Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Jaimie Vandenbergh Newsgroups: uk.comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: TM Backup Date: 5 Aug 2020 17:13:51 GMT Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net FUpPZMziQAfKM7LyjZ0sXQCKCQjk4uIVXTKEeBLLDE8ZAxpG3h Cancel-Lock: sha1:lEaWK/cY43CzUBYJNlQ/tmG5JTw= User-Agent: Usenapp/0.79/l beta for MacOS Xref: csiph.com uk.comp.sys.mac:146090 On 5 Aug 2020 at 15:14:19 BST, "TimH" wrote: > On 5 Aug 2020 at 11:54:02 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh" > wrote: > >> It probably is. Time Machine on HFS+ is a horrible horrible kludge and does >> Just Break now and then as it maintains several million pseudo link files in >> a >> hidden directory. Reformat it and set it up as your second TM destination. > > Reading this kind of thing (and there's been plenty of it here and > elsewhere), > I don't really understand why a) anyone uses TM and b) why there isn't more > fuss about it. Because it's really good. It's incredibly easy to set up and let run, orders of magnitude better than any other backup software I'm aware of. It was originally designed to work with a snapshotting filesystem - ZFS - but that didn't work out so Apple bodged it to work with HFS+ and it's a bit temperamental. But even then, it just pops up with "Hey, your destination is bust, I'm going to clear it and start again" every year or three of backups on the hour every hour, which for almost everyone is entirely rare enough and is also sufficient. It is after all only a backup, and disposable as long as it's recreated tout suite. In a couple of months Big Sur will come out, and TM will finally be on a snapshotting filesystem. It's worlds quicker, and will likely be more stable than the hard drives people will use with it. Cheers - Jaimie -- A mind stretched by an idea can never go back to its original dimensions. - Conan Doyle