Thank you @Alameda for your thoughtful reply.
I will reread after I start this phone back up. Am taking a vacation day tomorrow to tackle a bunch of this so your reply is perfect timing.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
My quest: Get a good backup of my 8 TB MBP before upgrading to 26
- Thread starter MareLuce
- Start date
-
- Tags
- backup
- Sort by reaction score
I will reread after I start this phone back up. Am taking a vacation day tomorrow to tackle a bunch of this so your reply is perfect timing.
I’m happy to help more if you have more questions or if I was confusing.
My friend who uses his 14 inch MacBook Pro M4 Pro 2TB, he uses a NAS server-style storage solution to do his Time Machine backup.
If you have to do it for high storage volumes like that I recommend it vs an external SSD that has a lot of storage for the sake of price
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Dang it man...
Returned home to this error.
There's tons of free space on a newly formatted 4TB NVME stick for my 1 TB iPhone 16 Pro Max backup.
It probably just disconnected for some reason.
Do I need to use a Keep Awake program?
Returned home to this error.
There's tons of free space on a newly formatted 4TB NVME stick for my 1 TB iPhone 16 Pro Max backup.
It probably just disconnected for some reason.
Do I need to use a Keep Awake program?
Last edited:
2 hrs 30 min later,
Same error just now happened again after 99% complete. 🤯 It is not a sleep issue. I was right there.
Maybe it's the NVME enclosure, an old one I haven't used in a while.
Amazon is bringing a new one tomorrow.
(old one...)
Same error just now happened again after 99% complete. 🤯 It is not a sleep issue. I was right there.
Maybe it's the NVME enclosure, an old one I haven't used in a while.
Amazon is bringing a new one tomorrow.
(old one...)
Crucial and Samsung offer affordable and solid SSDs, carbon copy cloner is the way to go, though not as convenient anymore as some years back, when you basically could mirror your old computer to a new one. Now it goes via Migration Tool, which is a step more, but works perfectly well.
Here are some more details:
In Time Machine Settings, you can select Options, then click the + to select Folder(s) which are excluded from backup. This is where I excluded the folders of media files. I don't get fancy or obsessive about this.
Here are my drives:
- 512 GB Internal SSD
- 4 TB External SSD for Media Storage
- 4 TB External SSD for Time Machine
- 11 TB Synology NAS drive for both Time Machine and Media Storage.This is a 4 drive RAID setup. 16 TB of drives providing 11 TB of actual storage.
- 8 TB USB backup drive
This is how I work:
- For everything except photography and videography, I just "use the Mac" and everything backs up to Time Machine. I have two separate Time Machine backups. One goes to my NAS and one goes to the SSD drive.
- For photography and videography, I take the card out of my camera, put in the Mac's card reader, and copy all files to my Mac Desktop. Then I rename the folder as <Event><Date>. For example, Smith Wedding 4 August 2025.
The result is that my Mac is all Time Machine backed up. With 512 GB internal on a 4 TB drive, the Time Machine goes back more than one year. And my large media files are backed up separately and easy to access. I'm sure there are many other ways, but this works perfectly for me.
The NAS has pros and cons. The pros are mostly that it's always-on for everyone in your network, it automatically backs up, and its accessible over the internet. The cons are that its expensive, slow, and you need to configure it carefully. For me, I bought a Synology and followed YouTube videos by a guy called SpaceRex, which helped a lot. I ran an Ethernet cable from my Thunderbolt dock to my router, to get the fastest speed possible, but 1 gbit Ethernet is pretty slow for anything real time. For unattended backups it doesn't matter much, but for browsing directories and copying files you need, it's sluggish. You can get 2.5 gig Ethernet but 10 gig Ethernet is still very expensive, as far as I know.
Last edited:
Sanity is in the eye of the immediacy of the individual beholder.
The other half of our understanding is really a product of actually working-with such things. Linking one idea to another is core to the 'technology' as-we-know-it.
You've seen the file&folder icons on your Desktop, correct? These are merely programmatic, visual-refferant locators that allow us to symbolically (e.g. 'digitally') associate an idea with a data-resource.
These are really just visual symbolically-related links which serve to point to cohesive chunks of encapsulated data which can eventually and directly relate to each other (therefore (potentially) providing true 'meaning').
Take a minute of reflection, and dissolve "A picture says a thousand words..." into your heart.
yw
To be sure: we ALL win when we can easily store, find and retrieve our data.
I can safely say that I would never, ever, purchase a c.1997 Maxtor drive again.
That is not how Time Machine and APFS work. It does not have to read all that data to see what changed. It can copy only what has changed, and it never has to search.
What if the file system logged every change it made? Then every hour, Time Machine only has to read this log and copy the data it points at to the backup drive. Then erase the log. After an hour, the log might have more entries in it (or not), and only what is in the log needs to be copied. TM would NEVER have to search.
It is slightly more complex, but that is the gist of it.
I’m sorry for the oversimplification, Poindexter. But the net-net is that Time Machine definitely gets sluggish with such large backup sets.
Q: What's the best sw app to give help me understand what's taking up all my disk space?
Done:
Minus 300 GB - I moved off all movies and music. Expected that to be more than just 300 GB.
Remaining on MBP - Work data, Personal data, Pics
700 GB - Pics. All my pics. I really want to keep my family and travel pics on my laptop.
4 TB - my ML models, datasets, work files, personal files. These must stay
300 GB + 700 GB + 4 TB = 5 TB
How find out what's taking up those other 2 TB + ?
Done:
Minus 300 GB - I moved off all movies and music. Expected that to be more than just 300 GB.
Remaining on MBP - Work data, Personal data, Pics
700 GB - Pics. All my pics. I really want to keep my family and travel pics on my laptop.
4 TB - my ML models, datasets, work files, personal files. These must stay
300 GB + 700 GB + 4 TB = 5 TB
How find out what's taking up those other 2 TB + ?
Try OminDiskSweeper, but there are quite a few others. Keep in mind, that currently the permissions make it basically impossible to really evaluate all. With our credentials you can do your home folder and external drives. With admin privileges you can do few more folders, but things get complicated.
I recently discovered 30GB of stuff which was deleted from shared folder and somehow made it in Trash which I had real difficulties deleting. Looked like it went to admin trash, admin which actually never logged in as it is our IT admin account. It took some creativity and command line magic with my different admin account to clear the trash.
System does show quite a bit of system data which varies over time and includes lots of stuff, including local TimeMachine (yes, Time Machine does ALWAYS create local backups, you cannot stop it) snapshots which will, eventually, age out and get removed. These are snapshots of APFS which retain data after marked for deletion "just in case". They can be removed manually, using Disk Utility, or they will age out in 24 hours or so. Snapshots take no time to create (no copying dat involved) and are removed if you start running out of time or after they age out.
I recently discovered 30GB of stuff which was deleted from shared folder and somehow made it in Trash which I had real difficulties deleting. Looked like it went to admin trash, admin which actually never logged in as it is our IT admin account. It took some creativity and command line magic with my different admin account to clear the trash.
System does show quite a bit of system data which varies over time and includes lots of stuff, including local TimeMachine (yes, Time Machine does ALWAYS create local backups, you cannot stop it) snapshots which will, eventually, age out and get removed. These are snapshots of APFS which retain data after marked for deletion "just in case". They can be removed manually, using Disk Utility, or they will age out in 24 hours or so. Snapshots take no time to create (no copying dat involved) and are removed if you start running out of time or after they age out.
80TB. Nice. I have north of 160TB in HD storage now (and running out again) with over 32TB in optical (mainly Blu-ray) storage. That isn't even multiple backups either.You did not; Mac OS did.
symlink(7)
man.freebsd.org
I've accumulated about 80TB of storage space over the recent years.
You really don't need to stress yourself out--and double-down--with a 3-2-1 "lock-box" storage strategy . . . all you need to do is make a copy (or two, if you find yourself feeling twice-shy).
I personally exist in the "Am I paranoid-enough?" Space; so I maintain double-handfuls of backups (local(x49+)), remote (B2/Goog, et al.), and in five of my nine friend's basements)
I also will be consolidating with much larger drives in the near future (most are 4TB and 8TB drives).
PSA:
I'm seeing a 10x difference in speed between the Samsung 970 EVO Plus and the 870 QVO.
i.e., Samsung 970 EVO Plus = 10x speed ( 870 QVO )
Gemini says:
"the Samsung 970 EVO Plus is significantly faster than the 870 QVO because it is an NVMe SSD, achieving sequential read/write speeds of up to 3500/3300 MB/s, while the 870 QVO is a SATA SSD, limited to the SATA III interface, with speeds around 560/530 MB/s.
This difference means the 970 EVO Plus is ideal for high-performance computing and demanding tasks, whereas the 870 QVO is a more budget-friendly option for general use and mass storage"
I'm seeing a 10x difference in speed between the Samsung 970 EVO Plus and the 870 QVO.
i.e., Samsung 970 EVO Plus = 10x speed ( 870 QVO )
Gemini says:
"the Samsung 970 EVO Plus is significantly faster than the 870 QVO because it is an NVMe SSD, achieving sequential read/write speeds of up to 3500/3300 MB/s, while the 870 QVO is a SATA SSD, limited to the SATA III interface, with speeds around 560/530 MB/s.
This difference means the 970 EVO Plus is ideal for high-performance computing and demanding tasks, whereas the 870 QVO is a more budget-friendly option for general use and mass storage"
Last edited:
Not sure how this fits here, but sure...
I have SSD connected through Thunderbolt4 to MBP tested at 3700 MB/s. That is used for live data and, for example, virtual machine location. Expensive, but fast.
Then I have SATA connected SD in USB3 dock, which clocks 600MB/sec. This is used for TimeMachine, which at best seems to use 100-150 MB/sec. Relatively cheaper...
I have SSD connected through Thunderbolt4 to MBP tested at 3700 MB/s. That is used for live data and, for example, virtual machine location. Expensive, but fast.
Then I have SATA connected SD in USB3 dock, which clocks 600MB/sec. This is used for TimeMachine, which at best seems to use 100-150 MB/sec. Relatively cheaper...
In the "try not to shoot myself in the foot" category...
One thing I perceive would be easy to mix up: I am used to having everything local on my MBP.
Now, I'm going to have media offloaded from the MBP.
To remember this and not accidentally WIPE IT OUT , I will label the volumes
ex: Movies,Music-NOTONMBP
One thing I perceive would be easy to mix up: I am used to having everything local on my MBP.
Now, I'm going to have media offloaded from the MBP.
To remember this and not accidentally WIPE IT OUT , I will label the volumes
ex: Movies,Music-NOTONMBP
Last edited:
Nothings easy. 🥹
Goal: Put 1 backup SSD of most critical data in the safe deposit box at the bank.
Task: Duplicate 1 SSD to the other. Sounds simple enough. And yet...
5 hrs later, GoodSync completes the sync, reports 0 errors, but there's massively more free space left on the target 🤯.
Both drives are 4 TB.
== Sync Complete. Time: 05:22:04, Speed: 114 MB/s, OK: 2,802,635, Errors: 0
Goal: Put 1 backup SSD of most critical data in the safe deposit box at the bank.
Task: Duplicate 1 SSD to the other. Sounds simple enough. And yet...
5 hrs later, GoodSync completes the sync, reports 0 errors, but there's massively more free space left on the target 🤯.
Both drives are 4 TB.
== Sync Complete. Time: 05:22:04, Speed: 114 MB/s, OK: 2,802,635, Errors: 0
Last edited:
LOL, that was a great line. That is exactly how it feels at times.
thinking thinking thinking...
edit: But the BH Photo reviews are probably more trustworthy. Reading those, too many 1* reviews of above.
Synology is probably a safer bet. I just really really want something direct-attached to my laptop, not over WiFi so it's not so sloooooow.
WD External Hard Drive
The My Book Duo drive has massive capacity ideal for storing photos, videos, documents and music. It's super-fast with up to 360MB/s (2) sequential read speeds thanks to Western Digital Red drives inside and use of the USB Type-C port. That USB Type-C port with all cables included makes it univer...
a.co
edit: But the BH Photo reviews are probably more trustworthy. Reading those, too many 1* reviews of above.
Synology is probably a safer bet. I just really really want something direct-attached to my laptop, not over WiFi so it's not so sloooooow.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Makes a lot of sense @MacHeritage .
Only downside of naked drives is my files do need to be encrypted. I thought I'd have more % music and videos that don't need encryption. But that was only 300+ GB.
From what I read yesterday, looks like Veracrypt might be a solution for encrypting naked drives.
Only downside of naked drives is my files do need to be encrypted. I thought I'd have more % music and videos that don't need encryption. But that was only 300+ GB.
From what I read yesterday, looks like Veracrypt might be a solution for encrypting naked drives.
Last edited:
I spent a lot of time coming up with the most affordable solution to my data issues and this is one of the solutions.
All WD My Book single or dual drives are encrypted automatically. You can enable the password if you want with WD tools or use whatever encryption you want separate from WD. Backups are a must with My Book drives because of the automatic encryption. Something goes wrong and you won't be able to get the data back. I wasn't aware of this at first, so I have many of these drives myself without wanting any encryption that are now automatically encrypted.
I now prefer to purchase the Elements version of the drives (normally cheaper) since they have no built-in encryption and then add my own encryption to the whole drive if I want encrypted storage.
Yes, Veracrypt looks like a really good option for the encryption side.