Time Machine, Carbon Copy Cloner: is it good to have both?

Both is a good option for several reasons.

Two backups are better than one.

CCC is bootable (or can be made to be bootable), which is quite handy if you can't afford downtime. You can't make Time Machine bootable.

Time Machine works seemlessly, but you can also schedule CCC.

For some things, restoring via Time Machine is very simple (others, not so).

Yes, it is good to have more than one backup - personally, I prefer to be able to decide when I want to backup (rather than Time Machine's schedule), so I've decided to have two bootable clones on different external drives (using CCC for them). CCC also can clone and update the recovery partition.

Many expert Mac users use both, it's a great idea.

The Carbon Copy Cloner clone saves me when something goes wrong but I need to use my system right now (to meet a deadline or something). Time Machine requires a bit of time to reassemble your system, and requires an empty working drive. A Carbon Copy Cloner bootable clone means you already have a working drive and can use it right now.

The Time Machine backup has saved me because it backs up multiple versions of a file over a long period of time. Just last week I was looking for a file and realized I probably deleted it by accident. The bootable clone did not have the file because it was too recent. Time Machine had the last copy of the file from 3 weeks ago.

Both are useful because they solve different backup problems.

Ocean 17 wrote:

Wouldn't it be easier if I only used CCC and dropped Time Machine?

Much easier and a lot more capable since you can option/alt boot from a clone and make more clones

For instance on my laptop I have my boot drive partitioned 50/50 with the second being a bootable clone of the first.

If I delete a file or the first boot paritition isn't booting, I can boot the other.

Also I keep external drive clones dated back in time for various purposes and testing.

There is local TimeMachine backup file, turn it off thus it will free up drive space.

Turn local backups off: sudo tmutil disablelocal

Turn local backups back on: sudo tmutil enablelocal

TimeMachine is for many typical users. Bootable Clones are for powerusers and up.

Most commonly used backup methods

Ocean 17 wrote:

. . .

On the other hand: why would I use Time Machine then (if I don't need going back in time)? One argument I heard is that Time Machine backups are easier to access.

Time Machine and clones are not contradictory. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, which is why so many of us use both. See Time Machine vs. Clones and Archives for an overview of the different types of backup apps, the advantages and disadvantages of each, and some recommendations.

(I notice I never added the advantage of Local Snapshots on portable Macs running Lion or later there. Those are expendable copies, much like Versions, on your Mac, unless it's over 80% full. If you're travelling and away from your normal backups, they can be lifesavers if a file gets changed or deleted in error, or suddenly turns up corrupted. I'll add that.)

You may think you don't need "going back in time," until something bad happens. Then you may find it's saved your bacon.

And plenty of "power users" do use and rely on Time Machine. Most also use another app, too.

Wouldn't it be easier if I only used CCC and dropped Time Machine? (Just putting this out there).

Sure, using only one app is easier. Not safer. Rarely better.

Wouldn't it be easier if I only used CCC and dropped Time Machine? (Just putting this out there).

You already have excellent replies, one from our Time Machine "guru" --- personally, I can do quite well without TM. Having said that, I've never needed to "resurrect" something as I'm very organized and so are my multiple backups (including drag 'n drop files), so for me, cloning is THE way to go - I've had several instances where my system was completely borked and the fastest and easiest was to simply boot from the clone, erase, and clone it back. For me, TM is too uncertain: you can test a clone, but you really can't "test" TM and if something goes haywire there, you're up a proverbial .....

Ocean 17 wrote:

I didn't know for sure that you can't make a bootable backup with Time Machine.

You can make a bootable backup with Time Machine. But it requires that you have 1) a running OS X system you can use to run the process of rebuilding the bootable backup and which is compatible with the system you're trying to rebuild, like a Recovery Partition, 2) the Time Machine backup to build it from, 3) an empty volume large enough to hold the rebuilt system that died, and 4) at least an hour for OS X to reassemble your dead system. Once you have all those things and wait long enough, you have a bootable backup of your dead system.

But with a CCC clone you are ready to boot and use it at any time. There is no gathering of materials, and no waiting.

Ocean 17 wrote:

PS: Network23, for some reason "this helped me" doesn't show up on your post, even though I tried several times. Thanks for your input.

That's fine, I'm not doing it for the points. 🙂 Good luck.

As others have said, I share the opinion that it's good to have both. One backup is a must. Two (or more) is always better.

I have an external Firewire drive with a partition dedicated to Time Machine. Whenever I'm docked at my desk, I keep the drive plugged in and just let Time Machine do it's hourly thing without me having to think about it. It's a fine way to ensure that you have a backup of anything and everything on the drive at any given time. The, obvious, disadvantage is that it's not bootable.

I have a portable drive I keep stored in a safe location on which I keep a bootable clone that I maintain with Carbon Copy Cloner. I'll, typically, pull it out and update it every couple of weeks. I ALWAYS update it immediately before I do a system update (as I'll be doing before I update to 10.8.4). As others have mentioned, you can quickly recover with the clone if something ever goes wrong.

I used both, this is my experience...

1) Time Machine: it is easier to backup with an encrypted drive. Very very simple process .

2) CCC: Makes a bootable drive ... which is very handy.

What is the problem?

1) Time Machine:

-Extremely Slow (compard to CCC) it took something like 6->8 hrs to backup/encrypt 220GB drive.

-Not Bootable

2)CCC: is kind of expensive I believe its like $42 , for something that you can do for free on Time Machine. I only bought it because CCC was donation ware long ago and it was very helpful to me, but when they made it a commercial product I got it to support the developers .

If you do not mind paying, there is no reason not to get both. There is also SuperDuper , but I have not used that. CCC has been very reliable for me.