Resolved Suggestions for a 4TB HDD 2.5" for Time Machine backups

[Alpha Centauri]

Hi all

in the past I bought bare HDD and IcyBox (Raidsonic) enclosures for cloned backups that I'd be able to swap into my 2009 MBP if needed.

I now have a 2 TB M2 MBP and will be wanting a HDD with twice that capacity (4TB) solely for Time Machine. IcyBox enclosures I now find appear to require a USB-A to USB-C adaptor. For TM I'm not even fixated on a separate drive and enclosure really. It doesn't have to have a rugged design either.

Open to suggestions. Note: It would have to be available in Europe.

Cheers

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Buy the adapter to use what you have? No big deal. Or buy a cable with the right ends? USB-A to USB-C cables are abundant and work fine.

Given the pricing of small HDDs, consider maybe going 6-10TB (or more) to buy yourself abundant space instead of simply "double." Cost difference won't be much and there is always uses for more space.

If your router:

• has a USB jack on it, connect your TM enclosure to that and TM sync over your network. This will result in less clutter on the desk and probably put some space between computer and TM backup drive.
• does not have a USB jack, consider a 1-4 drive NAS (relatively dirt cheap these days), connect it to an ethernet port on your router and use it as your TM backup. If this, consider getting a BIG storage one and allocate only a reasonable amount of space for TM (for instance maybe a 4-bay with maybe 40TB of storage and allocate maybe up to 10TB of the 40TB to TM backups for all computers in the home) while using the rest as network storage for up to all computer users in your home. Think of this as your own personal "cloud" that you fully control and does not require any kind of ongoing cloud rent/subscription payments. Even if you are single, living alone, network storage can be pretty handy. Some of these NAS units will give you the ability to connect from OUTSIDE the home too (true cloud link), so you can access anything you want on your NAS when away from home.

Most importantly, use TWO drives for TM and always have one stored off site. That way if fire/flood/theft hits your "site" and takes out both your Mac and your TM drive, that third one can restore you to how things were at last backup. I do this and basically rotate the drives every month or so. Worst case scenario: I could lose up to 29 days of new files in a disaster or theft. TWO TM drives up the chances of recovering data by a substantial margin vs. trusting just one... especially one stored at the same location as your Mac.

If you like that last idea, consider getting a bare drive dock and 2 bare drives (with maybe 2 plastic cases for the latter). That would be something like one of these...

They come in a lot of forms with many features. TM Backup the bare drive at home in this for whatever period of time you like such as my month, eject, put that drive in a plastic case, go to where you store the other drive (offsite), swap them, bring drive B home and let it take over for new TM backups for your next period of time. Then repeat regularly. This dual drive approach will significantly up your data security in just about any bad scenario.

Good place to store the offsite drive: bank safe deposit box or in a secure place at work or at a trustworthy relative's home.

My own complete solution is a hybrid:

• I have a Synology NAS as my "live TM" backup drive. Synology has TM-supporting features to allocate a chunk of total space for TM and has worked great this way for many years.
• I use the 2-HDD with one offsite approach too, so basically I have 3 TM backups (NAS + 2 HDDs).
• I also have a MB and regularly sync important work files between desktop and MB, so that it- while not a complete backup of all files- is also adding a partial backup of important files too.

Is my approach overkill? Yes. I could probably drop one of the two HDDs and just "check out" the offsite one each month, TM backup to it, and then "check it back in." However, HDDs are cheap, so I just roll with the overkill. There is the small scenario that while a single offsite drive is checked out and thus home with the rest, I suffer some kind of event that takes out NAS + HDD + MACs and thus lose all. Always having ONE TM backup off site nearly nullifies a total loss scenario.

I hope this is helpful.

 

[MarkC426]

I have always used Lacie D2 Professional drives for TM....

https://www.amazon.co.uk/LaCie-STHA10000800-Professional-Desktop-External/dp/B07FDRK895/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1P89E8ZCCJST4&keywords=lacie+d2+professional&qid=1688143860&sprefix=Lacie+d2,aps,331&sr=8-1&th=1

Edit: just noticed you said 2.5"....🤪

 

[Silencio]

I find that Time Machine backups to 2.5" spinning rust drives are positively glacial.

I know 4TB external SSD drives aren't as cheap (they're $200-300 in the US), but the extra speed will save your sanity and make it much more likely you'll connect the drive and actually perform frequent backups.

 

[MacCheetah3]

I find that Time Machine backups to 2.5" spinning rust drives are positively glacial.

I know 4TB external SSD drives aren't as cheap (they're $200-300 in the US), but the extra speed will save your sanity and make it much more likely you'll connect the drive and actually perform frequent backups.

In my experience, the speed is generally not a problem as Time Machine works at low priority in the background. However, after switching to an encrypted TM backup, I felt a need to try an SSD.

• OWC Mercury Elite Pro mini + 2TB WD Blue 2.5” HDD
— About 1TB free/available space
— The delay seemingly becomes longer and longer as the drive fills. Nonetheless, currently, it requires ~1.5 minutes to reach the password prompt, then another ~2.25 minutes to mount. Incremental backups typically require hours though out of sight, out of mind.
* I am using the previous generation, at least in physical enclosure design
* Does support the SAT SMART driver

• RIITOP NVMe to USB 3.1 enclosure + 2TB Kingston NV2 SSD
— About 1.55TB free/available
— From power on/plug-in to mount, including password prompt, takes only seconds. Backup process… Well.. quick enough that I’ve only noticed activity once in the menu bar/menuling.
* I recently bought it at Amazon on sale for $85.
** Be forewarned, if you use this combination, ensure the chosen drive enclosure has good/great heat transfer. Without thermal pads, the SSD was presumably overheating and shutting down (i.e., improperly unmounted/disconnected)

Is it worth the cost difference? That’s up to your requirements, tolerances, and preferences.

 

[Alpha Centauri]

I have always used Lacie D2 Professional drives for TM....

https://www.amazon.co.uk/LaCie-STHA10000800-Professional-Desktop-External/dp/B07FDRK895/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1P89E8ZCCJST4&keywords=lacie+d2+professional&qid=1688143860&sprefix=Lacie+d2,aps,331&sr=8-1&th=1

Edit: just noticed you said 2.5"....🤪

Thank you. Yes, was looking at 2"5 as I don't use a desk with the MBP per se.

 

[Alpha Centauri]

I find that Time Machine backups to 2.5" spinning rust drives are positively glacial.

I know 4TB external SSD drives aren't as cheap (they're $200-300 in the US), but the extra speed will save your sanity and make it much more likely you'll connect the drive and actually perform frequent backups.

You make a very good point re TM and HDD actually. Most of the time the MBP is enjoying some couch living and it already took a while for an incremental Super Duper backup with (currently only 600 GB) using a 2"5 HDD. It may indeed make a difference to freqency of backing up if one already knows that it will take ages.

I haven't used TM in quite a while, think it was 10 yrs ago. Back then I did have some corruption and it put me off. I can imaging that the initial writing to disc will take some time, subsequent writes will be quicker?

 

[okkibs]

4TB 2.5" HDDs are trash. Do not buy them. They are exclusively SMR drives which are the slowest and least reliable drives that exist nowadays. A simple way to tell is to check if the warranty is more than a year or two. The 3 year warranty 2.5" drives, not using SMR, stop at 1TB or maybe there are some with 2TB but that's the most mechanics and platters you can cram in the tiny space without sacrificing performance and reliability.

Recommend SSD instead as well, especially because many come with a 5 year warranty. No high capacity HDD has that kind of warranty option because the manufacturers know they'd get a lot of RMAs.

 

[Alpha Centauri]

In my experience, the speed is generally not a problem as Time Machine works at low priority in the background. However, after switching to an encrypted TM backup, I felt a need to try an SSD.

• OWC Mercury Elite Pro mini + 2TB WD Blue 2.5” HDD
— About 1TB free/available space
— The delay seemingly becomes longer and longer as the drive fills. Nonetheless, currently, it requires ~1.5 minutes to reach the password prompt, then another ~2.25 minutes to mount. Incremental backups typically require hours though out of sight, out of mind.
* I am using the previous generation, at least in physical enclosure design
* Does support the SAT SMART driver

• RIITOP NVMe to USB 3.1 enclosure + 2TB Kingston NV2 SSD
— About 1.55TB free/available
— From power on/plug-in to mount, including password prompt, takes only seconds. Backup process… Well.. quick enough that I’ve only noticed activity once in the menu bar/menuling.
* I recently bought it at Amazon on sale for $85.
** Be forewarned, if you use this combination, ensure the chosen drive enclosure has good/great heat transfer. Without thermal pads, the SSD was presumably overheating and shutting down (i.e., improperly unmounted/disconnected)

Is it worth the cost difference? That’s up to your requirements, tolerances, and preferences.

I would definitely be encrypting the drives.

I haven't had the M2 MBP long and only had a 1 TB (MBP internal currently only at 600GB) 2"5 HDD available. Certainly without convenience of a removable SSD I didn't like for even a short time solution to only have a used HDD as my sole backup.

Jumped on Amazon and quickly ordered 2 x 2TB Samsung T7s. It was the best price at €120/each) but not exactly a bargain. In real world use it appears they may write/read around the 700 Mbps mark, quite slow vs what the blade type storage seems to operate under. It's only after I dug a bit deeper into using blade type memory you linked and tbh with an ext USB-C case they don't appear that much more expensive. I'm still at the stage of being able to cancel the Amazon order as they haven't been shipped yet.

A bit confused atm how to properly match up a blade type ssd and a case that has a reliable chipset and adequate cooling.

Again, I normally would research compatibility (case+NVMe), availability (I'm in Germany), and reviews for a while until purchasing. Jumped the gun a bit with the T7s perhaps?

As an example. The

Samsung 970 EVO Plus M.2 NVMe SSD (MZ-V7S2T0BW), 2 TB, PCIe 3.0, 3.500 MB/s Lesen, 3.300 MB/s Schreiben this sells at Amazon.de for €100 and then the ext housing be on top of this. So, not really that much more than a T7 (plus only a 3 yr warranty) with much slower speeds.​

​

Sorry about the formatting of the post, too much in a hurry ​

 

[okkibs]

Absolutely would take the NVMe M.2 with an external housing over that Samsung external SSD. That external SSD is just fine, but it uses relatively cheap components and for a similar price there just is no reason to buy that.

It's not even about the speeds, it's that the M.2 SSD has a 5 year warranty, that Samsung is about the best choice.
Since I bought such a combo recently myself I can recommend you the correct chipset housing for Macs, it's the RTL9210. I paired that Samsung SSD with the Anker PowerExpand M.2 SSD Enclosure that has this chipset and it works - however isn't recognized on my old 2016 MBP, the reason being that that Mac's USB port apparently does not support that specific USB protocol, it works if you put a USB-C hub or Thunderbolt dock in between though. No issues on M1 Macs.

Since the Anker isn't widely available, the Sabrent EC-SNVE has the same chipset, I have one of those too, exact same behaviour as with the Anker. It is this one: https://www.amazon.de/dp/B08RVC6F9Y

The T7 cannot compare to the 970, but it will work on all Macs fine whereas as you can see even the "good" chipset can have issues with older Macs. But then you can always return such a cheap enclosure if it doesn't work and just replace it with a different NVMe enclosure with a different chipset.

And some enclosures might need a firmware update for the RTL chip, which apparently can be found here but only runs on Windows: https://www.station-drivers.com/index.php/en-us/ - I haven't tried that, so not sure where you can find the updater exactly, but if you do run into a problem you can check that.

I got some of that info from here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/usb-c-connection-dropping-external-nvme-ssd.2272502/

 

[Alpha Centauri]

Absolutely would take the NVMe M.2 with an external housing over that Samsung external SSD. That external SSD is just fine, but it uses relatively cheap components and for a similar price there just is no reason to buy that.

It's not even about the speeds, it's that the M.2 SSD has a 5 year warranty, that Samsung is about the best choice.
Since I bought such a combo recently myself I can recommend you the correct chipset housing for Macs, it's the RTL9210. I paired that Samsung SSD with the Anker PowerExpand M.2 SSD Enclosure that has this chipset and it works - however isn't recognized on my old 2016 MBP, the reason being that that Mac's USB port apparently does not support that specific USB protocol, it works if you put a USB-C hub or Thunderbolt dock in between though. No issues on M1 Macs.

Since the Anker isn't widely available, the Sabrent EC-SNVE has the same chipset, I have one of those too, exact same behaviour as with the Anker. It is this one: https://www.amazon.de/dp/B08RVC6F9Y

The T7 cannot compare to the 970, but it will work on all Macs fine whereas as you can see even the "good" chipset can have issues with older Macs. But then you can always return such a cheap enclosure if it doesn't work and just replace it with a different NVMe enclosure with a different chipset.

And some enclosures might need a firmware update for the RTL chip, which apparently can be found here but only runs on Windows: https://www.station-drivers.com/index.php/en-us/ - I haven't tried that, so not sure where you can find the updater exactly, but if you do run into a problem you can check that.

I got some of that info from here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/usb-c-connection-dropping-external-nvme-ssd.2272502/

Thank you, quite out of my depth on NVMe's, so this is good info.

I've cancelled the T7 order but it was too late, they'll come, will immediately return and can only then order the blade memory once it's refunded.

You're right re the external Anchor cases in the Amazon.de shop are not to be found, mainly hubs.
The Sabrent looks good, also found a Raidsonic IcyBox variant: https://www.amazon.de/ICY-BOX-Kühls...vme+m.2&qid=1688893939&sprefix=,aps,76&sr=8-3

Seems expensive as a USB 3.2 at €50 (The comparable Sabrent is €30) BUT it has a ASMedia ASM2364 chipset and I've no idea if this would even work with an m.2 Samsung SSD and my MBP. Only mention IcyBox as I've had good experiences with their external cases in the past, but many yrs ago. Or is the RTL 9210 the most proven (only option) to always go for?

Now to selecting an actual Samsung SSD:

It's then either the Samsung 970 Evo Plus 2 TB at €100

Samsung 970 EVO Plus NVMe M.2 SSD, 2 TB, PCIe 3.0, 3.500 MB/s Lesen, 3.300 MB/s Schreiben, Interne SSD für Gaming und Grafikbearbeitung, MZ-V7S2T0BW

Samsung 1 TB Samsung 970 EVO PLUS M2 NVMe SSD MZV7S1T0BW Komponenten SSD Solid-State-Laufwerk.

www.amazon.de

OR

Samsung 980 Pro 2TB at €130

Samsung 980 PRO NVMe M.2 SSD, 2 TB, PCIe 4.0, 7.000 MB/s Lesen, 5.000 MB/s Schreiben, Interne SSD für Gaming und Videobearbeitung, MZ-V8P2T0BW

Erreichen Sie ein hohes Power-Level: Entfesseln Sie die ganze Power der Samsung SSD 980 PRO – und bringen Sie die Leistung Ihres Rechners auf ein hohes Niveau. Dank der PCIe Schnittstelle der 4. G...

www.amazon.de

I wonder if the Pro's much higher read/write speed is even supported with those cases? This will be a Super Duper clone backup for my 2023 MBP.

You mentioned backwards incompatibility but that's as non-issue as there's only a mid2009 MBP that I'll probably only keep if the M2 ever needs to go to Apple hospital.

ps: I've included the links from the German Amazon site in case there's some spec differences in the EU.

Cheers

 

[okkibs]

No the higher speeds are not relevant, warranty length is the same, the money will effectively be wasted. I do not know about the ASmedia chipset. You can google it, or try it out and see. Don't know if there is any point to pay more for the same. You might be able to register with the delivery company and select to refuse or to return without attempting delivery on their package tracking website. Also works directly on the Amazon order tracking if Amazon chose their own Amazon delivery.

 

[Alpha Centauri]

No the higher speeds are not relevant, warranty length is the same, the money will effectively be wasted. I do not know about the ASmedia chipset. You can google it, or try it out and see. Don't know if there is any point to pay more for the same. You might be able to register with the delivery company and select to refuse or to return without attempting delivery on their package tracking website. Also works directly on the Amazon order tracking if Amazon chose their own Amazon delivery.

Ok at this stage I’m not game to experiment with different chipsets and likely will go with Sabrent with the knowledge this combination works.

With "higher speeds not relevant ". Do you mean they aren’t supported, achievable or my MBP cannot access them? Or simply it’s pointless for a backup to save a second or two between those two SSDs.

 

[okkibs]

The USB protocol will bottleneck this, it's 10Gbps, that can't make use of the full speed of the Evo model. But then these speeds are not reached in normal use (i.e. copying files around), it needs a certain so-called queue depth. That means running multiple operations at once, so if you are running 1 file copy you might get 800MB/s, then if you run 2 at the same time both get 800MB/s simultaneously, and the Pro model can just do more at once than the Evo model.

There is just no such scenario during typical use, you would have to attach multiple additional SSDs that can also read or write at these speeds, and then use them all at once. Only then will you ever see an overall 5GB/s write speeds across all these simultaneous copies.

So you won't save even a millisecond, the advertised SSD speeds come from specific benchmarks that are technically true, so the advertising is correct, you'll just never run into such a situation.

And backups copy lots of small files, that has a processing overhead in MacOS/software already, typically backups run at a couple hundred MB/s at the most with slowdowns in between. CPU speed actually partly dictates how fast backups can run.

 

[rovostrov]

Hi all

in the past I bought bare HDD and IcyBox (Raidsonic) enclosures for cloned backups that I'd be able to swap into my 2009 MBP if needed.

I now have a 2 TB M2 MBP and will be wanting a HDD with twice that capacity (4TB) solely for Time Machine. IcyBox enclosures I now find appear to require a USB-A to USB-C adaptor. For TM I'm not even fixated on a separate drive and enclosure really. It doesn't have to have a rugged design either.

Open to suggestions. Note: It would have to be available in Europe.

Cheers

I've been using a WD 4TB passport ultra for about a year now with no trouble. It's running about $88 at the moment.

WD 4TB My Passport for Mac Portable HDD USB 3.0 with software for device management, backup and password protection - Midnight Blue

Every journey needs a passport. The My Passport for Mac drive is a trusted, portable storage that perfectly complements your on-the-go lifestyle. Compatible with USB-C and USB-A, the My Passport for Mac drive comes equipped to connect with today's latest technology. With a new, stylish design tha...

www.amazon.co.uk

 

[okkibs]

I've been using a WD 4TB passport ultra for about a year now with no trouble.

Again, it will contain the lowest quality SMR drive you can find. I would not trust that with data.

 

[rovostrov]

Again, it will contain the lowest quality SMR drive you can find. I would not trust that with data.

I've never had any issues with it and it has good reviews, but to each their own

 

[ovbacon]

I have a 5TB seagate hdd for TM (no speed needed) and a cheap external enclosure/ssd that I use to make the occasional CCC backups on and do want that to go a little faster. No reason whatsoever to get an expensive external ssd only to use it for TM.

I have 3 seagate hhds and one WD hdd on 24/7 that run great for stuff that does not have a need for speed.

 

[HDFan]

Again, it will contain the lowest quality SMR drive you can find. I would not trust that with data.

There are 4 TB drives with lower than average failure rates according to Backblaze:

Backblaze Drive Stats for Q1 2023

Read the Q1 2023 Drive Stats report, and join the conversation in the comments.

www.backblaze.com

 

[Alpha Centauri]

I've been using a WD 4TB passport ultra for about a year now with no trouble. It's running about $88 at the moment.

WD 4TB My Passport for Mac Portable HDD USB 3.0 with software for device management, backup and password protection - Midnight Blue

Every journey needs a passport. The My Passport for Mac drive is a trusted, portable storage that perfectly complements your on-the-go lifestyle. Compatible with USB-C and USB-A, the My Passport for Mac drive comes equipped to connect with today's latest technology. With a new, stylish design tha...

www.amazon.co.uk

Thank you for the suggestion.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Hi all

in the past I bought bare HDD and IcyBox (Raidsonic) enclosures for cloned backups that I'd be able to swap into my 2009 MBP if needed.

I now have a 2 TB M2 MBP and will be wanting a HDD with twice that capacity (4TB) solely for Time Machine. IcyBox enclosures I now find appear to require a USB-A to USB-C adaptor. For TM I'm not even fixated on a separate drive and enclosure really. It doesn't have to have a rugged design either.

Open to suggestions. Note: It would have to be available in Europe.

Cheers

I'd honestly, just buy any 4TB portable external drive. Given that you're backing up a laptop, you'll probably want multiple drives anyway. It doesn't matter as much that the external be particularly fancy; just that it work when your internal dies or when your logic board needs to be replaced.

 

[okkibs]

There are 4 TB drives with lower than average failure rates according to Backblaze:

But these are 3.5" drives, this thread is for 2.5". 3.5" work reliably up to 18TB and now I believe it's gone beyond 20TB already, which are fast helium-filled non-SMR drives that are much more reliable than any cheap 2.5".

 

[Silencio]

I have a few of those Sabrent enclosures. They're totally fine. Actually, I'm primarily using them for Time Machine backups for my work laptop (2019 16" rMBP) and my personal laptop (2020 M1 rMBA). The NVMe's are a couple of 1TB Sabrent Rockets I had lying around.

 

[Alpha Centauri]

The USB protocol will bottleneck this, it's 10Gbps, that can't make use of the full speed of the Evo model. But then these speeds are not reached in normal use (i.e. copying files around), it needs a certain so-called queue depth. That means running multiple operations at once, so if you are running 1 file copy you might get 800MB/s, then if you run 2 at the same time both get 800MB/s simultaneously, and the Pro model can just do more at once than the Evo model.

There is just no such scenario during typical use, you would have to attach multiple additional SSDs that can also read or write at these speeds, and then use them all at once. Only then will you ever see an overall 5GB/s write speeds across all these simultaneous copies.

So you won't save even a millisecond, the advertised SSD speeds come from specific benchmarks that are technically true, so the advertising is correct, you'll just never run into such a situation.

And backups copy lots of small files, that has a processing overhead in MacOS/software already, typically backups run at a couple hundred MB/s at the most with slowdowns in between. CPU speed actually partly dictates how fast backups can run.

Thank you, that's interesting.

I have the M2 Max 12/38/16 (64GB RAM) 16" MBP. I also played with the idea of choosing the 980 Pro for the possibility of fitting into an external TB case in the future when they become much more affordable. But have I understood it correctly that the USB protocol of my MBP will prevent any transfer speed increase, with even a TB case?

As you can tell I'm still contemplating the 970 vs 980 as the price difference for 2 TB isn't massive.

Do you know if the 980 is just as proven to work with that NVMe Sabrent enclosure as it is with the 970 Evo (PCIe3.0 vs 4.0).

I had planned to order 2x as a clone backup for onsite, and one for offsite. Perhaps it might be wise to order one first to ensure the combination works well.

 

[Alpha Centauri]

I have a few of those Sabrent enclosures. They're totally fine. Actually, I'm primarily using them for Time Machine backups for my work laptop (2019 16" rMBP) and my personal laptop (2020 M1 rMBA). The NVMe's are a couple of 1TB Sabrent Rockets I had lying around.

Great to hear, thank you.