Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TIL: Apple Broke Time Machine Again on Tahoe

taoofmac.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 157 posts

Re: TIL: Apple Broke Time Machine Again on Tahoe

#11

Post by Aurornis »

ndegruchy wrote: post #2

I use the same setup and was able to restore some files I recently deleted. My SMB settings in Synology were set to what the recommended settings were already. Not sure what happened in this person's case, but it also seems like he backed up and didn't test the restores. Which isn't good practice.

> but it also seems like he backed up and didn't test the restores. Which isn't good practice.

For a professional devops person managing a custom backup solution, I agree.

For someone using mainstream consumer technology on a consumer laptop, it's not realistic to expect this. It needs to just work.

Re: TIL: Apple Broke Time Machine Again on Tahoe

#12

Post by roadbuster »

Article title is a bit dramatic. The summary seems to be: for the 5% of users who back-up to a network share (rather than direct-attached storage like a USB hard drive enclosure), Apple's default SMB configs on Tahoe are strict and won't work out of the box with many common NAS solutions.

Apple should document such changes, but, looking at the post title, you'd think they were silently corrupting data during restoration.

Re: TIL: Apple Broke Time Machine Again on Tahoe

#14

Post by ndegruchy »

Aurornis wrote: post #11
ndegruchy wrote: post #2

I use the same setup and was able to restore some files I recently deleted. My SMB settings in Synology were set to what the recommended settings were already. Not sure what happened in this person's case, but it also seems like he backed up and didn't test the restores. Which isn't good practice.

> but it also seems like he backed up and didn't test the restores. Which isn't good practice. For a professional devops person managing a custom backup solution, I agree. For someone using mainstream consumer technology on a consumer laptop, it's not realistic to expect this. It needs to just work.

I'm not in devops. I don't even have a server aside from the basic usage I get out of my Synology.

However, I have lost data in my lifetime. If you value your backups, check on them.

Also, if you're the kind of person who has a Synology, it means you had to buy a NAS, drives, and setup all the associated machinery for Time Machine over your network. Therefore, I feel it's not outside of the expectation that you can check on your backups. Even if it's just a quick test of a restored file or folders.

Re: TIL: Apple Broke Time Machine Again on Tahoe

#15

Post by claysmithr »

unsnap_biceps wrote: post #6
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #5

Apple has broken Time Machine enough times that I would never consider using it at all anymore. Once upon a time, it was really neat, had great integration with Mac OS X, and an amazing user interface and experience, but it's now clearly technology that Apple will probably eventually drop entirely in favor of something less impressive all together, like telling you to buy more iCloud Storage.

Hasn't the issues always been related to remote Time Machine? I have a usb drive I use and haven't heard of any issues with that setup. Am I missing something?

I use remote time machine as seem to be fine.

Re: TIL: Apple Broke Time Machine Again on Tahoe

#16

Post by roadbuster »

Aurornis wrote: post #11
ndegruchy wrote: post #2

I use the same setup and was able to restore some files I recently deleted. My SMB settings in Synology were set to what the recommended settings were already. Not sure what happened in this person's case, but it also seems like he backed up and didn't test the restores. Which isn't good practice.

> but it also seems like he backed up and didn't test the restores. Which isn't good practice. For a professional devops person managing a custom backup solution, I agree. For someone using mainstream consumer technology on a consumer laptop, it's not realistic to expect this. It needs to just work.

> For someone using consumer technology on a consumer laptop

Mounting an SMB share on a Synology NAS to use as a Time Machine backup target is not what most users would consider "consumer technology."

Re: TIL: Apple Broke Time Machine Again on Tahoe

#17

Post by crazygringo »

roadbuster wrote: post #16
Aurornis wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it also seems like he backed up and didn't test the restores. Which isn't good practice. For a professional devops person managing a custom backup solution, I agree. For someone using mainstream consumer technology on a consumer laptop, it's not realistic to expect this. It needs to just work.

> For someone using consumer technology on a consumer laptop Mounting an SMB share on a Synology NAS to use as a Time Machine backup target is not what most users would consider "consumer technology."

To the contrary. Time Machine is for consumers. Most people use it either with an external hard drive (good for iMacs that stay in one place) or a NAS (good for MacBooks). Apple even sold the AirPort Time Capsule at one point. Since that was discontinued, Synology NAS is the main consumer-friendly alternative. It comes with dedicated Time Machine support. It's supposed to be easy setup and forget. That's the whole point of using Synology instead of alternatives that require more technical expertise, that aren't designed for Time Machine support straight out of the box.

Re: TIL: Apple Broke Time Machine Again on Tahoe

#18

Post by hughw »

roadbuster wrote: post #12

Article title is a bit dramatic. The summary seems to be: for the 5% of users who back-up to a network share (rather than direct-attached storage like a USB hard drive enclosure), Apple's default SMB configs on Tahoe are strict and won't work out of the box with many common NAS solutions. Apple should document such changes, but, looking at the post title, you'd think they were silently corrupting data during restorat…

Is that 5% number real or your estimate?

Re: TIL: Apple Broke Time Machine Again on Tahoe

#19

Post by tonyedgecombe »

hughw wrote: post #18
roadbuster wrote: post #12

Article title is a bit dramatic. The summary seems to be: for the 5% of users who back-up to a network share (rather than direct-attached storage like a USB hard drive enclosure), Apple's default SMB configs on Tahoe are strict and won't work out of the box with many common NAS solutions. Apple should document such changes, but, looking at the post title, you'd think they were silently corrupting data during restorat…

Is that 5% number real or your estimate?

Yeah, it sounds a bit high to me.

Re: TIL: Apple Broke Time Machine Again on Tahoe

#20

Post by andrewmcwatters »

unsnap_biceps wrote: post #6
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #5

Apple has broken Time Machine enough times that I would never consider using it at all anymore. Once upon a time, it was really neat, had great integration with Mac OS X, and an amazing user interface and experience, but it's now clearly technology that Apple will probably eventually drop entirely in favor of something less impressive all together, like telling you to buy more iCloud Storage.

Hasn't the issues always been related to remote Time Machine? I have a usb drive I use and haven't heard of any issues with that setup. Am I missing something?

[dead]
Post reply on HN