SuperDuper and CCC Backup question

[JRoDDz]

I guess old habits die hard. In the windows world I used/use Acronis TrueImage to make image files of my disk drive for disaster recovery purposes.

The process goes like this, I can either bootup the TrueImage CD and run it from there or I can boot into windows and run it there too. It will make a compressed image file on an external hard drive.

If I need to recover a file from that image file I can browse to the file, open it in windows and recover the single file. If I need to recover an entire hard drive I can install the new hard drive, boot up the TrueImage CD and restore the image file to the new hard drive.

I'm looking for a similar solution in the Mac world. I would rather have an image file instead of wasting an entire external hard drive with just one "clone" on it. Will CCC or SuperDuper achieve this in the same way?

 

[splatt]

When you use SD!/CCC and Time Machine together, you have both a bootable image and look-back all without needing to deal with DMG's, and in the case of TM, the advantage of a single search point. One drive, two partitions, no sweat. And no need to complicate things even though your "inner geek" may tell you it's the thing to do.

That sounds far more complicated than having a single program set up to create regularly scheduled disk images that can be used both for single file retrieval and for disaster recovery.

 

[JNB]

That sounds far more complicated than having a single program set up to create regularly scheduled disk images that can be used both for single file retrieval and for disaster recovery.

Actually, it's simple enough for the average ten-year old (and as easy to recover or look back in). It's also a matter of redundancy; two separate backup methods (though I should really be going to separate drives), plus a third off-site complete backup that runs nightly. Regardless of my recovery need or scope, I'm covered with tools that don't get in the way.

Wherever one's comfort zone and previous experience is, I suppose it's probably best to stick with it as long as it meets one's needs; I'm one to use methods and techniques that are purpose-built for the OS and filesystem I'm using at the moment. The sole exception was when I still had a BootCamp partition; despising Ghost (since Norton acquired it, anyway), I used WinClone. Simple, free, and bulletproof.

Or, briefly put, It Just Works™.

 

[i.shaun]

I use an entire external HDD for backup, but it's only 300GB. If you have a large enough drive, it should be fine to partition it, and use one partition for CCC to clone the internal drive to, and the other partition for other stuff.

You should be able to enter the first partition to look for any single files you want, or boot from it if necessary. You would need it to be connected with firewire for it to boot because it won't boot through USB as far as I know.

 

[ericinboston]

If I need to recover a file from that image file I can browse to the file, open it in windows and recover the single file. If I need to recover an entire hard drive I can install the new hard drive, boot up the TrueImage CD and restore the image file to the new hard drive.

I'm looking for a similar solution in the Mac world. I would rather have an image file instead of wasting an entire external hard drive with just one "clone" on it. Will CCC or SuperDuper achieve this in the same way?

Yup...that's how I use Norton Ghost or Macrium Reflect in the Windows world. I make the image file by either booting into Windows and running the application or I boot using a boot cd with a slim version of Ghost or Reflect on it.

And the process works in reverse...if I need to restore my ENTIRE image, I either boot with a cd rom (99% of the time I am trying to recover a bootable hard drive) or I use a different computer with Windows installed and recover the image to a slave drive.

And as you said, if all I need to do is recover a few files, I just double click the image file while inside of Windows and it's like I'm inside a RAR or ZIP file.


So I think this thread I started may be coming to a close. I understand the feature/ease of use for a cloned drive, but I don't feel like wasting money on an external drive whose 80% of the space will be wasted (my 160GB drive is max 90GB full...and after compressing it will be around 70GB so if I bought a 500GB drive and cloned it to a 90GB, I'm wasting 410GB...not my idea of money well spent). I'd prefer to just create tons of image files and **IF** the day comes that I need to recover, I just go back and get the image file...which can also be spanned on a few dvds if you wish (or BluRay's nice 25GB discs would be sweet). Maybe I'll dig around my closet and find an old 100GB external drive that I can use for a clone.

-Eric

 

[sushi]

Just to add.

You can always clone to an external. That way you have all the benefits of a cloned HD. You can boot from it directly which enables you to run every application you have (including all utilities - which is extremely handy when you have HD issues) as if you were running your computer from your internal HD. Plus your computer will be up and running in as long as it takes you to connect the external and boot to it. Sweet.

Then, you can image the clone to another external HD to keep multiple clone copies just like you are used to doing on the PC side.

This way you get the best of both worlds. You have your multiple images on one HD and a clone on another.

Anyhow, Eric, I understand where you are coming from as I work in an environment that utilizes both platforms. After learning how easy it is to clone on the Mac side, compared to the PC side -- especially if doing it for multiple computers -- I no longer use imaging as my primary backup methodology. Cloning on the Mac is so easy and simple.

 

[ericinboston]

So here's my confusion now...

I used CCC and cloned my 160GB Mini internal to an external 320GB drive...the 320GB drive was not empty and it had a folder called ZZZ on it.

After cloning, the ZZZ folder is still there! Why? A "clone" is supposed to be a mirror of another drive/partition.

So now this adds all sorts of questions...like what happens if enable CCC to erase folders on the clone when they are deleted from the main drive (since ZZZ never existed on my main drive, CCC may think it was "deleted".

I was expecting that CCC was going to erase/format/nuke everything on the 320GB and overwrite it with whatever was on the 160GB.

It's one thing if I am confused, it's now another thing that I can't trust what CCC is doing.

Any tips and deep dives on how/why CCC ignored the ZZZ folder would be appreciated.

-Eric

p.s. yes, the external 320GB boots just fine...albeit a bit slow which is expected comparing USB to SATA.

 

[ericinboston]

Anyone still there that could answer my last post?

 

[AV8TOR]

I use Carbon Copy Cloner (CCC) on a weakly basis to backup (complete clone) a MBP with a 500GB HD (about 400GB used) to an external FW800 500GB HD.

So by doing a weekly clone backup and you say complete clone what are you doing with last weeks backup, are you manually deleting it and re doing the clone backup or will CCC delete it on the fly? I am not finished reading up on CCC but I did see the option to Delete files done on backup that are not on your machine for the new backup. Is that what you are doing? Thanks

 

[Makosuke]

I used CCC and cloned my 160GB Mini internal to an external 320GB drive...the 320GB drive was not empty and it had a folder called ZZZ on it.

After cloning, the ZZZ folder is still there! Why? A "clone" is supposed to be a mirror of another drive/partition.

Did you check the "Delete items that don't exist on the source" box in CCC? It's unchecked by default, which will result in the behavior you saw. When checked, it should wipe anything not on the source.

Incidentally, I could be mistaken, but I think even with this checked CCC doesn't reformat the target drive, just erases whatever is there.

An aside on the original question, which you may not care about anymore, is that the 2X requirement is only for read-only disk images. If you have CCC create a sparse image, it requires exactly as much space as the data on the drive, no more. I've always done this, as I'm only going to mount the image manually, when I need either a full restore or to salvage a file, so I'm not worried about it being mounted read-write (you could also probably manually mount it read only via the terminal, though there's little reason to bother).