Q: Need recommendation for bootable External HD for CCC

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

Actually, booting into recovery takes approx. 60 seconds. Downloading the OS will take time depending on your internet connection.

I gotta say I love calling this "the clone wars".  I'll remember that

I'm a Time Machine fan to help with my own human errors (hourly recovery of my scewups).  It's a great program and will even ping-pong between multiple drives (some of which are NAS).

I'm a fan of clones for my big fubars or hardware errors (betas, running setup assistant, system snap shots for remote storage)

I'm a big big fan of having a USB full installer (I think everyone should have one for disc initialization)

I'm a fan of external enclosures that you put your own drive into.  Enclosure go bad? you still have the drive.  Drive go bad? you still have the enclosure.

I'm not a fan of making simple ideas very complex sounding.  A single external and time machine is still way way better than nothing.  If a person's data is very important to them, they need to have more redundancy.  If the data is super important (I put photos of my kids in that bucket), then copies stored remotely is also very important.

PlotinusVeritas wrote:

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

Actually, that isn't quite true. Starting with Lion or Mountain Lion, Time Machine automatically puts a bootable version of the Recovery HD on the TM drive & you can boot from that just like you can from a clone through the Startup manager (option key startup). Of course, you still have to restore the OS & your files to another drive before you can get back to work, but if your regular startup drive dies, you really need something besides your only clone as a backup, so at the least you should get another drive ASAP for backup anyway.

Something else to consider for the win/loss tradeoffs: if the drive you are using as a clone source develops problems like file system corruption or damaged or deleted system files, your clone will inherit those same problems, which may make starting up from it impossible. Similarly, if you accidentally delete important documents or they become corrupted, your clone will have those same problems.

Of course, you can guard against this by making multiple clones or using the options in some cloning software to retain copies of any changed files, but over time this can require a huge amount of disk space & several very large drives, plus it can be a major hassle to find the last uncorrupted clone or the most recent usable version of the document(s) you need.

In this respect, Time Machine backups are far superior because they use disk space much more efficiently by keeping just one copy of each unique version of all the files in the entire backup set -- even though it looks like there is one copy in each dated backup, through the clever use of hard links this is just an illusion. And of course, Time Machine gives you the option to easily restore individual files from any dated backup or to restore the entire system to any previous time, even one that uses a different OS version.

Because of all this, I suggest the best solution is to use both backup methods: use Time Machine for its convenience in browsing through & if necessary restoring things from its many backup sets but keep an up-to-date clone handy for the times you have to get back to work ASAP after some disaster occurs with your normal startup drive.

Folks may find it interesting to read what Pondini had to say about Time Machine vs Clones.

chrstene96 wrote:

 

Any suggestions for an External HD that I can use?  (also, I was thinking 1 TB was a decent size to get)?

 

Thanks so much for your help ! 

 

Christine

We've staryed a bit off topic

I always use either Newegg or OWC  for my hardware purchases.

If you have a 500GB Mac Drive, and you will only use the drive for cloning, then by definition, all you need is a 500GB drive.   What is the USED space on your drive?  As CCC and SD allow incremental backups, you may need more available space, but if you're only 1/2 used on the Mac (250GB), then 500GB is enough.

As has been stated, the problem with the WD Drives and Mavericks is the usually the WD Software, not the drive.

Since you already have a Time Capsule and you are now looking for a secondary backup (good idea), unless your Mac HD is almost full, I would suggest re-partitioning your WD drive and use that for the clone. 

I know that, yup.  Dont need the recovery partition.  Even in talks with the creator of SuperDuper it stumps him why anyone cares about same. Dont need it.

There are two very distinct reasons the Recovery Partition (RP) is required…

1) To enable FileVault2 an RP is required. I use my RP every single day when I turn on my rMBP.

2) To enable, also disable, Find My Mac in iCloud required an RP. Its not just a case of not being able to turn it on but if you enable FMM and then remove the RP it is actually still running and reporting location data. This can be used in a very insidious manner.

3) Disk Utility is built into the RP. With DU in the RP you're able to easily verify and repair your boot disk without the need of anything else. This is handy enough as is without consider all the command line tools made available by Terminal. You have this without needing to arrange for some other OS to boot from.

The default, and/or free, mode of SuperDuper! is to erase the disk and do a full clone. This is all well and good until someone realises they don't end up with a full clone. Without the RP functionality is lost. Whether one uses that functionality is up to them… but its lost all the same.

The fact that SD! doesn't forwarn you that you will lose your RP is a massive nasty in my book.

If you consider the circumstance of what someone has to do to restore the RP functionality into volume the inability to even have the option of copying the RP is a really bad choice of the developer and poor advice on your part. And those with new systems that require a special build that's newer than what is available on the App Store have an added bonus of having to resort to using the Internet Recovery system and that 5GB download.

Just because you and SD!'s developer don't use the RP doesn't mean others don't as well.

macjack wrote:

 

Folks may find it interesting to read what Pondini had to say about Time Machine vs Clones.

Sorry, forgot the link...

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

...what about having both TM and a Clone?

macjack wrote:

macjack wrote:

Folks may find it interesting to read what Pondini had to say about Time Machine vs Clones.

Sorry, forgot the link...

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

Maybe you didn't notice, but Babora posted the same link yesterday.

Tony T1 wrote:

 

...what about having both TM and a Clone?

I keep both, I think it's the best way to go But if I could only choose one, it would be the clone. (I keep more than one clone and keep TM and the clones on separate disks.)

R C-R Texas, USA 

Of course with TM you still have to restore the OS & your files to another drive before you can get back to work, but if your regular startup drive dies, you really need something besides your only clone as a backup, so at the least you should get another drive ASAP for backup anyway.

Yes, which makes using time machine with a failed internal HD a total nightmare time-wise

You misunderstood me completely,..... NEITHER Time machine NOR a clone are meant for, nor do I advocate, them as data ARCHIVES, however data is far far safer on an autonomous HD clone than on any Time Machine backup.  A HD clone is a quasi-archive, unattached, TM is none of these,...... and NOBODY verifies the validity of data on TM machine until there is an emergency,,......(which is a bad working premise).

R C-R Texas, USA 

besides your only clone as a backup,

I dont consider a HD clone a "backup of data", rather a system restore/backup (same for TM).

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.

The Pros:

A: have an updated HD clone for when (not if) the internal HD crashes,.....remove bad HD, install new, back up and running in no time.

B: secure their priceless data on multiple unassailable locations, DVD burns, online, archived on autonomous HD stored in vaults.

As stated, TM is like throwing emergency supplies down a dark basement and hoping they dont go bad and are still there if you need them in an emergency......bad idea all around.  AND Time machine DOES delete older files as it needs to. The "TM, or the 'guy is the basement' is throwing stuff out the window when the 'basement' gets full.

  R C-R Texas, USA 

In this respect, Time Machine backups are far superiorr because they use disk space much more efficiently by keeping just one copy of each unique version of all the files in the entire backup set.

Extremely bad working premise, to say in one sentence "one copy (and a backup too, not even an archived copy!)........and the words 'far superior'......"  is a slow boat off niagra falls, a disaster waiting to happen.

Also one copy of any specific file is also a bad working premise and WHY data-only archives are necessary in case a file is corrupted and you need to go back to a much earlier version of that file.

   R C-R Texas, USA 

Time Machine for its convenience in browsing through & if necessary

Time machine is neither convenient in the true sense or generalized. Its a newbie methodology of data "life saver" if their internal SSD or HD goes kaput, or there is "X" reason corruption etc. 

Does TM work? of course it does, its 'best' use is with any notebook with a SSD (macbook Air, current new Pro),....use that as a system-backup,...in case of SSD failure, you pop in a new SSD (or Apple does) and then restore from TM to the new SSD.

Most novices now are creating/saving/ HUGE amounts of data, and to think of throwing ALL that data, and OS, and APPS on a tiny TM backup is the worst disaster of all.

Those countless many who are using or inclined to view Time Machine as a central (or at the very worse ‘only’) data ‘backup’ are not only putting valuable work in a choke point of failure, but are also creating a ‘growing giant’ where Time Machine will extremely easily outgrow its HD capacity with the bloat of big data files the likes of which include pics, video, music, PDF and likewise.

Time Machine is best utilized as protection for the ‘traveler’, as meant the system OS and immanent data; the ‘luggage’ or static data archives, large files of little access are best ‘carried’ elsewhere on other HD archives/ storage and/or DVD media.

With TM.......if you have an internal HD failure however,.....youre in for a nightmare you could completely avoid with a HD clone.

Idealized in premise, TM is means for the entire OS, APPS, and active working data.

To think or use TM as a static data locus for 'storage/ archive' is a very bad idea.

The first realization is that your data on your computer is highly vulnerable

The second realization is that you need a HD backup of your OS and data

The third realization is that you need at the very least a secondary HD backup

The fourth and final realization is understanding the fragility of any and all HD & ferromagnetic storage, and that vital data needs to be “frozen” on unassailable redundancies across multiple storage platforms including multiple HD, online backup, archival DVD burns comprising at the very minimum triple platform redundancy of data you have been working on for years or decades that cannot be replaced.

R C-R wrote:

 

Maybe you didn't notice, but Babora posted the same link yesterday.

Nope, didn't notice. Sorry to be redundant but perhaps it needs posting twice

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

macjack My Swamp 

Nope, didn't notice. Sorry to be redundant but perhaps it needs posting twice

Rewrite:   "Its BEST to be redundant (with your data) and making copies at least twice"

Yin and Yang, Tony. In all the time I've used TM I only needed to restore a file once. It was an email I had deleted. But that doesn't mean I may not need it tomorrow.

I feel more comfortable with my clones, especially since I alternate the schedules and I know I can always boot from them, if necessary.

Of course this is hypothetical and I do believe in keeping both.