Filed under: Software, Software Update, Apple, Leopard
Aperture and Time Machine, happy at last
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.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
David Sparks said 6:51PM on 2-12-2008
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
Brian Puccio said 7:20PM on 2-12-2008
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.
Mo said 7:19PM on 2-12-2008
(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.
Blair said 7:39PM on 2-12-2008
Does the $99 upgrade work with Academic copies?
Reply
Brian said 8:11PM on 2-12-2008
This was a triumph...
Reply
Quine said 8:23PM on 2-12-2008
10.5.2 was for the good of all of us,
except the ones who are dead.
meego said 9:31PM on 2-12-2008
but there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of updates.
;)
paul said 8:49PM on 2-12-2008
Anyone know if it's safe for Adobe Lightroom now too?
Reply
Trevor Leon said 2:27AM on 2-13-2008
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
James Grinter said 1:15PM on 2-14-2008
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.
jackson.myers said 12:06PM on 2-16-2008
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
Nikax said 2:04PM on 2-24-2008
reading the Apple tech article, we're told to exclude the Aperture Library from backups. So how does this solve the backup problem?
Reply