And what is the issue backing up all the Mac's with TM to unRAID?

And what is the issue backing up all the Mac's with TM to unRAID?

 

That'd be no Time Machine (or rather related AFP protocol support). while there are hacks to force Time Machine to work with SMB and NFS there is no guaranteed receipt and they have been nothing but headaches in my experience (with unRAID) of configuring Time Machine over SMB.

Works flawlessly and that's not a hack, just a sparsebundle image on the share per each Mac. Btw, *this* is exacty how Mac OS X server backups all its clients!!

Works flawlessly and that's not a hack, just a sparsebundle image on the share per each Mac. Btw, *this* is exacty how Mac OS X server backups all its clients!!

 

Yes I saw it work flawlessly as well until I grabbed a laptop up in the middle of a backup) . Yep, I also know that time machine backups are implemented as a sparsebundle on a filesystem.

 

The issues I saw are more about writing data in transit and ensuring it is written.

I have not been able to get Time Machine on Snow leopard to reliably backup over SMB or NFS to unRAID. It works for about a week until the sparsebundle image becomes corrupted and TM stops working. AFP is required for TimeMachine to work reliably. I have posted under "Time Machine support" in the requested features forum. You will find several reasons why TM will only work via AFP.

 

starcat: Are you backing up Snow Leopard using TM reliably?

 

I switched to CCC for backups to unRAID and it's a reliable interim solution until TM is supported.

starcat: Are you backing up Snow Leopard using TM reliably?

 

Yes, several laptops, and all those might be grabbed middle of a backup, which is not a problem because the earlier backup succeeded and there is a next one in the schedule.

Yes I saw it work flawlessly as well until I grabbed a laptop up in the middle of a backup) . Yep, I also know that time machine backups are implemented as a sparsebundle on a filesystem.

 

The issues I saw are more about writing data in transit and ensuring it is written.

 

And how exactly does the Drobo ensure data is written and prevent the grabbing of a latption middle of a backup?

Starcat are you using smb or nfs? If nfs please share the nfs flags that your using.  Interrupting a SL TM backup over nfs or smb will often cause a corruption of the sparsebundle stoping further TM operation. Unless AFP is used the sparsebundle will eventually become corrupt in any case. Apple documents the AFP requirements for sparsebundles and TM to operate reliably. Using AFP TM will operate reliably even if a laptop is disconnected during a backup. Please see my posts under "Time Machine support."

 

Have you installed AFP in unRAID?

 

And how exactly does the Drobo ensure data is written and prevent the grabbing of a latption middle of a backup?

 

Thought this was stated before - Drobo FS has both AFP, and native Time Machine support. While I can't vouch for it personally as I haven't set it up yet, user reports are that it works well.

 

And how exactly does the Drobo ensure data is written and prevent the grabbing of a latption middle of a backup?

 

Thought this was stated before - Drobo FS has both AFP, and native Time Machine support. While I can't vouch for it personally as I haven't set it up yet, user reports are that it works well.

 

And how exactly does both the AFP and native Time Machine support ensure data is written and prevent the grabbing of a latption middle of a backup?

If anyone  needs a CM stacker case, unraid pro keys, mobo/cpu/ram/etc (forgot the model but it was the intel one tom insisted on in the start) shoot me a note, cause I'm out. I'm in Chicago if anyone wants the box

Dschur, if you still want to do this, please send me a PM.  I can come pick it up.

 

 

Thanks, but since my original post I've decided that because the Drobo is apparently so unreliable as outlined in this thread, I'll keep the unRaid dormant and use it as a backup once or twice a year for catastrophic failure. It's not on the market.

 

And how exactly does the Drobo ensure data is written and prevent the grabbing of a latption middle of a backup?

 

Thought this was stated before - Drobo FS has both AFP, and native Time Machine support. While I can't vouch for it personally as I haven't set it up yet, user reports are that it works well.

 

And how exactly does both the AFP and native Time Machine support ensure data is written and prevent the grabbing of a latption middle of a backup?

 

I don't know, I didn't engineer the solution, but it does. Sorry to say it but it just works (used it for years that way with a Time Capsule).

 

And how exactly does the Drobo ensure data is written and prevent the grabbing of a latption middle of a backup?

 

Thought this was stated before - Drobo FS has both AFP, and native Time Machine support. While I can't vouch for it personally as I haven't set it up yet, user reports are that it works well.

 

And how exactly does both the AFP and native Time Machine support ensure data is written and prevent the grabbing of a latption middle of a backup?

 

I don't know, I didn't engineer the solution, but it does. Sorry to say it but it just works (used it for years that way with a Time Capsule).

 

Nonsense. Time Machine works exactly the same as on a *properly* setup unRAID (or any other consumer NAS out there) and without the need to buy a Time Capsule.

 

And how exactly does the Drobo ensure data is written and prevent the grabbing of a latption middle of a backup?

 

Thought this was stated before - Drobo FS has both AFP, and native Time Machine support. While I can't vouch for it personally as I haven't set it up yet, user reports are that it works well.

 

And how exactly does both the AFP and native Time Machine support ensure data is written and prevent the grabbing of a latption middle of a backup?

 

I don't know, I didn't engineer the solution, but it does. Sorry to say it but it just works (used it for years that way with a Time Capsule).

 

Nonsense. Time Machine works exactly the same as a *properly* setup unRAID or any other consumer NAS out there.

 

OK, if you say so. You seem to know it quite well and are the expert on the topic so we'll leave it at that. I'm glad SMB is working *properly* setup for you on unraid.

 

Have fun with that.

SMB is a file serving protocol and not a file system. Time Machine backups in any case to an HFS+J volume by mounting the appropriate sparsebundle.

 

Starcat what your saying directly contradicts Apple documentation. Sparsebundles will only work reliably over AFP. Please provide details on how you are using unRAID to reliably backup using Snow Leopard and Time Machine. 

 

I have tried unsuccessfully to make Time Machine with SL work with unRAID. I find no online references that support what you are saying.  All online references to TM working via SMB refer to earlier versions of MAC OS. OS 10.6 snow leopard now requires AFP for TM to operate correctly.

 

Please provide references and/or details of your configuration.

All has been documented here, use the search button.

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=5184.msg56380#msg56380

 

All online references to TM working via SMB refer to earlier versions of MAC OS. OS 10.6 snow leopard now requires AFP for TM to operate correctly.

 

Not true.

TM will not work reliably on an SMB share. AFP is now required. You have done this on AFP. Do have SL TM working on SMB or NFS?  Sparsebundles will only operate reliably over AFP. I have tried using Sparsebundles (without TM) over NFS and SMB and they are always corrupted within a week.

 

From http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=5180.msg54329#msg54329:

@EdgarWallace, the link you have posted for restoring from a TM machine on a NAS is the right one. This is when the NAS is not "supported", i.e. the Mac OS X install disk doesn't see it as a TM volume and thus it needs to be mounted manually and the finder notified. I have done it several times (with an AFP share) and this procedures is very easy and works very well.

 

And you are right, there is a small difference between how Snow Leopard and Leopard handles the images on the NAS to be used with TimeMachine.

 

 

There are no current references regarding TM working on anything other than AFP. Please see developer.apple.com and search for F_FULLFSYNC then Time Machine. There is integration between AFP and sparsebundles that is not replicated with SMB or NFS. Sparsebundle operation over SMB or NFS will always eventually result in a corrupted sparsebundle.

 

 

 

Not for me, no corruption within weeks and not within months too. And yes, I have verified a restore.

Running on SMB?

Both, AFP and SMB with unRAID.

Whist this is a very informative thread I think there is a slightly negative background sentiment to some of the posts.

 

I think it is excellent this chap has taken the time to come and post his "moving away" thoughts. It is very rare someone does this.. usually they are contained to "xx sucks im out".

 

One thing to keep in mind it doesn't matter a jot if something works on unRAID that he thought didn't. It is the perception that it works or doesn't coupled with the ease of implementation that matter for most commercial product users.

 

Commercial products usually have a design  dept to shine up www sites so that people can quickly ascertain how cool a product is. unRAID has scant little of this.

 

unRAID is Linux and invariably with effort you can make anything work.

 

The only thing that matters really are perceptions.

 

 

 

Both, AFP and SMB with unRAID.

 

How long have you run TM on SMB? If you use SMB for a week or so it will work. If you run on AFP most of the time and then run on SMB for a day or two before switching back to AFP then you will not see the problem. How long have you operated TM on SMB continuously? If your only choice is SMB (or NFS) and you run SL TM on SMB the sparsebundle will become corrupt and TM will stop working.

 

UnRAID does not support support the current version of TM. I started using unRAID with the intention of installing AFP myself. With the promise of AFP in version 5 I have held off on installing AFP. I may install AFP if AFP support takes too much longer. AFP and TM support must be a priority if unRAID wants to entice the growing number of mac users.

 

 

AFP and TM support must be a priority if unRAID wants to entice the growing number of mac users.

 

This is a matter of opinion.  While Time Machine works great for what it is, I do not use it or particularly like it. Crashplan, which i have setup on the server and my Mac does essentially the same thing and works better in my opinion.

 

Time Machine will not give you a bootable backup, which for me is critical.  When AFP comes to unRAID I might use Time Machine, but I already have CrashPlan doing that job so I probably won't bother with it.

 

My sister has an external drive that I partitioned in half for her.  She uses half for a Time Machine backup and the other half for a bootable CarbonCopyCloner backup.  I have used the CCC backup to restore her computer once and then the Time Machine half to bring back some of the files that were out of date on the bootable backup.

CCC is great if you need a bootable drive for contingency. If the primarily drive fails, you boot from the 2nd CCC clone and continue work. Then exchange the broken drive, sync back and continue to work from the primary drive. CCC (or rsync) might be used to sync up incrementals in between, but it takes a lot longer than TM.

 

TM is great if you just need to have a simple backup (and deltas in between which CCC do not provide), either to a hidden partition or a network share. In case of system drive failure I don't see a problem booting from a CD, mounting the network TM share and restoring from it!? Every Mac has a built in optical drive. Only thing is that booting from CD is slightly slower than booting from a HDD but then you do this once in the event of failure. Works like a charm.