Cloning a Mac HD.

[skinnylegs]

This may be a really lame question but I *think* I read or heard about this somewhere.....

If I copy my *entire* Mac HD onto and external drive, wipe out my HD, reinstall the copied HD from the external drive back to my Mac will my Mac be the same as it was prior to erasing the HD? I mean....will my wallpaper and preferences and stuff be the same? More importantly, do I have to reinstall applications?

Thanks in advance!

[Multimedia]

Use Carbon Copy Cloner (http://www.bombich.com/software/ccc.html) Skinnyleggs.

[skinnylegs]

Thanks for the link, Multimedia! I'll check it out.

BTW.....so I suppose my little scenario above is incorrect eh? It must be otherwise apps. like the one you linked me to wouldn't be necessary.

[Multimedia]

Thanks for the link, Multimedia! I'll check it out.

BTW.....so I suppose my little scenario above is incorrect eh? It must be otherwise apps. like the one you linked me to wouldn't be necessary.Yes you are correct. You cannot just "copy" a boot dirve with the finder because there are a lot of invisible files in the system that will not get copied without a utility like Carbon Copy Cloner which is the Gold Standard of apps used for that purpose. Everyone uses Carbon Copy Cloner.

[grapes911]

...Carbon Copy Cloner which is the Gold Standard of apps used for that purpose. Everyone uses Carbon Copy Cloner.
While I personally use CCC, SuperDuper is also very good and even better than CCC is some areas. The problem is that SD is not free. They do have a free trial though.

[Veritas&Equitas]

SuperDuper is awesome, but I like CCC even more. They both seem to complete identical backups, however, in my case, CCC was faster by about an hour. If I were in your shoes, paying for SuperDuper seems worthless over the free CCC unless you want the active scheduling backup features that SD offers. All I care about is speed :D

[Koodauw]

If you are running an intel mac, SuperDuper is UB, however, I don't think CCC is.

EDIT: appears the new beta version of CCC is in fact a UB.

[ElectricSheep]

You can also clone an entire volume or device using dd at the command line:

dd if=/path/to/device of=/path/to/image conv=sync,noerr

For example, if I want to make a block level clone of my external disk located at /dev/disk1s2 I would use

dd if=/dev/disk1s2 of=myDisk.img conv=sync,noerr

To find what /dev/disk* matches a mounted volume, use the command df.

The of= option could also point to another device to make a block-level clone of one disk onto another disk.

conv=sync,noerr forces dd to pad bad blocks with zeros and continue reading, rather than failing. This is useful if you need to recover data off of a failing disk.

There is, however, a caveat when using this method with GPT partitioned disks . GPT (GUID Partition Table) is used on EFI based Macs, and tags every disk with a Globally Unique Identifier. This GUID is used by the firmware to identify boot devices. If you make a block-level clone of a disk, it also copies the GUID. If you do not then change the GUID of the copy, the Mac may randomly decide to boot from the clone rather than the original.

If you are just creating an image for the purposes of restoring with Disk Utility, you don't really need to worry about the GUID.

[Veritas&Equitas]

You can also clone an entire volume or device using dd at the command line:
True, but who in GOD'S name would want to do that? Especially when CCC is free and so much more easy?

[sushi]

True, but who in GOD'S name would want to do that? Especially when CCC is free and so much more easy?
Well put.

CCC works great and is easy to use.

SuperDuper is okay as well.

For my needs, ccc is preferred.

[Coffeeguy]

If you are using Carbon Copy Cloner, be very sure that you read the directions carefully (novel thought). You will notice that the support area gets a little testy because people don't do that and mess things up a bit. Just a caution to think about.

[epochblue]

My understanding is that SuperDuper! is free as long as all you want to do is clone your drive. But if you want a "smarter" version of SuperDuper!, you'll have to drop the $28 to get it.

Am I wrong about that?

[yellow]

My understanding is that SuperDuper! is free as long as all you want to do is clone your drive. But if you want a "smarter" version of SuperDuper!, you'll have to drop the $28 to get it.

Am I wrong about that?

No you are correct.

Paying for it adds a scheduling function and incremental (they call it "smart") backup.

[wrldwzrd89]

No you are correct.

Paying for it adds a scheduling function and incremental (they call it "smart") backup.
Actually, SuperDuper's Smart Copy feature isn't what I think of an incremental backup. Correct me if I'm wrong - I thought an incremental backup was a partial backup containing only the changes, and needing to be applied to the last full backup as well as all the incrementals before it to do a full restore. Smart Copy, on the other hand, is more like a modified full backup, in that it creates a restorable full backup while only altering what's changed.

[yellow]

Actually, SuperDuper's Smart Copy feature isn't what I think of an incremental backup. Correct me if I'm wrong - I thought an incremental backup was a partial backup containing only the changes, and needing to be applied to the last full backup as well as all the incrementals before it to do a full restore. Smart Copy, on the other hand, is more like a modified full backup, in that it creates a restorable full backup while only altering what's changed.

Technically you're correct, but since SD isn't a backup software perse, it's a cloner. But we all call it backup software. The "smart" backup only changes the files that have been changed since it's last full clone. So, call it a partial clone, or an incremental clone. In this age of personal computing, people using secondary/tertiary/etc disks for "backup", I think the correct terminology has been lost in translation. Personally, I'll still call it an incremental backup and most people will know exactly what I mean.

[wrldwzrd89]

Technically you're correct, but since SD isn't a backup software perse, it's a cloner. But we all call it backup software. The "smart" backup only changes the files that have been changed since it's last full clone. So, call it a partial clone, or an incremental clone. In this age of personal computing, people using secondary/tertiary/etc disks for "backup", I think the correct terminology has been lost in translation. Personally, I'll still call it an incremental backup and most people will know exactly what I mean.
Agreed there :)

I use SuperDuper myself, and highly recommend it. It's the only Mac OS X cloning software I know of that preserves all metadata. :D

[GeeYouEye]

I used to be a big fan of CCC, but the last time I needed it, neither the new version nor the last version worked properly. So I tried SuperDuper. Damn slow, but it worked, and skipped the right files with no fuss.

[sushi]

I used to be a big fan of CCC, but the last time I needed it, neither the new version nor the last version worked properly. So I tried SuperDuper. Damn slow, but it worked, and skipped the right files with no fuss.
I've been using ccc with no problems at all to back up the following:
- PowerMac G4
- PowerBook G4
- Intel iMac

What didn't work with your copy?

What computer were you trying to backup?

[Super Macho Man]

http://blog.plasticsfuture.org/2006/04/23/mac-backup-software-harmful/

[sushi]

http://blog.plasticsfuture.org/2006/04/23/mac-backup-software-harmful/
Thanks for the info. Interesting comparison.

Looks like I've been using 2 of the best, ccc and Superduper. I haven't noticed problems with ccc as he states but I am not using the file system to it's fullest so I wouldn't see a problem.

[Nitromaster]

getting a mac book in two months,
Would this be a good way to backup?
Considering a 160gb internal hdd,
would it work?
Every saturday clone the hard drive to a usb one and delete the old version using ccc,
if there is a problem with the internal,(virus from windows?),boot from the external and clone back to the internal.
would it clone other partitions or ntfs partitions?
If i wanted to boot from the external,should i get usb or firewire400 hdd?

[yellow]

would it clone other partitions or ntfs partitions?
If i wanted to boot from the external,should i get usb or firewire400 hdd?

No.
Yes. At least, I prefer FW over USB2. However, Intel Macs will boot from either.

[ElectricSheep]

No.
Yes. At least, I prefer FW over USB2. However, Intel Macs will boot from either.

I have to second this suggestion. FireWire400 is quite a bit faster than USB 2 High-Speed.

[yellow]

To get the most milage, I'd sugggest getting an external case that supports BOTH USB2.0 and FW400.

[sushi]

To get the most milage, I'd sugggest getting an external case that supports BOTH USB2.0 and FW400.
Especially if you might want to connect to a regular PC at some point.

[robbh66]

This may be a really lame question but I *think* I read or heard about this somewhere.....

If I copy my *entire* Mac HD onto and external drive, wipe out my HD, reinstall the copied HD from the external drive back to my Mac will my Mac be the same as it was prior to erasing the HD? I mean....will my wallpaper and preferences and stuff be the same? More importantly, do I have to reinstall applications?



Maybe I'm naive since I'm a relatively new PC user gone mac- but why would you do this?

If this was in Windows, the only conceivable reason I see to do this would be for a super defrag (which could be done not only better, but optimized, with an aftermarket defrag). There would be absolutely no point in doing this to try and heal a "heavily used" windows installation to rid it of unnecessary clutter and junk lingering from months or years of use.

Now, from my understanding, there's no real point to defraging OS X as it defrags on the fly or what not. Since you're making an exact copy, and copying it back, you're not going to get rid of clutter- so what's the point of all of this?

The only other thing I can think of would be to zero out the drive for security as it's somewhat pointless, from a performance point of view, to zero it out then not put a clean OS install on it.