Login Register
MacInTouch Home Page MacInTouch Discussions

MacInTouch Amazon link...
backups and Time Machine
 


2017-08-03 at 13:40 #22923   (281)
Well, Time Machine has done it again.

I have Time Machine set to run once per day using TimeMachineEditor and have set up numerous exclusions.
Last night, Time Machine attempted to back up one of my internal drives—even though it is on the exclusion list. It has always sucessfully excluded the drive.

Of course, there wasn't enough space to back up another large drive, so it began deleting files until it gave up... but not before deleting almost everything on the Time Machine backup.

That is unacceptable behavior.

(Luckily, nothing significant was lost as I have redundant backup systems in place.)


2017-08-03 at 14:17 #22928   (282)
(2017-08-03 at 13:40)David Blanchard wrote:  I have Time Machine set to run once per day using TimeMachineEditor and have set up numerous exclusions.
Last night, Time Machine attempted to back up one of my internal drives—even though it is on the exclusion list. It has always sucessfully excluded the drive.
Since TimeMachineEditor is involved, could it be responsible for the erroneous inclusion of your drive, rather than Apple's Time Machine? I see on the TimeMachineEditor web site that the switch for Time Machine in System Preferences is turned off as part of the installation.


2017-08-03 at 17:36 #22941   (283)
(2017-08-03 at 14:17)Scott Austin wrote:  
(2017-08-03 at 13:40)David Blanchard wrote:  I have Time Machine set to run once per day using TimeMachineEditor and have set up numerous exclusions.
Last night, Time Machine attempted to back up one of my internal drives—even though it is on the exclusion list. It has always sucessfully excluded the drive.
Since TimeMachineEditor is involved, could it be responsible for the erroneous inclusion of your drive, rather than Apple's Time Machine? I see on the TimeMachineEditor web site that the switch for Time Machine in System Preferences is turned off as part of the installation.
In my experience, I don't think so. TimeMachineEditor just handles the scheduling of the job that is already part of macOS. I'd assume it's the OS X Time Machine process that applied the settings incorrectly.


2017-08-04 at 17:48 #22976   (284)
After a bit of testing, it looks like TimeMachineEditor fixes my issue and has Time Machine working exactly as I would like.

It is now completing backups on its hourly schedule, whether the screen is locked or no one is logged in at all. Additionally, it provides the handy option to limit backups to business hours, which is nice. It also seems to be correctly obeying the drives I have set to ignore in the Time Machine pref pane.

It appears to be correctly pruning hourly backups more than a day old as well (I would assume so, since this facility is presumably still handled by Time Machine's algorithm), although I'll be keeping an eye on it for a while just to make sure everything is running smoothly.

Thanks for the great recommendation!


2017-08-04 at 17:56 #22978   (285)
(2017-08-02 at 23:44)Joe wrote:  
(2017-08-01 at 16:51)M. Marshall wrote:  Time Machine does not appear to back up when a user is logged in but the screen is locked. Is there a way around this?
This may be a silly question...
If the screen is locked, the user cannot be making any changes.
In addition to the case of "logged out or locked screen after making changes" that was already noted, the less-edge case (and what is my issue) is when it's not a local user changing files. If the Mac is being accessed via the network, files can and will be changed even if no one is logged in at all.

The Mac OS has basic file-server features built in, so even a home user could find themselves in this situation (and I have, regularly, at my house), but if you're using Server.app in an office, it's a standard use case to have many users changing files constantly over the network without anyone logged in with an interactive local session.


2017-08-05 at 15:02 #23005   (286)
(2017-07-27 at 13:12)I wrote:  Since I upgraded to a new iMac and brought my Photos library back onto my internal drive, I've been noticing some huge Time Machine backups (40 to over 50 GB). ...
I'm still having an annoying and potentially expensive Time Machine issue. It appears that whenever I sync either my iPhone or iPad, the next Time Machine backup is billed as 50 GB in the Time Machine menu during the backup.

Later, in the ever-useful BackupLoupe app, I find that the culprit is inside the  Photos Library.photoslibrary  package, where the iPod Photo Cache folder makes up over 95% of the total backup. All the largest consumers of backup volume space in BackupLoupe are to this folder. The backup that just completed was a total of 43.82 GB, of which 42.1 GB are inside the iPod Photo Cache folder.

Revealing the Photos library contents in the Finder shows the total size of the iPod Photo Cache folder as 45.21 GB. I know my photo library is large, over 23,000 photos, most of which I sync to my i-devices. However, I didn't think the Photo Cache was totally regenerated each time I synced, so I'd expected incremental changes, but definitely not the whole thing!

Even so, these huge backups can't be normal, can they? I fear that my Time Machine volume will be uselessly consumed by this behavior!


2017-08-07 at 11:35 #23050   (287)
(2017-08-05 at 15:02)jschaffe wrote:  I'm still having an annoying and potentially expensive Time Machine issue. It appears that whenever I sync either my iPhone or iPad, the next Time Machine backup is billed as 50 GB in the Time Machine menu during the backup.
  Later, in the ever-useful BackupLoupe app, I find that the culprit is inside the  Photos Library.photoslibrary  package, where the iPod Photo Cache folder makes up over 95% of the total backup. All the largest consumers of backup volume space in BackupLoupe are to this folder. The backup that just completed was a total of 43.82 GB, of which 42.1 GB are inside the iPod Photo Cache folder.
  Revealing the Photos library contents in the Finder shows the total size of the iPod Photo Cache folder as 45.21 GB. I know my photo library is large, over 23,000 photos, most of which I sync to my i-devices. However, I didn't think the Photo Cache was totally regenerated each time I synced, so I'd expected incremental changes, but definitely not the whole thing!
  Even so, these huge backups can't be normal, can they? I fear that my Time Machine volume will be uselessly consumed by this behavior!
What are the create/modify dates for the the cache files in the Finder? Do they look like they are being regenerated on every sync? If they are, and if they are then resynched to your iDevice every time, it would also dramatically increase the time it takes to complete each sync, and potentially shorten the life of the flash storage in your iDevices. If you watch the sync progress in iTunes, does it look like it's syncing photos every time?

Do the Time Machine preferences allow you to select a folder (the cache folder) inside of a package file to be excluded from the backup set, or does it not let you go deeper in the file structure than the package itself? If so, I can't see any reason to not simply exclude that folder from the Time Machine backup (although that wouldn't solve any extended sync times, if that it happening).


2017-08-07 at 11:40 #23051   (288)
(2017-08-05 at 15:02)I wrote:  I'm still having an annoying and potentially expensive Time Machine issue. It appears that whenever I sync either my iPhone or iPad, the next Time Machine backup is billed as 50 GB in the Time Machine menu during the backup....
I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with this, but I may have found a solution, or at least a work around.

In System Preferences -> Time Machine -> Options, I clicked the + button to add a new exclusion and left the open file dialog displayed.

Then in Finder I found my Photos Library, right-clicked and clicked "Show Package Contents", making the iPod Photo Cache folder visible.

Next I dragged the iPod Photo Cache folder onto the Time Machine -> Options open file dialog, made sure it was selected, and clicked "Exclude"

I've experienced normal size backups ever since, even after multiple iPad and iPhone syncs.

I'm not sure about the long term effects of this, but for the time being, at least Time Machine isn't gobbling up tens of gigabytes multiple times per week!


2017-08-10 at 01:55 #23145   (289)
I've seen weird Time Machine behavior recently. On two machines at different locations, both running macOS 10.12.5, one a server and the other a workstation, with no relationship in hardware or OS heredity, Time Machine simply stopped automatic backups - a month ago, on the same day.

In the course of researching this I discovered the Unix command tmutil, which can be used to trigger a single automatic backup with the syntax:
  tmutil startbackup

So, as a workaround to the failed automatic backups, I set up a user agent on both machines to run that command wrapped in an AppleScript hourly. All was well.

So, then, three weeks ago, I updated both machines to macOS 10.12.6. I was curious to see what was going on with Time Machine after the update, so I disabled my user agents and, lo and behold, Time Machine was working properly again. Then, two days ago, both machines stopped backing up automatically again, and I was forced to re-enable my user agents.

Is anyone else seeing inexplicable Time Machine automation failures like this?

The only thing I can think of is that something in the system got an automatic update that killed Time Machine, two times. That would be the only possible link between the two machines. Before I waste my time looking for a vector, I'm hoping I can learn something from someone else's experience about this.


2017-08-10 at 10:58 #23155   (290)
(2017-08-10 at 01:55)Emmett Gray wrote:  I've seen weird Time Machine behavior recently. On two machines at different locations, both running macOS 10.12.5, one a server and the other a workstation, with no relationship in hardware or OS heredity, Time Machine simply stopped automatic backups - a month ago, on the same day.
   In the course of researching this I discovered the Unix command tmutil, which can be used to trigger a single automatic backup with the syntax:
  tmutil startbackup
So, as a workaround to the failed automatic backups, I set up a user agent on both machines to run that command wrapped in an AppleScript hourly. All was well.
   So, then, three weeks ago, I updated both machines to macOS 10.12.6. I was curious to see what was going on with Time Machine after the update, so I disabled my user agents and, lo and behold, Time Machine was working properly again. Then, two days ago, both machines stopped backing up automatically again, and I was forced to re-enable my user agents. Is anyone else seeing inexplicable Time Machine automation failures like this?
Yes - I am seeing this exact issue with a client's new server:
  •  brand-new Mac Mini 2014 model
  • macOS 10.12.5 + recently updated to 10.12.6 - problem persists
  • macOS Server
  • external RAID box via Thunderbolt
  • multiple rotated Time Machine backup drives connected via Thunderbolt, plus recently switched over to USB, in case Thunderbolt was the issue - problem persists
However, my own servers and other clients' servers all appear to be working okay. Haven't been able to pin anything down as yet, as still testing various things, but the one obvious difference with this server and all the others is that this is the newest hardware (2014 model Mac Mini)… what hardware/models are you seeing this issue on?


2017-08-10 at 14:27 #23170   (291)
(2017-08-10 at 01:55)Emmett Gray wrote:  I've seen weird Time Machine behavior recently. On two machines at different locations, both running macOS 10.12.5, one a server and the other a workstation, with no relationship in hardware or OS heredity, Time Machine simply stopped automatic backups - a month ago, on the same day.
The Eclectic Light Company blog has been tracking this issue, and reports that as of Sierra 10.12.6, the bug is not fixed.

Before Sierra, Time Machine was scheduled by launchd, and ran on the hour like clockwork. But in Sierra it is scheduled by some kind of new-fangled, opaque combination of the Duet Activity Scheduler (DAS) and the Centralized Task Scheduling Service (CTS). As explained by Eclectic Light:

The Duet Activity Scheduler (DAS) maintains a weighted priority list of tasks which could be run. Periodically it re-evaluates the priority of items in that list by calculating their score, on a scale of 0.0 to 1.0. There are typically around seventy or more tasks in the list kept by DAS. When a task reaches a sufficiently high score, normally at least 0.8, DAS tells the Centralized Task Scheduling Service (CTS) to run that task. In the case of timed backups, this then fires up the backupd-auto daemon, which gets the backup going.
Something is going wrong with DAS, which affects Time Machine scheduling. And you would expect it to affect other routine tasks also.

I've noticed that while previously Time Machine would start within minutes of waking up my computer after sleeping (more than an hour), under Sierra it doesn't. And that means that days can go by without a backup.

(The Eclectic Light blog also has been tracking the fiasco that is the Sierra Console.)


2017-08-11 at 00:25 #23195   (292)
(2017-08-10 at 01:55)Emmett Gray wrote:  I've seen weird Time Machine behavior recently. On two machines at different locations, both running macOS 10.12.5, one a server and the other a workstation, with no relationship in hardware or OS heredity, Time Machine simply stopped automatic backups - a month ago, on the same day....
Yes, I see it a lot. For me, it's chronic: random stoppage, random re-enablement. Happens on more than one Mac. This usually happens when backing up over wifi to a Time Machine-enabled NAS or to a Mac hosting a USB drive for the backup, but I've also seen it do this with a local USB drive that is mounted and looks fine; manually-initiated backups go as expected, but hourly ones are skipped.

Has been happening for at least a year, maybe 2 or 3. I keep all capable Macs up-to-date with OS revs and updates and have seen it on 10.12.5 and .6 as well as earlier major and minor revs.


2017-08-11 at 07:31 #23197   (293)
(2017-08-10 at 14:27)Michael Schmitt wrote:  The Eclectic Light Company blog has been tracking this issue, and reports that as of Sierra 10.12.6, the bug is not fixed....
Thank you, Michael. That's exactly the sort of information I was looking for.


2017-08-11 at 12:22 #23213   (294)
(2017-08-10 at 14:27)Michael Schmitt wrote:  
(2017-08-10 at 01:55)Emmett Gray wrote:  I've seen weird Time Machine behavior recently. On two machines at different locations, both running macOS 10.12.5, one a server and the other a workstation, with no relationship in hardware or OS heredity, Time Machine simply stopped automatic backups - a month ago, on the same day.
The Eclectic Light Company blog has been tracking this issue, and reports that as of Sierra 10.12.6, the bug is not fixed. ... Something is going wrong with DAS, which affects Time Machine scheduling. And you would expect it to affect other routine tasks also. I've noticed that while previously Time Machine would start within minutes of waking up my computer after sleeping (more than an hour), under Sierra it doesn't. And that means that days can go by without a backup.
On my server, which is a Mac Mini,(running the latest Sierra and Server software), I do not let the machine go to sleep, because there seem to be other processes, such as Carbon Copy Cloner, which may or may not run with the machine asleep. I simply keep the machine running and turn off the monitor. With a solid state drive, I am not sure what letting the machine go to sleep accomplishes.


2017-08-12 at 16:28 #23261   (295)
(2017-08-10 at 14:27)Michael Schmitt wrote:  I've noticed that while previously Time Machine would start within minutes of waking up my computer after sleeping (more than an hour), under Sierra it doesn't. And that means that days can go by without a backup.
I wanted to clarify my original post with the information that both of my machines purposely never sleep. The Time Machine automatic backup failures didn't occur in Yosemite, which was running before the Sierra upgrade. (I skipped El Capitan on both machines).

I found out about the failures, BTW, because I had created another User Agent to run another command: tmutil latest backup. I check the time of that in my script and generate an email if it's been more than 2 hours since Time Machine last ran. I run that agent on the server and only discovered the workstation was behaving similarly when I got the alert and then decided to check the other machine. It's so weird that both machines stopped automatic backups at almost the same time, twice.

Thanks, Michael. for your insights.


2017-08-13 at 13:43 #23274   (296)
(2017-08-11 at 12:22)Michael Fussell wrote:  On my server, which is a Mac Mini,(running the latest Sierra and Server software), I do not let the machine go to sleep, because there seem to be other processes, such as Carbon Copy Cloner, which may or may not run with the machine asleep. I simply keep the machine running and turn off the monitor. With a solid state drive, I am not sure what letting the machine go to sleep accomplishes.
Ditto. Especially when you consider that modern Intel processors all have tech that puts them into low-power modes when software is idle. And even a hard drive doesn't consume all that much power when idle. For example, Seagate 2.5" Barracuda drives that can fit in a Mac Mini (the 2TB and smaller ones) consume 0.5W or less when idle.

According to the meter on my UPS, my entire system (Mid 2011 Mac Mini server, external FireWire hard drive, Dell 24" display, cable modem/router and Ethernet switch) consumes less than 100W when idle, and only about 120W during normal usage. That's significantly less power than just about everything else at home.

I don't seriously think that the savings from going to sleep would amount to very much. (Of course, in my case, I need it running, since it is my household server for DNS, DHCP, file sharing, and a few other services. I'd disrupt a lot of my household infrastructure if I put it to sleep.)


2017-08-22 at 12:23 #23622   (297)
https://www.crashplan.com/en-us/consumer/nextsteps/

Effective August 22, 2017, Code42 will no longer offer new – or renew – CrashPlan for Home subscriptions, and we will begin to sunset the product over several months.
CrashPlan for Home will no longer be available for use starting October 23, 2018.

At Code42, protecting your data is important to us. As we shift our business strategy to focus exclusively on enterprise and small business segments, you have two great options to continue getting the best backup solution.

Please read on to determine how this change will impact your CrashPlan for Home subscription and what steps you should take to ensure a smooth transition to a new backup solution.


2017-08-22 at 12:25 #23623   (298)
CrashPlan is exiting the consumer backup market. They have partnered with Carbonite for existing customers who do not want to transition to a CrashPlan small business plan.

  https://www.crashplan.com/en-us/consumer/nextsteps/


2017-08-22 at 13:10 #23628   (299)
(2017-08-22 at 12:25)David Fink wrote:  CrashPlan is exiting the consumer backup market. They have partnered with Carbonite for existing customers who do not want to transition to a CrashPlan small business plan.
  https://www.crashplan.com/en-us/consumer/nextsteps/
So far, it's been a disaster. I decided to go ahead and transition now, rather than wait. I have more than 5 TB of data, so I'm prepared for the atrocity of having to upload again for months. I'm aware of their limitations.... Anyway, I went through the upgrade process.

The application did change to the Small Business (formerly "Pro") app. It then said my subscription had expired. In truth, my subscription was good for another year and a half, and it said I'd get a discount for upgrading for the first twelve months.

I'm in a chat now with tech support. The first two people I spoke with were fairly clueless. They actually did not know what I was talking about, including one person allegedly on their dedicated transition team. The person I'm in a chat with now says I "need a unique link to finish migrating. We shall see what happens.

Okay, we got the account thing straightened out. I now have to upload 9 TB of data again. See you all next year...


2017-08-22 at 13:16 #23629   (300)
CrashPlan wrote:Keep computer-to-computer backups when migrating to CrashPlan for Small Business

When you migrate from CrashPlan for Home to CrashPlan for Small Business (previously CrashPlan Pro), your computer-to-computer backups stop. CrashPlan for Small Business does not support computer-to-computer backups, including:

  • Backing up to another computer you own
  • Backing up to a friend's computer


bobalaska Show this Post
2017-08-22 at 13:26 #23631   (301)
bobalaska
An option I am considering is using a backup client (Arq) to backup files to a cloud storage, most likely Backblaze's B2.

Anyone doing something similar? Any thoughts?


2017-08-22 at 15:45 #23641   (302)
(2017-08-22 at 13:26)bobalaska wrote:  An option I am considering is using a backup client (Arq) to backup files to a cloud storage, most likely Backblaze's B2. Anyone doing something similar? Any thoughts?
That's exactly what I'm doing for my offsite backup process. So far, so good (only have been using for three weeks, but it's pretty seamless and easy).


2017-08-22 at 16:04 #23642   (303)
(2017-08-22 at 13:26)bobalaska wrote:  An option I am considering is using a backup client (Arq) to backup files to a cloud storage, most likely Backblaze's B2. Anyone doing something similar? Any thoughts?
I've been using Arq for years and love it. I use it to backup at home and work. I'm about to switch a client from JungleDisk to Arq. In all that time I've only done a single restore. Yes, I should be checking it more regularly...


2017-08-22 at 16:27 #23645   (304)
George
As I read the announcement, CrashPlan is extending existing subscriptions 60 days without charge. And offering a 75% discount on a year of "Small Business", normally $10 per month per device. I think 75% off of the $120 price would result in $30 for that year, but, hey, verify that with CrashPlan.

Depending on when your subscription expires, the free 60-day period could extend your service into the future, then if you time your conversion to "Small Business," you could have a reasonably long inexpensive run.

Maybe CrashPlan quality of service will justify the $120.

My preference is rotating backups off site on hard drives.


2017-08-22 at 16:32 #23646   (305)
Effective August 22, 2017, Code42 will no longer offer new – or renew – CrashPlan for Home subscriptions, and we will begin to sunset the product over several months.
This is, how you say, "bad." I have 5 computers on CrashPlan Home, and pay $150/year. That amounts to $2.50/month per computer. Not a bad deal, but I've been a customer for about a decade. Now they're saying, "surprise, the price is going up to $10/computer/month." I don't think I've ever dealt with a business that can raise prices 4x in a single swoop. Except maybe pharmaceuticals. Goodbye, CrashPlan.


2017-08-22 at 16:35 #23648   (306)
Now I just got another CrashPlan notice, that they are discontinuing the home version as of July 2018. They are offering to "upgrade" to their small business version, but that will disable computer-to-computer backups, and cost a lot more. They also offer a cross-grade to Carbonite, but I don't think that does computer-to-computer, either. I'm very disappointed with that company.


2017-08-22 at 17:06 #23657   (307)
I have been a CrashPlan users for years, including convincing the powers that be to deploy the enterprise version years ago. I have recommended CrashPlan to everyone for years. I will be changing that recommendation back to Backblaze.

I have 4 computers that back up to CrashPlan - this is a devastating change. I have to reevaluate my entire strategy, and how I support my parents. Whatever the solution, it will be more than double the price and will require me to spend months re-uploading everything, during which time I will have to pay both services, so there is a significant cost. I am interested if anyone is going to demand a refund and free service for a couple months, so they can migrate.


2017-08-22 at 17:26 #23661   (308)
Re: Crashplan, it's unfortunate that there's no affordable - that's the key word - large cloud storage that just works like a hard drive. Dropbox would be fine, but it's prohibitive if you need 4TB, as I do.

My solutions for "offsite" backup are portable drives, one in my glove compartment and (because we live in a fire area) another in a fireproof box like this:

  SentrySafe Fire Safe, Waterproof Fire Resistant Chest


bobalaska Show this Post
2017-08-22 at 18:45 #23671   (309)
bobalaska
Just noticed that Backblaze is targeting soon-to-be ex-Crashplan customers.

  An Invitation for CrashPlan Customers: Try Backblaze

They have a comparison of their features vs. Carbonite (alternative picked by CrashPlan). Of course they say they compare favorably in a number of respects. In any case, game on!


techgoose Show this Post
2017-08-22 at 19:41 #23674   (310)
techgoose
I've been a BackBlaze customer for my own computers, and I've been recommending and deploying it for customers, for years. The service quality is very good, the Mac OS client is very light on the processor and throttles itself back when it sees you are using your Internet connection; such is not necessarily the case with all cloud backup services. I've restored individual files and large batches of files for customers from BackBlaze, with excellent results. BackBlaze is a startup done good, and they still act like a small business. They issue free reports with deep analysis of the performance and reliability of consumer- and server-class hard drives they use, very useful information. In short, a good company.


2017-08-22 at 20:46 #23676   (311)
(2017-08-22 at 17:26)nickbatz wrote:  Re: My solutions for "offsite" backup are portable drives, one in my glove compartment and (because we live in a fire area) another in a fireproof box like this:
  SentrySafe Fire Safe, Waterproof Fire Resistant Chest
I ordered the next-size up; it's almost twice the internal size, and I can store 4-5 drives in it (of various sizes), along with personal documents. It's also very durable and heavy (not exactly a safe you can just run off with).

   SentrySafe Fire Safe, Waterproof Fire Resistant Chest, 0.28 Cubic Feet


2017-08-23 at 02:12 #23688   (312)
(2017-08-22 at 12:25)David Fink wrote:  CrashPlan is exiting the consumer backup market. They have partnered with Carbonite for existing customers who do not want to transition to a CrashPlan small business plan.
Carbonite doesn't support versioning for Mac users, and deleted files are only kept for 30 days. And:
  • The Mac client can't backup to external drives
  • No support for multiple backup sets
  • The Mac client doesn't allow for setting a personal encryption key
  • The encryption key is 128-bit, vs. 256-bit for CrashPlan
  • Carbonite won't backup system files
  • or files in hidden folders
  • or macOS Mail
  • or bookmarks
  • or contacts
  • Carbonite Basic will backup 1 internal drive, no external. Carbonite Plus can backup 1 external drive, but only if it is a macOS formatted drive
This is a strange choice on CrashPlan's part for a migration partner: their restricted feature set goes against everything CrashPlan stood for, at least as of yesterday.


2017-08-23 at 10:26 #23694   (313)
(2017-08-23 at 02:12)Michael Schmitt wrote:    • The Mac client doesn't allow for setting a personal encryption key
Thank you for pointing those limitations of Carbonite out. This one--no personal encryption key--makes it totally unacceptable for me. There is no way my data, which includes tax and financial records, as I imagine it does for many of us, is going out without it being encrypted by a personal key.

I'm also hugely disappointed in CrashPlan after recommending it and using it for many years. I, too, am going to have to migrate parents to a new system.

What is even more concerning to me is what Joe Kissel writes about here:

TidBITS wrote:CrashPlan Discontinues Consumer Backups
   Over the past few years, Code42 has made several moves that, in retrospect, were the proverbial writing on the wall. First, the company discontinued its popular multi-year discounts on subscriptions, which made its already inexpensive service even more attractive. Then, in late 2015, it stopped offering seeding, where you jump-start the backup process by sending in a hard drive containing your first full backup. In early 2016, it canceled its Restore-to-Door service, which let you receive your backed-up files on a hard drive via overnight delivery for an extra fee. And, although the company — after years of promises — finally released a native (non-Java) backup app, that app worked only with its business services, not with CrashPlan for Home.
   Each time one of these things happened, I wrote to my contacts at Code42, who downplayed the significance of these changes and assured me, repeatedly, of their ongoing commitment to the consumer market. In fact, as recently as May 2017, a Code42 rep told me the company “remains committed to delivering peace of mind for our home consumer customers through a quality product that is easy to use and affordable.” But, as it turns out, all these moves were steps toward dropping consumer support, and it now looks like Code42 has been working toward this for at least a few years.
It sounds like the CrashPlan folks have been pretty disingenuous about this change.

I've always appreciated Backblaze's sharing of their data on hard drives, Pod designs, etc., so I'm off to research switching myself to Backblaze.


2017-08-23 at 11:01 #23698   (314)
(2017-08-22 at 13:16)CrashPlan wrote:  When you migrate from CrashPlan for Home to CrashPlan for Small Business (previously CrashPlan Pro), your computer-to-computer backups stop. CrashPlan for Small Business does not support computer-to-computer backups, including:
  • Backing up to another computer you own
  • Backing up to a friend's computer
I don't back up to CrashPlan's servers, just to other computers. Does anyone know if the current software will continue to work in this fashion after CrashPlan for Home goes away?


tomluck Show this Post
2017-08-23 at 12:01 #23702   (315)
tomluck
I've been a CrashPlan user for a couple of years, switching over from Carbonite. At the time, the Carbonite Mac client was a processor hog and kept my fans running constantly. Is that still the case or have they improved?


2017-08-23 at 12:49 #23706   (316)
(2017-08-22 at 20:46)Jonathan Saltzman wrote:  I ordered the next-size up; it's almost twice the internal size, and I can store 4-5 drives in it (of various sizes), along with personal documents. It's also very durable and heavy (not exactly a safe you can just run off with).
   SentrySafe Fire Safe, Waterproof Fire Resistant Chest, 0.28 Cubic Feet
That's the same safe I use. I keep my "offsite" drives in a detached carport. Note: this is still a portable safe, so you'd be best off encrypting your clones and Time Machine backup drives, just in case anyone makes off with it and breaks it open.

I had also been using CrashPlan to backup a server to my parent's home half a state away, but looks like that will be coming to an end. Time to look into Backblaze or Arq.


2017-08-23 at 13:16 #23709   (317)
(2017-08-23 at 11:01)placebo wrote:  I don't back up to CrashPlan's servers, just to other computers. Does anyone know if the current software will continue to work in this fashion after CrashPlan for Home goes away?
CrashPlan say:

https://crashplanforhome.zendesk.com/hc/...at-do-I-do-
"You can continue to use the free version of CrashPlan for Home normally until the end-of-support date, October 22, 2018. At that time, the CrashPlan app will stop working: it will not be able to back up or restore files, even to local folders or friends’ computers."


2017-08-23 at 13:27 #23711   (318)
(2017-08-22 at 18:45)bobalaska wrote:  Just noticed that Backblaze is targeting soon-to-be ex-Crashplan customers.
Because CrashPlan are recommending Carbonite, the Carbonite subscription for one year is half their normal subscription rate, so a fair bit cheaper than Backblaze (and SpiderOak and JungleDisk). But probably worth paying the extra for Backblaze.


2017-08-23 at 13:35 #23713   (319)
(2017-08-22 at 13:26)bobalaska wrote:  An option I am considering is using a backup client (Arq) to backup files to a cloud storage, most likely Backblaze's B2. Anyone doing something similar? Any thoughts?
I have been using Arq for a few years now and find it very good. I have been backing up to Amazon Cloud Drive, but with support for Backblaze B2 I have been trying that for about a month. and so far it has proved very satisfactory and, as my current storage is only about 300GB, somewhat cheaper per annum than Amazon.
Yes, with B2 you pay for downloads but as cloud backup is my "last resort" backup, it is unlikely I will be making any significant downloads.

So far I have only incurred charges for storage with nothing for the other esoteric items such as gets and puts, or whatever they are.

Subjectively, for me in the UK, B2 is faster than Amazon in every respect. However, I have yet to try a significant download, though small ones have been OK.

B2 includes some free usage which will probably be more than adequate for most users.


2017-08-23 at 14:40 #23716   (320)
Guest
(2017-08-23 at 12:49)Brett Gaspers wrote:  I had also been using CrashPlan to backup a server to my parent's home half a state away, but looks like that will be coming to an end. Time to look into Backblaze or Arq.
I use Backblaze. I just received this email from Backblaze. I'm leaving out the personal invitation code, which gives me a spiff if others sign up. (As we say... I have no connection to them, other than being a happy customer.)

Backblaze wrote:You may have heard that a competing provider of cloud backup services, CrashPlan, announced that they will no longer provide consumer backup services.

We thank you for being a Backblaze customer and know that you might have friends or family members who formerly used CrashPlan and are now looking for a new cloud backup provider.

Please invite them with your personal referral link.
{Link removed. But you can go to https://www.backblaze.com/ ...}

Welcome Your Friends to Backblaze and Both of You Will Benefit
Your friends and family members can benefit from the same easy, unlimited, and inexpensive backup cloud service that you enjoy. Other services place limits on file sizes and file types (some don’t even backup videos!). They also "throttle" uploads so that it takes you longer to get backed up. We wrote a blog post outlining some of the differences between us and some other competitors in the space.

Refer a Friend to Backblaze and You Both Get A Free Month of Backblaze Cloud Backup ...

Thank you for being a customer and we look forward to protecting your data for many years to come.

The Team at Backblaze