Way back in October Nik (who is busily working on his Aperture 2 review) blogged about the problem combo of Aperture and Time Machine. It would seem that using Time Machine and Aperture could lead to some bad things happening to your Aperture database. Apple's suggestion, at the time, was to simply exclude Aperture's database from your Time Machine backups. Sadly, most photographers like to back up their photographs so this wasn't deemed a long term solution.Enter OS X 10.5.2 and, according to Apple, the problem is solved. Time Machine will now happily back up your Aperture database (both Aperture 1.5 and 2) without a problem. That sound you hear is thousands of Aperture users breathing a sigh of relief.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-12-2008 @ 6:51PM
David Sparks said...
Doesn't the question still exist as to whether you should use Time Machine to back up an Aperture library? My Aperture library is about 40 gigs and I'm not sure I want a separate image of it on my TM drive everytime I add a photo (which is every few days)
Reply
2-12-2008 @ 7:20PM
Brian Puccio said...
I don't think it treats the entire library as one big, fat file. Instead, I think it's smart enough to look inside the package and only copy over the new/modified contents of the package to your Time Machine backup.
But I could be wrong, maybe someone else can confirm or deny this.
2-12-2008 @ 7:19PM
Mo said...
(Disclaimer: I don't have an Aperture library to hand to check)
Isn't the Aperture library similar to the iPhoto library—that is, a bundle, rather than a single file? If so, TM will treat it as what it is—a directory containing lots of distinct files, rather than one single file.
In which case, using TM to back up your Aperture library is surely fairly ideal, as it'll only back up the changes, as intended.
2-12-2008 @ 7:39PM
Blair said...
Does the $99 upgrade work with Academic copies?
Reply
2-12-2008 @ 8:11PM
Brian said...
This was a triumph...
Reply
2-12-2008 @ 8:23PM
Quine said...
10.5.2 was for the good of all of us,
except the ones who are dead.
2-12-2008 @ 9:31PM
meego said...
but there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of updates.
;)
2-12-2008 @ 8:49PM
paul said...
Anyone know if it's safe for Adobe Lightroom now too?
Reply
2-13-2008 @ 2:27AM
Trevor Leon said...
I don't see why we need Aperture support for Time Machine. Aperture has the built in Vault system for backup, which works great if you have multiple backup hard drives. I would rather use the vault system, instead of navigating Aperture's library package in Time Machine.
Reply
2-14-2008 @ 1:15PM
James Grinter said...
Time to restore is the big factor - Restoring a time machine backup, which will include the Aperture database (the large file within the Aperture library folder) and the thumbnails, could be quicker than restoring from vault which, for Aperture version 1, required a time consuming thumbnail, preview, and database regeneration.
But Aperture v2 may have changed its vault/restore process. Especially as they've made vast improvements in speed by using image file's embedded preview images where possible/when not requested otherwise.
2-16-2008 @ 12:06PM
jackson.myers said...
Aperture doesn't work well with time machine as far as I can tell. If Aperture is running, time machine copletely ignores it and will not back up the library. If you quick aperture, it will back it up but even if you make a small change (editing some EXIF tags), it will backup the ENTIRE library again rather than only the changes.
I am thinking of switching back to iPhoto because of this. I want an automated backup system that actually works.
I should add that iPhoto and Time Machine work perfectly together.
Reply
2-24-2008 @ 2:04PM
Nikax said...
reading the Apple tech article, we're told to exclude the Aperture Library from backups. So how does this solve the backup problem?
Reply