#Carbon copy cloner vs time machine drivers#
#Carbon copy cloner vs time machine update#
#Carbon copy cloner vs time machine pro#

Tested this on an iMac Pro running Big Sur 11.2.3 and latest CCC. Have no idea why, in the past, the destination folder showed the FCP package contents of the library only and not the purple library icon. I opened the libraries and they had all the content intact including all edits and video inspector adjustments. Ran the task and now observed the complete library file (purple icon) for each library. This time it worked! I tried the same thing I tried numerous times in the past - Created a folder (FCP Library Backups) for the destination, then created a test folder (Test) where I placed a couple FCP libraries with a few projects, some quick edits, plugins applied to a few clips, etc.

#Carbon copy cloner vs time machine update#

UPDATE - I was about to launch a support ticket thru CCC and decided I would try one more time to create a task that would copy FCP libraries. Since you can dissect your backups to your like, Chronosync doesn’t eat up your RAM.

Best of all, you will never feel the pressure on your mac. You can tell it to backup individual folders just once in a day (say the FCPX Cache folder) while versioning the most active, working folder, Projects files, every X minutes. One Carbon Copy Cloner is slow very slow and as the App title stats it is a cloner.Ĭarbon Copy Cloner is not really useful to keep track of changes in a file.ĬhronoSync on the other hand is an all-in-one app with tools for synchronizing, backups, bootable backups and cloud storage backups.Ĭhronosyc allows a more fine-tuned backup and versioning. I have used both and I strongly recommend ChronoSync. Old thread but maybe someone else has the same question. From just playing with their demos for a few days they both seem to have their pluses and minuses but wonder about real world experience backing up the FCPX, Motion, Logic, Aperture and Lightroom files that we us in projects. I was wondering if there was any advantage to using Carbon Copy Cloner or ChronoSync.

Fusion Drive – Since all of the knowledge about how a Fusion Drive works is a part of macOS, Windows can only access one indirectly, as a network drive.I've just changed our backup strategy on one of our machines from Time Machine and Backups for FCPX to just Time Machine for the system files and am thinking of using either ChronoSync or Carbon Copy Cloner plus Backups for FCPX for the production drives.

#Carbon copy cloner vs time machine drivers#

Windows cannot read these without the aid of special drivers (e.g., MacDrive).

NTFS – Macs can read it, but cannot write it without the aid of special drivers (e.g., Paragon).

exFAT – Default filesystem for SDXC cards.

Files are limited to 4 GB, and on some systems, it is not possible to format a FAT32 volume that is larger than 32 GB.

FAT32 – Default filesystem for SDHC cards.

Some reports say that APFS creates 'a ton of extents', thus increasing random accesses, one thing at which hard drives are notably slow.)Ĭan be read and written, out of the box, on recent versions of both OSes. (On the other hand, you might not want to use it on hard drives. It incorporates some concepts from other filesystems (e.g., Linux filesystems) and Apple has designed it with an eye to optimizing performance on SSDs. In other words Mas and PS can talk.ĪPFS is a more modern filesystem than HFS+.

I do not know the difference between formats, except read somewhere that MS underhands the APFS.