Time machine for photo back ups?

[tommm]

Hi,

Just wondering if anyone has any experience of using Time machine to back up photo files? I'm currently using Chronosync (but Time machine for non photo stuff), which is great but was wondering if I could simplify things by using Time machine for everything. Files are all stored on an external hard drive and backed up to others.

Tanks for any feed back,

Tom

[Jeremy Roussak]

Hi,

Just wondering if anyone has any experience of using Time machine to back up photo files? I'm currently using Chronosync (but Time machine for non photo stuff), which is great but was wondering if I could simplify things by using Time machine for everything. Files are all stored on an external hard drive and backed up to others.

Tanks for any feed back,

Tom

I use both. I have a TM drive permanently connected, which backs up everything. At 0100 each morning, Chronosync wakes up and performs an off-site backup (to my father's iMac, in fact, about a mile away). I've recovered files from both backups (the remote before I had Time Machine working properly).

TM has the advantage of being hourly, so you never lose anything much, and allowing access to large numbers of old backups. I don't know if you could set up anything similar in Chronosync.

My solution would probably only work for low-volume backups. If I return from a trip with a few gigabytes of files (which, as an amateur snapper, I don't do very often) it can take a day or two to get the remote backup synchronised. I sometimes drop in and do it using my laptop and an ethernet connection.

FWIW, YMMV, PDSA, etc etc.

Jeremy

[tommm]

Thanks for the reply. I guess I'm wondering how easy / reliable it is to restore from a backed up copy of an external drive using time machine. Chronosync makes a straight copy of all the files and as such it is very easy to verify that they're all there ok and to do a straight swap with the original should anything go wrong. Time machine on the other hand makes  a database of your files, which has the advantage of being able to go back and find older copies of each file but I'm just wondering how easy / reliable it is to use should the original drive die completely. CAn you simply plug in the time machine drive and recreate a copy of the original? Or is it safer / simpler to stick with Chronosync which makes a straight copy.

Cheers,

Tom

[francois]

I', also using TM along with other applications to backup my photo files. I keep the TM hard drive connected all the time and keep off-site backups on different hard drives. I use NewerTech Voyager drive docking station (*) for the non-TM backups.


* http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/NewerTech/V...Hard_Drive_Dock

[Jeremy Roussak]

Thanks for the reply. I guess I'm wondering how easy / reliable it is to restore from a backed up copy of an external drive using time machine. Chronosync makes a straight copy of all the files and as such it is very easy to verify that they're all there ok and to do a straight swap with the original should anything go wrong. Time machine on the other hand makes  a database of your files, which has the advantage of being able to go back and find older copies of each file but I'm just wondering how easy / reliable it is to use should the original drive die completely. CAn you simply plug in the time machine drive and recreate a copy of the original? Or is it safer / simpler to stick with Chronosync which makes a straight copy.

Cheers,

Tom

That's a not uncommon misconception but it's wrong. TM uses some interesting features of the Unix filesystem: it doesn't make an independent database.

The first backup TM makes is a simple copy of the disk. Each update is another copy of the disk, with new copies of the changed files and hard links to the old ones. If you open your TM backup disk in Finder, you'll see a folder for each backup and what appears to be a whole copy of the backed-up disk in each folder. You can drag and drop to restore, if you want. The TM application gives a whizzy graphical interface to the process but that's all.

I don't think TM makes any distinction between internal and external drives as sources for backup.

I probably haven't explained this well, since I'm not sure I fully understand it myself. There's a reasonably good technical description of TM's methodology here.

Jeremy

[francois]

…
I don't think TM makes any distinction between internal and external drives as sources for backup.
…

This is correct. TM does backup a computer and all the drives connected to it.

[Jack Flesher]

This is correct. TM does backup a computer and all the drives connected to it.

By default it backs up all attached volumes, though in prefs you can choose to ignore any volume by adding it to the list.

[tommm]

So, would the following work ok: use time machine to keep an up to date back up of my main photo disk and then also use time machine to make a back up of this as a third off site copy? Or would I be better using Chronosync to make the third back up copy?

Cheers,

Tom

[Jeremy Roussak]

So, would the following work ok: use time machine to keep an up to date back up of my main photo disk and then also use time machine to make a back up of this as a third off site copy? Or would I be better using Chronosync to make the third back up copy?

Cheers,

Tom

Time Machine excludes its own backup disk from the backup list, to avoid infinite recursion! Your latter suggestion is similar to my habit and should work.

Jeremy

[jerryrock]

Time Machine does not make a complete bootable clone of your hard drive. Should your primary drive fail, Time Machine cannot restore your system without the use of the Mac OS install disk.

[francois]

So, would the following work ok: use time machine to keep an up to date back up of my main photo disk and then also use time machine to make a back up of this as a third off site copy? Or would I be better using Chronosync to make the third back up copy?

Cheers,

Tom

I would use both Time Machine and ChronoSync (or other utilities like Carbon Copy Cloner). TM would keep my hourly/daily backup and I would do complete backups using ChronoSync and keep these backups off-site.

As Jerry pointed out above, TM needs the Mac OS X install DVD to do a full bootable retore. Having two systems of backups is always preferable. TM can have hiccups, rarely but it has happened to me a couple of times.

[K.C.]

Time Machine does not make a complete bootable clone of your hard drive. Should your primary drive fail, Time Machine cannot restore your system without the use of the Mac OS install disk.

But that's the strength of a TM backup, not a disadvantage.

You boot from your original install DVD and the base OS components are used for a 'clean' install that your user account, prefs and files are added to.

TM backups are much smaller for that reason and restoring from them has been foolproof the dozen or so times I've done it.

[Chairman Bill]

I'm going to be adding a second back-up drive specifically for my photos. Recently, whilst searching for some photos not viewable in Aperture's library, I found a second Aperture file in my pictures folder. Clicking on it resulted in Aperture re-building the library, and re-setting Aperture to some earlier state, losing several albums & projects & a good number of changes to photos, such as returning them to an Aperture 2 Raw processed state. Having done a considerable amount of other work outside of photo-editing, I was reluctant to use TM & return to a pre-Aperture change state. I now have to back-up a whole load of work & then use TM to get Aperture back together. A seperate drive with copies of picture files would be easier I think. Unless TM somehow allows a selective return to a previous state, and I don't think it does, I'm not going to rely on it as my back-up for photos from now on.

[francois]

I'm going to be adding a second back-up drive specifically for my photos.
…
 A seperate drive with copies of picture files would be easier I think. Unless TM somehow allows a selective return to a previous state, and I don't think it does, I'm not going to rely on it as my back-up for photos from now on.

This is a good choice. Time Machine is a nice system but having a second drive, especially for photos, is the way to go. Libraries like the one Aperture (or Lightroom) uses can be problematic for Time Machine.

[Jack Flesher]

But that's the strength of a TM backup, not a disadvantage.

You can do the same thing with a bootable Chronosynch, SuperDuper or Carbon Copy Cloner backup too ---- just load the installation disk, then do the migration from the bootable drive.  So the advantage really lies with a bootable backup since it offers the best of both: you can boot instantly from the clone if nothing was wrong with the original boot volume, OR create a fresh new boot volume.  

FWIW, I do not like to relay on TM for backup as I have had it fail on more than one occasion, where i simply went back to a historic clone and grabbed the files i needed.  For documents, I now use "DropBox" anyway, and lost file issues are a thing of the past.

[K.C.]

..the advantage really lies with a bootable backup since it offers the best of both..

Redundancy is the real answer to sleeping well at night.

I run SuperDuper using 'Smart Update' daily to keep my clone current and TM hourly when editing in C1, LR or PS. Clones are themselves cloned and swapped off site weekly. I have a Carbonite account that's running continuously to unlimited cloud storage. It's nice when traveling to keep the backup current when I don't want to carry extra drives.

Drop box holds all contracts, client communications and work notes.

[Jack Flesher]

Redundancy is the real answer to sleeping well at night.

And why I have a total of three bootable back-up volumes on my system, each on separate drives. One is made daily, the other two weekly on differing days.