Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v4agqj$18amg$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alan Browne <singularity@blackhole.org> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Insomniacal Mac Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:50:11 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 55 Message-ID: <v4agqj$18amg$2@dont-email.me> References: <v3tkkr$1nudn$1@dont-email.me> <v49f5g$11emp$2@dont-email.me> <v4acoc$17oep$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:50:11 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a8341fe67a5bd07505013722e31ede94"; logging-data="1321680"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19gTJOt+1OCJEZIdYKOsY4IeEifNqZr+ao=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Jb7/yxCujzzdPuYliMt0u+1XK5c= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v4acoc$17oep$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 3545 On 2024-06-11 16:40, Your Name wrote: > On 2024-06-11 12:15:44 +0000, Alan Browne said: > >> On 2024-06-11 00:48, Your Name wrote: >> >>> I've never bothered with Time Machine either. It's methodology seems >>> to be a ridiculous waste of drive space backing up mutiple versions >>> of the same document. I don't use Versions either and always delete >>> the old ones if using an app like Pages that insists on doing that >>> silliness. >> >> Following the initial backup, succeeding backups are differences only >> (changed files and new files), so it's a very slow accumulation. Once >> the backup volume is near full, oldest redundant backups are removed. > > Which, for those who want such a feature, partly defeats the purpose of > copying those old versions in the first place. When they want to > retrieve it, it could well be gone. My older iMac TM volume is nowhere close to full after about 6 years. It's not much of an issue. If there is a version of a file I really need to freeze, I'll make sure it is standalone. >>> I use CarbonCopyCloner to backup manually when I want to. The only >>> problem with it it that it is quite slow at working out what to copy. >>> If I've only changed a few documents, it still takes nearly an hour >>> to trawl through the entire drive before copying just those few >>> altered / new files. There was also a problem at one stage where it >>> would hang during that phase of working out what to copy and >>> eventually stop with an error, but updating to a slightly newer >>> version seems to have fixed that. >> >> Time Machine does not have this issue. Note you can install s/w that >> will run TM at a reduced pace (you turn off automatic TM updates and >> let the scheduler s/w invoke TM) - this also addresses your issue >> above to some degree. > > For me Time Machine is a useless waste of time. That's why I turn if off > and chose to use CCC instead. TM is my "live" backup. I also maintain offline static backups of important stuff. For my business the backup scheme is more elaborate and in depth - the goal being that despite the worst possible disaster front and back office can be up and running w/i 24 business hours (including the acquisition of hardware). -- "It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid the culture and independence of the ancient States of Europe." Winston Churchill