6 ms·

Time Machine is held in high regard for some reason (maybe the fancy scrolling interface when you look for files to restore?) but it's not really useable. It pr

Time Machine is held in high regard for some reason (maybe the fancy scrolling interface when you look for files to restore?) but it's not really useable. It pretends that backups-over-the-network are a possibility but its completely unstable over the network and invariably decides the backup is corrupt after a few months and then tells you you have to start from scratch.

dijit 8mo ago
idk, works for me. On the extremely rare occasion I have to replace my laptop, I literally just point it to the backup on the network with the cable plugged in, and an hour later it's "my laptop" again.
Wowfunhappy 8mo ago
> maybe the fancy scrolling interface when you look for files to restore? That's why I like it. Some of the visual flare is of course superfluous, but the timeline really is nice. It's like git except it works without me having to think about it. (To be clear, git is much better, but I have to think about it.)
ezfe 8mo ago
When backing up to a local system it is extremely useable and reliable. It creates separate snapshot volumes for each backup and can be navigated in the Finder interface or using the fancy space interface. Also, backups over the network are possible and have worked well for me for a few years.
- atombender 8mo ago
  It's reliable except when it's not. I'm using Mojave, and currently fighting a bug where a local snapshot gets stuck. When I list the local snapshots, I see the old one, then a gap of several days, and then additional snapshots. From what I can tell, this snapshot is preventing space reclamation. The last month or so, I've constantly run out of disk space even when not doing anything special. As in actually run out of disk space — apps start to become unresponsive or crash, and I get warning boxes about low disk space. When you run low, the OS is supposed to reclaim the space used by snapshots, but I guess it doesn't happen, The stuck snapshot can't be deleted with tmutil. I get a generic "failed to delete" error. The snapshot is actually mounted by the backup daemon, but unmount also fails. The only solution I've found is to reboot. Then I get 200-300GB back and the cycle starts again, with snapshots getting stuck again. I'm considering updating to Tahoe just because there's a chance they fixed it in that release.
  - jtbayly 8mo ago
    I doubt it. Good luck. I think I have the same problem on Tahoe.
  - ezfe 8mo ago
    Mojave is 7 years old so I think its safe to say you can't generalize
    - atombender 8mo ago
      I meant Sequoia, but I can't edit my comment anymore. I've completely lost track of the OS releases after they stopped emphasizing the number.
      - ezfe 8mo ago
        Ah, gotcha - never mind then.
crazygringo 8mo ago
Agreed, exactly matches my experience over SMB. It works at first, then eventually refuses to work until you delete it start again from scratch. Eventually I just gave up.
- re5i5tor 8mo ago
  Exactly right.
al_borland 8mo ago
I think because it is probably one of the only backup solutions (or first) that went after the average user to get them to actually backup. Plug a USB drive in, click yes to the prompt, and they’re done. It has its flaws, but any system is better than no system at all, which is usually the trade off that would be made.
Aurornis 8mo ago
> Time Machine is held in high regard for some reason (maybe the fancy scrolling interface when you look for files to restore?) There was a time in the past when Time Machine was reliable and well-designed. It made backups into a nice experience that were accessible to everyone. If your only experience with Time Machine is the modern incarnation with all of the flaws and seemingly missing QA process then I understand how its popularity would be confusing.
- josephg 8mo ago
  That tells a story. I bet its something like this: 1. There was a small, smart team which made time machine in the first place. They did good work. Building time machine required some pretty deep integrations into macos that not many people understood. 2. Years passed. The people who built time machine moved to greener pastures. At google and samsung you mostly get promoted for releasing new products. Not maintaining old ones. I wouldn't be surprised if its the same at apple. Over time, the people who made time machine left and were either replaced by more junior developers. Or weren't really replaced at all. 3. Random changes in the kernel break time machine regularly. Nobody is in charge of noticing breakage, or fixing it. Most people who care (and have the knowledge to fix it) have moved on. I find things like this so odd from an organisational management perspective. Do companies not realise that features like time machine would have an ongoing maintenance cost? That someone would need to check that time machine still works with every release? Or is it just vibe based management out there? "I guess nobody works on that, and we don't test it. Oops whatever."
  - nine_k 8mo ago
    Every new manager who inherits a reputable product (anything, from software to food) is tempted by the idea of cutting costs drastically to the detriment of the product quality. While the product would be coasting on its prior reputation, the manager would get promoted for saving oodles of money, and promoted away from that product, or leave the company altogether. The one who comes next would take the blame, and handle the consequences. I assume many managers resist this temptation, but someone yields with regularity.
- 8mo ago
garyrob 8mo ago
With external SSDs plugged directly into a USB port, it's worked 100% fine for me and saved my butt a few times. But, I haven't installed Tahoe. I may skip it entirely, hoping that they do a Snow Leopard-like clean-up-the-mess release in September.
thedanbob 8mo ago
I finally got fed up with TM and switched to borg via Vorta. So much more reliable. A couple of times I've gotten error messages when I went off network while it was trying to do a backup, but each time the repo was fine.

dijit 8mo ago

idk, works for me. On the extremely rare occasion I have to replace my laptop, I literally just point it to the backup on the network with the cable plugged in, and an hour later it's "my laptop" again.

Wowfunhappy 8mo ago

> maybe the fancy scrolling interface when you look for files to restore? That's why I like it. Some of the visual flare is of course superfluous, but the timeline really is nice. It's like git except it works without me having to think about it. (To be clear, git is much better, but I have to think about it.)

ezfe 8mo ago

When backing up to a local system it is extremely useable and reliable. It creates separate snapshot volumes for each backup and can be navigated in the Finder interface or using the fancy space interface. Also, backups over the network are possible and have worked well for me for a few years.

atombender 8mo ago
It's reliable except when it's not. I'm using Mojave, and currently fighting a bug where a local snapshot gets stuck. When I list the local snapshots, I see the old one, then a gap of several days, and then additional snapshots. From what I can tell, this snapshot is preventing space reclamation. The last month or so, I've constantly run out of disk space even when not doing anything special. As in actually run out of disk space — apps start to become unresponsive or crash, and I get warning boxes about low disk space. When you run low, the OS is supposed to reclaim the space used by snapshots, but I guess it doesn't happen, The stuck snapshot can't be deleted with tmutil. I get a generic "failed to delete" error. The snapshot is actually mounted by the backup daemon, but unmount also fails. The only solution I've found is to reboot. Then I get 200-300GB back and the cycle starts again, with snapshots getting stuck again. I'm considering updating to Tahoe just because there's a chance they fixed it in that release.
- jtbayly 8mo ago
  I doubt it. Good luck. I think I have the same problem on Tahoe.
- ezfe 8mo ago
  Mojave is 7 years old so I think its safe to say you can't generalize
  - atombender 8mo ago
    I meant Sequoia, but I can't edit my comment anymore. I've completely lost track of the OS releases after they stopped emphasizing the number.
    - ezfe 8mo ago
      Ah, gotcha - never mind then.

crazygringo 8mo ago

Agreed, exactly matches my experience over SMB. It works at first, then eventually refuses to work until you delete it start again from scratch. Eventually I just gave up.

re5i5tor 8mo ago
Exactly right.

al_borland 8mo ago

I think because it is probably one of the only backup solutions (or first) that went after the average user to get them to actually backup. Plug a USB drive in, click yes to the prompt, and they’re done. It has its flaws, but any system is better than no system at all, which is usually the trade off that would be made.

Aurornis 8mo ago

> Time Machine is held in high regard for some reason (maybe the fancy scrolling interface when you look for files to restore?) There was a time in the past when Time Machine was reliable and well-designed. It made backups into a nice experience that were accessible to everyone. If your only experience with Time Machine is the modern incarnation with all of the flaws and seemingly missing QA process then I understand how its popularity would be confusing.

josephg 8mo ago
That tells a story. I bet its something like this: 1. There was a small, smart team which made time machine in the first place. They did good work. Building time machine required some pretty deep integrations into macos that not many people understood. 2. Years passed. The people who built time machine moved to greener pastures. At google and samsung you mostly get promoted for releasing new products. Not maintaining old ones. I wouldn't be surprised if its the same at apple. Over time, the people who made time machine left and were either replaced by more junior developers. Or weren't really replaced at all. 3. Random changes in the kernel break time machine regularly. Nobody is in charge of noticing breakage, or fixing it. Most people who care (and have the knowledge to fix it) have moved on. I find things like this so odd from an organisational management perspective. Do companies not realise that features like time machine would have an ongoing maintenance cost? That someone would need to check that time machine still works with every release? Or is it just vibe based management out there? "I guess nobody works on that, and we don't test it. Oops whatever."
- nine_k 8mo ago
  Every new manager who inherits a reputable product (anything, from software to food) is tempted by the idea of cutting costs drastically to the detriment of the product quality. While the product would be coasting on its prior reputation, the manager would get promoted for saving oodles of money, and promoted away from that product, or leave the company altogether. The one who comes next would take the blame, and handle the consequences. I assume many managers resist this temptation, but someone yields with regularity.
8mo ago

garyrob 8mo ago

With external SSDs plugged directly into a USB port, it's worked 100% fine for me and saved my butt a few times. But, I haven't installed Tahoe. I may skip it entirely, hoping that they do a Snow Leopard-like clean-up-the-mess release in September.

thedanbob 8mo ago

I finally got fed up with TM and switched to borg via Vorta. So much more reliable. A couple of times I've gotten error messages when I went off network while it was trying to do a backup, but each time the repo was fine.