todivefor

Q: time machine on non Apple nas

I have been backing up to a Goflex Home network drive with TM for some time.  About every 60+ days, I get the validation error, need to create a new backup message.  These new backups are time consuming in addition to losing all history.  Although TM is a great theory, in practice it just doesn't work.  Before you tell me that this is not supported, I see the same problems on Time Capsule drives.  I have all but given up on this product.  I have tried repairing the drive with just about every solution being proposed.  The best solution I have found is http://www.garth.org/archives/2011,08,27,169,fix-time-machine-sparsebundle-nas-b ased-backup-errors.html.  I have tried this with every failure and have most recently gotten almost there.  Now after following all the directions, I get that the file system is read-only.  If I do ctl-i on the volume, I get me - read & write, staff - read only, everyone - read only.  I have unlocked trying to change for staff and everyone, but it won't let me change.  Any ideas before I give up on TM?  I am running 10.9.5 on a 15" mid 2012 Macbook Pro with 16GB.

MacBook Pro, OS X Mavericks (10.9.1), mid 2012

Posted on Oct 2, 2014 5:43 PM

Close

Q: time machine on non Apple nas

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

Previous Page 2
  • by todivefor,

    todivefor todivefor Oct 3, 2014 6:27 PM in response to Loner T
    Level 1 (11 points)
    Wireless
    Oct 3, 2014 6:27 PM in response to Loner T

    Last login: Fri Oct  3 17:44:30 on ttys000

    PWRMacbookPro:~ petersmith$ cd /Volumes/Backup\ of\ PWRMacbookPro

    PWRMacbookPro:Backup of PWRMacbookPro petersmith$  ls -la Backups.backupdb

    total 0

    drwxr-xr-x+  6 root       staff   204 Jul 18 19:46 .

    drwxr-xr-x   6 petersmith  staff   510 Jul 21 07:06 ..

    drwxr-xr-x   3 root       staff   102 Jul 18 19:46 .RecoverySets

    drwx------   2 root       staff    68 Jul 18 17:08 .spotlight_repair

    drwx------   2 root       staff    68 Sep 18 01:59 .spotlight_temp

    drwxr-xr-x@ 37 root       staff  1292 Sep 18 02:01 PWRMacbookPro

    PWRMacbookPro:Backup of PWRMacbookPro petersmith$ cd ..

    PWRMacbookPro:Volumes petersmith$ ls -l

    total 8

    drwxr-xr-x  6 petersmith  staff  510 Jul 21 07:06 Backup of PWRMacbookPro

    drwx------@ 1 root       wheel  264 Oct  3 13:49 GoFlex Home Backup

    lrwxr-xr-x  1 root       admin    1 Oct  3 07:49 Macintosh HD -> /

    PWRMacbookPro:Volumes petersmith$ cd ..

    PWRMacbookPro:/ petersmith$ ls -l

    total 16445

    drwxrwxr-x+ 89 root  admin     3026 Oct  3 06:37 Applications

    drwxr-xr-x+ 67 root  wheel     2278 Sep 14 09:14 Library

    drwxr-xr-x@  2 root  wheel       68 Aug 24  2013 Network

    drwxr-xr-x+  4 root  wheel      136 Mar 16  2014 System

    drwxr-xr-x   5 root  admin      170 Jun 21 14:20 Users

    drwxrwxrwt@  6 root  admin      204 Oct  3 21:19 Volumes

    drwxr-xr-x@ 39 root  wheel     1326 Jul  9 06:16 bin

    -rw-r--r--   1 root  wheel      988 Sep  4 21:55 brew.bash

    drwxrwxr-t@  2 root  admin       68 Aug 24  2013 cores

    dr-xr-xr-x   3 root  wheel     4344 Oct  3 07:48 dev

    lrwxr-xr-x@  1 root  wheel       11 Mar 16  2014 etc -> private/etc

    dr-xr-xr-x   2 root  wheel        1 Oct  3 07:49 home

    -rwxr-xr-x@  1 root  wheel  8394200 Aug 17 22:50 mach_kernel

    dr-xr-xr-x   2 root  wheel        1 Oct  3 07:49 net

    drwxr-xr-x   3 root  wheel      102 Dec  9  2011 opt

    drwxr-xr-x@  6 root  wheel      204 Mar 16  2014 private

    drwxr-xr-x@ 62 root  wheel     2108 Sep 21 00:06 sbin

    lrwxr-xr-x@  1 root  wheel       11 Mar 16  2014 tmp -> private/tmp

    drwxr-xr-x@ 12 root  wheel      408 Apr 27 09:15 usr

    lrwxr-xr-x@  1 root  wheel       11 Mar 16  2014 var -> private/var

  • by todivefor,

    todivefor todivefor Oct 3, 2014 6:32 PM in response to Loner T
    Level 1 (11 points)
    Wireless
    Oct 3, 2014 6:32 PM in response to Loner T

    Loner, I appreciate all the time you have spent.  Unfortunately, I am leaving town early tomorrow and will not have access to my TM volume for the next 10 days.

  • by Loner T,

    Loner T Loner T Oct 3, 2014 8:02 PM in response to todivefor
    Level 7 (24,596 points)
    Safari
    Oct 3, 2014 8:02 PM in response to todivefor

    When you get back, post here, and revive this thread. Have a safe trip!

  • by John Galt,

    John Galt John Galt Oct 3, 2014 8:31 PM in response to todivefor
    Level 9 (50,065 points)
    Mac OS X
    Oct 3, 2014 8:31 PM in response to todivefor

    Although TM is a great theory, in practice it just doesn't work.


    You are not using a supported Time Machine configuration, and the Time Machine backups being created with that configuration should not be considered reliable.


    The exhaustive list of devices supported by Time Machine amounts to the following:

     

    • AirPort Time Capsule's built-in hard disk (any model)
    • External USB hard disk drive connected to a Time Capsule (any model)
    • External USB hard disk drive connected to an AirPort Extreme (current model only)
    • A hard disk drive directly connected either to the source Mac, or a Mac on your local network.

     

    That is all.

     

    Use whatever backup device you want, but you should be aware that this site is full of reports of misery from hapless individuals who had been using third party NAS devices for Time Machine backups, only to find that they were incomplete, corrupted, or useless in the dire circumstances in which they were required. Apple won't care if you lose your data while using a Time Machine configuration specifically excluded from their technical support documents.

  • by Loner T,

    Loner T Loner T Oct 3, 2014 9:31 PM in response to John Galt
    Level 7 (24,596 points)
    Safari
    Oct 3, 2014 9:31 PM in response to John Galt

    John Galt wrote:

     

    Although TM is a great theory, in practice it just doesn't work.


    You are not using a supported Time Machine configuration, and the Time Machine backups being created with that configuration should not be considered reliable.

     

    The exhaustive list of devices supported by Time Machine amounts to the following:

     

    • AirPort Time Capsule's built-in hard disk (any model)
    • External USB hard disk drive connected to a Time Capsule (any model)
    • External USB hard disk drive connected to an AirPort Extreme (current model only)
    • A hard disk drive directly connected either to the source Mac, or a Mac on your local network.

     

    That is all.

    This is also documented in AirPort base stations: Time Machine hard drive compatibility.

     

     

    Use whatever backup device you want, but you should be aware that this site is full of reports of misery from hapless individuals who had been using third party NAS devices for Time Machine backups, only to find that they were incomplete, corrupted, or useless in the dire circumstances in which they were required. Apple won't care if you lose your data while using a Time Machine configuration specifically excluded from their technical support documents.

    This is an issue from a product perspective. Time Machine should/must refuse to use any other configuration, if it detects it, or can detect it.

     

    The article referenced above can explicitly state (and I will indeed provide feedback to Apple regarding this specifically) that NAS devices are unreliable and should not be used. In many other places there are explicit warnings, like the following (from Boot Camp 5.1: Frequently asked questions)

     

    Important: Do not use disk utilities not created by Apple to partition the drive before using Boot Camp Assistant. Doing so may erase the entire disk.

  • by John Galt,

    John Galt John Galt Oct 3, 2014 10:17 PM in response to Loner T
    Level 9 (50,065 points)
    Mac OS X
    Oct 3, 2014 10:17 PM in response to Loner T

    Apple publishes a specification for Time Machine servers that anyone can implement, if they so choose. The problem is that I don't know of any manufacturer that does. There are many requirements. Most NAS manufacturers use an ancient version of AFP that has never been compatible with Mavericks, and perhaps earlier than that.

     

    Theoretically there is nothing to stop anyone from implementing the specification completely accurately, but Apple is free to change it at any time, and unlike other manufacturers they can release it as part of a comprehensive OS X update or upgrade. The NAS manufacturer would have to be made aware of this and update their firmware immediately, or perhaps warn its users to delay updating OS X until they update their product for compatibility, lest subsequent backup or restore attempts become corrupted. It's an unreasonable expectation. It's a lot easier to simply stick a badge on their box claiming "Time Machine Compatible" which could conceivably be true, at least for a little while.

     

    Given the "mission profile" of a backup strategy, the only reliable implementation of TM over a network requires Apple equipment.

     

    todivefor should consider himself fortunate, in that he did not discover his backups were corrupted when he really needed them. That's usually when people find out.

  • by Loner T,

    Loner T Loner T Oct 3, 2014 10:37 PM in response to John Galt
    Level 7 (24,596 points)
    Safari
    Oct 3, 2014 10:37 PM in response to John Galt

    John Galt wrote:

     

     

    Theoretically there is nothing to stop anyone from implementing the specification completely accurately, but Apple is free to change it at any time, and unlike other manufacturers they can release it as part of a comprehensive OS X update or upgrade. The NAS manufacturer would have to be made aware of this and update their firmware immediately, or perhaps warn its users to delay updating OS X until they update their product for compatibility, lest subsequent backup or restore attempts become corrupted. It's an unreasonable expectation. It's a lot easier to simply stick a badge on their box claiming "Time Machine Compatible" which could conceivably be true, at least for a little while.

     

    If the same rules were applied to iOS8 there will be no applications in the App Store. If Apple has partnerships and certifications, it can provide a cooperative environment for third-parties to develop reliable products by providing developer SDKs such that a coherent ecosystem can be implemented. Look at TCP/IP. It is a cooperative environment. If Apple wants to go its own way, then it should not even publish a specification. APIs negotiate compatibility using versioning and try to use a set of common primitives that both sides agree on. There are many examples of it, the most significant being The Internet. AFP can do the same and provide the consumer a reliable ecosystem. Think of 3GPP2 standards. Not all standards need committees either. Apple can license and certify AFP and provide early release after planning changes so things do not break.

     

     

    Given the "mission profile" of a backup strategy, the only reliable implementation of TM over a network requires Apple equipment.

    Which is a classic example of a "closed" system. Linux is not. Apple contributes to Open Source and leverages Open Source. Why not cooperate with partners? Publish early specifications, so a consumer gets a reliable ecosystem to work and play in.

     

    WiFi 802.11n is a public standard, and Apple implements it, as does Microsoft, as does Samsung. Devices work together.  If Apple implemented Apple.11Apple, how many parties would come if the standards changed every 12 months (which is the current OS release cycle).

  • by todivefor,

    todivefor todivefor Oct 4, 2014 4:56 AM in response to todivefor
    Level 1 (11 points)
    Wireless
    Oct 4, 2014 4:56 AM in response to todivefor

    John Galt thank you for your input.  I never knew Apple published a list of supported devices.

    Loner T thank you for your time.

     

    I have been using TM for sometime in this environment and lived with create new backup every 60+ days.  It was convenient for file recovery, but missed losing all my history.  This is not my only backup/restore strategy and only used it for file recovery.  I only pursued recovery because it interested me.  In all my research, I found many Time Capsule users with the same problems.  Therefore I attributed the problem to TM and not network backups.  I had already decided to trash TM, but I seemed to be close to recovery.

     

    I still think TM is flawed and would never trust it for my only backup strategy even if using on a Time Capsule.  I still feel it is only reliable on non-networked drives.

     

    Thank you both once again.

  • by John Galt,

    John Galt John Galt Oct 4, 2014 5:14 AM in response to Loner T
    Level 9 (50,065 points)
    Mac OS X
    Oct 4, 2014 5:14 AM in response to Loner T

    I'm 100% confident Apple will give your Feedback all the consideration it's due.

  • by Loner T,

    Loner T Loner T Oct 4, 2014 6:29 AM in response to John Galt
    Level 7 (24,596 points)
    Safari
    Oct 4, 2014 6:29 AM in response to John Galt

    John Galt wrote:

     

    I'm 100% confident Apple will give your Feedback all the consideration it's due.

    Thanks, John (glad to see Ayn Rand reflected in my daily forays into Apple discussions). In quite a few cases I have been contacted for follow-up as well.

  • by Loner T,

    Loner T Loner T Oct 4, 2014 6:36 AM in response to todivefor
    Level 7 (24,596 points)
    Safari
    Oct 4, 2014 6:36 AM in response to todivefor

    todivefor wrote:

     

    I still think TM is flawed and would never trust it for my only backup strategy even if using on a Time Capsule.  I still feel it is only reliable on non-networked drives.

     

    The level of redundancy should be commensurate with criticality of data. It is fairly reliable for Home use, and non-critical non-SOHO use, but business critical data is not suited to it and vice-a-versa.

     

    One option you may want to consider is OS X Server, which allows clients to be backed up to local storage.

     

    I have also seen failures at Enterprise level, despite multiple levels of redundancy, due to human error (especially errors from the custodians of such backups).

  • by AdamBellC,

    AdamBellC AdamBellC Dec 7, 2014 9:34 AM in response to Loner T
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Dec 7, 2014 9:34 AM in response to Loner T

    So I REALLY need some help - and this is the closest discussion thread I can find ...

     

    I'm a relatively new iMac user (July 2013) - I was using a WD NAS device, but found that the particular device had a systemic fault in so much as it was not possible to update the firmware to bring it up to the level required to use Time Machine for my backups - WD refunded my money and I bought a Synology DS213 to replace it, having confirmed that it was compatible with Time Machine (or is it?) ...

     

    On Friday, I had the Time Machine error message that's referred to at the top of this post i.e. the verification/validation error which meant I had to create a new backup (and lost all previous backups) - that's OK(ish), because I'm not interested in historical backups, just so long as I have A secure backup (I'm paranoid about loosing 10+ years of digital photos, having many years ago lost all my printed photos - and negatives - as a result of a house fire, which meant I've no record of the first 10 years of my kids' lives) - however, I decide to investigate and if I've followed the thread correctly, Time Machine plus non-Apple device i.e. Synology NAS, does not necessarily mean I even have A secure backup - is that correct?

     

    And if so, is there an alternative to Time Machine that I can use with my Synology NAS that will give me the certainty I'm looking for e.g. SuperDuper! or Carbon Copy Cloner (just 2 of the names that recur when I Google alternative solutions)?

     

    I've got Time Machine running (supposedly) OK now, but my faith is waning - all help/advive/recommendations gratefully received?

     

    Many Thanks

  • by Loner T,

    Loner T Loner T Dec 7, 2014 12:04 PM in response to AdamBellC
    Level 7 (24,596 points)
    Safari
    Dec 7, 2014 12:04 PM in response to AdamBellC

    Time Machine plus non-Apple device i.e. Synology NAS, does not necessarily mean I even have A secure backup - is that correct?

    Yes, that is correct.

     

    And if so, is there an alternative to Time Machine that I can use with my Synology NAS that will give me the certainty I'm looking for e.g. SuperDuper! or Carbon Copy Cloner (just 2 of the names that recur when I Google alternative solutions)?

    Apart from the two you have found, there are also other disk mirroring solutions, but they tend to be harder to manage. You shoudl try these two, and periodic restores to a different destination and comparison are good steps to take.

     

    I've got Time Machine running (supposedly) OK now, but my faith is waning - all help/advive/recommendations gratefully received?

    There are issues with TM/TC, but at least you will be in a supported configuration.

Previous Page 2