Re: How I love Time Machine :)

In article <hab25r$fcp$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
John Slade <hhitman86@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ZnU wrote:
In article <ha9356$ggb$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
John Slade <hhitman86@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article <ha892a$d06$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
John Slade <hhitman86@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ZnU wrote:
In article <ha5sct$qt$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
John Slade <hhitman86@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ZnU wrote:
In article <ha5lf0$8i2$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
John Slade <hhitman86@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ZnU wrote:
In article <ha39tf$56d$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
John Slade <hhitman86@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]

For most users, it might as well have not existed.
For most users, Time Machine isn't even used as a backup
system. To get a credible backup you need another HD. That means
on the consumer Macs, a USB or FW HD.
Yes. This is how Time Machine works.

Full backups will take a long time.
No, they don't.
Well if you have a lot of data, say 300GB of data on a 500GB HD.
That's gonna take a long time.
Yeah. Once. Let the first backup run overnight or something.

With Time Machine, the initial backup might take several
hours. The incremental backups typically take no more than a few
minutes, unless you've accumulated tens of gigabytes of new files
since the last such backup, which is a rare case.
[tons of blather snippage]

Not if you use a lot of video capture like I and many others do.
OK, so if you've been capturing a lot of video you might have a backup
that takes 20 or 30 minutes instead of two minutes. Who the hell cares?
It's still happening unobtrusively in the background.
I can' tell you have no idea what you're talking about.
Take it from someone who repairs computers all the time. People
crap their HDs full of video and games. Almost to capacity.
That's why they sell so many HDs these days in retail. It will
take you houirs to do a full backup of a full 300GB HD. Now if
you're talking about USB or Firewire, that's anywhere from 5-8
hours. It depends on the compression and other factors. When you
use a SATA or eSATA drive it takes 2 or 3 hours, sometimes it
can take less. I'm talking from ACTUAL experience. You're
talking about theory.
LOL

An *initial* backup takes a while, it's true. But the fact is that most
people don't produce gigabytes of new or changed data every day.
Why don't you read the thread before you jump in and start
yammering? We were talking about backing up a lot of data. We
are not talking about just incremental backups or differential
backups. Those can be big too. But the main gist of this
conversation is what is faster.

Actually, everyone has been explicitly talking about incremental backups
except you, Slade. See the following posts, among others:
<znu-C92F15.22293301102009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<znu-03B1CE.17314102102009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<znu-2F9474.20214502102009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<znu-C5A5DE.18180803102009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

The argument started off about how SATA is hard to add to Macs
and how Microsoft had better included backup options.

Look at the title of the thread.

Does that give you a clue as to what it started off being about?




Two of them have fragments quoted directly above. You keep trying to
change the subject to one-off copies involving hundreds of gigabytes,
because you know that for doing incremental updates eSATA's performance
advantages are totally irrelevant.

It's not totally irrelevant because lots of people record
video to their PCs and many people let long periods pass before
they do an incremental backup. Faster means more time to do
something else. That's why I see external HDs with eSATA. But go
ahead, keep parroting that old Apple mantra of, "If it's better
than what we have, you don't need it." Maybe you don't remember
but I had these kinds of arguments before Apple switched to
using Intel CPUs and people called me every name in the book.
Back then it was, "Well what do you need all that speed for on a
Mac?" When the Mac was using multiple processors vs single-core
PCs, they had a slight advantage in some cases, Apple was saying
"The Mac is the most powerful computer in the world." So please
forgive us who actually know that faster is better when it comes
to moving data.

That's what makes Time Machine so good. You just set it up, and it backs
you up automatically so you don't forget.


(Unlike for large one-off copies,
where they're only *mostly* irrelevant, unless the source and
destination are RAID, SSD, or something else exotic.)

What is exotic about RAID? RAID setups are used extensively
by businesses. It's very common. In fact, it's so common that
most consumer motherboards come with RAID capability.

Let's see a reference...

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How I love Time Machine :)
    ... John Slade wrote: ... Time Machine isn't even used as a backup system. ... so if you've been capturing a lot of video you might have a backup that takes 20 or 30 minutes instead of two minutes. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: How I love Time Machine :)
    ... John Slade wrote: ... Time Machine isn't even used as a backup ... To get a credible backup you need another HD. ... use a SATA or eSATA drive it takes 2 or 3 hours, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: How I love Time Machine :)
    ... John Slade wrote: ... machine backup, I just formatted it there and then and reinstalled. ... The restore took an amazingly long time, though, but it was a 300+ GB ... Then why does Apple use a SATA interface inside their ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: How I love Time Machine :)
    ... John Slade wrote: ... Time Machine isn't even used as a backup ... To get a credible backup you need another HD. ... are familiar with individual drives with performance in the 140 MB/s ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: How I love Time Machine :)
    ... John Slade wrote: ... Time Machine isn't even used as a backup ... To get a credible backup you need another HD. ... What is exotic about RAID? ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
Loading