Is Finder sufficient for mass file copying?

[WebHead]

I'm about to back up terabytes and terabytes of data and was wondering if simply dragging the files to the backup drive in the Finder is enough, or if a utility like Carbon Copy Cloner offers any advantage in error correction, verification etc?

I don't have any hidden files or system settings to worry about, it's all digital media.

 

[Ben J.]

I'm no expert, but I would assume that both Finder and CCC or most other software would be using the macOS built-in commands for managing files. That is, you could actually type commands in the Terminal app to achieve the copying if you wanted.

Personally, I would not hesitate to initiate the copying in either Finder or CCC late in the evening, and be confident that the process would be completed when I woke up the next day.

I'd be more worried about power failure or natural disasters corrupting the process than my computer getting the calculations wrong. It's just maths, and computers are quite good at it.

 

[WebHead]

Thank you for confirming my suspicions!

 

[Fishrrman]

I'd recommend CarbonCopyCloner for this job.

Particularly if you're copying the entire contents of one drive to another.
Actually, CCC will let you "de-select" items so that they won't be copied.
And... it has a setting so that it will NOT erase items on "the target drive".

CCC is free to download and use for 30 days, so don't fool with it until you NEED to use it.
Then... it will be fully functional for a month...

WHY CCC is better:
When you use the finder to try a copy job like this, IF the finder has an error or encounters a file with problems, it will abort the ENTIRE JOB. Nothing will get copied.
HOWEVER...
If you use CCC, and if CCC runs into a "bad file", it will just skip over that file and keep going UNTIL the entire job is done. When done, CCC will present you with a list of the files that caused problems.

 

[WebHead]

Actually, CCC will let you "de-select" items so that they won't be copied.

Yes I opted for CCC over Super Duper for precisely that reason.

WHY CCC is better:
When you use the finder to try a copy job like this, IF the finder has an error or encounters a file with problems, it will abort the ENTIRE JOB. Nothing will get copied.
HOWEVER...
If you use CCC, and if CCC runs into a "bad file", it will just skip over that file and keep going UNTIL the entire job is done. When done, CCC will present you with a list of the files that caused problems.

Thank you, good to know!

 

[gilby101]

I'd recommend CarbonCopyCloner for this job.

I have 'liked' your reply. But, in many ways I find ChronoSync easier to use than CCC for this sort of operation - particularly when there is need to specify inclusions and exclusions. (I have not done a speed comparison.)

 

[Fishrrman]

gilby --

Your advice in #6 is appreciated.
I've no experience with ChonoSync, so I'll let it go at that.

How does ChronoSync handle a corrupted file during such a process?

 

[gilby101]

How does ChronoSync handle a corrupted file during such a process?

Some error with source: I use log and skip. Can have Report, Skip, Exclude, or Abort.
Corruption on destination: Can do a validation pass. But I have never found any errors even with transfers to another Mac (which uses CS's own network protocols).

CCC is the best backup, CS the best synchronisation (particularly repeated scheduled sync). One-off transfer sits somewhere in the middle.

https://www.econtechnologies.com/chronosync/features.html gives you something of the flavour of CS. Look and feel is very different to CCC.

 

[WebHead]

One final question regarding data integrity. Does a tool such as DiffMerge detect structural changes in files, if I were to compare two backups?

 

[SlCKB0Y]

If you are good on the command line, rsync is all you need.