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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#146076

On 4 Aug 2020 at 18:33:39 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

> Finder is not a healthy app.


That is for sure! I seem to be relaunching it every few days, usually because
it claims two items have focus at the same time in different windows. If one
is a piece of rubbish heading for the tip and the other is a carefully curated
folder of important stuff, the one it sends to the bin obeys Murphy's Law. And
it gets into a sulk where it won't show the contents of a folder, and
sometimes it closes a whole window simply because you deleted a file in the
window.

On the bright side, the latest 10.15.6 seems to have improved Music without
too much fanfare. Search actually does something. I can put fresh music onto
my phone without rebooting the Mac or waiting a day. It has mostly forgotten
how to split albums into two random fragments across a relaunch. Typing a
search string into the the Filter Field (⌘⌥F) still redraws every piece of
album art before accepting the next character of the string, but it does it
much quicker. There are several hundred other things wrong with it, but it is
lovely that it is getting some attention. They might soon get it working as
badly as ITunes.

-- 
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810  E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

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

#146077

In article <MTiWG.1786457$imF1.9294@fx15.am4>, Elliott Roper
<nospam@yrl.co.uk> wrote:

> > Finder is not a healthy app.
> 
> 
> That is for sure! I seem to be relaunching it every few days,

there's no need to do that. if it crashes, it relaunches itself.

> usually because
> it claims two items have focus at the same time in different windows. 

window order can sometimes be messed up, often in safari, but that has
more to do with shitty web sites messing with the order.

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

#146078

On Aug 4, 2020 at 1:14:26 PM MST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <MTiWG.1786457$imF1.9294@fx15.am4>, Elliott Roper
> <nospam@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>>> Finder is not a healthy app.
>> 
>> 
>> That is for sure! I seem to be relaunching it every few days,
> 
> there's no need to do that. if it crashes, it relaunches itself.


He is not suggesting it crashes but that it acts odd and these oddities can be
corrected by relaunching. I do not see this that often, but especially when
doing network file transfers I can run into issues (freezes and the like). 

I also see this with the dock, though I admit it is just a visual oddity --
when I have my iPhone show up on the right side of the Finder and then go away
the Dock background gets odd. Here: I can replicate it fairly easily... and
show my fix:


I wan to be clear: the Dock is not the same apps as the Finder (you might
already know that but I do know you are still learning)... so relaunching the
Dock does not relaunch the Finder, but the point is that they have glitches
and relaunching them can help.

I also have no clue why my Dock does this. When talking to Apple about other
matters they let me know they have seen it before but few mention it. Most
don't care. I do when I am making videos and it looks wrong. 

> 
>> usually because
>> it claims two items have focus at the same time in different windows. 
> 
> window order can sometimes be messed up, often in safari, but that has
> more to do with shitty web sites messing with the order.

Do you have an example of what you mean?


-- 
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]

#146079

On Aug 4, 2020 at 4:02:28 PM MST, "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
wrote:

> On Aug 4, 2020 at 1:14:26 PM MST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> In article <MTiWG.1786457$imF1.9294@fx15.am4>, Elliott Roper
>> <nospam@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Finder is not a healthy app.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That is for sure! I seem to be relaunching it every few days,
>> 
>> there's no need to do that. if it crashes, it relaunches itself.
> 
> 
> He is not suggesting it crashes but that it acts odd and these oddities can
> be
> corrected by relaunching. I do not see this that often, but especially when
> doing network file transfers I can run into issues (freezes and the like). 
> 
> I also see this with the dock, though I admit it is just a visual oddity --
> when I have my iPhone show up on the right side of the Finder and then go
> away
> the Dock background gets odd. Here: I can replicate it fairly easily... and
> show my fix:

Whoops... a link would have been nice!

https://youtu.be/ZSE5r_PQUm0

Sorry about that!

> I wan to be clear: the Dock is not the same apps as the Finder (you might
> already know that but I do know you are still learning)... so relaunching the
> Dock does not relaunch the Finder, but the point is that they have glitches
> and relaunching them can help.
> 
> I also have no clue why my Dock does this. When talking to Apple about other
> matters they let me know they have seen it before but few mention it. Most
> don't care. I do when I am making videos and it looks wrong. 
> 
>> 
>>> usually because
>>> it claims two items have focus at the same time in different windows. 
>> 
>> window order can sometimes be messed up, often in safari, but that has
>> more to do with shitty web sites messing with the order.
> 
> Do you have an example of what you mean?


-- 
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]

#146087

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2020 at 4:02:28 PM MST, "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Aug 4, 2020 at 1:14:26 PM MST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <MTiWG.1786457$imF1.9294@fx15.am4>, Elliott Roper
>>> <nospam@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Finder is not a healthy app.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> That is for sure! I seem to be relaunching it every few days,
>>> 
>>> there's no need to do that. if it crashes, it relaunches itself.
>> 
>> 
>> He is not suggesting it crashes but that it acts odd and these oddities can
>> be
>> corrected by relaunching. I do not see this that often, but especially when
>> doing network file transfers I can run into issues (freezes and the like). 
>> 
>> I also see this with the dock, though I admit it is just a visual oddity --
>> when I have my iPhone show up on the right side of the Finder and then go
>> away
>> the Dock background gets odd. Here: I can replicate it fairly easily... and
>> show my fix:
> 
> Whoops... a link would have been nice!
> 
> https://youtu.be/ZSE5r_PQUm0
> 
> Sorry about that!

Did you understand what was being shown here nospam? 

>> I wan to be clear: the Dock is not the same apps as the Finder (you might
>> already know that but I do know you are still learning)... so relaunching the
>> Dock does not relaunch the Finder, but the point is that they have glitches
>> and relaunching them can help.
>> 
>> I also have no clue why my Dock does this. When talking to Apple about other
>> matters they let me know they have seen it before but few mention it. Most
>> don't care. I do when I am making videos and it looks wrong. 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> usually because
>>>> it claims two items have focus at the same time in different windows. 
>>> 
>>> window order can sometimes be messed up, often in safari, but that has
>>> more to do with shitty web sites messing with the order.
>> 
>> Do you have an example of what you mean?
> 
> 



-- 
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]

#146082

In article <hou7o4Fbga3U4@mid.individual.net>, Snit
<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> >>> Finder is not a healthy app.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> That is for sure! I seem to be relaunching it every few days,
> > 
> > there's no need to do that. if it crashes, it relaunches itself.
> 
> 
> He is not suggesting it crashes but that it acts odd and these oddities can be
> corrected by relaunching. I do not see this that often, but especially when
> doing network file transfers I can run into issues (freezes and the like). 

that's exceptionally rare and restarting finder has no effect on
network transfers (separate process) anyway.




> I wan to be clear: the Dock is not the same apps as the Finder (you might
> already know that but I do know you are still learning)... 

resorting to baseless insults, as you normally do.

from your own sig:
> 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.
> 


> >> usually because
> >> it claims two items have focus at the same time in different windows. 
> > 
> > window order can sometimes be messed up, often in safari, but that has
> > more to do with shitty web sites messing with the order.
> 
> Do you have an example of what you mean?

no need, since what i mean is very clear, but since you're still
learning, it's not surprising that you are confused.

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

#146086

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <hou7o4Fbga3U4@mid.individual.net>, Snit
> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>> Finder is not a healthy app.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> That is for sure! I seem to be relaunching it every few days,
>>> 
>>> there's no need to do that. if it crashes, it relaunches itself.
>> 
>> 
>> He is not suggesting it crashes but that it acts odd and these oddities can be
>> corrected by relaunching. 

You showed no understanding of this. 

> I do not see this that often, but especially when
>> doing network file transfers I can run into issues (freezes and the like). 
> 
> that's exceptionally rare and restarting finder has no effect on
> network transfers (separate process) anyway.

How rare you find it is not relevant, nor is your denial of relaunching the
Finder at least at times being a fix for what I describe. But that was your
side issue to avoid accepting you failed to understand what he said. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> I wan to be clear: the Dock is not the same apps as the Finder (you might
>> already know that but I do know you are still learning)... 
> 
> resorting to baseless insults, as you normally do.

Why do you find it insulting to suggest toy are still learning? Have you
made the choice not to? 

> from your own sig:
>> 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.

You have learned to copy and paste. Ok. 
> 
> 
>>>> usually because
>>>> it claims two items have focus at the same time in different windows. 
>>> 
>>> window order can sometimes be messed up, often in safari, but that has
>>> more to do with shitty web sites messing with the order.
>> 
>> Do you have an example of what you mean?
> 
> no need, 

I figured you would not. 

> since what i mean is very clear, but since you're still
> learning, it's not surprising that you are confused.
> 

Odd how you find learning to be a bad thing. I find it to be a good thing.
Would have been great if you could have shown an example.  Maybe you could
have made a valid point and shown some knowledge. I would welcome that. 


-- 
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]

#146080

On 4 Aug 2020 at 11:58:21 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

> 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

All done using Superduper, and seems to be working fine, with access to past
backups. Not sure what to do about the original USB disk - seems to be working
fine now.

Got me thinking about using the network for a backup, but I'm pushing it for
space right now. Noted for the next upgrade.


-- 
Cheers, Rob

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

#146081

On 5 Aug 2020 at 10:05:39 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

> All done using Superduper, and seems to be working fine, with access to past
> backups. Not sure what to do about the original USB disk - seems to be
> working
> fine now.

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.

The aforementioned forthcoming APFS based TM destinations are much, much
better - no faked links, snapshotted backups.

> Got me thinking about using the network for a backup, but I'm pushing it for
> space right now. Noted for the next upgrade.

If there's room you could always recycle the old USB drive to be a network
destination by skinning it or plugging it in, as appropriate. One local, one
network is good.

	Cheers - Jaimie
-- 
Being english is like visiting a zoo where all the 
animals are other english people, in the rain.
                                   -- Cyriak Harris

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

#146083

On 5 Aug 2020 at 11:54:02 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> 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. I know it probably has more users than SD and CCC by orders of
magnitude, therefore inevitably more complaints, but even so...

(I should also say I've never used it seriously myself, so speak from a
position of impeccable ignorance.)

-- 
TimH
pull tooth to reply by email

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

#146084

In article <hovt5rFiqbU1@mid.individual.net>, TimH
<thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> 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. I know it probably has more users than SD and CCC by orders of
> magnitude, therefore inevitably more complaints, but even so...

because time machine works quite well and addresses a different failure
mode than superduper & carbon copy cloner. many people use both.

> (I should also say I've never used it seriously myself, so speak from a
> position of impeccable ignorance.)

yep.

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

#146085

On 5 Aug 2020 at 15:21:27 BST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <hovt5rFiqbU1@mid.individual.net>, TimH
> <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> 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. I know it probably has more users than SD and CCC by orders of
>> magnitude, therefore inevitably more complaints, but even so...
> 
> because time machine works quite well and addresses a different failure
> mode than superduper & carbon copy cloner. many people use both.

"works quite well" is an underwhelming verdict on backup software
--
> TimH
pull tooth to reply by email

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

#146088

In article <hovu6eFiqbU2@mid.individual.net>, TimH
<thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> 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. I know it probably has more users than SD and CCC by orders
> >> of
> >> magnitude, therefore inevitably more complaints, but even so...
> > 
> > because time machine works quite well and addresses a different failure
> > mode than superduper & carbon copy cloner. many people use both.
> 
> "works quite well" is an underwhelming verdict on backup software

not at all.

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

#146089

TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 5 Aug 2020 at 11:54:02 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
> <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> 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. I know it probably has more users than SD and CCC by orders of
> magnitude, therefore inevitably more complaints, but even so...
> 
> (I should also say I've never used it seriously myself, so speak from a
> position of impeccable ignorance.)

Because it's free, and most users will put up with any Time Machine
snafu's as they don't see the monetry value in their data. 

Business users will usually let it snafu once, twice at a push, and then
finally admit they want a more reliable solution. 
-- 
Jon B
Above email address IS valid.
<http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/>

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

#146090

On 5 Aug 2020 at 15:14:19 BST, "TimH" <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 5 Aug 2020 at 11:54:02 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
> <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> 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

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

#146094

On 5 Aug 2020 at 18:13:51 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

> On 5 Aug 2020 at 15:14:19 BST, "TimH" <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 5 Aug 2020 at 11:54:02 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
>> <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> 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.

Ok, that puts it into perspective. I didn't know about the ZFS/HFS+ bit.
Thanks.
> 
-- 
TimH
pull tooth to reply by email

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

#146096

In article <hp07mfF2st3U1@mid.individual.net>,
Jaimie Vandenbergh  <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>It is after all only a backup, and disposable as long as it's
>recreated tout suite.

That's an exaggeration.  I have used backups to recover files that had
been inadvertently lost months earlier (and that of course is why Time
Machine doesn't just keep the latest backup).

-- Richard

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

#146101

On 6 Aug 2020 at 00:17:20 BST, "Richard Tobin" <Richard Tobin> wrote:

> In article <hp07mfF2st3U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Jaimie Vandenbergh  <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>> It is after all only a backup, and disposable as long as it's
>> recreated tout suite.
> 
> That's an exaggeration.  I have used backups to recover files that had
> been inadvertently lost months earlier (and that of course is why Time
> Machine doesn't just keep the latest backup).

I, too, have had my bacon saved this way on more than one occasion.

TM is dead easy to set up and use (I use an external drive, powered by the USB
connection) and can be a very present help in time of trouble. And, unless you
actually want to access it, it just sits out of sight and Does Its Thing.

J.

-- 
An infinitely complex system can fail in an infinite number of ways.

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

#146103

On 6 Aug 2020 at 09:37:13 BST, "John Hill" <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 6 Aug 2020 at 00:17:20 BST, "Richard Tobin" <Richard Tobin> wrote:
> 
>> In article <hp07mfF2st3U1@mid.individual.net>,
>> Jaimie Vandenbergh  <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>>> It is after all only a backup, and disposable as long as it's
>>> recreated tout suite.
>> 
>> That's an exaggeration.  I have used backups to recover files that had
>> been inadvertently lost months earlier (and that of course is why Time
>> Machine doesn't just keep the latest backup).
> 
> I, too, have had my bacon saved this way on more than one occasion.
> 
> TM is dead easy to set up and use (I use an external drive, powered by the
> USB
> connection) and can be a very present help in time of trouble. And, unless
> you
> actually want to access it, it just sits out of sight and Does Its Thing.

Except when it doesn't ;-)

As mentioned in this thread, 2 versions of TM at separate physical locations
makes a great deal of sense. 3 perhaps more so - but that's a bit much for me
to organise.

-- 
Cheers, Rob

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

#146104

On 6 Aug 2020 at 00:17:20 BST, "Richard Tobin" <Richard Tobin> wrote:

> In article <hp07mfF2st3U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Jaimie Vandenbergh  <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>> It is after all only a backup, and disposable as long as it's
>> recreated tout suite.
> 
> That's an exaggeration.  I have used backups to recover files that had
> been inadvertently lost months earlier (and that of course is why Time
> Machine doesn't just keep the latest backup).

Sure - it's not like TM is intentionally screwing itself up, it intends to
keep hourly/daily and then weekly rollups in perpetuity. But it's a single
location, so non-redundant, so... use two locations minimum if you want to be
able to treat it as your archive. 

I really wouldn't recommend thinking of it as a permanent archive. It's a
butt-saver, not a museum. The decisions it makes when thinning the hourly
backups down to daily and weekly are not in your control, which makes it
unsuitable as an archive.

	Cheers - Jaimie
-- 
When one door closes another door opens; but we so often look so 
long and so regretfully upon the closed door, that we do not see 
the ones which open for us.              - Alexander Graham Bell

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web