Time Machine question

Discussion in 'macOS' started by bgalizio, Dec 26, 2006.

  1. bgalizio macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    #1
    Time Machine question: Say I want to back up my internal hard drive (160GB total capacity), plus an external hard drive that contains only FLAC music files (250GB total capacity and is always connected/turned on, rarely encounters changes except additions). I have one 500GB external hard drive that I'm planning on using for Time Machine. Would I need to create 2 partitions on my 500GB drive to back up these two drives, or could Time Machine handle this backup on one partition?
     
  2. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #2
    Go check out this FAQ thread. It appears that you will need to partition the drive. But anything is subject to change before Leopard goes master.
     
  3. Aniej macrumors 68000

    Aniej

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    #3
    Handle it, yes. This is different than would two partitions be better for your purpose. On that note I still am not so sure it would be, but the answer seems to be one which would be based on the purpose for which you intend to access the 500GB HDD?
     
  4. bgalizio thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    #4

    The 500GB drive would be my Time Machine backup drive. So, I'm hoping it would just be there for backups and I would never need to access it (yeah right). But, with all the music ripped to FLACs, that takes a long time to redo, so I wanted some sort of a backup there.
     
  5. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #5
    The part that does seem relatively clear is that a volume being used for Time Machine appears to be the sole domain of Time Machine -- meaning you can pull files of it using Time Machine, but you cannot use it for any other purpose (barring disabling Time Machine, of course).
     
  6. bgalizio thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    #6

    That would work fine for me, as if the FLAC drive fails I would have a Time Machine backup for it.
     
  7. Aniej macrumors 68000

    Aniej

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    #7
    Mkrishnan, what external HDD are you palnning on getting/using for this?
     
  8. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #8
    To be honest, I'm not even sure what my time plan is for upgrading to Leopard. One issue is my dogged hope that Apple will come along with a subcompact and I will merrily upgrade to that with Leopard on it.

    But then the other issue is that I want to wait and see if a NAS solution for Time Machine develops... According to sources such as the ones compiled for the FAQ I linked above, TM requires a drive formatted in HFS+... this puts a serious damper on things for me, because I don't have anywhere to put another internal drive, and if I get an external drive, I want it to sit on my base station and not a computer.... But very few of them, if any, support serving a drive in HFS. :(
     
  9. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #9
    Along with iTV this presents another good reason for Apple to introduce their own Home NAS.* ;)

    We should know in two weeks.

    *(Or at least it might be nice to be able to store Time Machine's stuff on another Mac on the network).

    B
     
  10. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #10
    This at least seems to be possible. So if you have an always-on Mac that has room for a spare HD (which to me means a Mac Pro, which to me, means no thanks, but there's no reason it couldn't be any other kind of Mac with a FW drive attached), you can use that volume over the network.
     
  11. Aniej macrumors 68000

    Aniej

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    #11
    In terms of subcompact, I assume you are referring to a 12/13'' MBP? or do you have something else in mind?

    My dream is an even lighter 15'' MBP, but with black MB exterior and a second place option of an anodized black exterior.

    This is very interesting. I have not followed time machine as closely as you have obviously. The reason being there seems to be so much in flux. Can you elaborate on the HFS issue? I would need to throw another HDD in my MBP?
     
  12. Aniej macrumors 68000

    Aniej

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    #12
    This reminds me of the wireless NAS question I asked a while back. But apparently everyone concluded it is very slow, which I understand why, but would love to see resolved.
     
  13. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #13
    Yeah, a wireless NAS is going to be quite slow, at least until 802.11N, and then it's still going to be rather slow. :eek: But Time Machine does incremental backups -- it backs up just new or changed files. That kind of usage, once you've got the initial backup made, isn't infeasible over wireless.... Most NASes also plug in via FW or USB, so you could make the initial backup with a wire and then go NAS, I would hope.

    B, first, yes, I'm hoping for a 12" or below notebook. A thing I've whined about way too much already. :eek:

    The issue with Time Machine is basically this: Time Machine requires an entire volume (partition of a hard disk) be available to it for its purposes. It may be possible that one can partition an internal drive in two and use one half for backup. This would help you with file recovery, etc, but not in case the drive fails. But mostly it is intended for use with a second drive. The second drive must be HFS+ (MacOS Extended / Journaled), from what I gather. This is fine for internal drives in a Mac, for USB and FW external drives, and for drives served on a network from another Mac. But since only MacOS can really manage an HFS+ drive, it rules out NASes, which are essentially little Linux servers in a box with a hard drive.

    The sort of default way you would use your MBP, from what I understand, is to buy a FW or USB hard drive. You format it as HFS and you give it to Time Machine, and it takes it from there. The alternative for you is that, if you have a Mac on your network that is always on, the drive can be served from there and shared, which means Time Machine can use it without you having to plug it in each time.

    Does that make sense?

    It does seem like a moving target, though. We'll have to see how it eventually pans out.
     
  14. Aniej macrumors 68000

    Aniej

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    #14
    makes perfect sense. Thanks. I would note though that I, like I think you posted before also, do not love the notion of an always on mac being required.
     

Share This Page