Carbon Copy Cloner Vs. Time Machine

[Weaselboy]

one question?

If i am having Kernel panics and i want to erase my mac's disc?
When i get everything back from CCC, will i have the same problems?

Very likely... yes. Assuming the KP is caused by a software problem, you will be cloning off the entire disk then cloning it back after you erase, so any software issue will be put right back on the disk. If the problem is a hardware issue, erasing and cloning back and forth is not going to help either.

 

[searchenginepro]

They aren't the same. Apple have got a bit sloppy with TM recently.

I run several Mac labs and studios in a university. Up until a few weeks ago, we used TM to back up 50 macs to a central xServe (sparse bundles). Lots of data - film and audio stuff. TM gradually became more and more flakey with various updates, until it broke completely a few weeks back. We just couldn't get it working again, and didn't have the time to go through endless work rounds. We are now trialling CCC, and it seems much better.

For network backups, I would say CCC wins hands down in terms of stability.

Also, TM tends to slow Macs down quite drastically, especially when working on audio/video, so we had to use 3rd party software to schedule them to night time, as TM does not have this feature built it. CCC does.

All in all, I would say CCC is much better for enterprise level network backups, if that's your thing.

//edit

Sorry - forgot to add, CCC gives you much more flexibility over archiving/pruning files etc. TM doesn't give you as much and therefore takes up more disk space.

You hit the nail on the head for me - this is an interesting thread and I'm sure each solution has its merits depending on how you use your Mac. The big issue for me is I think TM is a sloppy application in the sense that I cannot select / choose / a directory to store TM backups...I have to allocate an entire drive to TM backups...also, TM should provide better scheduling and the ability to prune / set the back up space allocation. I'm using the trial version of CCC, but will most likely purchase it when finished as I may opt to use it regularly... Also, I gave up on using external HD's as my primary backup...I only care about my software / apps on my machine...but for data I went to the cloud. I have too many failed 500GB HD's in my safe and garage. I also like the idea of being able to access files / images / remotely without having to drag external HD's around. (Video is a different story)

Thanks for starting this thread...good conversation

 

[flynz4]

I love CCC, and I use it to make clones of my media... however....

I do not think that clones are "backup". They do not effectively maintain history. I think that anyone who completely relies on CCC or any other cloning tool is making a mistake, and is likely to be very disappointed someday.

I use CCC extensively... but I do not consider it "backup". "Clones" & "backup" are two different things. There are many failure mechanisms that would leave you with losing data if you only rely on clones. MUCH less likely if you also have a proper backup.

/Jim

 

[GGJstudios]

I love CCC, and I use it to make clones of my media... however....

I do not think that clones are "backup". They do not effectively maintain history. I think that anyone who completely relies on CCC or any other cloning tool is making a mistake, and is likely to be very disappointed someday.

I use CCC extensively... but I do not consider it "backup". "Clones" & "backup" are two different things. There are many failure mechanisms that would leave you with losing data if you only rely on clones. MUCH less likely if you also have a proper backup.

/Jim

That's not true. CCC can maintain a history of versions if you wish. A clone is always a backup, but a backup is not always a clone. I've relied only on CCC for many years and have never lost a bit of data.

 

[flynz4]

That's not true. CCC can maintain a history of versions if you wish. A clone is always a backup, but a backup is not always a clone.

You can save versions... but except for the most simple cases... you cannot really turn back the clock. For example... restoring an Aperture library to a week or month prior would be nearly impossible if you were making nightly clones.

I agree you can recover simple cases... but it falls apart as the complexity increases. I am not anti-clone... just pointing out the perils of relying completely on clones. With such good support for local (ex TM) and cloud based (ex Crashplan+) "backup" systems... I think it is foolish to not sue them. They are more powerful than just clones for protecting data.

/Jim

 

[GGJstudios]

You can save versions... but except for the most simple cases... you cannot really turn back the clock. For example... restoring an Aperture library to a week or month prior would be nearly impossible if you were making nightly clones.

I agree you can recover simple cases... but it falls apart as the complexity increases. I am not anti-clone... just pointing out the perils of relying completely on clones. With such good support for local and cloud based "backup" systems... I think it is foolish to not sue them. They are more powerful than just clones for protecting data.

/Jim

There is no "peril" in relying completely on clones. I have never encountered a need to "roll back the clock" to an earlier version of a file. For those that do have such a need, they should choose an appropriate backup method to accommodate that, but that doesn't imply any "peril" in using clones exclusively.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

In the case of a total drive failure, Time Machine is a little more difficult to restore because you have to install the operating system, THEN restore your backup. CCC is better because you can restore everything... but you STILL need a working computer to duplicate the data to the new drive.

A working computer? If your computer isn't working then it's time to get a new one or send it to the repair shop. But if you meant the boot drive is hose, then NO YOU DON'T need another computer. You can BOOT directly off a CCC backup drive and immediately keep working if necessary even and then when you're ready, you just CCC back onto the screwed up system drive (if it's still working or a new drive if it's not). You're done. I see no use for Time Machine at all, personally. WTF do I need to keep every file change ever made on my system? Am I too stupid to delete older programs? Why would I WANT to keep them? Time Machine eats up a LOT of time every day to keep a zillion copies for that matter. I don't need my computer running like molasses so that every single little time-stamp change to a file gets copied into endless duplicates.

Frankly, I've always looked at Time Machine as a sort of "backups for computer illiterates". It won't fix your machine for you, though so I don't see it good for even that if you're dealing with someone that has no clue at all about computers since they'll have to restore the OS first. CCC is SO much simpler. You just boot off the backup drive and you're up and running again. Copy back; remove the external drive and boot from the internal again. Everything is cool again. It's also great for upgrading internal drives since you can boot off the external with the new drive installed and then copy back, power down and boot off the new internal. It's SO easy. It's why I donated to CCC a LONG time ago (when it was optional). It's saved my arse more than once.

I love CCC, and I use it to make clones of my media... however....

I do not think that clones are "backup".

??? WTF do you consider it, then? A waffle maker?

They do not effectively maintain history. I think that anyone who completely relies on CCC or any other cloning tool is making a mistake, and is likely to be very disappointed someday.

I think you don't know what you're talking about...at all. CCC is a TRUE backup. It is Time Machine that doesn't truly back anything up. CCC can create a BOOTABLE clone of a working version of your drive. That means if you have drive failure or something makes your machine unbootable for ANY reason, you can just boot off the CCC backup and you're back up and running. How is that not a backup???

I use CCC extensively... but I do not consider it "backup". "Clones" & "backup" are two different things. There are many failure mechanisms that would leave you with losing data if you only rely on clones. MUCH less likely if you also have a proper backup.

BS. Every "copy" of files, older or not on another drive is a backup. CCC backs EVERYTHING up. I think you're living in another computer universe or something since what you say makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. And Time Machine will not fix your problem if you main machine becomes unbootable. You'll have to start from scratch and then restore all the crap you need from whatever version. What a royal PITA when a CCC backup just boots and you're running again. Copy back with about 3 clicks total and it's like it never happened. And you can set CCC up to do periodic backups on its and you can have it archive older files as well if that's your bag. Time Machine doesn't do squat by comparison. It's good if you fudge up a word document and you need the older one a couple of days later when you realize you screwed it up. Otherwise, it has no function what-so-ever that CCC can't duplicate or best by a thousand light years. Worse yet, Time Machine backs up EVERY HOUR and that means your machine goes to CRAP PERFORMANCE every single hour for the rest of its existence. And IMO that's UNACCEPTABLE. Every hour? WTF am I doing that I need a backup every hour? Geeze....

 

[flynz4]

I think you don't know what you're talking about...at all. CCC is a TRUE backup. It is Time Machine that doesn't truly back anything up.

You clearly don't understand, or value, the difference between a backup and a clone.

As I said... I use both Time Machine and CCC. They are two different things. Both have value, both have limitations. I do not think that you can make a credible case why using both is not superior to using one or the other.

A true backup system allows you to "turn back the clock" to a previous date and continue forward. A clone "forgets" any history... or even if you use CCC's "save deleted files" option... it is nearly impossible to recover in complex situations.

Go ahead using just a clone if you want. I think the day may come that you are very disappointed. Example: I had to help someone who had a database error that went back several months... and then had a sequence of updates to a bad database. Doing that would have been an exercise in futility using CCC... even if the "save deleted files" was turned on. It was just too complex to recover from without being able to turn back the clock.

Look at any enterprise backup and recovery system... they all include deep versioning. Like I said... there is a difference between clones and backup. Accept that or not... it is true.

I personally use triple backup:

1) Time Machine - Local backup
2) Crashplan+ - Cloud backup
3) CCC - Clone.

Do what you want with your data. Mine is too valuable to trust to either just backup, or to a clone.

/Jim

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

You clearly don't understand, or value, the difference between a backup and a clone.

As I said... I use both Time Machine and CCC. They are two different things. Both have value, both have limitations. I do not think that you can make a credible case why using both is not superior to using one or the other.

I can see some value in maintaining older generations of files for a database error like you mention, but then I don't use business databases so my situation doesn't apply. The unfortunate thing about Time Machine more than anything else, though is the utter lack of control. The last time I checked, Time Machine would not let you control when or how often things get backed up so it can interfere with system performance every single hour. Maybe some won't notice just browsing, etc., but it's there and if you happen to play the occasional game, you WILL likely notice if that game needs all of your hard drive speed you can give it (e.g. newer Call of Duty games). Its' the one size fits all attitude from Apple that bothers me most. They treat you like you don't know what you're doing and that their schedule is the ONLY one that works. So even if I needed a history of files to maintain, I would still prefer a program with more control than Time Machine.

 

[antonis]

You can use TM manually, turning it on whenever you feel like it, instead of keeping it constantly connected to your backup drive. It will take an incremental backup whenever it finds the destination disk, so you can keep it under total control.

TM is totally different than CCC, as the terms "Backup" and "Clone" are totally different. TM is a backup (actually the best built-in out-of-the-box backup offered) while CCC is a disk cloning s/w (also one of the best if not the best for Mac).

TM can be used on various layers for restore, from a total system restore (using the restore partition), to an account-level restore (using migration assistant) to a file/folder-level restore (using TM functionality inside a running OS X).

CCC clones the disk. It will make a copy of the Mac's disc, ready to boot from an external device. During restore, it will put the same data on the exact same position. Therefore, it can also reproduce a problem to a new system.

Totally different s/w, each one is one of the best on its context.

 

[hafr]

You can use TM manually, turning it on whenever you feel like it, instead of keeping it constantly connected to your backup drive. It will take an incremental backup whenever it finds the destination disk, so you can keep it under total control.

TM is totally different than CCC, as the terms "Backup" and "Clone" are totally different. TM is a backup (actually the best built-in out-of-the-box backup offered) while CCC is a disk cloning s/w (also one of the best if not the best for Mac).

TM can be used on various layers for restore, from a total system restore (using the restore partition), to an account-level restore (using migration assistant) to a file/folder-level restore (using TM functionality inside a running OS X).

CCC clones the disk. It will make a copy of the Mac's disc, ready to boot from an external device. During restore, it will put the same data on the exact same position. Therefore, it can also reproduce a problem to a new system.

Totally different s/w, each one is one of the best on its context.

Actually, CCC can be used either to clone the drive, or to make a TM style backup (sparsebundle or a proper file structure). There's no flashy UI like with Time Machine, but other than that - CCC does everything TM does, and more.

Myself, I use TM for hourly backups that only looks at my user-folder, and CCC for backing up the whole system once a day.

 

[antonis]

Actually, CCC can be used either to clone the drive, or to make a TM style backup (sparsebundle or a proper file structure). There's no flashy UI like with Time Machine, but other than that - CCC does everything TM does, and more.

Myself, I use TM for hourly backups that only looks at my user-folder, and CCC for backing up the whole system once a day.

No argue that both can actually get in the fields of the other. But I believe TM really shines on the file/folder and account backup/restore. I also prefer it for restoring my account after a fresh installation (when I don't want to restore the whole system).

During last years, I've changed plenty of Macs, but I always transfer the old machine to the new one just by restoring with TM. No extra s/w, no headaches whatsoever.

In my opinion, is not a matter of CCC features VS TM features. TM does better on doing things transparently and getting out of the way, while ensuring that I won't lose anything in case of a disk failure.

I use CCC when I want to do more rare tasks like creating a bootable external disk to test something on a different machine and such.

FWIW, the TM never failed me when I needed it. As a final note, TM is free.

 

[Weaselboy]

Frankly, I've always looked at Time Machine as a sort of "backups for computer illiterates". It won't fix your machine for you, though so I don't see it good for even that if you're dealing with someone that has no clue at all about computers since they'll have to restore the OS first.

You are mistaken here about the Time Machine (TM) restore feature. Since Lion 10.7.2 Time machine creates a recovery system on the locally attached backup disk so all you need to do is option key boot to the TM disk and you will get a recovery screen. So if one had to replace a disk drive all you do is option key boot to the TM disk and use Disk Utility to format the new drive then click restore. This will restore the OS and all your data back onto the new drive. There is no need to reinstall the OS first.

It is true the CCC clone can actually be used to operate the computer where the TM backup cannot, but as far as restoring to a new drive or computer after a disaster, they are functionally the same.

A TM restore actually allows one to restore from a point back in time. Let's say you install 10.9.1 and it completely hoses your system. You can option key boot to a TM backup and restore from two days ago if you like and get out from under the 10.9.1 wreckage. This would not be feasible if all one has is a CCC clone.

I use both TM and CCC as well as Crashplan to have different options available to me if disaster strikes. I can see usage benefits for both TM and CCC depending on the need. It does not need to be one or the other.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I wasn't aware of the improved features set since Lion. I gave up after Leopard since CCC seemed vastly superior at the time. I still think it'd be nice if it had scheduling time options, though.

 

[Weaselboy]

I wasn't aware of the improved features set since Lion. I gave up after Leopard since CCC seemed vastly superior at the time. I still think it'd be nice if it had scheduling time options, though.

No disagreement from me on that issue. Even a pause button would be nice like Crashplan uses.

 

[satcomer]

All I know is I schedule my CCC clones once a week to my two clones. It saved my butt when my main startup drive went south and the CCC clone saved my butt and let boot from it to order a new startup drive.

To me Time Machine is for files I can roll back to or get older preference files from. The booting of a clone come in very handily.

 

[aristobrat]

A TM restore actually allows one to restore from a point back in time. Let's say you install 10.9.1 and it completely hoses your system. You can option key boot to a TM backup and restore from two days ago if you like and get out from under the 10.9.1 wreckage. This would not be feasible if all one has is a CCC clone.

I knew TM could restore user data to a point back in time, but I didn't know that it could restore the entire Mac to a point back in time.

I use a Time Capsule for my TM backups, so I don't have an external drive to option key boot from. I took a guess that Internet Recovery (COMMAND-R boot) would have the same features, and it did! it was cool to see that the Time Capsule had TM backups for my Air going back to July 26, 2012 -- 10.8.0.

I like how Apple puts the OS X Version next to the Backup Date & Time. Makes it super simple to find the last backup of a specific version.

Thanks for mentioning this!!!

So now my only worry is if a Time Capsule image goes bad. If I had my original TC image, it would have had TM backups going back farther than the date/versions above.