Time Machine now works with AirPort Extreme's AirDisk feature

Who knows why it took so long, but the latest AirPort Extreme firmware update (7.3.1, out today) finally brings Time Machine compatibility to AirDisk. In typical Apple fashion, there's no mention of it on the release notes, but the crew over at TUAW says it's working, and commenters are confirming. We're still holding out for Time Machine to work with any NAS we want, but for now, it looks like all you Airport Extreme owners who felt like you were getting played by the release of Time Capsule are finally in the game -- get those USB drives ready for some hot backup nights.

[Matt G @ Mar 19th 2008 7:28PM]

This figures, I just bought a Time Capsule this weekend because I finally caved and bought one. Looks like I can cancel my eBay auctions for my had drives and my not so out of date anymore Airport Extreme

[James @ Mar 19th 2008 7:32PM]

I was going to buy a time capsule but with this upgrade is there any advantage over buying it instead of getting an airport extreme

[Zak @ Mar 19th 2008 7:35PM]

The advantage is that Time Capsule is one unit that can be used as NAS as well as being an n wireless router and a time machine backup drive.

If you get an airport express, then you also have to get a separate external HD, and it can't be used as NAS apparently. If you already have a USB HD and you only need to use it for backups, then it might be worth it to get an Airport Extreme instead of Time Capsule.

[AlexanderK @ Mar 19th 2008 7:47PM]

Fuck... Why is apple so confusing. =\

So what works as a NAS and what doesn't?
please advise.

[Joshua Ochs @ Mar 19th 2008 7:59PM]

Apple isn't confusing; the poster above simply is confused. The AirDisk on the Airport Extreme does work as a NAS, and as far as I can tell supports AFP and SMB just fine.

[Adam @ Mar 19th 2008 7:49PM]

Wait, what? You've been able to use AEBS USB-attached drives as NAS since the beginning. I keep my entire iTunes library on one.

I just moved my Time Machine disk to my base station, and it definitely works. It's insisting on starting my backups from scratch, however, since Time Machine doesn't seem to realize it was the same drive it was using 10 minutes ago. The copy is going at about 2MB/sec.

[Zak @ Mar 19th 2008 7:57PM]

Yeah I misread that. Both Time Capsule and a usb drive attached to an Airport Extreme can be used as NAS.

Bottom line:

If you don't have an external USB hard drive for backup or an Airport Extreme yet, get a Time Capsule.
If you already have an external USB hard drive for backup, get an Airport Extreme.
If you already have an Airport Extreme, get an external USB hard drive.

[gfar @ Mar 20th 2008 5:51PM]

Does the hard drive have to have 1 journaled partition, or can i have say a 400/60 split of ntfs/journaled (like i do on my external right now) and it will still work?

[Mike D. @ Mar 19th 2008 7:58PM]

It's probably a good idea to wait until Apple officially announces support for this. Then again, I just bought a Time Capsule to replace the AirPort Extreme and external HD I bought in anticipation of this feature (you know, back before Leopard came out) and so I feel slightly swindled.

[Michael LaFramboise @ Mar 19th 2008 8:05PM]

w00t! :) now if only the transfer speeds would be better - right now the weakest link is AEBS's cpu which is causing the slow-as-sin transfers.

[YoMomma @ Mar 19th 2008 8:22PM]

another Apple related article. we have atleast one everyday.

[CL @ Mar 19th 2008 8:30PM]

just like those "will it blend" or "will it play doom" comments that you make at least once everyday.

[thethirdmoose @ Mar 19th 2008 8:40PM]

Cry cry cry... are your tubes too clogged or something?

[CitizenKlaw @ Mar 19th 2008 8:52PM]

You're new here, aren't you?

[Aaron @ Mar 19th 2008 10:06PM]

Another Apple hating poster. We have at least 78 everyday.

[michael @ Mar 19th 2008 8:36PM]

Do they work with PC's?

[Jose R. Perez @ Mar 19th 2008 8:53PM]

Yup!

[Furious Styles @ Mar 19th 2008 8:57PM]

So can Squeezecenter be installed on the Time Capsule? Will the Squeezecenter program run automatically on the Time Capsule while my Macbook is not powered on?

[Bb @ Mar 19th 2008 8:57PM]

I hear-by declare that my previous posts bitching about Apple and this issue are rescinded.

(Thank you for your attention)

[Kelmon @ Mar 20th 2008 8:15AM]

I'm waiting to try this out when I get home tonight but will certainly feel less annoyed at Apple if this has indeed returned the advertised feature that I paid money for last year. The only continuing sour note is that it took so damned long to address. The advantage that Apple has is that they make the hardware and the software so I really don't see that they have an excuse for releasing products that don't work. I don't hold with the "release then fix" mentality.

[dagamer34 @ Mar 19th 2008 9:34PM]

Isn't USB slower than SATA anyway? I know people probably won't be beaming entire GB of backups everyday and what not, but especially for people who are going to be connected via LAN, I would think that having an internal SATA drive would be faster anyway.

[Arjy @ Mar 19th 2008 9:49PM]

Either way, its gonna be hindered by the connection to the time machine/airport extreme itself.

[dagamer34 @ Mar 19th 2008 9:52PM]

Not if you're on a gigabit LAN.

[Aaron @ Mar 19th 2008 10:07PM]

Not if you're on the Airport Gigabit LAN. It's just not that fast.

[Kelmon @ Mar 20th 2008 10:40AM]

A couple of things need to be born in mind with this. Firstly, if you have multiple computers that need to be backed up connected to a wireless network (particularly laptops) then this is very convenient. Secondly, due to the way that Time Machine backs up each hour, each backup should be relatively small unless you have been editing particularly large files.

Time Machine lacks the reliability of a professional backup system (there's no redundancy, for example) and wireless is always going to be pretty slow even over an 802.11n network, but it is convenient and simple enough for people to use without really having to think about it.

[Amit @ Mar 19th 2008 10:19PM]

So I'm upgrading to Leopard this weekend and wanted to make sure I understand how this works. I already have a USB external drive, so would AEBS be my best option? Is AEBS the only router to offer Time Machine support (i.e. could I use my netgear router with the external hard drive?)

[Ari @ Mar 19th 2008 10:31PM]

@Amit

To use Time Machine through your network you need either an AEBS or a Time Capsule, and even though you have a USB drive I'm not sure which you should get. The Time Capsule is faster, smaller, less power hungry setup; most if not all USB drives don't spin down when connected to the AEBS. At least I think that's true, please correct me if I'm wrong.

The AEBS is $120 cheaper. If you'd use your USB external drive for something else and can afford it, I'd go with the Time Capsule, otherwise buy the AEBS.

It also may be worth going to *hack* Best Buy *hack* which doesn't charge a restocking fee, just in case the network performance of either is inadequate.

[Mike @ Mar 19th 2008 11:24PM]

@Ari
Actually, those aren't the only two options; you can also use any Mac running Leopard with personal file sharing on as a Time Machine target.

BTW, for all you guys looking to buy the right combination of equipment, all indications are that the Mac Mini is way overdue for an update. My personal conjecture is that the reason it hasn't been updated in a while is that Apple is trying to make a radical change to it's design, and they haven't gotten it quite right yet. That's why there is conflicting information; reports of it's being discontinued yet it slowly gets updated.

My bet is that they are going to morph it into a Mac home server box. All they have to do is upgrade the Mac Mini with some more horsepower and RAID capability; maybe even combine it with Airport functionality; and add a few pieces of software from Mac OS Server. They have all the parts, they just need to mash them together.

So if you can wait a few months, I'm thinking something like this will be coming this year. At least I'm hoping...

[Amit @ Mar 20th 2008 12:39AM]

That's good to know. Thanks!

[Patrick @ Mar 19th 2008 10:32PM]

I hate to the bad guy here, but this feature/hack has been around since about 3 days after Leopard dropped.

From Terminal, type the following:

defaults write com.apple.systempreferences TMShowUnsupportedNetworkVolumes 1

[Michael Rose @ Mar 19th 2008 11:27PM]

"From Terminal, type the following:

defaults write com.apple.systempreferences TMShowUnsupportedNetworkVolumes 1"

You see the part of that command that says "Unsupported," right? The difference is that now Apple is providing the functionality on the AEBS, which was announced before Leopard shipped but didn't make it to the GM. Backing up to an unsupported target is like making a flak jacket out of gunpowder -- it might work, but it could also blow up.

[happy_penguin @ Mar 20th 2008 2:04AM]

Patrick, not everyone wants to hack or is capable of hacking their devices. Regardless, the hacks do influence official support so I say hacks are good, but so is official support.

[Richy @ Mar 20th 2008 6:00AM]

I've already done this hack for my MBP and Maxtor NAS. But, users should be aware of the risks...

Time Machine will have considered a packet of data sucessfully written to the backup volume when it receives a success response from the router. Unfortunately, in non-Time Capsule/upgraded Airport Extremes, this response simply means that the router has received the packet successfully, and not that the router has managed (in my case) to successfully route the packet to the NAS, and the NAS has sucessfully stored the data to disc.

To be honest, failures are pretty unlikely (I've had no problems so far, and have had to do a full restore of my iPhoto data too!); but can occur.

Personally, I'm going to buy a Time Capsule anyway -- if only to reduce the clutter in my living room, and to get seom decent wireless range now that all my neighbours have 802.11g ans I have waaay too much interference (on every channel!).

[crayonstory @ Mar 19th 2008 11:12PM]

I've just moved my Time machine back up drive to the base station, as commented on earlier it has to redo the backup. However it has happily made its way to 6GB of 120GB and now I keep getting an error "Unable to complete backup. An error occurred while copying files to the backup volume". Any ideas?

Thanks.

[Nic Rovner @ Mar 19th 2008 11:16PM]

I just set it up it works!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sieb @ Mar 20th 2008 12:28AM]

I can see my USB drive on my AEBS, and access files etc. but setting up Time Machine, it doesn't see the USB drive. Any ideas?

Thanks!

Mark S

[Nic Rovner @ Mar 20th 2008 12:39AM]

I had a simmiler issue. Eventually TM recognizes the HD. Its not much help I know but it does solve itself

[Richy @ Mar 20th 2008 6:01AM]

Backup volume full?

[Richy @ Mar 20th 2008 6:46AM]

Bugger. Damn you Engadget comments. The above was supposed to be in response to 'Crayonstory'.

[jsel @ Mar 20th 2008 9:50AM]

The problem for my small business with BOTH Time Capsule and AEBS is that we want to keep our main files on a commonly-available NAS. Unfortunately, any NAS coming from either the Time Capsule (internally or externally) OR the AEBS (obviously external only) cannot be backed up by Time Machine to either the Time Capsule or the AEBS.

In other words, only NAS attached to and shared from a Mac can backed up to TC or AEBS. So we're got the ability to have great NAS from either of those two, but just can't back it up. Which basically sucks.

I'd love to find out I'm wrong about this, but Apple Support told me I'm correct.

[Kelmon @ Mar 20th 2008 11:09AM]

I think I understand what you mean (need backup of data stored on NAS) and agree that this is not possible using Time Machine. The question, however, is whether you need Time Machine at all for this? You might do better to consider a NAS unit that incorporates 2 or more physical drives where the data is backed up using RAID 1 so that you can simply replace a disk should one go bad. You don't get the ability to "go back in time" to restore a deleted file but you do at least get a more reliable backup solution than Time Machine provides. This I expect to be more important to a business.

[jsel @ Mar 20th 2008 11:21AM]

Thanks very much for responding. I guess the problem is that we already have an AEBS and are on a tight budget, so don't want to buy any more drives. Also, I don't know why you say that the RAID solution you propose is more "reliable" than time machine. Is it because your data is duplicated on two backup drives?

[Mike @ Mar 20th 2008 10:44AM]

An advantage to the USB drive connected to the Apple Extreme:
- you can disconnect the drive and place it in a safe palce away from home - like your safety deposit box, or another secure and safe location

It doesn't help you much if your backup drive is in the same location after a major disaster like flood or fire.

Remember, that your backup should be at least the second copy of your important data.

Rotating two drives connected to your Extreme for backup can give you a little peace of mind if you are able to keep one of the backups in a safe place.

Of course,t here are alternatives like Mozy and other remote file stores. You need only pray that the service stays operating, and is available when you need it. I like the idea of remote file stores because of mostly easy access. But not very efficientfor BIG backups or restores.

Mike

[Duan @ Mar 20th 2008 11:20AM]

worked for me after fiddling with it for a bit

[zack @ Mar 20th 2008 5:56PM]

"We're still holding out for Time Machine to work with any NAS we want"

I'm not sure what that means, to be honest. I have a dlink DNS-323 NAS connected over gigabit ethernet to my router, and once I have the volume mounted, it shows up as an optional target for Time Machine.

Are you looking for something more than that?

[EagerDragon @ Mar 20th 2008 7:00PM]

Concerned:

I am a bit concerned about some of these changes:
1) Apple does not yet have a statement that Time Machine can use an AirDisk
2) The Airport does not have a statement that the AirDisk can be used with TM
3) TM records into the disk differently when connected directly to a USB drive, it creates a series of folders and stores the backup in a folder with the machine name.
4) TM when connected to a drive via AirDisk, skips the creation of the directory structure and instead it writes the backups at the root level of the drive
5) TM is unable to take into consideration the previous backups that were created when the drive was directly connected to the Mac and does not attempt to convert the old backup to the new format (sparse tree).
6) In about this mac, the new build number is rather odd and not similar to the previous
7) The patch screw-up the copyright of OSX by setting it to 2007 instead of 2008

Before you answer, I understand things are working, and I understand that sharing with a mac looks the same as with AirDisk, but the big questions in my mind are:
Is this what Apple intended, for the two methods to produce so completely different results? and Is the fact that is working an accident given that Apple has yet to post the capability? Are there any technical issues why a sparce-tree could not have been created in a directory structure? What drove Apple to create the backup in a different location?

My backups are very important to me, this makes me nervous.

[Arterivirus @ Mar 21st 2008 5:54AM]

I have exactly the same experience as Eagerdragon. TM records to a folder when connected directly to a USB drive but to a kind of sparse image disk via airdisk. Trying to restore deleted files from the backup made via airdisk does not work in my case, however, it works perfect to restore from a backup made when the disk was connected to the computer via USB. I don't think that the way time machine now works with a USB disk attached to the airport extreme is to be trusted.

[zack @ Mar 21st 2008 12:11PM]

It could be that it creates the sparse image because the target drive is not formatted in HFS+. I believe that TM, when given a drive formatted in something other than HFS+, will create a sparse image formatted as HFS+ and backup to that.
If you mount the image, do you see the proper folder structure?

[Lazlo @ Mar 21st 2008 2:42PM]

Beware the Time Capsule!

Great unit, and it worked for all of a week and a half out of the two weeks I've had it. It worked on my existing wireless 'net and functioned well with three PCs and two Macs with four different OSs. Heck, I was going to leave positive comments about it.

Then firmware upgrade 7.3.1 hit a couple days ago. Bricked it--on everything. It disappears at the end of the setup config every time. Same network, same computers.

Apple support? Not only worthless, but arrogant. Also be wary UNLESS you're using your TC as a base unit for a new wireless network. Arrogant Apple Guy said that's the only config that tech's 'allowed' to support. Funny. Making it a part of an existing wireless 'net is a touted config according to Apple's site. (Check the boards; I'm not the only one with this problem, not by a long shot.)

I dunno whether to pack this thing up and hurl it through the Apple store's storefront or keep my fingers crossed that Apple will very soon grace us with a WORKING 7.4 firmware upgrade.

You're alienating a lot of people, Steve...

[Cobraboost @ Mar 21st 2008 2:56PM]

Oh...and another thing...

All of the hype about "automatic backup" on the TC from Time Machine? Bah. Point any timed backup program to your TC (such as MS's One Care) and voila...auto, centralized backup for Vista and XP as well.

When the gd'd TC actually works, that is...