Robust online/cloud backup? [MERGED]

[Digital Dude]

I’m happy with the Dropbox Business plan, though it’s $21 a month. Still, it’s one of the most universally accepted platforms and is quite reliable. I used Lightroom for years, but I recently dropped it to cut back on subscriptions. Honestly, I’ll probably go back to it because I love how easily I can fine-tune edits compared to the limited functionality of Apple Photos. Also, I trust Adobe‘s cloud services more than some of the others’. 📸

 

[Webcat86]

I’m happy with the Dropbox Business plan, though it’s $21 a month. Still, it’s one of the most universally accepted platforms and is quite reliable. I used Lightroom for years, but I recently dropped it to cut back on subscriptions. Honestly, I’ll probably go back to it because I love how easily I can fine-tune edits compared to the limited functionality of Apple Photos. Also, I trust Adobe‘s cloud services more than some of the others that are out there. 📸

is the Dropbox business plan a full computer backup, or selected files only?

 

[mk313]

Two quick comments, although I am not an expert on this at all.

1. We were just talking about this this weekend & my Brother in Law uses BackBlaze. He's a photographer & has 8 external drives connected to& it backs them all up. He's been using them for years & loves them. Obviously this is third-hand to you, but FWIW.
2. Regarding Photos backups, one of the macrumors users wrote a piece of software called Photos Backup Anywhere. I have no connection to the creator, except that I bought a copy of the software ($5 IIRC) and I love it. It solves a problem that I've been mildly worried about for a long time. It backs up my entire Photos library, including files that are optimized for storage on my Mac. It downloads in the background & so far has worked great. Here's the link to that thread if you're interested: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...mple-backup-solution-for-your-photos.2440855/

 

[Pag46]

For exactly the same OP’s concerns, I started using Backblaze about two years ago.
Unlimited subscription for Mac, with a second data encryption key for my peace of mind, it backs up the whole data for a flat rate, including external drives, but excluding system files, keeping old versions of everything for 1 year.
This is important for me. With a simple file sync to a cloud service, if you have a ransomware attack that encrypts your files and you realize it after they have been synchronized to the cloud, you have lost them.
If you can navigate back in time in an unmutable copy of your file system, you can restore everything to the state before the ransomware attack started.
A bit an extreme concern maybe, but this is what I think a backup should serve for.

 

[Webcat86]

Two quick comments, although I am not an expert on this at all.

1. We were just talking about this this weekend & my Brother in Law uses BackBlaze. He's a photographer & has 8 external drives connected to& it backs them all up. He's been using them for years & loves them. Obviously this is third-hand to you, but FWIW.
2. Regarding Photos backups, one of the macrumors users wrote a piece of software called Photos Backup Anywhere. I have no connection to the creator, except that I bought a copy of the software ($5 IIRC) and I love it. It solves a problem that I've been mildly worried about for a long time. It backs up my entire Photos library, including files that are optimized for storage on my Mac. It downloads in the background & so far has worked great. Here's the link to that thread if you're interested: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...mple-backup-solution-for-your-photos.2440855/

Thanks, this is great to see! Am I right in thinking it’s only mainly useful for people using optimised photo storage though? Otherwise the entire library is already backed up via Time Machine?

For exactly the same OP’s concerns, I started using Backblaze about two years ago.
Unlimited subscription for Mac, with a second data encryption key for my peace of mind, it backs up the whole data for a flat rate, including external drives, but excluding system files, keeping old versions of everything for 1 year.
This is important for me. With a simple file sync to a cloud service, if you have a ransomware attack that encrypts your files and you realize it after they have been synchronized to the cloud, you have lost them.
If you can navigate back in time in an unmutable copy of your file system, you can restore everything to the state before the ransomware attack started.
A bit an extreme concern maybe, but this is what I think a backup should serve for.

Which tier are you using, the $9/month one? I am leaning towards this for the reasons you just suggested.

Also, if it backs up external drives, can I put files on an external SSD, delete them from my computer to free up storage, and not worry about it?

 

[cjsuk]

All my photos, documents like Pages & Numbers, messages etc are all downloaded on all my devices anyway so I feel like this check is being done on a near-constant basis

It's not though. The system is a "least work" one as synchronisation is expensive. The cloud provider is optimised to use the least bandwidth possible so they won't check anything and work on a global assumption of availability which reduces the failure scenarios to things that are contractually written off.

So consider this scenario, which does happen because I was involved in a rather large incident once involving it...

End user:

1. Write document
2. Wait for it to sync to cloud

At the cloud provider:

3. Document lands on the first replication endpoint.
4. Metadata is updated.
5. Data is not copied to another redundant storage partition due to a network issue.
6. Original storage partition fails.
7. Data lost in the cloud but the file is still on their local computer and the metadata is still present in the cloud provider.

End user

8. Buys new computer
9. Logs into cloud provider
10. All files download
11. After 6 months, open the original document and find that it is 0 bytes long because when it was downloaded the metadata was present but the actual binary data was not.

I can't go into details of where that happened but it was fairly critical and legally significant and it was a major cloud provider.

The trust boundary where you should consider your data as having integrity is at your machine. At that point you should verify that (a) the files exist that you expect (b) that the files have the same length and contents that you expect and (c) that the storage provider does not destroy assumption a and b. And the only way you can check those assumptions is to self-validate.

 

[Webcat86]

It's not though. The system is a "least work" one as synchronisation is expensive. The cloud provider is optimised to use the least bandwidth possible so they won't check anything and work on a global assumption of availability which reduces the failure scenarios to things that are contractually written off.

So consider this scenario, which does happen because I was involved in a rather large incident once involving it...

End user:

1. Write document
2. Wait for it to sync to cloud

At the cloud provider:

3. Document lands on the first replication endpoint.
4. Metadata is updated.
5. Data is not copied to another redundant storage partition due to a network issue.
6. Original storage partition fails.
7. Data lost in the cloud but the file is still on their local computer and the metadata is still present in the cloud provider.

End user

8. Buys new computer
9. Logs into cloud provider
10. All files download
11. After 6 months, open the original document and find that it is 0 bytes long because when it was downloaded the metadata was present but the actual binary data was not.

I can't go into details of where that happened but it was fairly critical and legally significant and it was a major cloud provider.

The trust boundary where you should consider your data as having integrity is at your machine. At that point you should verify that (a) the files exist that you expect (b) that the files have the same length and contents that you expect and (c) that the storage provider does not destroy assumption a and b. And the only way you can check those assumptions is to self-validate.

Thanks for this, that’s definitely eye opening. How do you feel about Dropbox Backup? (This is additional to its normal cloud storage, it’s sold as an actual backup service.)

 

[FreakinEurekan]

All my photos, documents like Pages & Numbers, messages etc are all downloaded on all my devices anyway so I feel like this check is being done on a near-constant basis

Sure, but… that also means any MISTAKES are immediately synced to iCloud and other machines instantly. So if you delete a crucial segment of a Pages document- whoops, it’s gone!*

This is the reason that “iCloud isn’t backup”

* Yes, Pages has versioning. But not all apps do.

 

[cjsuk]

Thanks for this, that’s definitely eye opening. How do you feel about Dropbox Backup? (This is additional to its normal cloud storage, it’s sold as an actual backup service.)

It wasn't dropbox if that's any help.

It's not necessarily about the service itself but your process around verifying it that is important. Many people make backups but only test them when the disaster occurs and find things aren't how they expected them to be.

 

[Webcat86]

Sure, but… that also means any MISTAKES are immediately synced to iCloud and other machines instantly. So if you delete a crucial segment of a Pages document- whoops, it’s gone!*

This is the reason that “iCloud isn’t backup”

* Yes, Pages has versioning. But not all apps do.

I seldom use Pages, almost Google Docs exclusively these days.

It wasn't dropbox if that's any help.

It's not necessarily about the service itself but your process around verifying it that is important. Many people make backups but only test them when the disaster occurs and find things aren't how they expected them to be.

I am leaning to Dropbox because I already have the free account so there's a simplicity to it rather than using a third service. But, Backblaze is cheaper.

 

[cjsuk]

I seldom use Pages, almost Google Docs exclusively these days.

Google docs is an interesting one. At no point is your data tangible unless you download it in some other form. Even the links on your computer do not contain your data.

A good friend of mine ran a travel business from Gmail and Google Docs and Google contacts pretty much. That was until her Android phone got stolen in Central Asia. She couldn't recover the accounts and lost everything. Had to start again.

I am leaning to Dropbox because I already have the free account so there's a simplicity to it rather than using a third service. But, Backblaze is cheaper.

Backblaze has a somewhat bad reputation. Check TrustPilot. I can't quote DropBox as I've never used it.

 

[ignatius345]

Good to know, thanks. I think it’s off on my Mac, which is why the Photos library is so large, but it’s on on my iPhone and iPad. That said, I know some files aren’t saved locally on the Mac. Is there a setting for this?

You mean iCloud Drive? The setting is weirdly buried:

System Settings > Apple Account > iCloud > Drive

 

[CharlesShaw]

Sure, but… that also means any MISTAKES are immediately synced to iCloud and other machines instantly. So if you delete a crucial segment of a Pages document- whoops, it’s gone!*

This is the reason that “iCloud isn’t backup”

* Yes, Pages has versioning. But not all apps do.

[Agree that editing a version is not reversible using iCloud alone] You have 30 days to recover deleted files from iCloud Drive and iWork apps, as long as you don't permanently remove them from your recently deleted list(s). There are also archives of Contacts and Calendar that can be restored if you delete an important event or contact.

 

[Webcat86]

You mean iCloud Drive? The setting is weirdly buried:

System Settings > Apple Account > iCloud > Drive

View attachment 2465374

Awesome, thanks. I found it last night and also downloaded the folders that were in the cloud.

Next step is turning off iCloud sync from Messages on the Mac and deleting the media attachments on there, that’s 20gb

 

[cjsuk]

Awesome, thanks. I found it last night and also downloaded the folders that were in the cloud.

Next step is turning off iCloud sync from Messages on the Mac and deleting the media attachments on there, that’s 20gb

There's a "keep messages" in there. I leave iCloud on for that but tell it to keep them for 30 days. I think when I made everyone turn that on in the family my iCloud went down by about 100Gb 😂

 

[Webcat86]

There's a "keep messages" in there. I leave iCloud on for that but tell it to keep them for 30 days. I think when I made everyone turn that on in the family my iCloud went down by about 100Gb 😂

So this has been confusing me and two Apple support agents told me two different answers. With iCloud Sync on, reducing from “keep forever” to 30 days prompts a warning that this will delete older messages on all devices.

I don’t want this to happen (I want to keep forever on my phone), so I have disabled iCloud sync for messages on the Mac, then reduced to 30 days.

This will stop it ballooning again in future, and I’m going to nuke the Attachments folder in Finder to clear the messages media from the computer without losing them from iCloud or my phone. Then I can manually delete from the main offenders on my phone and significantly reduce the bloat in iCloud.

 

[cjsuk]

So this has been confusing me and two Apple support agents told me two different answers. With iCloud Sync on, reducing from “keep forever” to 30 days prompts a warning that this will delete older messages on all devices.

I don’t want this to happen (I want to keep forever on my phone), so I have disabled iCloud sync for messages on the Mac, then reduced to 30 days.

This will stop it ballooning again in future, and I’m going to nuke the Attachments folder in Finder to clear the messages media from the computer without losing them from iCloud or my phone. Then I can manually delete from the main offenders on my phone and significantly reduce the bloat in iCloud.

It's probably easier to just keep it the same on all devices or face the wrath of weird inconsistency problems. The retention is controlled centrally in theory rather than on device.

 

[Webcat86]

It's probably easier to just keep it the same on all devices or face the wrath of weird inconsistency problems. The retention is controlled centrally in theory rather than on device.

I have message forwarding on which in theory should keep it ok. It’s just too unwieldy to be the same everywhere:

- the Mac has 3,000 message attachments
- it doesn’t let you delete multiple attachments at once from within messages
- Apple told me if I delete the Attachments folder in Finder it will delete everything in iCloud (and other devices) too
- if I turn iCloud sync off then delete the Attachments folder, it will just redownload it all when I turn sync back on

It’s maddening, and eating 20gb of my space. I don’t need all my messages on the Mac, especially with iPhone Mirroring on sequoia now.

But my thinking is if I do this, and delete the attachments manually on iPhone where it’s much more manageable, I could re-enable iCloud sync on the Mac in the future and it would redownload a much smaller amount of media.

What do you think of this plan?

 

[cjsuk]

I have message forwarding on which in theory should keep it ok. It’s just too unwieldy to be the same everywhere:

- the Mac has 3,000 message attachments
- it doesn’t let you delete multiple attachments at once from within messages
- Apple told me if I delete the Attachments folder in Finder it will delete everything in iCloud (and other devices) too
- if I turn iCloud sync off then delete the Attachments folder, it will just redownload it all when I turn sync back on

It’s maddening, and eating 20gb of my space. I don’t need all my messages on the Mac, especially with iPhone Mirroring on sequoia now.

But my thinking is if I do this, and delete the attachments manually on iPhone where it’s much more manageable, I could re-enable iCloud sync on the Mac in the future and it would redownload a much smaller amount of media.

What do you think of this plan?

I think it'll go horribly wrong and would rather just pay for the extra iCloud 😂

(I am risk averse myself but it might work!)

 

[mk313]

Thanks, this is great to see! Am I right in thinking it’s only mainly useful for people using optimised photo storage though? Otherwise the entire library is already backed up via Time Machine?

Definitely not an expert on this, but I'd suspect it is most useful for those that are using optimized storage. There is the benefit of having a separate copy, even for those who don't use optimized storage, in case anything goes wrong with Time Machine, but a Time Machine backup without optimized photos is likely pretty robust already. It would be a really bad coincidence of events that would wipe out both your iCloud Photos and the Time Machine backup at the same time.

 

[Webcat86]

I think it'll go horribly wrong and would rather just pay for the extra iCloud 😂

(I am risk averse myself but it might work!)

In all honesty there is very little to go wrong, most important attachments I have saved to my photos anyway so if it all goes wrong it’s not terrible.

My issue with constantly upgrading storage is it’s never ending, I don’t want to pay £9 a month just to pay for message gifs and images that I have saved in my photos already. And then the next time I run out of space it’ll be even more expensive to upgrade again.

Right now things are small enough to nip it in the bud (hopefully!)

Definitely not an expert on this, but I'd suspect it is most useful for those that are using optimized storage. There is the benefit of having a separate copy, even for those who don't use optimized storage, in case anything goes wrong with Time Machine, but a Time Machine backup without optimized photos is likely pretty robust already. It would be a really bad coincidence of events that would wipe out both your iCloud Photos and the Time Machine backup at the same time.

That’s what I was thinking too, and when I get an online backup the Photos library would be backup to that too

 

[cjsuk]

In all honesty there is very little to go wrong, most important attachments I have saved to my photos anyway so if it all goes wrong it’s not terrible.

My issue with constantly upgrading storage is it’s never ending, I don’t want to pay £9 a month just to pay for message gifs and images that I have saved in my photos already. And then the next time I run out of space it’ll be even more expensive to upgrade again.

Right now things are small enough to nip it in the bud (hopefully!)

I’m running 400Gb (290Gb used) in total on Apple family 200Gb + 200Gb extra. Seems a reasonable compromise. I have 6 people on that at I think £28/month. I couldn’t do better for less.

That’s an insignificant cost compared to running the associated 6 iPhones, 4 iPads and 5 macs.

But I get you.

 

[Webcat86]

I’m running 400Gb (290Gb used) in total on Apple family 200Gb + 200Gb extra. Seems a reasonable compromise. I have 6 people on that at I think £28/month. I couldn’t do better for less.

That’s an insignificant cost compared to running the associated 6 iPhones, 4 iPads and 5 macs.

But I get you.

And how much of that is being used by stuff you’re not going to look at again or is duplicated? By starting this exercise of seeing what was using my storage I found:

- I had 12gb of media in WhatsApp a few months ago, and I was able to delete 10gb of it without a second thought. A lot of it was duplicated eg sending the same image to multiple chats
- 30+gb in messages, most of it being photos ive already got in Photos, or gifs etc that dont need to be kept
- 200gb (!!) in local storage from iMovie rendering files. For context, my actual iMovie size is 70gb
- last night I found my Movies folder is using 20gb, but it’s actually the same 10gb duplicated
- my Photos app is currently at 70gb after some pruning, with more pruning to go. This is mostly the result of having a young child but even so, huge amounts of it are duplicates or similar enough to be considered duplicates

Ive found the exercise interesting for two reasons. One, it’s actually reminded me of what I’ve got, which has been a nice trip down memory lane and also helped me see what various media I have, which wouldn’t happen if I just clicked the upgrade button. Two, freeing up heaps of space and, hopefully, some money on my cloud subscription.

£28 a month is reasonable on the one hand. On the other, it’s almost what I pay for my gym subscription. It’s more than I pay for an online guitar membership, and about the same as Netflix and Apple Music. That’s also just for iCloud so doesn’t include my soon-to-have cost of £10 a month for Dropbox backup. These costs mount very quickly and while I’m happy to pay it for space I really need, I’d rather clear out unnecessary materials. This also has the benefit of needing a smaller hard drive when it comes time to buy a new computer or phone - it has blown my mind seeing the amount of simple clutter that I’ve been carrying around.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Take the "forever rent" being considered towards some kind of cloud option and put it towards maybe TWO 1-time purchases of HDDs big enough to fully back up both the internal drive and the external TIMES about 3. If that's too big to cover both, buy yourself 2 HDDs big enough to back up the internal drive (times 3+) PLUS 1 more HDD big enough to clone the external drive. Big HDDs are CHEAP and can store enormous amounts of data on a single drive.

Use TM with the 2 HDDs, storing one onsite and one offsite... regularly rotating the two. If you can own one big enough for your external, you're done. Just regularly rotate the 2 drives and you'll have very good protection against fire-flood-theft. I do exactly this, rotating mine about every 30 days. A good, cheap, very secure place to store the drive is a bank safe deposit box.

If the external is too big to lump in with the internal TM backup, back it up to its own big HDD and store it offsite too. When you have new media for that external, bring it home when you are ready to swap offsite and onsite, add the new media to it too and then take both drives back to the offsite location. If you want a good tool for synching this media backup drive, I suggest Chronosync.

I would not "trust the cloud" at all, especially in sync options for backup. The one benefit it offers is storage already "offsite" but you are trusting all to for-profit strangers, generally at very attractive targets for hackers... and paying "forever rent" for that one benefit. Control your own backups and you don't have forever rent and only have to trust yourself as your own data caretaker. Physical storage is difficult for some distant hacker to access in any way. For one to tap my backup data, they have to break into the bank vault and get away with the HDD stored there. However, if it was all in a very popular cloud option, thousands of hackers could be attempting to find a way in 24/7/365 and would be highly motivated to do so for the much larger score (of all of the cumulative data stored there far beyond any one person's data).

 

[MisterSavage]

One thing I've found is that backblaze (personal version) will devour massive amounts of RAM - basically everything you aren't using. For example, this is what I saw this morning. It will free up some of that automatically when you open another app, but more than once I've gotten an out of memory error from backblaze. Some discussion here.

I've also found that it will consume a massive amount of CPU % when it is backing up. I went back and forth with their support about this a while ago. It is better now but still a little bit of an issue sometimes.

I have been using Backblaze for years and I like having it as an additional option for my backups.