Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Jolly Roger Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.hardware.storage Subject: Re: Sierra's Time Machine's backups slower? Date: 27 Apr 2017 23:23:30 GMT Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates Lines: 79 Message-ID: References: <1n53swa.ty5yhv1uib5rwN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> <1n53w4s.a8tohs1unrh8xN%nj_kruse@me.com> <260420171645581830%nospam@nospam.invalid> <270420170039597801%nospam@nospam.invalid> X-Trace: individual.net EE+1F5toOw6wDX6Zjp+y+goi7HjiMVJJZpaxkyBF74mIebEmCI Cancel-Lock: sha1:3VqVPTj35Mq2E2Ci+3TE0VAaimY= Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:105695 comp.sys.mac.hardware.storage:1553 On 2017-04-27, android wrote: > In article , > Jolly Roger wrote: > >> On 2017-04-27, android wrote: >> > In article <270420170039597801%nospam@nospam.invalid>, >> > nospam wrote: >> >> In article , android >> >> 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. Ah, okay. You're just replying to a sub-thread where someone claimed TM is slow to talk about your own thing because you're such a stellar proponent of Usenet etiquette, is that it? So much for leading by example, I guess. 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? >> 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. See above. You're not one to spam this news group repeatedly about Usenet etiquette when you can't even bother to set a good example. Replying to a sub-thread with an off-topic post is rude and frowned upon. >> 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. Heh... As if that means anything. There are complaints about *everything* on the net. I notice when I search Google for "MTNewswatcher problem" there are over twenty thousand hits - yet here you are using it. I guess you shouldn't trust it either, eh? Way too many complaints! -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR