Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

wfriedwald

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 1, 2017
523
48
question: How is it possible to backup to a NAS (network drive) ?

I use a backup option called SUPER DUPER.

As you can see from the screenshot below, I have several network drives mounted. But they don't show up in the options list for SUPER DUPER.

Is there anything that I can do?

Thanks very much for your continued support!
Straighten Up & Fly Right!
W
 

Attachments

  • SUPER DUPER - ZYXEL Screen Shot 2022-07-13 at 10.52.55 AM.jpg
    SUPER DUPER - ZYXEL Screen Shot 2022-07-13 at 10.52.55 AM.jpg
    100 KB · Views: 241

HobeSoundDarryl

macrumors G5
I assume the drive down under "SHARED" called NAS326 is the one you want to use??? If so, what happens when you select it in Super Duper?

Is the target NAS drive formatted for Mac (HFS or APFS)? Super Duper only backs up to those formats.

Since this is a Mac, why not just make the NAS drive a Time Machine backup and turn on Time Machine? Many NAS drives can work as TM drives and that backup system works well. This thread seems to encourage using TM instead of Super Duper for a NAS drive. I do this myself with a Synology NAS.

If there is NO solution with Super Duper over ethernet (or wifi?), does the NAS have a direct connection jack like USB on it too? If so, disconnect it from the network, bring it to your Mac, direct connect it, Super Duper backup to it and then go put it back on the network.
 
Last edited:

wfriedwald

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 1, 2017
523
48
WF: thank you !

I assume the drive down under "SHARED" called NAS326 is the one you want to use??? If so, what happens when you select it in Super Duper?

WF: okay, I can NOT select it directly, but if I pick the option to use a Sparse Disk Image, then it does come up as an option. yes!

Is the target NAS drive formatted for Mac (HFS or APFS)? Super Duper only backs up to those formats.

WF: oh, I am not certain. Not sure how I would even figure that out - they don't show up in Disk Utility.

Since this is a Mac, why not just make the NAS drive a Time Machine backup and turn on Time Machine? Many NAS drives can work as TM drives and that backup system works well. This thread seems to encourage using TM instead of Super Duper for a NAS drive. I do this myself with a Synology NAS.

WF: Oh I have never really used Time Machine, but maybe I should figure it out. question: can I access and use a file that's part of a Time Machine backup.

If there is NO solution with Super Duper over ethernet (or wifi?), does the NAS have a direct connection jack like USB on it too? If so, disconnect it from the network, bring it to your Mac, direct connect it, Super Duper backup to it and then go put it back on the network.

WF: right, I tried this, and learned that moving an external drive between a USB-3 connection and a network NAS connection has its own set of problems. (For one thing spotlight doesn't work on it, and then also sometimes the process changes some of the file / folder names.)

Thanks for the input! Will consider all of this!

w
 

HobeSoundDarryl

macrumors G5
To see how it's formatted, if you can directly attach it to the Mac it should be visible in Disc Utility. If not, there must be some kind of manufacturer software that lets you format the drive and that should show you. If this is just a typical NAS, it is probably formatted for Windows. Since your Mac seems to be "seeing" it, I'll guess FAT or maybe ExFAT. If you purchased it "formatted for Mac," then it is either one or the other already... probably HFS.

Probably best use of it with Time Machine is as its own thing. In other words, allocate it as a backup drive and "give" it exclusively to Time Machine. It very likely can double as both a TM disc and generally as a network sharing drive too but you'll likely find that allocating one as TM backup and perhaps another as general purpose NAS is the simpler option.

The traditional idea of a backup drive is not a drive used for general file editing too. Backup should be a copy of ANOTHER drive on which you edit and/or create new files. That's the biggest point of a backup, to be able to recover a recent copy of ALL of your files should the primary drive get corrupted or conk out. If you are editing or adding files manually to the backup drive, it seems likely you are going to end up with some unique files in 2 places. If one drive conks, you will lose some unique files.

Tip: A general rule of thumb is that the TM disc should be up to about 3 or 4X bigger than the Mac storage on the computer. For example, if you have about 1TB stored on the Mac, you probably want about 3-4TB for TM (though larger is fine too). So if the existing NAS is huge storage, perhaps add another smaller NAS drive that fits that general guide and let it be your (dedicated) TM drive.

One "catch" with Super Duper in a dead (main) drive scenario is that you can't Super Duper back from larger storage to smaller storage. For example, if your SD clone is 10TB and your internal 1TB conks, SD won't recover from > 1TB to a 1TB replacement. It wants to "dupe" from 10TB to 10TB (or larger). So if the goal is pure recovery and you want to use Super Duper, you need to Dupe to a like-sized drive or partition to be able to recover to the same size internal drive.

Lastly, if what you really want is simply 2 copies of files you create maintained on 2+ independent drives, you might want to look at Chronosync instead. It is good at bi-directional sync. So for example, you store some new files or edits on Disc A and some others on Disc B. A bi-directional sync with Chronosync will copy the unique files BOTH ways so that the 2 drives become duplicates of each other.

So if you are wanting to edit files both locally and on the NAS, that may be what you actually need. However, Chronosync is not a complete backup. Think of it as an easy way to keep your USERS folders (files you create yourself) in sync. For a complete backup, you need to use Super Duper, Carbon Copy Cloner or Time Machine (or similar). Those options will also copy things OUTSIDE of the User Folder like applications, libraries, etc.
 

wfriedwald

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 1, 2017
523
48
thank you! A lot to unpack and consider here.

the aspect of SUPER DUPER that is most useful to me: when it creates a back-up, you then have total access to it, and that can become a new drive, to be used like any other. I get the impression that is not the way that Time Machine works.

Thank you for recommending CHRONOSYNC, I'll take a look at that now.

Someone also mentioned the idea of an iSCSI - I had never heard that term before now, but I am also going to look into that concept as well.

Thank you again!

w
 

HobeSoundDarryl

macrumors G5
No, Time Machine is not really meant to be used "just like any other" drive... so if that's what you want, Chronosync looks like best match.

The core idea of Super Duper, CCC and Time Machine are to create and maintain a duplicate of another drive, often the main drive you use... such as the internal drive in a Mac. The concept is to not then use those backup drives for original file writes/reads/edits (too) but to almost ignore them. Their purpose arrives when the drive you've backed up conks, becomes hopelessly corrupted, etc. Then you can restore from those "copies" to QUICKLY recreate your main drive IN FULL when the bad drive is replaced.

If you want to back up a drive AND then start writing original files to it, you are going to have original files on the networked drive that may not be on the main drive and vice versa. If either conks, you will simply lose any original files you've written to whichever one is the dead drive. In short: those won't be backed up unless you either explicitly save them to both drives or use something like Chronosync to copy the new stuff BOTH ways.

So again, it reads like you want to duplicate files on one drive to the NAS but also use the NAS as a drive for new original files too. If so, Chronosync should be the tool and it can offer the bi-directional syncing too if you want to duplicate new files in both directions.

What Chronosync is not though is a complete backup like the other three. For example, if you use it to back up the folders & files in your USER folder, you should be able to recover most of the files you create/store. However, related files like libraries, app configurations, and even applications themselves are NOT stored there. So in a catastrophic situation, I wouldn't say you are fully backed up. Yes, you can recover the bulk of the data/files you use/create/download/etc but you will have the time-consuming task of re-downloading apps, reinstalling them, setting them up again, downloading related files if any to make them work as you want them to work, etc.

Super Duper, CCC and Time Machine duplicate almost everything, so you can pretty much fully restore things as they were. Thus, they are pretty complete BACKUP options in that you have a FULL COPY that can be restored in total to a new (replacement) drive and pick right up as if the main drive never conked.

Your post starts with the word "backup" and if that is the goal, those are great options. However, your replies read like you are not looking for a complete backup but wanting only some backup but also want to use the drive and even edit/change/add files in the backup portion. If backup is your priority, that is dangerous because you risk losing a file stored on one (that conks) that you didn't also store on the other... which is pretty easy to do. Over time, this could end up becoming MANY files all lost when one of the drives conks.

Super Duper, CCC and Time Machine strive to avoid that loss by backing it ALL up... but key to the easy ability to restore ALL is leaving the backup files alone. In other words, do your file editing/creation on one drive and backup (duplicate) to another. If you are saving some things to one drive and some to the other, you are almost certainly going to end up with lots of files that are important to you on only one drive. If that one conks, you lose those files.
 
Last edited:

wfriedwald

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 1, 2017
523
48
thank you again. so far CHRONOSYNC is the leading contender for what I need (or so it seems). I think I'll start looking at that shortly!

Thanks once more,

W
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.