Have you done a full reboot of the host to be sure?
Clearing cache fixed that issue for me.
Thanks for this, I did try to provide a folder path on first try, but it failed for some other reason - the logs werenât specific about why the connection couldnât be made so I assumed it wasnât possible to supply a folder path because when removed it all connected just fine.
I upgraded from 2024.12.4 to 2025.1.2 and got a log full of protobuf errors. Has anybody seen this?
Jan 12 11:46:38 homeassistant hass[2578865]: google.protobuf.runtime_version.VersionError: Detected incompatible Protobuf Gencode/Runtime versions when loading google/protobuf/descriptor.proto: gencode 5.29.2 runtime 5.28.3. Runtime version cannot be older than the linked gencode version. See Protobuf version guarantees at https://protobuf.dev/support/cross-version-runtime-guarantee.
The changelog notes the change, but I cannot find any other information or mentions of this.
It seems to have broken my Shelly and ESPHome device comms.
Iâve downgraded to 2024.12.4, which temporarily resolved the issue.
I run HA core.
$ python --version
Python 3.13.1
OS/host details:
$ cat /etc/os-release
PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye)"
NAME="Debian GNU/Linux"
VERSION_ID="11"
VERSION="11 (bullseye)"
VERSION_CODENAME=bullseye
ID=debian
...
@bdraco looping you in, since I cannot comment on the PR on GitHub.
So, Iâve taken the plunge and upgraded from 2024 to 2025.1.2.
Aside from the backups, I like all the other changes and new features - especially the label filtering in tables, which was my WTH.
In my opinion, the backup option was well intentioned. For novice users and users who do not have the IT savvy to put backup at the top of their list of priorities, itâs probably a huge improvement.
But, as a seasoned IT person, I shall stick with Google Drive Backup until either:
- GDB stops working; or
- the enctyption issue, update backup toggle, and general functionality of the native backup system are improved.
Now I just need to remember to make my own backups before updating something 
9 Likes
I see it differently. Especially for beginners, removing the backup option before an update is actually quite dangerous and a clear step backwards.
12 Likes
- You doesnât use backup. 2 The SO typical "If you donât like what they have done, stop complaining or stop using it.
How should anything be improved with such an attitude like yours and why comment at all if you doesnât use it. Getting hurt on behalf of the developers doesnât give you any credits here and that the only noise you added with your comment.
8 Likes
Yeah right.
You are picking on the wrong guy. I didnât make that decision.
You have only 2 solutions. You can use whatever nabu casa made to be used with backups or you can set up your own backup solution.
In my point of view it is better to set up your own backup solution and donât relay on in house solution.
It seems like the last ~30ish posts are from the same small handful of people. I realize some of you may have a passion for this feature, but we should really let other people share their opinion.
9 Likes
Agreed but, I was thinking of this change as something a bit separate from the automated backup system itself.
Forever retention for automatic backups doesnât seem to work for me, they only keep 2 and I just looked and I only have 1 automatic backup left, the others are deleted
I am with @templeton_nash. 2025.1.2 appears to be working fine here; I havenât checked every one of my hundred integrations and add-ons.
The automated, encrypted backups are probably a plus for the average user who rarely makes backups in the first place. As long as my local backups to my NAS are unencrypted, I donât see an issue. As @ChipMIK says, if you donât like the new backup system, donât use it.
So much smoke over the backup overhaul seems to have obscured all of the other new features. (Also the shortest list of breaking changes that I have seen in, ever?)
I am certain that by now the devs have received the message about communicating. (âOverhaulâ may have been triggering). Unless you have an issue with something not working, cool it about the overhauled backup system.
4 Likes
immediate backup of add-on to be updated doesnât work. Itâs not even this. It has been removed.
BTW: why new backup system is not distributed in form of add-on? I think it deserves to be separate component. And if there is a premise, that user can chose between a few several backup systems, they all could be add-ons with equal rights.
Currently it reminds me the situation from before 20y ago, when Internet Explorer was the default browser, integrated with the system so deeply, that it wasnât possible to uninstall it.
3 Likes
Do you remember what happened next? Netscape gave its code to linux comunity and that eventually created firefox.
So that it can work with core and container.
5 Likes
it happened because it was not able to compete with IE (because of IE monopoly)
2 Likes
Add-ons do that too, donât they?
Iâm not saying everything should be extracted from core/supervisor. there should be api allowing execution all certain operations (like today). But encryption, scheduling, communication with particular storage/cloud could be moved out to an add-on
addons do not work with core and container installations.
1 Like
I have a feeling we donât understand each other.
Google backup is the addon.
You asked this.
Iâm telling you why the new system is not an addon: Because it needs to work with core and container.
Iâm not sure how we can be talking about 2 different things when you asked the question using the phrase ânew backup systemâ.
2 Likes
It seems that since 2025.1 a lot of integrations are no longer compatible for me (Daikin, LocalTuya etcâŠ) so I will pass until this is fixed.