Alternative to Time machine

aisonl361 wrote:

Please, in VERY simple non-techy terms, can someone recommend an easy-to-install, easy-to-understand alternative to Time Machine?

I use CarbonCopyCloner. It has been around a long time and is well proven. While it has a lot of advanced features it is actually quite simple to set up a basic backup procedure & schedule.

I use it to schedule backups of specific folders but you can have it back up your entire drive if you want to.

In my case there are certain folders I want backed up 2x daily, others 1x daily, others 1x weekly ... depending on how important or critical each folder is and how frequently they change. Each backup is its own task with its own schedule. I don't have to worry about running backups manually, they just run according to their schedules. And by using CCC's Safety Net feature, as files change, older versions are moved into date/time stamped Safety Net folders making older versions of files easy to get to when necessary. This is great when you accidentally delete a file or folder because you can copy it back from the previous SafetyNet folder.

One of the things I like about using CCC is that the backups are regular copies of your folders & files and you can access them via the Finder just as you would any other folder or file. They are not locked into any proprietary database or application.

Time Machine is the easiest, but it does prefer that you keep an external drive plugged in, or have a NAS (much more work on your part) available. Time Machine, because it takes advantage of Apple APFS file system snapshots, is probably the most space efficient, while maintaining a history of previous file versions.

• SuperDuper
• Carbon Copy Cloner

SuperDuper (paid app in the $25-30 USD range) is a very reliable and easy to use backup utility. You can even configure it to start a backup when you plug in the external disk you are using for your backups (I have my Wife's Macbook Pro setup so it does that). The downside to SuperDuper is that it just maintains a single copy. No historical older versions of files going back in time. SuperDuper can be used for free IF AND ONLY IF you make a full backup, which is much MUCH more time consuming. Also you do not get any scheduling or automatic backup when plugging in a drive using the free option.

Carbon Copy Cloner (a $50 USD paid app) is very reliable, very well respected, but it also has lots of knobs and switches to adjust. It does have the ability to save older versions of files, so while not the same methods Time Machine uses, you can configure it to keep old file versions for a specified period of time (typically a month, but adjustable, and a lot depends on how large the backup drive is). CCC can also customize which files and subdirectory trees are backed up. CCC can work over the network (I used to backup my Mom's iMac from 300 miles away to disks attached to an old Mac in my basement; I have not done that for awhile, but it worked very well, after I did lots of technical setup work). Like I said, lots of knobs and switches you can play with.

I have paid for and use BOTH SuperDuper and Carbon Copy Cloner, as well as Time Machine. I've been in the computer industry for a lot of years, and I have lost stuff, so I am very paranoid about backups. I am happy to spend money on backup software and hardware.

• SuperDuper's free mode gives you a chance to explore the utility. Paid options are visible, you just cannot enable them.
• Carbon Copy Cloner has a trial period where you can play with all the features, but when the trial ends, you either have to stop using it or buy it.
• Time Machine is part of macOS and you can play with it at anytime.

Carbon Copy Cloner is one alternative: https://bombich.com/

SuperDuper! is another: https://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.html

Both provide greater flexibility over what gets backed up, but neither is easier to use than Time Machine, imho.

Back up your Mac with Time Machine - Apple Support

I use TM and CCC. The only reason I can think of for not using Time Machine is that it's Apple proprietary. So if your Mac dies and you decide to go on a different OS then having a non-TM backup of your files, pics, music, etc. is essential. You're also at risk from Apple's decisions on updates and compatibility. The first time I really needed to use a TM backup was to set up a new Mac. However, the TM backup was useless because the new Mac was on a different OS than the old Mac and the old Mac was too old to be updated to the same OS as the new one, so its TM backup couldn't be used by the new Mac. I'm told this doesn't happen these days cos the OS isn't backed up but once bitten twice shy. CCC is OK and can be used pretty easily straight out of the box.

Zurarczurx wrote:

First, some context for other readers here… The original poster was concerned about Time Capsule backups and the associated end of AFP (not APFS) support in macOS 26, and was understandably getting the similarly-named Time Machine and Time Capsule tangled.

Time Machine is still supported, as is Time Machine server to NAS, and both can and do work. (I’ve been runningTime Machine to local and to Time Machine server on NAS for some years, and have done partial and full restores.)

TL:DR: Time Capsule support is ending in newer macOS. Not Time Machine support. And older macOS and Time Capsule still works.

I use TM and CCC. The only reason I can think of for not using Time Machine is that it's Apple proprietary. So if your Mac dies and you decide to go on a different OS then having a non-TM backup of your files, pics, music, etc. is essential.

Most (all?) system backups are going to be platform-specific on any (all?) platforms, and a platform migration always involves looking at individual files.

You're also at risk from Apple's decisions on updates and compatibility. The first time I really needed to use a TM backup was to set up a new Mac. However, the TM backup was useless because the new Mac was on a different OS than the old Mac and the old Mac was too old to be updated to the same OS as the new one, so its TM backup couldn't be used by the new Mac. I'm told this doesn't happen these days cos the OS isn't backed up but once bitten twice shy. CCC is OK and can be used pretty easily straight out of the box.

Downgrading from newer to older has never worked on macOS (outside of a few select cases, such as Apple AirPort firmware), and that process (also) involves looking at files that are cross-version (Pages, Numbers, Office, text files, PDFs, etc) and version-dependent files (preferences and related plists, and other files tied to macOS itself).

This is all independent of the inclusion of macOS in older Time Machine backups. That inclusion allowed starting up from a Time Machine backup, and the availability of Recovery means that support for starting from a Time Machine backup is no longer necessary.

Should your Mac bricks and you decide to immediately migrate elsewhere, scrounge / borrow / rent a Mac for a month, and use that to restore and migrate your (portable) files, and to port your files tied to platform-specific tools. This is not unique, and similar requirements exist for most (all?) other platforms.

As for practices with Time Machine when you’re on a Mac and not immediately migrating, having a Time Machine backup running is one of the most workable and low-thought approaches, or having having two backups running in parallel (local or NAS), or having both parallel and offsite backups, this for increasing data protection if (when) the data is particularly important.

Based on what? I haven't heard that.

There is talk of deprecating network backups, so you won't be able to use Time Machine to a remote NAS device or file server, but that doesn't mean Time Machine itself is going away. It will still support local backups (to a direct-attached device), and it's still the easiest to use product for that use.

It isn't clear if you're using network or local storage for your backup...

Time Machine works just fine with macOS 26.

Tome Machine doesn’t work with Time Capsule, because macOS 26 is removing support for AFP, and Time Capsule support that and a very old and insecure SMB. Backups to other network-attached devices works just fine.

Again, Apple discontinued support for AFP (not AFPS!) with macOS 26. This blocks access to Time Capsule.

(Time Machine backup to NAS via SMB and mDNS works fine, and this Time Machine server replacement for Time Capsule and AFP has been available for ~seven years. Time Capsule doesn’t support this though, with an ancient and wildly insecure SMBv1 only.)

Available hardware alternatives include: Ubiquiti UNAS, Synology NAS, UGREEN NAS, TrueNAS, ZimaOS, a Mac running macOS 11 or later and sufficient local storage, and various other options (also) supporting Time Machine server exist.

Some of the previous discussions, articles:

• Time Machine not backing up to network - Apple Community
• time machine backup to multiple macs on o… - Apple Community
• Backup disks you can use with Time Machine - Apple Support
• etc.

If for routing and gateway tasks, lots of options, including Ubiqiti, Zyxel, Synology, eero, and other fine choices.

If you have somewhat more detailed requirements, somebody here can likely tailor an answer.

Previous answer, which didn’t get in ahead of your reply:

Could you explain some of the issues or limits or concerns you are encountering that cause you to look for an alternative to the integrated Time Machine?

We can certainly provide suggestions for alternatives or add-on third-party apps for backups, including information where you’ll need to manage the backups and recovery more directly, as macOS upgrades and migrations are integrated with Time Machine and not with third-party apps.

The simplest of the available alternatives is to use Disk Utility and manually rotate backups across two or three or more different storage devices. This is tedious though, as you’ll need to perform full backups each time, which takes a while. And you’ll need to rotate your backups, so that you have at least one or two older versions of each of the files (scattered across your collection of backup storage devices), in case you need to revert.

Carbon Copy Cloner is an alternative, though that's rather more capable, it’s also more complex.

Time Machine however, you plug in a hard disk, or maybe you want to use your own network storage, point Time Machine at it, and it does its thing.

Pragmatically, I’d generally use (and do use) Time Machine.

aisonl361 wrote:

Apparently it is no longer going to be supported with the next Mac update.

Your statement cannot possibly be correct as written.

--------

What IS going unsupported is Apple File [Server] Protocol (AFP), which is the native Server-to-Server protocol used by Time Capsule.

If you Erase a Time Capsule drive under MacOS 26, Time Machine will NOT start a NEW backup on that Time Capsule under MacOS 26.

aisonl361 wrote:

Apparently it is no longer going to be supported with the next Mac update.

I know that Time Capsule stops working because it was using the AFP file system network protocol that Apple has stopped supporting.

However, SMB file sharing to a network share is still working. And if that goes away, I'm suspect a NAS vendor will write a utility to fake being a local drive (or at least I hope they will).

And a direct attached disk is going to continue to work.

My Raspberry Pi based NAS has been running as a Time Machine NAS backup without a single failure for 131 days and counting now. It uses an external USB hard disk.

I am running two of them; the other one backs up to a SSD and has been up and running for less time.

After a year or so in continuous operation I may begin to trust them, but so far so good.

Simple and non-techy though they're not, but they are cheap enough to have several. I plan to write a User Tip describing how to do it... eventually.

I hate upgrading because things get broken. I just now installed Tahoe. Tahoe broke my time machine backup "backup delayed". This is not the first time time machine has screwed up over the years but it is simple and free.

So, I'm here looking for alternatives. Time machine is a feature that should never break! It's your back up!

scottyd123 wrote:

I hate upgrading because things get broken. I just now installed Tahoe. Tahoe broke my time machine backup "backup delayed". This is not the first time time machine has screwed up over the years but it is simple and free.

So, I'm here looking for alternatives. Time machine is a feature that should never break! It's your back up!

This question is an unrelated question; yeah, same title, but still different.

Backup delayed can be due to bad blocks, and an update can push a failing storage device further toward failure. Check the SMART data, if it is available. DriveDx might be able to retrieve that.

Tried verify? Verify your backup disk on Mac - Apple Support

Is Optimize Mac Storage on or off? If iCloud is active, try temporarily logging out of iCloud, and re-test the backup.

I am also looking into alternatives:

I am running

https://duplicati.com

on Windows machines, so now I am giving it a try with macOS

use case:

TrueNAS server

SMB share

multiple Macs to Back-up

Time Machine became unreliable with this setup.

My suggestion / wish to Apple devs would be to make Time Machine on SMB share perfom reliable.

Yes, I know: they are asking the vendors to take care of that.

Fun fact:

Apple Container with Time Machine:

[Bug]: Time Machine backup failures #404

https://github.com/apple/container/issues/404

tldr:

Terminal

tmutil addexclusion ~/Library/Application Support/com.apple.container

realMoD wrote:

I am also looking into alternatives:

I am running

https://duplicati.com

on Windows machines, so now I am giving it a try with macOS

use case:

TrueNAS server

SMB share

multiple Macs to Back-up

Time Machine became unreliable with this setup.

I posted the solution I am using. Others have posted theirs. All you have to do is read.

Time Machine has been 100% reliable for me.