Another Time Machine query

[Dave2002]

Now that I've started to master Time Machine a bit more, I wonder if there's a way to kill off any unwanted backups.

For example, TM will sometimes enthusiastically backup external drives which are connected. Forethought can avoid this, by excluding those drives from the backup, but sometimes a drive might be backed up, and either it will simply waste space in the backup, or it will backup files which are really never going to be needed.

[french frank]

Do you want your Time Machine drive to be a lifetime 'time capsule', storing all your back-ups, never deleting anything that has ever been backed up? I'm quite content to fill up the drive and let TM start deleting the oldest back-ups rather than use it as a storage volume. Any unwanted back-ups should eventually disappear, unless I've misunderstood your point (but I don't have any other external drives permanently connected - I do SuperDuper! back-ups, then disconnect the drive).

Now that I've started to master Time Machine a bit more, I wonder if there's a way to kill off any unwanted backups.

For example, TM will sometimes enthusiastically backup external drives which are connected. Forethought can avoid this, by excluding those drives from the backup, but sometimes a drive might be backed up, and either it will simply waste space in the backup, or it will backup files which are really never going to be needed.

[Dave2002]

Do you want your Time Machine drive to be a lifetime 'time capsule', storing all your back-ups, never deleting anything that has ever been backed up? I'm quite content to fill up the drive and let TM start deleting the oldest back-ups rather than use it as a storage volume. Any unwanted back-ups should eventually disappear, unless I've misunderstood your point (but I don't have any other external drives permanently connected - I do SuperDuper! back-ups, then disconnect the drive).

That's a good way of putting it. Normally I don't want anything to be deleted without my express approval. Obviously different people will have different requirements, but unfortunately deleting the oldest file or oldest backup without warning is not a safe procedure, so people need to know.

Example - which works with paper documents as well: You have a copy (electronic) of an insurance agreement. Possibly the only time you'll ever need it is when you or someone else needs to make a claim. Such documents may be required to have a long life - possibly getting close to 100 years. Strategies which automatically delete old documents are not always helpful.

I generally delete files which I explicitly don't want to be backed up, either because they are not needed, or to save space.

Some people may store confidential documents which should be backed up (if at all) in a different way, or rendered irrecoverable.

[french frank]

Strategies which automatically delete old documents are not always helpful.

But you're only deleting the back-up - the file will still be on your computer unless you've deleted it. In which case, as I said, you're using Time Machine as a time-indexed storage drive. If you do a separate back-up, say with SuperDuper! the file will be there too, won't it?

[Dave2002]

But you're only deleting the back-up - the file will still be on your computer unless you've deleted it. In which case, as I said, you're using Time Machine as a time-indexed storage drive. If you do a separate back-up, say with SuperDuper! the file will be there too, won't it?

You are right there, though only having one copy of a file does make problems a bit more likely. I do try to avoid that.

I have desktop machines which have relatively large drives (though not large enough) so those are moderately safe. Arguably the biggest problems arise with my MBP which only has 250 Gbytes of storage. I have to back things off in order to get things done sometimes.

An expandable file server "solution" might solve many problems, though unfortunately I think the LAN network connectivity is too slow if a large file store is kept some distance away from the machines being used for processing. Perhaps all media, such as music and video, could be kept "at arms length" if all that is required is to play the files. Network speeds are generally high enough for music, and probably also for SD video material. There might be challenges for HD or 4K videos.

Attempts to edit video with slow file access are bound to be painful - next to impossible.

For myself, I think I'm going to have to come up with new solutions, probably based on media types.

[Dave2002]

***** aaaggghhh!!!!

But you're only deleting the back-up - the file will still be on your computer unless you've deleted it. In which case, as I said, you're using Time Machine as a time-indexed storage drive. If you do a separate back-up, say with SuperDuper! the file will be there too, won't it?

I just had a failure on the drive I've been using for TM.

As you say, as long as I didn't actually delete anything I didn't want on the MBP it should still all be there. Hoping ....!

I need to check what's missing (how?). As it happens, I think I copied most of the most vital stuff onto another drive which has been lying dormant for years only a week or two back, and most likely nothing has been lost, but now I need to buy another drive, and check what might not be around any more.

Also, I do need to get this done fairly quickly, as if there is a failure on the MBP then that would be considerably more problematic/upsetting. My first thought was of sadness at the thought of having to fork out yet more money (£50 or more maybe) to put in place a backup solution, but a bit more rational thought is that this (hopefully) doesn't happen too often.

Part of the problem for me is that the MBP doesn't have enough memory - approx 250 Gbytes SSD a few years ago was a lot, but now it isn't. I also do quite a lot of other "work" which requires a lot of storage, and although I have desktop machines which have more storage, I use the MBP quite a lot too.

In a few years I expect SSD based external drives will be cheap enough, but at present they are still at least 4 times the price of reasonably sized hdds. Applying variants of Moore's Law suggests that it'll be 2-4 years before eternal SSD drives become cheap enough for this kind of application, and by then I expect we'll all be even more profligate with the size of data files we create/use.

I do wonder whether the Airport Time Capsule would be a reasonable solution after all - as the particular problem(seemingly permanent damage) arose almost certainly because the external drive attached to the MBP became more mobile than is desirable - something which is less likely with desk top machines. Another possible solution is to use a supposedly more robust drive for the laptop TM, such as this one - https://www.amazon.co.uk/LaCie-Rugge...ged+hard+drive (pricey) or
this one - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Transcend-M...ged+hard+drive

I know someone who has an Airport Time Capsule - http://www.apple.com/uk/shop/product...me-capsule-3tb - and there have been problems with it. I have been waiting for Apple to update the specs, but they seem resistant to doing that. The external interfaces on the current models are only USB 2 I think. Does anyone else here use that?

As long as these "disasters" don't happen too often, I suppose they can be contained. Cheaper than putting one's car into a garage for service sometimes "we just spotted a problem with the gearbox, we'll 'need' to strip it down .... " - "there's a problem with the air conditioning, and the bearing is completely gone ..." - with a likely price tag of over £1k to get fixed ....

[Dave2002]

I just discovered this, which also provides more insight into the workings of TM - http://www.imore.com/losing-hard-dri...ups-dont-panic

[Dave2002]

Yet another TM query... "Traditional" approaches to backup use backups on a rotation, some perhaps even off-site. Does anyone have experience of, or know what should happen if several drives are used with TM in a rotation? Would it be best to have all the drives of the same capacity, or doesn't it matter?

[MrGongGong]

You seem to be needing to keep things which you regard as very important
If this is the case

DO NOT TRUST TIME MACHINE IT ISN'T REALIABLE

You don't have to spend a fortune
BUT HD drives will ALWAYS Fail

[Dave2002]

I'm aware of some possible problems with TM, but I don't think it's quite as bad as you suggest. I have recent experience of two HD failures - one mine, and one on another machine I'm trying to protect. In any case if, as you say, HDs always fail, then there's little point in exploring Super Duper! or CCC is there? I'm trying to ensure what might be called business continuity.

[MrGongGong]

I'm aware of some possible problems with TM, but I don't think it's quite as bad as you suggest. I have recent experience of two HD failures - one mine, and one on another machine I'm trying to protect. In any case if, as you say, HDs always fail, then there's little point in exploring Super Duper! or CCC is there? I'm trying to ensure what might be called business continuity.

indeed HDs will always fail
BUT if your data is valuable then a few cloned copies are infinitely preferable to the fundamentally flawed TM

[french frank]

BUT if your data is valuable then a few cloned copies are infinitely preferable to the fundamentally flawed TM

Which have fundamentally different purposes. If you [dave2002] have regularly scheduled SuperDuper! back-ups as well as the hourly TM back-ups, I don't see the problem - unless computer and both externals fail at the same time. And I'm finally coming round to cloud storage as an idea (and I'm never in my life going to get round to using up my entire free storage).

Do you [dave2002] have the equivalent of a house filled with the clutter of 50-odd years - nothing ever thrown away, even though you will never use or look at it again?

[Dave2002]

indeed HDs will always fail
BUT if your data is valuable then a few cloned copies are infinitely preferable to the fundamentally flawed TM

I'm interested to know in what ways you feel that TM is fundamentally flawed. For some purposes it's quite good.

One very major problem which it poses is that it seems to be easy to use - just plug it in and forget it. Then when a need arises to recover data it just doesn't work - so like a lifebelt with the air taken out when really needed! A slightly different aspect is that the data may actually be safe, but the user doesn't know how to recover it.

I agree with you that cloned copies have advantages, which is why I'm trying to specify a procedure which will include them. The intention is to develop an affordable protocol which is not impossibly difficult for the users** to carry out, which will be robust enough to sustain data through at least one failure. I may recommend the use of 5 drives - 3 for TM and 2 for clones, plus perhaps also a couple of USB memory sticks which would have a possible advantage of being Windows compatible (FAT32) - though only for files which are small enough - which may in fact be most of them. Also, I am likely to suggest SSDs rather than HDs for some of the units.

Some users may be happy to use clouds for backup, but for various reasons, I am not suggesting that at this time. I am looking into the legal issues of storing some confidential data in clouds. Until this is resolved I will not recommend cloud storage. There are also some technical issues with using clouds.

**Note that some users find following any form of computer procedure a bit of a challenge, so often failures are more likely to be due to human failures than hardware or software failures. This presents specific issues.

[Anastasius]

Why not simply go out and buy the best RAID external drive that you can ? One with hot-swappable drives. Problem solved.

[Sir Velo]

Why not simply go out and buy the best RAID external drive that you can ? One with hot-swappable drives. Problem solved.

Too simple?