Backing up in ext drive or on a server via Ethernet?

[zoran]

Suppose there are 2 options to set up TimeMachine.
1st: an external drive connected with Tbolt
2nd: a partition on a server connected via Ethernet cable
Which of the two ways would be the best to have TMachine operating at?

 

[casperes1996]

"best" is a subjective word. If the drives used are of identical speeds and reliability and no other element in the chain is throttling it, the two connection methods, for the purposes of TM, will yield pretty much identical results.

 

[Juicy Box]

I think it would depend on specific set up, preferences, and requirements.

I think the TB would be potentially faster, for back ups, restores, and accessing Time Machine.

But, you would really be limited on where you can put your drive with TB. I am not sure how long TB can be, but Cat 5e can go 1000 ft before quality degrades on gigabit Ethernet.

 

[casperes1996]

But, you would really be limited on where you can put your drive with TB. I am not sure how long TB can be, but Cat 5e can go 1000 ft before quality degrades on gigabit Ethernet.

Thunderbolt can be really quite long, but to get the really long cables, it requires active signal boosting every so and so many feet. So you'd need a lot of Thunderbolt chips along the way

 

[Juicy Box]

Thunderbolt can be really quite long, but to get the really long cables, it requires active signal boosting every so and so many feet. So you'd need a lot of Thunderbolt chips along the way

Sounds expensive.....

To the OP: So, like a few posts have mentioned, there are pros and cons for each, and it really just depends on your own personal set up.

 

[casperes1996]

Sounds expensive.....

Incredibly much so, and I recommend nobody do it. But if you have a crucial business requirement for an office spanning Thunderbolt cable - It is possible with active boosting chips along the line. Though at that point you really should look at your need and see if there isn't a better way

 

[Fishrrman]

"A bird in hand...."

In a "moment of extreme need", having a solution "within arm's reach" often beats all the others.

In my opinion, a "local backup" on a drive "you can touch" beats ANY cloud or o'er-the-ethernet backup.

And also (which you didn't ask):
A CarbonCopyCloner or SuperDuper BOOTABLE cloned backup beats any TM backup, as well.

 

[zoran]

And also (which you didn't ask):
A CarbonCopyCloner or SuperDuper BOOTABLE cloned backup beats any TM backup, as well.

Can it beat the hourly backups of files that TM makes and one can restore their work within the day?

 

[Juicy Box]

Can it beat the hourly backups of files that TM makes and one can restore their work within the day?

Having used both, I now prefer CCC.

The few times I used TM were not good experiences. Also, doing a total restore takes a really, really long time.

CCC makes a bootable back up, and can be programed to back up on a schedule, for example, weekly, daily, hourly, and only backing up stuff that has changed. Having a bootable back up is great for troubleshooting.

I currently use both TM and CCC on my main computer, and only use CCC on my other ones.