Hi, I am new to Aperture (moved from a managed iPhoto library to a referenced Aperture library in December) and I recently had an EHD fail and the internal drive on my MacBook Pro was corrupted and had to be wiped clean. I had everything backed up, but I'm questioning my backup strategy and making sure that it is really backing everything up. I have my Aperture library and all the referenced masters on a 1TB EHD (a new one, since the old one was failing), and I plug this drive into my desktop iMac, and access it through our home network with my MacBook. TimeMachine runs on the iMac and backs up the EHD. We also use CrashPlan to backup the iMac and the EHD. I moved my old iPhoto library (which includes all my photos through December) to a different EHD and put it at my parent's house. All these photos have also been moved to Aperture.
Here is my question: When I look at my Aperture library in Time Machine (either in Finder or through the Time Machine app), it is much smaller in file size than the Aperture library on my EHD. The EHD library is 44.81 GB and the Time Machine one is 27.7 GB. I know all my photos are safe because they are in a separate file structure, but I would be devastated if I lost all the time I'd spent rating, tagging, and adding Faces and Places to my photos. I tried restoring the 27.7 GB Aperture library from Time Machine, and then opened it with Aperture and it appears to have all my photos, ratings, smart albums, etc. How can that be? What does Time Machine do with an Aperture library? Is this the best backup method? Would I be better off with the vaults and would that require yet another EHD?
Lisa,
It wasn’t mentioned yet and you may already know this, but when you have a referenced library, Aperture’s vaults do NOT include the master images. You’d need to back them up separately.
The key phrase in gfsymon’s post is “if you’re using a Managed system”. He says that because of the exclusion of the masters in a vault backup of a referenced library.
So the vault you have at your parents house is missing the masters. You need to make sure the masters are also on the drive at your parents house.
Thomas
Thomas, thanks, yes, I do know that the photo masters are separate from the library, and I have copied the photo folders many places (including the drive at my parents’ house, to our cloud backup service, etc.). Those I understand and trust the backups, because I can check the number of files, etc. It was the library file I was worried about because I didn’t know why the file size was so different. Thanks for making sure I was covered! Have I mentioned I’m a bit obsessed with backing up my photos?
Lisa,
I’m pretty sure you’re well covered. The smaller size is likely due to compression. I don’t know the inner workings of Time Machine, but all backups use some kind of compression to get more data into less space.
Vaults are great too, but you have to remember to run them. That’s why something like Time Machine is nice since it’s automated.
The only thing I’d say you should add is a cloud backup. Local backups are great, but not so good if your house burns down. I’m a big proponent of Backblaze. Like any cloud backup, the initial backup can take weeks or months, depending on your bandwidth, but once it’s done, it’s great to know that it’s there.
If you do go that route, read this post in the FAQ on possible slow-downs while Backblaze is running — just so you know in advance what to expect.
@PhotoJoseph
— Have you signed up for the mailing list?
Joe, thanks for your reply. After I posted this, I noticed that Aperture was “Processing” all the photos in the library, so I let it finish that overnight. Now this morning, the library from the restore is actually bigger than the original library (54.13 GB vs. 44.81 GB). I did a bit of sleuthing and I believe that Time Machine doesn’t back up the thumbnail images, but that Aperture automatically regenerates them when you restore the backup. Before it finished processing, many of the preview images in browser or split view were wonky (like portrait oriented photos turned on their sides and stretched), but if I clicked on one, it would quickly come up with the correct photo in the correct orientation.
Oh, and I do use a cloud backup service, CrashPlan. I should check and see how big the library file is on its server, out of curiosity. I also periodically back up to an additional EHD and put that at my parent’s house. I am a bit obsessed about not losing my photos (and all the work I’ve put into organizing them), and now I feel better that Time Machine is backing up the Aperture library appropriately. Doing a restore definitely gives peace of mind.
Thanks for your help!
Lisa,
Very interesting observation; that Time Machine may not back up the thumbnails. Makes perfect sense!
Thanks for sharing that, and good on you for the excessive backup. Better safe than sorry.
@PhotoJoseph
— Have you signed up for the mailing list?
Vaults don’t backup thumbnails and some version info either.
Personally, if you’re using a Managed system, I would recommend Vaults for backup. Aperture knows what it needs and the file structure and all the tiny files will be in the correct places. Also, you can easily have multiple Vaults and although you have to run them manually, you can always create a reminder schedule of some sort (especially when MacOS 10.8 ships). Multiple Vaults makes it easier to maintain an off-site backup.
Thanks, gfsymon. I use a referenced library, and I have created a vault backup, which I put on that EHD I put at my parents’ house. I may periodically update that vault, but for my “everyday” backups, I think I’m going to stick with Time Machine for now, as it runs automatically and I don’t have to think about it. Crash Plan also runs automatically, which is really what I need.