Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

Bootable Time Machine Restore Disks

My data protection philosophy is one does not need a backup system; one needs a foolproof and tested restore system. So I talk about restore volumes, not backup volumes.


I followed PlotinusVeritas' advice and purchased Carbon Copy Cloner to create a clone of my internal storage as my fourth restore disk. Great advice. I will keep this cloned volume offsite as a medium-term archive. Having used CCC for cloning I now use it for a different purpose. I do not need a bootable clone onsite for my emergency restores.


New procedure: Each Time Machine disk can be bootable if one runs CCC on them to prepare them with a bootable recovery partition upon initialization. This simple innovation avoids the need of keeping around a cloned disk with its recovery partition. My onsite, bootable restore disks will be up-to-date as of the last TM snapshot.


If I used a cloned disk as an emergency quickly-bootable volume, the changes between the clone time and the last TM snapshot would be lost. For me, this loss of data is not worth saving the few hours of TM restore time to get back on my feet after an system volume failure.


How might one easily create a bootable recovery partition without using CCC or other for-fee utilities?


P.S. Creating bootable recovery partitions on freshly reformatted TM restore disks should be a standard TM feature (a la CCC). I will submit feedback to ask for this change.


P.P.S I tested restoring from my bootable TM restore disk. I booted from the TM disk's recovery partition. I selected that disk's TM volume as the source and a freshly formatted external disk as the destination. It erased the target disk and then to my horror said it was erasing my SSD system volume. I powered the Mac off immediately. It apparently did not get very far because my SSD system volume and its recovery partition are intact and Disk Utility verified my system filesystem is OK. Whew! This is a major bug in TM. I will report it as well.

MacBook Air, OS X Mountain Lion (10.8.5)

Posted on Oct 8, 2013 10:59 AM

Reply
2 replies

Oct 8, 2013 12:46 PM in response to hands4

The logic of all of this is sound but for 2 or 3 points.


A: TM is designed to be a "click it and forget it" method of doing a simplex backup for amateur users, ......as such any complexity at all or elaborate nuances in explaining diff. in clones, backups, archives, active and static storage is mostly lost to any amateur who often has a "I dont care, its backed up" attitude.



B: You said---"This simple innovation avoids the need of keeping around a cloned disk with its recovery partition". Neat idea, but far from 'simple'. Nothing is as "frozen" and secure as a clone stashed in a firebox or safe as the prosumers and pros do.


Recovery partition isnt any kind of necessity, in fact the creator of SuperDuper didnt include and as I spoke with him never WILL include it for a clone option. Ive made clones for years without any recovery, and the recovery partition isnt needed 'in general'. If you upgrade a macbook Pro or Mac Mini, and stash the original drive (to use later to restore in case of selling it), you dont need a recovery on the upgraded internal larger HD, nor do you need one on a periodically updated CLONE.



Lastly you said "How might one easily create a bootable recovery partition without using CCC......"


Though Ive used CCC, Superduper for clones turns out more reliable, is more simple......however the entire statement of "how might one easily..........without" implies there IS something "more easy" than CLONE APPS like Superduper or CCC, and there utterly isnt. 😊



You seem to be pointing at a "revolving secure clone" which elminates the "GAP" between a monthly or biweekly clone update/refresh.


Ideally you would erase and create a new clone of your updated system every 2 weeks or month, which would therefore leave a gap in data integrity and OS files and system changes.......

Autonomous constant data hub archiving fills this downside “gap” of HD clones, wherein which the worst that would be lost is a 2 week or one month window of application updates, or system changes irrelevant to your vital data.


I dont (however some do) care if I lose a system APP update, or a few web bookmarks etc over 2 weeks, I only care about important data I got, made, modified etc.


For that reason I update/ archive data to 2 connected non-Time machine HD, and archive those in safe storage every month.

Oct 8, 2013 3:20 PM in response to PlotinusVeritas

A goal of a restore system is to lose as little data as possible. CCC helps meet that goal but by itself is not sufficient. TM, in theory, meets that goal but in practice is more robust when combined with CCC.


So I take your points that clones are an important and I have started to maintain CCC cloned backups. We may agree to differ on which is more important for one's primary restore medium but I think you we agree that the combination is beautiful and that excellent restore systems are more than prudent.


TM backups have two crucial features clones do not, so TM is not optional.


(1) TM snapshots allow me to go back in time so I keep TM running constantly on my desktop. This guards against operator failure for inadvertently deleting or updating files. Clones do not.


(2) TM restore volumes will be more up to date (within an hour of the failure).


My first attempt at a restore would be with from my most recent backup so I lose as little data as possible. That will most likely be a desktop TM backup. My next most up-to-date backup may be either the TM backup I carry with me or a recent CCC clone. They are likely to be less than a week old. It is important that the restore disk I travel with has a bootable recovery partition, otherwise I would have to carry two disks in my brief case.


For these reasons, running TM for backups is not optional while using CCC clones is optional but a very good idea.


--------- --------- --------- ---------


My restore scheme is actually more complete than this. I have two geographically separate offices. So I have begun maintaining TM and CCC restore disks at each office plus one volume I travel with. Given five restore volumes, each fairly current, one of them ought to work.


Having not only multiple restore volumes but also restore volumes in multiple formats written by multiple utilities is wonderfully robust. Thus I am very pleased I added CCC.


P.S. User interface simplicity breeds wider usage which breeds better restore systems in general. TM's simplicity has revolutionized restore systems. I admit my bias towards it. While at Apple in the '80s I designed, and the Engineering Support Group implemented, a restore system called Blade Runner. It was the forerunner to TM. It automatically took daily snapshots from thousands of Macs over the network and for restores presented a full restore Finder volume as of the date the user selected. It dramatically increased the data security at Apple because multiples of thousands of Macs were backed up routinely compared to pre-Blade-Runner days. Ditto in spades for TM.

Bootable Time Machine Restore Disks

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple ID.