Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

JKT · Feb 25, 2008, 06:38 AM

Since installing Leopard and starting Time Machine in November, so far it has allowed me to recover an accidentally deleted Address Book application, a few deleted files and most recently, recover from a screwed up iCal sync caused by the 10.5.2 update (all my events were duplicated).

I have used a back up solution (actually more of a disk mirroring solution to an external, along with a back up online of key files) for about 6 years so recovering things hasn't been a big issue for me in the past either, but what I find impressive about TM is just how easy it is to do so. Because it is visual, it is much easier to locate the backed-up files in a spatial manner, giving it a big plus in the UI over other backup solutions I have used.

So a poll - how many times have used TM to recover from either a cock-up/failed hard drive or to bring a new Mac up-to-speed?

bearcatrp · Feb 25, 2008, 10:28 AM

Never had to recover anything but tried it. Won't be using it until more options are available for me to set the time I want it to back up (ie. every 1hr/2hr/3hrs etc.).

MacosNerd · Feb 25, 2008, 10:43 AM

I used it a few times and in all cases it performed as I had hoped. The only complaint that I have is that restore process when doing the whole machine was a bit slow.

mpancha · Feb 25, 2008, 10:44 AM

I tested it for a month, and during that time over-wrote a css file I was working on. Successfully went back to a version from 1 hour beforehand, so it did work.

I do wish I could specify my own intervals, or even specify different intervals for different folders. Its a start, but I personally thing TM is still beta software.

Gankdawg · Feb 25, 2008, 04:40 PM

Hard drive in my iMac was replaced under warranty. Hook up TM drive when I got home and 6 hours later (i have a ton of stuff, ~300 GB) everything was back as it was before I left. No reinstalling applications, retyping passwords, etc. Everything was there, no involvement from me at all.

voicebox · Feb 25, 2008, 07:01 PM

Never used it.
Instead I have used Carbon Copy Cloner to clone the whole system to an external HD in order to create a bootable backup.

MacosNerd · Feb 25, 2008, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by voicebox

Instead I have used Carbon Copy Cloner to clone the whole system to an external HD in order to create a bootable backup.

How often do you do that?

The advantage of TM is that it takes hourly/daily/weekly backups. You mess up a critical file, you just go back to the prior hour and get it. You remember that you deleted a file last week which is needed for a project that is due the next day - no problem, easily restored with TM.

I'm not knocking CCC, I used it all of the time, but what I found was TM was less intrusive and less time consuming then cloning an entire drive.

turtle777 · Feb 25, 2008, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by voicebox

Never used it.
Instead I have used Carbon Copy Cloner to clone the whole system to an external HD in order to create a bootable backup.

Gosh, I used to do that.

I'm so glad that I have Time Machine now. It's like jumping forward from the 19th to the 21st back-up century.

-t

voicebox · Feb 26, 2008, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Gosh, I used to do that.

I'm so glad that I have Time Machine now. It's like jumping forward from the 19th to the 21st back-up century.

-t

Like bearcatrp I have never had a need to recover anything ... I thought that having a bootable backup far more important - and I've used CCC like this for the last 2 years or so.
I had the impression that I cannot use TM in conjunction with a bootable system backup - is this true?
In order to make TM work for me, would I have to repartition my external HD with the bootable system backup on one partition and the TM files on the other?
I admit that I am a little 'fogged' as far as TM in concerned!
voicebox

OreoCookie · Feb 26, 2008, 02:36 PM

No, having a bootable backup is absolutely secondary. Basically, it breaks the first rule of backups: always have at least one working backup. Say something borks your installation, but (for one reason or another) you don't realize it until after your backup. Then your files (the ones that are borked) are lost.

Time Machine is much, much better, you can restore older files and versions of files (e. g. you do something stupid to an image in photoshop and then save it) and it's clear that you always have a working copy. Cloning is really not a good backup strategy.

Cloning your drive doesn't really buy you time either, whether you restore your whole drive from a cloned drive or from a Time Machined drive doesn't make any difference speedwise. (Did I mention, that you must never, ever, ever work with your backup as if they were a live, working system?

)

Time Machine made me very relaxed, especially regarding my parents. They do have a working backup now and it saved their data once when their old mini died

mpancha · Feb 26, 2008, 04:09 PM

I've heard on podcasts (MacBreak Weekly) that TM does not backup mail... I highly doubt that to be true, but I've never really checked and don't have my external HD with me at the office to check my TM backup.

Is this true, or just further signs of MBW going down the drain.

mr. burns · Feb 26, 2008, 04:40 PM

not yet. but i enjoy bringing up the time machine display and flying through the windows every now and then just because it's so damn cool.

awaspaas · Feb 26, 2008, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by mpancha

I've heard on podcasts (MacBreak Weekly) that TM does not backup mail... I highly doubt that to be true, but I've never really checked and don't have my external HD with me at the office to check my TM backup.

Is this true, or just further signs of MBW going down the drain.

That's not true at all. In a full restore, all the Mail is back like it was originally. When you invoke Time Machine while Mail is frontmost, you can select individual messages or mailboxes to restore.

JKT · Feb 26, 2008, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by voicebox

Like bearcatrp I have never had a need to recover anything ... I thought that having a bootable backup far more important - and I've used CCC like this for the last 2 years or so.
I had the impression that I cannot use TM in conjunction with a bootable system backup - is this true?
In order to make TM work for me, would I have to repartition my external HD with the bootable system backup on one partition and the TM files on the other?
I admit that I am a little 'fogged' as far as TM in concerned!
voicebox

Assuming your cloning doesn't first wipe the drive you can have both on the same drive without partitioning - TM stores everything in a single directory called Backup.backupdb. So long as your cloning never touches that directory (and there are no permissions issues), TM and CCC should peacefully co-exist. The only disadvantage is that TM will have less room to expand into, and eventually it will fill the drive - that might cause issues if you needed to boot from it once full.

TETENAL · Feb 26, 2008, 05:32 PM

I think partitioning your external backup volume for the reason of having both Time Machine and a bootable emergency volume (I think a full clone is overkill) on there is one of the few good reasons for partitioning. So why not do it?

Atheist · Feb 26, 2008, 05:42 PM

I've used it a few times. I just wish I could configure different intervals for different folders. For instance, I exclude my Virtual Machines from TM but I'd rather just have it back them up once a week instead of never. Hopefully over time they'll make TM more configurable. But I'm not holding my breath. Apple has a tendency to keep software too simple... I understand they like to make it usable, but sometimes I think they cripple things.

turtle777 · Feb 26, 2008, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

I think partitioning your external backup volume for the reason of having both Time Machine and a bootable emergency volume (I think a full clone is overkill) on there is one of the few good reasons for partitioning. So why not do it?

I have a 10G second partition for an eDrive made with TechTools. That's it. I would leave AS MUCH space AS POSSIBLE for TM.

Btw, is there a way to have TM "forget" backups after a certain date ? Otherwise, it's only a matter of time that your TM disk is full, and you'd have to start from scratch.

-t

Atheist · Feb 26, 2008, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Btw, is there a way to have TM "forget" backups after a certain date ? Otherwise, it's only a matter of time that your TM disk is full, and you'd have to start from scratch.

It automagically deletes the oldest backups to make room for new ones.

turtle777 · Feb 26, 2008, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by Atheist

It automagically deletes the oldest backups to make room for new ones.

Ahh, smart.

I should have known better than doubting Apple's ingenuity

-t

Atheist · Feb 26, 2008, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Ahh, smart.

I should have known better than doubting Apple's ingenuity

-t

Unfortunately Apple's Backup program was never smart enough to do this.

TETENAL · Feb 26, 2008, 09:12 PM

It does automatically delete the oldest backups if space runs out (supposedly, that is still 200 GB away from me, so I don't know whether it works), but you can manually delete any backup you wish using the respective command in the Finder's Action menu while in Time Machine mode. You can also delete all backups of one particular file/folder from all Time Machine backups, also using a command from the Action menu. That's useful to completely remove something you realize better never had been backed up.

Cadaver · Feb 26, 2008, 10:44 PM

So far, for me, Time Machine just works™. I tossed a 500GB drive in to my desktop just for it.
Looking forward to Time Capsule for my laptop and my wife's.

DCJ001 · Feb 26, 2008, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

I used it a few times and in all cases it performed as I had hoped. The only complaint that I have is that restore process when doing the whole machine was a bit slow.

I'm guessing that you restored from a USB 2.0 drive?

If so, FireWire 400 is significantly faster.

turtle777 · Feb 27, 2008, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

... you can manually delete any backup you wish using the respective command in the Finder's Action menu while in Time Machine mode. You can also delete all backups of one particular file/folder from all Time Machine backups, also using a command from the Action menu. That's useful to completely remove something you realize better never had been backed up.

Ha, great tip. Thanks.

-t

voicebox · Mar 1, 2008, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by DCJ001

I'm guessing that you restored from a USB 2.0 drive?

If so, FireWire 400 is significantly faster.

Hi there DCJ001
OK so I took the advice of JKT, turtle777, MacosNerd and a few others and finally decided to use TM for backing up my files after an initial reticence - see an earlier post.
I connected to a 320Gb external HD via a 400 FireWire cable, opened up TM and chose 'Back Up Now'..... and some 4 hours later only 12.4 Gb seems to have been backed up out of 80Gb of data ...!
At this rate TM could take a possible 24 hours to back up 80Gb of data...!!
Is TM always this slow to do the first back up, or am I missing something here??
Help and advice is always appreciated
thanks
voicebox

turtle777 · Mar 1, 2008, 04:10 PM

Yes, the first TM always takes a long time.

Sometime, though, the first TM run is stuck in limbo. Then you'd have to turn TM off, restart the computer and turn TM back on.

For more troubleshooting, you should do a Google search.

-t

MacosNerd · Mar 1, 2008, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by DCJ001

I'm guessing that you restored from a USB 2.0 drive?

If so, FireWire 400 is significantly faster.

You guessed wrong - fw800 drive.

Simon · Mar 2, 2008, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

...but you can manually delete any backup you wish using the respective command in the Finder's Action menu while in Time Machine mode. You can also delete all backups of one particular file/folder from all Time Machine backups, also using a command from the Action menu.

That is indeed a great feature.

For some strange reason though you actually need the Action menu. Right-clicks or ctrl-clicks don't work in TM and I can't see any way to get a CM once I'm in TM. Is this really intentional? Am I actually supposed to put the Action menu in my Finder windows just to access this one feature? D'oh!

Toyin · Mar 2, 2008, 03:52 PM

I like Time Machine. I used to use CCC to clone my hard drive every month or so, and Chronosync to perform daily and weekly backups. What I like about Time Machine is that it keeps older files. My previous strategy just mirrored my current drive. Now I'm much quicker to delete files. Pre Time machine I would have gigabytes of data in the Trash before I'd empty it, "just in case"

As for restoration, I've used it to recover my entire addressbook which was wiped out due to some crappy 3rd party software. Most recently I had to restore my entire hard drive because of a fatal BT catalog error that couldn't be fixed. It restored my disk and recovered 20gb of disk space! I assume the error in the disk was causing the drive to look more full then it was.

One irritating thing though. My 1st Time Machine back up after the restore was a full back up, about 97gb of data. I'm not sure why it couldn't just continue incremental back ups.

OreoCookie · Mar 2, 2008, 04:55 PM

Might be because you've changed the name of the harddrive (e. g. from a customized name to Macintosh HD; keep in mind that it distinguishes between capital letters and small letters).

Toyin · Mar 2, 2008, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Might be because you've changed the name of the harddrive (e. g. from a customized name to Macintosh HD; keep in mind that it distinguishes between capital letters and small letters).

You could be right. However I renamed my HD to it's previous name after that back up and it's been able to do incremental back ups since.

voicebox · Mar 3, 2008, 06:53 AM

A follow up to my previous post.
I started the TM back-up yesterday at 5am - 66Gb's of data via a FireWire 400 connection to a LaCie 320Gb 400 FW/USB2 external HD.
TM finished the back-up process at 5.30pm - over 12 hours!!
All is OK - except that I seem to have aged a little more!!
best
voicebox

OreoCookie · Mar 3, 2008, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by Toyin

You could be right. However I renamed my HD to it's previous name after that back up and it's been able to do incremental back ups since.

Happened to my father when I installed his new Mac mini, that's why I could immediately guess what the problem was

@voicebox
Subsequent backups should be very, very fast.

MacosNerd · Mar 3, 2008, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by voicebox

A follow up to my previous post.
I started the TM back-up yesterday at 5am - 66Gb's of data via a FireWire 400 connection to a LaCie 320Gb 400 FW/USB2 external HD.
TM finished the back-up process at 5.30pm - over 12 hours!!

that is a bit slow, I assume that was the initial backup and subsequent backups will be much faster. For what ever reason. I suspect apple does not what the initial backup to impact overall performance so it modified the priority. The FW400 of course also impacted the performance as well.

voicebox · Mar 3, 2008, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

that is a bit slow, I assume that was the initial backup and subsequent backups will be much faster. For what ever reason. I suspect apple does not what the initial backup to impact overall performance so it modified the priority. The FW400 of course also impacted the performance as well.

Hi MacosNerd,
You assume correctly - subsequent backups have indeed been much faster.
Thanks for you input by the way!