Time Machine: Spit!!!
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Sak Wathanasin on 20 Nov 2009 06:16 On 20 Nov, 10:49, Tim Streater <timstrea...(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > If you backup to a disk on your own machine, its a couple of clicks (and > more if you want to exclude it from backing up everything, obviously). I agree that it works well for people who use OSX as it comes. The trouble comes if you have a more complicated setup, or if, as Eliiot found out, when you start running out of space on the backup drive. There is no way to say to TM: "the 'Accounts' folder is important; if you have to delete something, delete those episodes of 'Eastenders' that I haven't time to watch" or v.v. as the case may be. The more recent versions of iTunes has started doing something similar when syncing to the iPhone, much to my annoyance. If I have less than 300 MB or so on the iPhone, when I sync, it'll decide to delete my photos on the iPhone so that it can "squeeze" the latest podcast on. To the untrained eye, 50 MB or so of podcast could fit into the 300 MB of free space, but what the heck, let's delete 700 MB of photos just to make sure we have enough room, and what's more, let's not bother telling the user we've done this.
From: Steve Firth on 20 Nov 2009 06:55 Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> wrote: > I'm not a happy bunny. I think I'll bin it for super duper. At least I > have some control over what gets backed up. I found rsync to be better for many of my requirements. I've been running TM to see what it's like. Love the interface, completely bemused by what it's doing. Just a month of backing up a 160GB disk that sees very few changes of data (most of it is on a server) and Time Machine has gobbled 500Gb and has announced that it needs more or it will start deleting stuff. Huh?
From: Tim Streater on 20 Nov 2009 07:30 On 20/11/2009 11:15, T i m wrote: > On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:49:08 +0000, Tim Streater > <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > >> On 20/11/2009 10:09, T i m wrote: >> >>> Of course and from what I've read here (of those who have actually got >>> TM running and had to use it in earnest and it has behaved as they >>> expected ... which isn't everyone by the look of it) it's a very >>> clever / good solution. >> >> Not sure what you mean by "got it working", > > Nor do I ... where did I say that? Oh, my mistake, you said "... got TM running ..." right above - as if somehow its reeeely complicated. >> Then I have to >> fiddle with Finder->Go->Connect to server which usually fixes it, and I >> then tell it to back up and it does so. No data lost, you'll note. > > Because you get that fixed before her machine crashes I've noted, yes. You have an odd idea of what a "crash" is then, if you consider sleep-and then-awake to be a crash. I never mentioned crashes and there weren't any. Even if hers crashed there still wouldn't be any data loss.
From: David Sankey on 20 Nov 2009 07:33 In article <1j9haaa.shi4l5rium15N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: > Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> wrote: > > > I'm not a happy bunny. I think I'll bin it for super duper. At least I > > have some control over what gets backed up. > > I found rsync to be better for many of my requirements. I've been > running TM to see what it's like. Love the interface, completely bemused > by what it's doing. Just a month of backing up a 160GB disk that sees > very few changes of data (most of it is on a server) and Time Machine > has gobbled 500Gb and has announced that it needs more or it will start > deleting stuff. Huh? Entourage? Big database file touched every time you check mail, so always needs to be copied Antivirus? Certainly Sophos seems to update everything each time it updates As these will be automatically recreated from servers should the need arise I'm more than happy to exclude them and have subsequently seen the size of each incremental backup plummet. Also MS recommend excluding their database from TM... Kind regards, Dave
From: Tim Streater on 20 Nov 2009 07:36
On 20/11/2009 11:16, Sak Wathanasin wrote: > On 20 Nov, 10:49, Tim Streater<timstrea...(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > >> If you backup to a disk on your own machine, its a couple of clicks (and >> more if you want to exclude it from backing up everything, obviously). > > I agree that it works well for people who use OSX as it comes. The > trouble comes if you have a more complicated setup, or if, as Eliiot > found out, when you start running out of space on the backup drive. > There is no way to say to TM: "the 'Accounts' folder is important; if > you have to delete something, delete those episodes of 'Eastenders' > that I haven't time to watch" or v.v. as the case may be. Agreed, but then TM isn't an archiving system, it's a backup system. For older data you get a granularity of a week, and that's usually sufficient. If 'accounts' is that important such that you *must* be able to retrieve its state on 4th June 2009 at 12.00, then archive it some other way. |