avatar

Tarekith

Silverado

Posts: 82 Member Since:30/04/2014

#21 [url]

Oct 7 14 8:48 PM

I've restored probably 5-6 drives strictly from a Time Machine back up and it went fine, nice and easy to use. I don't rely on it for my main back ups, but as a brainless secondary system, works great. It's much nicer now that you can easily find your backup data via Finder.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Justin P

Silverado

Posts: 69 Member Since:03/07/2014

#22 [url]

Oct 7 14 9:03 PM

I use Time Machine for backing up all the main system drives in my home and studio. I woudn't trust it or even want to use it for backing up audio projects but it's a nice extra backup of stuff typically kept on the main OS drive like documents, software settings, iTunes library, photos etc. I've never restored an entire drive from it because I like to start fresh when I get a new computer or do something major requring a new OS install, but I have used Time Machine to restore a few misc deleted or overwritten files here and there.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

silvertone

Aqua Marine

Posts: 2,578 Member Since:26/01/2011

#23 [url]

Oct 8 14 7:26 AM

Not too veer this subject even further off coarse but do you guys let your clients know you are holding onto their archived material indefinitely?

If I recall correctly the intellectual property right laws say you need let your clients know. (Please correct me if I am wrong on this).

When I read this a few years ago I changed my policy, my contracts and terms state that Silvertone Mastering will hold onto the back-ups for 1 year.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

jerry tubb

Gold Finger

Posts: 621 Member Since:06/02/2011

#24 [url]

Oct 8 14 9:11 AM

Yes our clients all know that we archive their projects.
Sometimes we'll resurrect something from years ago to cut new masters with metadata, or even make sequence changes.
Most are glad to know it's kept in a safe place.

Back to the main topic.

2-3 years ago we stopped doing Disc backups altogether, as it was just too time intensive.

Now we backup to double HDDs mostly using SuperDuper, a huge time saver, very reliable, no need for Time Machine.

Best, JT

Quote    Reply   
avatar

treelady

Gold Finger

Posts: 424 Member Since:05/02/2011

#25 [url]

Oct 8 14 12:41 PM

Larry brings up a good point that many people might not know (why should we?  We're not intellectual property rights lawers).  I agree with JT about clients coming back years later and being overjoyed that we have a back up, however.  Just put this in your terms and conditions and run it past your attorney to be safe according to your state/National laws).

Best, GH

Garrett Haines Chief Mastering Engineer, Treelady Studios www.treelady.com Senior Contributor, Tape Op Magazine www.tapeop.com

Quote    Reply   
avatar

hank alrich

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,732 Member Since:28/01/2011

#27 [url]

Oct 8 14 4:45 PM

jerry tubb wrote:
Yes our clients all know that we archive their projects.
Sometimes we'll resurrect something from years ago to cut new masters with metadata, or even make sequence changes.
Most are glad to know it's kept in a safe place.

Best, JT
 

I'm a JT client, and I approve this message.

Terra Nova's communication with clients is, in my opinion, stellar. If a client wanted to take it all away and relieve Jerry's team of the archival effort, no problem. I don't know anybody who has chosen to do that. In this "We need it yesterday" world, Jerry's got yesterdays from way back. I really appreciate that part of it, because big picture, nobody wants me to be trying to keep track of, least of all me.

hank alrich
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

Quote    Reply   
avatar

aleatoric

Gold Finger

Posts: 258 Member Since:01/02/2012

#28 [url]

Oct 8 14 7:41 PM

silvertone wrote:
Not too veer this subject even further off coarse but do you guys let your clients know you are holding onto their archived material indefinitely?

If I recall correctly the intellectual property right laws say you need let your clients know. (Please correct me if I am wrong on this).

When I read this a few years ago I changed my policy, my contracts and terms state that Silvertone Mastering will hold onto the back-ups for 1 year.

Interesting.  Can anyone elaborate further on this?

I never say or advertise I can keep projects backed up indefinitely.  What does that even mean?  Until you retire from mastering?  Until you're dead?  Longer? 

I also would never want to say I keep projects backed up indefinitely as as they say "shit happens".  Even with all material on two hard drives some unprecedented event (fire, nautral disaster, etc.) could destroy this.  If you want to get really extreme you do the two backups on site, one backup off site thing but even then it's not 100% full proof, if some event destroys both onsite hard drives and your offsite hard drive is un-bootable for whatever reason you're out of luck. 

I'm coming up on 5 years next month since I started my studio and I still have every project I have ever worked on backed up in two places.  I plan to continue this for many more years.  Is that OK to do so (legally) as long as I don't advertise or tell people their projects are backed up "indefinitely"?  Is saying "I keep projects backed up as long as I possibly can" a safe bet?  That's the most accurate statement I can think of for how I handle backups but just want to make sure I'm on the correct side of the intellectual property right laws by saying that.
 

Last Edited By: aleatoric Oct 8 14 7:45 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

silvertone

Aqua Marine

Posts: 2,578 Member Since:26/01/2011

#29 [url]

Oct 9 14 6:46 AM

According to my lawyer you cannot hold onto someone else's intellectual-property rights indefinitely with out their expressed written permission.

Two years ago I got rid of 25 years worth of 1 inch and 2 inch backed up analog tape, my life is much easier for it now. Plus I have much more storage space which makes my wife much happier.

In the 20 years I've been doing dedicated mastering I've had two clients ask for an archived project. Personally I'd rather not be responsible for holding onto somebody else's personal property. YMMV

Quote    Reply   
avatar

biigniick

Silverado

Posts: 157 Member Since:16/02/2011

#30 [url]

Oct 9 14 9:04 AM

aleatoric wrote:

biigniick wrote:

aleatoric wrote:
....the built in OSX backup application Time Machine.





 

i think Time Machine is a disaster recovery tool and not necessarily a backup/archive solution.  i may be wrong, but storing all your info in a .spars bundle with incremental backups seems less robust than just cloning the drive over.

i'm interested in how you use time machine and how it's working for you.

- nick

Hey Nick,

Interesting.  I've never had any issues with Time Machine, that being said I've never used it to recover an entire drive.  I have however occasionally used it to recover accidentally deleted files several times and it worked just great.  I did not use the "Enter Time Machine" mode.  Just went to the latest backup folder and restored the deleted file('s) back to my internal drive from there.

The way I have it setup is in auto mode.  I however only turn on the external Time Machine drives when I want them to perform a backup.  For the Time Machine drive that backs up my system drive and primary DATA drive (where the recent most 1.5TB of mastering projects live) I turn it on at the end of every working day.  Write some emails or go do something for 10 miunutes, verify backup is complete and successful then turn the drive off.  Seems to work perfectly.

I used to do manual backups with my G5 but it was more time consuming and thus I did not do them as often (certainly not daily like I do now).  Also I feel I would occasionally forget I changed something to say an older session folder or whatever and forget to back it up.  Time Machine just automatically determines what has been changed since the last backup and does its thing, very convenient in that sense. 

What is your cause of concern with Time Machine?  Just the way it saves the data behind the curtains?

EDIT:  A few additional points.  If I needed to replace my internal system hard drive I would most likely use an app like SuperDuper! to make a bootable carbon clone as it seems a bit more robust way of going about that than Time Machine.  Likewise for long term storage, i.e. backing stuff up to a drive that will be sitting in a closet or whatever I'd also use SuperDuper! to make a carbon clone.  For simply mirroring exactly what is on my internal drives at any giving time going back many months Time Machine to the best of my knowledge seems to do this as advertised.

 

well, my main concern with time machine is 2 issues.  first, when your time machine drive fills up it throws away the oldest files to make room.  if you know this is going to happen that's no big deal, but i've had friends that were using TM for archives/backups and this bit them.  second, when i've used TM in the past, everything on the TM all the info on the drive is a giant .spars bundle.  you can't access the data without TM.  what if i need a backup and i only have access to a windows machine?

it just makes more sense to cone drives over to primary and secondary backup drives alternately.  i do a primary backup each night and a secondary backup each month.  this way if i accidently delete something from yesterday, it's on my primary backup.  and if i delete somehting form last month (on both working and primary backup drives) i can go back and retrieve it from the secondary backup.  all with no extra software or dependancies for retrieval.  this way, if i'm on a different system in 10-15 years i won't depend on a 15 year old computer with TM to recover archival materials...

that being said, i like TM for system drives.  i use it at home with my mac mini and macbook pro.  the backups happen automatically and work as far as i can tell when i need something back i've deleted on accident.  i just won't be using it for an archive solution professionally.

- nick
 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

aleatoric

Gold Finger

Posts: 258 Member Since:01/02/2012

#31 [url]

Oct 9 14 11:57 AM

biigniick wrote:
well, my main concern with time machine is 2 issues.  first, when your time machine drive fills up it throws away the oldest files to make room.  if you know this is going to happen that's no big deal, but i've had friends that were using TM for archives/backups and this bit them.  second, when i've used TM in the past, everything on the TM all the info on the drive is a giant .spars bundle.  you can't access the data without TM.  what if i need a backup and i only have access to a windows machine?
- nick
 

Hmm, see neither of these two issues effect me at all. 

There is enough space on my main Time Machine backup drive that I just looked and I have yet to have a backup deleted (also when this happens I my preferences set so that I will be notified).  They go back to January 2013 which is WAY longer than I need.  Truth be told I really only need the latest backup but I guess it's nice to be able to go "back in time" so to speak if a file is accidentally deleted. 

Also, the info on my Time Machine drives is not a giant .spars bundle and I do not need the Time Machine application to access it.  Not sure what you are referring to.  Perhaps older versions of Time Machine behaved that way?  On my Time Machine drive the data can be accessed through the hard drive itself, just like the internal drives it's backing up.  For example when I open a backup folder on my Time Machine drive through Finder I see two folders, one labeled "OSX" the other labeled "DATA1", these are the names of the internal hard drives I have Time Machine set to backup.  I can then access the data in these folders exactly as I can access them on the internal drives.  No need at all to use the Time Machine application.  I can play audio files, open documents, drag data back to internal drives, etc. 

Anyway, Time Machine has been working just fine for me and my system.  I have been using it for nearly 2 years without a single real world issue.  Perhaps I'll look into using SuperDuper! again, although I'm not really sure I buy some of these claims that Time Machine is some awful unreliable backup method.  Seems about as good as any other to me.  Certainly better than just storing data on one hard drive or backing up to DVD or whatever.  Maybe not as robust as say dual carbon clones but I've verified time and time again that after I perform a Time Machine backup all the data is indeed backed up and easily retrievable. 

 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

biigniick

Silverado

Posts: 157 Member Since:16/02/2011

#32 [url]

Oct 9 14 1:04 PM

aleatoric wrote:

biigniick wrote:
well, my main concern with time machine is 2 issues.  first, when your time machine drive fills up it throws away the oldest files to make room.  if you know this is going to happen that's no big deal, but i've had friends that were using TM for archives/backups and this bit them.  second, when i've used TM in the past, everything on the TM all the info on the drive is a giant .spars bundle.  you can't access the data without TM.  what if i need a backup and i only have access to a windows machine?
- nick
 

Hmm, see neither of these two issues effect me at all. 

There is enough space on my main Time Machine backup drive that I just looked and I have yet to have a backup deleted (also when this happens I my preferences set so that I will be notified).  They go back to January 2013 which is WAY longer than I need.  Truth be told I really only need the latest backup but I guess it's nice to be able to go "back in time" so to speak if a file is accidentally deleted. 

Also, the info on my Time Machine drives is not a giant .spars bundle and I do not need the Time Machine application to access it.  Not sure what you are referring to.  Perhaps older versions of Time Machine behaved that way?  On my Time Machine drive the data can be accessed through the hard drive itself, just like the internal drives it's backing up.  For example when I open a backup folder on my Time Machine drive through Finder I see two folders, one labeled "OSX" the other labeled "DATA1", these are the names of the internal hard drives I have Time Machine set to backup.  I can then access the data in these folders exactly as I can access them on the internal drives.  No need at all to use the Time Machine application.  I can play audio files, open documents, drag data back to internal drives, etc. 

Anyway, Time Machine has been working just fine for me and my system.  I have been using it for nearly 2 years without a single real world issue.  Perhaps I'll look into using SuperDuper! again, although I'm not really sure I buy some of these claims that Time Machine is some awful unreliable backup method.  Seems about as good as any other to me.  Certainly better than just storing data on one hard drive or backing up to DVD or whatever.  Maybe not as robust as say dual carbon clones but I've verified time and time again that after I perform a Time Machine backup all the data is indeed backed up and easily retrievable. 

 

i'm glad TM works for you.  maybe i setup mine differently when i set it up.  my TM backups for my laptop at home is one giant file on the HDD with extension .spars  the only way to access the backups is trhough the laptop's TM interface.  this is on Mavericks and i haven't used it on the other OSX versions previously.

seems like i should reconsider my opinion of TM for now.  thanks for all the great info.

- nick

Quote    Reply   
avatar

aleatoric

Gold Finger

Posts: 258 Member Since:01/02/2012

#33 [url]

Oct 9 14 2:52 PM

It's possible Apple changed the way Time Machine stores data in later OS's. I'm running 10.7.5 with no plans of upgrading my OS in the foreseeable future and data is stored and accessible in the same way it would be if you were backing up manually. Just folders with your files.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Tarekith

Silverado

Posts: 82 Member Since:30/04/2014

#34 [url]

Oct 9 14 3:17 PM

The last few OS updates changed the Time Machine back up so you can access the data in Finder sorted by date. No more needing to feel like Captain Kirk to find your stupid lost file :) Originally they did put it all in a spars bundle, and I agree that was annoying. MUCH better now.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Tarekith

Silverado

Posts: 82 Member Since:30/04/2014

#35 [url]

Oct 10 14 10:51 AM

silvertone wrote:
In the 20 years I've been doing dedicated mastering I've had two clients ask for an archived project. Personally I'd rather not be responsible for holding onto somebody else's personal property. YMMV

That's been more or less my worry.  I don't mind hanging on to archives for a little while in case the client needs a revision to match an album later on or something.  But I always make a point to tell people NOT to rely on me a back up service when they ask about it.  Like you, I so rarely need to access something more than a couple months old, sometimes it feels like a lot of hassle/risk for nothing.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

jerry tubb

Gold Finger

Posts: 621 Member Since:06/02/2011

#36 [url]

Oct 11 14 9:33 AM

The ultimate archive may still be analog tape. We've transferred tapes that were 50-60 years old that still play. With magnetic and optical digital, we don't know yet how long they'll last, unless you refresh and copy the data every few years. Or to be safe, do both analog and digital, especially on the culturally important masters, Beatles, Led Zep, Miles, Cash, etc...
Best, JT

Quote    Reply   
avatar

reynaud

Silverado

Posts: 194 Member Since:13/07/2011

#37 [url]

Oct 11 14 1:50 PM

jerry tubb wrote:
The ultimate archive may still be analog tape.

It certainly is the most reliable and proven medium. 

The current stategy here:
Short-term: Flash / CF Cards
Medium-term: LTO-6
Long-term: Tape

A single copy is not a trusted backup nor an archive. 

cheers,
Reynaud

Last Edited By: reynaud Oct 11 14 1:55 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

waltzmastering

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,586 Member Since:02/02/2011

#38 [url]

Oct 11 14 4:32 PM

reynaud wrote:

jerry tubb wrote:
The ultimate archive may still be analog tape.

It certainly is the most reliable and proven medium. 

 

Unless you run into sticky shed. which isn't rare.

My old tape room with a wall of tape not shown.
I don't miss it.
image

Quote    Reply   
avatar

fenris

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,450 Member Since:26/01/2011

#39 [url]

Oct 11 14 11:04 PM

Tapes with sticky shed can be baked and will play back with no HF loss or other degradation.

Here's how I see it:
The longevity of optical media is a joke and it takes WAY too long to burn the discs. We've almost reached the point where flash drives are cheaper per gigabyte.
No digital medium is reliable long-term.
Clients don't understand this and will not back up or migrate their files.
Nobody wants to pay for analog tape, and even projects tracked to tape frequently end up in the DAW.
Multi-terabyte hard drives are cheap and plentiful.
As a courtesy, studios should make an effort to maintain copies of every project they've ever done on at least 2 separate drives in perpetuity. The drives should be rotated so they get spun up about once a week.

Last Edited By: fenris Oct 11 14 11:07 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

reynaud

Silverado

Posts: 194 Member Since:13/07/2011

#40 [url]

Oct 12 14 2:30 AM

waltzmastering wrote:
Unless you run into sticky shed. which isn't rare.

As Fenris mentioned, generally, faults such the hydrolysis of pigment binders are curable. The IASA-TC04 document covers some of this quite well. The only cause of sticky shed syndrome without solution is uneven dispersion of hardener. 

The recently published IASA-TC 05 document "Handling and Storage of Audio and Video Carriers" (http://www.iasa-web.org/handling-storage-tc05) should be required reading.

cheers,
Reynaud

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help