Hey folks! I’ve got Time Maching running right now from my Mac to a NAS. I also have some folders on the NAS backed up via Carbon Copy Cloner on a remote Mac Mini.
CCC has never failed me. I like it. With its latest version, is it possible to replace Time Machine with it entirely and not use Time Machine anymore? TM has saved my bacon a few times, but it’s also so slow over the network that I’m reminded how fragile that whole setup is.
Thanks!
I do not think “slowness” shows fragility. Backups take the time it takes based on how much of the machine and networks is available and/ allocates. IMHO. I use both TimeMachine (to Synology NAS and USB disk — USB much quicker of course), and CCC. And Backblaze and Dropbox’s new backup service with a 3-2-1 backup philosophy and regime.
I suggest you just add CCC for the very important stuff.
I use Time Machine for quick and dirty wireless backups that “save my bacon” from time to time.
I use Carbon Copy Cloner for solid backups to a rotating set external spinning drives that are the ones I’d like to have if my main Mac were to fail.
I use Arq Premium for remote backups just in case the worst were to happen in my local environment (physical damage or theft).
I forgot that I use Backblaze on both my primary Mac and the Mac Mini with the backups of important files too.
Perhaps I am already good to go here. By “slowness,” I’m mostly talking about the speed with which Time Machine retrieves backups over the network. (I know it’s not meant for network use, yadda yadda, but reality dictates my workflow in this regard, not Apple.) I also see a lot of failed or skipped Time Machine backups, but that’s not unique to TM over the network.
I think I just don’t like the error/failure rate, and would love to replace it with something like CCC if it were possible to achieve the same thing.
I view Time Machine as a different type of backup program. It’s terrible for relying on to do a restore after losing your drive, however it is great to go back to a version of a file from a month ago.
You really want multiple backups, performed in multiple ways.
I’ve seen this sediment repeated as gospel, yet my experience is just the opposite.
My 2018 Mac mini was taken out by a lighting strike. And I was able to restore my replacement Mini from my Time Machine backup (while my BackBlaze drive was still in transit).
So while I don’t solely rely on Time Machine, I’ve found it to be a reliable part of my backup strategy.
Obviously, other’s milage has varied.
Agree, based on my experience. I’ve restored 3 machines (because of new machines, issues, etc.) in the last decade. Of course, if those first attempts at restore failed, I’d drop back to one of my 3-2-1 backups.
I’ve had bad luck with Time Machine restores, but I think it’s because a lot of the files I use in development aren’t included in a TM backup. So I’m better off downloading everything manually, most of the time, but the backups help with anything that isn’t catastrophic.
I make a TM backup to an external SSD drive through a thunderbolt/USB-3 port on at least a three times a week if not daily basis. I consider doing so to be a fast and effective way to secure my peace of mind over a short term time span (one month or so) against inadvertent destruction of file content on my main storage.
I disagree with any sense that CCC should replace TM. As I understand, CCC is highly flexible in how it can be configured to backup or archive content. So, CCC should supplement TM, not replace it. For example, consider using CCC to make
Just FWIW, I imagine that CCC will not be any more forgiving or easier to bend outside its limits.
–
JJW