Time Machine vs cloning

Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by seal308, Feb 4, 2012.

  1. seal308 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    #1
    Hello just got an external hard drive for back up.
    I partitioned the hard drive so I have one space for time machine back ups and one space for clones.
    I understand that a Time Machine has older versions of documents etc. And once the hard drive reaches it's max it deletes the oldest version of files.
    I understand that cloning will only give you the most recent file.
    I thought that the reason why you would clone is so that you can have an easily bootable backup.
    My friend told me that it takes hours to boot up from a time machine compared to using a clone.
    Is this true.
    I know that in lion you can boot up from a time capsule by pressing command r when the computer starts to turn on.
    So is it worth it to clone?

    Second question.
    How do you boot up from a clone?
    Do i have to have a mac operating system already installed on another computer for it work, or is just attaching it to a monitor allow you to access your files as if it were a regular hard drive.
    Thanks
     
  2. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #2
    Good.
    That's a way of doing it, but what if the actual HDD fails? Where is the backup of the backup?
    Time Machine FAQ
    CarbonCopyCloner has the option of scheduled clones, which put older files into an archive (separate folder).
    Yes.
    You can't boot from a TM backup, you can only restore from it.
    Time Machine FAQ - Read entry number 14 or so.
    Do you mean:
    OS X Lion: About Lion Recovery
    Lion Recovery Disk Assistant
    ,
    which is not the same as booting from a Time Capsule, which is not possible, as far as I know?
    I only clone, as I don't like TM.
    I have a clone of my internal SSDs containing the OS, then I have two clones of my personal photos and video footage.
    You hold down the OPTION/Alt key during startup.
    A clone is a 1:1 copy of the source volume (in your case the Macintosh HD volume), thus a clone of a volume containing Mac OS X also includes Mac OS X and is bootable itself. There is no need for another Mac OS X somewhere else.
    And a clone is also just a regular HDD volume.


    ____________________________________________________________

    Maybe have a look at Advanced Search to find similar threads:
    [​IMG]
    ____________________________________________________________

     
  3. flynz4 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #3
    My priority is to have versions... so I choose to use Time Machine for local backup and Crashplan for cloud backup.

    If I had a need for a clone, I would do that in addition to my regular backups.

    I figure that I typically need to restore a computer every 2-3 years on average. Restoring from TM is fairly quick (1-3 hours) for laptops... and acceptable (overnight) for desktops. Since I always have multiple machines to work from... that is an acceptable rebuild time, so the need for a cloned drive is low.

    /Jim
     
  4. mchalebk macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #4
    Time Machine is great for day to day usage, especially if you simply want to retrieve a file you deleted or an older version of a file you have revised. I use it for the three other drives in my MacPro and my wife's MacMini and it works great.

    However, TM is not a good choice as an only backup. You really need to have something offsite. A cloud based clone is one way to go. I use a 2 TB external HD that I store offsite, but bring home once a month, and clone all four HDs (I don't worry about the TM HD).

    This way, I have the convenience of Time Machine, but the security of knowing I won't lose much data (one month worst case) if my house burns down or some other disaster occurs.
     

Share This Page