Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #72083 > unrolled thread

Backup Question

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Backup Question Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2015-03-25 17:03 -0700
    Re: Backup Question Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-03-25 21:13 -0400
      Re: Backup Question Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2015-03-25 19:15 -0700
        Re: Backup Question nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-25 23:07 -0400
      Re: Backup Question M-M <nospam@ny.more> - 2015-03-26 00:07 -0400
        Re: Backup Question nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 00:10 -0400
      Re: Backup Question me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-03-26 14:02 +0000
        Re: Backup Question Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 14:28 +0000
          Re: Backup Question nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 11:02 -0400
            Re: Backup Question Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-03-26 11:11 -0400
            Re: Backup Question Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 15:37 +0000
              Re: Backup Question nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 11:57 -0400
                Re: Backup Question Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 17:01 +0000
                  Re: Backup Question nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 13:32 -0400
                    Re: Backup Question Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 17:47 +0000
      Re: Backup Question Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> - 2015-03-26 18:14 -0400
        Re: Backup Question Király <ggrandish@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 15:57 -0700
          Re: Backup Question Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2015-03-27 17:16 -0700
            Re: Backup Question Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 01:51 +0000
              Re: Backup Question Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2015-03-27 20:23 -0700
      Re: Backup Question Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-28 01:40 +0000
    Re: Backup Question Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-26 04:03 +0000
      Re: Backup Question Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2015-03-25 21:12 -0700
    Re: Backup Question billy@MIX.COM - 2015-03-26 17:01 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#72083 — Backup Question

Do I have this correct? 

CCC makes an exact clone of your entire drive (bootable if you want)
and then every time after that if you run CCC, it will only backup what
is new by replacing the file/app/document with a new copy.

TM, on the other hand, makes incremental backups of what ever
file/app/document so that you will have multiple copies of the same
file with increasing "newness".

Advantages/disadvantages of both and can you have both on the same
physical drive and still be able to use both without messing up either
one?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#72084

Otto Pylot:

> Do I have this correct? 
> 
> CCC makes an exact clone of your entire drive (bootable if you want)
> and then every time after that if you run CCC, it will only backup what
> is new by replacing the file/app/document with a new copy.

Yes, although my experience is with SuperDuper. Same idea.

> TM, on the other hand, makes incremental backups of what ever
> file/app/document so that you will have multiple copies of the same
> file with increasing "newness".

> Advantages/disadvantages of both and can you have both on the same
> physical drive and still be able to use both without messing up either
> one?

The great advantage of CCC/SD is that you have a workable clone of your
HD. If the HD should fail you can clone the backup to your new HD in a
couple of hours while you go off and work on one of your five other
Macs. If you are relying on TimeMachine you have only your files backed
up. In the event of a HD failure you must reinstall all of your
software, re-do all of your settings/preferences, and then bring back
your files. That would be at least two days of hands-on work for one of
my Macs.

You could have a TM backup and a CCC/SD clone on the same backup drive
providing the drive had sufficient capacity and providing that each
scheme had its own partition.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72085

In article <250320152113005572%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
wrote:

> Otto Pylot:
> 
> > Do I have this correct? 
> > 
> > CCC makes an exact clone of your entire drive (bootable if you want)
> > and then every time after that if you run CCC, it will only backup what
> > is new by replacing the file/app/document with a new copy.
> 
> Yes, although my experience is with SuperDuper. Same idea.
> 
> > TM, on the other hand, makes incremental backups of what ever
> > file/app/document so that you will have multiple copies of the same
> > file with increasing "newness".
> 
> > Advantages/disadvantages of both and can you have both on the same
> > physical drive and still be able to use both without messing up either
> > one?
> 
> The great advantage of CCC/SD is that you have a workable clone of your
> HD. If the HD should fail you can clone the backup to your new HD in a
> couple of hours while you go off and work on one of your five other
> Macs. If you are relying on TimeMachine you have only your files backed
> up. In the event of a HD failure you must reinstall all of your
> software, re-do all of your settings/preferences, and then bring back
> your files. That would be at least two days of hands-on work for one of
> my Macs.
> 
> You could have a TM backup and a CCC/SD clone on the same backup drive
> providing the drive had sufficient capacity and providing that each
> scheme had its own partition.

Thanks. That's what I thought and that's what I was hoping.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72088

In article <250320151915588321%otto@bogus.address.com>, Otto Pylot
<otto@bogus.address.com> wrote:

> > > Advantages/disadvantages of both and can you have both on the same
> > > physical drive and still be able to use both without messing up either
> > > one?
> > 
> > The great advantage of CCC/SD is that you have a workable clone of your
> > HD. If the HD should fail you can clone the backup to your new HD in a
> > couple of hours while you go off and work on one of your five other
> > Macs. If you are relying on TimeMachine you have only your files backed
> > up. In the event of a HD failure you must reinstall all of your
> > software, re-do all of your settings/preferences, and then bring back
> > your files. That would be at least two days of hands-on work for one of
> > my Macs.

actually restoring from time machine is just a reinstall and migration,
which should take a few hours. all the apps and whatever else get
restored (unless specifically excluded).

the advantage of a clone is you can boot off the clone and be in
business in *no* time.

they address different types of failures. both are good.

> > You could have a TM backup and a CCC/SD clone on the same backup drive
> > providing the drive had sufficient capacity and providing that each
> > scheme had its own partition.
> 
> Thanks. That's what I thought and that's what I was hoping.

however, you really don't want both on the same drive since if that
drive fails, you lose *both* backups.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72094

In article <250320152113005572%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
wrote:

>  If you are relying on TimeMachine you have only your files backed
> up. In the event of a HD failure you must reinstall all of your
> software, re-do all of your settings/preferences, and then bring back
> your files. That would be at least two days of hands-on work for one of
> my Macs.

As was mentioned, what you say here is entirely incorrect.

The difference between restoring a new drive from a clone or TM is that
TM first requires a drive with a basic system installed. You can then
migrate all of your apps and settings similar to restoring from a
clone.

Restoring from a clone, whether CCC or SD only requires a blank
formatted disk.

-- 
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72095

In article <260320150007391331%nospam@ny.more>, M-M <nospam@ny.more>
wrote:

> >  If you are relying on TimeMachine you have only your files backed
> > up. In the event of a HD failure you must reinstall all of your
> > software, re-do all of your settings/preferences, and then bring back
> > your files. That would be at least two days of hands-on work for one of
> > my Macs.
> 
> As was mentioned, what you say here is entirely incorrect.
> 
> The difference between restoring a new drive from a clone or TM is that
> TM first requires a drive with a basic system installed. You can then
> migrate all of your apps and settings similar to restoring from a
> clone.

and for those running lion and later, the tm drive will have a recovery
partition of its own (if it's directly attached, not a time capsule),
so the basic system can be installed if it isn't already.

> Restoring from a clone, whether CCC or SD only requires a blank
> formatted disk.

or just boot directly from the clone and continue working while waiting
for the replacement blank disk to arrive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72111

Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
> Macs. If you are relying on TimeMachine you have only your files backed
> up. In the event of a HD failure you must reinstall all of your
> software, re-do all of your settings/preferences, and then bring back
> your files.

This is false. If you have a Time Machine backup, a full restore of 
the system and all your files is entirely possible.

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72112

On 2015-03-26, Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
> Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
>> Macs. If you are relying on TimeMachine you have only your files backed
>> up. In the event of a HD failure you must reinstall all of your
>> software, re-do all of your settings/preferences, and then bring back
>> your files.
>
> This is false. If you have a Time Machine backup, a full restore of 
> the system and all your files is entirely possible.

It also doesn't take days. A couple hours and you're back up and
running.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72114

In article <cnijd3FjredU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >> Macs. If you are relying on TimeMachine you have only your files backed
> >> up. In the event of a HD failure you must reinstall all of your
> >> software, re-do all of your settings/preferences, and then bring back
> >> your files.
> >
> > This is false. If you have a Time Machine backup, a full restore of 
> > the system and all your files is entirely possible.
> 
> It also doesn't take days. A couple hours and you're back up and
> running.

it would if someone had to manually reinstall all apps and reconfigure
everything, as he described.

however, i don't know why anyone would go through all that nonsense
when they could simply restore everything from the backup. that's what
backups are for. 

unless, of course, the user intentionally excluded all apps and system
files from the backup. that's not the fault of time machine. it's
simply doing what the user told it to do, skip nearly everything.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72115

In article <260320151102565672%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <cnijd3FjredU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > >> Macs. If you are relying on TimeMachine you have only your files backed
> > >> up. In the event of a HD failure you must reinstall all of your
> > >> software, re-do all of your settings/preferences, and then bring back
> > >> your files.
> > >
> > > This is false. If you have a Time Machine backup, a full restore of 
> > > the system and all your files is entirely possible.
> > 
> > It also doesn't take days. A couple hours and you're back up and
> > running.
> 
> it would if someone had to manually reinstall all apps and reconfigure
> everything, as he described.
> 
> however, i don't know why anyone would go through all that nonsense
> when they could simply restore everything from the backup. that's what
> backups are for. 
> 
> unless, of course, the user intentionally excluded all apps and system
> files from the backup. that's not the fault of time machine. it's
> simply doing what the user told it to do, skip nearly everything.

And even if you exclude apps and system files, that wouldn't exclude 
your settings/preferences. Those are in the user's ~/Library/Preferences 
folder.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72117

On 2015-03-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <cnijd3FjredU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-03-26, Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
>>> Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
>>>> Macs. If you are relying on TimeMachine you have only your files backed
>>>> up. In the event of a HD failure you must reinstall all of your
>>>> software, re-do all of your settings/preferences, and then bring back
>>>> your files.
>>>
>>> This is false. If you have a Time Machine backup, a full restore of 
>>> the system and all your files is entirely possible.
>> 
>> It also doesn't take days. A couple hours and you're back up and
>> running.
>
> it would if someone had to manually reinstall all apps and reconfigure
> everything, as he described.

As Király noted, you don't have to manually reinstall all apps and
reconfigure everything since it's possible to restore apps and their
preferences from Time Machine backups.

> however, i don't know why anyone would go through all that nonsense
> when they could simply restore everything from the backup. that's what
> backups are for. 

You're talking in circles. See Király's post above.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72119

In article <cnind0Fk2liU3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >>>> Macs. If you are relying on TimeMachine you have only your files backed
> >>>> up. In the event of a HD failure you must reinstall all of your
> >>>> software, re-do all of your settings/preferences, and then bring back
> >>>> your files.
> >>>
> >>> This is false. If you have a Time Machine backup, a full restore of 
> >>> the system and all your files is entirely possible.
> >> 
> >> It also doesn't take days. A couple hours and you're back up and
> >> running.
> >
> > it would if someone had to manually reinstall all apps and reconfigure
> > everything, as he described.
> 
> As Király noted, you don't have to manually reinstall all apps and
> reconfigure everything since it's possible to restore apps and their
> preferences from Time Machine backups.
> 
> > however, i don't know why anyone would go through all that nonsense
> > when they could simply restore everything from the backup. that's what
> > backups are for. 
> 
> You're talking in circles. See Király's post above.

you missed the point.

time machine *can* work the way davoud described, but that would be an
intentional decision by the user to exclude stuff from the backup, in
which case the excluded stuff would need to be manually restored.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72122

On 2015-03-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <cnind0Fk2liU3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> >>>> Macs. If you are relying on TimeMachine you have only your files backed
>> >>>> up. In the event of a HD failure you must reinstall all of your
>> >>>> software, re-do all of your settings/preferences, and then bring back
>> >>>> your files.
>> >>>
>> >>> This is false. If you have a Time Machine backup, a full restore of 
>> >>> the system and all your files is entirely possible.
>> >> 
>> >> It also doesn't take days. A couple hours and you're back up and
>> >> running.
>> >
>> > it would if someone had to manually reinstall all apps and reconfigure
>> > everything, as he described.
>> 
>> As Király noted, you don't have to manually reinstall all apps and
>> reconfigure everything since it's possible to restore apps and their
>> preferences from Time Machine backups.
>> 
>> > however, i don't know why anyone would go through all that nonsense
>> > when they could simply restore everything from the backup. that's what
>> > backups are for. 
>> 
>> You're talking in circles. See Király's post above.
>
> you missed the point.
>
> time machine *can* work the way davoud described, but that would be an
> intentional decision by the user to exclude stuff from the backup, in
> which case the excluded stuff would need to be manually restored.

Man, you can be incredibly thick and stubborn. Davoud didn't mention
anything about excluding anything and seemed to say that Time Machine
simply does not include such things:

"If you are relying on TimeMachine you have only your files backed up."

Davoud could simply believe that Time Machine doesn't back up apps and
settings. Or, he might have simply failed to mention that what he
said does *not* apply to the default configuration of Time Machine.

But it doesn't matter, because either way, what Király said is true for
many, many people who don't bother to exclude applications and settings.
Unless you have gone out of your way to do something to prevent Time
Machine from backing up apps and settings, you don't have to manually
reinstall all apps and reconfigure everything since it's possible to
restore apps and their preferences from Time Machine backups!

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72125

In article <cnisaeFk2liU9@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > you missed the point.
> >
> > time machine *can* work the way davoud described, but that would be an
> > intentional decision by the user to exclude stuff from the backup, in
> > which case the excluded stuff would need to be manually restored.
> 
> Man, you can be incredibly thick and stubborn. Davoud didn't mention
> anything about excluding anything and seemed to say that Time Machine
> simply does not include such things:

it's not me who is stubborn. i said that someone would have to manually
restore apps if they had excluded them from the backup. you even say
the same thing below!

> "If you are relying on TimeMachine you have only your files backed up."
> 
> Davoud could simply believe that Time Machine doesn't back up apps and
> settings. Or, he might have simply failed to mention that what he
> said does *not* apply to the default configuration of Time Machine.
> 
> But it doesn't matter, because either way, what Király said is true for
> many, many people who don't bother to exclude applications and settings.
> Unless you have gone out of your way to do something to prevent Time
> Machine from backing up apps and settings, you don't have to manually
> reinstall all apps and reconfigure everything since it's possible to
> restore apps and their preferences from Time Machine backups!

that's exactly what i said.

you're arguing just to argue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72129

On 2015-03-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <cnisaeFk2liU9@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> > you missed the point.
>> >
>> > time machine *can* work the way davoud described, but that would be an
>> > intentional decision by the user to exclude stuff from the backup, in
>> > which case the excluded stuff would need to be manually restored.
>> 
>> Man, you can be incredibly thick and stubborn. Davoud didn't mention
>> anything about excluding anything and seemed to say that Time Machine
>> simply does not include such things:
>
> it's not me who is stubborn. 

Yes, it is. And I've lost patience with your pointless circular
argument. To recap:

Davoud: 

If you are relying on TimeMachine you have only your files backed up. In
the event of a HD failure you must reinstall all of your software, re-do
all of your settings/preferences, and then bring back your files. That
would be at least two days of hands-on work for one of my Macs.

Király:

This is false. If you have a Time Machine backup, a full restore of 
the system and all your files is entirely possible. 

Jolly Roger:

It also doesn't take days. A couple hours and you're back up and 
running. 

nospam:

it would if someone had to manually reinstall all apps and reconfigure 
everything, as he described. 

Jolly Roger:

As Király noted, you don't have to manually reinstall all apps and 
reconfigure everything since it's possible to restore apps and their 
preferences from Time Machine backups. 

nospam:

you missed the point. 

time machine *can* work the way davoud described, but that would be an 
intentional decision by the user to exclude stuff from the backup, in 
which case the excluded stuff would need to be manually restored. 

Jolly Roger:

Davoud could simply believe that Time Machine doesn't back up apps and 
settings. Or, he might have simply failed to mention that what he 
said does *not* apply to the default configuration of Time Machine. 

But it doesn't matter, because either way, what Király said is true for 
many, many people who don't bother to exclude applications and settings. 
Unless you have gone out of your way to do something to prevent Time 
Machine from backing up apps and settings, you don't have to manually 
reinstall all apps and reconfigure everything since it's possible to 
restore apps and their preferences from Time Machine backups! 

nospam: 

blah blah blah blah blah

> you're arguing just to argue.

Have a look in the mirror some time.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72142

On 3/25/15 9:13 PM, Davoud wrote:

> The great advantage of CCC/SD is that you have a workable clone of your
> HD. If the HD should fail you can clone the backup to your new HD in a
> couple of hours while you go off and work on one of your five other
> Macs. If you are relying on TimeMachine you have only your files backed
> up. In the event of a HD failure you must reinstall all of your
> software, re-do all of your settings/preferences, and then bring back
> your files. That would be at least two days of hands-on work for one of
> my Macs.

I agree with this. I would also add another -- potentially more 
significant -- advantage of a clone:

In case my Mac (not just the drive!) fails, a system disk clone enables 
me to still use my system on another Mac while I'm arranging to have the 
failed Mac repaired or replaced. This is important to me because I use 
my Mac for a number of time-critical functions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72145

On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 3:15:03 PM UTC-7, Ed Anson wrote:
> On 3/25/15 9:13 PM, Davoud wrote:
> > If you are relying on TimeMachine you have only your files backed
> > up. In the event of a HD failure you must reinstall all of your
> > software, re-do all of your settings/preferences, and then bring back
> > your files. That would be at least two days of hands-on work for one of
> > my Macs.
> 
> I agree with this.

It's not true, though. Time Machine backs up everything you need to restore your entire system as it was at the time of the backup. Reinstalling the whole system  is NOT required.

Sure Time Machine can be configured to exclude stuff like the System and apps that must be manually installed prior to restoring the backup, but the same is true for any other backup or cloning program.

-- 
K.

Q: What's the difference between a duck?
A: One of its legs are both the same.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72182

In article <32f37c59-e8a0-4f83-899a-e7f7ae782219@googlegroups.com>,
Király <ggrandish@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 3:15:03 PM UTC-7, Ed Anson wrote:
> > On 3/25/15 9:13 PM, Davoud wrote:
> > > If you are relying on TimeMachine you have only your files backed
> > > up. In the event of a HD failure you must reinstall all of your
> > > software, re-do all of your settings/preferences, and then bring back
> > > your files. That would be at least two days of hands-on work for one of
> > > my Macs.
> > 
> > I agree with this.
> 
> It's not true, though. Time Machine backs up everything you need to restore
> your entire system as it was at the time of the backup. Reinstalling the
> whole system  is NOT required.
> 
> Sure Time Machine can be configured to exclude stuff like the System and apps
> that must be manually installed prior to restoring the backup, but the same
> is true for any other backup or cloning program.

ARRGH! I didn't mean to start, yet another, pissing match on usenet. My
needs are simple, just home use, so it sounds like CCC would work best
for me and how I need to backup. Mission critical info is backed-up to
a flash drive or a separate HD (family pics, etc).

Thanks everyone for your input. Great info and things to think about.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72187

On 2015-03-28, Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> wrote:
>
> ARRGH! I didn't mean to start, yet another, pissing match on usenet. 

Well, it *is* Usenet...  : )

> My needs are simple, just home use, so it sounds like CCC would work
> best for me and how I need to backup. 

Perfect! It's great to have choices. Long live competition!  : )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72191

In article <cnmfpqFk5bgU2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-03-28, Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> wrote:
> >
> > ARRGH! I didn't mean to start, yet another, pissing match on usenet. 
> 
> Well, it *is* Usenet...  : )
> 
> > My needs are simple, just home use, so it sounds like CCC would work
> > best for me and how I need to backup. 
> 
> Perfect! It's great to have choices. Long live competition!  : )

Thanks. Yes, this is Usenet and arrogance still prevails....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web