Time Machine is a Resource Hog
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: Jamie Kahn Genet on 11 Mar 2010 20:31 Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <1jf8gqo.p4l32i1cjdyvgN%jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz> > Jamie <jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > > >> When I'm doing something like photo editing that takes a lot of > >> processing, and Time Machine kicks in, things get more than a little > >> sluggish on my 1.8GHz Core Duo MacBook. > >> > >> Is there some way to tell Time Machine to play better with others? I > >> really don't care how long it takes to do a backup, but I want it to be > >> a *background* task, not the one the Mac spends most of its time on. > >> > >> Isaac > > > Sadly no, TM is a hog and as a result I use TimeMachineEditor > > <http://timesoftware.free.fr/timemachineeditor/> to set them to every > > six hours instead. I had hoped it would be improved in 10.6, but I still > > hear people saying TM is a PITA when it runs. > > And yet, most people don't even notice it when it runs as it takes only > a couple of minutes and consumes no apparent resources. Frankly, syncing > is more likely to be noticable. Why does it slow down everything for me and take ages then to only backup 200 - 300MB? It's not using much CPU, but the disk access is slowing everything. If I'm playing a game I die. If I'm watching video I have to pause till the worst is over. Frankly I've never used a backup app that's SO bad at playing nice with other apps. Even the TM menulette can't keep it's little graphic spinning if I click on it. I get a beachball and after a few seconds the menu appears and the animation resumes. Where was the testing I ask? Every major issues I've had with 10.5 and 10.6 was evident from day _one_. So where was the testing? I can only assume Q&A was working on the bloody iPhone that day... FYI - I've reformatted the TM destimation drive and I'm on my third 24" iMac, plus have reformatted this one's drive several times. Nothing ever changes. Plus - if you check out the Apple forums you'll find plenty of other people deeply unimpressed with TM's performance. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
From: Jamie Kahn Genet on 11 Mar 2010 20:38 Tom Harrington <tph(a)pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote: > In article <isw-73CC4E.21225205032010@[216.168.3.50]>, > isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > > > In article <tph-971F12.13461805032010(a)localhost>, > > Tom Harrington <tph(a)pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote: > > > > > In article <isw-68661E.11501105032010@[216.168.3.50]>, > > > isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > > > > > > > When I'm doing something like photo editing that takes a lot of > > > > processing, and Time Machine kicks in, things get more than a little > > > > sluggish on my 1.8GHz Core Duo MacBook. > > > > > > > > Is there some way to tell Time Machine to play better with others? I > > > > really don't care how long it takes to do a backup, but I want it to be > > > > a *background* task, not the one the Mac spends most of its time on. > > > > > > It _is_ in a background task. Being in the background has nothing at > > > all to do with how much CPU time something uses. > > > > Yes, "definitionally" it is a background task; the problem is that > > "functionally" it is anything but. > > Actually it is, in every sense, a background task. Like I said, being > in the background is completely unrelated to CPU usage. No, but it makes sense for a background task to be well behaved. TM is an utter I/O hog. No testing... *sigh* > > > If it's a problem, consider using > > > <http://www.klieme.com/TimeMachineScheduler.html> to change its schedule. > > > > I know about that. It will cause T-M to run less often, but *when it > > runs* it will still be as much of a resource hog as it is now. > > The idea was that you'd schedule it for times when you're not working. > > > I want something that will make it take longer to do a backup, and so > > leave more processor cycles for other tasks *while it is running*. > > There are many other backup tools available. If you don't like one, > consider switching to another. CrashPlan is _much_ better than TM when it comes to system impact - virtually unnoticeable IME. Apple could learn something. Sadly the UI isn't as polished or intergrated with the Finder and other apps like TM. But otherwise CrashPlan is top in my book. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
From: dorayme on 11 Mar 2010 20:46 In article <1jf8w17.10y7ynqsdxxr0N%jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz>, jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote: > Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > > In message <1jf8gqo.p4l32i1cjdyvgN%jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz> > > Jamie <jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > > isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > > > > >> When I'm doing something like photo editing that takes a lot of > > >> processing, and Time Machine kicks in, things get more than a little > > >> sluggish on my 1.8GHz Core Duo MacBook. > > >> > > >> Is there some way to tell Time Machine to play better with others? I > > >> really don't care how long it takes to do a backup, but I want it to be > > >> a *background* task, not the one the Mac spends most of its time on. > > >> > > >> Isaac > > > > > Sadly no, TM is a hog and as a result I use TimeMachineEditor > > > <http://timesoftware.free.fr/timemachineeditor/> to set them to every > > > six hours instead. I had hoped it would be improved in 10.6, but I still > > > hear people saying TM is a PITA when it runs. > > > > And yet, most people don't even notice it when it runs as it takes only > > a couple of minutes and consumes no apparent resources. Frankly, syncing > > is more likely to be noticable. > > Why does it slow down everything for me and take ages then to only > backup 200 - 300MB? It's not using much CPU, but the disk access is > slowing everything. If I'm playing a game I die. If I'm watching video I > have to pause till the worst is over. Frankly I've never used a backup > app that's SO bad at playing nice with other apps. Even the TM menulette > can't keep it's little graphic spinning if I click on it. I get a > beachball and after a few seconds the menu appears and the animation > resumes. Where was the testing I ask? Every major issues I've had with > 10.5 and 10.6 was evident from day _one_. So where was the testing? I > can only assume Q&A was working on the bloody iPhone that day... > > FYI - I've reformatted the TM destimation drive and I'm on my third 24" > iMac, plus have reformatted this one's drive several times. Nothing ever > changes. > > Plus - if you check out the Apple forums you'll find plenty of other > people deeply unimpressed with TM's performance. > -- Keep life simple and back up when off on a long lunch or afternoon nap. -- dorayme
From: Jamie Kahn Genet on 11 Mar 2010 23:05 isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > In article <tom_stiller-3EAEB0.07142508032010(a)news.individual.net>, > Tom Stiller <tom_stiller(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > --snippage-- > > > > What's the data rate across your LAN to the TimeCapsule? > > > > > > Isaac > > > > 1 GB/Sec (1000baseT <full-duplex,flow-control> none). File transfers > > can achieve several hundred MB/sec while TM backups rarely exceed a few > > tens of MB/sec. HD Video is delivered over the same interface at about > > 16 MB/sec/channel (I have two channels in). > > Interesting. This thread has put me in mind of finding an old USB 1.1 > hub that I know is around here somewhere, and hooking up the T-M disc > through it, to see if throttling the data rate will help my problem. > > I didn't mention this before, but I think part of the issue is GIMP, > which is a huge resource hog all by itself, and not helped because of > its X11 underpinnings. Then, the images I'm editing are scans of 35mm > slides that clock in at around 350-400 MB each when being worked on. > Then when T-M starts up, things really bog down. > > I'm about 90% through my lifetime slide collection, with only about 400 > left to edit... > > Isaac I suspect it would, since I've few system impact issues with TM backups to a Time Capsule over WiFi, but locally to a USB2 HD - uggg. Major slowdown. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
From: Jamie Kahn Genet on 11 Mar 2010 23:07
Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <1jf8wg5.g4f4zi42nhzhN%jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz> > Jamie <jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > CrashPlan is _much_ better than TM when it comes to system impact - > > virtually unnoticeable IME. Apple could learn something. Sadly the UI > > isn't as polished or intergrated with the Finder and other apps like TM. > > But otherwise CrashPlan is top in my book. > > I tested Crashplan, backing up to an attached eSATA drive. It throttled > my machine for HOURS making it completely unusable for anything. I > couldn't even read mail, or edxit html files in BBedit. Huh. I even play WoW and Quake 3 while it runs. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. |