Time Machine: Spit!!!
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Elliott Roper on 20 Nov 2009 15:46 In article <David.Sankey-2AF840.12333420112009(a)south.jnrs.ja.net>, David Sankey <David.Sankey(a)stfc.ac.uk> wrote: > 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 Entourage? Big-Mega-Double-Spit!!! No one in their right mind would trust all their mail to that steaming pile of NO CARRIER > Antivirus? > Certainly Sophos seems to update everything each time it updates Antivirus?? Who do you think I am? Nice but D i m? Oh hang on, you are replying to Steve... I'm just back from setting up Time Machine and SuperDuper to co-operate with one another. I decided to keep TM for the nice interface and hourly backups, and to trust SuperDuper for anything longer than a day old. I'm scheduling SuperDuper to keep a pair of sparsebundles updated daily and weekly. First copy took just over an hour for 100GB, subsequent smart update is all of 10 minutes. All my big stuff, like Aperture vaults and movie assets and iTunes music, I have decided to keep replicating by hand when it makes sense to do so. The sparsebundle is well cool. I don't waste a whole disk, nor do I have to partition, which is near enough the same as wasting a whole disk. But best of all, I can simply copy the sparsebundle clone off somewhere else, including networked storage if I want to preserve some longer term history. It is going to make offsite backup a breeze. I just schedule a few giant overnight copies onto a removable 1TB disk of vaults, movies, music and the arsebundle clone and swap it out to my mate down the road. Painless. -- To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$ PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
From: T i m on 20 Nov 2009 19:11 On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:31:18 +0000, thewildrover(a)me.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote: >> Hmm, maybe my experience of 'users' is very different to yours. For >> me, those most likely to lose their data are the least likely to know >> about let alone know to get / install / configure / run any backup >> software. > >Not at all. I just tend to be the one that actually sets up and installs >stuff for my family, and some friends, so it doesn't really matter what >it is, as long as it works once I've gone. They aren't the great unwashed then are they. That are folk who have been through your loving and considered hands. > >> Again, IMHO most *ordinary* users wouldn't have anything like that >> much data (160G)? FWIW my backup including the now 3G of scanned >> documents and 5G of pictures is only 35G. > >Hmm, maybe, although it is becoming more common.... It's not less common for sure. ;-) > >> You see not all of us have 3TB of music or 10,000 500MB RAW photo >> files. ;-) > >...as I'm finding with my Brother-in-Law in particular. He's quite a >keen photographer himself, and although essentially a computer numpty, >is filling up his disk space very rapidly. It's not 160GB for sure - >yet! ;-) > >(actually, Raw files aren't too bad, probably less than double the size >of some JPGs on the newest cameras). Ok, ok, I assumed they would be much bigger (ta). > >> >Oh for sure. Although you do have to be careful not to sound too much >> >Hmm, perhaps I could have worded that better ;-) >> >> No, I meant 'nice' that time (round the corner, cuppa, help with her >> computer etc etc). ;-) > >Oh, yes, I know, I just reread it and wondered if I really should have >put 'round for a fix' ;-) Ah, see not being a smack head I didn't spot that ... <weg> (and certainly wouldn't think your Mum was a dealer!). ;-) > >> Oh, apps as well you mean? > >Yes, and the System Folder too (unless he has any Adobe stuff). Ah yes, I sort of remember that now. System folder and Finder constitutes the OS or some such? > >> And I hope you never do. Can you see now why to me this gadget could >> be seen as such a breakthrough? > >I can see the merits of it for sure. It just looks expensive to me. Do you back your stuff up onto air then? I didn't think �62 for a 160G external *and* the (automatic) software and system was that expensive? Cheers, T i m
From: Andy Hewitt on 21 Nov 2009 03:35 T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:31:18 +0000, thewildrover(a)me.com (Andy Hewitt) > wrote: > > > >> Hmm, maybe my experience of 'users' is very different to yours. For > >> me, those most likely to lose their data are the least likely to know > >> about let alone know to get / install / configure / run any backup > >> software. > > > >Not at all. I just tend to be the one that actually sets up and installs > >stuff for my family, and some friends, so it doesn't really matter what > >it is, as long as it works once I've gone. > > They aren't the great unwashed then are they. That are folk who have > been through your loving and considered hands. Aye :-) [..] > >(actually, Raw files aren't too bad, probably less than double the size > >of some JPGs on the newest cameras). > > Ok, ok, I assumed they would be much bigger (ta). My 10 Megapixel DSLR Raw files are about 9-10MB. The JPGs from my old 5 Megapixel compact are about 5MB, I know more modern ones (with higher megapixies) are about 6-7MB. [..] > >Oh, yes, I know, I just reread it and wondered if I really should have > >put 'round for a fix' ;-) > > Ah, see not being a smack head I didn't spot that ... <weg> (and > certainly wouldn't think your Mum was a dealer!). ;-) I'd really hope not, but... ;-) > >> Oh, apps as well you mean? > > > >Yes, and the System Folder too (unless he has any Adobe stuff). > > Ah yes, I sort of remember that now. System folder and Finder > constitutes the OS or some such? More or less, there's a few key files, and some folders that are required, but basically, you can just copy these to a new drive, or Mac, and get a bootable system up. > >> And I hope you never do. Can you see now why to me this gadget could > >> be seen as such a breakthrough? > > > >I can see the merits of it for sure. It just looks expensive to me. > > Do you back your stuff up onto air then? I didn't think �62 for a 160G > external *and* the (automatic) software and system was that expensive? I think it is when I can get a Terabyte drive for less than that, and have a working backup system with what I have available already. For sure I do put value on backing up my data, but I still look at doing it the most economical and efficient way I can. For my family, I'd bung on an external drive, and set up something like SuperDuper, or Carbon Copy Cloner (in the abscence of TM). OK SuperDuper is a few �s (�18) to get the scheduling, but it does offer the ability to control more than one backup of your data: for example, you can schedule a daily backup of the user folder, and a weekly clone of the whole drive. Similarly with CCC, but for free (but nothing like as easy to set up). However, yes, the dongle approach is nice, I do like it as an idea, and I do see that it could be very useful for a bit more distant support (in the grand scheme, much cheaper than a journey in the car perhaps), and actually, I do appreciate your suggesting the device :-). YMMV applies as usual of course :-) -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: T i m on 21 Nov 2009 04:46 On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:35:50 +0000, thewildrover(a)me.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote: >> Do you back your stuff up onto air then? I didn't think �62 for a 160G >> external *and* the (automatic) software and system was that expensive? > >I think it is when I can get a Terabyte drive for less than that, I guess. > and >have a working backup system with what I have available already. But not truly automated. > >For sure I do put value on backing up my data, but I still look at doing >it the most economical and efficient way I can. As do I and like I said, any other solution (so far) would mean no backup at all (so not actually 'a solution'). ;-( > For my family, I'd bung >on an external drive, and set up something like SuperDuper, or Carbon >Copy Cloner (in the abscence of TM). OK SuperDuper is a few �s (�18) to >get the scheduling, but it does offer the ability to control more than >one backup of your data: The software from the dongle offers scheduling and more. I didn't mention it because within the constraints of it's use for the people I'm talking about it would never be used. > for example, you can schedule a daily backup of >the user folder, and a weekly clone of the whole drive. Similarly with >CCC, but for free (but nothing like as easy to set up). Oh I have no doubts there are 'better' and better vfm options out there but as you say, none so easy to set up. > >However, yes, the dongle approach is nice, I do like it as an idea, and >I do see that it could be very useful for a bit more distant support (in >the grand scheme, much cheaper than a journey in the car perhaps), and >actually, I do appreciate your suggesting the device :-). Np. It's not often that I find a gadget that I believe would / could really make peoples lives that much easier but I think this is one of them. The best I have come up with so far is a series of pen drives (marked Mon / Sat) for the local bike shop and garage to stop them having to save Sage several floppies! I've also had a mate write (I'm no programmer) a couple of batch files that allow another mate with a shop (at a click) a backup of key data to a little NAS. As I have been scanning my documents I have been backing them up via the dongle before shredding them (paper thinning exercise). I've also been turning the backup drive off (and disconnecting it) in case both Mini and backup get taken out by a power spike etc. I also burn the file structure to CD now DVD at longer intervals. For those subjects that are being scanned > shredded but have some residual paperwork I put a CD of just that folder in the file as well. DVD copies of the full system will be taken down the garage and put in a small safe I have there. > >YMMV applies as usual of course :-) Of course. ;-) Cheers, T i m
From: Andy Hewitt on 21 Nov 2009 05:34
T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:35:50 +0000, thewildrover(a)me.com (Andy Hewitt) > wrote: > > > >> Do you back your stuff up onto air then? I didn't think £62 for a 160G > >> external *and* the (automatic) software and system was that expensive? > > > >I think it is when I can get a Terabyte drive for less than that, > > I guess. > > > and > >have a working backup system with what I have available already. > > But not truly automated. Huh! Apart from clicking on 'Use this drive', it is. > >For sure I do put value on backing up my data, but I still look at doing > >it the most economical and efficient way I can. > > As do I and like I said, any other solution (so far) would mean no > backup at all (so not actually 'a solution'). ;-( Fair point. > > For my family, I'd bung > >on an external drive, and set up something like SuperDuper, or Carbon > >Copy Cloner (in the abscence of TM). OK SuperDuper is a few £s (£18) to > >get the scheduling, but it does offer the ability to control more than > >one backup of your data: > > The software from the dongle offers scheduling and more. I didn't > mention it because within the constraints of it's use for the people > I'm talking about it would never be used. Quite possibly. > > for example, you can schedule a daily backup of > >the user folder, and a weekly clone of the whole drive. Similarly with > >CCC, but for free (but nothing like as easy to set up). > > Oh I have no doubts there are 'better' and better vfm options out > there but as you say, none so easy to set up. Super Duper isn't so bad. I'm not so sure it's really a case of which is the easier to use, it's getting them to understand the importance of a backup in the first place. > >However, yes, the dongle approach is nice, I do like it as an idea, and > >I do see that it could be very useful for a bit more distant support (in > >the grand scheme, much cheaper than a journey in the car perhaps), and > >actually, I do appreciate your suggesting the device :-). > > Np. It's not often that I find a gadget that I believe would / could > really make peoples lives that much easier but I think this is one of > them. I agree, it's a real shame it won't work with older Mac OSs, otherwise I may have been keener :-) — It would actually have some value for those of my family that haven't got Time Machine. > The best I have come up with so far is a series of pen drives (marked > Mon / Sat) for the local bike shop and garage to stop them having to > save Sage several floppies! > > I've also had a mate write (I'm no programmer) a couple of batch > files that allow another mate with a shop (at a click) a backup of key > data to a little NAS. > > As I have been scanning my documents I have been backing them up via > the dongle before shredding them (paper thinning exercise). I've also > been turning the backup drive off (and disconnecting it) in case both > Mini and backup get taken out by a power spike etc. I also burn the > file structure to CD now DVD at longer intervals. For those subjects > that are being scanned > shredded but have some residual paperwork I > put a CD of just that folder in the file as well. DVD copies of the > full system will be taken down the garage and put in a small safe I > have there. Nice setup. I gave up on DVD backups a while back. I think I'd need a pack of 50 for every backup (assuming a full backup, rather than incremental). -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/> |