Q: Need recommendation for bootable External HD for CCC

PlotinusVeritas wrote:

 

If the internal HD is destroyed from crash / etc. and you only have a TM backup.......youre out of luck, period..........utterly OUT

(and this is the operating function of 99% of Mac users.......Mac and TM external backup,....nothing else).

 

Just the opposite, those that rely on their Mac for college/ work etc.  NEED near-0 downtime.   Rather than "very tiny number" its "the vast majority of people"

 

Bootable: to DESKTOP, plug it in, turn it on and power up to desktop and 100% operation..........Time machine CANNOT........I listed 4 users above with points higher than yourself stating that outright.

Most machines these days, espeically most Macs, are mobile. If the internal hard drive fails, the machine is effectively disabled. You don't get your notebook back until you replace the hard drive. Buy a new hard drive for $50, install it in 5 minutes, boot from your Time Machine backup and you will be back to 100% in a little while.

That is not possible with a clone unless your clone is also a 2.5" hard drive. You still have to buy a new hard drive because now you are using your backup. You will then have to build a new clone. Hopefully you haven't been cloning corrupted file as your hard drive was failing.

NEITHER Time machine NOR a clone are meant for, nor do I advocate, them as data ARCHIVES

That's just silly because that is one of the best uses for a clone.

NOBODY verifies the validity of data on TM machine until there is an emergency,,......(which is a bad working premise

Nobody verifies clones either. Just booting from it doesn't mean anything. You can boot from Time Machine too.

A titanic error people make is lumping their entire OS, APPS, and valuable data together and throwing it into/onto a TM backup (hence the newbie premise for its intended use).

 

Professionals are not using TM for anything other than a system backup to restore to in case of corruption, and the pros in the know dont use TM at all.

You can't make blanket generalizations about what "the pros the know" use. Your advice is harmful because you are advocating that people do not use the best backup software ever made in favour of a cobbled-together system of cloned hard drives that only a handful of geeks would ever do. I am a professional who builds data archives for a living and I use Time Machine for backups and clones for archives.

Really?  If I had to choose one, I would pick TM.  If I delete a file, then clone, the file is not on the clone, but it is on TM

Well, I've never deleted anything that I wanted later. if I delete a file, then I've decided that I no longer need it so what's the point of having it? My main objection to TM is the fact that it takes control of my backup decisions and I don't care for my computer to make decisions for me. Personally, TM is an overkill in my case - I do not ever need hourly or even daily backups unless I'm in the middle of a new movie/graphics project - and I will drag 'n drop those files onto an external for safekeeping until I resume the work. I also do not care for the new 'feature' of using my hard drive space for snapshots - I'll decide what and when it gets backed up. And, lastly, I can immediately test a clone to make sure it works - I cannot do that with TM. And, witnout a clone, I would have spent far more time restoring when my system was totally borked. However, Recovery does have its place as I also found out.

babowa wrote:

 

Really?  If I had to choose one, I would pick TM.  If I delete a file, then clone, the file is not on the clone, but it is on TM

 

Well, I've never deleted anything that I wanted later. if I delete a file, then I've decided that I no longer need it so what's the point of having it?

A week after ugrading to the new iWorks, I decided I wanted to go back to iWork `09 -- Simple restore from TM

Of course, you would not have made that mistake

etresoft The 905 

Most machines these days, espeically most Macs, are mobile. If the internal hard drive fails, the machine is effectively disabled.

I said that in my last post to wit "TM best use is for that of a OS/System backup of any portable with a SSD"

etresoft The 905 

boot from your Time Machine backup and you will be back to 100% in a little while.

You cannot boot from a TM backup, that has been established. What is a "little while"?....  a HD clone you can boot in mere seconds......in the case of a corrupt SSD, TM cannot do anything to get you back to desktop.

etresoft The 905 

You still have to buy a new hard drive because now you are using your backup. You will then have to build a new clone. Hopefully you haven't been cloning corrupted file as your hard drive was failing.

HD are cheap as dirt, I have endless piles of them.  As stated earlier, TM nor a HD clone should EVER be thought of as a data storage nexus, rather only "OS, APPS, settings, and immediate active working files ON the computer" (which is also copied elsewhere on a genuine archive).

  etresoft The 905 

That's just silly because that is one of the best uses for a clone.

Nope, both a TM and HD clone are and should only be used for: "OS, APPS, settings, and immediate active working files ON the computer"   Best use of any clone is "getting up to 100% in mere seconds".

  etresoft The 905 

Nobody verifies clones either. Just booting from it doesn't mean anything. You can boot from Time Machine too.

Again, you cannot boot from TM, period.    I dont care about verified clones, because a HD clone is NOT meant for nor should be used as a data archive/ storage nexus, ....as I said earlier many times.

  etresoft The 905 

Your advice is harmful because you are advocating that people do not use the best backup software ever made in favour of a cobbled-together system of cloned hard drives that only a handful of geeks would ever do. I am a professional who builds data archives for a living and I use Time Machine for backups and clones for archives.

TM uses software, ....a HD clone does NOT rely on same,...ergo its superior in many many ways.

I advocate A: system backups (HD clones or at the very minimum TM)......  B: data archives  (triple platform 'frozen' archives, online, DVD, vault stored HD in safe places)....C: redundant copies (as stated in B)

There is no professional group/ entity that DOESNT recommend A, B, and C,....therefore your statement of "dangerous" is absolutely contradictory.

I never ever ever mentioned making data archives ON CLONES,......I stated "HD clones are superior to TM backups"..........as such you completely didnt understand what I said at all.

I coined this acronym about a decade ago for people to remember. Four words: "compartmentalized autonomous redundancy of data" or C.A.R.D. What this means regarding your data is “centralize it, isolate it, and multiply it”. This easy acronym to remember about how to approach your data is a great first approach to keep in mind.

Compartmentalized: separating out your data from your system files, centralizing all static and active files into a location or two to make backups, and archived data easier to update and locate. Centralizing your data collection is the primary hazard to overcome for what usually is the case of data that is scattered everywhere throughout your internal hard drive.

Autonomous: Isolation of data from changes, theft, decentralizing data to safes, fire boxes, offsite and online locations. Importantly ‘freezing’ data onto independent storage media for protection and from alterations, such as DVDs, hard drives, and online encrypted files, or .DMG created files of static data collections.

Redundancy: making copies of all autonomous isolated data such that data is decentralized not only in place and in media storage type (DVD, HD, online) for safety and protection as a failsafe, but each aspect of that failsafe has at the very least two redundant copies.

Data: all files made, saved, created, modified or working on. Important pictures, documents, videos, PDF, financial, personal. Any data large or small which you would not dare lose, which is private, important, hard or impossible to recreate, or most importantly, would take tremendous time to regenerate. Essentially anything important to you, your company, your loved ones (will, medical records, financial information, etc.), friends or otherwise.

  etresoft The 905 

I use Time Machine for backups and clones for archives.

Then youre making a huge mistake, a clone to fit inside a macbook pro must be 9.5mm thick,....i.e. a 1TB.

How do you expect a PRO to put (like myself) 42 Terabytes onto a HD clone?

HD clones are NOT archives, theyre a far more stable, quicker, better "emergency retrieval" of your internal HD.

A clone is idealized for an emergency restore of your system, setttings, APPS, and its resident data, same goes for TM, however its inferior to a HD clone.

Data archives of valuable data you "dont dare lose" etc. etc. should NEVER be solely on a HD clone, rather on data archive platforms

1. HD in safes

2. archival DVD

3. online server farms (in case of files etc, ...)

etresoft The 905 

Your advice is harmful because you are advocating that people do not use the best backup software ever made

A: Yes,.....sofware is a FAILURE POINT

B: data archives of vital data should be put on a bare formatted HD (and onto DVD, and online) in files.

C: The only software pros use for data archives isnt ON the HD themselves, rather are index software for locating files quickly inside endless terabytes of data.

I might have, however........ I have my install disks! (All of them!) And yes, I am ignoring the iWork updated versions and will be using my 09 versions for now.

babowa wrote:

Well, I've never deleted anything that I wanted later. if I delete a file, then I've decided that I no longer need it so what's the point of having it?

If the only way files could be deleted was intentionally by users then I might agree that TM backups are superfluous if you regularly make clones. But the reality is sometimes some process other than a user-initiated one does that, or a file gets corrupted for a variety of reasons not under user control, or users accidentally replace a more current version of a file with an older one when reorganizing folder contents or something like that.

This may go unnoticed for months, so unless you have clones that include everything that old, then you are out of luck. Of course, that can happen with TM backups too, but because of its more efficient storage methods, the chances are a lot better that you will have --- & can find -- the file.

My main objection to TM is the fact that it takes control of my backup decisions and I don't care for my computer to make decisions for me.

Time Machine provides a lot of control over what gets backed up & when. For example, you can easily exclude anything you want by including it in the TM preferences privacy pane. You can turn off regular TM backups in its preferences & initiate them manually via the "Back Up Now" option from its Menu Bar icon.

You can also enter the TM 'space' view & delete all backups of any selected item(s), or restore selected items either to their original locations or to different ones, & you even have a choice of keeping both the old & new ones if you are restoring to the original location. It is much, much easier & more goof-proof to do these things with TM than with a set of clones.

That's kind of the point of TM: in typical Apple fashion, it is designed to free users from having to waste time doing mundane chores, & to help them as much as possible to easily recover from user-caused or other kinds of errors.

Obviously, it isn't right for everyone, but if I had to pick either clones or TM, like Tony T1 it would be TM.

babowa wrote:

 

I might have, however........ I have my install disks! (All of them!) And yes, I am ignoring the iWork updated versions and will be using my 09 versions for now.

I knew you would say that.    But, your install disks are v4.0 of iWorks and you cannot upgrade iWorks `09 to the last version of 4.2 anymore.  (With TM, no problem )

Can't see anything about v. 4 on the disk - it says: Version 9.03 and 2Z691-6551-A and, I did a clean install with ML and installed all my applications from the disks, then updated. My Pages is at 4.3 in both ML and Mavericks.

That's kind of the point of TM: in typical Apple fashion, it is designed to free users from having to waste time doing mundane chores

That's nice, but I don't need anyone making decisions for me.

babowa wrote:

 

Can't see anything about v. 4 on the disk

Pages->About

I was up-to-date, not sure why I don't have 4.3, anyway, if you ever needed to re-install from the install disks, you wouldn't be able to update to 4.3

edit: Looks like it can be updated:  http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1563

babowa wrote:

 

That's nice, but I don't need anyone making decisions for me.

Actually, Apple doesn't.  The User needs to purchase/have and external drive, and then TM has to be turned ON.

(BTW, there is no shortage of users on these forums who ask "How do I go back to MtnLion?" and when they're told to retore from TM, they say "I don't use TM"

R C-R Texas, USA 

This may go unnoticed for months, so unless you have clones that include everything that old, then you are out of luck.

Its odd why most all of you are wrapped up in the... "either clone or TM". 

Both have their place and NEITHER is a good option for data archives,....and NONE of them are an option at all when it comes to huge data.  

Even Joe Blow is saving and creating HUGE amounts of data in terabytes.    TM and a HD clone are both worthless utterly and completely in that case.

TM your system (OS, Apps, working files ON the computer) as needed and have another HD for tossing important data creation and data saves onto,...just a bare formatted HD (either in a dock or a USB HD);.. and necessarily make a constant redundant copy of that data on the formatted HD.

Time Machine makes people lazy, and precludes the notion of REDUNDANCY.

Countless times someone gets a new computer (newbie) and says "ohh, that stuff Ive been working on for 5 years is backed up on my time machine"

How many have redundancy of vital files on Time Machine? (in the scheme of things likely less than 4%).

TM sets up a false sense of security in the minds of most people that use it.

If you cant say A thru D then you've got a problem:

A: My computer crashed, ....thats OK....I have my files on a HD clone and/or (both) TM backup.

B: My time machine failed/ crashed, ...thats OK I have all my files archived in storage on DVD and hard drives.

C: My computer was stolen!, and I had my portable HD in that bag.....both my computer files AND my time machine HD are gone...........thats OK,.....i have redundant copies in the safe on multiple HD at home.

D: My house burned down to dust!..., all my DVD and HD are destroyed!.........thats OK,...Ive got it all archived online on a private website etc.

PlotinusVeritas wrote:

 

Its odd why most all of you are wrapped up in the... "either clone or TM". 

Most here use both, it just branched to a discussion of "If you could use only one method, which would you use?"

PlotinusVeritas wrote:

 

You cannot boot from a TM backup, that has been established.

You cannot keep repeating a falsehood in hopes that repitition will one day make it true.

What is a "little while"?....  a HD clone you can boot in mere seconds......in the case of a corrupt SSD, TM cannot do anything to get you back to desktop.

So what I am supposed to do with my MacBook Pro and clone? Carry around the clone drive everywhere I go for the rest of my days? And I am still going to want backups. So now I have to carry around two clone drives? That is sure going to annoy people at Starbucks on in the airplane when I start dragging out all of my hard drives.

At some point, if you rely on a clone, you are going to have to restore your system to its original, internal configuration. Considering that a notebook computer is pretty much useless without an internal drive, being able to boot in mere seconds is pretty worthless. Restoring that machine to its original configuration will take the same amount of time whether you use Time Machine or a clone. It is just with a clone, you lose all the other benefits of Time Machine. Why lose all the benefits for zero total time saved?

HD are cheap as dirt, I have endless piles of them.

Yeah. I kind of figured that.

Again, you cannot boot from TM, period.

Perhaps you can't boot from a Time Machine drive since you rely on endless piles of clones instead of Time Machine. The rest of us can boot into our Time Machine recovery volume just by holding down the option key.

TM uses software, ....a HD clone does NOT rely on same,...ergo its superior in many many ways.

Sorry to tell you this, but it is all about software. Everything relies on software. Cloning tools like Super Duper or Carbon Copy Cloner are software just like Time Machine. Even if you do a low-level clone with Disk Utility, you are still relying on software. Without software, your computer and all your piles of clones are nothing but a bunch of toxic metal and plastic.

How do you expect a PRO to put (like myself) 42 Terabytes onto a HD clone?

42 terabytes makes one a "PRO"? What does 285 terabytes me? And my archive is one of the smallest in the building. I don't expect everyone to keep petabytes of data in an HSM. People should use the tools and procedures that are most appropriate for their needs. For the vast majority of Mac owners, that means Time Machine. To actively discourage people from using Time Machine is downright malicious.

etresoft The 905

You cannot keep repeating a falsehood (boot from TM which you cannot) in hopes that repitition will one day make it true.

You keep making that claim, however that claim is baseless. You cannot perform a full boot to desktop from TM. Period.

Grant Bennet-Alder West of Boston, USA 

May 22, 2013 9:32 AM

The Time Machine Data drive is not bootable in itself,

Michael Black N.C., USA 

   No sorry, TM backups are not bootable

wjosten 

No, you can't boot from a Time Machine Disk.

Linc Davis 

Time Machine backup volume will boot into Recovery,

etresoft The 905 

So what I am supposed to do with my MacBook Pro and clone? Carry around the clone drive everywhere I go for the rest of my days?

I never mentioned packing around a HD CLONE, however it takes up no more space than a small 1TB  TM backup.   Both a TM backup and a HD clone will fit in a notebook case,.....Im 1800 miles from home now and I have a HD boot clone and a TM backup...... a 9.5mm HD takes up almost no space.

etresoft The 905 

At some point, if you rely on a clone, you are going to have to restore your system to its original, internal configuration. Considering that a notebook computer is pretty much useless without an internal drive

Rubbish and nonsense, .....on a notebook with a SSD obviously there is no HD that is to be swapped out.

Who told you that you have to restore a computer to "ORIGINAL" if your internal HD crashes?

Ive had several people bring me their macbook Pro that I opened up (after an internal HD crash/corruption), and put in their latest clone, and they were backup and running in no time.  They could do it themselves but some are squeamish about opening up their macbook or Mac Mini

etresoft The 905 

The rest of us can boot into our Time Machine recovery volume just by holding down the option key.

Thats where you miss the point by 100 miles, you can "boot" into RECOVERY.......then spend hours and hours restoring (for complete restore).   That however is not attaching a HD and booting to desktop in 30+ seconds......or in case of a HD internal crash, being 100% back up and running in 30 mins after opening the macbook and swapping HD.

Time machine CANNOT, never has been able to boot into desktop.

1. boot to recovery via TM (what you think incorrectly "booting from TM").

2. An ACTUAL HD boot,...meaning a clone, just booting from clone, or to clone straight to desktop.

3. Users higher than yourself above are quoted on this fact,.......are you saying theyre wrong?

To claim that "booting to recovery" via TM is the same or = BOOTING to desktop/operation/computer use is like saying an acorn and an Oak Tree are "really the same thing".  

What is potential is NOT actual.........A TM boot to recovery is NOT a full boot..........a HD clone CAN do a full boot.

An acorn is not an Oak Tree........potentially yes,.....actually no.  (and like time machine takes a lot of time!!!)

etresoft The 905 

Sorry to tell you this, but it is all about software. Everything relies on software. Cloning tools like Super Duper or Carbon Copy Cloner are software just like Time Machine.

Wrong again, Time machines files are BEHIND software.........

a HD clone is just that a CLONE.  

Of course any data on a HD is software......the point is TM data is software IMBEDDED behind TM operational software.

Once a clone is made,....... you can THROW CCC, or Superduper away......once a clone is made, its MADE, .....then superduper and CCC have no meaning.

Time machine software is always needed to retrieve data behind Time Machine software....

etresoft The 905 

42 terabytes makes one a "PRO"?...To actively discourage people from using Time Machine is downright malicious.

I never told anyone not to use Time Machine, I said a HD clone is superior in ABC.....XYZ.

And Time Machine in good for ABC.....and inferior in XYZ.

I never said 42Terabytes made someone a Pro......rather you CANNOT "backup" data archives of ANY significant size with either a TM backup or a HD clone....nor should anyone consider it, ever.

Even Joe Blow is saving and creating HUGE amounts of data in terabytes.    TM and a HD clone are both worthless utterly and completely in that case.

Peace

PlotinusVeritas wrote:

 

You keep making that claim, however that claim is baseless. You cannot boot to desktop from TM. Period.

 

Why would you want to boot to a Desktop from TM? 

do

     If your Mac HD Dies,

          Install a New HD in your Mac

          Boot to the Recovery partition on TM

          Restore to your New HD

done