Q: Need recommendation for bootable External HD for CCC

I recommended a separate enclosure so if the disk fails you can easily swap it out. Also separate enclosures usually offer more external connections and don't have software you need to load.  As for size, anything over your internal can be used for other things but of the drive fails you loose it all.   Two externals each auto scheduled to reclone themselves is safer.   One is still better than nothing. With only one, make it big enough so one partition can be time machine and one partition can be your bootable clone.  CCC makes it easy to schedule clones and add recovery if desired.  A recovery partition on your clone isn't really needed.

I would go 2Tb and use 1.5 for time machine and .5 for the clone.

I forgot to add...a USB installer is more important IMHO than a recovery partition.

I was just disputing the absolute necessity of the recovery partition.....I / we didnt mean to get "too technical" as you mention.

CCC program costs money,......SuperDuper doesnt.

The "easy way and ignore everything simple choice is YES , USE Carbon Copy Cloner"

In such a simplex premise, Baboa is is correct, we both are really,.......... just to make it simple as possible, just use CCC and clone the HD to an external fresh HD.

Grab a good inexpensive one, 1TB internal 2.5" 9.5mm thick Toshiba (same as used by Apple) is only $68 on ebay.

ssls6 

I would go 2Tb and use 1.5 for time machine and .5 for the clone.

Too many eggs in one basket, bad idea.  Keep TM on one drive, and a HD CLONE on another HD.

There is no such thing as "too many HD", ....theyre cheaper than dirt,...Ive got piles of them laying around.

Under the heading of "if you can have only one drive" then more than one backup allows for file recovery from accidental deletion or rolling back file changes.   Separate drives are better by far but if you can only have one, then my advise is better than "pick one, a clone or time machine".

The only position in which you "can only have one" would be if you were utterly strapped money wise (which is possible).

Outside of that logical excuse,..... there is NO excuse.

There shouldnt be an "either TM OR a clone", nor did I posit same,.....have both,.......and THEN consider archiving valuable data onto write-once archival media or archiving as well both online and on autonomous hard drives in safe keeping.

Methodology to protect your data. Backups vs. Archives. Long-term data protection

A clone is infinitely more valuable than any time machine backup.

Vital data you "dont dare lose" is mostly small files that will burn onto DVD, a TM is a backup, a HD clone is a quasi-archive.

Any transitory evolving TM backup is inferior for data protection than any archive.    Time Machine is a system hub backup, not a data archive realistically nor should be idealized as one.

PlotinusVeritas wrote:

 

Forget about CCC,  Superduper does the same thing for FREE.  Download the APP SuperDuper (most use it).

 

Not free, free trail.

Has SD been (or need to be) updated for Maverics?  (web site says "And now Mountain Lion compatible!")

etresoft wrote:

 

I wouldn't get too hung up on a bootable clone. It sounds like a better idea than it really is. If you ever use that bootable clone then you still have to replace some hardware to get back to a nominal state.

 

A locally connected Time Machine drive is bootable too and far more convenient.

Yes, but OP is backing up files by dragging to an external hard drive.  Nothing wrong with that, but better to make a clone (that it's bootable, is just another benefit)

There is no such thing as "too many HD", ....theyre cheaper than dirt,...Ive got piles of them laying around.

 

Very true, except: mine weren't cheap, but then I disdain any external drive that gets its power only from a USB port. Mine are self powered and have several different ports including Firewire (which is much faster than USB 2 especially when one does not have a Thunderbolt or USB 3 port). You get what you pay for.

etresoft wrote:

I wouldn't get too hung up on a bootable clone. It sounds like a better idea than it really is.

A locally connected Time Machine drive is bootable too and far more convenient.

Ahh, who told you that? ........You cant boot from time machine.

HD clone not a "better idea" ?......how do you figure that?   a HD clone has an advantage list over TM a mile long.

Time machine is a black box you:

A: cannot boot from

B: is like throwing emergency supplies in a dark basement hole.......you never know its there until you need it (many found that out the hard way).

C: TM is a revolving door, it DOES OVERWRITE older files.....deletes them when out of space.

D: There is NO easy means of verifying files on TM

E: there is NO easy way of extracting backed up files on TM.

F: IF you have to restore from a TM, it will take HOURS............however with a HD clone, it will take LESS than 60 seconds to boot from the clone.

(and G thru Z)

babowa Pacific NW 

Very true, except: mine weren't cheap, but then I disdain any external drive that gets its power only from a USB port. Mine are self powered and have several different ports including Firewire

Mine were'nt cheap either, and MOST of mine are NOT USB, nor firewire, nor thunderbolt......etc.

Most of what you paid for was a pricey enclosure.

Most of mine are naked HD that I drop in a dock.

There are only 4 conventional HD makers on earth, WD, Hitachi, Toshiba, Seagate,

Most of mine are Hitachi or Toshiba, there is nothing better that can be bought.

Your "self powered Firewire...."  HD have a unnecessary failure point naked hard drives dont have (2 actually).

1. SATA bridge card locus of failure (very high failure point, regardless of HD quality)

2. power failure point in enclosure.

In the arena of HD, removal of all potential failure points is better,.......or "naked HD are more trustworthy"

Using Hard Drive Docks For Big Data Transfers

http://www.diyphotography.net/using-hard-drive-docks-for-big-data-transfer

Here is some very thorough and unbiased information by our Time Machine expert - it explains the differences of various backup methods quite well:

http://pondini.org/TM/Clones.html

<sigh>. Here we go again. How many times to we have to fight the Clone Wars?

PlotinusVeritas wrote:

 

Ahh, who told you that? ........You cant boot from time machine.

That would be Apple, Inc. Time Machine has been bootable for at least a year now.

HD clone not a "better idea" ?......how do you figure that?   a HD clone has an advantage list over TM a mile long.

Cloning tools have some uses, but they are not replacements for a good backup tool. Time Machine is the best backup tool ever. It literally re-wrote the rules and expectations for what backup software is supposed to do. The best part about Time Machine is that is keeps backups before you know you need them. It keeps multiple backups in case your last clone is missing the file you need. It even backs up if you don't have the backup drive connected. Let's see a cloning tool do that.

Time machine is a black box you:

 

A: cannot boot from

B: is like throwing emergency supplies in a dark basement hole.......you never know its there until you need it (many found that out the hard way).

C: TM is a revolving door, it DOES OVERWRITE older files.....deletes them when out of space.

D: There is NO easy means of verifying files on TM

E: there is NO easy way of extracting backed up files on TM.

 

F: IF you have to restore from a TM, it will take HOURS............however with a HD clone, it will take LESS than 60 seconds to boot from the clone.

 

(and G thru Z)

A good way to detect an unreasonable argument is to look for absolutes. The Clone Wars are usually full of those. Clone tools are great when you need a clone. If you know you need a backup for one reason or another and have the time and forethought to set everything up, then clones are useful. But the weakest link in any backup tool is the human. Time Machine is designed to do its thing without human intervention. When you realize you need the backup, it is there waiting for you.

etresoft The 905 

That would be Apple, Inc. Time Machine has been bootable for at least a year now.

A: Nonsense!!.......You CANNOT boot from a TM backup....using "Command + R" on startup to boot from Recovery Mode.

Booting  TO RECOVERY is not booting dirrectly to desktop and 100% operation.

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,

Booting into RECOVERY will takes hours............booting from a HD clone will take less than 60 seconds.    Hours VS. seconds.

Try it sometime. Or are you perhaps trying to debate what "bootable" means and defining it so that only a clone will satisfy your requirements? And yet, I'm not allowed to define the requirements of good backup software such that Time Machine satisfies them and cloning tools don't.

For the very tiny number of people who really, truly need zero downtime, a mirrored drive or RAID is the best option. If you have a hard drive failure, regardless of your backup strategy, your first course of action should be to replace the failed hard drive. You don't want to use it because you would then be using your only backup. Considering the fact that you need to go to the store any way to buy a new hard drive and restore from backup, how is a clone any better than a recovery volume?

That is a rhetorical question by the way. No need to answer.

Time Machine is a great, easy-to-use backup program. Just plug in a hard drive and let it go. If you a geek like some of us with external drives laying around in abundance, then clones can come in handy too. To denigrate one option to exclusion of the other is not the path of wisdom.

etresoft

But the weakest link in any backup tool is the human. Time Machine is designed to do its thing without human intervention.

Time machine and HD clones BOTH use HD,.....made by one of only 4 HD mfg. on earth, no debate there.   Time Machine and HD clone are both operating on conventional hard drives.    Time machine does require human intervention.

Time machine requires more clicks than booting from a HD clone.......plug in the clone and turn the computer on.   no debate there.

Time machine relies on the internal HD to still be mechanically OK........HD clone wins.

A clone,.......it doesnt matter if the internal HD is 100% destroyed....... clone wins.

etresoft The 905 

To denigrate one option to exclusion of the other is not the path of wisdom.

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).

etresoft The 905 

For the very tiny number of people who really, truly need zero downtime

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"

etresoft

Or are you perhaps trying to debate what "bootable" means

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.

We are just discussing things ....... nothing personal of course......hugs & Peace