Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.comp.sys.mac > #146041 > unrolled thread

TM Backup

Back to article view | Back to uk.comp.sys.mac

Contents

  TM Backup RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2020-08-02 19:17 +0000
    Re: TM Backup nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-02 15:34 -0400
      Re: TM Backup David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-08-03 00:03 +0100
        Re: TM Backup nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-02 19:10 -0400
      Re: TM Backup nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2020-08-02 20:09 -0600
        Re: TM Backup Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-02 22:05 -0700
        Re: TM Backup nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-03 15:30 -0400
    Re: TM Backup Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-08-03 10:31 +0000
      Re: TM Backup RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2020-08-03 13:54 +0000
        Re: TM Backup Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-08-03 14:09 +0000
          Re: TM Backup RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2020-08-03 18:57 +0000
            Re: TM Backup Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-08-03 19:27 +0000
              Re: TM Backup RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2020-08-03 20:13 +0000
                Re: TM Backup nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-03 16:22 -0400
                Re: TM Backup Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-08-03 21:03 +0000
                  Re: TM Backup RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2020-08-04 08:53 +0000
                    Re: TM Backup Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-08-04 10:58 +0000
                      Re: TM Backup Fred <fredbare@[127.0.0.1]> - 2020-08-04 14:30 +0100
                        Re: TM Backup Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-08-04 17:33 +0000
                          Re: TM Backup nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-04 13:44 -0400
                          Re: TM Backup Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> - 2020-08-04 19:43 +0000
                            Re: TM Backup nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-04 16:14 -0400
                              Re: TM Backup Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-04 23:02 +0000
                                Re: TM Backup Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-04 23:05 +0000
                                  Re: TM Backup Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-05 14:32 +0000
                                Re: TM Backup nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-05 08:13 -0400
                                  Re: TM Backup Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-05 14:32 +0000
                      Re: TM Backup RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2020-08-05 09:05 +0000
                        Re: TM Backup Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-08-05 10:54 +0000
                          Re: TM Backup TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> - 2020-08-05 14:14 +0000
                            Re: TM Backup nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-05 10:21 -0400
                              Re: TM Backup TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> - 2020-08-05 14:31 +0000
                                Re: TM Backup nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-05 10:34 -0400
                            Re: TM Backup black.hole@jonbradbury.com (Jon B) - 2020-08-05 16:47 +0100
                            Re: TM Backup Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-08-05 17:13 +0000
                              Re: TM Backup TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> - 2020-08-05 21:04 +0000
                              Re: TM Backup richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2020-08-05 23:17 +0000
                                Re: TM Backup John Hill <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> - 2020-08-06 08:37 +0000
                                  Re: TM Backup RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2020-08-06 08:58 +0000
                                Re: TM Backup Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-08-06 09:58 +0000
                                  Re: TM Backup Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2020-08-06 12:30 +0100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#146041 — TM Backup

My USB Time Machine disk (1TB USB3 Seagate) suddenly disconnected, and I'm
getting this message with Disk Utility/ First Aid: 

Unable to unmount volume for repair. : (-69673)

The drive isn't showing any error when I check it using the Seagate Windows
utility, but it did behave oddly when I first plugged it in - the Window PC
froze for about 30 seconds, and then went on to behave. 

Maybe it's just a Mac thing, but I'd better copy the files to another drive,
just in case.

How do I back up the TM backup? The disk is readable and showing a bunch of
weekly folders. Is it just a case of copying the data to a new drive,
formatted MAC OS extended, journaled, case sensitive?

-- 
Cheers, Rob

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#146042

In article <rg73gd$1h6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
wrote:

> How do I back up the TM backup? The disk is readable and showing a bunch of
> weekly folders. Is it just a case of copying the data to a new drive,
> formatted MAC OS extended, journaled, case sensitive?

finder, carbon copy cloner or superduper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146043

On 02/08/2020 20:34, nospam wrote:
> In article <rg73gd$1h6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> How do I back up the TM backup? The disk is readable and showing a bunch of
>> weekly folders. Is it just a case of copying the data to a new drive,
>> formatted MAC OS extended, journaled, case sensitive?
> 
> finder, carbon copy cloner or superduper


Or read here and fix it!

https://ugetfix.com/ask/how-to-fix-couldnt-unmount-disk-error-on-mac/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146044

In article <%CHVG.328326$Og6.293758@fx01.ams1>, David_B
<DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> >> How do I back up the TM backup? The disk is readable and showing a bunch of
> >> weekly folders. Is it just a case of copying the data to a new drive,
> >> formatted MAC OS extended, journaled, case sensitive?
> > 
> > finder, carbon copy cloner or superduper
> 
> 
> Or read here and fix it!
> 
> https://ugetfix.com/ask/how-to-fix-couldnt-unmount-disk-error-on-mac/


stop making suggestions when you not only have zero clue about the
topic, but you don't even understand the question.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146045

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> finder, carbon copy cloner or superduper

Yes for Finder and SuperDuper!. No for Carbon Copy Cloner. 

<https://bombich.com/kb/ccc5/can-i-use-carbon-copy-cloner-clone-time-machine-backup>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146046

On 8/2/20 7:09 PM, Neill Massello wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> finder, carbon copy cloner or superduper
> 
> Yes for Finder and SuperDuper!. No for Carbon Copy Cloner.
> 
> <https://bombich.com/kb/ccc5/can-i-use-carbon-copy-cloner-clone-time-machine-backup>
> 

Good info. Thanks.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146056

In article <1ouiy0n.1dsdrya1eo6so5N%nmassello@yahoo.com>, Neill
Massello <nmassello@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > finder, carbon copy cloner or superduper
> 
> Yes for Finder and SuperDuper!. No for Carbon Copy Cloner. 
> 
> <https://bombich.com/kb/ccc5/can-i-use-carbon-copy-cloner-clone-time-machine-backup>

yes for carbon copy cloner when it's a sparsebundle, which is the best
way to use time machine and the only way for network drives.

no if it's not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146048

On 2 Aug 2020 at 20:17:33 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

> How do I back up the TM backup? The disk is readable and showing a bunch of
> weekly folders. Is it just a case of copying the data to a new drive,
> formatted MAC OS extended, journaled, case sensitive?

I keep two TM destinations on the go, to avoid ever needing to copy when one
goes invalid. Since I started using Time Machine in Leopard I've never needed
to retrieve anything older than a couple of weeks.

Copy if you like this time, but then keep both disks on rotation and you'll
never need to do it again.

	Cheers - Jaimie
-- 
Sent from my Amiga 1000

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146049

On 3 Aug 2020 at 11:31:55 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

> On 2 Aug 2020 at 20:17:33 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
> 
>> How do I back up the TM backup? The disk is readable and showing a bunch of
>> weekly folders. Is it just a case of copying the data to a new drive,
>> formatted MAC OS extended, journaled, case sensitive?
> 
> I keep two TM destinations on the go, to avoid ever needing to copy when one
> goes invalid. Since I started using Time Machine in Leopard I've never needed
> to retrieve anything older than a couple of weeks.
> 
> Copy if you like this time, but then keep both disks on rotation and you'll
> never need to do it again.
> 
> 	Cheers - Jaimie

Good plan - as this is the second time it's happened - first time, I couldn't
recover the backup.

Instructions here:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202380

Although I had to format the disk as case sensitive. 

As an aside, I find the weekly folder arrangements a lot more reassuring than
the old 'bundle'.

-- 
Cheers, Rob

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146050

On 3 Aug 2020 at 14:54:17 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

> As an aside, I find the weekly folder arrangements a lot more reassuring than
> the old 'bundle'.

Mount the bundle with a double-click and you'll see all the weekly folders.
It's just an encapsulation, to reduce network traffic and also allow for TM
backups to be on drives that aren't formatted Mac. My bundles sit on a NAS
with a ZFS filesystem, for instance.

Big Sur will be using APFS format disks (and bundles), by the way - but TM
doesn't convert them, you have to start a new one. With these two disks on the
go, you'll be able to happily clear one and offer it up to Big Sur to
reformat. It's *so* much faster than HFS, even on spinning disks where APFS is
slower.

	Cheers - Jaimie
-- 
Tomorrow (noun) - A mystical land where 99 per cent of all human 
productivity, motivation and achievement is stored. 
                           -- http://thedoghousediaries.com/3474

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146054

On 3 Aug 2020 at 15:09:22 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

> On 3 Aug 2020 at 14:54:17 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
> 
>> As an aside, I find the weekly folder arrangements a lot more reassuring than
>> the old 'bundle'.
> 
> Mount the bundle with a double-click and you'll see all the weekly folders.
> It's just an encapsulation, to reduce network traffic and also allow for TM
> backups to be on drives that aren't formatted Mac. My bundles sit on a NAS
> with a ZFS filesystem, for instance.

Ah, right, live/learn - although the original is Mac OS Extended
(Case-sensitive, Journaled).
> 
> Big Sur will be using APFS format disks (and bundles), by the way - but TM
> doesn't convert them, you have to start a new one. With these two disks on
> the
> go, you'll be able to happily clear one and offer it up to Big Sur to
> reformat. It's *so* much faster than HFS, even on spinning disks where APFS
> is
> slower.

That's handy, thanks.

The file copy is taking a loooong time - still 'preparing to copy', after 6
hours - now on 1.7m items and rising slowly (not sure how many to go), 500GB
total.

-- 
Cheers, Rob

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146055

On 3 Aug 2020 at 19:57:45 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

> On 3 Aug 2020 at 15:09:22 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
> <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 3 Aug 2020 at 14:54:17 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> As an aside, I find the weekly folder arrangements a lot more reassuring than
>>> the old 'bundle'.
>> 
>> Mount the bundle with a double-click and you'll see all the weekly folders.
>> It's just an encapsulation, to reduce network traffic and also allow for TM
>> backups to be on drives that aren't formatted Mac. My bundles sit on a NAS
>> with a ZFS filesystem, for instance.
> 
> Ah, right, live/learn - although the original is Mac OS Extended
> (Case-sensitive, Journaled).
>> 
>> Big Sur will be using APFS format disks (and bundles), by the way - but TM
>> doesn't convert them, you have to start a new one. With these two disks on
>> the
>> go, you'll be able to happily clear one and offer it up to Big Sur to
>> reformat. It's *so* much faster than HFS, even on spinning disks where APFS
>> is
>> slower.
> 
> That's handy, thanks.
> 
> The file copy is taking a loooong time - still 'preparing to copy', after 6
> hours - now on 1.7m items and rising slowly (not sure how many to go), 500GB
> total.

It'll take ages. A disk cloner would be better than file by file, because
doing the file by file means every single link will be managed separately,
even if you have fifty backups all pointing at one file it'll get counted and
processed 50 times. A disk cloner will do the copy blockwise instead without
caring about the files in it.

If it were a bundle it'd be a lot quicker - those are made up out of 8meg
subfiles, there may be tens of thousands of them but there won't be millions
:)

	Cheers - Jaimie
-- 
"I think man is the most interesting insect on earth, don't you?"
                                           -- Marvin the Martian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146057

On 3 Aug 2020 at 20:27:12 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

> On 3 Aug 2020 at 19:57:45 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3 Aug 2020 at 15:09:22 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
>> <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 3 Aug 2020 at 14:54:17 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> As an aside, I find the weekly folder arrangements a lot more reassuring than
>>>> the old 'bundle'.
>>> 
>>> Mount the bundle with a double-click and you'll see all the weekly folders.
>>> It's just an encapsulation, to reduce network traffic and also allow for TM
>>> backups to be on drives that aren't formatted Mac. My bundles sit on a NAS
>>> with a ZFS filesystem, for instance.
>> 
>> Ah, right, live/learn - although the original is Mac OS Extended
>> (Case-sensitive, Journaled).
>>> 
>>> Big Sur will be using APFS format disks (and bundles), by the way - but TM
>>> doesn't convert them, you have to start a new one. With these two disks on
>>> the
>>> go, you'll be able to happily clear one and offer it up to Big Sur to
>>> reformat. It's *so* much faster than HFS, even on spinning disks where APFS
>>> is
>>> slower.
>> 
>> That's handy, thanks.
>> 
>> The file copy is taking a loooong time - still 'preparing to copy', after 6
>> hours - now on 1.7m items and rising slowly (not sure how many to go), 500GB
>> total.
> 
> It'll take ages. A disk cloner would be better than file by file, because
> doing the file by file means every single link will be managed separately,
> even if you have fifty backups all pointing at one file it'll get counted and
> processed 50 times. A disk cloner will do the copy blockwise instead without
> caring about the files in it.

I wish ;-) 

CCC returns: Time Machine backup volumes use Apple-proprietary filesystem
devices, and Apple does not support the use of third-party utilities to copy
Time Machine backups. Use Finder to copy this proprietary data store to
another disk.

Chronsync winged about non-accessible permissions.

> 
> 
> If it were a bundle it'd be a lot quicker - those are made up out of 8meg
> subfiles, there may be tens of thousands of them but there won't be millions
> :)
> 

I don't remember being given a choice. After the NAS TM bundle became trashed
I started using the USB portable drive connected to the iMac. Still, I am
where I am  . . .

-- 
Cheers, Rob

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146058

In article <rg9r66$nh0$1@gioia.aioe.org>, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
wrote:

> > If it were a bundle it'd be a lot quicker - those are made up out of 8meg
> > subfiles, there may be tens of thousands of them but there won't be millions
> > :)
> > 
> 
> I don't remember being given a choice. After the NAS TM bundle became trashed
> I started using the USB portable drive connected to the iMac. Still, I am
> where I am  . . .

a directly attached usb drive will not be a sparsebundle unless steps
are taken to force it that way.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146059

On 3 Aug 2020 at 21:13:58 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

> On 3 Aug 2020 at 20:27:12 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
> <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 3 Aug 2020 at 19:57:45 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 3 Aug 2020 at 15:09:22 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
>>> <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 3 Aug 2020 at 14:54:17 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> As an aside, I find the weekly folder arrangements a lot more reassuring than
>>>>> the old 'bundle'.
>>>> 
>>>> Mount the bundle with a double-click and you'll see all the weekly folders.
>>>> It's just an encapsulation, to reduce network traffic and also allow for TM
>>>> backups to be on drives that aren't formatted Mac. My bundles sit on a NAS
>>>> with a ZFS filesystem, for instance.
>>> 
>>> Ah, right, live/learn - although the original is Mac OS Extended
>>> (Case-sensitive, Journaled).
>>>> 
>>>> Big Sur will be using APFS format disks (and bundles), by the way - but TM
>>>> doesn't convert them, you have to start a new one. With these two disks on
>>>> the
>>>> go, you'll be able to happily clear one and offer it up to Big Sur to
>>>> reformat. It's *so* much faster than HFS, even on spinning disks where APFS
>>>> is
>>>> slower.
>>> 
>>> That's handy, thanks.
>>> 
>>> The file copy is taking a loooong time - still 'preparing to copy', after 6
>>> hours - now on 1.7m items and rising slowly (not sure how many to go), 500GB
>>> total.
>> 
>> It'll take ages. A disk cloner would be better than file by file, because
>> doing the file by file means every single link will be managed separately,
>> even if you have fifty backups all pointing at one file it'll get counted and
>> processed 50 times. A disk cloner will do the copy blockwise instead without
>> caring about the files in it.
> 
> I wish ;-) 
> 
> CCC returns: Time Machine backup volumes use Apple-proprietary filesystem
> devices, and Apple does not support the use of third-party utilities to copy
> Time Machine backups. Use Finder to copy this proprietary data store to
> another disk.
> 
> Chronsync winged about non-accessible permissions.

Betcha Disk Utility would manage it. It's half the speed of 3rd party cloners,
but it gets the job done.

>> If it were a bundle it'd be a lot quicker - those are made up out of 8meg
>> subfiles, there may be tens of thousands of them but there won't be millions
>> :)
>> 
> 
> I don't remember being given a choice. After the NAS TM bundle became trashed
> I started using the USB portable drive connected to the iMac. Still, I am
> where I am  . . .

You aren't given the choice, indeed. But! You should re-enable the NAS as a TM
destination, same reasoning as for two HDDs. Three TMs is about the right
number IMHO.

	Cheers - Jaimie
-- 
"What we have done with PCs so far is not natural" - Craig Mundie, CTO
Microsoft

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146061

On 3 Aug 2020 at 22:03:33 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

> On 3 Aug 2020 at 21:13:58 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3 Aug 2020 at 20:27:12 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
>> <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 3 Aug 2020 at 19:57:45 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 3 Aug 2020 at 15:09:22 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
>>>> <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 3 Aug 2020 at 14:54:17 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> As an aside, I find the weekly folder arrangements a lot more reassuring than
>>>>>> the old 'bundle'.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mount the bundle with a double-click and you'll see all the weekly folders.
>>>>> It's just an encapsulation, to reduce network traffic and also allow for TM
>>>>> backups to be on drives that aren't formatted Mac. My bundles sit on a NAS
>>>>> with a ZFS filesystem, for instance.
>>>> 
>>>> Ah, right, live/learn - although the original is Mac OS Extended
>>>> (Case-sensitive, Journaled).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Big Sur will be using APFS format disks (and bundles), by the way - but TM
>>>>> doesn't convert them, you have to start a new one. With these two disks on
>>>>> the
>>>>> go, you'll be able to happily clear one and offer it up to Big Sur to
>>>>> reformat. It's *so* much faster than HFS, even on spinning disks where APFS
>>>>> is
>>>>> slower.
>>>> 
>>>> That's handy, thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> The file copy is taking a loooong time - still 'preparing to copy', after 6
>>>> hours - now on 1.7m items and rising slowly (not sure how many to go), 500GB
>>>> total.
>>> 
>>> It'll take ages. A disk cloner would be better than file by file, because
>>> doing the file by file means every single link will be managed separately,
>>> even if you have fifty backups all pointing at one file it'll get counted and
>>> processed 50 times. A disk cloner will do the copy blockwise instead without
>>> caring about the files in it.
>> 
>> I wish ;-) 
>> 
>> CCC returns: Time Machine backup volumes use Apple-proprietary filesystem
>> devices, and Apple does not support the use of third-party utilities to copy
>> Time Machine backups. Use Finder to copy this proprietary data store to
>> another disk.
>> 
>> Chronsync winged about non-accessible permissions.
> 
> Betcha Disk Utility would manage it. It's half the speed of 3rd party
> cloners,
> but it gets the job done.

Gave up on the file copy - after about 12 hours, 2 of the 8 million files had
been 'prepared'. And even if it got as far as preparing, copy's by no means
guaranteed from the suspect disk.

Do you mean create an image, and copying that, using DU?

As it is I'm using a trial of Superduper - that's gone straight to copy, about
20GB/hr using USB3. So even that is going to take over a day to copy 500GB.

-- 
Cheers, Rob

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146062

On 4 Aug 2020 at 09:53:32 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

> On 3 Aug 2020 at 22:03:33 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
> <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 3 Aug 2020 at 21:13:58 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 3 Aug 2020 at 20:27:12 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
>>> <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 3 Aug 2020 at 19:57:45 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 3 Aug 2020 at 15:09:22 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
>>>>> <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 3 Aug 2020 at 14:54:17 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As an aside, I find the weekly folder arrangements a lot more reassuring than
>>>>>>> the old 'bundle'.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mount the bundle with a double-click and you'll see all the weekly folders.
>>>>>> It's just an encapsulation, to reduce network traffic and also allow for TM
>>>>>> backups to be on drives that aren't formatted Mac. My bundles sit on a NAS
>>>>>> with a ZFS filesystem, for instance.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ah, right, live/learn - although the original is Mac OS Extended
>>>>> (Case-sensitive, Journaled).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Big Sur will be using APFS format disks (and bundles), by the way - but TM
>>>>>> doesn't convert them, you have to start a new one. With these two disks on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> go, you'll be able to happily clear one and offer it up to Big Sur to
>>>>>> reformat. It's *so* much faster than HFS, even on spinning disks where APFS
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> slower.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's handy, thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The file copy is taking a loooong time - still 'preparing to copy', after 6
>>>>> hours - now on 1.7m items and rising slowly (not sure how many to go), 500GB
>>>>> total.
>>>> 
>>>> It'll take ages. A disk cloner would be better than file by file, because
>>>> doing the file by file means every single link will be managed separately,
>>>> even if you have fifty backups all pointing at one file it'll get counted and
>>>> processed 50 times. A disk cloner will do the copy blockwise instead without
>>>> caring about the files in it.
>>> 
>>> I wish ;-) 
>>> 
>>> CCC returns: Time Machine backup volumes use Apple-proprietary filesystem
>>> devices, and Apple does not support the use of third-party utilities to copy
>>> Time Machine backups. Use Finder to copy this proprietary data store to
>>> another disk.
>>> 
>>> Chronsync winged about non-accessible permissions.
>> 
>> Betcha Disk Utility would manage it. It's half the speed of 3rd party
>> cloners,
>> but it gets the job done.
> 
> Gave up on the file copy - after about 12 hours, 2 of the 8 million files had
> been 'prepared'. And even if it got as far as preparing, copy's by no means
> guaranteed from the suspect disk.
> 
> Do you mean create an image, and copying that, using DU?

"Restore". Choose the destination new drive, and "Restore" the old TM drive to
it. All very arse-backwards.

Also it's a bit flaky, occasionally it just refuses to get going and needs a
reboot or drives replug before it'll admit to knowing how to rather than
tossing a -1283612786 error.

> As it is I'm using a trial of Superduper - that's gone straight to copy,
> about
> 20GB/hr using USB3. So even that is going to take over a day to copy 500GB.

Oh, that'll do! Much more likely to work first time.

	Cheers - Jaimie
-- 
"Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted;
 persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished;
 persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot. 
       By Order of the Author."                             -- Mark Twain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146065

In message <hostadF7i90U1@mid.individual.net>
     Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

> On 4 Aug 2020 at 09:53:32 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

[snip]
> > As it is I'm using a trial of Superduper - that's gone straight to
> > copy, about 20GB/hr using USB3. So even that is going to take over a
> > day to copy 500GB.
> 
> Oh, that'll do! Much more likely to work first time.

I'm in the process of restoring my Time Machine disc at the moment, having
had a reformat the wrong disc hoo ha.

Read this thread and thought, 'OK, I'll do it the Apple way'.

Used the filer to do the copy which, after running overnight, got down to
0 files to copy before continuing to remove the remaining space on the
drive being copied to. Let it continue until it had used 1.4TB to copy
800GB of files. Info was screwed, declaring 5 secs remaining for several
hours.

Having the paid-for version of SuperDuper!, that's now sorting out the
situation without having to re-copy existing files. Averaging over 2
million files per hour at the moment with 15KB copied.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146071

On 4 Aug 2020 at 14:30:31 BST, "Fred" <fredbare@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

> In message <hostadF7i90U1@mid.individual.net>
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 4 Aug 2020 at 09:53:32 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
>>> As it is I'm using a trial of Superduper - that's gone straight to
>>> copy, about 20GB/hr using USB3. So even that is going to take over a
>>> day to copy 500GB.
>> 
>> Oh, that'll do! Much more likely to work first time.
> 
> I'm in the process of restoring my Time Machine disc at the moment, having
> had a reformat the wrong disc hoo ha.
> 
> Read this thread and thought, 'OK, I'll do it the Apple way'.
> 
> Used the filer to do the copy which, after running overnight, got down to
> 0 files to copy before continuing to remove the remaining space on the
> drive being copied to. Let it continue until it had used 1.4TB to copy
> 800GB of files. Info was screwed, declaring 5 secs remaining for several
> hours.
> 
> Having the paid-for version of SuperDuper!, that's now sorting out the
> situation without having to re-copy existing files. Averaging over 2
> million files per hour at the moment with 15KB copied.

Finder is not a healthy app.

	Cheers - Jaimie
-- 
You can't get a leopard to change his spots. In fact, you can't /really/ 
get a leopard to appreciate the notion that it has spots. You can explain 
it  carefully to the leopard, but it will just sit there looking at you,
knowing 
that you are made of meat. 
After a while it will perhaps kill you.   -- Geoffrey Pullum

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146072

In article <hotkfjFl6btU1@mid.individual.net>, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

> 
> Finder is not a healthy app.

understatement of the century.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | uk.comp.sys.mac

csiph-web