Time Machine - A Truly Terrible App

[garirry]

" I have NEVER heard of an issue similar to yours anywhere. "

Google is your friend. I am not the only one experiencing this issue..

Okay what? The thing is, if it was that big of a problem, there would be many people talking about it. By saying "Google is your friend", you're essentially implying that I should go look for things people complain about. I'm not a pessimistic masochist.

 

[lockerc18]

Sorry, but I am not that bored that I would dig out the documentation for you. You'll just have to trust me on this one: Apple only officially supports Time Machine over network on Time Capsule and on OS X Server. That's it.

TO make this more clear: the TM implementation that is used by WD is in no way designed, written or certified by Apple, and is certainly not approved by Apple. That said, I have had fairly good experiences with open-source TM emulation (Netatalk), but again, this is a reverse-engineered solution which could miss some of the intricacies of the original protocol.

Actually, it turns out that you are incorrect about the MyCloud not being a supported device.

From the Apple site:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202784

"Backup Disks You Can Use With Time Machine"


Time Machine can back up the data on your Mac to these backup disks:

• 
  
• An external USB, Thunderbolt, or FireWire drive connected to your Mac
  
• An AirPort Time Capsule's built-in drive (any model)
  
• An external USB drive connected to an AirPort Time Capsule (any model) or AirPort Extreme (802.11ac model only)
  
• Network volumes connected using Apple File Protocol (AFP)

Note that last bullet.

Now, from the Western Digital site:

http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/UM/ENG/4779-705103.pdf

Supported protocols
CIFS/SMB, NFS, FTP, AFP

So, my MyCloud actually is a supported device for Time Machine. And hence, it SHOULD work under El Capitan.

 

[lockerc18]

Okay what? The thing is, if it was that big of a problem, there would be many people talking about it. By saying "Google is your friend", you're essentially implying that I should go look for things people complain about. I'm not a pessimistic masochist.

" if it was that big of a problem, there would be many people talking about it."

There are. Just because YOU haven't run into it doesn't mean that others haven't. And just because you're not willing to do a little basic research doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

I used to use NAS for TM backup and it was pretty common for an OSX update to break something. Typically the avahi daemon fell out of compatibility and Netgear would update the firmware accordingly.

I understood what I was doing was not supported and the fixes were totally on Netgear. I hate TM for other reasons, namely it doesn't get out if my way, but not because it doesn't work reliably.

 

[garirry]

" if it was that big of a problem, there would be many people talking about it."

There are. Just because YOU haven't run into it doesn't mean that others haven't. And just because you're not willing to do a little basic research doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.

That's not what I meant. I have literally no reason to research YOUR problems. It's your job to do so. I'm not pretending the problem doesn't exist, I'm just saying that I, myself, never heard of the problem, which means that it's not as common as you think it is.

 

[jdogg836]

Time Machine works as it always has. A 3rd party wireless NAS using their own 3rd party software running through a different 3rd party router has enough layers to be called an onion. With that many variables in the mix, the fact that you have uncovered a bug is not surprising. Yes, I agree with you that on paper it should work, however in reality the MyCloud drive's implementation of AFP is probably not bug free. They bake the protocol into their own operating system so it is not a separate entity any longer.

I will say this, Time Machine works flawlessly for me using a USB drive plugged into my Airport Extreme and has saved my ass exactly thrice at this point. I love it. I'd suggest weeding out the variables and finding the root cause instead of coming here and saying it doesn't work, then ignoring all the suggestions you've received.

 

[leman]

Supported protocols
CIFS/SMB, NFS, FTP, AFP

So, my MyCloud actually is a supported device for Time Machine. And hence, it SHOULD work under El Capitan.

From the same Apple document you quoted "Both your Mac and the networked backup disk should have OS X v10.5.6 or later". AFP is a proprietary protocol, so whatever WD is using is a reverse-engineered implementation. And TM is using some further extensions to the AFP protocol. Don't get me wrong, of course a reverse-engineered implementation can be as good (or better) as the original, but if something goes wrong, I'd first suspect the copy and not the source to be at fault.

P.S. But there is progress though! I distinctly remember arbitrary network volumes not being supported by Apple previously. Nice to see they have lifted this restriction. So yes, I gladly admit that my information was outdated

 

[lockerc18]

That's not what I meant. I have literally no reason to research YOUR problems. It's your job to do so. I'm not pretending the problem doesn't exist, I'm just saying that I, myself, never heard of the problem, which means that it's not as common as you think it is.

No, it just means that you don't know about it. Because you "have literally no reason to research YOUR problems." Yet you have reason to criticize my diagnostic techniques. Perhaps I should post the 4000+ lines of the console log which got created during the last failed backup I did, so you could see for yourself how Time Machine wanders around in the weeds. But, then, you'd have no reason to actually read them, would you?

 

[simonsi]

• Network volumes connected using Apple File Protocol (AFP)

Note that last bullet.

Now, from the Western Digital site:

http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/UM/ENG/4779-705103.pdf

Supported protocols
CIFS/SMB, NFS, FTP, AFP

So, my MyCloud actually is a supported device for Time Machine. And hence, it SHOULD work under El Capitan.

Nope, surprised your experience in Enterprise Backup doesn't tell you that WD's implementation of AFP may be incomplete/lacking, only if Apple state that WD AFP is supported, or the drives are explicitely supported would Apple Support exist. Other than that yopu are being hopeful and trusting BUT if you get any problems your recourse is to WD (who stated they comply with AFP), not Apple (who haven't stated that WD comply with AFP).

Your final comment of "should" is correct but at odds with your claim of "supported by Apple", but it is fundamentally incorrect as the drives are not stated as supported, only the AFP protocol. Clearly and obviously those statements are not of equal value.

Enterprise environments are complex, sometimes you have to walk and chew gum.

 

[lockerc18]

Nope, surprised your experience in Enterprise Backup doesn't tell you that WD's implementation of AFP may be incomplete/lacking, only if Apple state that WD AFP is supported, or the drives are explicitely supported would Apple Support exist. Other than that yopu are being hopeful and trusting BUT if you get any problems your recourse is to WD (who stated they comply with AFP), not Apple (who haven't stated that WD comply with AFP).

Your final comment of "should" is correct but at odds with your claim of "supported by Apple", but it is fundamentally incorrect as the drives are not stated as supported, only the AFP protocol. Clearly and obviously those statements are not of equal value.

Enterprise environments are complex, sometimes you have to walk and chew gum.

"WD's implementation of AFP may be incomplete/lacking".

Or, it may be completely functional, because WD worked closely with Apple to make sure it worked. If you knew anything about how large companies work with partners, you'd know how logical this perspective is. It is to both their benefits to make sure things work properly. As opposed to your perspective, which is based on supposition and what "may" be.

"Your final comment of "should" is correct but at odds with your claim of "supported by Apple" "

Not at all. The pairing of WD devices with El Captian darn well should work. And, in my case, they did, up until I installed El Capitan. What other interpretation would you, in your robust and comprehensive experience, make?

You mock my experience in enterprise backup / restore. Tell me, when was the last time you worked in a data center with over 7,500 servers of all types to build out a consistent environment for backup and restore across them all? Oh, never? I see.

 

[lockerc18]

From the same Apple document you quoted "Both your Mac and the networked backup disk should have OS X v10.5.6 or later". AFP is a proprietary protocol, so whatever WD is using is a reverse-engineered implementation. And TM is using some further extensions to the AFP protocol. Don't get me wrong, of course a reverse-engineered implementation can be as good (or better) as the original, but if something goes wrong, I'd first suspect the copy and not the source to be at fault.

P.S. But there is progress though! I distinctly remember arbitrary network volumes not being supported by Apple previously. Nice to see they have lifted this restriction. So yes, I gladly admit that my information was outdated

"AFP is a proprietary protocol"

Well, perhaps. But I don't believe it's true that WD reverse engineered it. There still needs to be an API defined for it so that it can be used generally. See

https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Networking/Reference/AFP_Reference/

 

[simonsi]

"WD's implementation of AFP may be incomplete/lacking".

Or, it may be completely functional, because WD worked closely with Apple to make sure it worked. If you knew anything about how large companies work with partners, you'd know how logical this perspective is. It is to both their benefits to make sure things work properly. As opposed to your perspective, which is based on supposition and what "may" be.

"Your final comment of "should" is correct but at odds with your claim of "supported by Apple" "

Not at all. The pairing of WD devices with El Captian darn well should work. And, in my case, they did, up until I installed El Capitan. What other interpretation would you, in your robust and comprehensive experience, make?

You mock my experience in enterprise backup / restore. Tell me, when was the last time you worked in a data center with over 7,500 servers of all types to build out a consistent environment for backup and restore across them all? Oh, never? I see.

I conclude that WD's implementation is partial or incomplete and they have tripped up over a part of the protocol EC uses. That is pretty much where 3rd party drivers/software/devices fail and why such software that worked in previous versions needs updating when the OS changes. You keep using "should" - that kind of proves my point, but the difference between "should" and "does" is WDs responsibility in all likelyhood, not Apple's.

Actually I work for an ISP in just such an environment. Before that I worked for Sun Microsystems and before that IBM, before that it was 1987. Do you really think you are the only person on these boards with experience of just such an environment...?

 

[ABC5S]

Mine is working just fine, but I know what I'm doing unlike...........

 

[Riwam]

If you aren't going to listen to anyone here, why are you even asking for advice?

*******
I don't understand the lever of violence found in this thread.
This forum is mainly used to seek for information and help if a problem affects any user.
A reasonable user does not proclaim that is problem is universal.
A reasonable answering/helping user does not ask "to shut up your mouth" even if he does not agree at all either with the formulation of the bug reporter or with the assumption that his problem is a general one.
Both, the bug suffering user and the answering/helping user are supposed to keep it as polite and friendly as possible.
Isn't that obvious ?

 

[Zetaprime]

Time machine is something I have seldom needed to use. Every once in a great while I need a file that I deleted. But I never had to use it to restore the whole system. I'm not sure it would even work and I hope I never have to find out. It's cumbersome enough to get a file or two out of it.

 

[fisherking]

*******
I don't understand the lever of violence found in this thread.
This forum is mainly used to seek for information and help if a problem affects any user.
A reasonable user does not proclaim that is problem is universal.
A reasonable answering/helping user does not ask "to shut up your mouth" even if he does not agree at all either with the formulation of the bug reporter or with the assumption that his problem is a general one.
Both, the bug suffering user and the answering/helping user are supposed to keep it as polite and friendly as possible.
Isn't that obvious ?

but...but...it's an internet forum! i think the OP set this in motion with his thread title; perhaps "a truly terrible experience" would have made more sense than "a truly terrible app". this thing that people do here; have an issue and decide that we ALL have the issue, is tiresome. but you're right: come here, get help (or help others). i try to remember that (and not get sidetracked by inane threads...which i do too often...)

 

[lockerc18]

Do you really think you are the only person on these boards with experience of just such an environment...?

Not at all. Perhaps I was overreacting to another poster here, and misinterpreted your opening line. My apologies.

 

[Zetaprime]

Not at all. Perhaps I was overreacting to another poster here, and misinterpreted your opening line. My apologies.

I never wrote the text that was quoted.

 

[lockerc18]

I never wrote the text that was quoted.

I know. I don't know why your ID came up in my reply, which is why I changed it to simonsi. I guess you still got notified, anyway.

 

[Laserducky]

"WD's implementation of AFP may be incomplete/lacking".

Or, it may be completely functional, because WD worked closely with Apple to make sure it worked. If you knew anything about how large companies work with partners, you'd know how logical this perspective is. It is to both their benefits to make sure things work properly. As opposed to your perspective, which is based on supposition and what "may" be.

"Your final comment of "should" is correct but at odds with your claim of "supported by Apple" "

Not at all. The pairing of WD devices with El Captian darn well should work. And, in my case, they did, up until I installed El Capitan. What other interpretation would you, in your robust and comprehensive experience, make?

You mock my experience in enterprise backup / restore. Tell me, when was the last time you worked in a data center with over 7,500 servers of all types to build out a consistent environment for backup and restore across them all? Oh, never? I see.

I understand that you are worked up over this issue but expressing your frustration here will sometimes attract certain types who will only want to add more wood to the fire.

Rather lean towards the plenty of good folks over here who are willing and able to offer you advice and suggestions on what to do next but I'm afraid that your frustration may actually drive such people away and defeat the purpose of your thread i.e. get the opinion of others.

I sincerely hope that your issue gets resolved sooner rather than later.

Cheers !

 

[leman]

On an unrelated note, once you work with a truly truly terrible backup system, like IBM's Tivoli Storage Manager, you'd learn to appreciate Time Machine

 

[ScottishDuck]

I don't agree. Mac support is all over the WD site, including the pages for my 2TB model. If Apple didn't support it, they couldn't do that. Check http://support.wdc.com/KnowledgeBase/answer.aspx?ID=3561 . It seems pretty clear, unless you have a link to specific Apple information to the contrary.

Feel free to point out where it says it supports OSX 10.11 cause I'm only seeing up to 10.10.x

If you were working in an enterprise environment you wouldn't be upgrading to windows 10 and the latest linux kernels before they were sufficiently hardened and bug checked, would you.

 

[Crazy Badger]

If you were working in an enterprise environment you wouldn't be upgrading to windows 10 and the latest linux kernels before they were sufficiently hardened and bug checked, would you.

If you were working in an enterprise environment, I can't imagine you'd be using a WD MyCloud 2 TB NAS at home

 

[lockerc18]

If you were working in an enterprise environment, I can't imagine you'd be using a WD MyCloud 2 TB NAS at home

Why is that?

 

[Riwam]

Time machine is something I have seldom needed to use. Every once in a great while I need a file that I deleted. But I never had to use it to restore the whole system. I'm not sure it would even work and I hope I never have to find out. It's cumbersome enough to get a file or two out of it.

*******
You might be right.
I also doubt the restoring ability of Time Machine for a whole system in spite that according to Apple that can be done through it.
In my case I was having too much trouble with the just upgraded 10.11, so I decided it was not yet the right moment for me to adopt it and I had better return to 10.10.
Time Machine did not help me at all in this procedure
Maybe the upgrade had confused it, I don't know.
I have no idea how Time Machine manages backups made with a certain OSX followed by a backup or two made under another OSX using always the same external HD for Time Machine.

Thanks God my bootable USB 3 clone drive made it possible for me to return without losing any application or file.
A friendly person showed me the thread in this forum which helped me to get my Recovery Partition back as well.
With all my respect to Time Machine (which is certainly a very good invention of Apple), in real life cloning the whole drive is still my most reliable backup tool
A bootable clone backup helps me sleep quietly although I still let Time Machine do its work in the background... who knows...
Ed