timemachine kicks ass

[Goosemaster]

damn.

it actually works for system files

nice


<--NEVER EVER thought he'd use it

 

[Kaido]

I'm still waiting for NAS support...I've got AFP setup on my server, but I want official support, no hacks that may get screwed up when I update or actually need a backup. Plus I don't want to contaminate my desk layout with a backup hard drive (Mac Mini + Fake Bonsai Tree ftw!).

 

[kamper]

I've heard lots of advertisement about how it acts under normal circumstances, like you delete a file or something and just want it back, but I'm curious how well it acts when it really counts like when your laptop gets stolen or your hard drive dies. I assume you need another mac with leopard on it (or were they smart enough to use a relatively standard file system and a comprehensible archiving format?). What's your recovery scenario when you do plug the backup into another mac?

 

[TheStu]

The files are immediately accessible, even without the TimeMachine app. However, for the situation that you outlined, you would probably be better off with a combination of SuperDuper and TimeMachine.

 

[kamper]

Meh, if I wasn't going to use time machine, I'd go with rsync or something similar. But you're saying that time machine isn't really geared to be a disaster recovery solution? That would be kind of a let down. I've never deleted files by accident and if I want versions, I use a versioning system like svn. The only real value I'd see in it is as a built-in, no-brains backup. But, if it does let you get at the files fairly easily without the computer that made the backup, it seems like it would do the trick.

 

[Goosemaster]

The only real value I'd see in it is as a built-in, no-brains backup.

basically.


kamper, it is basically a unattended versioning system which is really nice in some respects.

my only issue is actually an oversight on my part in terms of what I expected. It is a versioning system that you do not control and seems to backup about once every hour. While that is nice for careless folk, if you are editing a file feverishly, don't expect some sort of volume-shadow level of versioning; basically, it seems like a selective and more technically-up to date version of system restore in terms of its utility. What would be nice, despite the disc-intensive nature of it, would be a faster versioning system or setting for specific directories such as document directories.

Basically, I just do versioning on my own as well for website revisions, desktop publishing, etc (copy the entire working directory and rename for state change)

As for the resultant file structure, it is really well organized with timestamps and such. You can use their time machine utility, or just pull stuff right out using the finder as I did.

Finally, because it is backing up everything, you can do an entire restore since it backs up EVERYTHING, but you will need the OS X install discs which isn't so bad.



In the end it is a nice solution for us who as lazy fools but it does not make up for a repo etc

 

[kamper]

That sounds kind of nice. The bit about it being that cleanly accessible without the time machine app is really what I was looking for. Simplicity is very important for disaster recovery because it's something you don't want to mess up

So I guess they keep copies for every revision eh? I would have expected diffs of some sort to save space. Here's another question: can you pick and choose what you want backed up? For instance, I'd exclude everything by default and just do my music, movies, code, documents and pictures. Most of that stuff doesn't change very frequently so that should cut down on the amount of work in the background and the space used. If I lost my drive, I'd want to start clean again and just bring in the plain data (not settings and all the random crap I have lying around).

Maybe I should just get Leopard and find out for myself. Thanks for answering my questions so far

 

[dclive]

Kamper - yes you can choose to exclude. It reminds me a lot of Windows Home Server's backup functionality.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: kamper
That sounds kind of nice. The bit about it being that cleanly accessible without the time machine app is really what I was looking for. Simplicity is very important for disaster recovery because it's something you don't want to mess up

So I guess they keep copies for every revision eh? I would have expected diffs of some sort to save space. Here's another question: can you pick and choose what you want backed up? For instance, I'd exclude everything by default and just do my music, movies, code, documents and pictures. Most of that stuff doesn't change very frequently so that should cut down on the amount of work in the background and the space used. If I lost my drive, I'd want to start clean again and just bring in the plain data (not settings and all the random crap I have lying around).

Maybe I should just get Leopard and find out for myself. Thanks for answering my questions so far

Originally posted by: dclive
Kamper - yes you can choose to exclude.

Kamper, for the most part dictating exclusions is the ONLY level of configuration that Time machine will give you

As for the versioning, it uses a mix of actual and symbolic links, so it is in truth a differential backup. If you choose to use a Filevault setup (home directory encryption) then yes, it uses snapshots and requires a LOT of space.

Is basically a very effective and accessible backup in that it relies on lightweight differential analysis an symbolic links, and as a result of nice planning, results in a very nice versioning-system approach to recovery.

It is of course not the first thing to comes to mind when you think of versioning however


Basically, it is to be used for DR or at most hourly data recovery, but that is the extent of its utility

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: kamper
I've heard lots of advertisement about how it acts under normal circumstances, like you delete a file or something and just want it back, but I'm curious how well it acts when it really counts like when your laptop gets stolen or your hard drive dies. I assume you need another mac with leopard on it (or were they smart enough to use a relatively standard file system and a comprehensible archiving format?). What's your recovery scenario when you do plug the backup into another mac?

i think you can restore your system using the os install disc with a time machine option, atleast thats what i remember hearing.

and yea it allows exclusions because, if you are just changing the header on a giant video file and such you don't want that to bog down with backup and stuff.

 

[0roo0roo]

http://www.macosxhints.com/art...tory=20071025021604930
" 10.5: Ease restore from Time Machine
Fri, Oct 26 '07 at 7:30AM PDT ? Submitted by Louije System 10.5
Time Machine backups are not bootable and require the Install DVD to serve as a restore. And you don't always have that disk handy. So just partition your Time Machine backup drive and copy the Install DVD to the first partition! This way, your data and the way to restore it stay together. "

 

[dclive]

^^Smart. Only takes a few gigs; with modern 500GB HDDs being $99, it's a cheap price for the convenience.

 

[kamper]

Well, ideally I don't want to even need a mac to get my files back. You can't boot from the dvd image on the backup disk can you? I mean without burning it to a dvd.

 

[TheStu]

You could boot from teh image if you do it correctly, but unless you have a mac, it won't install, and the installer is pretty limited in what it can do.

If your system totally dies on you, you can hook the external up to a Windows box, install MacDrive, and you can navigate through the files no problem.

 

[Eug]

I don't think it's a good idea to have your primary backup and your secondary backup on the same physical drive.

I personally will have a bootable backup drive (eg. cloned with Disk Utility or Carbon Copy Cloner), plus a Time Machine drive.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: Eug
I don't think it's a good idea to have your primary backup and your secondary backup on the same physical drive.

I personally will have a bootable backup drive (eg. cloned with Disk Utility or Carbon Copy Cloner), plus a Time Machine drive.

I don't think that anybody was suggesting that, but you are right

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Eug
I don't think it's a good idea to have your primary backup and your secondary backup on the same physical drive.

I personally will have a bootable backup drive (eg. cloned with Disk Utility or Carbon Copy Cloner), plus a Time Machine drive.

I thought that's what everyone was using

internal + external (time machine)

 

[dclive]

People are suggesting the following:
Internal drive with your data (no time machine)
external drive with 2 partitions - 8GB partition with copy of Leopard DVD on it, bootable, plus the remainder with the Time Machine backup data on it.

That way if the internal ever dies, you can boot the internal and restore your data, quickly and easily, no DVD required.

 

[kamper]

I think it would be better if you could do the backup onto a relatively standard filesystem, like ext2 or something. I gather that the linux kernel has some hfs+ support though, so at least the stuff would be readable. Time Machine over nfs would be sweet too, so you could really use any kind of backup system you wanted. I wonder if that would work...

I'm thinking backing hfs+ up to a case sensitive file system should be fine (as opposed to backing up a case sensitive file system to hfs+ which could be disastrous).

 

[dclive]

Then how would you mount those shares from a Leopard boot DVD? Think of the questions Apple would need to field.... easier to simply do it via local USB and HFS+ for V1.0.

That said, I wish they'd added at least the ability to write to a DMG file on an SMB/CIFS share, if not directly to SMB/CIFS plainfiles.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: kamper
I think it would be better if you could do the backup onto a relatively standard filesystem, like ext2 or something. I gather that the linux kernel has some hfs+ support though, so at least the stuff would be readable. Time Machine over nfs would be sweet too, so you could really use any kind of backup system you wanted. I wonder if that would work...

I'm thinking backing hfs+ up to a case sensitive file system should be fine (as opposed to backing up a case sensitive file system to hfs+ which could be disastrous).

right now there is a hack (backup hack LOL) that will add network share to the list of time machine volumes

I just wish I could have it save regularly to my local firewire drive and then periodically to my NAS

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: dclive
Then how would you mount those shares from a Leopard boot DVD? Think of the questions Apple would need to field.... easier to simply do it via local USB and HFS+ for V1.0.

Well, in theory it should be able to back up to any location in the file system with minimal added complexity. That's the entire idea of the unix filesystem layout. Also, the whole point of backing up over the network is so that I don't have to get another Leopard install running to get my files back.

That said, I wish they'd added at least the ability to write to a DMG file on an SMB/CIFS share, if not directly to SMB/CIFS plainfiles.

So why smb but not nfs?

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
right now there is a hack (backup hack LOL) that will add network share to the list of time machine volumes

Heh

I just wish I could have it save regularly to my local firewire drive and then periodically to my NAS

Ideally, but I guess you can only ask so much of a tool that's supposed to make it simple for the average Joe, especially on its first release. What would be interesting is if they let it be scripted (maybe via Automator?) so that you could make it do anything you want.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: dclive
Then how would you mount those shares from a Leopard boot DVD? Think of the questions Apple would need to field.... easier to simply do it via local USB and HFS+ for V1.0.

Well, in theory it should be able to back up to any location in the file system with minimal added complexity. That's the entire idea of the unix filesystem layout. Also, the whole point of backing up over the network is so that I don't have to get another Leopard install running to get my files back.

That said, I wish they'd added at least the ability to write to a DMG file on an SMB/CIFS share, if not directly to SMB/CIFS plainfiles.

So why smb but not nfs?

Perhaps you don't understand what I'm saying - they won't support it due to the additional complexity of getting it working and supporting clueless users who are now dead in the water and need to NFS mount or SMB mount a remote filesystem, and are getting angrier and angier at Apple tech support by the minute as they try to figure out how to do the above. It's much easier to say "Hook up your USB drive, then try again."

I have nothing against NFS mounts.

 

[Goosemaster]

Strangely enough, I tried moving the data over and it seems that you have to do a block-level move (from what I've read online) to move it over :laugh:

The thing is my TM drive is also used for storage which makes it even stranger. if and when I choose to backup to SMB/CIFS shares, I ask myself, will this data be transplantable once I upgrade HDs etc. I am using LVM but my question still stands