Best backup solution for M1 MACs?

[drewaz]

Whichever system you chose to make local backups, I also recommend BackBlaze as an additional, offsite backup. It backs up your files to the cloud so, if there is some local catastrophe (fire, flood, theft) you have a backup that is not vulnerable. For $6/month they will backup all the files on your computer and any external drives directly connected. (But not network drives). It works in the background doing incremental backups. The first backup may take many days or even a couple of weeks. The connection is restricted to not saturate your network.

Restoration can be done through their website to download small numbers of files. If you ever needed to do a full restore, they will overnight a hard drive with your files on it for around $100. I would consider that pretty cheap insurance if you get into that kind of trouble.

and, after restoring your system, you can return the hard drive to them and get the $100 refunded.

 

[bradl]

Whichever system you chose to make local backups, I also recommend BackBlaze as an additional, offsite backup. It backs up your files to the cloud so, if there is some local catastrophe (fire, flood, theft) you have a backup that is not vulnerable. For $6/month they will backup all the files on your computer and any external drives directly connected. (But not network drives). It works in the background doing incremental backups. The first backup may take many days or even a couple of weeks. The connection is restricted to not saturate your network.

Restoration can be done through their website to download small numbers of files. If you ever needed to do a full restore, they will overnight a hard drive with your files on it for around $100. I would consider that pretty cheap insurance if you get into that kind of trouble.

and, after restoring your system, you can return the hard drive to them and get the $100 refunded.

Why do that, when you could run out to Costco and buy a big enough drive that is more than adequate for a TM backup yourself, instead of relying on a cloud solution, and a dependency on a fast enough internet connection to get to your backup? That kind of defeats the purpose of having a backup as when you need to restore is based on a catastrophic failure where you may not have access to anything. And waiting for them to send you a drive of your data versus having faster access to your data either onsite or at a location that is not where your disaster is is a no-brainer.

For example, the backup solution I have is 2-fold:

1. back up my MBP via Time Machine to an external SSD. Store that SSD offsite (parent's house, storage unit, etc.) that is easily accessible in case of disaster. Every week or so, bring that disk back and back up my MBP to it via Time Machine again.
2. Back up my MBP via Time Machine to my Synology NAS. The key to doing this so it doesn't take an insane amount of time is by performing the backup over Ethernet rather than WiFi. This will require a switch or router (most routers for your upstream service should have enough ports to connect the NAS and your Mac to), that way you're getting the maximum amount of throughput your switch or router can push versus being limited to WiFi speeds. For example, max speed for 802.11g WiFi routers is 54Mbps, whereas a switch can be at Gigabit (1Gbps) speeds or more. When it comes to pushing a lot of data, WiFi is more of a bottleneck than anything, as it is best suited for portability than speed.
3. Back up my Synology NAS to an external SSD. This not only includes all data on my NAS, but the Time Machine Backup as well. I'd perform this backup every week or so, and store that offsite. Bring that back in after a given period of time, and back up the NAS again.

I'd perform #2 as much as possible, while #1 and #3 are done maybe once a week or every two weeks. This way, if I lose my Mac or have to start from scratch again, I retrieve the TM backup on the external SSD (not the one from the NAS), I install MacOS, use Migration Assistant and either point it at my TM backup on the external SSD (that would be faster than over the network), get back to where I was a week before the disaster occurred, and then TM restore anything else more recent than that week from the NAS.

A lot simpler and cheaper than paying for a service to handle it, especially if what is being backed up to that service is sensitive data (PII, PCI, PHI, Bank info, etc.)

In a pinch, one could do this with 2 separate external SSDs and get the same result. The key here is to keep one of those SSDs offsite. The cost/benefit of this option is much cheaper than the monthly fee for a service to get your data and then risk losing it because of a disaster on their end.

BL.

 

[Tagbert]

Why do that, when you could run out to Costco and buy a big enough drive that is more than adequate for a TM backup yourself, instead of relying on a cloud solution, and a dependency on a fast enough internet connection to get to your backup? That kind of defeats the purpose of having a backup as when you need to restore is based on a catastrophic failure where you may not have access to anything. And waiting for them to send you a drive of your data versus having faster access to your data either onsite or at a location that is not where your disaster is is a no-brainer.

For example, the backup solution I have is 2-fold:

1. back up my MBP via Time Machine to an external SSD. Store that SSD offsite (parent's house, storage unit, etc.) that is easily accessible in case of disaster. Every week or so, bring that disk back and back up my MBP to it via Time Machine again.
2. Back up my MBP via Time Machine to my Synology NAS. The key to doing this so it doesn't take an insane amount of time is by performing the backup over Ethernet rather than WiFi. This will require a switch or router (most routers for your upstream service should have enough ports to connect the NAS and your Mac to), that way you're getting the maximum amount of throughput your switch or router can push versus being limited to WiFi speeds. For example, max speed for 802.11g WiFi routers is 54Mbps, whereas a switch can be at Gigabit (1Gbps) speeds or more. When it comes to pushing a lot of data, WiFi is more of a bottleneck than anything, as it is best suited for portability than speed.
3. Back up my Synology NAS to an external SSD. This not only includes all data on my NAS, but the Time Machine Backup as well. I'd perform this backup every week or so, and store that offsite. Bring that back in after a given period of time, and back up the NAS again.

I'd perform #2 as much as possible, while #1 and #3 are done maybe once a week or every two weeks. This way, if I lose my Mac or have to start from scratch again, I retrieve the TM backup on the external SSD (not the one from the NAS), I install MacOS, use Migration Assistant and either point it at my TM backup on the external SSD (that would be faster than over the network), get back to where I was a week before the disaster occurred, and then TM restore anything else more recent than that week from the NAS.

A lot simpler and cheaper than paying for a service to handle it, especially if what is being backed up to that service is sensitive data (PII, PCI, PHI, Bank info, etc.)

In a pinch, one could do this with 2 separate external SSDs and get the same result. The key here is to keep one of those SSDs offsite. The cost/benefit of this option is much cheaper than the monthly fee for a service to get your data and then risk losing it because of a disaster on their end.

BL.

The main benefit to using a cloud backup like BackBlaze is if you have a local catastrophe that removes any local backups. A fire, flood, or theft may mean that you no longer have that local backup. Having a full backup hard drive arrive the next day would be a lifesaver.

 

[bradl]

The main benefit to using a cloud backup like BackBlaze is if you have a local catastrophe that removes any local backups. A fire, flood, or theft may mean that you no longer have that local backup. Having a full backup hard drive arrive the next day would be a lifesaver.

This is where that external SSD is stored offsite comes in. When it comes to backups, one should be onsite for immediate retrieval, while another is kept offsite so that if there was a disaster that took out the local backups onsite, that one can be pulled. The key there is that you'd have access to the offsite backup faster than waiting a day to get it from somewhere else, plus is the $100 cost for each time that is needed? If so, hopefully that does not get expensive, in addition to paying monthly for the service. That's where the cost/benefit comes into play.

BL.

 

[Tagbert]

This is where that external SSD is stored offsite comes in. When it comes to backups, one should be onsite for immediate retrieval, while another is kept offsite so that if there was a disaster that took out the local backups onsite, that one can be pulled. The key there is that you'd have access to the offsite backup faster than waiting a day to get it from somewhere else, plus is the $100 cost for each time that is needed? If so, hopefully that does not get expensive, in addition to paying monthly for the service. That's where the cost/benefit comes into play.

BL.

Agreed. A layered backup approach like that is good. For me, the BackBlaze solution works because it does not require me to do manual backups and to swap drives and find some place to store them. If you can make that part of your routine, then that strategy works.

 

[Gator1pk]

How come Apple doesn’t have an in-house app to do a complete backup of the Mac?

It’s called Time Machine. It worked for me just fine since Lion up to now Monterey.

 

[Tagbert]

Hi Pip,


Thats rubbish... I was coming to conclusion of having to pay for an app to do this.... Now CCC is out?!


Am I missing something?

ITunes can do a complete backup for IPhones and IPads.

How come Apple doesn’t have an in-house app to do a complete backup of the Mac?


Regards
Martin

The iTunes backups do not backup the system. They backup the data files and configurations. From that you can restore the system directly and then use the backup to restore the data and state of your files. that is pretty much what Time Machine does. It is inefficient to backup the system along with the data files. Also, in the newer Macs, the storage is partitioned with the system in a separate protected and signed image. You can’t just copy it or modify it directly. That is to prevent malware from being able to install itself in the system.

 

[nigelbb]

This is where that external SSD is stored offsite comes in. When it comes to backups, one should be onsite for immediate retrieval, while another is kept offsite so that if there was a disaster that took out the local backups onsite, that one can be pulled. The key there is that you'd have access to the offsite backup faster than waiting a day to get it from somewhere else, plus is the $100 cost for each time that is needed? If so, hopefully that does not get expensive, in addition to paying monthly for the service. That's where the cost/benefit comes into play.

BL.

It depends how much data you can afford to lose. Even if you are storing physical backups offline daily there will still be data loss if you have a catastrophic event like a fire.

 

[SpecFoto]

Super-Duper has the same problem - can't deal with BigSur boot disks. Apple apparently made it all but impossible for an application such as CCC or SD to create a bootable backup. Maybe they are trying to force us to go to TimeMachine? I have been using SuperDuper for many years on a variety of Macs, but Big-Sur screws it badly.

The reasons why you can’t use these to create bootable disks is that Mac OS has a couple of separate partitions for the OS and for updates that cannot be modified by normal processes. This is for security to make it much harder for malware to infect the OS itself.

Long time user of Super Duper and they put out an update a couple of weeks ago that makes a fully bootable backups in Big Sur and Monterey. I used SD to copy my new 14" MBP M1 Pro 1TB drive to a SanDisk 1TB SSD V2 and then choose it to be the start-up drive. I had to authorize me as the user on the SSD a couple of times, but it started up fast and worked just fine. First thing the MBP did was ask me to update 6 programs that I had updated on the MBP a couple of days before, but had not on the external SSD system. All went well.

Had to pay an $27.95 update fee, for the 1st time ever, since buying this program 12 years ago. Happy to pay as the owner of SuperDuper is just great and has always been very responsive and helpful. Highly recommended! From their webpage:

"3.6.1 is fully compatible with Big Sur and Monterey, the latest releases of macOS, is Apple silicon native, and produces fully bootable HFS+ and APFS backups faster and easier than ever. It even supports creating and copying from snapshots! You can keep your backup on its own volume, or you can even store and Smart Update it alongside your Time Machine backups. We even let you copy your Time Machine backups to other disks, so you can back them up or upgrade to a larger disk without losing your history!"

 

[bradl]

It depends how much data you can afford to lose. Even if you are storing physical backups offline daily there will still be data loss if you have a catastrophic event like a fire.

This all depends on where those offline backups are stored. Chances are in the good to excellent category that a fire would be localized to the single location and not where backups may be stored. One should NEVER store their offline backups in the same location as the source of their data. Those should always go offsite somewhere just for storage/safekeeping, especially in regards to physical loss of data.

Now, granted those backups will not be current (read: T minus x minutes, where T is the moment of catastrophic loss), but you will be able to recover. Now, if one is wanting something as granular as that, then you're looking at setting up something near enterprise wide, which would involve replication of that data to somewhere offsite, and getting access to it that way, where that replication is realtime. But that is outside the scope of a backup solution for the typical enduser.

BL.

 

[Diablo360]

The Apple Time Capsule is a good solution (although pretty dated). Otherwise any external storage is fine

 

[Tagbert]

This all depends on where those offline backups are stored. Chances are in the good to excellent category that a fire would be localized to the single location and not where backups may be stored. One should NEVER store their offline backups in the same location as the source of their data. Those should always go offsite somewhere just for storage/safekeeping, especially in regards to physical loss of data.

Now, granted those backups will not be current (read: T minus x minutes, where T is the moment of catastrophic loss), but you will be able to recover. Now, if one is wanting something as granular as that, then you're looking at setting up something near enterprise wide, which would involve replication of that data to somewhere offsite, and getting access to it that way, where that replication is realtime. But that is outside the scope of a backup solution for the typical enduser.

BL.

That is the beauty of a cloud system like BackBlaze. Your backups are fully offsite and always up to date as it works automatically in the background like TimeMachine.

 

[bradl]

That is the beauty of a cloud system like BackBlaze. Your backups are fully offsite and always up to date as it works automatically in the background like TimeMachine.

Yep.. while constantly hitting your connection plus paying a nominal fee per month and waiting a day to get the backup back if not restoring from the network, which could be done faster with running to your mother's house or wherever you chose to store your own SDD and restoring it yourself..

Again, not bagging SaaS, but there's the bandwidth and privacy issues that come into play.

BL.

 

[Tagbert]

Yep.. while constantly hitting your connection plus paying a nominal fee per month and waiting a day to get the backup back if not restoring from the network, which could be done faster with running to your mother's house or wherever you chose to store your own SDD and restoring it yourself..

Again, not bagging SaaS, but there's the bandwidth and privacy issues that come into play.

BL.

Sure. It may not work for you.

For me, my mother lives several thousand miles away. After the initial upload, the bandwidth hit is minimal. The files are encrypted while uploading to BB’s servers. The monthly cost is nominal. I don’t have to worry about it. I can download files to restore. If something catastrphic happens where I need to restore everything, the 1 day delay to get a backup disk overnighted to me is the least of my concerns.

It may be a reasonable option for some.

 

[nigelbb]

The Apple Time Capsule is a good solution (although pretty dated). Otherwise any external storage is fine

I agree 100%. It is really annoying that Apple have stopped selling them & the only way of getting a Time Capsule is to buy a used one. We have two houses for one of them I bought a NAS (WD My Cloud 8 To EX2 Ultra) which is nicely made with a good interface but while it supports Time Machine it's just not as reliable as the Time Capsule in our other house. Too often I see messages that my laptop cannot connect to the device or that Time Machine cannot backup because the backup file is in use. In comparison my old Time Capsule just keeps chugging away without any problems.

The Time Capsule can be cracked open & the internal disk upgraded but its life may be impacted by lack of cooling the Time Capsule.

Possibly the best solution for Time Machine is to connect a modern external disk to a Time Capsule or AirPort Extreme (also only available used).

 

[bradl]

Sure. It may not work for you.

For me, my mother lives several thousand miles away. After the initial upload, the bandwidth hit is minimal. The files are encrypted while uploading to BB’s servers. The monthly cost is nominal. I don’t have to worry about it. I can download files to restore. If something catastrphic happens where I need to restore everything, the 1 day delay to get a backup disk overnighted to me is the least of my concerns.

It may be a reasonable option for some.

The relative is a simple example. I'm in CA. My closest relative is in Nebraska, roughly 1600 miles away/22 hours drive away. It isn't as if I'm going to store an offsite backup that far away from me (though that may be the same distance between my place and something like BackBlaze anyway).

I'm lucky that my SO has had a storage unit 3 miles from where we live, so I use that as offsite. It doesn't have to be anything fancy, as long as it is away from the location where the disaster occurs; a local bank, safe deposit box, somewhere that is convenient to retrieve the drive and get back to recovery.

Again, I understand convenience over necessity or even privacy concerns, but seeing how the whole privacy issue has come up with password managers going to SaaS models and ticking off their customers (see the various 1Password 8 threads going around), some of those concerns need to be weighed.

BL.

 

[marstan]

That is the beauty of a cloud system like BackBlaze. Your backups are fully offsite and always up to date as it works automatically in the background like TimeMachine.

I tried Backblaze recently but couldn't get past the initial slow (16 days!) upload. I have 5TB of data and a 1Gbs fiber-optic up and down service yet getting only 20MBS upload to Backblaze at best. Plus Backblaze isn't a permanent archive of data storing only a years worth, right? So you still got to have other backups. I am still doing backups locally and rotate to an offsite bank safe deposit box.

 

[agregson]

I use an external SSD on mac to backup. Very reliable. Tried Synology but I like idea of more robust APFS snapshot and from what I can see TM over SMB to NAS seems to use old method.

I wonder if an SSD is used for TM on a MacBook is TM intelligent so that it backs up when it is connected and skips schedule if not connected such as MBA away from home. If it did that with no need for intervention it would be compelling.

 

[Tagbert]

I tried Backblaze recently but couldn't get past the initial slow (16 days!) upload. I have 5TB of data and a 1Gbs fiber-optic up and down service yet getting only 20MBS upload to Backblaze at best. Plus Backblaze isn't a permanent archive of data storing only a years worth, right? So you still got to have other backups. I am still doing backups locally and rotate to an offsite bank safe deposit box.

The upload speed is deliberately limited to prevent overloading your connection. Yes, the default retention is 1 year, though you can pay a little more for an extended retention plan. I don’t recall the details as it never was something I needed.

 

[bradl]

I use an external SSD on mac to backup. Very reliable. Tried Synology but I like idea of more robust APFS snapshot and from what I can see TM over SMB to NAS seems to use old method.

To me, this sounds like you have a share on the NAS mounted to your Mac over SMB, and TM is trying to back that up, which may effectively defeat the purpose of you having a NAS to begin with, outside of the purpose of additional storage.

As is, since you're connecting this as a share, you're dependent on the protocols the NAS can offer to the Mac for mounting the share; more than that, you're limited also to what it can offer Windows, as Windows could use it as well. So that limits you to using either SMB or CIFS, which is why you're seeing that being used.

As far as the share goes, I wouldn't be using TM on the Mac to back that up; I'd be using HyperBackup that comes with Synology to back up the entire NAS.

I wonder if an SSD is used for TM on a MacBook is TM intelligent so that it backs up when it is connected and skips schedule if not connected such as MBA away from home. If it did that with no need for intervention it would be compelling.

TM is intelligent enough to know that it can start to back up when the proper SSD is connected, especially if you have the Backup Automatically button selected.

BL.

 

[marstan]

The upload speed is deliberately limited to prevent overloading your connection. Yes, the default retention is 1 year, though you can pay a little more for an extended retention plan. I don’t recall the details as it never was something I needed.

Backblaze doesn't warn you they are limiting upload speed. If they had I wouldn't have bothered as there is no way I want to leave my energy hog MP tower running for 16 days straight.

 

[Tagbert]

Backblaze doesn't warn you they are limiting upload speed. If they had I wouldn't have bothered as there is no way I want to leave my energy hog MP tower running for 16 days straight.

You don’t need to run it for 16 days straight. Just use it like normal and after some period of time, the backup will be complete. If you shut it down, the backup will resume when you start it back up, just like any proper background backup software. Once it finished the initial backup, incremental backups go pretty quickly.

Of course it may not be the product for you and that‘s fine.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Time Machine is my go-to option. Obviously not the most convenient solution if you’re working mostly mobile, but it’s a good habit to plug the drive in just once a day (I’ve set up a reminder for the end of each day) and that’ll stand you in good stead.

For a completely mobile solution, I recommend Backblaze. It was developed by ex-Apple employees and as such is very efficient on your systems resources. It comes highly recommended and from my own experience is a great service. Obviously your network speed will control how quickly backups are uploaded, but for the most part it’s a nippy product.

Also, the cost is very comparable with purchasing an external HDD for Time Machine. And they can even post a HDD of your backup if you need it.

 

[marstan]

You don’t need to run it for 16 days straight. Just use it like normal and after some period of time, the backup will be complete. If you shut it down, the backup will resume when you start it back up, just like any proper background backup software. Once it finished the initial backup, incremental backups go pretty quickly.

Of course it may not be the product for you and that‘s fine.

I am aware of that but then it would take about 45 days to complete the initial backup which would leave me exposed during that period. Kinda defeats the purpose of an emergency backup. Perhaps Backblaze should just open up the upload speed to max for the initial backup.

 

[Tagbert]

I am aware of that but then it would take about 45 days to complete the initial backup which would leave me exposed during that period. Kinda defeats the purpose of an emergency backup. Perhaps Backblaze should just open up the upload speed to max for the initial backup.

I'm not sure what an "emergency backup" is, but I do think that you should also have a local backup system, like TM, too.