TimeMachine failed me, again

[VitoBotta]

I have always had mixed feelings about TimeMachine, because on the one hand I like it, on the other hand there are too many reports of issues from many people. I have had problems with it a couple of times so far, and today it failed me again when trying to do a full system restore. Luckily for me, I also use CCC for redundancy, so I was able to restore the system using that backup instead.

TimeMachine was configured to back up to a NAS (AsusStor), and perhaps that contributed to its reliability issues since I have read often that it is not very reliable when working with a NAS.

Anyway, I am now done for good with TimeMachine. I will keep using CCC for full system restores since it works great with Setup/Migration Assistant, and I am now setting up Arq again for other locations. So far I have been using CCC with a USB hard drive, TimeMachine to a NAS, and CLI Restic to both Storj and iDrive. I am gonna change things a bit and ditch both TimeMachine and Restic and use Arq instead for NAS/Storj/iDrive. Restic is much faster than Arq, but Arq makes restores much easier.

What's your current backup strategy? What tools and storage solutions do you use?

 

[benwiggy]

TM running directly on an attached external disk is pretty solid. I've been using it since it came out in 2007, to restore files that I had deleted or overwritten, retrieve previous versions; and also as a Migration source for new Macs. When the drive gets full, I either move it to a larger volume; archive the disk; or wipe it and start again.

I'd agree that TM on a network share is a bit more of an 'auxiliary' backup. I have had trouble getting the Setup Assistant to find TM backups on a NAS, and even if it does, it wants days to do the transfer.

I use Resilio Sync and Chronosync, in addition to TM. Resilio Sync syncs my laptop to my desktop ("Not a backup"). Chronosync up-backs my desktop to a mirrored RAID drive. I also have a 4TB SSD for TM, so it's really fast to browse and restore.

 

[VitoBotta]

I also use Resilio to sync data between my three Macs, but it's not a proper backup. I was really hoping I could use Time Machine with a NAS

 

[benwiggy]

Are any of your Macs desktops? If so, then there's no reason not to use TM on an external. For "Arggh, I've just saved the wrong thing over that file!", it can't be beaten!

 

[VitoBotta]

Are any of your Macs desktops? If so, then there's no reason not to use TM on an external. For "Arggh, I've just saved the wrong thing over that file!", it can't be beaten!

II have a NAS with ample capacity to back up multiple Macs. However, if you mean an external drive attached to the Mac, I would require one drive for each Mac, which I would prefer to avoid. That's why I purchased the NAS in the first place.

 

[benwiggy]

If you're syncing two of your Macs to a third, then you only need TM on one. You could still backup two of them to the NAS, but have the belt-and-braces of a local drive, which is more robust and more accessible.

 

[VitoBotta]

But then TM would still work over the network for two of the Macs, and that's the problem. TM doesn't seem to work properly over the network.

 

[benwiggy]

Then don't use the NAS for TM. Just use it locally on one Mac.

I have two laptops (wife and child) backing up to an Airport Capsule and a Synology NAS with TM. I haven't done a complete Migration from either, but they've certainly been used to recover files.

 

[MacGizmo]

TimeMachine isn't a backup solution because it overwrites the oldest data when the drive fills up. It's great for the "oops, I didn't want to delete/overwrite that file 5 minutes ago" moments... but I wouldn't trust it AT ALL for backups – particularly since it's such a finicky app that sometimes just stops working for no apparent reason.

 

[throAU]

TimeMachine was configured to back up to a NAS (AsusStor), and perhaps that contributed to its reliability issues since I have read often that it is not very reliable when working with a NAS.

Having been bitten by this before, and also bitten by a failing external drive before, you need to use either (or both of)

• Time Machine with 2 or more backup locations
• a secondary backup method like CCC, back blaze, etc.

having two backups in different places is good practice anyway.


Myself, I have my stuff in iCloud, on Time Machine (encrypted disk stays at work) and important stuff on my NAS (at home).

In theory Time Machine will protect me from myself (deleting things, etc.), iCloud will protect me from device failure (laptop fails = use iPad, etc.) and the NAS will store things at home in the event that iCloud and all my devices are wiped including time machine.


I stress much less about hardware failure now . It makes no impact to me other than the inconvenience of returning the device or buying a new one.

 

[Ruggy]

I think it was 2011 the first time I wrote about having time machine issues.
It's great if you want to recover a file but if you want to, say, do a complete reinstall or install onto a new HD it will very likely let you down.
The fact it's all one big file should sound alarm bells. To me a back up should be individual files so you can find what you want, and I would recommend in some format capable of being read by as many machines as possible. I've had HD that I couldn't read at all on the Mac but trying under Windows has saved me.
A massive disk image which looks like gibberish, where all your data can be corrupted by a single fault isn't a good idea. Furthermore, it's linked to your computer log in so if you by chance set up and slightly change the log in, you're lost. I know you see it every day but if I asked you to remember exactly what your computer name was, could you remember? Did you use a capital? Did you include your middle initial or not? Did you leave a space or run all the words together. Like your PIN number you have no problems remembering it until someone asks you what it is.
Well, that's how it was in 2011 anyway and it looks like it stll is

 

[jz0309]

It failed me once, when my Aperture library went corrupt and nothing worked to restore it. That was the end of Time Machine for me, CCC since.
Most important: have multiple backups

 

[benwiggy]

The fact it's all one big file should sound alarm bells. To me a back up should be individual files so you can find what you want,

Errr... TM on a local disk IS individual files. I guess you're talking about the sparse image that's used on network drives? Guess what: that's actually individual files under the hood, too.

A massive disk image which looks like gibberish, where all your data can be corrupted by a single fault isn't a good idea.

Sparse bundles contain repeated data structures that form sufficient redundancy to withstand large amounts of corruption.

Furthermore, it's linked to your computer log in so if you by chance set up and slightly change the log in, you're lost. I know you see it every day but if I asked you to remember exactly what your computer name was, could you remember?

Again, are you talking about some NAS setup? Because otherwise, this doesn't describe TM.

 

[ignatius345]

TimeMachine isn't a backup solution because it overwrites the oldest data when the drive fills up.

LOL, that's just how backups work. Time Machine, Carbon Copy Cloner, whatever it is -- over time the drive fills up with new data and it has to make room somehow. If you want more backup history, get bigger drives or start rotating them out.

In the interest of keeping as long a history as possible, I've started a backup set that backs up *only* my home directory and nothing else. I do it 1x/week in addition to my Time Machine backup which is only right now giving me about a month of history. I also keep an offsite clone (1x/month) which has maybe 6 months history at this point.

 

[ignatius345]

I think it was 2011 the first time I wrote about having time machine issues.
It's great if you want to recover a file but if you want to, say, do a complete reinstall or install onto a new HD it will very likely let you down.

This is false. I've migrated and restored Macs more times than I can count using Time Machine. So no, it will not "very likely let you down".

 

[BigMcGuire]

Interesting topic... I've trimmed down my usage to fit all my data into iCloud (about 400GB). Everything, files, photos, storage, etc.

I currently use Time Machine as my primary backup method. I have restored a full system from it years ago and it worked really well. Now, I just set up a new machine and wait for iCloud to download.

USED to use CCC heavily (great tool) - super handy back in the day for me when I was developing more. Also used to use Arq with BackBlaze but instead now put my data into my Google Drive as a 3rd off site backup option. I use Google Photos as a backup as well.


Getting lazy in my old age. I can't stand the hum of a spinning disk so I have a 4TB SSD for my Time Machine that I plug in once a week or so. Switching to SSD for Time Machine was a noticeable improvement for me on Mac OS.

 

[JonaM]

I've never had TM fail to restore from a backup, but I have had it refuse to continue backing up and necessitate the complete erasure of the backup on at least 2 occasions over the last decade.
As others have said TM is local backup only for me now and CCC for a weekly alternate backup

 

[ChrisA]

TimeMachine was configured to back up to a NAS (AsusStor), and perhaps that contributed to its reliability issues since I have read often that it is not very reliable when working with a NAS.

So you messed up and did not notice?

My strategy is to periodically TEST that my backs are working. It is easy to mess up the configuration and not notice until it is too late.

The other thing is to have a redundant backup system. You need three copies of the data at two geographical locations, as a minimum. Seems you did have a second backup. But that second could have been another TM or cloud-based.

 

[monokakata]

I finally gave up on TM when, for maybe the 5th or 6th time since I started using it way back when (2008?) it barfed and there went my entire TM backup. Not only did I have to start over, I lost all that old stuff.

I'd been using CCC for various things, and now CCC has taken over the TM role and is doing fine. It's only been 6 or 8 months, though.

 

[ChrisA]

TM failures are extremely rare. Assuming that TM was running. The problem is that people set it up and then forget about it, and THINK it is running, but it's not.

 

[monokakata]

TM failures are extremely rare. Assuming that TM was running. The problem is that people set it up and then forget about it, and THINK it is running, but it's not.

Not sure whether you're replying to me. When I was running TM all those times, I was actually using it for the purposes for which it was intended. And it always worked....until it didn't.

What happened to me had nothing to do with whethr I was monitoring it or not. It had to do with how, in each case, the TM backup on the (plenty large-enough) dedicated disk (I never shared the disk) became corrupted. How? I wouldn't know.

But sooner or later it would, and that's why I don't use it any more.

 

[MacGizmo]

LOL, that's just how backups work. Time Machine, Carbon Copy Cloner, whatever it is -- over time the drive fills up with new data and it has to make room somehow.

In my experience, BACKUPS don't overwrite themselves... that kind of defeats the purpose. The drive gets full and you replace them with another drive.

 

[ignatius345]

In my experience, BACKUPS don't overwrite themselves... that kind of defeats the purpose. The drive gets full and you replace them with another drive.

Well, that's one approach. But as long as you have a full copy of everything on the primary drive, that certainly counts as a backup.

What you're talking about it backup history.

Agree it would be useful to have an option for Time Machine to simply stop and warn you about a full drive instead of overwriting old backups to make room. But this is Apple, so the emphasis is on a "set it and forget it" solution, which I think suits the vast majority of users. Most people think about backup either not at all or as little as possible.

If you did want to build up a library of Time Machine backups, you could accomplish the same thing if you keep an eye on the available space, and when it starts getting full you pull the drive, store it and replace it with another. Again, most people probably don't want to buy a new drive every year or whatever, and would just as soon recycle that space.

 

[ignatius345]

I've never had TM fail to restore from a backup, but I have had it refuse to continue backing up and necessitate the complete erasure of the backup on at least 2 occasions over the last decade.
As others have said TM is local backup only for me now and CCC for a weekly alternate backup

Exactly my strategy. I still find TM very useful to just have running (1x/day for me) and then I do CCC backups locally (weekly) and on a drive kept offsite (monthly). Between all that and iCloud Drive running 24/7, I feel like I'm pretty unlikely to lose anything at this point.