Yes, it's important to note (again) that if it's taking a little extra time in some situations in this version, and if the backup takes up more space at a low level, the copy is still reflective of the source and is valid... continued improvements will be made as we determine the cause.
Usually, this kind of thing is investigated in testing, and although we've been in test for a long time, the 'seems a bit slower/added copying' issue came up relatively late, in the "gold bits" timeframe, and then Snow Leopard shipped about 4 weeks earlier than we expected. It was unexpected, and we didn't consider it wise to make risky changes late-cycle, since the copy itself was OK, and there just wasn't enough time to get into the low-level details. We could have delayed weeks to try to figure it out... but considering how people reacted last time we needed to delay, and since it was a performance issue and not a copy problem, we decided to go with what we had. Now that we have a bit more time to investigate more completely, we're working on it, and if the fix is riskier, we have the luxury -- necessity, really -- of being able to test it without the same deadline breathing down our neck. |
Smart update size difference
Quote:
Two identical internal MacPro Seagate 1TB SATA II hard drives, with identical GUID single volume partitioning, used as the Time Machine repository and a clone of same. Just completed (yet another nightly 800+ GB smart update): Source: capacity 999.86 GB, available 184.17 GB, used 815.69 GB Target: capacity 999.86 GB, available 178.64 GB, used 821.22 GB Time Machine is turned off during the clone. Not bootable, so no post prebinding operation performed. -- Marc |
Perhaps a difference in the spotlight indexes in the two drives, Marc (one's inside the TM archive, too)? Could also be that the compression was preserved in the source but not when copied.
|
It may not be just SD that is bloating its output with OS X 10.6. Over the past two days I've seen similar inexplicable bloating of Time Machine files.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....42173&tstart=0 |
Quote:
Code:
root@jupiter So why would a copy result in expansion of compressed data? -- Marc |
Examining individual TM session differences
Quote:
http://soma-zone.com/BackupLoupe/ -- Marc |
I'm sorry -- I can't take the time to go into detail on this here, since we're still investigating. But I'm going to write a blog post about it when I get a few minutes of free time to discuss the issue and what we did (or are in process of doing) to fix it.
As I recall (and mentioned above), there's a spotlight index inside the TM backups.backupdb too. |
Only one .Spotlight set on TM Volumes
Quote:
Code:
root@jupiter Code:
root@jupiter By the way - lest you think that I'm being critical or pedantic about this - I'm just VERY HAPPY that SuperDuper handles cloning TM disks at all... NOTHING else out there can even touch them except a block based cloner... and for that support I am EXTREMELY thankful... -- Marc |
Quite possibly... I don't remember the details exactly, since I did this research almost two years ago... :)
|
Quote:
Needless to say I've disabled the WD program without any "visible" effect other than TM is no longer bloating hourly. |
did 2.6.2 (87) fix this problem?
so - did 2.6.2 resolve the "binding" issue?
side note: i tried to upgrade from 2.6 to 2.6.2 under auto update this evening, and after 5 minutes of watching the download spin, i aborted. i am moving to o.s. 10.6 shortly so i guess i need 2.6.2 but the long download time was troubling. was this just a one time quirk? note: i tried download on tue eve at 10 pm est. i have updated superduper many times in past - past as lightning. |
2.6.2 resolves the re-copying issue completely, yes.
Downloads might have been a bit slow last night because a lot of people hit the site at around 9pm. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.