10 ms·

If I read the article correctly, Time Machine's switching to something similar to overlay FS, but nested? I really hope they get it right: backup is where my to

If I read the article correctly, Time Machine's switching to something similar to overlay FS, but nested? I really hope they get it right: backup is where my tolerance for bugs is really low. APFS already supports volume snapshots but not (I think) snapshot send / receive, à la zfs & btrfs. I thought that would be the logical next step. If Apple do add this or similar feature, would Time Machine have to switch its backing store yet again? I've been generally happy with Time Machine's stability, but this is getting me a little worried. I guess now's a good time to looking into Arq (or similar) to replace my janky secondary backup scripts...

justAnotherNET 6y ago
Meanwhile I can’t believe Apple went to the trouble of an entirely new FS without implementing BTRFS style block-level checksums. The number of data corruption issues this could have prevented by now are too high to count. Not to mention there is a direct monetary incentive for Apple to do so, as it slightly inflates storage requirements at the cost of safety (and apple commonly stratifies their products by storage capacity). It’s 2020, we need ECC RAM and block level checksums for all new platforms going forward.
- pram 6y ago
  DDR5 has ECC, so at least that is happening soon.
  - AnonHP 6y ago
    I looked up DDR5 on Wikipedia, but it seems like ECC is just an option, which I understand was an option with previous generations too (at a much higher cost). Please elaborate on the ECC part, especially if manufacturers have committed to making only ECC versions.
    - pram 6y ago
      DDR5 standard has on-die ECC, it's not optional.
citruspi 6y ago
> I've been generally happy with Time Machine's stability, but this is getting me a little worried. For the longest time, I backed up my MacBooks with Time Machine to a NAS. Seemed to work fine - Time Machine was successful and I was able to browse previous versions on the machine being backed up without an issue (browse history of machine A on machine A). Then one day I was planning to wipe a MacBook and do a clean install - figured I'd confirm I could browse my backups made on machine A on machine B before I wiped A. I spent over an hour attempting to open the sparse bundle (w/ Time Machine and manually) and just couldn't do it - kept loading forever or giving me errors about volume verification among other things[0]. > I guess now's a good time to looking into Arq (or similar) Like you, I decided to take a look at alternatives. I'd previously played around with Arq (v5) and it looked awesome - stable, well-documented, etc. Well, by the time I actually needed an alternative to Time Machine, Arq had released v6 - earlier this year[1]. Unfortunately it appeared to be bug-prone (not great for backups!) and lacked ANY documentation (one of the great things about v5 was the in-depth documentation, particularly around backup format). Users on the subreddit[2] weren't thrilled and you can't purchase v5 licenses (and TBH I wouldn't recommend purchasing software that isn't supported anymore). Within the last week or two, Arq has released a second major version within a year - v7[3]. Feedback appears to be better, and the author has acknowledged mistakes, but TBH I'm wary. Definitely not adopting two-week old software as my primary method for backing up. I've been playing around with Carbon Copy Cloner[4] more recently. The ideal goal would be bootable backups to a disk image hosted remotely but that doesn't appear to be possible[5] - so I'm resigning myself to file-based instead - no bootable disk image, but at least I'm a little more confident in my backups? And a single "file" (or image) becoming corrupt doesn't blow away the rest of my backup ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If anyone has any suggestions or ideas, I'm all ears. Edit: Probably worth noting that in this case machine A was running 10.14 (and HFS) and machine B 10.15 (and APFS) - but I'd imagine 10.15 should be able to open a 10.14 HFS sparse bundle without an issue. [0] https://pastebin.com/Le6Q407e https://pastebin.com/Le6Q407e [1] https://www.arqbackup.com/blog/arq-6-more-power-more-security-more-storage-savings/ https://www.arqbackup.com/blog/arq-6-more-power-more-securit... [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/Arqbackup/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Arqbackup/ [3] https://www.arqbackup.com/blog/next-up-arq-7/ https://www.arqbackup.com/blog/next-up-arq-7/ [4] https://bombich.com/ https://bombich.com/ [5] https://bombich.com/kb/ccc5/i-want-back-up-my-whole-mac-time-capsule-nas-or-other-network-volume https://bombich.com/kb/ccc5/i-want-back-up-my-whole-mac-time...
gumby 6y ago
I really like TM as well, and find it quite useful. It’s like incremental backup on steroids. But I don’t feel it replaces a “snapshot” backup system.
- RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u 6y ago
  By snapshot I mean filesystem snapshots as implemented by zfs and btrfs. So functionally they're snapshots, but space usage wise they're incremental backups.
  - rsync 6y ago
    Actually it's sort of halfway between ... Which is to say, a block-based snapshot is very efficient - your snapshots only take up the space of the blocks that have changed - regardless of which files those blocks make up. A hard-link based snapshot scheme is also fairly efficient for most use-cases - the snapshot only uses space equal to the files that have changed - even if those files only changed a little bit. For most use-cases, I find the difference is negligible. However, if you have large files that change by small amounts, a block based scheme (a la zfs) is much more efficient.
- Scapeghost 6y ago
  Yes I don't think you can/should rely on TM only. It's convenient to keep running in the background but you'll still want to do manual backups to multiple places (external disks, Dropbox, Github etc)
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    Manual backups fall by the wayside in every environment I’ve seen them used. You are a better person than me and those are me. I’m a big fan of backblaze for this reason. As an aside, I’m surround by people who consider cloud syncing to be a backup, and just yesterday witnessed someone in the grief stage when they deleted a load of photos to save space because they thought they would remain in the cloud. They had even clicked through the “delete delete? Are you sure?”.
chrislund 6y ago
FYI: I've used Arq for nearly a decade and have loved it, but the latest version, 6—which was something like a complete refactor IIRC—seems to be riddled with bugs (including, I think, data loss) and the support experience has not been good (both being deviations from normal). I'm not up-to-date on the whole saga but it's been disheartening to watch. I'm sticking with 5 for now. I just Googled around and it looks like a v7 is in beta testing and reports are that it's better than 6...
- markkanof 6y ago
  Could you elaborate on the data loss bugs. I recently had to restore from an Arq 6 based backup and ran into some issues where it seemed like if the screen saver started during the restore it would just stop restoring but would not give any error. I was able to get all my data back by disabling the screen saver, but seemed very strange.
  - chrislund 6y ago
    Not trying to peddle hearsay, but with just some cursory Googling I can't pull up any citations. IIRC there were several complaints of data loss in the ArqBackup subreddit [0], I think mostly around botched Arq 5 imports (Arq 6 uses a new format and perhaps data was lost in conversions gone awry). Michael Tsai has a good summary of the situation that he wrote when Arq 6 was just out, and echos my recollection of issues with data loss [1]. [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/Arqbackup/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Arqbackup/ [1] https://mjtsai.com/blog/2020/04/13/arq-6/ https://mjtsai.com/blog/2020/04/13/arq-6/
- incanus77 6y ago
  I'm holding steady on v5 to Backblaze as the v6 migration path was promised post-v6 release, in June, and still hasn't appeared. And it also appears that support responsiveness has gotten worse. I run backups on three Macs every 48 hours, then once a month or so I will use Carbon Copy Cloner to clone the two more important ones to sparse image files on a backup hard drive which is physically secured afterwards.
  - 6y ago
scottlamb 6y ago
> If I read the article correctly, Time Machine's switching to something similar to overlay FS, but nested? I really hope they get it right: backup is where my tolerance for bugs is really low. ... I've been generally happy with Time Machine's stability, but this is getting me a little worried. I agree backups are important to get right. I'm not as confident as you are in Time Machine today. I've gotten this message a few times: > Time Machine completed a verification of your backups on "nas.<mydomain>". To improve reliability, Time Machine must create a new backup for you. which I'd paraphrase as "oops, we corrupted your backup. try again maybe?"
- RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u 6y ago
  Yeah, my "solution" to that problem is to backup to a zfs NAS, and through shitty^Wclever scripting, create a snapshot after each successful backup. If TM backup fails for any reason, I roll back on the NAS end and start again.
  - pfranz 6y ago
    I have a nightly snapshot and do the same if there's an issue. To be fair, I've only ever hit these "verification" errors when I manually mounted and mucked around with the backup and a backup started at the same time--all over the network. I've never had this issue when using an external hard drive connected via USB and I've never had it happen when I wasn't mucking with it. For awhile I was able to "fix" these errors by running diskutil and resetting the state (my Time Machine server was a flaky Raspberry Pi at the time). All in all, it is concerning when you "lose" your backup no matter the circumstances.
    - scottlamb 6y ago
      In my case, the NAS is a Synology server. I don't know how to determine authoritatively where the fault lies, but I trust it more than I trust Time Machine. (Although I am using btrfs on that volume so maybe it's a wash.) I'm sure I've disconnected my Mac from my Thunderbolt dock (and thus the active NIC) and/or put my Mac to sleep mid-backup many times, though. This is something that I would like it to be robust to but may be "the problem". Interesting idea to reset the state. I think I can take snapshots with Synology. I'm unsure how to manage the details though: * I let Time Machine starts backups automatically whenever it pleases. Does it have a hook to run a command to take a snapshot? * Does it do the verification every time, or (say) 1 in 10? If the latter, going back to the most recent snapshot isn't enough. And if you do say 3 backups then get rid of #3, can it take incremental #4 on top of #2, or will it complain that the #3 state it expects is absent? I really should just set up a different backup system. I do at least have Google Drive sync on most everything important. It's not a "real" backup as another poster pointed out, but it's better than nothing.
SkyMarshal 6y ago
>If I read the article correctly, Time Machine's switching to something similar to overlay FS, but nested? I really hope they get it right: backup is where my tolerance for bugs is really low. Turn off automatic updates and only update the OS just before the next one is released. Stay one OS version behind current one, giving time for the bugs to get worked out.
- nly 6y ago
  This is a good strategy for all but a handful of proven and/or trivial programs. In the last week I've: - Upgraded directly from Mojave 10.14.6 to 10.15.7 (went smoothly) - Considered migrating from Visual Studio 2017 (15.9) to 2019 (16.7), but have not yet done so. - Refused to upgrade the proprietary firmware on my wifi AP's. The manufacturer has provided no changelog and does not provide a download link for the current firmware to enable a downgrade if it goes south. I'm a software developer.
  - csunbird 6y ago
    > Refused to upgrade the proprietary firmware on my wifi AP's. The manufacturer has provided no changelog and does not provide a download link for the current firmware to enable a downgrade if it goes south. That is a luxury. My cable modem updated itself automatically to include a bloated asp server for modem interface and the modem crashes regularly, because it can not handle the load of the asp server on top of 4 devices connected to it. Plus, they added a "Community Wifi" to share my already crappy connecting with strangers, overloading the modem even more.
DavidSJ 6y ago
As a public service announcement, I recently discovered that, since OS X 10.9 Mavericks (released 2013), Time Machine's backup of keychains is completely broken for anyone who does not use iCloud Keychain. This bug is actually so completely unacceptable that it was hard for me to believe when I encountered it, but anyone can easily verify this for themself. In particular, your account's Local Items keychain, which is used by Safari and some other Apple applications to store passwords, is encrypted in such a way that it can only be restored onto the exact same machine — knowing the user's password is insufficient. Thus, if your machine is lost, stolen, or damaged, a restore from Time Machine backup will not properly restore your keychain. Nor will the keychain properly migrate to another machine using Migration Assistant (luckily, this is how I discovered this behavior). There is no warning of this behavior in any documentation, and no workaround whatsoever except to use a different browser or password manager, or to manually store all passwords yourself separately in the Login (rather than Local Items) keychain. There's also no way to export the items in the the Local Items keychain except manually copying them to another keychain, during which you must enter your password one-by-one for each copied item (people have written some AppleScripts to automate this, e.g. https://gist.github.com/rmondello/b933231b1fcc83a7db0b https://gist.github.com/rmondello/b933231b1fcc83a7db0b). If you use iCloud Keychain, then the Local Items keychain is just a machine-local cache of the iCloud data, which is fine, I guess. But this behavior is just dangerously broken if you do not use iCloud for this purpose. Some more information on this issue: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/data-migration-local-keychain-passwords-not-appearing.1905840/ https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/data-migration-local-ke... https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/142123/extract-passwords-from-local-items-keychain-files https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/142123/extract-pas... https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/137250/export-keychains https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/137250/export-keyc... https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/how-do-i-copy-the-local-items-keychain-over-to-a-new-mac.2097731/ https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/how-do-i-copy-the-local...
- ksec 6y ago
  So basically Time Capsule backup is useless if you want to buy a new Mac? I now use the password generation and Keychain Password manager so much I dont even know any password of my online account. How is that acceptable and not widely known?
PostThisTooFast 6y ago
Isn't Time Machine known to be critically flawed, corrupting backups as the backup volume starts to become full?

justAnotherNET 6y ago

Meanwhile I can’t believe Apple went to the trouble of an entirely new FS without implementing BTRFS style block-level checksums. The number of data corruption issues this could have prevented by now are too high to count. Not to mention there is a direct monetary incentive for Apple to do so, as it slightly inflates storage requirements at the cost of safety (and apple commonly stratifies their products by storage capacity). It’s 2020, we need ECC RAM and block level checksums for all new platforms going forward.

pram 6y ago
DDR5 has ECC, so at least that is happening soon.
- AnonHP 6y ago
  I looked up DDR5 on Wikipedia, but it seems like ECC is just an option, which I understand was an option with previous generations too (at a much higher cost). Please elaborate on the ECC part, especially if manufacturers have committed to making only ECC versions.
  - pram 6y ago
    DDR5 standard has on-die ECC, it's not optional.

citruspi 6y ago

> I've been generally happy with Time Machine's stability, but this is getting me a little worried. For the longest time, I backed up my MacBooks with Time Machine to a NAS. Seemed to work fine - Time Machine was successful and I was able to browse previous versions on the machine being backed up without an issue (browse history of machine A on machine A). Then one day I was planning to wipe a MacBook and do a clean install - figured I'd confirm I could browse my backups made on machine A on machine B before I wiped A. I spent over an hour attempting to open the sparse bundle (w/ Time Machine and manually) and just couldn't do it - kept loading forever or giving me errors about volume verification among other things[0]. > I guess now's a good time to looking into Arq (or similar) Like you, I decided to take a look at alternatives. I'd previously played around with Arq (v5) and it looked awesome - stable, well-documented, etc. Well, by the time I actually needed an alternative to Time Machine, Arq had released v6 - earlier this year[1]. Unfortunately it appeared to be bug-prone (not great for backups!) and lacked ANY documentation (one of the great things about v5 was the in-depth documentation, particularly around backup format). Users on the subreddit[2] weren't thrilled and you can't purchase v5 licenses (and TBH I wouldn't recommend purchasing software that isn't supported anymore). Within the last week or two, Arq has released a second major version within a year - v7[3]. Feedback appears to be better, and the author has acknowledged mistakes, but TBH I'm wary. Definitely not adopting two-week old software as my primary method for backing up. I've been playing around with Carbon Copy Cloner[4] more recently. The ideal goal would be bootable backups to a disk image hosted remotely but that doesn't appear to be possible[5] - so I'm resigning myself to file-based instead - no bootable disk image, but at least I'm a little more confident in my backups? And a single "file" (or image) becoming corrupt doesn't blow away the rest of my backup ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If anyone has any suggestions or ideas, I'm all ears. Edit: Probably worth noting that in this case machine A was running 10.14 (and HFS) and machine B 10.15 (and APFS) - but I'd imagine 10.15 should be able to open a 10.14 HFS sparse bundle without an issue. [0] https://pastebin.com/Le6Q407e https://pastebin.com/Le6Q407e [1] https://www.arqbackup.com/blog/arq-6-more-power-more-security-more-storage-savings/ https://www.arqbackup.com/blog/arq-6-more-power-more-securit... [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/Arqbackup/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Arqbackup/ [3] https://www.arqbackup.com/blog/next-up-arq-7/ https://www.arqbackup.com/blog/next-up-arq-7/ [4] https://bombich.com/ https://bombich.com/ [5] https://bombich.com/kb/ccc5/i-want-back-up-my-whole-mac-time-capsule-nas-or-other-network-volume https://bombich.com/kb/ccc5/i-want-back-up-my-whole-mac-time...

gumby 6y ago

I really like TM as well, and find it quite useful. It’s like incremental backup on steroids. But I don’t feel it replaces a “snapshot” backup system.

RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u 6y ago
By snapshot I mean filesystem snapshots as implemented by zfs and btrfs. So functionally they're snapshots, but space usage wise they're incremental backups.
- rsync 6y ago
  Actually it's sort of halfway between ... Which is to say, a block-based snapshot is very efficient - your snapshots only take up the space of the blocks that have changed - regardless of which files those blocks make up. A hard-link based snapshot scheme is also fairly efficient for most use-cases - the snapshot only uses space equal to the files that have changed - even if those files only changed a little bit. For most use-cases, I find the difference is negligible. However, if you have large files that change by small amounts, a block based scheme (a la zfs) is much more efficient.
Scapeghost 6y ago
Yes I don't think you can/should rely on TM only. It's convenient to keep running in the background but you'll still want to do manual backups to multiple places (external disks, Dropbox, Github etc)
- lostlogin 6y ago
  Manual backups fall by the wayside in every environment I’ve seen them used. You are a better person than me and those are me. I’m a big fan of backblaze for this reason. As an aside, I’m surround by people who consider cloud syncing to be a backup, and just yesterday witnessed someone in the grief stage when they deleted a load of photos to save space because they thought they would remain in the cloud. They had even clicked through the “delete delete? Are you sure?”.

chrislund 6y ago

FYI: I've used Arq for nearly a decade and have loved it, but the latest version, 6—which was something like a complete refactor IIRC—seems to be riddled with bugs (including, I think, data loss) and the support experience has not been good (both being deviations from normal). I'm not up-to-date on the whole saga but it's been disheartening to watch. I'm sticking with 5 for now. I just Googled around and it looks like a v7 is in beta testing and reports are that it's better than 6...

markkanof 6y ago
Could you elaborate on the data loss bugs. I recently had to restore from an Arq 6 based backup and ran into some issues where it seemed like if the screen saver started during the restore it would just stop restoring but would not give any error. I was able to get all my data back by disabling the screen saver, but seemed very strange.
- chrislund 6y ago
  Not trying to peddle hearsay, but with just some cursory Googling I can't pull up any citations. IIRC there were several complaints of data loss in the ArqBackup subreddit [0], I think mostly around botched Arq 5 imports (Arq 6 uses a new format and perhaps data was lost in conversions gone awry). Michael Tsai has a good summary of the situation that he wrote when Arq 6 was just out, and echos my recollection of issues with data loss [1]. [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/Arqbackup/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Arqbackup/ [1] https://mjtsai.com/blog/2020/04/13/arq-6/ https://mjtsai.com/blog/2020/04/13/arq-6/
incanus77 6y ago
I'm holding steady on v5 to Backblaze as the v6 migration path was promised post-v6 release, in June, and still hasn't appeared. And it also appears that support responsiveness has gotten worse. I run backups on three Macs every 48 hours, then once a month or so I will use Carbon Copy Cloner to clone the two more important ones to sparse image files on a backup hard drive which is physically secured afterwards.
- 6y ago

scottlamb 6y ago

> If I read the article correctly, Time Machine's switching to something similar to overlay FS, but nested? I really hope they get it right: backup is where my tolerance for bugs is really low. ... I've been generally happy with Time Machine's stability, but this is getting me a little worried. I agree backups are important to get right. I'm not as confident as you are in Time Machine today. I've gotten this message a few times: > Time Machine completed a verification of your backups on "nas.<mydomain>". To improve reliability, Time Machine must create a new backup for you. which I'd paraphrase as "oops, we corrupted your backup. try again maybe?"

RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u 6y ago
Yeah, my "solution" to that problem is to backup to a zfs NAS, and through shitty^Wclever scripting, create a snapshot after each successful backup. If TM backup fails for any reason, I roll back on the NAS end and start again.
- pfranz 6y ago
  I have a nightly snapshot and do the same if there's an issue. To be fair, I've only ever hit these "verification" errors when I manually mounted and mucked around with the backup and a backup started at the same time--all over the network. I've never had this issue when using an external hard drive connected via USB and I've never had it happen when I wasn't mucking with it. For awhile I was able to "fix" these errors by running diskutil and resetting the state (my Time Machine server was a flaky Raspberry Pi at the time). All in all, it is concerning when you "lose" your backup no matter the circumstances.
  - scottlamb 6y ago
    In my case, the NAS is a Synology server. I don't know how to determine authoritatively where the fault lies, but I trust it more than I trust Time Machine. (Although I am using btrfs on that volume so maybe it's a wash.) I'm sure I've disconnected my Mac from my Thunderbolt dock (and thus the active NIC) and/or put my Mac to sleep mid-backup many times, though. This is something that I would like it to be robust to but may be "the problem". Interesting idea to reset the state. I think I can take snapshots with Synology. I'm unsure how to manage the details though: * I let Time Machine starts backups automatically whenever it pleases. Does it have a hook to run a command to take a snapshot? * Does it do the verification every time, or (say) 1 in 10? If the latter, going back to the most recent snapshot isn't enough. And if you do say 3 backups then get rid of #3, can it take incremental #4 on top of #2, or will it complain that the #3 state it expects is absent? I really should just set up a different backup system. I do at least have Google Drive sync on most everything important. It's not a "real" backup as another poster pointed out, but it's better than nothing.

SkyMarshal 6y ago

>If I read the article correctly, Time Machine's switching to something similar to overlay FS, but nested? I really hope they get it right: backup is where my tolerance for bugs is really low. Turn off automatic updates and only update the OS just before the next one is released. Stay one OS version behind current one, giving time for the bugs to get worked out.

nly 6y ago
This is a good strategy for all but a handful of proven and/or trivial programs. In the last week I've: - Upgraded directly from Mojave 10.14.6 to 10.15.7 (went smoothly) - Considered migrating from Visual Studio 2017 (15.9) to 2019 (16.7), but have not yet done so. - Refused to upgrade the proprietary firmware on my wifi AP's. The manufacturer has provided no changelog and does not provide a download link for the current firmware to enable a downgrade if it goes south. I'm a software developer.
- csunbird 6y ago
  > Refused to upgrade the proprietary firmware on my wifi AP's. The manufacturer has provided no changelog and does not provide a download link for the current firmware to enable a downgrade if it goes south. That is a luxury. My cable modem updated itself automatically to include a bloated asp server for modem interface and the modem crashes regularly, because it can not handle the load of the asp server on top of 4 devices connected to it. Plus, they added a "Community Wifi" to share my already crappy connecting with strangers, overloading the modem even more.

DavidSJ 6y ago

As a public service announcement, I recently discovered that, since OS X 10.9 Mavericks (released 2013), Time Machine's backup of keychains is completely broken for anyone who does not use iCloud Keychain. This bug is actually so completely unacceptable that it was hard for me to believe when I encountered it, but anyone can easily verify this for themself. In particular, your account's Local Items keychain, which is used by Safari and some other Apple applications to store passwords, is encrypted in such a way that it can only be restored onto the exact same machine — knowing the user's password is insufficient. Thus, if your machine is lost, stolen, or damaged, a restore from Time Machine backup will not properly restore your keychain. Nor will the keychain properly migrate to another machine using Migration Assistant (luckily, this is how I discovered this behavior). There is no warning of this behavior in any documentation, and no workaround whatsoever except to use a different browser or password manager, or to manually store all passwords yourself separately in the Login (rather than Local Items) keychain. There's also no way to export the items in the the Local Items keychain except manually copying them to another keychain, during which you must enter your password one-by-one for each copied item (people have written some AppleScripts to automate this, e.g. https://gist.github.com/rmondello/b933231b1fcc83a7db0b https://gist.github.com/rmondello/b933231b1fcc83a7db0b). If you use iCloud Keychain, then the Local Items keychain is just a machine-local cache of the iCloud data, which is fine, I guess. But this behavior is just dangerously broken if you do not use iCloud for this purpose. Some more information on this issue: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/data-migration-local-keychain-passwords-not-appearing.1905840/ https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/data-migration-local-ke... https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/142123/extract-passwords-from-local-items-keychain-files https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/142123/extract-pas... https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/137250/export-keychains https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/137250/export-keyc... https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/how-do-i-copy-the-local-items-keychain-over-to-a-new-mac.2097731/ https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/how-do-i-copy-the-local...

ksec 6y ago
So basically Time Capsule backup is useless if you want to buy a new Mac? I now use the password generation and Keychain Password manager so much I dont even know any password of my online account. How is that acceptable and not widely known?

PostThisTooFast 6y ago

Isn't Time Machine known to be critically flawed, corrupting backups as the backup volume starts to become full?