Time Machine is a Resource Hog
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: Jamie Kahn Genet on 12 Mar 2010 08:21 Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <1jf8wsm.7o5qn01jf8x3mN%jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz> > Jamie <jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > 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. > > Ah, well, USB. There's part of your problem. I backup to eSATA. USB2 > just plain sucks I don't get major slowdowns transferring several large files from my internal HD to a USB2 HD. But TM slows everything. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
From: isw on 12 Mar 2010 12:28 In article <1jf9t5v.1tk10j08ie4u8N%jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz>, jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote: > Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > > In message <1jf8wsm.7o5qn01jf8x3mN%jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz> > > Jamie <jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Ah, well, USB. There's part of your problem. I backup to eSATA. USB2 > > just plain sucks > > I don't get major slowdowns transferring several large files from my > internal HD to a USB2 HD. But TM slows everything. Same here. Dealing with huge video files on USB-mounted drives is no problem, but when T-M gets going, the Mac gets very unresponsive. Isaac
From: Kevin McMurtrie on 12 Mar 2010 12:38 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. The crazy slowness for a small backup is mostly the interaction with Mail.app. TM subscribes to a list of changes on the filesystem but these messages are for directories only. Every time you get new mail, TM notices that the 'Messages' directory has changed. TM must then compare metadata between the backup and local mail folder for each file. For an older mail account it could be scanning tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of files just to get your last few e-mails archived. TM has a nice GUI but deep down it's crude. OS X would need major changes to support it better. -- I won't see Google Groups replies because I must filter them as spam
From: Tom Harrington on 12 Mar 2010 17:59 In article <4b9a7c01$0$22099$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie(a)pixelmemory.us> wrote: > The crazy slowness for a small backup is mostly the interaction with > Mail.app. TM subscribes to a list of changes on the filesystem but > these messages are for directories only. Every time you get new mail, > TM notices that the 'Messages' directory has changed. TM must then > compare metadata between the backup and local mail folder for each file. > For an older mail account it could be scanning tens of thousands or > hundreds of thousands of files just to get your last few e-mails > archived. Is this documented anywhere? I've heard it a couple of times but I'm not sure what the basis is. Given how fsevents works, it seems entirely plausible, but I still wonder if there's any official comment on it. I only ask because I have about 60 zillion old emails, and my TM backups take a while, but before I make major changes to my workflow I'd like to be sure the changes actually make sense. -- Tom "Tom" Harrington Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002 http://www.atomicbird.com/
From: Kevin McMurtrie on 12 Mar 2010 23:13
In article <tph-3CDE97.15591012032010(a)localhost>, Tom Harrington <tph(a)pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote: > In article <4b9a7c01$0$22099$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, > Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie(a)pixelmemory.us> wrote: > > > The crazy slowness for a small backup is mostly the interaction with > > Mail.app. TM subscribes to a list of changes on the filesystem but > > these messages are for directories only. Every time you get new mail, > > TM notices that the 'Messages' directory has changed. TM must then > > compare metadata between the backup and local mail folder for each file. > > For an older mail account it could be scanning tens of thousands or > > hundreds of thousands of files just to get your last few e-mails > > archived. > > Is this documented anywhere? I've heard it a couple of times but I'm > not sure what the basis is. Given how fsevents works, it seems entirely > plausible, but I still wonder if there's any official comment on it. > > I only ask because I have about 60 zillion old emails, and my TM backups > take a while, but before I make major changes to my workflow I'd like to > be sure the changes actually make sense. I was running "fs_usage" to see what it was so busy fussing with. You can run this as root or admin on a command line: fs_usage backupd You'll see every file operation for the Time Machine daemon. -- I won't see Google Groups replies because I must filter them as spam |