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 is the difference between backup using Time Machine vs using one of the apps of Synology DSM?
- Thread starter hajime
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Time machine is pretty universal in the Mac world, in that it's really easy, on any Mac to recover a file, a batch of files, or the whole backup with ease. I have a Synology too, and have that set up as a time machine target too.
I don’t know what’s “best,” but I’ve used Time Machine with my Synology for over a year, and it works very well. It backs itself up at least once a day and I never even think about it. The initial backup takes a very long time but just leave it alone for overnight or a day and it will finish it.
The Synology is in a RAID, plus it backs itself up to an attached USB drive daily ad it’s in a UPS, because we frequently lose power here.
There’s a YouTube channel called SpaceRex that’s got a lot of Synology videos, including step by step Time Machine to Synology backup. Highly recommend it.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I don't really think of one as "better" or you would need to qualify what you mean as "better." I use both DAS (HDDs) and Synology myself.
DAS is typically right next to the Mac, so if I leaned only on that and there was fire/flood/theft that took out the Mac, it would take out that DAS drive too. Synology is relatively distant from Mac (a different room) and the unit itself is high on a shelf so the flood would have to be higher to get to it too. If there is fire such that I couldn't grab the Mac or DAS in the evacuation, maybe I could grab the Synology (or vice versa). I would consider that "better."
There are multiple Macs in my household all using both Synology and DAS for backups. Synology requires no plugging anything in like the DAS options. It basically "just works." The DAS drives have to be attached... and then often unattached for mobile Macs. So the "don't even think about it" simplicity of only having to be in the same wifi/ethernet zone makes the Synology option "better" because it requires no "attach it" step.
macOS since Big Sur seems to have this broad problem of "unexpected eject"ion of DAS. Not all drives won't stay attached and some people report they have no problem at all. However, there are plenty with this problem and it affects DAS TM drives too. I experience this problem myself. While I've had some but not all of my DAS drives "unexpectedly eject", that hasn't seemed to happen with the Synology... probably because of the nature of how it connects as NAS instead of DAS. It very well may be "unexpectedly ejecting" too but as a NAS, it handles it better than DAS drives. So I consider THAT "better."
Synology being a RAID device means I could allocate multiple drives to TM space if I wanted, creating a gigantic TM backup archive if desired. The more storage TM has, the further "back in time" one can go when they need to do so. Generally a DAS drive used for TM is hard capped at the size of 1-2 drives inside. I consider the flexibility of storage size to be "better" in Synology.
Again Synology being a RAID device means that if a drive conks, it can be replaced, the system rebuilds the backup space and is back to normal use. In a DAS, when the storage conks, it's likely a full replacement, backup-from-scratch on the new drive scenario. I consider the backup of backups (via the nature of RAID) "better" too.
On the other hand, if I need a full backup from scratch- which is semi-regular after a few of those "unexpected ejections"- DAS tends to do a large TM backup FASTER than Synology. So in a gauge of speed of a first-time backup, DAS is "better."
In the event that something wiped out the Synology completely in an unrecoverable way- which hasn't ever happened to me- all of those TM backups for all household Macs would probably be lost and replacing them with a new Synology or using new dedicated DAS drives would involve recreating all of them from scratch. Advantage DAS, where you could lose any one DAS drive and the other Macs using their own DAS drives would still have their full TM backups.
If I had a reason to need to take my TM drive with me- maybe an extended trip where I wanted to have TM backups- the much more portable DAS drive would be much easier to carry along than the relative behemoth Synology 12-bay I have. That's pretty much an Apples to Oranges comparison in both physical size and weight.
Lastly, a good backup strategy to fully protect against fire/flood/theft is going to have one recent TM (or similar) backup completely OFFSITE... at a location beyond the reach of the fire/flood/theft. So along with my Synology TM in the same home as my Macs + PC to be backed up, I also utilize TWO more DAS drives on my main Mac: one backing up to TM ever other hour (Synology TM gets the in-between backup slots) and the other being a relatively recent backup. In my case, every 30 days, I swap the OFFSITE DAS to become the ONSITE DAS, and then the former ONSITE is now the one stored OFFSITE (in a bank safe deposit box miles from my home).
Very worst case scenario for me is full fire/flood/theft that takes out everything at home on the approx 29th day of swapping OFFSITE with ONSITE DAS. It is worst case because recovery from the OFFSITE would not include the last 30 days of freshest/newest files in a recovery sequence. However, my own remedy for this is to keep my main desktop Mac synched to my main laptop Mac so most-to-all of the current files are on the laptop too... which is at least a partial backup of the main system itself. When I'm away from home, the flood/fire/theft scenarios have their best chances of occurring in up to a fully devastating way... but that laptop is just about always with me. So my worst case it not even really that bad.
The points here is the word "better" leaves a lot of room to interpretation AND you should not really be thinking in binary terms anyway. Instead of trying to pick ONE single best backup option, you should think of 2 and maybe 3. In my case, that is Synology and DAS and one more DAS recently backed up and stored safely OFFSITE.
Others would suggest diversifying from trusting only TM and have another full backup with CCC or SuperDuper backups too.
And if you have a collection of files you consider long-term, unchanging files- such as a collection of home movies or photographs, etc- perhaps backup long-term files like that to their own drive that you just leave offsite for upwards of years at time.
NO backup option is great when you have only ONE that is stored WITH the same device(s) you are backing up. Fire/flood/theft will likely take BOTH main storage and backup in that scenario. You need at least one more beyond the reach of fire/flood/thieves. Thus, thinking "better" to pick one "best" is not really ideal. Instead, think what combination would work great for me? If you already have a Synology, use it for TM. It works great. But also use another option that can get- and keep- at least one recent TM backup safely OFFSITE too. Your chances of recovery of you data in about any terrible scenario go up dramatically when you have multiple (recent) backups... with at least one of them stored OFFSITE.
DAS is typically right next to the Mac, so if I leaned only on that and there was fire/flood/theft that took out the Mac, it would take out that DAS drive too. Synology is relatively distant from Mac (a different room) and the unit itself is high on a shelf so the flood would have to be higher to get to it too. If there is fire such that I couldn't grab the Mac or DAS in the evacuation, maybe I could grab the Synology (or vice versa). I would consider that "better."
There are multiple Macs in my household all using both Synology and DAS for backups. Synology requires no plugging anything in like the DAS options. It basically "just works." The DAS drives have to be attached... and then often unattached for mobile Macs. So the "don't even think about it" simplicity of only having to be in the same wifi/ethernet zone makes the Synology option "better" because it requires no "attach it" step.
macOS since Big Sur seems to have this broad problem of "unexpected eject"ion of DAS. Not all drives won't stay attached and some people report they have no problem at all. However, there are plenty with this problem and it affects DAS TM drives too. I experience this problem myself. While I've had some but not all of my DAS drives "unexpectedly eject", that hasn't seemed to happen with the Synology... probably because of the nature of how it connects as NAS instead of DAS. It very well may be "unexpectedly ejecting" too but as a NAS, it handles it better than DAS drives. So I consider THAT "better."
Synology being a RAID device means I could allocate multiple drives to TM space if I wanted, creating a gigantic TM backup archive if desired. The more storage TM has, the further "back in time" one can go when they need to do so. Generally a DAS drive used for TM is hard capped at the size of 1-2 drives inside. I consider the flexibility of storage size to be "better" in Synology.
Again Synology being a RAID device means that if a drive conks, it can be replaced, the system rebuilds the backup space and is back to normal use. In a DAS, when the storage conks, it's likely a full replacement, backup-from-scratch on the new drive scenario. I consider the backup of backups (via the nature of RAID) "better" too.
On the other hand, if I need a full backup from scratch- which is semi-regular after a few of those "unexpected ejections"- DAS tends to do a large TM backup FASTER than Synology. So in a gauge of speed of a first-time backup, DAS is "better."
In the event that something wiped out the Synology completely in an unrecoverable way- which hasn't ever happened to me- all of those TM backups for all household Macs would probably be lost and replacing them with a new Synology or using new dedicated DAS drives would involve recreating all of them from scratch. Advantage DAS, where you could lose any one DAS drive and the other Macs using their own DAS drives would still have their full TM backups.
If I had a reason to need to take my TM drive with me- maybe an extended trip where I wanted to have TM backups- the much more portable DAS drive would be much easier to carry along than the relative behemoth Synology 12-bay I have. That's pretty much an Apples to Oranges comparison in both physical size and weight.
Lastly, a good backup strategy to fully protect against fire/flood/theft is going to have one recent TM (or similar) backup completely OFFSITE... at a location beyond the reach of the fire/flood/theft. So along with my Synology TM in the same home as my Macs + PC to be backed up, I also utilize TWO more DAS drives on my main Mac: one backing up to TM ever other hour (Synology TM gets the in-between backup slots) and the other being a relatively recent backup. In my case, every 30 days, I swap the OFFSITE DAS to become the ONSITE DAS, and then the former ONSITE is now the one stored OFFSITE (in a bank safe deposit box miles from my home).
Very worst case scenario for me is full fire/flood/theft that takes out everything at home on the approx 29th day of swapping OFFSITE with ONSITE DAS. It is worst case because recovery from the OFFSITE would not include the last 30 days of freshest/newest files in a recovery sequence. However, my own remedy for this is to keep my main desktop Mac synched to my main laptop Mac so most-to-all of the current files are on the laptop too... which is at least a partial backup of the main system itself. When I'm away from home, the flood/fire/theft scenarios have their best chances of occurring in up to a fully devastating way... but that laptop is just about always with me. So my worst case it not even really that bad.
The points here is the word "better" leaves a lot of room to interpretation AND you should not really be thinking in binary terms anyway. Instead of trying to pick ONE single best backup option, you should think of 2 and maybe 3. In my case, that is Synology and DAS and one more DAS recently backed up and stored safely OFFSITE.
Others would suggest diversifying from trusting only TM and have another full backup with CCC or SuperDuper backups too.
And if you have a collection of files you consider long-term, unchanging files- such as a collection of home movies or photographs, etc- perhaps backup long-term files like that to their own drive that you just leave offsite for upwards of years at time.
NO backup option is great when you have only ONE that is stored WITH the same device(s) you are backing up. Fire/flood/theft will likely take BOTH main storage and backup in that scenario. You need at least one more beyond the reach of fire/flood/thieves. Thus, thinking "better" to pick one "best" is not really ideal. Instead, think what combination would work great for me? If you already have a Synology, use it for TM. It works great. But also use another option that can get- and keep- at least one recent TM backup safely OFFSITE too. Your chances of recovery of you data in about any terrible scenario go up dramatically when you have multiple (recent) backups... with at least one of them stored OFFSITE.
Last edited:
So your Mac is abducted by space aliens or explodes and is gone, then you buy a new one. The Apple setup software has an option that reads "Setup using Time Machine Disk". There is no "Setup from some 3rd party backup system" option so you would be one your own and it would take longer.
The setup using TM disk is also very good in that it restores EVERYTHING, including preference settings. It makes the new Mac work like the old Mac with about one click.
Also, Time Machine when it runs on the Mac is very efficient and can run unnoticed in the background. It is good at looking at the changed blocks in the APFS.
I actually use Time Machine to save the data to Synology NAS.
There is a good rule of thumb: You need to have the data on three different physical media and at two different geographic locations at all times (even while a backup operation is in progress). The Synology only "counts" as one physical media, even if it has five drives installed. So you need to do more
I use TM to both local USB disk and Synology and also use an off-site cloud backup service. In addition I have and older "j" model Synolgy that is only used backup the actively used Synology using Hyperbackup over night.
Last edited: