Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ricger

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Nov 11, 2023
4
0
Hi,

I want to buy a new HDD and wonder if it is possible to partition this HDD and have Time Machine backup on one partition and SuperDuper on the other?

In addition, is it wise to get an SSD or is an HDD sufficient for this type of backup?

I have a Mac with a 2TB internal SSD, maybe you have some suggestions for the size of the external HDD and the size of the partitions..
 

Boyd01

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 21, 2012
7,954
4,894
New Jersey Pine Barrens
IMO, you should use separate disks. With a single disk, if there's some kind of problem then you lose all of your backups. Last time I checked, Apple recommended a disk twice the size as your internal drive for Time Machine.

A hard drive may be fine for most users. I use a 5tb hard disk for Time Machine to backup my 2tb internal SSD. However, I have four 2tb SSD's that I use with Carbon Copy Cloner to back up the internal plus 3 external 2tb SSD's that are always connected to my Mini.

For one thing, I make maps and this generates a huge number of small image files (about 60 million on one disk). This would really take forever to backup to a hard disk (although I have one for archival storage) - it can take a couple hours for Carbon Copy to back it up to a SSD. I work with lots of data and all my drives are pretty full. If I have a problem, I want to be able to just swap the backup SSD with the original SSD and continue working instead of buying a replacement disk and then restoring slowly from a hard drive.

But my situation is probably different from yours, so choose whatever works best for you!
 

ricger

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Nov 11, 2023
4
0
Thanks for the quick response so I could also just use 1x 2TB SSD (SuperDuper) and 1x 4TB SSD (Time Machine)?

At the moment I have a HDD and it does make some noise, an SSD would be nicer, but is an SSD (price aside) a good option for backups because I also read here and there that SSD is less reliable. Or is it better to buy two HDD, and which ones are quieter?
 

Bigwaff

Contributor
Sep 20, 2013
2,767
1,846
so I could also just use 1x 2TB SSD (SuperDuper) and 1x 4TB SSD (Time Machine)?
Yup.

SSD or HDD? Price. SSD more expensive for same capacity storage. SSD faster than HDD. But for backups, who care how long it take?

Re SuperDuper clones. What year and model Mac do you have? I ask because Apple Silicon Macs don’t boot from external drives, only from internal storage. The boot is internal and then load OS from external drive. If internal storage fail, not possible to boot at all. Bootable clones a thing of the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ricger

ricger

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Nov 11, 2023
4
0
I have bought a Mac Studio (Apple M2 Max) recently, external drive is a older Lacie that I want to upgrade.

I also have backblaze running so not sure if Time Machine and SuperDuper is overkill ?
 

Fishrrman

macrumors Penryn
Feb 20, 2009
29,279
13,377
I agree with the posts above about using SEPARATE backup drives for the two backups.

For tm, a platter-based HDD will work if you have one. You can use an SSD, but not required.

If you're going to create a cloned (and bootable) backup using SuperDuper, the drive doesn't need to be any larger than your internal drive. The backup will never be larger than the source drive.

For a SD cloned backup, I suggest using an SSD.
REASON WHY:
The latest versions of the Mac seem to REQUIRE an SSD to be bootable. Main reason is... speed. Many (most?) HDD's will be too slow.
 

ricger

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Nov 11, 2023
4
0
OK, Thanks! I think I'll just order two Samsung T7 SSD then, one of 2TB and one of 4TB.
 

HobeSoundDarryl

macrumors G5
If you haven't ordered the HDD yet, I suggest going BIGGER than 4TB... mostly because bigger storage is dirt cheap and more TM space just means a richer history of backups before the oldest ones need to start getting deleted. With 2TB on your Mac, I'd multiply by at least 3 = 6TB but might even go towards about 10GB just for overkill.

Through one lens, TM is about backups. But through the other, it's about going back in time. More space, gives you the ability to go back further than less space. Where would this matter? A corrupt file will back up too. If you have the ability to go back in time, you could step backwards to the last version that was not corrupt and recover it.

Example: you have a big document- let's make it a book for a very tangible example. Somewhere doing the process, you accidentally delete finished chapters 4 though 8 but don't notice because you are working on latter chapters. Weeks or months later, you have some reason to refer back to those chapters and discover them missing at that point.

In a TM backup drive, each update to the book is going to be "remembered" in a backup. So you might have- say- 50 backups since the accidental deletion. #51 has the latest version of the missing chapters. So you can take the latest version of the book as one file, recover #51 to regain access to finished Chapters #4-#8 and then drop those chapters into the former for a complete book again. If your TM backup drive is:
  • Small: maybe it runs out of space before it can back up 50 iterations. If so, #51 and later are auto-deleted to make room for even newer version backups. Chapters #4-#8 are toast and you'll need to recall and rewrite them again from YOUR own (biological) memory.
  • Big (enough): there may be 100 or 200 versions-in-progress backed up, so you have the easy ability to recover the missing chapters from iteration #51.
As the name directly implies, going back in time is a key feature here. In a hypothetical real Time Machine you build to go back and correct some mistake or change some past event, if your creation can only go back a little ways in time, you may reach a point in the present where going as far back as it is able is not far enough back. For example, if the event you want to change occurred 40 days ago but your machine is limited to 30 days, you can't use it to correct whatever went wrong. Same here (only this works in backed up VERSIONS of files). In this rough analogy, time is still fluid up to 30 days back in time but then becomes rigid beyond 30 days. In this TM app, after you run out of space for more backups, the oldest ones are deleted to make new room (thus your ability to travel back to their time- their versions- is being destroyed).

Another reason to go bigger: if anyone lives with you and has a Mac too, add your 2TB to whatever space they have, multiply by 3+ and consider backing BOTH up to that TM drive. For example, if the other person had 2TB too, 4TB times at least 3 = at least 12TB target size for the TM backup

One MORE smart consideration: make that TWO bigger HDDs to both be active TM backup drives and store one of them offsite to protect against fire/flood/theft. Regularly rotate onsite one with offsite one so that the offsite one is pretty up to date. I do this every 30 days and store it in a cheap bank safe deposit box. But any secure offsite location could suffice.

50 perfect backups all stored in one place could all be lost in a single fire/flood/theft scenario. Get ONE recent backup offsite and your ability to recover almost everything grows dramatically.
 
Last edited:

Melbourne Park

macrumors 65816
Sort of on topic: I copied some files onto my most recent time machine drive. Now time machine wants to format the drive. That means it destroys its backups. Why won't time machine recognise the backup drive, ignore the couple of other files I moved to the drive, and continue to backup?

A solution for me might be to install a partition, and copy the backup onto the partition. Which is sort of what this topic is about ...
 

Tumbleweed666

macrumors 68000
Mar 20, 2009
1,761
141
Near London, UK.
I have bought a Mac Studio (Apple M2 Max) recently, external drive is a older Lacie that I want to upgrade.

I also have backblaze running so not sure if Time Machine and SuperDuper is overkill ?
I would say not. I once had an issue trying to restore from TM, i had two TM backup disks but there was a bug that prevented restore from TM in whatever specific circumstances my system was in at that time, I forget. So two copies did not help me because they were both TM.
My recollection is that after a tremendous amount of hassle I did manage to restore.
I now do this .. you may regard the following as seriously OTT overkill and now I've typed it maybe it is 😂😂..

Two TM disks always attached.
One TM disk I occasionally attach, rest of the time its in a fire safe.
Two CCC backed up always attached disks (backup runs early hours)
One CCC backed up disk held away from home at nearby relatives house run on an adhoc basis maybe monthly.

The basic rule of data is that unless its in two different forms and two different places, it doesn't count as data.
 

Bigwaff

Contributor
Sep 20, 2013
2,767
1,846
  • Like
Reactions: Melbourne Park

Saturn007

macrumors 68000
Jul 18, 2010
1,598
1,487
If you're going to create a cloned (and bootable) backup using SuperDuper, the drive doesn't need to be any larger than your internal drive. The backup will never be larger than the source drive.

Using Carbon Copy Cloner, I do a cloned and bootable backup of my 2015 Intel Mac to alternating external HDDs… but I also use those drives for incremental CCC backups. Those accumulate storage space and so they end up taking up far more room than the source drive has.

So, under that scenario, it's smart to have the backup drive be much larger than the internal one, with the old rule of double the space being a good maxim.

I also use Time Machine via a Time Capsule, so there are redundant backups.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.