![]() You should investigate all of them, determine the costs (both money and time), evaluate the risks, and use them to evaluate what you need to implement, what would be nice and what is unnecessary.įor myself, I use one Time Machine volume and two bootable clones. flood, fire, hurricane, etc.), allowing you to buy new equipment at a new location and get back up and running from that backup.Īnd archival backups (hard drive, tape, etc.) will let you go get old information long after the data has been deleted/changed, in case you ever require access.Īll these are parts of a comprehensive backup/data recovery solution. storing a backup device at another location or a cloud-based backup service) protect you against disaster trashing your location. ![]() The downside of a bootable clone, of course, is that it probably isn’t going to be making clones every hour, the way Time Machine does. If your internal storage fails, you can boot from this device and keep running (possibly at reduced performance if it’s a slow device like a hard drive) while waiting to receive and install replacement storage (which might be a replacement computer if the storage is soldered to its motherboard). But when your internal storage fails, you can’t use it for anything other than a source for restoring your system to a new/replacement storage device.Ī bootable disk clone, on the other hand, solves that problem. ![]() Time Machine is a great system for its purpose - making hourly snapshots of a running system, stored on external storage. Both have their place, and IMO, both should be used as a part of a comprehensive backup solution.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |