Time Machine + Bootable Clone on the same drive..overkill?

Discussion in 'Mac Basics and Help' started by DarkJaye, May 11, 2009.

  1. DarkJaye macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    #1
    Been with Apple since the 3G iPod but I finally got around to picking up a Mac about a month and a half ago. Love it, glad I made the jump, etc etc.

    The inclusion of Time Machine pushed me to seriously consider using it, since up until this point I've never really bothered backing up my data due to lack of motivation to setup something similar on Windows (never experienced a HDD crash, *knocks on wood*). Anyway, I was reading up on backup solutions like Time Machine and I read a number of pieces saying the author uses Time Machine for the convenience of incremental backups, but also keeps a bootable clone on hand in case things get messy.

    I was in the middle of setting up an external drive to have both (a bootable partition the same size as my mini's HDD, with the rest of it for time machine) when I started thinking about it and wasn't sure the bootable clone was all that necessary, especially since they would be sharing the same drive.

    So I'm wondering what your thoughts are on all this, and how some of you have your backup solutions setup? Does it sound like overkill to you too?

    PS. New to Mac Rumors and had issues finding the best place to put this post. I'm relatively new to the mac, and this discussion seemed to be basic enough, so I landed here. If there was a better forum suited to this kind of discussion, let me know.
     
  2. old-wiz macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Location:
    West Suburban Boston Ma
    #2
    A bootable clone allows you to keep working quickly if your hard disk dies. Time Machine allows backup of individual files. I use both.
     
  3. Duff-Man macrumors 68030

    Duff-Man

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    #3
    Duff-Man says...I do both as well. Having an additional backup scheme is *never* a bad thing as far as I am concerned....oh yeah!
     
  4. srowndedbyh2o macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Location:
    Hawaii
    #4
    Aloha DarkJaye, and welcome to the Forums.
    I’m sure you will receive more knowledgeable responses than mine.
    Overkill? No. But I wouldn’t put both backups on the same drive. The old “eggs in one basket” saying comes to mind. I’ve been using an older pre-Intel iMac G5 and just purchased a new iMac. When I checked the backups (not Time Machine) I had previously done, I found that on one of my HDs all the files were corrupt, and unusable, so I checked my second back up HD only to find it has failed:( Luckily I had a Third HD which appears fine. I know my case is rare, but...
     
  5. DarkJaye thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    #5
    Oh agreed, if I had another drive I'd keep them separate, but at the moment I don't and I'd rather not buy another one quite yet.

    Thanks for your replies guys. I'll keep my bootable backup partition, sounds like the convenience is worth the space.
     
  6. old-wiz macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Location:
    West Suburban Boston Ma
    #6
    Actually I have two exernal FW400 drives, both have bootable clones, and one has a time machine backup.
     
  7. jzuena macrumors 6502a

    jzuena

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Location:
    Lexington, MA, USA
    #7
    Like most of the others, I keep both a clone and Time Machine. I have them on the same FireWire drive. I am not too worried about them being on the same drive, since it is still separate from my running system drive.
     
  8. TXBDan macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #8
    I'd definitely keep them on separate drives. It seems like HDs are dropping like flies around me lately.
     
  9. aaronw1986 macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
    #9
    +1
     

Share This Page