Hacker News Viewer

TIL: Apple Broke Time Machine Again on Tahoe

by rcarmo on 2/1/2026, 7:38:45 PM

https://taoofmac.com/space/til/2026/02/01/1630

Comments

by: PunchyHamster

restic and kopia should work decently, if with a bit of setup, I think both can just mount backup as FUSE filesystem<p>The backup system that silently breaks when it doesn&#x27;t like something in backend is not worth time

2/1/2026, 9:26:45 PM


by: tlb

If you set Time Machine to use encrypted backups, it will create a fake disk that&#x27;s really a directory tree with a bunch of gigabyte-sized binary chunks. This is safer because it doesn&#x27;t require the file system to support anything fancy like symlinks or case-insensitive unicode file names. One downside is that restoring to anything other than a Mac is nontrivial.

2/1/2026, 8:59:50 PM


by: hughw

The bigger question is why does Time Machine continue use a network file system for backups? It&#x27;s so fragile you can&#x27;t rely on it. It&#x27;s gotten better in recent years, possibly due to APFS, but that just means somewhat longer intervals between disasters (wipe out and reinitialize, losing all your backups). A T.M. using a custom protocol to save and restore blocks would fail sometimes too, but not ruin all your existing backups.<p>edit: I use Arq for daily backups, but T.M. for hourly. When T.M. eventually craters its storage, I have robust dailies in the cloud, so no worries.

2/1/2026, 8:44:48 PM


by: maxkfranz

I&#x27;m a big fan of SuperDuper [1]. I use it for daily differential backups to a secondary SSD. I don&#x27;t get the hourly backups that TimeMachine has, but my SuperDuper backups are directly bootable in the event that my system disk dies.<p>I&#x27;m sure you could do the same with cron and rsync, but I can&#x27;t be bothered.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;shirt-pocket.com&#x2F;SuperDuper&#x2F;SuperDuperDescription.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;shirt-pocket.com&#x2F;SuperDuper&#x2F;SuperDuperDescription.ht...</a>

2/1/2026, 8:52:08 PM


by: codeulike

Time Machine is held in high regard for some reason (maybe the fancy scrolling interface when you look for files to restore?) but it&#x27;s not really useable. It pretends that backups-over-the-network are a possibility but its completely unstable over the network and invariably decides the backup is corrupt after a few months and then tells you you have to start from scratch.

2/1/2026, 8:58:09 PM


by: ndegruchy

I use the same setup and was able to restore some files I recently deleted. My SMB settings in Synology were set to what the recommended settings were already. Not sure what happened in this person&#x27;s case, but it also seems like he backed up and didn&#x27;t test the restores. Which isn&#x27;t good practice.

2/1/2026, 7:51:57 PM


by: btreesOfSpring

I have been trying to trouble shoot a Time Machine issue since upgrading to Tahoe. It is usb backup. So far none of the most recent stated fixes work.<p>An initial backup on newly formatted disk will run but very slowly. Perhaps reaching 100% but it never finishes. At some point the percentage will change and the backup will stay stuck at somewhere near 10%. Cancel backup and run it again. Gets to ~10% and stays stuck. Multiple drives. Re-fs&#x27;ed. Boot into safe mode. Networking off. Etc, etc. etc. The TimeMachineMechanic app doesn&#x27;t have any revealing feedback. I can run a full tar backup to the same disks.<p>No idea.<p>I haven&#x27;t tried backing up to a network share but really, it shouldn&#x27;t be this difficult.<p>Clearly someone didn&#x27;t test a bunch of edge cases when pushing this one out.

2/1/2026, 8:43:03 PM


by: tonyedgecombe

Time Machine has always been a bit ropey on SMB shares. I think it’s in part because it creates a disk image on the share then writes to that. This creates a lot more work and potential for things to go wrong.<p>If you want to backup across the network then it’s probably best to choose some third party software.

2/1/2026, 8:40:40 PM


by: pier25

macOS yearly updates haven&#x27;t been great since they started but Tahoe is a new low.<p>Apple really needs to turn things around.

2/1/2026, 7:52:36 PM


by: roadbuster

Article title is a bit dramatic. The summary seems to be: for the 5% of users who back-up to a network share (rather than direct-attached storage like a USB hard drive enclosure), Apple&#x27;s default SMB configs on Tahoe are strict and won&#x27;t work out of the box with many common NAS solutions.<p>Apple should document such changes, but, looking at the post title, you&#x27;d think they were silently corrupting data during restoration.

2/1/2026, 8:26:20 PM


by: hedgehog

If you set your Apple device to beta updates for the previous release you can suppress the constant prompts to upgrade. Reduces the chance of accidentally upgrading.

2/1/2026, 8:18:32 PM


by: H8crilA

The author posted a fix, but how do I check if there is a problem in the first place?

2/1/2026, 8:26:41 PM


by: jbverschoor

It reliably kernel panics since tahoe at a certain point

2/1/2026, 9:01:51 PM


by: chmaynard

Another disturbing example of sloppy execution by Apple Software Engineering. This only reinforces my resolve to avoid upgrading to macOS Tahoe.

2/1/2026, 7:55:18 PM


by: andrewmcwatters

Apple has broken Time Machine enough times that I would never consider using it at all anymore. Once upon a time, it was really neat, had great integration with Mac OS X, and an amazing user interface and experience, but it&#x27;s now clearly technology that Apple will probably eventually drop entirely in favor of something less impressive all together, like telling you to buy more iCloud Storage.

2/1/2026, 7:56:56 PM