Re: Insomniacal Mac

On 2024-06-11, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

On 2024-06-11 12:15:44 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2024-06-11 00:48, Your Name wrote:
 

I've never bothered with Time Machine either. It's methodology seems
to be a ridiculous waste of drive space backing up mutiple versions
of the same document. I don't use Versions either and always delete
the old ones if using an app like Pages that insists on doing that
silliness.

 
Following the initial backup, succeeding backups are differences only
(changed files and new files), so it's a very slow accumulation.
Once the backup volume is near full, oldest redundant backups are
removed.

>
Which, for those who want such a feature, partly defeats the purpose
of copying those old versions in the first place. When they want to
retrieve it, it could well be gone.

That's fully in control of the user. Following Apple's recommendation to
use a backup volume that is 2-3 times the size of the data being backed
up is all that is necessary to ensure this isn't a concern. 

I use CarbonCopyCloner to backup manually when I want to. The only
problem with it it that it is quite slow at working out what to
copy.  If I've only changed a few documents, it still takes nearly
an hour to trawl through the entire drive before copying just those
few altered / new files. There was also a problem at one stage where
it would hang during that phase of working out what to copy and
eventually stop with an error, but updating to a slightly newer
version seems to have fixed that.

 
Time Machine does not have this issue. Note you can install s/w that
will run TM at a reduced pace (you turn off automatic TM updates and
let the scheduler s/w invoke TM) - this also addresses your issue
above to some degree.

>
For me Time Machine is a useless waste of time.

You definitely don't speak for the rest of us.

--
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