5 ms·

Could you elaborate on how Time Machine doesn't work? It's been pretty trouble free for me; other than taking a ridiculously long time for the initial backup w

Could you elaborate on how Time Machine doesn't work? It's been pretty trouble free for me; other than taking a ridiculously long time for the initial backup with no good indication of progress.

vetinari 7y ago
Simple: - make a backup, - have your Mac serviced; it will be returned wiped, - try to restore from your backup - and it fails. It won't tell you why it failed, only that it failed. The end.
- metafunctor 7y ago
  OK. I have done that, several times [x], and didn't run into any problems. I do wonder, though, what kind of integrity checks do Time Machine backups have. I've always treated TM as the first line of defence and, as such, it has worked well for me. However, in addition to TM, I have other offsite backups in the cloud for disaster recovery. x) I haven't had my macs serviced several times, but I have restored from backups a handful of times due to, ahem, accidentally rendering the system unbootable a couple of times.
  - vetinari 7y ago
    In my case, I did the TM backup specifically because my Mac was going to be serviced (display; so accessing data was not a problem). Otherwise, I don't use TM, I'm using another solution. It won't restore entire system and installed apps, just my files. So with TM, it was Murphy I guess.
    - sosborn 7y ago
      This is actually how I have TM set up. I ignore anything not in ~/Documents (or any other location with personal files). The other stuff is so easily replaceable that I'm not concerned if I lose it.
  - p_l 7y ago
    TimeMachine underneath is pretty much a fancier rbackup. There are no integrity checks, but there are checks for motherboard serial number, as that's how backups are matched to systems. That said, a friend of mine had been complaining that TimeMachine backup didn't backup anything of his Homebrew-installed stuff...
- LeoTinnitus 7y ago
  OMFG...This is one reason why I just started using freefilesync and just mirror my data instead of my whole drive. That way I just gotta have the hard drive and I'm set. Although it sucks cause I have to redownload every piece of software again.
- Jnr 7y ago
  If you use network storage for backups (AFP server) backup can get corrupted if the network goes down, and in most cases I have seen it is unable to recover and continue. You just have to delete the whole backup and start from scratch. This is why I use Vorta (Borg GUI) on macOS instead.
- throwaway55554 7y ago
  you missed a step. - verify backup. Goes right after make a backup. Edit: I must say, when I have to send my machine in, I backup using TM, but I also image my drive.
addicted44 7y ago
Time Machine at least used to have a ton of reliability problems. I'm hoping that it's improved recently which I suspect would happen especially after Apple switched to AppleFS. Time Machine on HFS+ was basically hacks extending hacks extending hacks extending HFS.
- selectodude 7y ago
  Time Machine is still on HFS+.

Could you elaborate on how Time Machine doesn't work? It's been pretty trouble free for me; other than taking a ridiculously long time for the initial backup with no good indication of progress.

vetinari 7y ago

Simple: - make a backup, - have your Mac serviced; it will be returned wiped, - try to restore from your backup - and it fails. It won't tell you why it failed, only that it failed. The end.

metafunctor 7y ago
OK. I have done that, several times [x], and didn't run into any problems. I do wonder, though, what kind of integrity checks do Time Machine backups have. I've always treated TM as the first line of defence and, as such, it has worked well for me. However, in addition to TM, I have other offsite backups in the cloud for disaster recovery. x) I haven't had my macs serviced several times, but I have restored from backups a handful of times due to, ahem, accidentally rendering the system unbootable a couple of times.
- vetinari 7y ago
  In my case, I did the TM backup specifically because my Mac was going to be serviced (display; so accessing data was not a problem). Otherwise, I don't use TM, I'm using another solution. It won't restore entire system and installed apps, just my files. So with TM, it was Murphy I guess.
  - sosborn 7y ago
    This is actually how I have TM set up. I ignore anything not in ~/Documents (or any other location with personal files). The other stuff is so easily replaceable that I'm not concerned if I lose it.
- p_l 7y ago
  TimeMachine underneath is pretty much a fancier rbackup. There are no integrity checks, but there are checks for motherboard serial number, as that's how backups are matched to systems. That said, a friend of mine had been complaining that TimeMachine backup didn't backup anything of his Homebrew-installed stuff...
LeoTinnitus 7y ago
OMFG...This is one reason why I just started using freefilesync and just mirror my data instead of my whole drive. That way I just gotta have the hard drive and I'm set. Although it sucks cause I have to redownload every piece of software again.
Jnr 7y ago
If you use network storage for backups (AFP server) backup can get corrupted if the network goes down, and in most cases I have seen it is unable to recover and continue. You just have to delete the whole backup and start from scratch. This is why I use Vorta (Borg GUI) on macOS instead.
throwaway55554 7y ago
you missed a step. - verify backup. Goes right after make a backup. Edit: I must say, when I have to send my machine in, I backup using TM, but I also image my drive.

addicted44 7y ago

Time Machine at least used to have a ton of reliability problems. I'm hoping that it's improved recently which I suspect would happen especially after Apple switched to AppleFS. Time Machine on HFS+ was basically hacks extending hacks extending hacks extending HFS.

selectodude 7y ago
Time Machine is still on HFS+.