Do you have experience using this set up over wifi from your devices to the Synology? TM specific question re and much reading of corruption of spares bundles.
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.
Backup strategy - what do people recommend?
- Thread starter jclin10
- Start date
-
- Tags
- backup
- Sort by reaction score
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I'm ethernet wired so no Synology TM wifi experience.
I do have a laptop which does regularly connect with Synology for files but I don't TM that way.
No problems in about 6+ years with corrupted sparse bundles on Synology. It "just works."
I do have a laptop which does regularly connect with Synology for files but I don't TM that way.
No problems in about 6+ years with corrupted sparse bundles on Synology. It "just works."
I just tried my first ever TM backup. I formatted my external HD to APFS and am backing up 420gb from my MBP M2.
I started late yesterday evening and the timeline said 8 hours. I let it run overnight. I woke up this morning thinking it would be done. Nope. Now showing 20 hours to completion.
Is this normal? Or does TM not backup in sleep / locked mode as the machine would've slept and been locked overnight?
I started late yesterday evening and the timeline said 8 hours. I let it run overnight. I woke up this morning thinking it would be done. Nope. Now showing 20 hours to completion.
Is this normal? Or does TM not backup in sleep / locked mode as the machine would've slept and been locked overnight?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
First TM backup can take a long time. Subsequent backups will generally be very quick and in the background (you may not even notice it happening).
While the Mac is asleep, no backup is occurring. Keep it awake and let it get that first backup done. If you want to do it overnight, go into settings so you can sleep the display but keep the Mac awake.
While the Mac is asleep, no backup is occurring. Keep it awake and let it get that first backup done. If you want to do it overnight, go into settings so you can sleep the display but keep the Mac awake.
Thanks mate.
Now I also need to create a volume as need to add other stuff to the same external HD. Do I simply click add volume and then specify how much space I want on the new volume?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Yes, you can partition a single drive and allocate one partition for TM. Note, a good, very general rule of thumb is to give the TM partition/drive about 3X the size (or more) of the total storage to be TM backed up. Thus, if you have a 1TB drive on your Mac, your TM should be about 3TB or more.
Sometimes when people want to partition, they want to pinch that partition as small as possible. But that somewhat misses the point of TM, which is not just one backup but multiple backups. Why is that important? If a key file gets corrupted, TM will backup the corrupted one until you notice. Recovering the corrupted backup won't solve the corruption problem for you. However, with multiple backups, you can step back to BEFORE the file was corrupted and recover the good one.
If you don't allocate enough space for multiple backups, you increase the chances of not being able to recover the last valid version of some file(s) you need.
Sometimes when people want to partition, they want to pinch that partition as small as possible. But that somewhat misses the point of TM, which is not just one backup but multiple backups. Why is that important? If a key file gets corrupted, TM will backup the corrupted one until you notice. Recovering the corrupted backup won't solve the corruption problem for you. However, with multiple backups, you can step back to BEFORE the file was corrupted and recover the good one.
If you don't allocate enough space for multiple backups, you increase the chances of not being able to recover the last valid version of some file(s) you need.
Partition or add Volume?
My Mac / TM backup is about 600gb. The external HD is 2tb. I'm planning on adding a second Volume of 50gb. Would that be OK?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
If you have 600GB of data, I presume you have a total drive size of 1TB inside. Thus, I'd allocate the whole 2TB as TM disc, if not acquire a 3TB or bigger drive for this. Just because you have 600GB data today doesn't mean it will stay that size.
With a separate need for only 50GB, I suggest picking up a cheap USB drive or another small drive for that storage.
Actually, I might go the other way on that assumption about 1TB internal. I'd use that 2TB for whatever you want in that (initial) 50GB and allocate maybe $100 to buy myself a new external HDD at about 5TB for TM. I see some 3TB HDDs for about $60 if money is really tight. Either would give you plenty of TM backup space and 2TB for general purpose storage beginning with that 50GB.
Note: again, that multiply-by-3 approach is not a requirement- just a good, general recommendation. Your current 600GB of data times 3 is about 1.8TB, so what you are thinking technically works with that rule of thumb right now (about 1800GB for TM with up to about 200GB free for that 50GB of other data). However, that 600GB will inevitably grow. In only 50GB of growth, it will start eating into that rule of thumb 3X allocation. I would guess the 50GB will likely also grow in time.
As to volume vs partition, volume is usually associated with a whole drive while partition splits up a whole volume into what seems like 2 separate drives (perhaps the terminology has been evolved since the last time I learned it). In your case with that 2TB, you might partition that volume into 2 partitions: one at maybe 100GB (2X of the 50GB you have to store now) and the other at 1900GB for TM. But if me, I'd probably just allocate the entire 2GB "volume" to general storage starting with that 50GB and buy myself maybe a 5GB external HDD for $100 solely dedicated to TM purposes.
MAX drive size inside multiplied by about 3 = ideal TM drive size
With a separate need for only 50GB, I suggest picking up a cheap USB drive or another small drive for that storage.
Actually, I might go the other way on that assumption about 1TB internal. I'd use that 2TB for whatever you want in that (initial) 50GB and allocate maybe $100 to buy myself a new external HDD at about 5TB for TM. I see some 3TB HDDs for about $60 if money is really tight. Either would give you plenty of TM backup space and 2TB for general purpose storage beginning with that 50GB.
Note: again, that multiply-by-3 approach is not a requirement- just a good, general recommendation. Your current 600GB of data times 3 is about 1.8TB, so what you are thinking technically works with that rule of thumb right now (about 1800GB for TM with up to about 200GB free for that 50GB of other data). However, that 600GB will inevitably grow. In only 50GB of growth, it will start eating into that rule of thumb 3X allocation. I would guess the 50GB will likely also grow in time.
As to volume vs partition, volume is usually associated with a whole drive while partition splits up a whole volume into what seems like 2 separate drives (perhaps the terminology has been evolved since the last time I learned it). In your case with that 2TB, you might partition that volume into 2 partitions: one at maybe 100GB (2X of the 50GB you have to store now) and the other at 1900GB for TM. But if me, I'd probably just allocate the entire 2GB "volume" to general storage starting with that 50GB and buy myself maybe a 5GB external HDD for $100 solely dedicated to TM purposes.
Last edited:
Thank you for such a helpful and detailed reply and suggestions.
I have 3 external HDs. Each at 2tb. One of them is quite an old backup drive with old docs, pics etc. I might wipe that one and use that as a spare drive.
I'm also going to do a CCC backup sometime next week on the other 2tb.
My plan is as detailed on this thread - ensuring I have a full backup of everything in case anything goes wrong.
I also have 1tb space on my one drive, so plan to backup all my photos files there. Like most, pictures are the one thing I'd hate to lose.
I admit I heven't read every word in this thread, but reading the last few posts I feel I have to say something about partitions and volumes.
With HFS+ we were used to creating partitions, and they needed to have a set size. Now, with APFS, you create volumes instead, and you don't need to decide their size. Any volume will use the space it needs, free space is shared between volumes. The way I see it, the only reason you might want to split a drive into fixed size partitions is to create partitions with other formats like Exfat, NTFS etc for specific reasons. With APFS, volumes is the new partitions.
With HFS+ we were used to creating partitions, and they needed to have a set size. Now, with APFS, you create volumes instead, and you don't need to decide their size. Any volume will use the space it needs, free space is shared between volumes. The way I see it, the only reason you might want to split a drive into fixed size partitions is to create partitions with other formats like Exfat, NTFS etc for specific reasons. With APFS, volumes is the new partitions.
I always use Time Machine for years. You can also multiple disk for onsite and offsite backup rotation.
Also, I never have issues using external SSD as Time Machine disk.
My current backup strategy is:
1.2 TimeMachine to an AsuStor NAS with 2x 8TB drives configured in RAID 1 (so if one disk fail, there's the other one). This NAS allows for longer retention due to the higher capacity compared to the SSD and I can also share part of the available storage with other computers in the house which also use TimeMachine.
I bought it when it was only $25, now it's more expensive at $49.99 but I still recommend it. Since I paid less for Arq I use iDrive e2 as object storage service, because it's just $20 per year for 1 TB and has been rock solid for for me for a year now. However Arq also has an option where you pay $59.99 per year and includes 1 TB of storage allowing to use it with up to 5 computers. So when it's time for me to upgrade to Arq 8 when it's released, if the price for the software alone increases I might just switch to the storage included option if it's cheaper overall.
An alternative to the Arq+iDrive combo which I recommend if you want something simpler to set up (literally mostly install and forget it) is Backblaze Personal. It costs $7/mo for unlimited storage and 1 computer. The reason I use Arq is because it is more configurable so I have control on everything, plus the restore functionality is better than Backblaze Personal's if you only need to restore part of your data. For bigger restores that might be slow done online, one might prefer getting a drive sent to them by Backblaze with their data. But if you only need to restore something every now and then, Arq is much quicker.
Another option is iDrive - not the object storage but their backup solution. It's more advanced than Backblaze Personal and I haven't tried it so can't say if I like it or not.
2.2 All my important data is synced between all my devices and with a managed Nextcloud instance (https://nextcloud.com/) managed by Hetzner, called "Storage Share" (https://www.hetzner.com/storage/storage-share). This is awesome, it's just 5 euros per month for 1 TB of storage (and still ridiculously cheap as you increase the storage) and you can have as many users as you want with that single subscription, which is a lot cheaper than Dropbox etc. Nextcloud works pretty well and definitely better than crappy iCloud, and it's not just file syncing: you can install many "apps" that add functionality to the platform, so it's very convenient.
If I need to revert a single file to a specific version I just use Nextcloud since it has pretty good versioning and saves a new version each time you update the file. If instead I need to restore more data and I don't necessarily need specific versions, I restore with TimeMachine from SSD or NAS. I leave Arq as last resort if local backups fail. I must add that TimeMachine has never failed me in years, so I am surprised to hear people say that it failed for them. For me it has been rock solid.
1. Local backups:
1.1 TimeMachine to an external SSD (Samsung T5 1TB) attached via USB 3.0. This is the the first I would use if I want to restore a backup to some point in time due to the higher speed of the SSD.1.2 TimeMachine to an AsuStor NAS with 2x 8TB drives configured in RAID 1 (so if one disk fail, there's the other one). This NAS allows for longer retention due to the higher capacity compared to the SSD and I can also share part of the available storage with other computers in the house which also use TimeMachine.
2. Remote backups:
2.1 To iDrive e2 object storage (https://www.idrive.com/object-storage-e2/) using Arq as backup software (https://www.arqbackup.com/index.html). This is an awesome combination because Arq is rock solid despite the low price and does a very good job with deduplication, compression and encryption.I bought it when it was only $25, now it's more expensive at $49.99 but I still recommend it. Since I paid less for Arq I use iDrive e2 as object storage service, because it's just $20 per year for 1 TB and has been rock solid for for me for a year now. However Arq also has an option where you pay $59.99 per year and includes 1 TB of storage allowing to use it with up to 5 computers. So when it's time for me to upgrade to Arq 8 when it's released, if the price for the software alone increases I might just switch to the storage included option if it's cheaper overall.
An alternative to the Arq+iDrive combo which I recommend if you want something simpler to set up (literally mostly install and forget it) is Backblaze Personal. It costs $7/mo for unlimited storage and 1 computer. The reason I use Arq is because it is more configurable so I have control on everything, plus the restore functionality is better than Backblaze Personal's if you only need to restore part of your data. For bigger restores that might be slow done online, one might prefer getting a drive sent to them by Backblaze with their data. But if you only need to restore something every now and then, Arq is much quicker.
Another option is iDrive - not the object storage but their backup solution. It's more advanced than Backblaze Personal and I haven't tried it so can't say if I like it or not.
2.2 All my important data is synced between all my devices and with a managed Nextcloud instance (https://nextcloud.com/) managed by Hetzner, called "Storage Share" (https://www.hetzner.com/storage/storage-share). This is awesome, it's just 5 euros per month for 1 TB of storage (and still ridiculously cheap as you increase the storage) and you can have as many users as you want with that single subscription, which is a lot cheaper than Dropbox etc. Nextcloud works pretty well and definitely better than crappy iCloud, and it's not just file syncing: you can install many "apps" that add functionality to the platform, so it's very convenient.
If I need to revert a single file to a specific version I just use Nextcloud since it has pretty good versioning and saves a new version each time you update the file. If instead I need to restore more data and I don't necessarily need specific versions, I restore with TimeMachine from SSD or NAS. I leave Arq as last resort if local backups fail. I must add that TimeMachine has never failed me in years, so I am surprised to hear people say that it failed for them. For me it has been rock solid.
Last edited:
The 3 2 1 strategy is what I'm aiming for. I now have a TM backup and now contemplating whether to use Carbon Copy Cloner or Superduper.
I also have 1tb of OneDrive storage so will backup my important documents, pictures and music there too.
I'm curious, have you had many corruptions with TM not to suggest it?
I have SD, been using it for well over a decade but recovering an accidentally deleted file from couple days ago with TM seems quite handy? Caveat: Last time I used TM was 13 yrs ago and ended with a corrupt backup. Was hoping that now days TM has become rock solid if connected to DAS.
My initial plan to use TM via WiFi to a Synology NAS seems all but dead due to many reported corruptions. The wireless aspect especially seems to make this extremely unreliable.