Thanks for the endorsement! Yeah, an excellent, excellent program that makes backing up a breeze! And either recovery, or installation of a new Mac OS (or new version of a current one), is also a snap with having a SuperDuper! bootable backup.
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.
Alternative to Time Machine
- Thread starter Alameda
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have Time-Machine backing-up my Mac-Mini to an external USB-3 HDD. Works fine. What seems to help it run smoothly ... is to erase the Time-Machine-HDD, and start-it-over a month or so after yearly macOS upgrade (after you know everything is still working fine).
I backup important and large data-files to my Synology DS-412+ (4x4tb SHR-RAID-5) .
I also take a yearly SuperDuper Image (usually before an OS upgrade). However, since I image Boot-Camp partition with Macrium-Reflect ... I'm thinking I could just do the whole system (all drives, regardless of format, with Verify) with that.
I backup important and large data-files to my Synology DS-412+ (4x4tb SHR-RAID-5) .
I also take a yearly SuperDuper Image (usually before an OS upgrade). However, since I image Boot-Camp partition with Macrium-Reflect ... I'm thinking I could just do the whole system (all drives, regardless of format, with Verify) with that.
Two great articles (one dated but still relatively accurate:
Best backup software to protect your Mac from data disasters
Head to head: Apple's Time Machine versus three local backup utilities for macOS
Best backup software to protect your Mac from data disasters
Head to head: Apple's Time Machine versus three local backup utilities for macOS
iDrive looks good on paper...but when I tested it, it was not only unstable, but caused other system-wide problems, likely due to a system extension.
Liked the idea of both file syncing and versioned backup in one tool. They offered it as a free tool (revenue via paid cloud storage), but it was more pain than it was worth. Not to mention very aggressive nagging to upgrade to the paid version.
Maybe issues have been fixed since then...but at the time, no way I would have paid for it. Too problematic.
Anybody use iDrive recently?
Liked the idea of both file syncing and versioned backup in one tool. They offered it as a free tool (revenue via paid cloud storage), but it was more pain than it was worth. Not to mention very aggressive nagging to upgrade to the paid version.
Maybe issues have been fixed since then...but at the time, no way I would have paid for it. Too problematic.
Anybody use iDrive recently?
Read that first article, and even though SuperDuper! was last on that list, it is still the one I use. I make 2 backups for each of my two Macs to 2 separate external SSD drives. That strategy more than satisfies my needs.
And contrary to what the article stated, the program is actually quite easy to use.
Agreed. SD is great.
So is CCC, and ChronoSync. Of the 3, CS is probably the most configurable/flexible...but most challenging to master, or at least the most intimidating for an everyday user.
There are slightly different goals for different backup strategies. Cloning utilities like Carbon Copy Cloner are useful for instant, bootable recovery after loss or damage. Time Machine has an easy to use interface that allows you to go back in time (duh!) and pull out a prior version of a file from several days or weeks prior. The two different classes of programs (CCC and TM) can be used to accomplish the primary goal of the competing class product, but it’s not as efficient: you can recover your entire data set using Time Machine, but it’s not very convenient. Likewise, you can use the snapshot feature of Carbon Copy Cloner to recover data from an earlier clone snapshot, but it has limitations and isn’t especially convenient.
If what the OP wants is a Time Machine style utility that actually works reliably with a clean interface and a developer that is responsive, I’d advise trying out QRecall:
www.qrecall.com
I’ve used it for years, and can testify that it is a solid product, way more configurable and corruption-free than Time Machine. The only downside is that data is not stored in a Finder-browsable format - you have to use QRecall itself to pull data out of the archive (you’re allowed to do that even if you don’t have access to the license key, though you will need the passphrase for the archive if you encrypted the archive). The user interface is quite powerful, but takes some getting used to. All in all, a worthy successor for someone who likes the idea of Time Machine, but wants more reliability and power.
If what the OP wants is a Time Machine style utility that actually works reliably with a clean interface and a developer that is responsive, I’d advise trying out QRecall:
QRecall — Backup and Document Archiving for macOS
QRecall — Backup and Document Archiving for macOS
I’ve used it for years, and can testify that it is a solid product, way more configurable and corruption-free than Time Machine. The only downside is that data is not stored in a Finder-browsable format - you have to use QRecall itself to pull data out of the archive (you’re allowed to do that even if you don’t have access to the license key, though you will need the passphrase for the archive if you encrypted the archive). The user interface is quite powerful, but takes some getting used to. All in all, a worthy successor for someone who likes the idea of Time Machine, but wants more reliability and power.
I hook every Mac and HFS+ disk I have up to my G4 for a weekly backup using CCC. It works amazingly and the PPC version of the software is free, so it costs me nothing 
For disk cloning not related to incremental backups, SD is my go-to program and it has saved me numerous times.
For disk cloning not related to incremental backups, SD is my go-to program and it has saved me numerous times.
If what the OP wants is a Time Machine style utility that actually works reliably with a clean interface and a developer that is responsive, I’d advise trying out QRecall:
QRecall — Backup and Document Archiving for macOS
QRecall — Backup and Document Archiving for macOS
I’ve used it for years, and can testify that it is a solid product, way more configurable and corruption-free than Time Machine. The only downside is that data is not stored in a Finder-browsable format - you have to use QRecall itself to pull data out of the archive (you’re allowed to do that even if you don’t have access to the license key, though you will need the passphrase for the archive if you encrypted the archive). The user interface is quite powerful, but takes some getting used to. All in all, a worthy successor for someone who likes the idea of Time Machine, but wants more reliability and power.
I demoed QRecall years ago and liked it. I don't recommend it only because I have not kept up with it, and their dated web site gave me pause about the future of the product.
Backup tools typically need fairly low-level access, especially to back up anything beyond the user's home directory, and to make bootable clones. Apple often changes requirements with OS refreshes...so backup developers have to stay current too. Hard to know which products are under active updates and development; stale web sites don't help.
Glad to hear somebody using it and recommending it.
----
Other backup tools to consider...both free:
The free/limited version of Disk Drill has a few handy features, including creating a bootable installer, plus cloning a boot drive.
Smart Backup is a nice, clean, and easy to use free backup tool worth a look.
I just had lots of difficulties and even more swearing (under the breath, of course, because the kid's here and always hears what he's not supposed to) because of TimeMachine.
Background: I had TM backup to an encrypted disk image on a Synology without any troubles for a long time. Two weeks back I got my new MBP16" to replace my trusty 2012 rMBP, and decided do start a new TM backup set after clean-installing everything.
For about a week, that worked as usual, i.e. competely trouble-free. Then this Tuesday TM suddenly decided it wasn't able to do the backup anymore. Nothing had changed: Synology is untouched, Network, MacOS – all the same as before. After many restarts I gave up and started a new backup set. Took about 12 hours to backup ~480GB of data, and went on its business... for a few hours, or about 3 or 4 backups.
Then this morning TM decides *again* to stop being able to do the backup.
I've now changed the network protocol from SMB to AFP for Bonjour. Mysteriously TM did finish its backup just a minute ago, so for the time being I'll leave it at that, even if I was under the impression that SMB is much preferred these days by Apple (Catalina Finder being such a complete and utterly embarassing failure for accessing networked drives makes me really wonder about this supposed SMB-centricness).
Anyway, thanks all for the valuable input. If/when TM acts up again, I'll probably try ChronoSync for networked backups, and possibly even to replace Backblaze for Cloud backups, because I already own it, or maybe look into QRecall. The weekly superfast disk duplication duty will remain with SuperDuper, which is really superduper.
Background: I had TM backup to an encrypted disk image on a Synology without any troubles for a long time. Two weeks back I got my new MBP16" to replace my trusty 2012 rMBP, and decided do start a new TM backup set after clean-installing everything.
For about a week, that worked as usual, i.e. competely trouble-free. Then this Tuesday TM suddenly decided it wasn't able to do the backup anymore. Nothing had changed: Synology is untouched, Network, MacOS – all the same as before. After many restarts I gave up and started a new backup set. Took about 12 hours to backup ~480GB of data, and went on its business... for a few hours, or about 3 or 4 backups.
Then this morning TM decides *again* to stop being able to do the backup.
I've now changed the network protocol from SMB to AFP for Bonjour. Mysteriously TM did finish its backup just a minute ago, so for the time being I'll leave it at that, even if I was under the impression that SMB is much preferred these days by Apple (Catalina Finder being such a complete and utterly embarassing failure for accessing networked drives makes me really wonder about this supposed SMB-centricness).
Anyway, thanks all for the valuable input. If/when TM acts up again, I'll probably try ChronoSync for networked backups, and possibly even to replace Backblaze for Cloud backups, because I already own it, or maybe look into QRecall. The weekly superfast disk duplication duty will remain with SuperDuper, which is really superduper.
Last edited:
I also discovered changing Bonjour from SMB to AFP resolved my issues with Time Machine on my new Synology NAS. My old one only has Bonjour over AFP and backups to it were problem free.
This doesn't not appear to purely be a Catalina issue. I experienced problems with later builds of Mojave. I've noticed that a number of "Catalina" networking issues appear in later builds of Mojave.
While I can't remember having to force-quit Finder multiple times per hour for it to be able to mount a Synology shared folder in Mojave, I do think it might be about time to take away their iPhones and iPads from the Apple devs involved, because they do seem to be pretty distracted from basic macOS stuff these days.
TM to a network source....has been finicky and fragile for years. It may be worse on wifi. Folks get it sorted, and then an OS or protocol update seems to break it every so often.
That's why I gave up on it outside of local disk destinations. Even if it works well for months...on the day it doesn't work, and you have to delete and start over, you lose your history and are naked (no backup protection) until the first new run is complete. With a large data set over a network, that can be a long time.
Synology Drive, while not perfect, does not suffer the same issues when backing up user data. Even over WAN with encryption, I backup without problems to a NAS 30 miles away. No fixed IP, no port forwarding, no firewall rules or holes.
That's why I gave up on it outside of local disk destinations. Even if it works well for months...on the day it doesn't work, and you have to delete and start over, you lose your history and are naked (no backup protection) until the first new run is complete. With a large data set over a network, that can be a long time.
Synology Drive, while not perfect, does not suffer the same issues when backing up user data. Even over WAN with encryption, I backup without problems to a NAS 30 miles away. No fixed IP, no port forwarding, no firewall rules or holes.
I'd be quite interested to know how you set this up, as I was under the impression that Synology Drive is more of a homebrewed Dropbox clone, where all data is synched between my disk and the Synology. I keep a lot of old archived files on the Syno, files I don't want to have on the MBP local drive. Is that even possible with Drive (on MacOS, Windows 10 can apparently do selective synchronization)?
(Also, do I have to install some Synology driver or daemon for this to work? So far, I've found Synology's stuff to be very good on their own OS, not so much on MacOS or iOS for that matter – their apps tend to look like some Java rubbish, which I find far from reassuring).
In the meantime, I'll try to reset my user access settings to get the «Home» stuff working correctly again, and then never ever touch this again.
Interesting.
I was getting some slow file transfers to my Synology NAS as while back, so I started checking into things.
I found out that AFP had been depreciated, and nothing really uses it any more.
This config seems to work for me with Windows, macOS, and tvOS.
Verified AFP is depreciated (for example Apple-TV InFuse uses SMB only) and does not need to be enabled.
DSM-6.2/Control Panel/File Services
- SMB Enabled (only ... no AFP or NFS)
- Advanced / Max=SMB3 , Min=SMB2 (SMB Range = SMB2,SMB2 and Large MTU,SMB3)
- - Encryption=Disabled , Enabled Opportunistic Locking
As for Time-Machine ... works fine here, but I have it on a local USB-3 drive. Some other tips in my previous post in this thread.
The "slow network" turned out to be my trusty (circa 2007) Netgear 5-port 100/1000 desktop switch (serves my side of the office). For some reason, it decided to start running at only 1/10 speed.
Last edited:
That's exactly what I thought, as well.
All I know is that TimeMachine started working perfectly smoothly again as soon as I'd set Bonjour to use AFP instead of SMB earlier today, after two very frustrating days. So far I've also not had to use the even more frustrating force quit Finder to get it to recognisze and mount a networked drive.
I guess I'll soon know if this is just a fluke, or if Apple went back to AFP and forgot to tell anyone.
I'd be quite interested to know how you set this up, as I was under the impression that Synology Drive is more of a homebrewed Dropbox clone, where all data is synched between my disk and the Synology. I keep a lot of old archived files on the Syno, files I don't want to have on the MBP local drive. Is that even possible with Drive (on MacOS, Windows 10 can apparently do selective synchronization)?
(Also, do I have to install some Synology driver or daemon for this to work? So far, I've found Synology's stuff to be very good on their own OS, not so much on MacOS or iOS for that matter – their apps tend to look like some Java rubbish, which I find far from reassuring).
In the meantime, I'll try to reset my user access settings to get the «Home» stuff working correctly again, and then never ever touch this again.
Yes...Synology has struggled (in my view) with branding and explaining features and options. Short version:
Drive now has two functions:
1. File Syncing: (similar to DropBox and other syncing tools). Yes, it can be as selective as you want...just pick any folder(s) you want sync'd, and everything in them will sync'd up to the destination folder you pick on your NAS. The same goes for Win and mobile devices supported.
2. File Backups: Copying over all files in selected folders on the local machine to the destination folder you pick on your NAS.
You can use either Sync or Backup...or both. To use both, you would want to select different folders as destinations on the Syno....but keep in mind you would have duplicates (more space used) on the NAS. Yes, default for Drive (like TM) is that all data is snyc'd, but you can limit it to just what you want by easily selecting (deselecting) as needed.
One option would be to sync files you work on all the time, or want to sync or share on other devices, and keep versions of sync'd files so you could roll back to a previous version if ever needed. Use Backup for the remainder of data (not sync'd).
Just a different tab on the Drive client:
On continius backup....the screenshot above got backed up nearly instantanly and automatically, to a server 35 miles away (it is on my desktop, which is location that I am backing up). The handy log on the tool bar makes it easy to verify:
Last edited:
To use Synology Drive, you need to install Drive Server on the NAS, and Drive client on the machine you are backing up.
Lots of companies like to use something cross-platform like Java, so they have much less code to manage and update as OSes change. You see similar clients from other big companies like CrashPlan and Ubiquiti.
While a native client is nice and more full-featured, there is nothing about Drive that has kept me from using it on quite a few different client machines.
Lots of companies like to use something cross-platform like Java, so they have much less code to manage and update as OSes change. You see similar clients from other big companies like CrashPlan and Ubiquiti.
While a native client is nice and more full-featured, there is nothing about Drive that has kept me from using it on quite a few different client machines.
Last edited:
Thanks @hobowankenobi for the Synology Drive insights! I'll be trying this out later today, because... of course TimeMachine started acting up again, after working for exactly 1 day. 1 day of functioning backups is the best Apple with its billions of $$$ can come up with. 🤬
Agreed. Best I can figure...it targets non-tech home users, and if you plug in an external, it works. Even running a Mac as a TM server...it has done well over (at least) wired networks.
But ultimately, it is lacking a bunch of stuff that many folks think are essential for SMB market and beyond. Functioning well to third party network targets is one of the things missing.
One of my biggest gripes: No versioning control. Sure, if you have a backup destination that is much larger than the source, you get version history. You can go "back in time". But how far? How many versions? No way to set it, no way to know without looking. I want to know that I have 5 (or whatever number I choose) old versions, or that I have files back for a certain amount of time. Including deleted ones. I don't want to have to enter Time Machine mode and poke around...to see how much history there is. And the amount of history primarily a function of: Size of data set backing up vs. size of backup destination. Once you get multiple machines, and/or multiple user (like a family or office), it gets pretty messy.
Drive is not perfect (I doubt any one solution is for all situations).
One weakness is...it needs to be installed and configured in the user account that will be backed up. Most machines have a single user...so not a deal-breaker. But for mult-user machines, it can be a pain. I can't log in as an admin and configure Drive for a different user; have to do from their desktop (...at least I have not found a way yet).
And yes, the non-native desktop app is less than ideal: can't resize some windows, can't minimize windows, limited toolbar features, etc. It does not show up as an Application...it shows up in Activity monitor as a Process....even though there is an item installed in the Applications folder (that is essentially the start button). I say this as once in a great while I have to force quit it when it gets unresponsive during a config change.
But the tradeoff is that Drive is more configurable, has better logging, a good server side dashboard, etc. It wins (for me) when I compare the Pros and Cons of the two.
Thanks again for the helpful insights into Synology Drive.
I played around with it earlier today, and might yet use it. However, for the time being I'll use ChronoSync; it simply feels more confidence-inspiring – it's been around forever (I can't even remember when I got my license, but it was in the good old days of buying software, not renting it) and the dev knows *a lot* about how MacOS does things. I'm even suspecting he knows more than the folks currently working at Apple in the network division, Catalina's Finder has been a total disaster with my NAS since day one.
I played around with it earlier today, and might yet use it. However, for the time being I'll use ChronoSync; it simply feels more confidence-inspiring – it's been around forever (I can't even remember when I got my license, but it was in the good old days of buying software, not renting it) and the dev knows *a lot* about how MacOS does things. I'm even suspecting he knows more than the folks currently working at Apple in the network division, Catalina's Finder has been a total disaster with my NAS since day one.
ChronoSync is great. If you have it, yer set.
I like Drive because I can see the files from quite a few machines, and not have to buy the license for each. For that alone, I think it is worth some of the quirks.
I like Drive because I can see the files from quite a few machines, and not have to buy the license for each. For that alone, I think it is worth some of the quirks.
Yep, ChronoSync is excellent.
There‘s one little doubt I have, though: a few weeks back CS told me it is unable to finish a task because it had not enough free space. The target SSD had some 300GB free, but apparently CS wanted to duplicate my 340GB Photos library in full, possibly due to its «Safe Copy» feature. If CS duplicates the entire Photos library each and every time a 1kB metadata file changes, I won‘t be very happy in the long run.