Change in backup philosophy - Mac related

[Anastasius]

Would you buy an operating system from an unknown source ? I wouldn't. No way of knowing what files might have been tampered with. OK...chances that that happened are slim but why run the risk and all for what? Not being patient enough to download Mavericks from the Apple website? Crazy.

I now know for certain that my iMac is USB 1.1

I installed Mavericks onto a 16GB USB stick and it took all day! It booted up OK but took a long long time. I ran a few timed tests for transferring a few files from the iMac to the USB stick. 120MB took just under a minute. Which doesn't quite concur with the timing calculations given by online 'File Transfer Times' websites but close enough. If it was USB2 the it would take seconds. Hey ho...we live and learn.

I share your thoughts about shelling out that amount of money for a new or even refurbished iMac. Mind you, if you look at the total cost of ownership then for seven years use it is incredible value for money and moreover angst free from viruses and malware. Maybe if/when we move house I will treat myself to one.

So next plan is, once the new backup disk arrives and I have a couple of backups, I'll have a go at re-installing as I think it needs it...Mail is a bit unstable and so is Finder

[Dave2002]

Would you buy an operating system from an unknown source ? I wouldn't. No way of knowing what files might have been tampered with. OK...chances that that happened are slim but why run the risk and all for what? Not being patient enough to download Mavericks from the Apple website? Crazy.

I now know for certain that my iMac is USB 1.1

I installed Mavericks onto a 16GB USB stick and it took all day! It booted up OK but took a long long time. I ran a few timed tests for transferring a few files from the iMac to the USB stick. 120MB took just under a minute. Which doesn't quite concur with the timing calculations given by online 'File Transfer Times' websites but close enough. If it was USB2 the it would take seconds. Hey ho...we live and learn.

I share your thoughts about shelling out that amount of money for a new or even refurbished iMac. Mind you, if you look at the total cost of ownership then for seven years use it is incredible value for money and moreover angst free from viruses and malware. Maybe if/when we move house I will treat myself to one.

So next plan is, once the new backup disk arrives and I have a couple of backups, I'll have a go at re-installing as I think it needs it...Mail is a bit unstable and so is Finder

I agree about buying or obtaining software from an unknown source. However it's all a matter of trust, as with many things in life.

I could obtain installer files from a trusted friend for Mavericks, Yosemite and El Capitan - in fact I have several who have managed to capture the install files. I just find it sad that Apple doesn't make these available, even if they do want to ratchet everyone up the latest version. There could certainly be people who don't want to have upgrades. I still want to keep at least one version of Snow Leopard operational.

Re your USB drive, the data rate doesn't necessarily "prove" that it's USB 1. I'm currently running SuperDuper! with a USB 3.0 drive connected to a USB 2 interface. The effective data rate is slow enough that it might indicate that it's all done over USB 1. At the current rate I think the drive may take all day to do a clone - though admittedly the main drive is rather more than your 16 Gbytes.

I have read several pages about very slow boots of Mavericks (and others) from USB sticks. That does not necessarily imply that the interface in your machine is USB 1. Unless your machine is very unusual, Apple definitely claims that the ports on the back of the machine are USB 2. Assuming that's correct, the fact that the ports are USB 2 does by no means guarantee that you'd get what you would expect to be USB 2 performance with all attached devices. I don't know exactly in your situation why you appear to be getting such slow performance.

I have what I think is a very similar machine to yours - 24 inch from around 2009. I've never had strong reasons to suspect that it didn't have USB 2 ports.

Note that unless you attach very fast devices to USB ports, there's perhaps not a lot to choose between USB 2 and USB 3. USB 2 should theoretically be able to go at 480mbps, with USB 3.0 offering around 10 times that. Doesn't make a lot of difference though if the devices themselves have a much lower maximum transfer rate. Many USB memory sticks only do under 100 Mbps for reading, and somewhat less for writing.

If you had used a new USB 3 hard drive, I think you'd have got a much better performance than from the memory stick, though the cheapest hard drives are around £40 for anything worthwhile (1 Terabyte - Samsung or Seagate, sometimes Toshiba). Even connecting a USB 3 hard drive to the USB 2 ports should give better results. Memory sticks have the benefits of convenience and cheapness sometimes, but currently they are not high performance.

Anyway, I think my day is taken care of. I'll see how the number 1 backup (SuperDuper!) is going in about 5-10 hours. Then I'll set up Time Machine and repeat the process to another drive - number 2 backup.

I have two main reasons for doing this:

1. I want to use software which will apparently only work on recent versions of Mac OS X

2. I want to reclaim a lot of the space on the main drive, so as to have much more working space available.

I discovered that trying to do anything with video was almost impossible with the somewhat skimpy amount of spare backing memory on either of my desktop machines. Video is just so much more demanding than other types of application. Audio - no problem! Photos - not really a problem, though there does/may need to be sufficient external storage to back them off. Text files - anyting less than the size of War and Peace - trivial, and even hundreds of texts the size of War and Peace wouldn't strain resources much.

Video (editing that is) - really does need lots of spare working space, so for me a machine without a lot of (currently) unneeded files would be very helpful. In my case I'm not expecting to generate HD Blu Ray videos, but even regular DVD quality is demanding. The final products are not such a problem - it's the intermediate processes which take up the working space. Blu Ray or other HD formats might take up significantly more working space.

[johnb]

I now know for certain that my iMac is USB 1.1

Sorry to butt in but I think it very unlikely indeed that a computer dating from 2009 still had a USB 1.1 port. USB 2 was first specified in 2000 and the first USB 3 devices were beginning to appear in 2010!

USB sticks are very handy but the write transfer speed is very slow compared to HDDs, especially when lots of small files are involved.

[Dave2002]

Sorry to butt in but I think it very unlikely indeed that a computer dating from 2009 still had a USB 1.1 port. USB 2 was first specified in 2000 and the first USB 3 devices were beginning to appear in 2010!

USB sticks are very handy but the write transfer speed is very slow compared to HDDs, especially when lots of small files are involved.

Butt in - no problem - come in any time.

I think there are some faster USB sticks, but most are slow, and I think decent hard drives are going to get much closer to the limits of the comunications specification. The main reasons for using USB sticks are portability and cheapness, though cost per Gbyte is generally a lot lower for hard drives. 1 Tbyte for £40 -> 1 Gbyte for 4p. Some of the cheaper USB sticks are around £2 for 8 Gbytes -> 25p/Gbyte. Some San Disk sticks are around £8 for 64 Gbyte -> 12.5 p/Gbyte or around £15 for the Ultra Fit 64 Gbyte sticks -> 23.5p/Gbyte, which are claimed to go up to 130 Mbps.

Robustness is still a factor - dropping a USB stick is unlikely to cause major damage, and also if one is lost or stolen the cost of the loss is usually not too great.

What I'd really like to know is how USB 2 compares with Firewire 800, which is hardly used nowadays. Firewire apparently offers full duplex, which for some applications might double the througput. I'm not sure if USB is simplex or duplex.

In any case, whether simplex or duplex is available would make little difference unless applications expolited that, but it would be good to know.

Also, for Macs, would there be greater throughput in drive to drive transfers if one drive were USB, and the other Firewire, so as to force transfers via different controllers? I'm not sure if there are any bottlenecks on controllers for USB 2, and if they could be avoided on Macs with both Firewire and USB.

[Anastasius]

Sorry to butt in but I think it very unlikely indeed that a computer dating from 2009 still had a USB 1.1 port. USB 2 was first specified in 2000 and the first USB 3 devices were beginning to appear in 2010!

USB sticks are very handy but the write transfer speed is very slow compared to HDDs, especially when lots of small files are involved.

I hear what you say, John, but in my experiments with copying it was just one file of 120MB and I started timing when the copying window progress bar appeared on screen. I have no other explanation for the slow copy.

[johnb]

According to this link, an IMac 24" from early 2009 should have USB 2 ports:

https://support.apple.com/kb/sp507?locale=en_US

I know nothing about Macs but, from what I can glean, it looks as though you should have "USB High-Speed Bus" (USB 2) as well as "USB Bus" (USB 1) listed under "USB" in the System Profiler.

[Dave2002]

My own backup 1 operation completed after about 7 hours. It was about 450 Gbytes - or about 450,000 Mbytes (OK - I don't care about odd factors of 1024/1000 which not all manufacturers or software developers worry about either ...), and 7 hours is 25200 seconds, so a simple division gets this to 17.86 Mbytes/sec or about 143Mbps. This is also commensurate with the value reported by SuperDuper! on completion.

That was to a Samsung drive with USB 3.0 interface via one of the USB 2 ports on the iMac I'm proposing to sort out and upgrade.

That's around 1/3 of the theoretical max for USB 2 - 480 Mbps. Of course doing the SuperDuper! backup would also have other factors - such as whether the program manages to read and write at the same time. If not the best that could be hoped for would be 240 Mbps, and there'd perhaps be other overheads too.

I found this link re CCC and El Capitan - https://bombich.com/blog/2015/09/10/...ted-el-capitan
This does indicate/confirm that it's hard to get back to a previous version of Mac OS X, and that it makes sense to make bootable versions before upgrading.

One thing I don't know is whether the bootable backups are machine specific. I took a backup using CCC a few weeks ago of another machine (Mac Mini) running Mountain Lion. Do I really need to bother to do a similar CCC backup for the iMac I'm working on now. that might be overkill, as I should be able to run ML from the CCC backup, and also from the SuperDuper! backup.

I suppose it all depends on how risk averse one might be.

I might just go for a TM backup, and then install El Capitan.

[Lordgeous]

One thing I don't know is whether the bootable backups are machine specific.

I don't think so. I've transferred my SD backup to another laptop, when previous one was stolen, with no problem.

[Anastasius]

I don't think so. I've transferred my SD backup to another laptop, when previous one was stolen, with no problem.

I agree with you.

[Anastasius]

According to this link, an IMac 24" from early 2009 should have USB 2 ports:

https://support.apple.com/kb/sp507?locale=en_US

I know nothing about Macs but, from what I can glean, it looks as though you should have "USB High-Speed Bus" (USB 2) as well as "USB Bus" (USB 1) listed under "USB" in the System Profiler.

Hi John...just checked the 'Bible' and the ports are USB 2....quite why it takes so long I don't know....maybe it's the Kingston memory stick.

As another aside, I thought that perhaps for LOML and her photos that perhaps it did make sense to belt and brace to a cloud based backup system. Carbonite seems to be well thought of but further investigation on various forums suggests that iPhoto libraries don't come back in quite the same fashion.

[Dave2002]

I don't think so. I've transferred my SD backup to another laptop, when previous one was stolen, with no problem.

That's great to know - it may save me one more backup operation.

[Dave2002]

Hi John...just checked the 'Bible' and the ports are USB 2....quite why it takes so long I don't know....maybe it's the Kingston memory stick.

As another aside, I thought that perhaps for LOML and her photos that perhaps it did make sense to belt and brace to a cloud based backup system. Carbonite seems to be well thought of but further investigation on various forums suggests that iPhoto libraries don't come back in quite the same fashion.

Re Carbonite etc., I was talking to someone yesterday who mentioned that when Apple managed to upgrade/update his iPhone software it also managed to make all his photos and other wanted material disappear. Arguably that was because he hadn't opted to have everything backed up into iCloud, though a counter argument is that Apple should not have initiated an upgrade process which effectively lost him all his material.

I suggest that people should take active steps to know what's going to happen with their data, and don't assume that it's safe on devices which can update themselves. It always makes sense to keep multiple copies and backup copies if one doesn't want to lose stuff.

If some people want to rely on various forms of cloud that's OK - but I do think there needs to be much more awareness of the pros and cons.
Although negatives, and transparencies, and prints of photos do degrade, it's amazing that many are still at least giving a record of people, things and events after many years. Nowadays so many people never create any physical output, that it's quite easy to see that images can be lost after only a few years. Maybe it's better to have a few physical artefacts - books of photos for example, which might last for 10, 20 or even 50 years, allbeit with some degradation, rather than to lose all one's material on a few disk drives or memory sticks which go bad.

[Dave2002]

I really don't know what's the optimum strategy for backing up Macs. Today I thought I had a major problem on the newly configured iMac running El Capitan, as the Time Machine icon didn't appear, and the drive icon was simply a solid orange colour. Checking with a few searches found this - https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5494400?tstart=0 - which hints that it's due to an across versions bug, and indeed forcing a relaunch of the Finder does correct (hopefully) this problem.

Some users may not have any major problems with their files, while others may find that problems are frequent.

Users who generate a relatively low volume of new files may go for years without any problems, as all the files will fit on the main drive. All that is required in that case is some form of periodic backup, perhaps one of the cloning options Super Duper! or Carbon Copy Cloner, or even Time Machine. Some people don't trust TM for full backups - http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/...meMachine.html

The situation may become more complex for users who have a high throughput of files. This occurs when users fill up most of the main drive, then need to delete files in order to create working space. Most of us don't do that too often, or every day, but some highly active users might do that, for example if they are creating new video projects every day.

A sort of solution for that pattern of activity might be to maintain folders of files to delete, then wait until they have enough files to make it worth deleting the folder to release space. Also, if TM is being used, wait until TM has backed that folder off. Then delete the folder. It would also make sense to keep a record (notebook) of the time and date on which the folder deletion has taken place, as if it's needed to recover those files (some may be temporary) then it will be essential to find the particular folder just before it was deleted.

An external record (notebook again) might be needed to record days on which major upgrades or even complete new OS installs were made. Otherwise trying to find the correct backups from TM could be a needle in the haystack exercise.

[Anastasius]

I think you are over-complicating things to a point. My thoughts are as follows:

1) I would never rely on Time Machine for a complete backup. It's OK for recovering that file you just over-wrote by mistake but that is about as much credence I'll give it. Especially when you get the Verification message which is TM's way of telling you that it has screwed up big time and lost all your past backups. DAMHIKJT.

2a) For full back-ups use either SuperDuper or Carbon Copy Cloner or Chronosync. SD only backs up to local drives though. If you want to back to a remote drive (NB Not cloud) then SD won't do it. I've tested the other two and they seem fine.

2b) Make a bootable backup and check you can boot up from it. Do that frequently to ensure that your backups are OK

3) Whenever you get a new drive, run Scannerz and keep the log. That way if you are beginning to suspect that the drive might be problematic, when you run Scannerz again you can let it compare results between the two instances and report back. Of course, if you are really paranoid then you might run Scannerz overnight once a month.

4) If you are creating many files (for example, videos) and reaching your hard drive capacity then it's time to think about having a completely different storage philosophy and either putting your video files on a separate external hard drive and running a separate backup regime for that OR increasing the size of your internal drive OR keeping the video files on a NAS with suitable RAID perhaps.

Deleting files or projects and keeping a log is a recipe for disaster IMO.

[Dave2002]

I think you are over-complicating things to a point.

I don't think so. A lot depends on how risk averse you or I or anyone else concerned is.

Over years I have known people to lose drives, sometimes with the only copy of material they wanted to keep.

I have known people accidentally delete things, either by genuine accident - or ignorance, or stupidity. A classic one is not realising that many cameras use the same file ids on memory cards, so importing new photos may erase previous ones. I've known that - and unfortunately not in a way from which recovery was possible.

I have known people rely on camera memory cards for years, until they fail - erasing or making inaccessible all their photos - I could hardly believe that one - but people really do need to know that flash memory cards may not last for 5 to 10 years.

My thoughts are as follows:

1) I would never rely on Time Machine for a complete backup. It's OK for recovering that file you just over-wrote by mistake but that is about as much credence I'll give it. Especially when you get the Verification message which is TM's way of telling you that it has screwed up big time and lost all your past backups. DAMHIKJT.

Agreed. I have known TM fail, or screwed up a backup. I have no idea whether I lost anything - possibly not, but the backup seemed to be useless, or rather not actually useless, but seemed to have lost a year somehow! Probably the data was on other drives or storage devices, and a quick evaluation suggested that mostly things were OK, though niggling doubts remain.

2a) For full back-ups use either SuperDuper or Carbon Copy Cloner or Chronosync. SD only backs up to local drives though. If you want to back to a remote drive (NB Not cloud) then SD won't do it. I've tested the other two and they seem fine.

2b) Make a bootable backup and check you can boot up from it. Do that frequently to ensure that your backups are OK

Agree for both of those points. I use both CCC and SD! and I do make bootable backups - perhaps one for each machine. I have several machines, and several drives. Keeping documentation, which you seem to regard as unnecessary (!!) helps to locate the right backup drive for each machine. I suppose you think you can keep the documentation on the machine(s)!

Of course if each machine has CCC and SD! backups periodically, and perhaps a TM drive connected as well, that might represent 5 drives per machine over a 2 times backup cycle (2 x SD!, 2 x CCC, and hope that the TM will not crash). OK - round it up to 6 drives for a spare TM, then multiply by the number of machines. That could be a lot of drives! Working on a 3 phase cycle would give 9 drives - and of course then one ought to have off site storage as well, and drives migrating between different physical locations. I feel sure that some commercial and secure operations still do that.

Where I fail is in doing frequent bootable backups.

I also do specific export of files which I'm interested in to memory sticks, and drives dedicated to certain work or projects.

3) Whenever you get a new drive, run Scannerz and keep the log. That way if you are beginning to suspect that the drive might be problematic, when you run Scannerz again you can let it compare results between the two instances and report back. Of course, if you are really paranoid then you might run Scannerz overnight once a month.

4) If you are creating many files (for example, videos) and reaching your hard drive capacity then it's time to think about having a completely different storage philosophy and either putting your video files on a separate external hard drive and running a separate backup regime for that OR increasing the size of your internal drive OR keeping the video files on a NAS with suitable RAID perhaps.

I don't run Scannerz, or know much about it.

Re NAS file storage, I have tried that, and it failed. NAS can fail for several reasons. 1. Disk failure in the remote unit. 2. Other hardware or software failure in the remote unit. 3. Network errors. In my case the failure occurred because the NAS drives at different locations were supposed to back each other up. One failed, and made the other inoperable. I think that one is recoverable, but would require work. Further, NAS data rates are not particularly high, though for some purposes that may not matter.

Increasing the size of internal drives is not something I'm happy about at present, though I might manage to increase the SSD in my MBP in a year or so, when the guarantee/service period runs out.

I agree that RAID might be an answer, but yes, I've heard of RAID failing too. It can cost a lot of money and require a lot of time and effort to make a backup system which is close to foolproof. Having printed or written documentation to know what's worth keeping, and where it's located etc. is worth doing, but many people (myself included) don't do that consistently.

Deleting files or projects and keeping a log is a recipe for disaster IMO.

It works provided that other backup methods are used as well. It may be the only way to get some projects done - to have a machine with very little clutter so that the job can be done. This is particularly important for video.

For professionals who do that kind of thing on a daily basis there may be quite a few options. They may have several machines they can use, they may have a technical department which is able to backup and restore drives quickly over a network, or simply replace the drives. There may be people who will do some or most of the grunt work for them, so that they can get on with being productive.

For others (who may have been professionals once) they may find that they have to invest in more hardware and software to keep things going. They might also want to employ others to do some of the work, though many will not - for various reasons. Many people just do not have the knowledge, expertise, time or resources to do their own data management.

Many of us are, I think, living in hope and faith that things won't go wrong. Mostly they don't, and even if things do, then a few precautions can give some resilience and enable recovery. Even fairly modest precautions can reduce risks considerably, but many people don't even do those. However, where there are risks it always makes sense to have a disaster plan, which might just include taking a hit in the worst case. Flood, fire, theft ... nuclear war. Sometimes one can't cover all the bases.

In some commercial or professional environments if there's a drive or machine failure the approach taken is simply to swap out the drive or machine, and the data and applications may even be pre-installed over a network or otherwise, so data loss and downtime is minimised. Retirees probably don't have access to such luxury facilities.