Page 3 of 5
Time Machine, Apple’s backup/archiving management application that is arguably four years late to the game, is disabled on Apple clients unless Leopard Server is present — permitting only local storage devices. Apple confines the storage volumes where Time Machine client data can be stored to only HFS+ volumes, restricting internal or external drives based on other formats. When and only when Leopard Server is present and correctly configured (we found it takes little configuration), Apple clients can then use dedicated Time Machine storage volumes to make initial, then subsequent iterative backups to a network resource — but only to Leopard-based storage areas.

REVIEWS
Top 10 things we love and hate about Leopard Server
Apple's Leopard connections prove very useful
Top 10 things we love and hate about Leopard Client
NEWS
Apple 'fixes' causing problems
Why a social networking strategy is needed
02/09/10
When I'm not being a journalist and leaping wide clauses in a single bound or moving faster than a speeding cursor, I adopt my alternate persona: Mark Gibbs, mild-mannered consultant. Well, perhaps not so mild-mannered.
Victoria to tip in $3M to spy on bushfires
02/09/10
Victoria’s troubled bushfire alert system may be bolstered with a fleet of fire-detection cameras after a $3 million government trial announced today is completed.
The 12 most popular newsletters of all time
02/09/10
This week will be the final week of the Network Architecture newsletter as penned by me. Before we say goodbye in Thursday's issue, I'd like to take a fond look back at the biggest hits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This scheme is better than almost none at all, which is the storage method previously used by Apple (unless a client user subscribed and backed up to Apple’s .Mac service, or used another commercial backup package). Savvy Leopard users can continue to use several freeware, shareware and commercial applications as alternatives to Time Machine if desired.
Our experience with Time Machine showed that only a small amount of initial network bandwidth is used as an initial ‘Time Machine’ backup of a client is made. It takes an hour to store 35GB per client machine.
Fresh and small-storage displacement clients take less than an hour, while heavily used machines can take several hours to backup initially. If a large number of machines start an initial backup or high-payload backup at once, network availability can be initially highly reduced as the freight of Time Machine initial backup data clogs network wires. Time Machine doesn’t work for Windows or Linux clients, which must use backup resources native to their operating systems.
Apple otherwise supports a large number of filing systems, including Sun’s ZFS — but only as a read-only file system. We verified this compatibility on one of our Solaris T2000 servers, and found that the mounting of ZFS on the Solaris 10 server was easy and trivial.
Note: Register to have your user name appear; otherwise your comment will show up as "Anonymous."
*Anonymous comments will only appear once they are approved by the moderator.
Copyright 2008 Network World Inc.
|
Does Verizon's Voyager stack up to the iPhone? |
5 IT skills that won't boost your salary
[1,407]
Women 4 times more likely than men to cough up personal info
[589]
Japan's 10 funniest tech-related commercials [Videos]
[407]
Throwing away a promo CD is "unauthorized distribution"?
[1,265]
Adults too quick to dismiss educational video games
[682]
Attack of the iPhone clones [Slideshow]
[578]
10 things IT needs to know about AJAX
[1,258]
This Year's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries [Slideshow]
[409]
Why so harsh on Time Machine? By Anonymous on December 10, 2007, 3:06 pm Reply | Read entire comment You seem awfully harsh on Time Machine, at least if the perjorative results from the three complaints you mention. I'm not sure what usage model you expect,...
Slightly faster and it gets a "NO GO"? By vasbinde on December 12, 2007, 4:43 am Reply | Read entire comment Yet if we speak about another company that shall remain nameless, whose OS gets substantially SLOWER with every release, we recommend upgrading?!?! Smells like...
Is this a joke? By Chuck on December 10, 2007, 4:57 pm Reply | Read entire comment We are actually using Leopard and have noticed some nice improvements, such as speed, nice work group features, and other enhancements, none of which appear in a...
All comments (6)