, but lean more towards ChronoSync only because I use it more versus the below CCC use case. I use it to sync to and from both of my NAS's, External Drives, Dropbox Folders, and the like without issues.
I mainly use CCC for backing up the HD that my OS is sitting on and use that as a backup/restore when needed. Yes, I know CS can do this, but I have been using CCC for this for a very long time.
I mainly use CCC for backing up the HD that my OS is sitting on and use that as a backup/restore when needed. Yes, I know CS can do this, but I have been using CCC for this for a very long time.
Agree. Totally consistent with the names ChronoSync and Carbon Copy Cloner too.
The apps are really intended for different purposes. One is for syncing data, the other is for backing up data. Quite different, syncing is not backing up. And both are very good and useful apps.
Just recently purchased SuperDuper. It is more affordable than CCC (about half it's price) and works well within the current limitations of Apple's bug(s) in its ASR routine which prevents users of Ventura from making a bootable backup of their entire system. This ASR bug also causes the same bootable backup limitation in CCC. For a disaster recovery scenario with Ventura you would have had to use either util to backup just your system's data volume. Since it won't be bootable as mentioned above you would then have to do a fresh install again of the OS onto your system drive. At that point as the new OS install boots you would use the migration option to bring back your data and point it to the drive you used with either util to restore one's data. When completed, you'd then have a fully bootable system backup restored.
Last edited:
If you have an M series Mac, there is no need to make a bootable clone.
Last edited:
Why do you say that? It is still more convenient to be able to do a full backup which includes the OS then having to backup the data volume separately and then having to reload the OS manually to get that restore to boot. I'm referencing a corrupted system or for a disaster recovery scenario.
1) The OS is sealed and protected. It isn't going to get corrupt.
2) All personal data is on the DATA volume.
3) If the internal drive on an M series Mac fails it can't boot, and having a bootable clone for such an occurrence is a waste of time.
4) It is much better to do a Time Machine and a Carbon Copy Cloner backup of personal files and settings and then restore from backup, if needed.
Sealed and protected? I guess time will tell if that is the case. Yes, I'm amazed at item 3) on your list. How the heck Apple could think this was a good idea for the user is beyond me. Sorrry, but it points to further greed and profit motivation on their part! I recently picked up a used Mac Mini M1 in order to get back into the Mac (using Windows for the last 3 years or so) and item 3) sure doesn't make me feel very secure with my machine choice!
Last edited:
So… a few years from now… when the internal disk reaches its EOL… it will render the Mac useless?!
Unless a person wants to pay to get it fixed, it will be useless. Apple is slowly moving in that direction already.
These were the kind of reasons I started moving away from Apple about 5 years ago. Curiosity, motivated my return to the fold recently, but these type of things are starting to chip away at that decision! There's a lot of freedom of choice one sacrifices by being in this Apple ecosystem! Guess once again Apple's target audience are those with a lot of disposable income!
Last edited:
Not if you have a half decent backup regimen.
No, you replace the motherboard just as you would do for any other mainboard failure. The internal disk is now just one of the mainboard components.
Last edited:
Yeah, and I wonder what outrageous price Apple will come up with to replace your motherboard, ridiculous!
Depending on the computer's age it will become more and more ludicrous!
Hence, my saying the Mac would be render useless. It will be better to buy a new one… which is exactly what Apple wants!
So much for green policy!