OSX Backups
-
@scottalanmiller said in OSX Backups:
@BBigford said in OSX Backups:
Actually, we can now! It used to be that chain of command forbid online services out of fear for security.
And yet... Macs.
But Macs don't get viruses...
-
@BBigford said
. So if they delete a contact in Outlook, it has them covered, vs. just backing up their documents/pictures/etc.
Can you restore just one contact from Time Machine?
-
@BRRABill said in OSX Backups:
@BBigford said
. So if they delete a contact in Outlook, it has them covered, vs. just backing up their documents/pictures/etc.
Can you restore just one contact from Time Machine?
Honestly, I haven't used Time Machine in like 8 years. It used to be that you had to pick a snapshot you wanted to go to. Maybe it is more granular now, but with how quickly Apple innovates, I wouldn't hold my breath for such control.
-
@BBigford said
Actually, we can now! It used to be that chain of command forbid online services out of fear for security. From the CEO, "the data is not as important as others might think. We aren't a development company. I just want the damn thing to restore our files when we mess something up. That's all."
I'm not sure about backBlaze but CrashPlan let's you pick you own encryption key and whatnot. Pretty secure IMO.
-
@BRRABill said in OSX Backups:
@BBigford said
Actually, we can now! It used to be that chain of command forbid online services out of fear for security. From the CEO, "the data is not as important as others might think. We aren't a development company. I just want the damn thing to restore our files when we mess something up. That's all."
I'm not sure about backBlaze but CrashPlan let's you pick you own encryption key and whatnot. Pretty secure IMO.
Security isn't being thrown out the window, but is much more lax now. Some C-levels are using Dropbox for God's sake.
-
@BBigford said in OSX Backups:
@BRRABill said in OSX Backups:
@BBigford said
Actually, we can now! It used to be that chain of command forbid online services out of fear for security. From the CEO, "the data is not as important as others might think. We aren't a development company. I just want the damn thing to restore our files when we mess something up. That's all."
I'm not sure about backBlaze but CrashPlan let's you pick you own encryption key and whatnot. Pretty secure IMO.
Security isn't being thrown out the window, but is much more lax now. Some C-levels are using Dropbox for God's sake.
Lax? Arent they increasing? BackBlaze is likely more secure than on premises solutions. At least in most cases.
-
As far as an online service... I know that certain places only allow for a certain amount, like 50GB, at a time. Want 1TB? It could take 30 days, and we'll send you a zip of it. It'll take a long time to download.
Comparing that to an on-premise restore, our network has a lot of throughput so the machine would be the bottleneck for a restore, rather than download speeds.
-
@scottalanmiller said in OSX Backups:
@BBigford said in OSX Backups:
@BRRABill said in OSX Backups:
@BBigford said
Actually, we can now! It used to be that chain of command forbid online services out of fear for security. From the CEO, "the data is not as important as others might think. We aren't a development company. I just want the damn thing to restore our files when we mess something up. That's all."
I'm not sure about backBlaze but CrashPlan let's you pick you own encryption key and whatnot. Pretty secure IMO.
Security isn't being thrown out the window, but is much more lax now. Some C-levels are using Dropbox for God's sake.
Lax? Arent they increasing? BackBlaze is likely more secure than on premises solutions. At least in most cases.
Considering BackBlaze is "military grade" on their website, I wouldn't doubt it.
You and I have chatted before, our contracts (I've been told after they are signed) have had some dead set, ridiculous standards for security when it comes to transfer of information. We are not doing anything confidential, so we shouldn't be held at that standard. By saying lax, it's not saying much. We're just backing off from saying "we will NEVER use cloud resources!!!"
-
@BBigford Er, not doing anything confidential as in it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if some of that information leaked. It would not jeopardize the company or user information.
-
@BBigford said
As far as an online service... I know that certain places only allow for a certain amount, like 50GB, at a time. Want 1TB? It could take 30 days, and we'll send you a zip of it. It'll take a long time to download.
BackBlaze does up to 4TB on an external drive they ship next day (once the data is ready). CrashPlan no longer does this restore-to-door.
-
@scottalanmiller said in OSX Backups:
@BBigford said in OSX Backups:
@BRRABill said in OSX Backups:
@BBigford said
Actually, we can now! It used to be that chain of command forbid online services out of fear for security. From the CEO, "the data is not as important as others might think. We aren't a development company. I just want the damn thing to restore our files when we mess something up. That's all."
I'm not sure about backBlaze but CrashPlan let's you pick you own encryption key and whatnot. Pretty secure IMO.
Security isn't being thrown out the window, but is much more lax now. Some C-levels are using Dropbox for God's sake.
Lax? Arent they increasing? BackBlaze is likely more secure than on premises solutions. At least in most cases.
We're also always trying to find the balance between convenience and security. Our security was WAY over the top to a point it was actually hindering operations. We have been spending more time on securing things, than we are seeing a return on. This is a chance to get that to a realistic level.
-
@BRRABill said in OSX Backups:
@BBigford said
As far as an online service... I know that certain places only allow for a certain amount, like 50GB, at a time. Want 1TB? It could take 30 days, and we'll send you a zip of it. It'll take a long time to download.
BackBlaze does up to 4TB on an external drive they ship next day (once the data is ready). CrashPlan no longer does this restore-to-door.
For $189.
-
@BBigford said
For $189.
Well, you do get to keep the drive.
It really comes down to how quickly you need that data.
-
@BRRABill said in OSX Backups:
@BBigford said
As far as an online service... I know that certain places only allow for a certain amount, like 50GB, at a time. Want 1TB? It could take 30 days, and we'll send you a zip of it. It'll take a long time to download.
BackBlaze does up to 4TB on an external drive they ship next day (once the data is ready). CrashPlan no longer does this restore-to-door.
I was just thinking of Amazon Glacier and OneDrive where if you want any data over about 50GB, you're not getting access to that amount of data without either waiting or paying a chunk of money every time you need to recover a whole disk. Maybe that portion has changed now, I'm not sure.
-
@BRRABill said in OSX Backups:
@BBigford said
For $189.
Well, you do get to keep the drive.
It really comes down to how quickly you need that data.
"Need to restore 4 times? You get 4 drives! ...Which you can use as a direct attach for Time Machine for your 4 computers... Good day!"
-
@BBigford said
"Need to restore 4 times? You get 4 drives! ...Which you can use as a direct attach for Time Machine for your 4 computers... Good day!"
4 times? That is what they call in soccer ... unlucky.
-
Part of the issue I might run into when backing up data for Mac users is, "would you rather have BackBlaze which does file level backup, or Time Machine which takes a whole snapshot?" That would be followed with, "I just want my computer to be exactly the way it was, an hour ago."
I can just see it now. Not from the CEO, but from other higher ups. The CEO is actually the easiest one to deal with.
-
Ifthe goal is to "roll the system back", that's Time Machine. If the goal is to keep from experiencing data loss, the BackBlaze is the choice.
-
@scottalanmiller said in OSX Backups:
Ifthe goal is to "roll the system back", that's Time Machine. If the goal is to keep from experiencing data loss, the BackBlaze is the choice.
That's what I was thinking. I'm guessing all online services would be similar to BackBlaze in the end goal, which is overall data loss, rather than rolling back.
I'll just bring this by the boss and see what he prefers. After I do some research on breaking out user backups to separate areas of Time Machine. I'm guessing it has to be somewhat granular.
-
@BBigford said in OSX Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in OSX Backups:
Ifthe goal is to "roll the system back", that's Time Machine. If the goal is to keep from experiencing data loss, the BackBlaze is the choice.
That's what I was thinking. I'm guessing all online services would be similar to BackBlaze in the end goal, which is overall data loss, rather than rolling back.
I'll just bring this by the boss and see what he prefers. After I do some research on breaking out user backups to separate areas of Time Machine. I'm guessing it has to be somewhat granular.
Yes, partially because roll back snapshots are not network efficient, a major factor for online services.
