What's the advantage of doing a TM backup to a TC opposed to a backup connected directly to your machine? Wouldn't a direct connection (via FW or internal) be faster anyway compared to wireless? And why in the world would someone want to do multiple backups from multiple machines to a single drive (TC)? When that one drive craps out, all machines have lost there backup rather than just one. Enlighten me please.
Tony
Most people don't do any backups at all. Most people now have more than one computer in their home. Time Machine and Time Capsule making backing up data easy for the average person.
There, some enlightenmen for ya. TM and TC obviously aren't designed for geeks like you.
Well, more to the point, if TC's hard drive 'craps out', then you replace it and just reback up each machine. The chance of the TC hard drive 'crapping out' at the same time as one of the computers being backed up having it's hard disk 'crap out' is fairly small.
Multiple systems can use the same Volume, this is not restricted to Time Capsule, this feature is inherent to how Time Machine works. TM creates a backup folder in the Volume, then creates a folder for the system you are backing up. So if you select the same drive for TM on different systems, it will create a separate folder for each of them, backing up the data in that folder. SO, you can use multiple systems to backup to the same hard drive, whether Time Capsule drive, or a usb drive connected to Time Capsule, or any other hard drive directly connected to your computer, all of them behave in the same way as far as Time Machine is concerned.
I realize there is debate over the 1TB model. But there is zero doubt about the 500GB model being server-grade.
Mark
Welcome to AI, Mark. The debate is illogical since "server-grade" is not a standard, it's a marketing term. Apple didn't say it was Enterprise Grade—as the 500GB Seagate states—which commonly seen on HDDs with higher MTBF and 5 year or more warranties. Apple uses this drive in their Xserve so technically, and that is all that counts in the marketing world, Apple didn't lie. With a MTBF of 1M hours and reviews giving it high marks no should be complaining about this drive... but we know better than that.
Apple clearly states that you can back up multiple machines to the single drive in the Time Capsule, yet the only reviews I have read that touch on the matter state that the internal drive can't be partitioned. This makes no sense at all.
- On the one hand, if a regular external USB HD is used for Time Machine by two different machines, the second machines data will completely wipe out the first.
Time Machine creates a different folder on the backup drive for each backed up Mac, so that when you open Time Machine on portable 1 it accesses the folder on the Time Machine volume for portable 1, ignoring the folders for portables 2, 3, whatever. No need to format into multiple volumes, one for each portable to backup to.
? Apple marketing states that it's "server grade", not enterprise grade". Server grade has no set meaning.
? Apple uses it in their Xserve Servers and as well as others.
? The MTBF for the 1TB HDD is rated at 1M hours and the 500GB is rated at 1.2M hours.
? The various testing on this drive show that it's very good.
? All the belly aching is from assuming a marketing term that is technically was referring to an industry standard term.
As such, I'll have to say that it has no meaning at all. Using a drive marketed as a desktop drive in a server doesn't make it server grade or anything else other than desktop grade. They shouldn't be trying to present the drive as better than it is.
each mac holds its own database for the music. In this case, any number of macs can access the music, sync ipods etc, but any changes do not show up on other macs. Rip a cd, record a tv show or manually reorganise an album, for example, and the other macs wont know until you have them rescan the folder.
I can see how reorganizing an album may be confusing to a library, but in all honesty I haven't done that. I can also see how this could confuse another machines library, but a rescan, as you said, may fix this or deleting the album from each library then re-adding it could also be a fix.
I can't recall how I set this up and will take a look tonight to refresh my memory. All I know is that my wife's library, my kids library and mine are all different and share music from the same drive. I've never had a problem adding albums and having everyone pick and choose what they add to their library's. They all play fine. I haven't run all 3 machines at once and can see how this could create a bottleneck. Movies, podcasts and other files are stored on each independent machine as each of us have different taste/no reason to put them on the shared drive, so obviously no conflict here either. Maybe us using it as a music share only is why it works, but I may experiment this weekend. Something tells me though, that for a movie/video podcast may not run fast enough and choke when attempting to play on a machine.
Btw, my iPod syncing works fine also between adding music, podcasts and movies.
The only time I have problems with the music aspect of my library is when I log off the network, but that's easily remedied by logging back on.
As such, I'll have to say that it has no meaning at all. Using a drive marketed as a desktop drive in a server doesn't make it server grade or anything else other than desktop grade. They shouldn't be trying to present the drive as better than it is.
You're right, it has no meaning so Apple can define it. The didn't say it was enterprise grade and it does have a rating of 1M hours so it could be argued that they creating a middle ground classification that is between the desktop and the enterprise. Marketing is marketing, every company does it.
You're right, it has no meaning so Apple can define it. The didn't say it was enterprise grade and it does have a rating of 1M hours so it could be argued that they creating a middle ground classification that is between the desktop and the enterprise. Marketing is marketing, every company does it.
They are not even doing that (creating a new category). While "server grade" has little to no meaning, "enterprise grade" does and the generally accepted definition is the same 1M hours failure rate. At least in my country this is the definition.
So while Hitachi might call one of their drives "DeskStar" and another "UltraStar" the former is "enterprise grade" by the definition. Hitachi is using as much "marketing speak" as Apple is here.
Overall, it's just lame for people to be getting upset over a comparison between two companies marketing labels. If people want to slag the drive, they should slag it on specs only.
You're right, it has no meaning so Apple can define it. The didn't say it was enterprise grade and it does have a rating of 1M hours so it could be argued that they creating a middle ground classification that is between the desktop and the enterprise.
What I'm saying is that if one company is the only one using it, it's completely meaningless.
Don't a lot of desktop drives have 1M or more anyway?
Quote:
Marketing is marketing, every company does it.
The problem is that apple seems to try to push it much farther and much harder than just about anyone else.
Don't a lot of desktop drives have 1M or more anyway?
Now they do, but wasn't it just a few years ago when 1M hours was ONLY in Enterprise rated drives? I'm still trying to find something finite for its definition but there doesn't seem to be one. There seems to be a lot of common beliefs around the definition but no IEEE or other classification.
Quote:
The problem is that apple seems to try to push it much farther and much harder than just about anyone else.
And they have an excellent marketing division. Fanboy or not, you can't deny the impressiveness of their marketing engine. Who knows, perhaps they purposely choose the DeskStar with 1M hours just to get free press that states that it's not labeled as Enterprise Grade but does have the requisite MTBF rating of such drives. I certainly don't put it past them.
but wasn't it just a few years ago when 1M hours was ONLY in Enterprise rated drives?
At least for enterprise SCSI drives, the MTBF is usually based on 24 hours a day, continuous operation. The MTBF for cheaper hard drives might be based on something else, such as running the hard drive 8 hours a day and shutting down the computer at night, etc.
But some companies are allowed to get away with it more than others.
A long as they don't "lie" they are fine.
-------
If Apple said the drive is "Xserve grade" that would imply that its used in Xserves, right? But Apple said it is "Server grade" which implies it's used in servers, which it is. Unscrupulous, slimy, devious, underhanded... take your pick. I won't argue that point, but Apple did not lie.
Receive mine yesterday 1 GB, I plan to back up 4 macs with this and that's why I purchased the bigger one. I did have a little trouble setting Time Machine Up. With my past 2 Airport Extremes I was able to simply use Airport Utility from my laptop and after the base station setup I then programed my 2 Airport Express to extend my network. The Time Machine would take me all the way thru setup and tell me "congratulations your Time Machine has been reconfigured " or whatever, you can stop Airport utility or wait until Time Capsule restarts. ( something like that ) Problem was would never restart afterward. This was solved by using an ethernet cable from Mac to Time Machine, worked first time and also the 2 Expresses.
My 1TB Time Capsule did not install as easily as I had hoped either. \
I sought to replace the main airport extreme (n) base station in the office with it, and then move that one inside the house to mix with the Airport Express units delivering the internet to the rest of the house. When I got to: "I want to replace an existing base station or wireless router with Time Capsule" there was no following pane to do so.
In other words, the next part of the setup guide never came through. This was the pane I never saw:
Did anyone else have this problem? Were we supposed to have every piece of the older network still plugged in? Why wouldn't it have seen the other two airport express units still in use?
Anyway, just curious if others are having similar problems with the new software or we have an anomaly on our hands here.
Also, is anyone else puzzled by the fact that extended networks can no longer be configured using the automatic setup routine? I often get bogged down trying to figure out if we're configuring a WDS network or something else that gets "extended" simply to distribute the internet through a space that cannot be covered with one base station.
? The MTBF for the 1TB HDD is rated at 1M hours and the 500GB is rated at 1.2M hours.
Lets just hope that their calculation is not the same as used by IBM/WD/Hitachi Death-sorry-Deskstar disks.
A MTBF of 1M hours equates to 114 years (give and take). I have had to replace those disks on a nearly annual base in machines that run 24/7. By now I actually replace them just after after 12 month even if nth is wrong. Much easier to rebulid a RAID 0 in a scheduled intervention rather then after a corrupt disk.
On a different note :
Would TimeCapsule stand in as APN/Router hence making ie my D-Link 924 obsolete ?
What's the advantage of doing a TM backup to a TC opposed to a backup connected directly to your machine? Wouldn't a direct connection (via FW or internal) be faster anyway compared to wireless? ...
Laptops, Tony, Laptops. Currently, I have a MacBook hooked up to an external FW drive for Time Machine backups. It's a pain because I hate being tethered to a desk, so backups lapse. With TC, I never need to be near my desk again for backing up.
If the need ever arises where I have to do a full restore, I'll hook via ethernet.
Laptops, Tony, Laptops. Currently, I have a MacBook hooked up to an external FW drive for Time Machine backups. It's a pain because I hate being tethered to a desk, so backups lapse. With TC, I never need to be near my desk again for backing up.
If the need ever arises where I have to do a full restore, I'll hook via ethernet.
Sorry, please pardon my brain-fart.
I sold my MBP a while back and have been depending on my towers lately, so I haven't been thinking straight I guess.
Comments
What's the advantage of doing a TM backup to a TC opposed to a backup connected directly to your machine? Wouldn't a direct connection (via FW or internal) be faster anyway compared to wireless? And why in the world would someone want to do multiple backups from multiple machines to a single drive (TC)? When that one drive craps out, all machines have lost there backup rather than just one. Enlighten me please.
Tony
Most people don't do any backups at all. Most people now have more than one computer in their home. Time Machine and Time Capsule making backing up data easy for the average person.
There, some enlightenmen for ya. TM and TC obviously aren't designed for geeks like you.
http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.js...D&locale=en-US
I realize there is debate over the 1TB model. But there is zero doubt about the 500GB model being server-grade.
Mark
FYI, the 500GB Time Capsule contains a Seagate ES server-grade drive, model #ST3500630NS:
http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.js...D&locale=en-US
I realize there is debate over the 1TB model. But there is zero doubt about the 500GB model being server-grade.
Mark
Welcome to AI, Mark. The debate is illogical since "server-grade" is not a standard, it's a marketing term. Apple didn't say it was Enterprise Grade—as the 500GB Seagate states—which commonly seen on HDDs with higher MTBF and 5 year or more warranties. Apple uses this drive in their Xserve so technically, and that is all that counts in the marketing world, Apple didn't lie. With a MTBF of 1M hours and reviews giving it high marks no should be complaining about this drive... but we know better than that.
Apple clearly states that you can back up multiple machines to the single drive in the Time Capsule, yet the only reviews I have read that touch on the matter state that the internal drive can't be partitioned. This makes no sense at all.
- On the one hand, if a regular external USB HD is used for Time Machine by two different machines, the second machines data will completely wipe out the first.
Time Machine creates a different folder on the backup drive for each backed up Mac, so that when you open Time Machine on portable 1 it accesses the folder on the Time Machine volume for portable 1, ignoring the folders for portables 2, 3, whatever. No need to format into multiple volumes, one for each portable to backup to.
This is not a big deal.
As such, I'll have to say that it has no meaning at all. Using a drive marketed as a desktop drive in a server doesn't make it server grade or anything else other than desktop grade. They shouldn't be trying to present the drive as better than it is.
each mac holds its own database for the music. In this case, any number of macs can access the music, sync ipods etc, but any changes do not show up on other macs. Rip a cd, record a tv show or manually reorganise an album, for example, and the other macs wont know until you have them rescan the folder.
I can see how reorganizing an album may be confusing to a library, but in all honesty I haven't done that. I can also see how this could confuse another machines library, but a rescan, as you said, may fix this or deleting the album from each library then re-adding it could also be a fix.
I can't recall how I set this up and will take a look tonight to refresh my memory. All I know is that my wife's library, my kids library and mine are all different and share music from the same drive. I've never had a problem adding albums and having everyone pick and choose what they add to their library's. They all play fine. I haven't run all 3 machines at once and can see how this could create a bottleneck. Movies, podcasts and other files are stored on each independent machine as each of us have different taste/no reason to put them on the shared drive, so obviously no conflict here either. Maybe us using it as a music share only is why it works, but I may experiment this weekend. Something tells me though, that for a movie/video podcast may not run fast enough and choke when attempting to play on a machine.
Btw, my iPod syncing works fine also between adding music, podcasts and movies.
The only time I have problems with the music aspect of my library is when I log off the network, but that's easily remedied by logging back on.
Tony
As such, I'll have to say that it has no meaning at all. Using a drive marketed as a desktop drive in a server doesn't make it server grade or anything else other than desktop grade. They shouldn't be trying to present the drive as better than it is.
You're right, it has no meaning so Apple can define it. The didn't say it was enterprise grade and it does have a rating of 1M hours so it could be argued that they creating a middle ground classification that is between the desktop and the enterprise. Marketing is marketing, every company does it.
You're right, it has no meaning so Apple can define it. The didn't say it was enterprise grade and it does have a rating of 1M hours so it could be argued that they creating a middle ground classification that is between the desktop and the enterprise. Marketing is marketing, every company does it.
They are not even doing that (creating a new category). While "server grade" has little to no meaning, "enterprise grade" does and the generally accepted definition is the same 1M hours failure rate. At least in my country this is the definition.
So while Hitachi might call one of their drives "DeskStar" and another "UltraStar" the former is "enterprise grade" by the definition. Hitachi is using as much "marketing speak" as Apple is here.
Overall, it's just lame for people to be getting upset over a comparison between two companies marketing labels. If people want to slag the drive, they should slag it on specs only.
Oh wait, they can't really can they?
You're right, it has no meaning so Apple can define it. The didn't say it was enterprise grade and it does have a rating of 1M hours so it could be argued that they creating a middle ground classification that is between the desktop and the enterprise.
What I'm saying is that if one company is the only one using it, it's completely meaningless.
Don't a lot of desktop drives have 1M or more anyway?
Marketing is marketing, every company does it.
The problem is that apple seems to try to push it much farther and much harder than just about anyone else.
You can use with the gig-e ports and that is faster then wifi and firewire
Maybe faster than FW400, but FW800 is pretty efficient and ethernet is less so.
Don't a lot of desktop drives have 1M or more anyway?
Now they do, but wasn't it just a few years ago when 1M hours was ONLY in Enterprise rated drives? I'm still trying to find something finite for its definition but there doesn't seem to be one. There seems to be a lot of common beliefs around the definition but no IEEE or other classification.
The problem is that apple seems to try to push it much farther and much harder than just about anyone else.
And they have an excellent marketing division. Fanboy or not, you can't deny the impressiveness of their marketing engine. Who knows, perhaps they purposely choose the DeskStar with 1M hours just to get free press that states that it's not labeled as Enterprise Grade but does have the requisite MTBF rating of such drives. I certainly don't put it past them.
but wasn't it just a few years ago when 1M hours was ONLY in Enterprise rated drives?
At least for enterprise SCSI drives, the MTBF is usually based on 24 hours a day, continuous operation. The MTBF for cheaper hard drives might be based on something else, such as running the hard drive 8 hours a day and shutting down the computer at night, etc.
But some companies are allowed to get away with it more than others.
A long as they don't "lie" they are fine.
-------
If Apple said the drive is "Xserve grade" that would imply that its used in Xserves, right? But Apple said it is "Server grade" which implies it's used in servers, which it is. Unscrupulous, slimy, devious, underhanded... take your pick. I won't argue that point, but Apple did not lie.
Receive mine yesterday 1 GB, I plan to back up 4 macs with this and that's why I purchased the bigger one. I did have a little trouble setting Time Machine Up. With my past 2 Airport Extremes I was able to simply use Airport Utility from my laptop and after the base station setup I then programed my 2 Airport Express to extend my network. The Time Machine would take me all the way thru setup and tell me "congratulations your Time Machine has been reconfigured " or whatever, you can stop Airport utility or wait until Time Capsule restarts. ( something like that ) Problem was would never restart afterward. This was solved by using an ethernet cable from Mac to Time Machine, worked first time and also the 2 Expresses.
My 1TB Time Capsule did not install as easily as I had hoped either.
I sought to replace the main airport extreme (n) base station in the office with it, and then move that one inside the house to mix with the Airport Express units delivering the internet to the rest of the house. When I got to: "I want to replace an existing base station or wireless router with Time Capsule" there was no following pane to do so.
In other words, the next part of the setup guide never came through. This was the pane I never saw:
Did anyone else have this problem? Were we supposed to have every piece of the older network still plugged in? Why wouldn't it have seen the other two airport express units still in use?
Anyway, just curious if others are having similar problems with the new software or we have an anomaly on our hands here.
Also, is anyone else puzzled by the fact that extended networks can no longer be configured using the automatic setup routine? I often get bogged down trying to figure out if we're configuring a WDS network or something else that gets "extended" simply to distribute the internet through a space that cannot be covered with one base station.
cheers,
Mick
This is not a big deal.[indent]
? The MTBF for the 1TB HDD is rated at 1M hours and the 500GB is rated at 1.2M hours.
Lets just hope that their calculation is not the same as used by IBM/WD/Hitachi Death-sorry-Deskstar disks.
A MTBF of 1M hours equates to 114 years (give and take). I have had to replace those disks on a nearly annual base in machines that run 24/7. By now I actually replace them just after after 12 month even if nth is wrong. Much easier to rebulid a RAID 0 in a scheduled intervention rather then after a corrupt disk.
On a different note :
Would TimeCapsule stand in as APN/Router hence making ie my D-Link 924 obsolete ?
What's the advantage of doing a TM backup to a TC opposed to a backup connected directly to your machine? Wouldn't a direct connection (via FW or internal) be faster anyway compared to wireless? ...
Laptops, Tony, Laptops. Currently, I have a MacBook hooked up to an external FW drive for Time Machine backups. It's a pain because I hate being tethered to a desk, so backups lapse. With TC, I never need to be near my desk again for backing up.
If the need ever arises where I have to do a full restore, I'll hook via ethernet.
Laptops, Tony, Laptops. Currently, I have a MacBook hooked up to an external FW drive for Time Machine backups. It's a pain because I hate being tethered to a desk, so backups lapse. With TC, I never need to be near my desk again for backing up.
If the need ever arises where I have to do a full restore, I'll hook via ethernet.
Sorry, please pardon my brain-fart.
I sold my MBP a while back and have been depending on my towers lately, so I haven't been thinking straight I guess.
Sorry, please pardon my brain-fart.
I sold my MBP a while back and have been depending on my towers lately, so I haven't been thinking straight I guess.
Also, many households have multiple computers. Whether they are notebooks or desktops they can all use the same networked drive for TM.