Time Machine - Backup Internal and External Drives

[PsychoCenobite]

Now that I have my new Mac Studio setup I want to setup my new external HDD (5TB WD My Passport) for Time Machine.

Because I've gone with a slightly different setup than I'm use to - the Mac Studio internal SSD (1TB) is going to be used for the OS, apps, systems files, etc, but I'm using an external SSD (2TB T7) for my everyday files - I just wanted to check if Time Machine will backup both the internal and external drives at the same time or if I need to do something different?

Also, if I ever get a new Mac in the future and wanted to restore from my Time Machine backup, can I select to only restore from the backed-up internal drive or will it try to restore from both?

Thanks! 👍

 

[Boyd01]

It's really simple. Go to Time Machine in System Preferences and click the Options button at the bottom of that Window. In this window you would select any disks that you DO NOT want Time Machine to backup. As long as your external disk is not on this list, it will be automatically backed up. IIRC, Time Machine used to automatically exclude external disks, but I think that has changed and now the default is to backup all connected disks. But it's easy enough to confirm this for yourself.

As for restoring, don't know. I would never want to restore a whole disk from Time Machine. I always use Carbon Copy Clones for that sort of thing.

 

[Fishrrman]

I agree with Boyd (in reply 2) re CarbonCopyCloner.

If your external drive is used for "data only" -- and is NOT used for booting -- then I would recommend "cloning" it to another drive (or to a partition on a drive) using either CarbonCopyCloner or SuperDuper.

Both are free to download and use for 30 days, so you can try them out.

SuperDuper will do a "full clone" (clones ENTIRE drive) FOREVER without registering.
But if you want to do "incremental" backups, you need to register it.

A "cloned" backup will be an exact copy of the source drive.
If it's a data-only drive, you won't be able to tell the difference between them.

 

[PsychoCenobite]

I agree with Boyd (in reply 2) re CarbonCopyCloner.

If your external drive is used for "data only" -- and is NOT used for booting -- then I would recommend "cloning" it to another drive (or to a partition on a drive) using either CarbonCopyCloner or SuperDuper.

Both are free to download and use for 30 days, so you can try them out.

SuperDuper will do a "full clone" (clones ENTIRE drive) FOREVER without registering.
But if you want to do "incremental" backups, you need to register it.

A "cloned" backup will be an exact copy of the source drive.
If it's a data-only drive, you won't be able to tell the difference between them.

Thanks for the replies! 👍

I use to use SuperDuper on the iMac I had before my most recent one but I stopped using it when Time Machine became available.

What is the reason for not using Time Machine for everything?

Is the recommendation to used Time Machine for the internal SSD and CarbonCopyCloner or SuperDuper for the external "data only" SSD? Or should I use CarbonCopyCloner or SuperDuper for both and not use Time Machine at all?

I've been using Time Machine for the last 10+ years, so I'm more comfortable with that but if there is good reason for changing, then I'll look into that.

Thanks! 👍

 

[sgtaylor5]

Thanks for the replies! 👍

I use to use SuperDuper on the iMac I had before my most recent one but I stopped using it when Time Machine became available.

What is the reason for not using Time Machine for everything?

Is the recommendation to used Time Machine for the internal SSD and CarbonCopyCloner or SuperDuper for the external "data only" SSD? Or should I use CarbonCopyCloner or SuperDuper for both and not use Time Machine at all?

I've been using Time Machine for the last 10+ years, so I'm more comfortable with that but if there is good reason for changing, then I'll look into that.

Thanks! 👍

Change? I use both Time Machine and SuperDuper. Both have their uses. I use Time Machine for version retrieval, I use SuperDuper to test out new software (boot from backup drive).

 

[MarkC426]

As above, a dual backup is preferable.
I use TM for all my internal drives, and also SuperDuper to clone all my internal drives.

 

[Boyd01]

As above, a dual backup is preferable.

And a triple is even better! I have Time Machine, Carbon Copy and Backblaze for cloud backups.

 

[HDFan]

What is the reason for not using Time Machine for everything?

Time Machines' internal structure is complex, with a lot of pointers. As such it is more vulnerable to failure than a simple filesystem such as HFS for which various repair utilities exist.

The recommended backup strategy is a 3-2-1 with TM being just one of the 3 backups.

 

[PsychoCenobite]

Thanks for the replies! 👍

I’d seen the “3-2-1” backup strategy mention before but I wasn’t 100% sure what it meant - does it mean you should have 3 different backups?

It looks like SuperDuper will only backup/clone internal drives. Does CarbonCopyClone cover both internal and external drives?

For now I have used Time Machine to backup my internal and external drives... initially Time Machine wouldn't let me remove my external T7 drive from the "excluded" list but after I erased the drive and formatted it as APFS (Case-sensitive, Encrypted), which I also did for the WD Time Machine backup drive*, I was able to remove it from the list.

*For both external drives I'm not using the pre-installed Samsung or WD security software and I'm using the Mac encryption.

I now have an encrypted Time Machine backup of both my internal and external drives.

In the new year I'll pick up another WD external drive and (hopefully) use CarbonCopyClone to backup/clone both my internal and external drives.

 

[Boyd01]

I’d seen the “3-2-1” backup strategy mention before but I wasn’t 100% sure what it meant - does it mean you should have 3 different backups?

It looks like SuperDuper will only backup/clone internal drives. Does CarbonCopyClone cover both internal and external drives?

Yes, I always have 3 different backups AT A MINIMUM. I have Carbon Copy Clones of all internal/external disks, Time Machine to a network drive for two primary disks and Backblaze for everything, including my fileserver and media server. I also have legacy backups on separate disks from old computers.

Carbon Copy can clone to/from just about any source (AFAIK). The only thing it can no longer do is create a bootable clone, these were very handy in the past. But (as I understand it) the problem is Apple's new security, which only wants you to use a version of MacOS that came directly from Apple. Carbon Copy still offers the ability to make a bootable clone, but discourages its use and says it may not work.

Surely SuperDuper can copy both internal and external disks. Is this, perhaps a limitation of a free version or something? Sorry, I don't know anything about their software.

 

[MarkC426]

SuperDuper can clone external drives, for example cloning back your backup to your Mac.
On a MacPro internal drives on a pcie card show as external and they clone....

 

[Fishrrman]

CCC and SuperDuper can still do bootable clones.
But once created, only the HD Data volume will get incremental updates.
The boot partition/container ("HD") gets created the first time, and then... that's it, no updates.

 

[Boyd01]

You can make a bootable clone with Carbon Copy, but if you are using Big Sur and later, this is what Bombich Software says:

"we do not support nor recommend making bootable copies of the system as part of a backup strategy"

Creating legacy bootable copies of macOS (Big Sur and later) | Bombich Software

bombich.com

 

[Fishrrman]

Boyd posted:
Bombich Software says:
"we do not support nor recommend making bootable copies of the system as part of a backup strategy"

Yes, they state that.
But CCC STILL OFFERS the user the opportunity to create a "legacy bootable clone".
It's there, if the user wants it.

 

[ginhb]

CCC and SuperDuper can still do bootable clones.
But once created, only the HD Data volume will get incremental updates.
The boot partition/container ("HD") gets created the first time, and then... that's it, no updates.

Do I understand this correctly? If the boot partition/container doesn't receive incremental updates, any security patches or OS updates applied after the initial clone won't be included. Another FULL clone would have to be performed after applying those updates. Is that the primary concern?

 

[Boyd01]

For Carbon Copy, read the link I posted above. It explains why they don't recommend making bootable clones anymore.

If the boot partition/container doesn't receive incremental updates, any security patches or OS updates applied after the initial clone won't be included. Another FULL clone would have to be performed after applying those updates. Is that the primary concern?

From their FAQ:

You should not expect the destination to remain bootable after running additional backup tasks to the destination (i.e. via manual or scheduled backups). The Legacy Bootable Copy Assistant is intended only for creating ad hoc, bootable copies of the system that you intend to use immediately.

 

[satcomer]

I'm starting to think Time Machine was made manually for DAS disks era! I know some smart NAS guys say they get running on NAS, color me surprised sense the fist backup in FULL copy or the startup drive! After that it only does hourly backup of "changed" files! So doing a Full backup install must take forever on NAS setup!

 

[ThrowerGB]

I have a similar setup to yours. I recently transitioned from a 2017 iMac 27" to Studio. I've used TM since it was introduced and found it very reliable. I've used it to setup new machines using Migration Assistant, and used it for three family members and a friend. I backup everyone's iOS devices to their own MacOS machine.
I don't back up anything to the Cloud because that process doesn't back up everything. At least that's the way it was many years ago. Perhaps it's changed now.
However, I also use an offsite backup process (CrashPlan) as extra insurance.
I have TM backing up to 2 WD Elements 8TB hard disk drives. I have TM set to use dual mode, i.e., it alternates between the two disks; A then B, then A then B etc.
I exclude the two WD Elements drives in TM so they don't back themselves up, but perhaps that's built in now, not sure.
So TM backs up what's on: the 2 TB Studio internal SSD, and a 500 GB Samsung Portable SSD X5, I use for for Media.
None of the drives have more than a single partition, except, of course the internal SSD, which MacOS formats as 2 partitions: Macintosh HD and Macintosh HD - Data.
The two WD drives are formatted as Mac OS Extended (Journaled) and connected via USB. The two SSDs are formatted as APFS with the external Samsung X5 connected via Thunderbolt.
The system just chugs away in the background without my attention. Every now and then I need to find a file I deleted some time ago, or which was an older version.
The WD drives are slow and noisy in this age of SSDs. But they're comparatively cheap. And speed doesn't matter much because they're only used for backup and restore.

 

[TriciaMacMillan]

So doing a Full backup install must take forever on NAS setup!

Why so?

 

[HDFan]

Why so?

A few reasons.

1. NAS connections (WiFi, Ethernet 1Gbps) are slow as compared to directly connected devices such as hard disks.

2. Transfers to a NAS are fastest when you have a large files. A system backup normally has a lot of small files which requires a lot of network overhead which slows things down.

3. I have never gotten NAS TM backups to work reliably. Always slow and eventually get corrupt even with fast interfaces (10 GbE, Thunderbolt).

 

[TriciaMacMillan]

A few reasons.

That’s all correct, BUT

- backing up to a NAS over Wifi has the advantage of working automatically without me having to remember connecting devices
- in my experience, only backups that are made automatically without requiring user actions are really reliable
- if it runs automatically in the background, why care that it’s slower?
- I personally didn’t have more problems since I use NAS than I had before

For me, that sind up to a really good option. It’s all a matter of perspective.

 

[HDFan]

- backing up to a NAS over Wifi has the advantage of working automatically without me having to remember connecting devices
- in my experience, only backups that are made automatically without requiring user actions are really reliable
- if it runs automatically in the background, why care that it’s slower?
- I personally didn’t have more problems since I use NAS than I had before

For me, that sind up to a really good option. It’s all a matter of perspective.

1. Glad your Wifi is reliable. Can't depend 100% on mine and it is too slow at 925 Mbs to get hourly backups.

2. Automatic backups as you say are important. But backups that actually work is just as important. I have lost count of the number of NAS TM backups that I have lost both on Synology and QNAP. My backups may be larger than average though: 2-6 TB. I have found CCC backups to be very reliable when backing up even large datasets of 50 TB or more.

3. You care if it is slower if you can't get hourly backups because it takes almost a day for a single backup. That is my NAS experience even with very fast connections - Thunderbolt and 10 GbE.

 

[TriciaMacMillan]

1. Glad your Wifi is reliable. Can't depend 100% on mine and it is too slow at 925 Mbs to get hourly backups.
[…]
3. You care if it is slower if you can't get hourly backups because it takes almost a day for a single backup. That is my NAS experience even with very fast connections - Thunderbolt and 10 GbE.

Okay, these are special circumstances when you create such amounts of new data faster than they can be backed up. Seems a bit unusual to me. How come? Are you video editing a lot?

 

[HDFan]

Okay, these are special circumstances when you create such amounts of new data faster than they can be backed up.

Unfortunately not the case, minimal system file changes. Not sure why NAS backups never work for me when others have no problems. Maybe it is the size of my boot disk that is being backed up - ~3.5 TB. It just takes a long time to get file information for over 7.5 million files and compare it to what's on the backup, particularly when it isn't a simple lookup and you may have to follow a lot of links requiring many reads for even one file.

 

[TriciaMacMillan]

Unfortunately not the case, minimal system file changes. Not sure why NAS backups never work for me when others have no problems. Maybe it is the size of my boot disk that is being backed up - ~3.5 TB. It just takes a long time to get file information for over 7.5 million files and compare it to what's on the backup, particularly when it isn't a simple lookup and you may have to follow a lot of links requiring many reads for even one file.

I've just updated to Ventura, and I've notice that it's now possible to choose between hourly, daily or weekly backups, which may be interesting for you.

Also, if you have XCode installed, I strongly recommend to exclude /Applications/XCode.app from the Time Machine backup, because it is known to slow down Time Machine significantly due to the high number of small files it contains. At the same time, it seems unnecessary to back it up, because it can just be downloaded again if for some reason it gets lost or damaged.