Is it me or is Time Machine's back up slower in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.4?
In article <W8adnbDAZoPzD2LFnZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:
Is it me or is Time Machine's back up slower in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.4?
you
Hello.
Is it me or is Time Machine's back up slower in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.4?
Even if it is only about 100 MB to back up! It is a lot slower than Mac
OS X v10.8.5 (Mountain Lion) with the same exact hardwares (13.3" MBP
from 2012) and an external USB2 Seagate 512 GB HDD. I even tried repartitioning and reformatting the drives in the external HDD (400 GB encrypted journal + 100 GB exFAT), and making a brand new back up from scratch.
In article <W8adnbDAZoPzD2LFnZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) wrote:
Is it me or is Time Machine's back up slower in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.4? Even if it is only about 100 MB to back up! It is a lot slower than Mac
OS X v10.8.5 (Mountain Lion) with the same exact hardwares (13.3" MBP
from 2012) and an external USB2 Seagate 512 GB HDD. I even tried repartitioning and reformatting the drives in the external HDD (400 GB encrypted journal + 100 GB exFAT), and making a brand new back up from scratch.
I've found that in very rare instances, Sierra will take an abnormally
long time to complete even a relatively small backup. I've never been successful in determining exactly what the cause of these slowdowns are, though my suspicion is that it involves a closed file scheduled for
backup being opened while the backup is in progress. I've seen this
occur maybe once every few months.
That being said, I've not noticed any difference in the *normal* time it takes for sierra to do backups.
Hello.
Is it me or is Time Machine's back up slower in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.4?
Even if it is only about 100 MB to back up! It is a lot slower than Mac
OS X v10.8.5 (Mountain Lion) with the same exact hardwares (13.3" MBP
from 2012) and an external USB2 Seagate 512 GB HDD. I even tried repartitioning and reformatting the drives in the external HDD (400 GB encrypted journal + 100 GB exFAT), and making a brand new back up from scratch.
Andre G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> wrote:
In article <W8adnbDAZoPzD2LFnZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) wrote:
Is it me or is Time Machine's back up slower in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.4? Even if it is only about 100 MB to back up! It is a lot slower than Mac OS X v10.8.5 (Mountain Lion) with the same exact hardwares (13.3" MBP from 2012) and an external USB2 Seagate 512 GB HDD. I even tried repartitioning and reformatting the drives in the external HDD (400 GB encrypted journal + 100 GB exFAT), and making a brand new back up from scratch.
I've found that in very rare instances, Sierra will take an abnormally
long time to complete even a relatively small backup. I've never been successful in determining exactly what the cause of these slowdowns are, though my suspicion is that it involves a closed file scheduled for
backup being opened while the backup is in progress. I've seen this
occur maybe once every few months.
Did you have long delays between backups to the same drive, in the order
of days?
If there is a long enough gap between consecutive backups, TM cannot use
the OS's cached list of folders with recent changes (because old entries
have expired), and instead has to do a full scan of the source drive and compare the list of files to the last backup on that TM drive.
The time required to trigger this probably depends on the rate at which folders are changing on your source drive, because the cache has a
limited number of entries. I see this sort of full scan when
reconnecting my occasionally updated second TM backup drive after more
than about two weeks.
There are also some events which force TM to do a full scan, e.g. if the identity of the source drive or backup drive has changed.
My Time Machine backups alternate between two drives, and both are
always connected so I doubt there's ever a day in which both drives
aren't backed up to multiple times (and I dare anyone to try and fix
that stranded preposition). Since I'm rarely away from the computer for
even a single day I doubt that's the issue.
I'm backing up both my internal drive (3TB - less than 1TB used) and an external Thunderbolt Drive (4TB, about 3TB used) to 2 external 8TB USB drives. Not sure if backing up multiple drives should make a difference.
As I said, this happens very infrequently, so I'm not terribly concerned about it. More just curious...
Andre G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> wrote:
My Time Machine backups alternate between two drives, and both are
always connected so I doubt there's ever a day in which both drives
aren't backed up to multiple times (and I dare anyone to try and fix
that stranded preposition). Since I'm rarely away from the computer for even a single day I doubt that's the issue.
I'm backing up both my internal drive (3TB - less than 1TB used) and an external Thunderbolt Drive (4TB, about 3TB used) to 2 external 8TB USB drives. Not sure if backing up multiple drives should make a difference.
As I said, this happens very infrequently, so I'm not terribly concerned about it. More just curious...
Time Machine gets very slow when it has to delete old backups. The
oldest backup is slow to delete, possibly because it is mostly actual
files and not fake hardlinks.
In article <1n53w4s.a8tohs1unrh8xN%nj_kruse@me.com>,
nj_kruse@me.com (Niels Jørgen Kruse) wrote:
Andre G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> wrote:
My Time Machine backups alternate between two drives, and both are
always connected so I doubt there's ever a day in which both drives aren't backed up to multiple times (and I dare anyone to try and fix
that stranded preposition). Since I'm rarely away from the computer for even a single day I doubt that's the issue.
I'm backing up both my internal drive (3TB - less than 1TB used) and an external Thunderbolt Drive (4TB, about 3TB used) to 2 external 8TB USB drives. Not sure if backing up multiple drives should make a difference.
As I said, this happens very infrequently, so I'm not terribly concerned about it. More just curious...
Time Machine gets very slow when it has to delete old backups. The
oldest backup is slow to delete, possibly because it is mostly actual
files and not fake hardlinks.
That isn't the issue here -- neither backup drive has filled up yet.
My Time Machine backups alternate between two drives, and both are
always connected so I doubt there's ever a day in which both drives
aren't backed up to multiple times (and I dare anyone to try and fix
that stranded preposition). Since I'm rarely away from the computer for even a single day I doubt that's the issue.
I'm backing up both my internal drive (3TB - less than 1TB used) and an external Thunderbolt Drive (4TB, about 3TB used) to 2 external 8TB USB drives. Not sure if backing up multiple drives should make a difference.
As I said, this happens very infrequently, so I'm not terribly concerned about it. More just curious...
Time Machine gets very slow when it has to delete old backups.
The
oldest backup is slow to delete, possibly because it is mostly actual
files and not fake hardlinks.
In article <1n53w4s.a8tohs1unrh8xN%nj_kruse@me.com>, Niels Jørgen Kruse <nj_kruse@me.com> wrote:
My Time Machine backups alternate between two drives, and both are
always connected so I doubt there's ever a day in which both drives aren't backed up to multiple times (and I dare anyone to try and fix
that stranded preposition). Since I'm rarely away from the computer for even a single day I doubt that's the issue.
I'm backing up both my internal drive (3TB - less than 1TB used) and an external Thunderbolt Drive (4TB, about 3TB used) to 2 external 8TB USB drives. Not sure if backing up multiple drives should make a difference.
As I said, this happens very infrequently, so I'm not terribly concerned about it. More just curious...
Time Machine gets very slow when it has to delete old backups.
no it doesn't.
The
oldest backup is slow to delete, possibly because it is mostly actual
files and not fake hardlinks.
also wrong.
My Time Machine backups alternate between two drives, and both are always connected so I doubt there's ever a day in which both drives aren't backed up to multiple times (and I dare anyone to try and fix that stranded preposition). Since I'm rarely away from the computer for even a single day I doubt that's the issue.
I'm backing up both my internal drive (3TB - less than 1TB used) and an external Thunderbolt Drive (4TB, about 3TB used) to 2 external 8TB USB drives. Not sure if backing up multiple drives should make a difference.
As I said, this happens very infrequently, so I'm not terribly concerned
about it. More just curious...
Time Machine gets very slow when it has to delete old backups.
no it doesn't.
The
oldest backup is slow to delete, possibly because it is mostly actual files and not fake hardlinks.
also wrong.
Nothing beats a good cloning schedule for backups. You don't have to
watch the 'putter while it does its things...
In article <here-540130.06370127042017@news.individual.net>, android <here@there.was> wrote:
My Time Machine backups alternate between two drives, and both are always connected so I doubt there's ever a day in which both drives aren't backed up to multiple times (and I dare anyone to try and fix that stranded preposition). Since I'm rarely away from the computer for
even a single day I doubt that's the issue.
I'm backing up both my internal drive (3TB - less than 1TB used) and an
external Thunderbolt Drive (4TB, about 3TB used) to 2 external 8TB USB
drives. Not sure if backing up multiple drives should make a difference.
As I said, this happens very infrequently, so I'm not terribly concerned
about it. More just curious...
Time Machine gets very slow when it has to delete old backups.
no it doesn't.
The
oldest backup is slow to delete, possibly because it is mostly actual files and not fake hardlinks.
also wrong.
Nothing beats a good cloning schedule for backups. You don't have to
watch the 'putter while it does its things...
nor do you with time machine.
In article <270420170039597801%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <here-540130.06370127042017@news.individual.net>, android
<here@there.was> wrote:
My Time Machine backups alternate between two drives, and both are >>>>>> always connected so I doubt there's ever a day in which both drives >>>>>> aren't backed up to multiple times (and I dare anyone to try and fix >>>>>> that stranded preposition). Since I'm rarely away from the computer >>>>>> for
even a single day I doubt that's the issue.
I'm backing up both my internal drive (3TB - less than 1TB used) and >>>>>> an
external Thunderbolt Drive (4TB, about 3TB used) to 2 external 8TB >>>>>> USB
drives. Not sure if backing up multiple drives should make a
difference.
As I said, this happens very infrequently, so I'm not terribly
concerned
about it. More just curious...
Time Machine gets very slow when it has to delete old backups.
no it doesn't.
The
oldest backup is slow to delete, possibly because it is mostly actual >>>>> files and not fake hardlinks.
also wrong.
Nothing beats a good cloning schedule for backups. You don't have to
watch the 'putter while it does its things...
nor do you with time machine.
So you can boot from a TM backup? And it never fails?
On 2017-04-26 9:44 PM, android wrote:
In article <270420170039597801%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <here-540130.06370127042017@news.individual.net>, android
<here@there.was> wrote:
My Time Machine backups alternate between two drives, and both are >>>>>> always connected so I doubt there's ever a day in which both drives >>>>>> aren't backed up to multiple times (and I dare anyone to try and fix >>>>>> that stranded preposition). Since I'm rarely away from the computer >>>>>> for
even a single day I doubt that's the issue.
I'm backing up both my internal drive (3TB - less than 1TB used) and >>>>>> an
external Thunderbolt Drive (4TB, about 3TB used) to 2 external 8TB >>>>>> USB
drives. Not sure if backing up multiple drives should make a
difference.
As I said, this happens very infrequently, so I'm not terribly
concerned
about it. More just curious...
Time Machine gets very slow when it has to delete old backups.
no it doesn't.
The
oldest backup is slow to delete, possibly because it is mostly actual >>>>> files and not fake hardlinks.
also wrong.
Nothing beats a good cloning schedule for backups. You don't have to
watch the 'putter while it does its things...
nor do you with time machine.
So you can boot from a TM backup? And it never fails?
No...
...but you can restore from a TM backup and then boot.
In article <odrtn6$l3n$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
On 2017-04-26 9:44 PM, android wrote:
In article <270420170039597801%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <here-540130.06370127042017@news.individual.net>, android
<here@there.was> wrote:
My Time Machine backups alternate between two drives, and both are >>>>>>>> always connected so I doubt there's ever a day in which both drives >>>>>>>> aren't backed up to multiple times (and I dare anyone to try and fix >>>>>>>> that stranded preposition). Since I'm rarely away from the computer >>>>>>>> for
even a single day I doubt that's the issue.
I'm backing up both my internal drive (3TB - less than 1TB used) and >>>>>>>> an
external Thunderbolt Drive (4TB, about 3TB used) to 2 external 8TB >>>>>>>> USB
drives. Not sure if backing up multiple drives should make a
difference.
As I said, this happens very infrequently, so I'm not terribly >>>>>>>> concerned
about it. More just curious...
Time Machine gets very slow when it has to delete old backups.
no it doesn't.
The
oldest backup is slow to delete, possibly because it is mostly actual >>>>>>> files and not fake hardlinks.
also wrong.
Nothing beats a good cloning schedule for backups. You don't have to >>>>> watch the 'putter while it does its things...
nor do you with time machine.
So you can boot from a TM backup? And it never fails?
No...
...but you can restore from a TM backup and then boot.
That won't help you out if you have a HD failure.
Let me add that any backup should be rotated. Like storing daily, weekly
and monthly clones. Or something like that. Copies off site is good if
you can arrange for it.
In article <odrtn6$l3n$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
On 2017-04-26 9:44 PM, android wrote:
In article <270420170039597801%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <here-540130.06370127042017@news.individual.net>, android
<here@there.was> wrote:
My Time Machine backups alternate between two drives, and both are
always connected so I doubt there's ever a day in which both drives >> >>>>>> aren't backed up to multiple times (and I dare anyone to try and fix >> >>>>>> that stranded preposition). Since I'm rarely away from the computer >> >>>>>> for
even a single day I doubt that's the issue.
I'm backing up both my internal drive (3TB - less than 1TB used) and >> >>>>>> an
external Thunderbolt Drive (4TB, about 3TB used) to 2 external 8TB
USB
drives. Not sure if backing up multiple drives should make a
difference.
As I said, this happens very infrequently, so I'm not terribly
concerned
about it. More just curious...
Time Machine gets very slow when it has to delete old backups.
no it doesn't.
The
oldest backup is slow to delete, possibly because it is mostly actual >> >>>>> files and not fake hardlinks.
also wrong.
Nothing beats a good cloning schedule for backups. You don't have to
watch the 'putter while it does its things...
nor do you with time machine.
So you can boot from a TM backup? And it never fails?
No...
...but you can restore from a TM backup and then boot.
That won't help you out if you have a HD failure.
Let me add that any backup should be rotated. Like storing daily, weekly
and monthly clones. Or something like that. Copies off site is good if
you can arrange for it.
Andre G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> wrote:
My Time Machine backups alternate between two drives, and both are
always connected so I doubt there's ever a day in which both drives
aren't backed up to multiple times (and I dare anyone to try and fix
that stranded preposition). Since I'm rarely away from the computer for
even a single day I doubt that's the issue.
I'm backing up both my internal drive (3TB - less than 1TB used) and an
external Thunderbolt Drive (4TB, about 3TB used) to 2 external 8TB USB
drives. Not sure if backing up multiple drives should make a difference.
As I said, this happens very infrequently, so I'm not terribly concerned
about it. More just curious...
Time Machine gets very slow when it has to delete old backups. The
oldest backup is slow to delete, possibly because it is mostly actual
files and not fake hardlinks.
In message <1n53w4s.a8tohs1unrh8xN%nj_kruse@me.com> Niels Jørgen Kruse <nj_kruse@me.com> wrote:
Andre G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> wrote:
My Time Machine backups alternate between two drives, and both are
always connected so I doubt there's ever a day in which both drives
aren't backed up to multiple times (and I dare anyone to try and fix
that stranded preposition). Since I'm rarely away from the computer for
even a single day I doubt that's the issue.
I'm backing up both my internal drive (3TB - less than 1TB used) and an
external Thunderbolt Drive (4TB, about 3TB used) to 2 external 8TB USB
drives. Not sure if backing up multiple drives should make a difference. >>
As I said, this happens very infrequently, so I'm not terribly concerned >> about it. More just curious...
Time Machine gets very slow when it has to delete old backups. The
oldest backup is slow to delete, possibly because it is mostly actual
files and not fake hardlinks.
Hard links and "actual" files are the same exact thing.
Nothing beats a good cloning schedule for backups. You don't have to
watch the 'putter while it does its things...
nor do you with time machine.
So you can boot from a TM backup? And it never fails?
No...
...but you can restore from a TM backup and then boot.
In article <odrtn6$l3n$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker
<alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
Nothing beats a good cloning schedule for backups. You don't have to >>>>> watch the 'putter while it does its things...
nor do you with time machine.
So you can boot from a TM backup? And it never fails?
No...
...but you can restore from a TM backup and then boot.
directly attached time machine backups are bootable since lion.
In article <270420170039597801%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <here-540130.06370127042017@news.individual.net>, android
<here@there.was> wrote:
Time Machine gets very slow when it has to delete old backups.
no it doesn't.
The oldest backup is slow to delete, possibly because it is mostly
actual files and not fake hardlinks.
also wrong.
Nothing beats a good cloning schedule for backups. You don't have to
watch the 'putter while it does its things...
nor do you with time machine.
So you can boot from a TM backup? And it never fails?
Deleting a time-machine backup is considerably slower than deleting a comparably sized group of files, and I assume the reason for this is
that the OS performs consistency checks when deleting multiply-linked folders.
On 2017-04-27 07:49, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
Deleting a time-machine backup is considerably slower than deleting a
comparably sized group of files, and I assume the reason for this is
that the OS performs consistency checks when deleting multiply-linked
folders.
I view it differently:
Say File1.txt has remained unchanged for 6 months or 180 days/backups.
So you have one copy of file1.txt with 180 directory entries pointing to it.
Deletting the January 1 backup won't free up space used by File1.txt, it merely decrements the "number of entries" counter for the file to 179.
You then have to go and delete the Jan 2 backup etc etc.
So you have to loop through al backups (oldest to newest) deleting all
files in each until you have enough free space. Since vast majority of
file entries in a daily backup have a "count" higher than 1, deleting
them won't cause freeing of disk space, so you have to delete a whole
lot of file entries just to free up a certain amount of disk space.
So it may end up deleteing say 10,000 file entries without freeing any
disk space because those files are also used in the next day's backup.
On 2017-04-27, android <here@there.was> wrote:
In article <270420170039597801%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <here-540130.06370127042017@news.individual.net>, android
<here@there.was> wrote:
Time Machine gets very slow when it has to delete old backups.
no it doesn't.
The oldest backup is slow to delete, possibly because it is mostly >>>>> actual files and not fake hardlinks.
also wrong.
Nothing beats a good cloning schedule for backups. You don't have to
watch the 'putter while it does its things...
nor do you with time machine.
So you can boot from a TM backup? And it never fails?
My goodness... You poor ignorant thing! You just can't seem to get
anything right. Bless your little heart!
No, Time Machine *doesn't* get "very slow" when it deletes old backups.
To wit, here's a sample where 1.27GB of new/changed data was backed up,
and where 446.5 MB of stale backups were deleted in only 12 minutes -
over the network:
So... The backup of new data took nine minutes, and the deletion of the
old backup took less than one minute. Imagine that.
And no, old backups aren't "mostly actual files and not fake hardlinks" either.
And yes, you definitely can boot from Time Machine backups. I've done it plenty of times.
Nope. That's not how it works.
On 2017-04-27 14:31, Jolly Roger wrote:
Nope. That's not how it works.
So pray tell, how does it work?
Ginormous hint: There's no need to recursively look at individual file and folder sizes to figure out what to delete. There are these new-fangled
things called snapshots...
Want to know more? I'm not your secretary,
On 2017-04-27 15:32, Jolly Roger wrote:
Ginormous hint: There's no need to recursively look at individual file and >> folder sizes to figure out what to delete. There are these new-fangled
things called snapshots...
Folder sizes are irrelevant
Also, you cannot selectively delete files.
The issue isn't deleting a backup
Want to know more? I'm not your secretary,
but you're the one who challenges my statement and I will to explain
In article <emel98FbmobU1@mid.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2017-04-27, android <here@there.was> wrote:[---]
In article <270420170039597801%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <here-540130.06370127042017@news.individual.net>, android
<here@there.was> wrote:
Time Machine gets very slow when it has to delete old backups.
no it doesn't.
The oldest backup is slow to delete, possibly because it is mostly
actual files and not fake hardlinks.
also wrong.
Nothing beats a good cloning schedule for backups. You don't have to
watch the 'putter while it does its things...
nor do you with time machine.
So you can boot from a TM backup? And it never fails?
My goodness... You poor ignorant thing! You just can't seem to get
anything right. Bless your little heart!
No, Time Machine *doesn't* get "very slow" when it deletes old backups.
To wit, here's a sample where 1.27GB of new/changed data was backed up,
and where 446.5 MB of stale backups were deleted in only 12 minutes -
over the network:
So... The backup of new data took nine minutes, and the deletion of the
old backup took less than one minute. Imagine that.
Soo? I have not made any complaints on the speed of TM. You've
attributed the wrong person.
And no, old backups aren't "mostly actual files and not fake hardlinks"
either.
That is nothing that I've have written. You've attributed the wrong
person.
And yes, you definitely can boot from Time Machine backups. I've done it
plenty of times.
Good for you. I wouldn't trust it. There are way to many complaints of
failed TM backups on the net for that.
Conveniently you are mum when it comes to booting from TM volumes.
Nothing more to say on that one, eh? Thought we'd forget you said it
wasn't possible?
directly attached time machine backups are bootable since lion.
In article <slrnog3fea.jnv.g.kreme@snow.local>,
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
In message <1n53w4s.a8tohs1unrh8xN%nj_kruse@me.com> Niels Jørgen Kruse
<nj_kruse@me.com> wrote:
Andre G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> wrote:
My Time Machine backups alternate between two drives, and both are
always connected so I doubt there's ever a day in which both drives
aren't backed up to multiple times (and I dare anyone to try and fix
that stranded preposition). Since I'm rarely away from the computer for >> >> even a single day I doubt that's the issue.
I'm backing up both my internal drive (3TB - less than 1TB used) and an >> >> external Thunderbolt Drive (4TB, about 3TB used) to 2 external 8TB USB
drives. Not sure if backing up multiple drives should make a difference. >> >>
As I said, this happens very infrequently, so I'm not terribly concerned >> >> about it. More just curious...
Time Machine gets very slow when it has to delete old backups. The
oldest backup is slow to delete, possibly because it is mostly actual
files and not fake hardlinks.
Hard links and "actual" files are the same exact thing.
Time Machine relies not only on hard linked files, but also on hard
links to directories.
Deleting a time-machine backup is considerably slower than deleting a comparably sized group of files, and I assume the reason for this is
that the OS performs consistency checks when deleting multiply-linked folders.
directly attached time machine backups are bootable since lion.
Really?
Google "bootable time machine backup" and see the results.
They are bootable if you use CCC or SuperDuper to make a bootable volume, then use it for a TM backup.
If someone just sticks a usb/fw/tb drive in and start using for TM, it's
not going to boot on it's own.
In comp.sys.mac.system nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
directly attached time machine backups are bootable since lion.
Really?
Google "bootable time machine backup" and see the results.
They are bootable if you use CCC or SuperDuper to make a bootable volume, then use it for a TM backup.
If someone just sticks a usb/fw/tb drive in and start using for TM, it's
not going to boot on it's own.
On 2017-04-27 07:49, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
Deleting a time-machine backup is considerably slower than deleting a
comparably sized group of files, and I assume the reason for this is
that the OS performs consistency checks when deleting multiply-linked
folders.
I view it differently:
Why does Time Machine need to delete ? to free space.
Say File1.txt has remained unchanged for 6 months or 180 days/backups.
So you have one copy of file1.txt with 180 directory entries pointing to it.
So you have to loop through al backups (oldest to newest) deleting all
files in each until you have enough free space.
In article <emfcriFgfs0U1@mid.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
Conveniently you are mum when it comes to booting from TM volumes.
Nothing more to say on that one, eh? Thought we'd forget you said it
wasn't possible?
That I did not say either...
In article <270420170039597801%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <here-540130.06370127042017@news.individual.net>, android
<here@there.was> wrote:
Nothing beats a good cloning schedule for backups. You don't have to
watch the 'putter while it does its things...
nor do you with time machine.
So you can boot from a TM backup? And it never fails?
On 2017-04-28, android <here@there.was> wrote:
In article <emfcriFgfs0U1@mid.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
Conveniently you are mum when it comes to booting from TM volumes.
Nothing more to say on that one, eh? Thought we'd forget you said it
wasn't possible?
That I did not say either...
You insinuated it, which is on record:
On 2017-04-27, android <here@there.was> wrote:
In article <270420170039597801%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <here-540130.06370127042017@news.individual.net>, android
<here@there.was> wrote:
Nothing beats a good cloning schedule for backups. You don't have to
watch the 'putter while it does its things...
nor do you with time machine.
So you can boot from a TM backup? And it never fails?
Run, Forest, run from your own words! ; )
directly attached time machine backups are bootable since lion.
/dev/disk1
#: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER
0: GUID_partition_scheme *2.0 TB disk1
1: EFI EFI 209.7 MB disk1s1
2: Apple_HFS DMA6 2.0 TB disk1s2
If only there were some way to tell how many links there were to a
file...
When Time Machine needs free space, it does not and cannot decide to
make a whole buchh of backsups corrupt by arbritrarily deleteing one or
two files of its choice. It needs to eliminate full backups from oldest
to newest backups until enough space has been freed.
directly attached time machine backups are bootable since lion.
Yosemite:
Diskutil list for the Time Machine backup disk
/dev/disk1
#: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER
0: GUID_partition_scheme *2.0 TB disk1
1: EFI EFI 209.7 MB disk1s1
2: Apple_HFS DMA6 2.0 TB disk1s2
There is no recovery partition.
HOWEVER:
Two relevant files at the root of the TM backup drive:
drwxr-xr-x+ 6 root wheel 204 Jun 17 2016 Backups.backupdb -rwxr-xr-x@ 1 root wheel 115716 May 10 2015 tmbootpicker.efi
The backupdb is the directory containing all the directories of backups
by date.
What is likely is that the disk has the tmbootpicker.efi file as the
blessed "boot loader" and that file likely has code that chooses a
directory in the .backupdb that contains the system.
What is not clear to me is how it chooses it. (the latest backup might
be corrupt and you don't want to boot from it, and the oldest backup may
not have more recent version of OS.).
There is a hidden folder in the Backups.backupdb folder with a name
something like ".RecoverySets", which contains numbered subfolders (0,
1, ...), typically only "0" is required.
directly attached time machine backups are bootable since lion.
Yosemite:
Diskutil list for the Time Machine backup disk
/dev/disk1
#: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER
0: GUID_partition_scheme *2.0 TB disk1
1: EFI EFI 209.7 MB disk1s1 >> 2: Apple_HFS DMA6 2.0 TB disk1s2
There is no recovery partition.
What is not clear to me
On 2017-04-28 07:19, Lewis wrote:
If only there were some way to tell how many links there were to a
file...
Knowing there are 180 directory entries pointing to File1.txt is easy.
And depending on the file system, if the actual file entry has
backpointers, you may also easily find out in which directories and
under which name these 180 entries are.
So if you wish to delete all references to file1.txt, you can do it by finding all references to it and deleting it. That will free up the
disk space occupied by file1.txt. But also make 180 backups corrupt
since they will be incomplete.
When Time Machine needs free space, it does not and cannot decide to
make a whole buchh of backsups corrupt by arbritrarily deleteing one or
two files of its choice. It needs to eliminate full backups from oldest
to newest backups until enough space has been freed.
And this is where it can get very IO intensive
if deleting the oldest backup merely results in a whole buch of
directory updates to remove fiule entries without freeing any space
because these files are all used by subsequent backups.
If your TM backup is on USB, I doubt it would impact SATA drives or PICe
SSDs since they use different interconnects.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 61:20:52 |
| Calls: | 6,654 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,331,524 |