Lion prevents Airport disk Time Machine back up

I have a MBP (Lion) connected to an ext HD via AirPort Extreme. It looks like, so far, that it is working o.k.

How can I check that the backup is not corrupted? Is there a way to see that all the backed-up data is o.k.?

Or does TM give a warning that something is/went wrong with the backup?

I checked that Paper you linked, but could not find an answer to this.

peterwillem

peterwillem wrote:

I have a MBP (Lion) connected to an ext HD via AirPort Extreme. It looks like, so far, that it is working o.k.

Yes, that often works . . . for a while . . . until Time Machine says it can't access the backups, or new backups fail, or you get this message:

See #C13 in Time Machine - Troubleshooting for details.

How can I check that the backup is not corrupted? Is there a way to see that all the backed-up data is o.k.?

You can run Verify Backups by holding the Option key while clicking the Time Machine icon in your menubar, or run Repair Disk per #A5 in Time Machine - Troubleshooting. However, they may be fine at one moment, then turn up corrupted within hours.

Worse, once they're corrupted, they may be damaged beyond repair. As noted in #C13, you might be able to restore some selected items, or even a complete backup, or they may be completely useless.

Thus the recommendation in Using Time Machine with an Airport Extreme Air Disk not to depend on backups made this way.

It took me over a day to figure this out, but I did. There is a very easy work-around for this. I put specific instructions on my blog:

http://briandapice.blogspot.com/2011/10/accessing-your-airport-extreme-external. html

This method resolves a work-around for accessing an external hard disk plugged into your AirPort Extreme. Some of the replies on this thread refer to Time Machine. I never got involved with Time Machine since it virtually takes less than an hour to completely clean install your system.

Hope this help you all out!

*Brian

Brian:

Excellent solution. Thanks very much. I've had intermitant backups for some time and hopefully this will solve the problem. That said, I was able to get the connection restored with Rick Camp's suggestion to re-connect with Finder to get the drive to appear in TC. Apple seems to be taking Microsoft's lead in integrating their backend programming. I'm new to Mac and I'm still only half convinced it was a good move. Hardware is nice but I think I'll still be running my VM's for Windows for awhile.

Jason

Hello all,

What I've learned, and I don't remember the source (and it may have already been discussed in this thread), is that Time Machine can't access existing back-ups when variables like the password or the name of the disk change on the back-up disk. It has something to do with the verification process. So, if you change the password on your Airport Extreme, your existing back-ups will be inaccessable - even if you change your password back to whatever it was.

Is this the same with the Time Capsule?

CMF

Engender wrote:

. . .

What I've learned, and I don't remember the source (and it may have already been discussed in this thread), is that Time Machine can't access existing back-ups when variables like the password or the name of the disk change on the back-up disk.

That's not exactly true -- if you change the name of the TM destination, you may get a prompt on the next backup to confirm that it's the right one, per #C15 in Time Machine - Troubleshooting. And/or, you

you may have to re-select the backups via Time Machine Preferences,

If you change the name of your Airport, network, or Time Capsule, you may have to re-select the backups, and/or reset your Aiport or Time Capsule per http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3728

OMG, that's so simple and it worked for me. Thank you!!!

I also found Engender's solutions successfully, with one minor update [using Snow Leopard]... Time Machine would could not "see" the hard drive connected to my AirPort until I clicked on the folder named "Backup" found in the Finder window underneath the "Disconnect" button. [leave room for the possibility that your folder is differently named... not sure whether Time Machine or I labeled the folder that way].

The mere act of clicking on the folder described was the final step in getting the Finder, and therefore Time Machine, to be able to see the drive.

So, 'm a software engineer that, among other things, supports an AFP (Apple File Protocol) service product unlrelated to this issue. But what is more telling is reasons why such a thing even exists.

As you all may recall, it was only a few moons ago that you could "enable" electing an SMB mount as the target for a backup (or any network mount for that matter). To do this required several steps involving creating a sparse disk file for your machine, enabling "unsupported" network targets for backup, etc. This stopped working with Lion. And this is why:

Lion requires, regardless of the target of a backup, so long as the target resides on a Network, the attached server MUST support AFP. Furthermore, it must support AFP 3.3 which added, among other things, Spotlight data interweaving with the backup content and a new feature to AFP called replay-caching. Lion will NOT reliably backup to a network target unless the connected server supports AFP. Period.

Even within the AFP protocol specification there are detailed and specific requirements that must be met. A simiple AFP server, such as NetaTalk or FreeNAS, will NOT work either, unless the code monkeys get cracking and implement the specific requirements detailed in the Time Machine Requirements specification for the AFP protocol.

And the real bummer is this. This is ENTIRELY because Apple wants to be in the business of selling Time Capsules. The physical hardware internal to a Time Capsule and an AirPort Extreme are literally identical. The same radio, the same switch; everything. The only difference is one comes with an internal 2TB hard disk, the other does not. Even the *case* is the same. I've cracked both open (voiding the warranty but I had the go-ahead from my boss for obvious reasons) and detailed each and every item. Apart from a SATA connection to an internal hard drive (the pins is masked off the circuit board on the APE, but it is, in fact, still there, just no connector) these are literally identical.

So you can rolls the dice and takes your chances with the unsupported backup layout of an APE+HD, but in the end only a bonified AFP protocol server with the appropriate features (or one that Time Machine is aware of by signature and falls into compatiibility mode) will "work" in the end. Everything else is a crapshoot. RIght now the only AFP 3.3 supported nework device on the market is Time Capsule (heh, but I'm working on that).

WhozCraig wrote:

. . .

And the real bummer is this. This is ENTIRELY because Apple wants to be in the business of selling Time Capsules.

You have the AFP requirements correct, but that's pure speculation, and unlikely to be true.

When Time Machine was being developed (introduced with Leopard), backups to a USB drive connected to an Airport Extreme were going to be supported -- as mentioned in the pre-release materials. It was also beta-tested by developers and selected users via the AppleSeed program, with mixed results. When Leopard was actually released, all mention of it was removed.

It does work pretty well for some folks, but for most, it's unreliable after a period of days or weeks, and for others, it won't work at all. Unreliability seems a more likely reason it's not supported.

And if Apple wanted to limit wireless backups to Time Capsules, why do they allow TM to work with 3rd-party NAS drives?

(I've also seen reports by others who have taken both apart reporting that the internal hardware is not the same.)

Even the *case* is the same.

Really? They may look the same, but an Airport Extreme is 6.5" by 6.5" by 1.34"; a Time Capsule is 7.75" by 7.75" by 1.43."

So I've been using wireless backups on my Airport Extreme Base Station for over a month now and do far have had no problems. I have even used it when reinstalling Lion on my machine after I realized there was a problem with the 10.7.2 installed OS that wouldn't update to 10.7.3. Lipn was able to see the hard drive connected to the Airport during setup and restored my data wirelessly. Lion did not recognize the backup on the disk when it was connected directly via USB, only when it was connected to the Airport. I found this odd and the only problem with this was that the restore was slower via WiFi than it would have been via USB. But everything continues to go well and backups occur regularly without issue.

scheming wrote:

So I've been using wireless backups on my Airport Extreme Base Station for over a month now and do far have had no problems.

Yes, a number of folks get it to work for a while. In my case, the backups would turn up corrupted every 3 or 4 months, which seems less often than most. So do not be surprised if yours do, too, as they do for many.

Lion did not recognize the backup on the disk when it was connected directly via USB, only when it was connected to the Airport.

That happens in some circumstances, since backups done directly are placed inside a Backups.backupdb folder at the top level of the drive; but those done over a network put it inside a sparse bundle disk image. If such a drive is connected directly, sometimes you have to manually mount the sparse bundle for the backups to be recognized.

WhozCraig,

Please answer me this. For my Macbook Pro, I am trying to use a network drive for a time machine backup that resides in my Mac Pro as an internal SATA connected drive running 10.7x. So why can I not backup to that drive? Its running the latest OSX AFP server??? I tried the showing if unsupported drives etc and could select it, but Time Machine says it does not support the AFP protocols. This makes no sense to me. No USB external drive or stand alone NAS device that has to implement AFP, just a Mac, with the latest OSX.

I'm aware of the preview support for Time Machine over AirPort Extreme. It was one of the reasons the user-community was so ripe upon final release when, for no apparent explanation, support was pulled and evaporated from all documentation.

Regarding the pure speculation of AFP-requirements mentioned previously. Um. they're not speculation. Did you even read the documented requirements for a Time Machine Protocol-enabled AFP server that Apple released? (and that documented list is NOT complete, btw).? Lion requires an AFP implementation not provided by the AFP services on a APE. There is no reason they are not provided apart from the simple fact that Apple chose not to put them there. This is inarguable. Speculation dawns from the reasons for that decision, and I grant you that. That speculation is not, however, founded on thin air. I've done my homework on this. It is because Apple has chosen to do things like the yanking TM support in an APE at the last minute before release that I even bothered. If, however you have an alternative hypothesis that is anything besides devil's-advocate throw-back I'm always interested in hearing a differing opinion.

Regarding Apple's "support" for NAS ? If by "support" you mean they don't outright cripple it intentionally? I concur on that. However, doing that often leads to nasty and prolonged time in court rooms (read Adobe PM vs. Microsoft). Apple can, however, freely cripple their own hardware and software solutions which they have every right to do so. Obviously they're free to do that, though it becomes, IMHO, unethical the moment they do so after pimping their intent to do the exact opposite in their prerelease material. That has shades of the tales of old when vapor was marketed to squelch potential competitors from even starting to develop alternatives.

Apple does release their updated specifications for new features in AFP (currently released is 3.3) which I completely support. It is wonderful thing when manufacturers release all the goodies to assist you in intermingled product development to make your stuff work with their stuff. However, that they don't document all the features in that protocol and furthermore utilize those undocumented op-codes within their own solutions is something I most certainly do NOT agree with. Those were the kinds of things that chapped the hides of Windows engineers 20 years ago and fostered the ludicrous claims from MS that they never used undocumented functionality from their OS for non-OS-related advantages (read: Office). It was easy to prove otherwise back then with a few minutes on the business end of SoftICE. It is still so today with AFP and simple packet decoder tailored for DSI wrappers around AFP commands. Literally any software engineer can demonstrate that AFP out of a Lion client uses at least one undocumented op-code (no undocumented DSI that I've seen, however, so props for at least that).

Finally, regarding the case of the two devices. The internals of the case are the same. the dimensions are widened on the physical case of the TC to allow slipping a hard disk inside. other than that they are functionally identical (save for the masked-off pin-out for the SATA controller, which is not present in the APE.

I love my Mac. I always will. It is beyond-superior to anything in its class for non-Mac solutions. When given the choice for buying a new laptop you couldn't get me to the Apple Store web site fast enough. They just work, and I love that. Being an old-school Unix guy (BSD at that) made it even more attractive. Out of all those choices out there I chose Apple because I wanted it, not because there was no other choice. How I wish supporting that decision was as freely distributed in choices.

All that being said, perhaps Apple will shock us all and update the APE firmware to allow, and more importantly support, this wonderful feature again. Or perhaps their next line of APEs will have it available. Perhaps. But all that would do is cannibalize their own market share for Time Capsules for no real win, so I'm not going to hold my breath on that one. Never say never.

Good luck to you all out there, and have a pleasant day.

WhozCraig wrote:

I'm aware of the preview support for Time Machine over AirPort Extreme. It was one of the reasons the user-community was so ripe upon final release when, for no apparent explanation, support was pulled and evaporated from all documentation.

I guess it couldn't possibly be as simple as it just didn't work reliably.

Famously-secretive Apple didn't explain it; therefore it must be something shady.

Did you even read the documented requirements for a Time Machine Protocol-enabled AFP server that Apple released?

Yes, of course. Long ago.

If, however you have an alternative hypothesis that is anything besides devil's-advocate throw-back I'm always interested in hearing a differing opinion.

I see, anything like "it just didn't work well" is a devil's advocate throwback (whatever that is).

And the fact that many folks with both TC's and Airports (or who have replaced one with the other) have tried it both ways, and found the TC reliable but the Airport unreliable is also immaterial.