Does anyone actually have good luck with Buffalo?! Twice they died on me around day 365...
For time machine backups specifically, I think it is hard to beat two single drive units that sleep alternating 3-day intervals. Backups do get corrupted, and from a ransomeware perspective it is a great buffer. I try to buy an additional drive every 18-24 months and rotate out the old one. Great way to replace a time machine (eventually).
One thing I love about the Synology is the use of BTRFS, which can let it do instantaneous snapshots with essentially zero size, and sync a new incremental to the copy. Pretty much no overhead aside from the deltas. Daisy chaining two units can also make the second backup blind to the first from a ransomeware perspective.
I have a Drobo 5D3 for encrypted RAID and a G-Raid running in JBOD for unencrypted backups over 2 drives. Both work well and I like the “just in case, just in case” method.
I use Carbon Copy Cloner to create a scheduled back up on both units and let Time Machine do its thing as well.
FWIW, I personally wouldn't consider any of these devices unless they supported RAID (which all of the multi-drive units do). Using a single drive for your backups is asking for failure at the wrong time. I currently have a WD four-bay NAS that I expect to replace with a five-bay Synology in the near future (I've done a lot of side-by-side comparison of Synology vs QNAP and find the Synology offers more of what I'm looking for). Dual drives is okay, but four (or more) is just more cost effective.
I use my NAS not only for backups of my various machines, but also storage of my photo albums and music collection and anything else I would hate to lose. Critical documents are also stored in the cloud (Dropbox) where I'll still have access even if my NAS is stolen or lost to natural disaster.
FWIW, I personally wouldn't consider any of these devices unless they supported RAID (which all of the multi-drive units do). Using a single drive for your backups is asking for failure at the wrong time.
Why? The chances of both your Time Machine's HDD and your Mac's HDD/SSD both failing at the exact same time is extremely unlikely.
How many, if any, of these support file metadata? In particular Finder tags and custom folder icons. The latter may not matter but if you use Finder tags to keep project stuff together, their loss can leave you with major problems.
I know Synology don’t support them and outside an HFS+ or APFS formatted drive, I doubt anything else does.
I'm not certain that any do, anymore, as regardless of drive support, I think that the data is stripped out during a SMB transfer from them.
I'll delve over the weekend.
I'll be interested to hear what you find. I use a Synology DS216+II (2x4Tb Seagate Ironwolf drives) which is how I discovered metadata is stripped out and assumed it was due to lack of support in the BTRFS file system. As a result I put current project stuff on an HFS+ drive attached to an Airport accessed via afp which works fine when I back up using Chronosync. In my experience afp is generally faster than SMB but I know it has been deprecated by Apple for some time.
Whilst it would be good if Apple produced their own range of home servers It's never going to happen since they're looking to ongoing income from iCloud backup/sync. Nonetheless it would be helpful if folks knew where Apple are going with Finder tags, or will this be something else that gets abandoned just when it starts to become useful.
Actually forget TimeMachine on WD drives that fail with click of parking heads. Seagate Backup Plus beats all of them for TimeMachine (running business on them). Not a NAS however. As far as NAS (WiFi or Ethernet attached), Synology NAS with Hitachi UltraStar (HGST) is specialized for servers and outlast many WD drive based configurations due to MTBF and optimization on parking heads.Synology has outstanding reliability and updates. No issues for many years. Going SSD is still expensive.
I agree that Synology NAS has outstanding quality; I've had two over the past 6 years, and my only complaint was the really slow CPU in my initial 211j. My current DiskStation, a 214play, handles multiple services, including Plex Server and Time Machine backups, like a champ.
To clarify on the WD drives, however, the issues you list are primarily a problem with the Green line (and maybe Blue). The Red line is designed for NAS applications: they're quiet, (relatively) cool, and don't park. I've used the same pair of 2TB WD Red drives almost continuously since I bought them nearly 6 years ago, and they're still plugging along.
Does Synology still limit hardware video transcoding to its own video streamer application or can Plex take advantage of it (when available on the hardware)?
A while back I was considering a Synology (I think it was a 418 model) and seem to remember transcoding hardware acceleration popping up in my investigation. Reading through the Synology forums I found people saying that access to the necessary hardware was restricted to the Synology video player and systems such as Plex would have to make do with the CPU and some were going to get pretty stressed (the lower powered models) as a result. I didn't take it any further as I didn't have time but I'm still interested. A mesh system is a priority for me right now though.
This is a good overview! I wonder if these are really long term products though. You can already buy 2TB of iCloud for only a few bucks a month, and it would take many months to make up the cost of some of these units.
And if you are worried about privacy just put the most sensitive files in an encrypted ZIP, DMG or any one of 100 encrypted file formats.
This is a good overview! I wonder if these are really long term products though. You can already buy 2TB of iCloud for only a few bucks a month, and it would take many months to make up the cost of some of these units.
And if you are worried about privacy just put the most sensitive files in an encrypted ZIP, DMG or any one of 100 encrypted file formats.
This is a good overview! I wonder if these are really long term products though. You can already buy 2TB of iCloud for only a few bucks a month, and it would take many months to make up the cost of some of these units.
And if you are worried about privacy just put the most sensitive files in an encrypted ZIP, DMG or any one of 100 encrypted file formats.
You can't run Time Machine backups to iCloud.
Yup, that's backwards though. You shouldn't have your master copies on your local disk, and then try to back up to the cloud. You should have your master copies in the cloud and let your Mac manage local copies as needed. That's why Apple added automatic syncing of your Desktop and Documents folder to iCloud in High Sierra.
This is a good overview! I wonder if these are really long term products though. You can already buy 2TB of iCloud for only a few bucks a month, and it would take many months to make up the cost of some of these units.
And if you are worried about privacy just put the most sensitive files in an encrypted ZIP, DMG or any one of 100 encrypted file formats.
That's a good question, that only time will really answer. At least at present, there's a lot of resistance to file backups on iCloud, but there's clearly a market for online backup, given Backblaze and other services.
So, today at least, a NAS is a good solution for that crowd.
Time Machine is no longer included in MacOS Server. Instead, it is buried in the standard OS. In fact the Server app has been completely discontinued <sigh>
It has not been discontinued. You may be thinking about the services that are being removed from it.
This is a good overview! I wonder if these are really long term products though. You can already buy 2TB of iCloud for only a few bucks a month, and it would take many months to make up the cost of some of these units.
And if you are worried about privacy just put the most sensitive files in an encrypted ZIP, DMG or any one of 100 encrypted file formats.
That's a good question, that only time will really answer. At least at present, there's a lot of resistance to file backups on iCloud, but there's clearly a market for online backup, given Backblaze and other services.
So, today at least, a NAS is a good solution for that crowd.
Well, cost is a biggy. Then how fast the goodys can go up and down in those intertube thingys. I uploaded all our photos and home video to the icloud at 2.5 mbps. About 500 gbs worth. Took weeks.
This is a good overview! I wonder if these are really long term products though. You can already buy 2TB of iCloud for only a few bucks a month, and it would take many months to make up the cost of some of these units.
And if you are worried about privacy just put the most sensitive files in an encrypted ZIP, DMG or any one of 100 encrypted file formats.
That's a good question, that only time will really answer. At least at present, there's a lot of resistance to file backups on iCloud, but there's clearly a market for online backup, given Backblaze and other services.
So, today at least, a NAS is a good solution for that crowd.
Well, cost is a biggy. Then how fast the goodys can go up and down in those intertube thingys. I uploaded all our photos and home video to the icloud at 2.5 mbps. About 500 gbs worth. Took weeks.
Yeah, there are a lot of factors to consider at present. I've got gigabit FiOS, and I still wouldn't be excited about a massive upload.
FWIW, I personally wouldn't consider any of these devices unless they supported RAID (which all of the multi-drive units do). Using a single drive for your backups is asking for failure at the wrong time.
Why? The chances of both your Time Machine's HDD and your Mac's HDD/SSD both failing at the exact same time is extremely unlikely.
You have not met Mr. Murphy, I take it. If your NAS is reasonable quality (not Buffalo) and on a UPS, it should be ok from a hardware perspective (~90-95% confidence over a 3-5 year life). But, corruption of your backups is a whole other issue, especially with Time Machine. I generally need to start a new backup once per year, which makes it dangerous for recovering old files. Often the only time you find the corrupted backup is exactly when you try to restore.
But, I disagree with the idea that RAID is better. I have had much better luck with a redundant array of independent NASs (RAIN). I buy reasonable quality, but consumer grade single drive NASs and rotate them in a pool. I have found this to be much more effective-- a drive in the safe is much harder to be subjected to ransomeware.
Would I be correct in thinking that all or some of these devices could be connected via ethernet to an existing Time Capsule and used as a second, redundant time machine destination, easing an eventual transition to a different router when that becomes necessary?
I am also very interested in the "topic for another day" mentioned in the article. A fire at home that toasts both the computer and the backup is not an impossible scenario. A manual backup offsite is one possibility, but requires diligence. Home ISPs have a tendency to throttle outgoing traffic and also to impose data caps that would make both establishing and maintaining offsite backups challenging.
This is a good overview! I wonder if these are really long term products though. You can already buy 2TB of iCloud for only a few bucks a month, and it would take many months to make up the cost of some of these units.
And if you are worried about privacy just put the most sensitive files in an encrypted ZIP, DMG or any one of 100 encrypted file formats.
You can't run Time Machine backups to iCloud.
Yup, that's backwards though. You shouldn't have your master copies on your local disk, and then try to back up to the cloud. You should have your master copies in the cloud and let your Mac manage local copies as needed. That's why Apple added automatic syncing of your Desktop and Documents folder to iCloud in High Sierra.
You realize that Time Machine backups have more than just your files, right? It contains the applications, settings, and the entire OS. Whereas the OS can be easily re-downloaded and installed, manually installing every application and configuring each application's settings is a major pain in the rear. That is why Time Machine backups are so great for restoring to another computer. You point the Migration Assistant to the Time Machine backup and leave for about 4 hours. When you come back, your have an exact replica of your previous Mac setup, including all applications, their settings, and all files.
With iCloud, all you get is a copy of your files, so you still have to manually install all of your applications and manually configure all the settings/customizations, which takes forever.
It's time for Apple to enable Time Machine backups to iCloud. In fact, Apple's discontinuing the Time Capsule may be the harbinger of the iCloud Time Machine coming with the next release of macOS.
It took me about six months to upload my 400 GB library, It got stuck at about 10% and sat there for months. I had a ticket open with Apple and spent about 20 hours on the phone with a Sr Advisor, who tried everything. He forwarded the ticket to Engineering and the ticket sat there for months. Just last week, I checked the status, and all the images and videos were finally in iCloud. It appears there was a bug, which was resolved with one of the recent macOS upgrades. Apple Engineering put in the ticket that I needed to upgrade to the next macOS release a few months ago, but Apple never called me to tell me that. I learned this week that it was their advice. Frankly, I had given up on trying to sync my Photos library to iCloud and was getting ready to go with a third-party cloud solution.
This is a good overview! I wonder if these are really long term products though. You can already buy 2TB of iCloud for only a few bucks a month, and it would take many months to make up the cost of some of these units.
And if you are worried about privacy just put the most sensitive files in an encrypted ZIP, DMG or any one of 100 encrypted file formats.
That's a good question, that only time will really answer. At least at present, there's a lot of resistance to file backups on iCloud, but there's clearly a market for online backup, given Backblaze and other services.
So, today at least, a NAS is a good solution for that crowd.
Well, cost is a biggy. Then how fast the goodys can go up and down in those intertube thingys. I uploaded all our photos and home video to the icloud at 2.5 mbps. About 500 gbs worth. Took weeks.
Would I be correct in thinking that all or some of these devices could be connected via ethernet to an existing Time Capsule and used as a second, redundant time machine destination, easing an eventual transition to a different router when that becomes necessary?
I am also very interested in the "topic for another day" mentioned in the article. A fire at home that toasts both the computer and the backup is not an impossible scenario. A manual backup offsite is one possibility, but requires diligence. Home ISPs have a tendency to throttle outgoing traffic and also to impose data caps that would make both establishing and maintaining offsite backups challenging.
Keeping all of your files in iCloud and syncing your Photos library to iCloud Photos is your secondary (or tertiary) backup for files. By itself, iCloud is not a backup solution, as your files might be blown away by a malfunction in iCloud, but together with the on-site Time Machine backups, it's a decent risk mitigation solution.
Would I be correct in thinking that all or some of these devices could be connected via ethernet to an existing Time Capsule and used as a second, redundant time machine destination, easing an eventual transition to a different router when that becomes necessary?
I am also very interested in the "topic for another day" mentioned in the article. A fire at home that toasts both the computer and the backup is not an impossible scenario. A manual backup offsite is one possibility, but requires diligence. Home ISPs have a tendency to throttle outgoing traffic and also to impose data caps that would make both establishing and maintaining offsite backups challenging.
Point the first: You are correct.
Topic for another day: We'll be discussing local backups, versus remote. And by remote, we mean things from as mundane as another NAS at a buddy's house, to a bank's safety deposit box, to Backblaze and the like -- and the challenges of each.
Would I be correct in thinking that all or some of these devices could be connected via ethernet to an existing Time Capsule and used as a second, redundant time machine destination, easing an eventual transition to a different router when that becomes necessary?
I am also very interested in the "topic for another day" mentioned in the article. A fire at home that toasts both the computer and the backup is not an impossible scenario. A manual backup offsite is one possibility, but requires diligence. Home ISPs have a tendency to throttle outgoing traffic and also to impose data caps that would make both establishing and maintaining offsite backups challenging.
Point the first: You are correct.
Topic for another day: We'll be discussing local backups, versus remote. And by remote, we mean things from as mundane as another NAS at a buddy's house, to a bank's safety deposit box, to Backblaze and the like -- and the challenges of each.
Comments
For time machine backups specifically, I think it is hard to beat two single drive units that sleep alternating 3-day intervals. Backups do get corrupted, and from a ransomeware perspective it is a great buffer. I try to buy an additional drive every 18-24 months and rotate out the old one. Great way to replace a time machine (eventually).
One thing I love about the Synology is the use of BTRFS, which can let it do instantaneous snapshots with essentially zero size, and sync a new incremental to the copy. Pretty much no overhead aside from the deltas. Daisy chaining two units can also make the second backup blind to the first from a ransomeware perspective.
Both work well and I like the “just in case, just in case” method.
I use Carbon Copy Cloner to create a scheduled back up on both units and let Time Machine do its thing as well.
However, I am also considering a remote NAS.
I use my NAS not only for backups of my various machines, but also storage of my photo albums and music collection and anything else I would hate to lose. Critical documents are also stored in the cloud (Dropbox) where I'll still have access even if my NAS is stolen or lost to natural disaster.
Whilst it would be good if Apple produced their own range of home servers It's never going to happen since they're looking to ongoing income from iCloud backup/sync. Nonetheless it would be helpful if folks knew where Apple are going with Finder tags, or will this be something else that gets abandoned just when it starts to become useful.
https://support.plex.tv/articles/115002178853-using-hardware-accelerated-streaming/
A while back I was considering a Synology (I think it was a 418 model) and seem to remember transcoding hardware acceleration popping up in my investigation. Reading through the Synology forums I found people saying that access to the necessary hardware was restricted to the Synology video player and systems such as Plex would have to make do with the CPU and some were going to get pretty stressed (the lower powered models) as a result. I didn't take it any further as I didn't have time but I'm still interested. A mesh system is a priority for me right now though.
So, today at least, a NAS is a good solution for that crowd.
But, I disagree with the idea that RAID is better. I have had much better luck with a redundant array of independent NASs (RAIN). I buy reasonable quality, but consumer grade single drive NASs and rotate them in a pool. I have found this to be much more effective-- a drive in the safe is much harder to be subjected to ransomeware.
I am also very interested in the "topic for another day" mentioned in the article. A fire at home that toasts both the computer and the backup is not an impossible scenario. A manual backup offsite is one possibility, but requires diligence. Home ISPs have a tendency to throttle outgoing traffic and also to impose data caps that would make both establishing and maintaining offsite backups challenging.
With iCloud, all you get is a copy of your files, so you still have to manually install all of your applications and manually configure all the settings/customizations, which takes forever.
It's time for Apple to enable Time Machine backups to iCloud. In fact, Apple's discontinuing the Time Capsule may be the harbinger of the iCloud Time Machine coming with the next release of macOS.
Topic for another day: We'll be discussing local backups, versus remote. And by remote, we mean things from as mundane as another NAS at a buddy's house, to a bank's safety deposit box, to Backblaze and the like -- and the challenges of each.