Time Machine is a Resource Hog
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: isw on 5 Mar 2010 14:50 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
From: Gerry on 5 Mar 2010 15:24 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. > > Isaac Whenever you are going to be doing a task that is processor intensive you can always turn Time Machine off, even if it's in the middle of a backup, when your done turn it on again and it will resume the backup where it left off.
From: Tom Harrington on 5 Mar 2010 15:46 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. If it's a problem, consider using <http://www.klieme.com/TimeMachineScheduler.html> to change its schedule. -- Tom "Tom" Harrington Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002 http://www.atomicbird.com/
From: isw on 6 Mar 2010 00:22 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. > 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. 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*. Isaac
From: isw on 6 Mar 2010 00:25
In article <everyday-0B66BE.12243905032010(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Gerry <everyday(a)sunrise.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. > > > > Isaac > > Whenever you are going to be doing a task that is processor intensive > you can always turn Time Machine off, even if it's in the middle of a > backup, when your done turn it on again and it will resume the backup > where it left off. Of course I can do it manually. I wanted something that would do it automatically. Then too, and as you said, if you turn it off, you also have to remember to turn it on again. And arguably, forgetting the second of those is potentially far more annoying than having it bog down the processor. Isaac |