When a Time Machine backup drive fills up, is there a way to continue doing incremental Time Machine backups on a new backup drive, or is it necessary to first do a 'full' backup on the new drive?
Thanks.
MacBook Pro, OS X Mavericks (10.9.5)
It will be necessary to do a full backup.
Time Machine depends on being able to create Unix "Hard Links" between identical files, but "Hard Links" require both files to be in the same file system.
BobHarris wrote:
It will be necessary to do a full backup.
Time Machine depends on being able to create Unix "Hard Links" between identical files, but "Hard Links" require both files to be in the same file system.
Thanks. Can the full backup be one made with SuperDuper, Carbon Copy, etc. or must it be done using Time Machine?
If I'm not mistaken, the other two create bootable backups whereas TM doesn't.
Can the full backup be one made with SuperDuper, Carbon Copy, etc. or must it be done using Time Machine?
If I'm not mistaken, the other two create bootable backups whereas TM doesn't.
The clones will work and you are correct that the clones are bootable. Use both Time Machine and the clone. Two backups are better than one as hard drives do fail.
dymar wrote:
BobHarris wrote:
It will be necessary to do a full backup.
Time Machine depends on being able to create Unix "Hard Links" between identical files, but "Hard Links" require both files to be in the same file system.
Thanks. Can the full backup be one made with SuperDuper, Carbon Copy, etc. or must it be done using Time Machine?
If I'm not mistaken, the other two create bootable backups whereas TM doesn't.
If you wish to point Time Machine at it, then TIme Machine "MUST" make the backup from start to finish. It cannot use something started by another utility.
If you ALSO want to have a Carbon Copy Cloner or SuperDuper backup, that is a fine addition to Time Machine, but put them on separate disks or at least a separate partition if sharing the same disk with Time Machine (separate disks give you more redundancy).
I am rather sure that you can make a copy from the "old" TM backup to the "new" TM backup disk and then use that. The problem with this is that you first have to convince TM that it has to accept the new UIDD of the new disk for adding to the old backup. I am pretty sure that you can do that (pondini.org). I did it, because I wanted to preserve older times too.
I will never do it again, making sure that I make backups without deleting older files that I want to conserve.
But I argue with the others that it is MUCH easier to start a new backup on a new disk. It costs less time to make a brand new TM backup, than finding out how to do what I said above.
BTW: I think TM is the most brilliant backup system there is. I use disks that are at least 3x the startup disk size.
Lex.
Eric Root wrote:
Can the full backup be one made with SuperDuper, Carbon Copy, etc. or must it be done using Time Machine?
If I'm not mistaken, the other two create bootable backups whereas TM doesn't.
The clones will work and you are correct that the clones are bootable. Use both Time Machine and the clone. Two backups are better than one as hard drives do fail.
Thanks, but "The clones will work" meaning 'they are another effective backup method' or that they can be used by Time Machine? (BobHarris's reply stated that they can't -- i.e., the initial backup also has to be done with Time Machine).
They are a different, effective backup that can't be used by Time Machine as Bob stated.
Using Time Machine on new backup drive without doing full backup?
