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.
What alternative to Time Machine do you use?
- Thread starter rmwebs
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I started using Crashplan to get an online backup, next to the TM backup.
But with Crashplan you can also backup from one machine to another or to an external drive. So I'm now considering to stop using TM and to use only Crashplan.
Using Crashplan only on your own network disks is free, so you can easily test this out. You only have to pay for the online backup but that also comes with more flexibility on how to set the backups.
The main reason to prefer Crashplan for me is because the online backup allows for file access at any location you need something. And because a local backup will be destroyed in case of theft or fire. So in principle you need a copy at a complete other location.
For the rest the interface delivered by Crashplan to restore a file is more user friendly then the options from TM. Crashplan also makes an incremental backup so you can restore by selecting from a set of previous backupped versions of that particular file.
But with Crashplan you can also backup from one machine to another or to an external drive. So I'm now considering to stop using TM and to use only Crashplan.
Using Crashplan only on your own network disks is free, so you can easily test this out. You only have to pay for the online backup but that also comes with more flexibility on how to set the backups.
The main reason to prefer Crashplan for me is because the online backup allows for file access at any location you need something. And because a local backup will be destroyed in case of theft or fire. So in principle you need a copy at a complete other location.
For the rest the interface delivered by Crashplan to restore a file is more user friendly then the options from TM. Crashplan also makes an incremental backup so you can restore by selecting from a set of previous backupped versions of that particular file.
It never hurts to have multiple backups and multiple approaches. If Crashplan is your sole backup, restoring your system from a disk failure will be a long and tedious task. Keep TM or a cloned drive backup around just for this.
(I use Crashplan, TM, and cloned disks.)
Time machine is crap!
I bought an Apple Time Capsule last summer and have been backing up my MacBook Air since then using Time Machine. Until last weekend this approach worked flawlessly and the ability to easily get old versions of a file has been very useful (it has saved me from accidental deletes 3-4 times). However, earlier this week the Time Machine database got corrupted. This is *completely* unacceptable for a backup solution. In fact, I'm outraged that Apple hasn't deviced a more fault tolerant backup solution. No way that I'm going back to Time Machine after this - one failure is one too many for a backup solution!!!
Previously (when on Linux), I used manual rsync which has always worked flawlessly and the backup cannot get corrupted unless the disk fails. I'm now investigating moving over to some sort of incremental rsync based approach.
I bought an Apple Time Capsule last summer and have been backing up my MacBook Air since then using Time Machine. Until last weekend this approach worked flawlessly and the ability to easily get old versions of a file has been very useful (it has saved me from accidental deletes 3-4 times). However, earlier this week the Time Machine database got corrupted. This is *completely* unacceptable for a backup solution. In fact, I'm outraged that Apple hasn't deviced a more fault tolerant backup solution. No way that I'm going back to Time Machine after this - one failure is one too many for a backup solution!!!
Previously (when on Linux), I used manual rsync which has always worked flawlessly and the backup cannot get corrupted unless the disk fails. I'm now investigating moving over to some sort of incremental rsync based approach.
