iCloud.com gains options to restore files, contacts & calendar data
Without fanfare, Apple recently updated iCloud.com to allow users to restore files, contacts, and/or calendars and reminders hosted on the service, opening up a recovery window for mistakes.
The options are hidden under the Settings app on the website. In each case, different limits apply. Deleted files for example are kept on Apple's servers for varying amounts of time, though apparently no more than 30 days. Recovered files appear in iCloud Drive.
Contacts can only be restored as an archive, not individually, and doing so will revert contacts across every device signed into the same iCloud account. This creates an archive of the latest contact data though, making it possible to undo the restore.
A similar system is in effect for calendars and reminders. Apple cautions that all sharing will be stripped out during a restore, forcing users to once again offer or ask for permissions. Any scheduled events will be canceled and recreated, which could cause confusion as invited guests will see both cancellation notices and new invitations.
Because they weren't announced it's not clear when the restore options were added, although they appear to have surfaced sometime this week.
Apple has been gradually developing iCloud.com into a comprehensive platform, one major addition in the past year being iCloud Photo Library. The Web versions of Pages, Numbers, and Keynote are still in beta however, despite having been online since 2013.
The options are hidden under the Settings app on the website. In each case, different limits apply. Deleted files for example are kept on Apple's servers for varying amounts of time, though apparently no more than 30 days. Recovered files appear in iCloud Drive.
Contacts can only be restored as an archive, not individually, and doing so will revert contacts across every device signed into the same iCloud account. This creates an archive of the latest contact data though, making it possible to undo the restore.
A similar system is in effect for calendars and reminders. Apple cautions that all sharing will be stripped out during a restore, forcing users to once again offer or ask for permissions. Any scheduled events will be canceled and recreated, which could cause confusion as invited guests will see both cancellation notices and new invitations.
Because they weren't announced it's not clear when the restore options were added, although they appear to have surfaced sometime this week.
Apple has been gradually developing iCloud.com into a comprehensive platform, one major addition in the past year being iCloud Photo Library. The Web versions of Pages, Numbers, and Keynote are still in beta however, despite having been online since 2013.
Comments
This adds flexibility, accessibility, reliability, scalability and performance.
In re: flexibility, FoundationDB allows you to define a DB accessed as an hierarchical data structure -- mimicking the folder/file tree of the Finder.
This would facilitate a [B][I] Time Machine [/I][/B] implementation in iCloud -- for iDevices and Macs, alike.
My thoughts exactly.
I'd also like this feature to be available in iCloud Drive on Mac OS X and iOS, not just via the webapp. This would go a long way to helping me pull the plug on using Dropbox for storage if they can achieve this goal.
You pay for enough cloud storage to have have your entire iTL saved on iCloud? At 1TB your ITL is small. Personally, I would suggest being more proactive by using a backup service instead of a syncing service. I recommend Time Machine for those using Macs that need something easy to use. An external 2.5" 1TB HDD for your Mac or if your router has a USB port that allows mounting of a drive should do you just fine.
I would kill (well maybe just maim) to be able to install/test FoundationDB on my Mac -- using Swift, of course.
Sigh ... I learned about FoundationDB when Apple acquired them & all downloads were removed from the FoundationDB site.
I've been Playgrounding around with how to approximate the FoundationDB data structure -- an ordered Key/Value Pair.
In Xcode you can do this by creating an ordered array that references an unordered dictionary.
It appears to be quite flexible!
Why? The last time I looked At PostgreSQL it was non-distributable -- the entire db had to reside on a server, and if replicated to other servers, there was no way to interface them through the db constructs.
FoundationDB handles this easily and supports SQL Queries -- though not a relational db.
If iCloud has millions of users with hundreds (or thousands?) of files each -- IDK if any relational db or single server could handle this.
If we assume for a moment that apple wants to store all your data in the cloud for backups and to distribute it "live" to various clients, might the next step be the reinvention of thin-clients, or chrome book done right?
While I'm not sure what to feel about relying 100% on someone's cloud and the corresponding connection working reliably, I would love the idea of never having to worry about getting access to my data from anywhere and any kind of (apple) device, and beyond that like with iOS already don't really need to worry about the OS and file systems and disk space and some maintenance apart from installing updates.
I think that, however, would take a few more years before it could see the light of day.
And yes, I am aware, for the time being there are a number of use cases where you require raw computation power right at your desk.
Why? The last time I looked At PostgreSQL it was non-distributable -- the entire db had to reside on a server, and if replicated to other servers, there was no way to interface them through the db constructs.
Postges handles load balancing just fine. All load balancing database clusters work under pretty much the same principles. A cluster automatically designates a write master which is responsible for syncing data to the other members of the cluster. The other members are read only. If the master goes down, the member with the last write becomes the new write master. When the old master comes back online it will be a slave.
SolipsismY,
Thanks for those good suggestions.
(My orig post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek to reflect the experience of others; I didn't lose any music, that I know.)
Question:
My iTunes library is on an external drive, and I sync with that via my PC weekly. Is this configuration vulnerable to the iTunes library corruption that others reported (after turning on Apple Music), or does my physical copy of the music protect me from accidental loss?
In the scenario you describe above:
Say, iCloud has millions of users with hundreds (or thousands?) of files each with hundreds or thousands of transactions per second.
Can Postgres handle a database of that size? Can Postgres handle a tnsaction volume of that size?
http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/foundationdb-nosql-database,1-2385.html
These are honest questions! I read that Amazon, Google, eBay and others have requirements for massive, performant distributed databases that are far beyond the capabilities of today's relational db. That's why they rolled their own "NoSQL" solutions (or contract them from others).
If Apple has big plans for iCloud services (and I think they do) -- then I think that their needs would be closer to Amazon, et al!
I'd be willing to bet that Apple has been migrating iCloud function to FoundationDB.
This adds flexibility, accessibility, reliability, scalability and performance.
In re: flexibility, FoundationDB allows you to define a DB accessed as an hierarchical data structure -- mimicking the folder/file tree of the Finder.
This would facilitate a Time Machine implementation in iCloud -- for iDevices and Macs, alike.
Presumably not for very large files, though. Sending or downloading hundreds of GBs or even several TBs can take a significant amount of time. I'm talking maybe a week or more in some cases.
If it syncs both ways and the original data is overwritten, then, yes, it would be possible for one corrupt library to permanently affect other. This is why Time Machine is a decent solution for the consumer. Even if anything on your Mac gets corrupted, it's only from that backup forward that the corruption will be present. Any earlier backups can be accessed indefinitely unless your Time Machine drive runs out of space and it has to remove the old (good) backups to save the new ones. To help prevent that I would suggest a Time Machine that is at least 2x the size of your Mac's storage.
Running Time Machine on a Mac the first time takes a lot longer too. But subsequent backups take a lot less time -- as they only backup changes since the last backup. And you can exclude portions of your file structure to start -- then add them in piecemeal, later.
If Apple were to provide an iCloud Time Machine -- likely, they'd use a Percolate Up and Trickle Down strategy -- where as files are changed, they are backed up to the cloud -- and in the background is prioritized to backup all folders/files in the path to the changed file, more leisurely.
And the standard design means you can disconnect it from the back up at any time and it will pick up again when it's connected without having to re-backup any files that have had no changes sine the last attempt.
Yeah! IMO, Time Machine is one of the best Apple apps. IDK if they bought it or built it -- but it just goes along doing its thing.
As far as I can tell all the technology within for well-worn and use in the enterprise for awhile. Real genius seems to be from making it a standard consumer feature in their OS.
Clearly there are different needs for different applications. In the case of Google they might not be concerned about the immediacy of their writes since mostly they're providing search results however in a situation where you're taking orders such as Amazon you may have to deploy a different strategy that can produce transactions quickly.
There is no question that Foundation DB is a very efficient system. I was only pointing out that Postgres also has load-balancing as most enterprise database systems do.
While quite long, this is a very revealing evaluation of the advantages for both NoSQL and RDMS. It was presented prior to FoundationDB gaining popularity.
[VIDEO]
Buried in there somewhere is a comment that some consider a major advantage to a NoSQL db is that there is no need for a DBA.
Also he suggests that NoSQL can be used to advantage because of its immaturity -- to provide lower risk for quick-to-market business opportunities ...
This reminds me of the success of VisiCalc in 1979 -- Departments needing IT (then called DP) services often had to wait 18-24 months to get their needs addressed. If you were trying to do a price/forecast of a new product coming to market in 6 months -- IT was of no use.
Using the $79 VisiCalc app -- corporate departments would buy $2,500 plus of Apple ][ gear and run their forecasts starting the day they got the gear.