Hasn't the issues always been related to remote Time Machine? I have a usb drive I use and haven't heard of any issues with that setup. Am I missing something?

▲

Nathan2055 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In the past, I've heard recommendations not to use remote Time Machine over SMB directly, but rather to create an APFS disk image on a remote server and then backup to that as if its an external hard drive.

Supposedly, doing that eliminates a lot of the flakiness specific to SMB Time Machine, and while I haven't tested it personally, I have used disk images over SMB on macOS Tahoe recently, and they actually work great (other than the normal underlying annoyances of SMB that everyone with a NAS is mostly used to at this point).

The new ASIF format for disk images added in Tahoe actually works very well for this sort of thing, and gives you the benefits of sparse bundle disk images without requiring specific support for them on the underlying file system.[1][2] As long as you're on a file system that supports sparse files (I think pretty much every currently used file system except FAT32, exFAT, and very old implementations of HFS+), you get almost native performance out of the disk image now. (Although, again, that's just fixing the disk image overhead, you still have to work around the usual SMB weirdness unless you can get another remote file system protocol working.)

[1]: https://eclecticlight.co/2025/06/12/macos-tahoe-brings-a-new...

[2]: https://eclecticlight.co/2025/09/17/should-you-use-tahoes-ne...

▲

jbverschoor 9 hours ago | parent [-]

SMB on macOS is and always has, and probably will always be utter shit.

Mount something over NFS< and you'll be relieved about how snappy things remain. Snappy relatively of course.

Yes, there's some bug in the backupd that panic.. no matter smb/nfs

	▲	dgroshev 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I tried moving to NFS, but the level of complexity of NFS auth is just comical. I gave up after trying to set up a Kerberos server on the Synology that I was trying to access. It's too much. Using unauthenticated NFS, even on a local network, is too dodgy imo.

▲

whartung 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I lose my Time Machine drive, like, every year or two.

Sometimes, Time Machine just goes stupid and I have to wipe the drive and start over. All of my efforts in the past to copy or repair or do anything to a Time Machine drive has ended in folly, so when it starts acting up, I just wipe it and start anew.

Other times, it's the drive itself, and I swap it out.

99% of the time, it Just Works. Wiping the drive for me is more annoying than catastrophic (99.9999% of the time I don't care about my 18 month old data). It's mostly for local catastrophic fat fingering on my part, and to make sure I have a solid back up after I do a OS update. I have BackBlaze for "Why is there 5 feet mud in my burning house" scenarios.

Outside of that, I've always been able to recover from it.

My wife has a SSD drive she plugs into her laptop for TM backup. That machine at most makes laps around the house, so its not that big of a deal for her.

▲

ddtaylor 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Apple customers pay for backup solutions to backup data they don't care about and they don't even care when it fails.

The bar is so low!

	▲	jvfjllkttg 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, the most important thing for apple’s customers is that they are able to pay apple.

▲

burnt-resistor 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Replication isn't a backup. You need to make periodic copies of the sparse bundle / directory to actually have a backup.

▲

claysmithr 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I use remote time machine as seem to be fine.

▲

andrewmcwatters 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]