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.
Advantages of 3rd-Party Backup Tools vs. Time Machine
- Thread starter learjet
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For this, I find TM much easier than CCC because Finder shows all backup snapshots without needing to mount anything. As you say, drag & drop is easy.
If there is corruption that often means that some pointers are corrupted. If the pointers are corrupt the data which they reference is lost.
Had that happen, although some time ago. With the recommended 3-2-1 backup plan only 1 backup should be TM due to its extra vulnerability to failure.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
While I have experienced very reliable results from TM backups for well over a decade (and I'm certainly no fanboy type where Apple is always right in all things, so that's not just brand bias to the MAX), if one believes that TM has extra vulnerability, I'd suggest not using it at all. Instead, use CCC or SuperDuper or similar for both (or at least 2 recommended) backups.
There seems to be this idea that when TM gives notice that it needs to make a fresh backup, all data is lost. That is not true at all. All data is still there. What is lost is the ability to use TM "back in time" to fetch files. However, one can open the sparse bundle and go into the actual files much like browsing any other disc with Finder. Go in, retrieve whatever you want to retrieve, and THEN let TM make a fresh backup. OR, set aside this disc as the last TM backup as of <date> and install a new TM disc for the "fresh backup." Do this and if in a month you need to go "back in time" to recover an old file, you can reconnect the old TM backup, open the sparse bundle and manually track down the desired file. This drive could be an archive you could leave "as is" for years if you wanted... or perhaps until the replacement drive builds up enough "Back in time" capability to finally wipe the former drive's backup and start using it as a second TM backup drive.
While I usually communicate the simplicity of "at least 2 backup drives," my own approach for my data is broader than that:
OVERKILL??? YES!!! But that's how I do it in detail. Many of us have old drives still functional laying around that could be fired up for one complete backup maybe once a year or so. BD media is cheap. NAS options seem to be ever-more affordable and RAID in NAS adds additional backup protection. Safe Deposit boxes are dirt cheap. Big FAT HDDs are dirt cheap. Family usually are interested in having a copy of personal media like home movies and photos. Regular rotation of at least 2 DAS drives is as easy as just doing it when you are at a bank anyway. If you have more than one Mac, sync up files between the two for easy access and one more backup. Etc.
For each additional fairly fresh backup you have, odds in ever losing all of your data goes down dramatically. Take advantage of whatever you have on hand- including stuff you think of as retired storage- and improve your odds. If you worry about any one type of app like TM, make some of this redundancy with CCC or SD.
The most important tip in all of the above is to get at least one backup stored OFFSITE, regularly rotating with an onsite backup option to keep it fresh. Fire-flood-theft will very likely take out all redundancy at any one location. At least one offsite backup saves the day in such terrible scenarios.
There seems to be this idea that when TM gives notice that it needs to make a fresh backup, all data is lost. That is not true at all. All data is still there. What is lost is the ability to use TM "back in time" to fetch files. However, one can open the sparse bundle and go into the actual files much like browsing any other disc with Finder. Go in, retrieve whatever you want to retrieve, and THEN let TM make a fresh backup. OR, set aside this disc as the last TM backup as of <date> and install a new TM disc for the "fresh backup." Do this and if in a month you need to go "back in time" to recover an old file, you can reconnect the old TM backup, open the sparse bundle and manually track down the desired file. This drive could be an archive you could leave "as is" for years if you wanted... or perhaps until the replacement drive builds up enough "Back in time" capability to finally wipe the former drive's backup and start using it as a second TM backup drive.
While I usually communicate the simplicity of "at least 2 backup drives," my own approach for my data is broader than that:
- I do use the 2 backup drives as described: one is the current TM DAS and the other is a recent TM backup stored offsite (bank safe deposit box). These rotate approximately every 30 days so the offsite one is very fresh. 30 days is arbitrary on my part. Someone else might prefer 10, 15, 20, 40, 50, 60- whatever makes the most sense for each person. Maximum risk with only this part of an approach is fire-flood-theft on the last day before rotation of drives. In my case, I could lose up to 29 days of fresh files if this was my only backup options. It's not...
- I also have a Synology NAS with its TM functionality "on" as a second local TM backup. TM automatically switches every other hour to backing up to the DAS and then the NAS, DAS & NAS, DAS & NAS.
- Synology is pooled storage in a RAID-like setup, meaning there is built in backup to that storage. Should one of the drives in that RAID conk, I insert a replacement drive, it rebuilds the RAID and all is as it was (no data loss). For the TM part of Synology, that's like a backup to the backup. This dual "drive" redundancy might seem like "plenty" but flood-fire-theft scenarios would likely take out BOTH, so it's not enough either...
- I own both a desktop and laptop Mac and most of the fresh files newly created are work files very frequently synched between the two Macs. I like Chronosync for this but it's not the only such tool. This means that the majority of new files I create on either Mac are quickly backed up to the other. Once they hit the desktop storage, TM backups are going to back them up to a DAS, Synology and with the offsite-onsite swap, the offsite DAS drive too.
- That fresh-file synched MB usually leaves home when I leave the home, so it doubles as one more offsite backup most of the time, which means I usually have upwards of 2 recent backups away from home at any given time. If fire-flood-theft takes out all files at the one location, up to 2 others exist for recovery.
- While overkill IMO, since I'm only swapping the offsite-onsite only monthly, I often store latest new file creations in the free iCloud 5GB space or in free 12GB of Dropbox space between DAS swaps. Both are also RAID systems with redundant backups, so odds of losing such files are pretty low. After the onsite-offsite swap, I prune files in the cloud now backed up in actually FOUR places and then reuse free Cloud space until the next swap. Other people "trust cloud storage" more than I do, even using it in lieu of physical offsite storage fully within their control. I'm not as trusting of for-profit strangers acting as middlemen caretakers of my data. And I don't want to pay forever rent for it either. If I want more "cloud" I use the cloud service in the Synology NAS where then I'm the caretaker of my own data in the cloud and also pay myself $0/month in rent for that cloud. But to each his own on this topic. Some are much more trusting of cloud services than I am.
- Longer term assets such as home movies, photos, music collection, etc are also backed up to mostly retired old drives that are out of regular service but act as one more backup just because I have them laying around. They are just sitting in storage doing nothing, so why not use them for some additional redundancy.
- Since BD discs can hold a LOT of data, I've also burned a number of BDs with longer-term media that basically stays the same for 10+ years. A cheap spool of BD discs and some hours to burn long-term media becomes a compact package of very long-term backups for recovery if needed. I have the BD drive anyway, so I use it.
- Longer-term assets like home movies are readily shared to interested family member computers so they can enjoy home movies, photos, etc too while also acting as widely spread backup storage. When I visit them, I take the new stuff since last time and add it to their collections. If they have new stuff to share with me, I add it to my collection.
- All these hardware pieces are connected to power through Battery Backup UPS boxes to shield them from power surges/drops. This is often a forgotten part of a good strategy too but a loss of power during a backup write is probably a corrupted backup when the power comes back up.
OVERKILL??? YES!!! But that's how I do it in detail. Many of us have old drives still functional laying around that could be fired up for one complete backup maybe once a year or so. BD media is cheap. NAS options seem to be ever-more affordable and RAID in NAS adds additional backup protection. Safe Deposit boxes are dirt cheap. Big FAT HDDs are dirt cheap. Family usually are interested in having a copy of personal media like home movies and photos. Regular rotation of at least 2 DAS drives is as easy as just doing it when you are at a bank anyway. If you have more than one Mac, sync up files between the two for easy access and one more backup. Etc.
For each additional fairly fresh backup you have, odds in ever losing all of your data goes down dramatically. Take advantage of whatever you have on hand- including stuff you think of as retired storage- and improve your odds. If you worry about any one type of app like TM, make some of this redundancy with CCC or SD.
The most important tip in all of the above is to get at least one backup stored OFFSITE, regularly rotating with an onsite backup option to keep it fresh. Fire-flood-theft will very likely take out all redundancy at any one location. At least one offsite backup saves the day in such terrible scenarios.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
If you mean Time Machine backup software (on Synology), yes, I've been using it for towards 10 years now. It "just works."
If you mean can Synology run an app to back itself up to another drive/RAID, yes it has that too.
If you mean does Synology have their own RAID-like backup capability, yes, it is called Synology Hybrid RAID. Unlike traditional RAID, it offers easy flexibility to grow the RAID to more space or more drives over time without having to offload all data, build new RAID volume, then move data back onto it. Instead, just expand it as needed and let it adjust to bigger drive(s) or more storage.
If you mean can Synology run an app to back itself up to another drive/RAID, yes it has that too.
If you mean does Synology have their own RAID-like backup capability, yes, it is called Synology Hybrid RAID. Unlike traditional RAID, it offers easy flexibility to grow the RAID to more space or more drives over time without having to offload all data, build new RAID volume, then move data back onto it. Instead, just expand it as needed and let it adjust to bigger drive(s) or more storage.
I'm just trying to setup my backup workflow, still doing the research so I maybe wrong here
- I've a collection of downloaded courses (large video files) I want to store them only in the cloud due to limited disc space. And TM won't make a backup, 3rd party can temporary download the these files for backup purpose. And if I decide to use icloud actually there's no other option. This is why I'm testing yet one drive as it's supported by many backup tools
- I'm running docker with many containers i.e. 100GB postgresql. I doubt if TM can handle the backup properly. And even if it can there're big files which change frequently so I run of out space very quickly
- The same concerns I've for parallels vm images. I prefer to shut it down and make cold backup
IMHO in these cases 3rd party tools win with TM
- I've a collection of downloaded courses (large video files) I want to store them only in the cloud due to limited disc space. And TM won't make a backup, 3rd party can temporary download the these files for backup purpose. And if I decide to use icloud actually there's no other option. This is why I'm testing yet one drive as it's supported by many backup tools
- I'm running docker with many containers i.e. 100GB postgresql. I doubt if TM can handle the backup properly. And even if it can there're big files which change frequently so I run of out space very quickly
- The same concerns I've for parallels vm images. I prefer to shut it down and make cold backup
IMHO in these cases 3rd party tools win with TM
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Buy Big fat HDDs for realatively dirt cheap. Save duplicates of these large video files to drive #2 and ideally at least drive #3 for an offsite backup of them. No cloud rent. No need to use TM or similar to just backup files that don't change.
If you have a BD burner, burn a copy or two to cheap blank BD discs. Those can hold a lot of "large video" and are very compact for easy offsite storage (much like storing a DVD or CD offsite).
Get yourself a NAS based upon some variation of RAID that can run Docker. Synology is one that definitely can. The RAID has the hardware backup redundancy of a failed drive built in- just replace the failed drive (so have at least one at the ready). Synology can also run scheduled backups of "all" to equal storage externally. Have it do that for redundant backup to an external RAID too. Depending on how you think of this, you'll have 2 independent backups in 2 physical cases with each having 2 internal backups if just one disc in either case conks thanks to RAID.
The one worry I'd have with this is getting a fresh OFFSITE backup of this setup too. Perhaps that 1 or 2 very large HDDs dedicated to only recent backups of the docker containers?
Perhaps another thing to use with the previously referenced big fat HDD #2 and #3. Manually backup your VM images to those drives too and be sure a relatively fresh one is stored offsite. Regularly rotate onsite & offsite so the offsite backup is pretty fresh.
Think of TM as the "for dummies" backup system (I lean heavily on it myself so I'm one such "dummy"), designed for the average Joe to hopefully keep that Joe from losing his music & photo collections, documents, etc. As one stacks up requirements beyond average Joe level, the backup system may need more than only "attach a drive and flip a switch" to back up your Mac. Your own uses are beyond average Joe level. You'll be best served to up your backup system sophistication vs. trying to lean on only something like TM for all needs.
That said, TM doesn't really care about size of files or "changing frequently" as long as the TM storage drive is big enough to easily accommodate the other drives to be backed up times- ideally- about 3 or 4. For example, if all of that is on- say- 4TB total, your TM disc should be at least 12TB or more (more is always better). When TM "runs out of space", it will delete the oldest versions of new files to be backed up to create new space for the fresher backups.
For example, if you have a 100GB file regularly changing, TM might fit the last 5 or 10 versions of that file within that 12TB or larger TM drive before running short of backup space. To save version 6 or 11 of that file, it will delete (oldest version 1) of the file on the next backup. Now, it's created a fresh block of 100TB for version 6 or 11. Next backup will probably take out version 2 for version 7 or 12 to have the room for backup. Etc.
Nevertheless, as backup needs grow, backup systems should obviously evolve with it. If I was you, I'd work beyond TM for backup confidence... not because I don't trust TM myself... but because as I've "complicated" my needs for backup, my backup systems should likely complicate too.
Last edited:
I think I was asking about Synology active backup for business. It looks like more trouble than it’s worth to set up, but maybe some have used it and like it. I was just wondering. I bought a Synology 2 bay (raid 1) to use as one Time Machine backup and have a separate HDD attached for the other. Every once in a while TM throws a fit and says it can’t complete the backup and I have to erase and start over. That is always disconcerting.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
TM saying it needs to recreate a backup is a normal part of it. Yes, it would be preferred if it didn't ever do that but there is a mountain of bugs in macOS that would preferably not be bugs in macOS.
Files are not lost when it does that... just the "back in time" capability for that archive. When it does that, just let it rebuild a new archive and it will start building up "back in time" history again.
However, this is a very good reason to have more than one TM (or other) backup drive. If both are TM, they will almost certainly not need to rebuild at the same time. So in some very worst case scenario where you need to go "back in time" but drive 1 is actually corrupted/dead/missing/stolen/flooded, slug in the other TM drive and time travel with it. Eventually, the new backup will develop more history too so that either drive can be your way to go back in time.
Others argue that at least one backup drive should be CCC or SD and there's nothing wrong with that either. In fact, if anyone is nervous about TM at all, up to all drives could be CCC or SD backup. The method of backup is not so important as having several reliable backups.
Lastly, the problem with using a 2-Bay Synology for redundant TM in RAID 1 is RAID 1 is merely copying whatever is on the other drive. So when it "needs a rebuild" and you rebuild it, the RAID 1 copy is a clone of the rebuild. You immediately lose "back in time" capability on BOTH drives with the rebuild on one of them.
The better option might be to RAID0 those 2 drives together for a bigger TM volume and then add an external that is approx. equal to that same size- either DAS or NAS. Then, in TM choose both locations as TM backup drives and it will alternate new TM backups to each every other hour. This will result in 2 independent TM backups instead of one dependent clone of 1 TM backup via RAID1.
OR JBOD them so they are 2 separate drives and choose each of them in TM as TM backup drives. Same result: 2 independent TM backups instead of 1 TM backup and an automated clone of the same TM backup.
And again, ideally, you have at least 1 fresh TM/SD/CCC backup safely stored OFFSITE too... as very real fire-flood-theft scenarios will take out the Mac, the Synology and any DAS (drive 2) all at the same location. Look to the terrible situation in California right now. If they had 50 TM drives set up for a Mac in a home destroyed by fire, they've lost that Mac and all 50 backups. At least one recent backup must be securely OFFSITE to protect against very real scenarios like that (a thief would steal all 50, a flood would flood all 50).
Files are not lost when it does that... just the "back in time" capability for that archive. When it does that, just let it rebuild a new archive and it will start building up "back in time" history again.
However, this is a very good reason to have more than one TM (or other) backup drive. If both are TM, they will almost certainly not need to rebuild at the same time. So in some very worst case scenario where you need to go "back in time" but drive 1 is actually corrupted/dead/missing/stolen/flooded, slug in the other TM drive and time travel with it. Eventually, the new backup will develop more history too so that either drive can be your way to go back in time.
Others argue that at least one backup drive should be CCC or SD and there's nothing wrong with that either. In fact, if anyone is nervous about TM at all, up to all drives could be CCC or SD backup. The method of backup is not so important as having several reliable backups.
Lastly, the problem with using a 2-Bay Synology for redundant TM in RAID 1 is RAID 1 is merely copying whatever is on the other drive. So when it "needs a rebuild" and you rebuild it, the RAID 1 copy is a clone of the rebuild. You immediately lose "back in time" capability on BOTH drives with the rebuild on one of them.
The better option might be to RAID0 those 2 drives together for a bigger TM volume and then add an external that is approx. equal to that same size- either DAS or NAS. Then, in TM choose both locations as TM backup drives and it will alternate new TM backups to each every other hour. This will result in 2 independent TM backups instead of one dependent clone of 1 TM backup via RAID1.
OR JBOD them so they are 2 separate drives and choose each of them in TM as TM backup drives. Same result: 2 independent TM backups instead of 1 TM backup and an automated clone of the same TM backup.
And again, ideally, you have at least 1 fresh TM/SD/CCC backup safely stored OFFSITE too... as very real fire-flood-theft scenarios will take out the Mac, the Synology and any DAS (drive 2) all at the same location. Look to the terrible situation in California right now. If they had 50 TM drives set up for a Mac in a home destroyed by fire, they've lost that Mac and all 50 backups. At least one recent backup must be securely OFFSITE to protect against very real scenarios like that (a thief would steal all 50, a flood would flood all 50).
Last edited:
I used a Time Capsule (the tall one with 802.11ac wifi) for a number of years and had this happen at least twice so it's not just a third party issue. But for almost 5 years, I've used a 2012 Mini as a fileserver and time machine destination with files on an old 5tb hard disk. Haven't seen this error ever since, have actually been wondering how long my luck will last.
Does anyone know if I copy/paste data to an external drive, can I then use SuperDuper for a smart update afterwards.
Reason being I have a large HDD on my cMP which I want to do a ‘new’ clone to a larger external.
And because it’s an old machine, copying time for the whole disk will be very long, so was looking to do it in chunks, rather than one complete clone.
Reason being I have a large HDD on my cMP which I want to do a ‘new’ clone to a larger external.
And because it’s an old machine, copying time for the whole disk will be very long, so was looking to do it in chunks, rather than one complete clone.
I think you're asking if SuperDuper will compare the files and know that they're the same? I suspect that wouldn't work given how relatively slow it is to do a full comparison of files like that to determine if one's changed, but I don't really know.
Rather, you could define a copy script that defines a set of folders to copy. I think that would have a better chance of working.
Mmm yep, this is what I thought…… 🤔
Rather than spending time copying the bits, then finding it won’t work with smart update, it may be better to just bite the bullet and let it run.
I think maybe SD would produce a log file or something when cloning first time, which would update each time.
Rather than spending time copying the bits, then finding it won’t work with smart update, it may be better to just bite the bullet and let it run.
I think maybe SD would produce a log file or something when cloning first time, which would update each time.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
If they are copied to an external drive in the same file structure (same folders), Chronosync can easily do what you seek. In other words, if you copied- say- your entire Documents folder to a backup drive manually, Choronsync could compare original Documents vs. this manual backup you copied and recognize which files are the same and which are different... and then sync up the differences if you like.
Besides TM, I regularly use Chronosync for exactly this... often synching new files created on a Mac laptop to/from Mac Desktop to keep both synched up. It "just works" very well.
I also use it for making backups of folders & files I exclude from TM... such as long-term storage media files like home movies and disc rips. Rather than eat up a LOT of space for files that very rarely change (just get a new file(s) added to them from time to time), I use Chronosync to notice any changes and sync them to backup storage. I don't need "back in time" capability for files like that but I do want reliable backups.
Besides TM, I regularly use Chronosync for exactly this... often synching new files created on a Mac laptop to/from Mac Desktop to keep both synched up. It "just works" very well.
I also use it for making backups of folders & files I exclude from TM... such as long-term storage media files like home movies and disc rips. Rather than eat up a LOT of space for files that very rarely change (just get a new file(s) added to them from time to time), I use Chronosync to notice any changes and sync them to backup storage. I don't need "back in time" capability for files like that but I do want reliable backups.
Last edited:
Does Chronosync let you create bootable clones?
And also encrypt it.
I have found with SD clones of a system drive, there is not an option to encrypt, when right clicked.
This only seems available on data volumes.
I could format the external to encrypted, but then SD erases the drive before first copy.
Not sure if there are any advanced options in SD to keep the encryption.
And also encrypt it.
I have found with SD clones of a system drive, there is not an option to encrypt, when right clicked.
This only seems available on data volumes.
I could format the external to encrypted, but then SD erases the drive before first copy.
Not sure if there are any advanced options in SD to keep the encryption.
Yes, but (from CS help):
"IMPORTANT: With each new major version of the OS, Apple makes it more and more difficult to create a bootable backup. Given that the only way to make a bootable backup on recent versions of the OS is to use Apple’s own proprietary tool, it’s pretty clear that they will eventually remove that capability entirely. For that reason we no longer recommend the use of bootable backups when running on macOS 11 (Big Sur) and later. Instead, we recommend the use of Data Volume Backups as the preferred method for maintaining a full system backup."
This much the same position as CCC - don't and, if you do, unsupported.
You would do this after booting the clone. Note that encryption only applies to the data volume - the macOS volume is unencrypted (same on all Macs).
Chronosync is for sync purpose, I'm using it to sync a few folders between icloud/synology/onedrive. It doesn't make 'real' backups, but it can saved updated/deleted files in a separate folder. Thus I don't feel I need yet additional backup.
I know CCC could create bootable clones and encrypted backups though if I'm not wrong there's some issues with the newest macos due to security protection
See my earlier post about Carbon Copy. They stopped supporting bootable clones some time ago but offered a utility you could use at your own risk. But, evidently, that is completely broken now. I used CCC clones myself for a number of years and they were very handy. But I think those days are over now, unfortunately.