Time Machine is a Resource Hog
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: isw on 8 Mar 2010 12:34 In article <slrnhp92uv.2nlf.g.kreme(a)cerebus.local>, Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <isw-CFFDDE.20323107032010@[216.168.3.50]> isw > <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > >In article <4MLkn.10889$0w4.2497(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Lewis > ><notmyemail(a)example.com> wrote: > > >>On 06-Mar-10 23:57, isw wrote: > >>>I used to use Retrospect (in the ancient days of OS 8 and 9), and > >>>even on 100 MHz Macs, it never ever caused poor performance. > >> > >>Disks were much smaller and you were moving far less data and it was > >>being copied much slower. > > >Yes, and that is precisely how I think T-M should behave. > > And how happy would you be when copying files on your system works at > 1992 speeds? Just copying files is one thing, but for backups, I simply don't care how long they take; what's important to me is that I not notice the process because of its effect on other processes I'm using at the time. Isaac
From: Richard Maine on 8 Mar 2010 14:15 Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > And how do you propose to throttle the file copying when it's a backup > as opposed to any other time? It is common enough with other kinds of backup software. My mozy remote backup has an option to throttle the bandwidth it uses. It even allows you to specify time periods when the throttling applies. I've seen other utilities with simillar things. Sure, they are most commonly throttling to avoid hogging your internet connection instead of anything local, but I see no essential difference in principle, or likely in implementation. Apple doesn't happen to do that with TM at the moment, but I'd be surprised if there were any fundamental reason why they couldn't. I suspect (but don't know for sure) that the most significany reason might be that they wanted to make the user interface have as few options as they could get it down to. I'm betting it is that user interface issue rather than any underlying technical barrier. Heck, they don't even allow you to control the backup frequency in the user interface; you have to use 3rd party tools (or just hand-edit the config file like I do). And I would question the "vast" in > one that the vast majority of the time everyone wants completed as quickly > as possible. I wouldn't argue against it being a majority, but I think the "vast" overstates it. I have certainly read plenty of complaints about TM causing annoying slowdowns in other tasks. And I've read others where people didn't know that TM was causing their slowdowns, but that did later emerge as the cause. I have definitely noticed the slowdowns myself - enough so that if my machine suddenly seems to slow down, that's one thing I imediately check for - is TM running? That's one reason I set my TM schedule to kick off at most every 4 hours instead of every hour. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: nospam on 8 Mar 2010 14:35 In article <1jf17w7.1v1q9551p0p1cqN%nospam(a)see.signature>, Richard Maine <nospam(a)see.signature> wrote: > > one that the vast majority of the time everyone wants completed as quickly > > as possible. > > I wouldn't argue against it being a majority, but I think the "vast" > overstates it. I have certainly read plenty of complaints about TM > causing annoying slowdowns in other tasks. And I've read others where > people didn't know that TM was causing their slowdowns, but that did > later emerge as the cause. I have definitely noticed the slowdowns > myself - enough so that if my machine suddenly seems to slow down, > that's one thing I imediately check for - is TM running? That's one > reason I set my TM schedule to kick off at most every 4 hours instead of > every hour. i've never noticed any slowdown at all when time machine copies files. it kicks in, copies some files and finishes up, without any burden on the computer. i even periodically check to see if it is still enabled since it's not noticeable. the last time it ran it took about 5-8% of cpu on my macbook pro. running top took more. what does slow a machine down is spotlight, even after the initial index. unfortunately, turning it off causes a lot of problems. it's unfortunate that there is no fallback to a simple search that actually worked, like what had been in place for nearly 20 years.
From: Steven Fisher on 8 Mar 2010 15:01 In article <1jf17w7.1v1q9551p0p1cqN%nospam(a)see.signature>, nospam(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote: > That's one reason I set my TM schedule to kick off at most every 4 > hours instead of every hour. You realize that in making it go off every four hours, it'll have a much larger impact when it *does* backup? There's a reason the time period isn't user editable. Steve
From: Tom Harrington on 8 Mar 2010 15:26
In article <sdfisher-E75114.12012208032010(a)mara100-84.onlink.net>, Steven Fisher <sdfisher(a)spamcop.net> wrote: > In article <1jf17w7.1v1q9551p0p1cqN%nospam(a)see.signature>, > nospam(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote: > > > That's one reason I set my TM schedule to kick off at most every 4 > > hours instead of every hour. > > You realize that in making it go off every four hours, it'll have a much > larger impact when it *does* backup? > > There's a reason the time period isn't user editable. Maybe "much" larger but not 4x as big when going from every 1 hour to every 4. I've got mine turned down to once every 2 hours and may go lower. It'll depend on the nature of an individual's backups but I find a somewhat less frequent schedule to be much less intrusive overall. -- Tom "Tom" Harrington Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002 http://www.atomicbird.com/ |