From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Is it Possible to have multiple Time Machine destinations?

aka: Backup disk 1 and 2 to disk 5,
and backup disks 3 and 4 to disk 6 ?


or could I play tricks by creating softlinks?

Aka: tell Time machine that the backup drive is drive 5, but on drive 5,
the folders containing backups for drives 3 and 4 are soft links to
folders on drive 6 ? Or would that totally mess up Time Machine,s
calculations of how many backups to keep based on free space on the disk
5 only?


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <BQIbI.395$lF6.226@fx19.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

Is it Possible to have multiple Time Machine destinations?

yes

aka: Backup disk 1 and 2 to disk 5,
and backup disks 3 and 4 to disk 6 ?

no

or could I play tricks by creating softlinks?

no
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In message <BQIbI.395$lF6.226@fx19.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

Is it Possible to have multiple Time Machine destinations?

Has been for many years.

aka: Backup disk 1 and 2 to disk 5,
and backup disks 3 and 4 to disk 6 ?

No.

Backup to disk 5 and also
Backup to disk 6

or could I play tricks by creating softlinks?

No.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Umm, I think so, Brain, but what if the chicken won't wear the
nylons?"
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

Is it Possible to have multiple Time Machine destinations?

aka: Backup disk 1 and 2 to disk 5,
and backup disks 3 and 4 to disk 6 ?

You can have multiple destinations but each backs up the whole drive (or drives).

or could I play tricks by creating softlinks?

Aka: tell Time machine that the backup drive is drive 5, but on drive 5,
the folders containing backups for drives 3 and 4 are soft links to
folders on drive 6 ? Or would that totally mess up Time Machine,s calculations of how many backups to keep based on free space on the disk
5 only?

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2021-04-08 15:29, JF Mezei wrote:

Is it Possible to have multiple Time Machine destinations?

And interleaving. So actively: Disks A & B are TM now;
disks C & D are in offsite storage; rotate occasionally.

Thus A & B are backed up targets alternate hours,

C & D will be updated when A & B are rotated out.

Alternatives A, B, C with 1 of 3 offsite. Or 4 drives in single
offsite... etc. and so on.

The longer the offsite drives are offsite, the longer the first backup
for each when they return.

aka: Backup disk 1 and 2 to disk 5,
and backup disks 3 and 4 to disk 6 ?

No. All disks on the system that are BU to TM will be backed up to the
target TM (of single or multiple disks. Single set, wot).

or could I play tricks by creating softlinks?

Yeah. Go ahead. Should make for interesting reading some day... I'll
stock up the popcorn.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In message <XtYbI.9842$kQ6.8045@fx40.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

On 2021-04-08 15:29, JF Mezei wrote:

Is it Possible to have multiple Time Machine destinations?

And interleaving. So actively: Disks A & B are TM now;
disks C & D are in offsite storage; rotate occasionally.

Thus A & B are backed up targets alternate hours,

Yes, but both A & B contain all the same data up to the ultimate
backup.

So, if A has 30 backups and B has 31 backups, the 30 on A and B are
identical.

C & D will be updated when A & B are rotated out.

Or when C & D are attached, even if A & B remain attached.

Alternatives A, B, C with 1 of 3 offsite. Or 4 drives in single
offsite... etc. and so on.

I would recommend other backup solutions for off-site rotations, in
addition to local time machine.

or could I play tricks by creating softlinks?

Yeah. Go ahead. Should make for interesting reading some day... I'll
stock up the popcorn.

It will be boring, as Time Machine does not follow soft-links.

No backup program follows softlinks because that would be STUPID.


--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Wuh, I think so, Brain, but burlap chafes me so."
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 4/8/21 3:29 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

Is it Possible to have multiple Time Machine destinations?

aka: Backup disk 1 and 2 to disk 5,
and backup disks 3 and 4 to disk 6 ?

or could I play tricks by creating softlinks?

Aka: tell Time machine that the backup drive is drive 5, but on drive 5,
the folders containing backups for drives 3 and 4 are soft links to
folders on drive 6 ? Or would that totally mess up Time Machine,s calculations of how many backups to keep based on free space on the disk
5 only?

O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive...

--
Why is it that the people who want more government control over your
life are the same ones who want you to be disarmed?
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2021-04-09 09:17, Alan Browne wrote:

Thus A & B are backed up targets alternate hours,

C & D will be updated when A & B are rotated out.

Here was my original intent:

My home disk is 2TB rotating. Intention was to buy 2TB SSD and make that
my home disk with the spinning one as TM destination only for that disk,
and the current 4TB continuing to backup the other drives. (and
eventually get a 4TB spinning drive as backup for the 2TB SSD to
maintain richer history).


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 09-Apr-2021 at 4:45:06PM PDT, "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

On 2021-04-09 09:17, Alan Browne wrote:

Thus A & B are backed up targets alternate hours,

C & D will be updated when A & B are rotated out.

Here was my original intent:

My home disk is 2TB rotating. Intention was to buy 2TB SSD and make that
my home disk with the spinning one as TM destination only for that disk,
and the current 4TB continuing to backup the other drives. (and
eventually get a 4TB spinning drive as backup for the 2TB SSD to
maintain richer history).

AFAIK, Time Machine doesn't work this way. It backs up an entire filesystem tree on a schedule, initially take a full backup of everything, then incremental changes from the last backup. It does not backup individual
disks. You can spread your backup between multiple Time Machine drives. I
have two drives that it alternates between doing it's incremental backup on each. Snapshots > 24 hours are consolidated to a single one for the entire day. Snapshots > 1 month are consolidated to 1 per week. I don't know what it does after that.

If you want to backup according to your scheme, you'll have to look at another backup solution. I use ARQ to BackBlaze's Object storage. It can be setup to backup individual or groups of drives and run as often as you like. You pay
for the remote storage you use. Alternately, Backblaze's own Remote Backup solution just backs up everything continuously. It took over a month to sync my multi-Terabyte OS drives (10.13, 10.10, a large movie and music library) to Backup Blaze with ARQ. I don't recall how long it took to backup using BackBlaze's own software.

You could buy a NAS and backup to it with ARQ. I don't recommend Synology--we used it at a job as a cheap replacement for NetApp, just don't depend on it. But Time Machine won't backup your systems the way you envision. Trying to find a solution that does will cost you some money. Deciding if it's worth it or if Time Machine is good enough is your call.
--
DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee...


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In message <idehtrFluqlU1@mid.individual.net> Percival John Hackworth <pjh@nanoworks.com> wrote:

On 09-Apr-2021 at 4:45:06PM PDT, "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

On 2021-04-09 09:17, Alan Browne wrote:

Thus A & B are backed up targets alternate hours,

C & D will be updated when A & B are rotated out.

Here was my original intent:

My home disk is 2TB rotating. Intention was to buy 2TB SSD and make that
my home disk with the spinning one as TM destination only for that disk,
and the current 4TB continuing to backup the other drives. (and
eventually get a 4TB spinning drive as backup for the 2TB SSD to
maintain richer history).

AFAIK, Time Machine doesn't work this way.

It does not, and JF has been told this before. Hell, in this thread.

It backs up an entire filesystem tree on a schedule,

Not exactly. You can exclude anything you want from the backup (and I do)
but you cannot have multiple settings.

--
Hey, how come Andrew gets to get up? If he gets up, we'll all get up!
It'll be anarchy!
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2021-04-10 16:59, Percival John Hackworth wrote:

AFAIK, Time Machine doesn't work this way. It backs up an entire filesystem tree on a schedule, initially take a full backup of everything, then incremental changes from the last backup.

Thanks. This brings it into perspective for me, and why there is only
one destination posssible since it backs up a single file system. (and
explains why the configuration only allows exceptions and not inclusionss)


Howener, the man for tmutil states:

setdestination [-ap] arg
Configure a local HFS+ volume, AFP share, or SMB share as a backup des-
tination. Requires root privileges.

When the -a option is provided, arg will be added to the list of desti-
nations. Time Machine will automatically choose a backup destination
from the list when performing backups. When the -a option is not pro-
vided, the current list of destinations will be replaced by arg.

If you wish to set an HFS+ volume as the backup destination, arg should
be the mount point of the volume in question. When setting an AFP or SMB
destination arg takes the form:

So this implies that multiple destinations would be possible. Does this represent a single backup database and Time Machine decides on which
drive a particular backup goes? (so like Raid 0 bound volumes but implemnented by Time Machine and not the file system?


I think my main goal in the end is to increase backup drive capacity
beyond the 4TB is now have. I'll have to investigate more on this
tmutil option to add more backup destinations.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In message <X9JcI.16272$kx3.9871@fx36.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

On 2021-04-10 16:59, Percival John Hackworth wrote:

AFAIK, Time Machine doesn't work this way. It backs up an entire filesystem >> tree on a schedule, initially take a full backup of everything, then
incremental changes from the last backup.

Thanks. This brings it into perspective for me, and why there is only
one destination posssible since it backs up a single file system.

Wow.

I mean... just, WOW.

So this implies that multiple destinations would be possible.

AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD COUNTLESS TIMES.

Well, not countless, I am sure i could count them, but I;m not going to,
so they remain uncounted.

I think my main goal in the end is to increase backup drive capacity
beyond the 4TB is now have. I'll have to investigate more on this
tmutil option to add more backup destinations.

You are a numpty moron with the reading comprehension of a kitchen
utensil.


--
'You make us want what we can't have and what you give us is worth
nothing and what you take is everything and all there is left for
us is the cold hillside, and emptiness, and the laughter of the
elves.'
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 16:41:27 -0400, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

On 2021-04-10 16:59, Percival John Hackworth wrote:

AFAIK, Time Machine doesn't work this way. It backs up an entire filesystem >> tree on a schedule, initially take a full backup of everything, then
incremental changes from the last backup.

Thanks. This brings it into perspective for me, and why there is only
one destination posssible since it backs up a single file system. (and >explains why the configuration only allows exceptions and not inclusionss)

A suggestion that may do what you want:

Do Backups-Series-01 (including only disks 01 and 02) to Drive 5
using ThirdPartySoftware-01.

Do Backups-Series-02 (including only disks 03 and 04) to Drive 6
using ThirdPartySoftware-02.

Do not bother with TimeMachine.

You could even schedule the two back-up series to run at the same
time should you not be concerned with disk wear though if I were doing
this I would schedule them to run sequentially, preferably when I was
asleep; scheduling anything automatic to fit with my sleep "pattern"
might be a tad difficult, though. :)

Something similar to this scheme could accomplish what you want, it
would give you separate back-ups for the disk pairs but at the cost of complications and a little extra work setting it up. Once the two
series were running, it would mean no more nor less work than any
other back-up scheme.

You would have to - *MUST* - test the two streams of back-ups with a
restore of single files, multiple files and all files at some point
just to make sure the backed-up stuff isn't garbaged but you would of
course be doing a restore test of *any* back-up scheme, would you not?
Would this work for you?

J.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In message <6g777g1mpiq859107ge8rl49edikrt0mcd@4ax.com> John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 16:41:27 -0400, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

On 2021-04-10 16:59, Percival John Hackworth wrote:

AFAIK, Time Machine doesn't work this way. It backs up an entire filesystem
tree on a schedule, initially take a full backup of everything, then
incremental changes from the last backup.

Thanks. This brings it into perspective for me, and why there is only
one destination posssible since it backs up a single file system. (and >>explains why the configuration only allows exceptions and not inclusionss)

A suggestion that may do what you want:

Do Backups-Series-01 (including only disks 01 and 02) to Drive 5
using ThirdPartySoftware-01.

Do Backups-Series-02 (including only disks 03 and 04) to Drive 6
using ThirdPartySoftware-02.

Have you not met JF? He doesn't want a solution, he wants to complain
and lie about how the tool he is using either should or should not do
something that is easily solved. this is his shtick.

--
Margo: Although Dark King is a little generic as far as villain names go,
wouldn’t you say?
Eliot: I have notes.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 01:51:00 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

In message <6g777g1mpiq859107ge8rl49edikrt0mcd@4ax.com> John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 16:41:27 -0400, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

On 2021-04-10 16:59, Percival John Hackworth wrote:

AFAIK, Time Machine doesn't work this way. It backs up an entire filesystem
tree on a schedule, initially take a full backup of everything, then
incremental changes from the last backup.

Thanks. This brings it into perspective for me, and why there is only
one destination posssible since it backs up a single file system. (and >>>explains why the configuration only allows exceptions and not inclusionss)

A suggestion that may do what you want:

Do Backups-Series-01 (including only disks 01 and 02) to Drive 5
using ThirdPartySoftware-01.

Do Backups-Series-02 (including only disks 03 and 04) to Drive 6
using ThirdPartySoftware-02.

Have you not met JF?

Oh, sorry, no, I really haven't. I *was* genuinely trying to help.

I won't do it again.

Apologies for the interruption, pray continue with whatever you were
doing and ignore me, almost everyone does. :)

He doesn't want a solution, he wants to complain
and lie about how the tool he is using either should or should not do >something that is easily solved. this is his shtick.

I've met people like this. I though Mr. M. was one of the GoodGuys?
Hasn't he been helpful on occasion?

J.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2021-04-11 21:10, John wrote:

Do not bother with TimeMachine.

The advantage of time machine backups
1- available from the default minimal system partition boot ( restore partition)
2- keep timed multiple copies of files as opposed to only the last
backup. So if you screwed a file last week but only now realize it, you
still havce a good chance that Time Machine has the backup from before
last week even tough the most recent one is since then.


My first Mac (Mac Plus) got Fastbak. When I upgraded to an LC, the
software refused to work because of licence (tied to Mac Plus) and the
company no longer sold that software, so lost the backups. So I really
don't want to be tied to a proprietary backup.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2021-04-11 22:06, John wrote:

Have you not met JF?

Oh, sorry, no, I really haven't. I *was* genuinely trying to help.

Sorry you beleived Lewis.

I was genuinely asking. Lewis doesn't beleive I have a Mac Pro 2013, in
other thread he or his illk still pretend I have an iMac.

As I plan to restructure my storage, I am considering what my backup
options are. I have 5 drives on that machine, and adding capacity for 4
more. so a single drive cannot contain the backup for all the rest.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 22:25:53 -0400, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

On 2021-04-11 21:10, John wrote:

Do not bother with TimeMachine.

The advantage of time machine backups
1- available from the default minimal system partition boot ( restore >partition)

Oh, right, cool. There are probably other advantages, too, such as
better integration with the OS than 3rd-party can manage.

2- keep timed multiple copies of files as opposed to only the last
backup. So if you screwed a file last week but only now realize it, you
still havce a good chance that Time Machine has the backup from before
last week even tough the most recent one is since then.

That's a sort of version control. I'm fairly sure some 3rd-P
solutions can also do it but I don't know this as a fact.

My first Mac (Mac Plus) got Fastbak. When I upgraded to an LC, the
software refused to work because of licence (tied to Mac Plus) and the >company no longer sold that software, so lost the backups. So I really
don't want to be tied to a proprietary backup.

Yep, another good reason for using TM.

Forget I butted in.

J.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 22:29:50 -0400, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

On 2021-04-11 22:06, John wrote:

Have you not met JF?

Oh, sorry, no, I really haven't. I *was* genuinely trying to help.

Sorry you beleived Lewis.

I don't. I just accepted his description as potentially valid because
I don't know my better and he seems to, just as I accept,
conditionally, the word of many experts in many fields.

I no longer have the time nor patience to bother fact-checking every
damned thing.

Sorry.

And I *do* think you're one of the GoodGuys who have occasionally
helped.

I was genuinely asking. Lewis doesn't beleive I have a Mac Pro 2013, in >other thread he or his illk still pretend I have an iMac.

Sorry, but it's "his LIKE". "Ilk" means "of the family of" and it's
unlikely that the other contributors are related to him. I know I
ain't.

Yes, small pedantry but for some reason this one bugs the FUCK out of
me.

It's almost as annoying as "should of" and "I could care less".

As I plan to restructure my storage, I am considering what my backup
options are. I have 5 drives on that machine, and adding capacity for 4 >more. so a single drive cannot contain the backup for all the rest.

Maybe add in a fifty TB drive with two partitions? Those are about a
thousand currency units these days. Maybe less.

Anyway, I apologise for butting in. Sorry if I offended and I'm off.

'Bye,
J.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In message <ygOcI.6338$ys5.646@fx15.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

On 2021-04-11 22:06, John wrote:

Have you not met JF?

Oh, sorry, no, I really haven't. I *was* genuinely trying to help.

Sorry you beleived Lewis.

I was genuinely asking.]

You are always genuine in your mind, but then you ignore anything people
say and come back in a few months or a year and ask the same question
again having evidently forgotten all the information you were given the
last time around.

You KNOW that Time machine supports multiple backup desitnations and has
for years.

You KNOW exactly how this works and does not work, as you have been told
this before. And right up at the top of this thread, as well as in the
more distant past.

Lewis doesn't beleive I have a Mac Pro 2013, in
other thread he or his illk still pretend I have an iMac.

You said Mac Pro 2013 and you said iMac 2012. Not being psychic, took
you at your word, Not my fault if you lied,

As I plan to restructure my storage, I am considering what my backup
options are. I have 5 drives on that machine, and adding capacity for 4 more. so a single drive cannot contain the backup for all the rest.

And, as I also told you, replacing your Mac pro with a mac mini would
get you a faster computer with better connection and cost less that
trying to upgrade you Mac Pro You also claimed it was not possible to
upgrade the internal storage of the Mac pro, which you have claimed
before It wasn't true then, and it's not true now.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Well, I think so, Brain, but do I really need two tongues?"
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In message <RcOcI.6337$ys5.1183@fx15.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

2- keep timed multiple copies of files as opposed to only the last
backup. So if you screwed a file last week but only now realize it, you
still havce a good chance that Time Machine has the backup from before
last week even tough the most recent one is since then.

A feature of just about every non-clone backup solution in existence.
Hell, I do differential timed backups with rsync.

--
FBI Agent talks to a peculiar chef
(Silence of the Lambs)
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 12. Apr 2021 at 04:25:53 CEST, "JF Mezei"
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

2- keep timed multiple copies of files as opposed to only the last
backup. So if you screwed a file last week but only now realize it, you
still havce a good chance that Time Machine has the backup from before
last week even tough the most recent one is since then.

CCC can do that too.


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113