Time Machine

Discussion in 'macOS' started by Fearless Leader, Aug 7, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fearless Leader macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Location:
    Hoosiertown
    #1
    The time machine program that was demoed today, um i can see how great and awsome this is but what if i want something gone for good? clicking an app and moving a slider to see the entire history of every file/folder sounds a little scarry. and also how much diskspace would this eat up.

    also could i start a term paper and use the time machine to a later version when its done...
     
  2. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #2
    I would assume that there will be some sort of Time Machine control panel where you can set an option like "When I delete a file, give me the option to delete ALL copies of the file".

    As for disk space: This has the potential to eat a LOT of disk space. Jobs mentioned it as a backup option, but it really ISN'T a backup system... copying the file to another location on the same hard drive is NOT backing it up.
     
  3. yankeefan24 macrumors 65816

    yankeefan24

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Location:
    NYC
    #3
    It will only back-up to an external/server.

    EDIT: Also, I think this is in the wrong forum section.

    read my disclaimer please
     
  4. CoMpX macrumors 65816

    CoMpX

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2005
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #4
    Well, I would assume the most obvious way to use it would be with an external hard drive to store all the old versions of your files. Seems like a HUGE space eater if you ask me.
     
  5. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #5
    Of course. Especially if you edit very large files on a regular basis.

    Personally, I don't consider copying a file to ANY hard drive "backing it up". Backups are burned to CDs and DVDs and other media that don't fail like hard drives do... I've had a number of hard drives fail over the years, and it stinks when that happens. Hard drives are mechanical beasts and they invariably fail, which makes them a poor choice as a place to back up files.
     
  6. Makosuke macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Location:
    The Cool Part of CA, USA
    #6
    This, to me, sounds like the single best home OS feature I've seen in a LONG time. Windows Server (2003, at least, maybe earlier) has a similar system, but it's not avaialable to the average XP Home user.

    And from the sound of it, you can backup to a second drive or a server. I also assume you can have versioning on your working drive. That makes the best sense--for example, if I really can't afford a secon hard drive AT LEAST I can have some protection against accidentally deleting files (which sounds like the REAL power of this system). If I distribute that protection to an exteran drive or server, I have both a backup and versioning system.

    I do something like this with my server at work, but being able to jsut apply it to every workstation and have them save to the server would be awesome and a half.
     
  7. jellybean macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    #7
    Um... I think Microsoft might've already done something similar in Vista. Though without the cool effects

    Time Machine looks veeery promising. As soon as I saw it I thought, the amount of times in the past I've lost files and could've done with something like this!!

    Can't wait to see the top secret stuff...I'm guessing Macworld in Jan?
     
  8. shrimpdesign macrumors 6502a

    shrimpdesign

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    #8
    As far as I know, Time Machine doesn't save complete backups of every file, it saves any changes made. That saves a lot of space, I imagine.
     
  9. portent macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    #9
    You've been very lucky if you've never had a CD/DVD go bad.

    Hard disks are no more mechanical than CD drives. (What do you think spins your CD drive--magic?) The only difference is that CDs are optical, and have no "contact" parts, while a HD has a head that's very close to the disk. But a HD is in a sealed metal housing, while a CD is exposed to the elements. Moreover, the part of the CD that actually stores the data is the less-than-paper-thin top surface...it's extremely delicate.

    Good hard disks are reliable. Lousy hard disks, like lousy CD media, are unreliable. Choose your media wisely.
     
  10. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #10
    Well, you have to treat your CDs/DVDs right. I keep them in a cool, dry place, stored edge-vertical (not flat)... and I have SEVERAL backups at any given time, so even if one CD somehow gets damaged, I have others. I've never had a CD or DVD fail on me... but I've had several hard drive failures that resulted in a total loss of the data on the hard drives. (Which is where the backups come in.)

    If a CD-ROM or DVD drive fails, you just pop the disc out and stick it in another drive. But if a hard drive fails, your data is trapped on those platters. That's the #1 reason why hard drives are totally inferior to CDs and DVDs when it comes to making backups. The advantage HDs have is that they have higher capacity and they're faster.

    I would disagree that the mechanical aspect of hard drives is the same as for CD and DVD drives... because hard drives spin at 5400 or 7200 RPM continuously (assuming you don't let them sleep), but CD/DVD drives spin at a much lower RPM and ONLY while data is being accessed.
     
  11. Makosuke macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Location:
    The Cool Part of CA, USA
    #11
    clayj - I'm not really even sure I'm following you; the whole point of a backup is that it exists in two places at once. As a result, it doesn't matter much what medium the backup is on, since if the primary fails you by default go to the secondary. And if you have a very good backup scheme, you have three levels, to hedge against the off chance of a dual failure, a failure during backup, or most likely a failure while restoring due to the same problem that caused the original failure.

    Now, I'll freely admit that once an optical disc is burned it's quite a bit less likely to undergo a failure during a restore from backup in comparison to a hard drive, but there such a thing as the price of convienence and the cost of that "fourth nine" or whatever it is. It's just a matter of HOW paranoid you want to be, and what convienence is worth to you. For many of us, it's just not worth going that far.

    For example: My current backup scheme consists of a second internal hard drive to which my data is mirrored every evening. I then have a third drive that lives offline in a fire safe that I back up to periodically.

    Now, a simple mechanical failure occurrs once every, let's say, 3 years. The chances of even two of those drives undergoing a mechanical failure within one week of each other (the time it would take to get a replacement drive and restore data to it) is extremely small. The chances of all three going at the same time is pretty darned near zero.

    Now, a massive computer failure could easily knock out both of my "online" drives, rendering my main backup toast. Which is why I have an offline backup, too--it may be a hard drive, but nothing short of a direct lightning strike to my house (and I don't live in an area prone to that sort of storm, nor is my house the tallest thing in the area) would have any chance of creating an EMP strong enough to toast all three drives simultaneously.

    Were I to have optical discs in my safe, then yes, it would be that much safer... but to backup as frequently as I do now, I would be chewing through optical discs at a rate of either 2 a month (for the offline backup) or one to three a day (online). Using RW discs would relieve the cost burden and massive landfill this would generate, but frankly, that's a LOT of time wasted burning discs when an online 2nd drive backup is sufficient for 98% of failures, and 99.9% of the remaining 2% of failures are handled by the offline one.

    That said, I ALSO burn DVDRs of finished video projects, just in case. On two different brands of media, in case one develops bitrot, the other will hopefully not have rotted as fast.
     
  12. Macmadant macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    #12
    What i want to know is will it work on my machine, they say they built it using core animation. will it work on my radeon 9000
     
  13. ghall macrumors 68040

    ghall

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Rhode Island
    #13
    Yeah, Time Machine looks pretty cool, but I'm concerened about disk space as well. I barely have a 5th of my PowerBooks hard drive remaining. I wonder if they'll be a setting to turn it off?
     
  14. cube macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #14
    I will keep on using Retrospect.
    I am not interested in backup software which does not support tape (right now, a Dell PowerVault 110T LTO-1).
     
  15. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #15
    How do you know it doesn't support tape?
     
  16. cube macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #16
    They said "backup to disk or server" in the keynote.
     
  17. DavidLeblond macrumors 68020

    DavidLeblond

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #17
    Many people have done this before, not just Microsoft.

    Does that mean Apple shouldn't?

    How about the spotlight + time machine integration..... did Microsoft do that?

    Exactly about the capacity. To back up a 250 GB hard drive onto a dual layer DVD would take like 30 DVDs. Pain in the ass.

    We need Blu ray. Or something similar.
     
  18. cube macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #18
    Bof. I destroy blu-ray with my old LTO-1 drive @ 100GB native per tape. And my 1.8 GHz Cube is not fast enough to feed it optimally (with Retrospect at least)

    LTO-2 has twice the capacity and speed and second hand drives cost 500 pounds.

    LTO-3 has double the LTO-2 capacity and over twice the speed, 80MB/s native (but only new and expensive)

    LTO-4 with 800GB native is coming out this year.

    Right now the biggest is SDLT600 @ 600GB native.
     
  19. Yvan256 macrumors 601

    Yvan256

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Location:
    Canada
    #19
    Tape backup is great if you schedule your backups to happen overnight or something. I think Time Machine keeps track of everything you do during the day, so tapes and CDs/DVDs are not an option for such a system - they're too slow (not to mention the seek times, especially the tape).
     
  20. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #20
    Really? I didn't get that impression. I thought it was to any drive. I don't see why it couldn't back up to an extra internal hard drive on a Mac Pro.
     
  21. cube macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #21
    Time machine is a scheduled backup, by default at midnight. There is no such limitation.

    The newest tapes are faster than any 7200 RPM hard disk for read/write. It's only slow for random access.
    And software like Retrospect saves a catalog on disk to speed up restore and incremental backup (of course, it can be rebuilt from the tapes if you lose it).
     
  22. netdog macrumors 603

    netdog

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #22
    My question is whether or not that means that this will be done online for .Mac subscribers, above and beyond the ridiculous 2GB limits. Google essentially did it with Desttop Search, so I can't see why Apple wouldn't do it for paying customers. It would really rock if it were extended into .Mac
     
  23. MacVault macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2002
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    #23
    How are files stored with Time Machine? Can I manually browse the Time Machine backup in a finder window, etc. Or is it all compressed into some special format, etc??? Also, is there any way to backup over the internet with this? Encryption???
     
  24. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #24
    The Time Machine FAQ should address most of these issues, so, to consolidate discussion, I'll close this thread and ask people to move to that thread. I won't merge threads because I think it'd just be confusing.

    If you feel there's a compelling reason to re-open this, please PM me.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page