Re: [9fans] OT: how do 9fans backup their Mac(book)?

[steve jenkin <stevej098@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3996 bytes --]

1. I liked the distinction noted between 'backups' and 'archives'.

2. Cloning a drive is of limited use on any system.
    Isn't "future proof", doesn't scale, doesn't allow for disk size
changes or hardware changes.
    Is a necessary part of an Admin Toolkit, but only for very
particular situations.

3. HFS+ stores a lot of metadata which OS/X relies upon.
    If you chose to backup system that doesn't capture it, you're losing
a lot.
    Not sure if using SMB or NFS stores for Time Machine captures it or
not (.../.DS_store ??)
    [There's enough doco out there and enough tutorials on using network
filesystems for TM]

4. With a locally attached drive, mds/mdimporter indexes Time Machine
for 'Spotlight'.
    This is a very useful feature of OS/X, if somewhat annoying as it
hammers the disk.

5. Locally attached drives with HFS+ use hard links to "dedup" at the
file level.
    I suspect that on any medium, Time Machine backups up all files
modified since last backup.
    Which is painful and slow for big files that change frequently -
like my email files.

    As a direct consequence, "mail directory" format is a much better
idea than "mailbox" format
    [dir per message + one file per message segment,  vs many messages
in a single file]

6. Time Machine backups are "well integrated" with the OS/X.
     *when*, not if, you upgrade your hardware, including replacing a
lost laptop,
     the OS/X install process takes the lastest snapshot as the basis
for the new machine.
     This isn't a mere copy, but a very sophisticated 'merge'.
      I upgraded from PPC & Tiger to Intel + Snow Leopard, took 3-4
hours [direct, no TM]
      All apps+data moved & upgraded, modulo PPC-only binaries.
      I know TM upgrade/restores work - a friend used this for his 2
iMac's @ home.

Nothing else I've seen comes close to Time Machine.
The "upgrade & merge" feature alone is worth the price of admission,
even for a single m/c at home.
For a workplace, it's an Admins' Dream...

In a workplace, you'll be using network logins and network shares.
There may be no reason to personalise machines because the user's 'home
directory' is where everything specific to them is stored, and they
don't get admin rights on their machine (to install non-standard Apps),
do they?

I did some graduate study at a local University a few years back.
They provided common-access computers:
 Windows & Mac: machines were a standard image with the 'home directory'
mounted via SMB.

I thought it worked well for 5-10,000 students.
Because students couldn't install random Apps, virus & malware
infections were quite infrequent.

These days, you could use one of the many VM solutions out there to
allow users a way to have a reasonably safe personalised environment -
that's backed up, accessible 'everywhere' on-net and not subject to
upgrade problems (for the system admins).

Do Apple allow OS/X desktop to run under a VM?
They certainly insist that OS/X only be run on Apple hardware.

Hope this is of some use.

Axel Belinfante wrote on 1/10/11 1:19 AM:
> Just curious what 9fans use, for home and/or work, to backup their macs.
>
> time machine?
> to a local (usb,firewire) disk?
> or remote (time capsule, nas (not officially sanctioned by apple))?
>
> or eat our own dog food and use eg. venti?
> or tra?
>
> or no backup necessary because everything important is already elsewhere?
> (in the cloud, or in a version management system)
>
> or?
>
>
> context: we are reconsidering how to do this at work,
> and prefer not to reinvent the wheel.
>
> (at home I just backup my mac to a readynas box using time machine).
>
>
> Sorry for the off-topic nature of this post, but the fact
> that 9fans will be aware of less-common solutions like venti -
> not to mention the presence of coraid people here -
> made me look for experience/expertise here.
>
> Regards,
> Axel.
>
>
>


--



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4865 bytes --]