You claim that somehow booting from CCC image is faster but it its not. This argument alone is sufficient in fact. ![]() These are first party tools and they are guaranteed to work, whereas CCC folks need to always play catch with OS changes. If Mac disk fails physically you either take your Mac to Apple Store to get SSD swapped, get a new Mac, OR plug in external drive and then again - boot from recovery partition and restore from time machine. If Mac disk fails logically (corrupted filesystem for example, hypothetically) - you boot from recovery partition or network and then you either restore from installation media or from time machine. I'd have to boot from the internet or other media, then fix the broken drive (if possible), re-install MacOs and then do a restore. Once the computer is fixed, I can simply restore from my clone. if my boot drive fails, I can easily boot my backup clone from CCC and get on with my work. This is applicable both to sparse bundle and CCC image they are both disk images. Depending on where corruption occurs it may either go unnoticed until and if you hit that bad block during restore or it may kill the whole image if corrupted block happens to be somewhere in the root filesystem structures. CCC is and TM are not much different in this respect: both are disk images. Yes, you would lose the data in the failed part of the backup disk, but the rest would usually be usable. I'll explain below.Ī partial loss of data to one of it's bands can render the whole archive useless. ![]() So, for the sake of completeness, I'm going to comment: However, you are stretching the facts both ways to justify your decision (which is absolutely don't need to justify). Indeed, to each its own, and if you like CCC and it works for you who am I to argue. If you send your CCC backup over flaky link to rotten storage it’s would not be not CCCs fault if it would fail to restore data. So I don’t buy “Gaaaa time machine is broken/poorly designed/has a fatal flaw” outrages. It’s backing up my today’s changes from the MacBook Pro as I’m typing this. ![]() In 100% of cases when someone complained about time machine reliability digging into the issue the culprit invariably turn out to be hardware or configuration issue outside of time machine, which upon correcting eliminates the problem entirely.Īs an anecdote my current TM Bundle was created in 2009 on 2008 MacBook Pro with Snow Leopard, outlived all the rest of my devices and few weeks ago I migrated my 2018 Mac to 2019 one with Catalina using that bundle. Time machine works fine if target storage is properly configured. And it's harder to use if need to restore to bare metal. A simple error makes the NAS based image un-usable and very difficult to repair. Far to many issues and loss of data.TimeMachine's weakness is the way it stores data. There is also no 'Bonjour Carbon Copy Cloner Broadcasting', and I was concerned I would manually have to connect and run the backups, which would limit their benefit to me. That said I was hoping to hear more people's experiences of using CCC to make network backups. It's still a benefit to me to have over-the-air backups whilst I'm on my home network though (making CCC backups/clones requires I physically connect an external SSD, which I don't currently do more than once a week), and so it makes sense to add Time Machine as an extra backup. I am leaning towards using Time Machine in addition to my current back up strategy as a) you can't (easily) boot using a network clone and b) a lot of commentators seemed to have had issues with Time Machine backups corrupting. ![]() Having a bootable backup thanks to CCC was a life-saver as I could continue working directly from it using another Mac. Yeah a couple of months ago my motherboard failed and I had to have the whole laptop replaced by Apple.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |