Topic: Is Time Machine sufficient for backup? (Read 6754 times)

Mark F · « **on:** April 14, 2009, 12:54:11 pm »

I run Leopard 10.5.6 and currently backup to a 1TB external drive using Time Machine. I plan to add a second 1TB drive that I will switch weekly, always keeping a drive off premises. I've read many posts here about backup and see that few rely on Time Machine alone, and am wondering why. If this isn't a safe way to backup, please tell me why.

Thanks.

JBerardi · « **Reply #1 on:** April 14, 2009, 04:59:40 pm »

As far as I know, Time Machine is as safe a way to backup as anything. It's got it's pros and it's cons though, and for a lot of people here the cons are significant. For one a lot of people are running Windows machines. For two, Time Machine really doesn't have any options; so if there's something about the default behavior of Time Machine that you don't like is or isn't compatible with the way you've got your system set up, you have no choice but to use another program. Finally it's worth noting that the need to backup ones files pre-dates Time Machine by about a million years, so a lot of people already had systems in place for handling backups that worked perfectly, and they don't have a reason to change.

Personally, I do use Time Machine, mostly because I like the way it integrates with the OS. If you like how it's been working for you, I'd say stick with it.

martinreed22 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 14, 2009, 05:01:40 pm »

Have a think about this (short) article as it applies to your needs:

http://www.techsuperpowers.com/node/445

Time Machine is a (useful) backup mechanism. It might also seem to be an archive, but it isn't really.

cheers, martin

Mark F · « **Reply #3 on:** April 15, 2009, 10:04:15 pm »

Thanks. With all the people using sophisticated RAID backup systems I was afraid that Time Machine might not be adequate. The only drawback that I see is that I really cannot access the files on the backup drive. That is, I must restore them to the main drive. It would be nice if I could simply take the external backup drive and simply plug it into another Mac running Leopard and be set to go.

francois · « **Reply #4 on:** April 16, 2009, 04:06:09 am »

Quote from: Mark F

Thanks. With all the people using sophisticated RAID backup systems I was afraid that Time Machine might not be adequate. The only drawback that I see is that I really cannot access the files on the backup drive. That is, I must restore them to the main drive. It would be nice if I could simply take the external backup drive and simply plug it into another Mac running Leopard and be set to go.

FWIW, I'm also using Time Machine and it works pretty well. I've heard horror stories about it but frankly, for me it works well. Sometimes, backups fail but subsequent BUs are done without any problem.
I don't rely on Time Machine only. I'm also doing full backups on other drives using Carbon Copy Cloner (www.bombich.com). This way, I always have off-site backups. I'm also using online backups via remote servers. I might be paranoid but I know that - with compputers - you can loose precious time and $$$ in a split second.

tcphoto · « **Reply #5 on:** April 16, 2009, 10:24:00 am »

I find Time Machine to be quite reliable but I also do back ups on two other externals specifically for studio paperwork, RAW files and edited images.

luong · « **Reply #6 on:** April 16, 2009, 02:04:53 pm »

A few weeks ago, I had some OS-related issues. The tech at Apple suggested that I reinstall the OS from scratch, and then restore my data and applications from the Time Machine backup. While my user files were apparently restored properly, several configuration files were not, leaving many custom applications broken.

I was glad that, I do not rely solely on Time Machine, but instead clone my system drive using Carbon Copy Cloner.

On the other hand, for a drive that contains just data, Time Machine would be probably adequate.

Mark F · « **Reply #7 on:** April 16, 2009, 10:25:59 pm »

OK, now I'm a little confused. Are you backing up to more than one drive using two different software packages, under the "belt and suspenders" principle? That is, you would do so even if Time Machine wasn't one of the backup software programs being used? Or to put it another way, would you be satisfied using Carbon Copy Cloner alone?

My assumption is that the software applications can be replaced, either with the existing CD's or replacement CD's. But my data (images and other) are irreplaceable, and must be backed up safely.

Josh-H · « **Reply #8 on:** April 16, 2009, 11:38:49 pm »

I will premise my reply and set-up by saying that the system I now use for back-up is as a direct result of having 3 hard drives all fail within the space of a single week late last year [$#@^&$^*! Maxtor Hard Drives!]. As a result of that failure I lost some data that was not replaceable. I learned a hard lesson.

Now.. I have a Mac Pro with 4 x 1TB drives in it. 3 of those drives are in a apple hardware RAID 5 configuration [these drives store my primary photo library] and the 4th drive is a time machine of the RAID 5. I also have an external 2 x 1TB Hard drive USB2 box in a RAID 1 configuration that backs up the mac pros hard drives every night at midnight. I then take two copies of the whole thing once a month and store one in my fire safe and one off site.

Later this year I am going to add an X-Serve in RAID to the mix for added storage.

I dont believe Time Machine is sufficient - thats based on my experience anyway - and it certainly doesnt provide enough back up for me. A lot depends on how mission critical your data is.

Better safe than sorry though.

luong · « **Reply #9 on:** April 17, 2009, 03:36:38 am »

Quote from: Mark F

OK, now I'm a little confused. Are you backing up to more than one drive using two different software packages, under the "belt and suspenders" principle? That is, you would do so even if Time Machine wasn't one of the backup software programs being used? Or to put it another way, would you be satisfied using Carbon Copy Cloner alone?

My assumption is that the software applications can be replaced, either with the existing CD's or replacement CD's. But my data (images and other) are irreplaceable, and must be backed up safely.

CCC and TM have different (complementary) functions.

CCC provides a reliable copy of the system drive, but it is quite slow.

TM provides well-automated and frequent snapshots of a selected number of drives (typically working drives), but in my experience it can backup reliably only data.

To confuse you further, I also use a third software for backup, Synchronize X :-) Synchronize X is faster than CCC and has a nicer interface than both CCC and TM, that let you see what's going on: which files are copied, which ones are deleted, what is the progress.

Software applications cannot be replaced if you coded them yourself (what I mean by "custom applications"). They can represent more work than some sets of photos.

francois · « **Reply #10 on:** April 17, 2009, 05:13:55 am »

Quote from: Josh-H

…
I dont believe Time Machine is sufficient - thats based on my experience anyway - and it certainly doesnt provide enough back up for me. A lot depends on how mission critical your data is.
…

Exactly! Time machine is great and usually works very well but a good backup scheme involves backing up on multiple drives. You can then store them off-site.
Time Machine is not flexible at all so using different additional software is needed. Carbon Copy Cloner, Super Duper, Retrospect, Chrono Sync, etc... are possible solutions.

Hard drives are cheap and some of the above software is cheap or free (Carbon Copy Cloner). There's no reason to skimp on backup.

martinreed22 · « **Reply #11 on:** April 18, 2009, 08:02:53 am »

I'll throw one more option in to the pot - use an online backup service in addition.

I happen to use Carbonite, works for me and prices well if you need a lot of storage. Sure it takes a while to upload initially, but I treat it as one of my "what if the house burns down" option. Just for goodness sake don't use it as your only option, these guys can go out of business too.

This is in addition to Time Machine, CCC (onsite and offsite copies). Overkill? Not really, given the grief of losing my image library.

Regarding hard drive death: yes, they do die. Not often, but it happens - plan for it. There is also a suspicion that drives from the same batch/built around the same time are more prone to failing together. Sounds plausible. So I try to mix up my external drives (eg manufacturer). One can never be too paranoid

cheers, martin

luong · « **Reply #12 on:** April 19, 2009, 02:37:34 am »

Quote from: martinreed22

Regarding hard drive death: yes, they do die. Not often, but it happens - plan for it.

It will happen. So far I have had already half a dozen drives fail.

francois · « **Reply #13 on:** April 19, 2009, 08:46:18 am »

Quote from: luong

It will happen. So far I have had already half a dozen drives fail.

And always at the worst possible moment!

Mark F · « **Reply #14 on:** April 19, 2009, 09:05:31 pm »

It seems to me that many of the comments are geared towards hardware failures and not software failures. That is, Josh-H had several drives fail in the same week and it would not have mattered which backup software he had used. Same for Luong who has had multiple drive failures. Still, I may as well add a CCC backup to my life, both onsite and offsite.

Not in any way to minimize the importance of backing up, I still kind of smile to myself when I think of my thousands of slides that have not been backed up and are, of course, not replaceable. And I have never worried a fraction as much about them being lost, stolen or damaged as I do about my digital images. I'm not sure that this is progress.

mathogre · « **Reply #15 on:** May 03, 2009, 01:06:24 pm »

I've been using Time Machine from the time Leopard was released. Prior to that, I used the backup software that came with the .Mac (now MobileMe) service. I have an iMac with a 500G drive and, for TM, a 500G internal drive in an external case. My MacBook is similar but with 250G drives.

Prior to going Mac, I was running Linux and backing up using a routine I wrote, which used tar and gzip at its core.

I trust TM as a backup. It works, though its first months were, uh, "bumpy." Whenever I've needed to restore anything, I've had no problems. On times when I've needed to fully protect my hard drive, I've created a disk image with Disk Utility. Doing this you need to run DU from the installation DVD.

Author Topic: Is Time Machine sufficient for backup? (Read 6754 times)