Shirt Pocket Discussions  
    Home netTunes launchTunes SuperDuper! Buy Now Support Discussions About Shirt Pocket    

Go Back   Shirt Pocket Discussions > SuperDuper! > General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-30-2009, 12:25 AM
SteveL SteveL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28
LS: Why is Smart Update so large?

Just curious, but if I run SD! (2.6.1), surf, e-mail, and then run SD! again, some 2.5GB are updated. In 10.5, less than 1GB would have been updated. Seems odd, at least to me (but, what do I know!).
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-30-2009, 08:02 AM
dnanian's Avatar
dnanian dnanian is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Weston, MA
Posts: 14,745
Send a message via AIM to dnanian
We've had some reports of this, and we're investigating to see why some files under Snow Leopard files are comparing different when users indicate they haven't really changed anything.

Better copying too much than too little, though.
__________________
--Dave Nanian
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-30-2009, 12:42 PM
robbchadwick robbchadwick is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4
After Snow Leopard update it does take longer to Smart Update

I upgraded to Snow Leopard Friday evening. I ran disk permissions before and after, of course. I also did a complete erase & backup with SuperDuper ... which took about the usual time for me ... 60 gb of files ... a little over an hour on USB (newer MacBook but without FireWire).

I just now ran Smart Update (which I do every 24-36 hours BTW); and Smart Update took almost 30 minutes. It normally takes about 5 minutes ... no more than 10 when I've changed a lot of files during the day.

No complaints. I still love SuperDuper ... couldn't live without it ... but it does take longer now.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-30-2009, 12:44 PM
dnanian's Avatar
dnanian dnanian is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Weston, MA
Posts: 14,745
Send a message via AIM to dnanian
Let's see if this changes over time. We're investigating what might be going on, but it's not clear at present, certainly not something that would change 5 minutes to 30...
__________________
--Dave Nanian
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-31-2009, 04:53 PM
MacCetera MacCetera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Hartland, WI
Posts: 19
Smart update taking a long time to complete...

I'm also hoping that the cause of slow smart updates with a Mac OS X 10.6 / SD 2.6.1 configuration gets attention. My 250+GB boot drive clone has gone from about 10 minutes to almost 20, but worse, my nightly 800+GB Time Machine clone has jumped from under 4 hours to over 9... and this is on an 8 core 2.8GHz MacPro talking exclusively to internal SATA II hard drives.

After discussing this with Dave, there's nothing different in what SD 2.6.1 is doing, so hopefully there will be some "a ha" moment and a 2.6.2 will appear that returns smart update's efficiency.

-- Marc
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-31-2009, 05:40 PM
SteveL SteveL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28
I literally ran SmartUpdate with SD! 2.6.1, rebooted, and ran SmartUpdate again. Amazingly, over 2 GB of my 35 GB drive were updated. Hmmm
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-31-2009, 08:10 PM
dnanian's Avatar
dnanian dnanian is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Weston, MA
Posts: 14,745
Send a message via AIM to dnanian
I think this MIGHT be a side effect of prebinding. We're looking into it.
__________________
--Dave Nanian
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-01-2009, 09:08 AM
whaler whaler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: CT
Posts: 6
Smart Updates taking forever!

I'm another who is having the problem with very L-O-N-G backups.
What used to take 3 - 4 minutes is now taking 20-22.
I thought that if I started all over again and erased the drive and did a complete new backup, it might help.
It didn't.
I sure hope that a fix will be found!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-01-2009, 10:00 AM
dnanian's Avatar
dnanian dnanian is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Weston, MA
Posts: 14,745
Send a message via AIM to dnanian
I believe this is a side effect of prebinding, as I said above. Investigation has shown that most of the time is spent in /Applications /System and /Library, which would help to confirm that. We're looking into it.
__________________
--Dave Nanian
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-01-2009, 04:53 PM
MacCetera MacCetera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Hartland, WI
Posts: 19
SDCopy CPU load under 10.5.8 and 10.6?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnanian View Post
I believe this is a side effect of prebinding, as I said above. Investigation has shown that most of the time is spent in /Applications /System and /Library, which would help to confirm that. We're looking into it.
Dave, after playing with the unbelievably slow backups on my MacPro, I don't get why the prebinding is an issue for overall speed, as that is in the final phase and not performed on non-boot drives.

Maybe this will be helpful:

Today my now 9+ hour Time Machine drive clone was still percolating at 10 this morning, so I popped open Activity Monitor and saw that SDCopy was eating 87-100% of a single core with 2 threads. I'm running SD 2.6.1 right now to clone my MacBook Pro drive under 10.5.8 before upgrading it to 10.6 later today, and SDCopy is only eating at max 15% of one core with an average of around 1-3%. That puppy really beats itself up under 10.6.

-- Marc
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-01-2009, 07:13 PM
dnanian's Avatar
dnanian dnanian is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Weston, MA
Posts: 14,745
Send a message via AIM to dnanian
That's not at all normal. For one thing, we're not threaded. For another, SDCopy is really not significantly different under SL. I think something else is going on there (assuming that OSX itself isn't eating the core when we call it).

That doesn't have much to do with the other issue here, which is that Smart Update is copying things over, which I believe does have to do with prebinding.
__________________
--Dave Nanian
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-01-2009, 07:26 PM
nkhester nkhester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 26
With reference to the prebinding possibility... I noted that when I was making my final SD backups before updating to 10.6 (today), that an inordinate amount of time was spent in the final step of adjusting prebinding on the backup. Normally this step would have required virtually no time. This was true both for full backup and sandbox.

Don't know if this provides any hint or not...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-01-2009, 07:46 PM
robbchadwick robbchadwick is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4
Opposite experience for me ... time lag at the beginning of process

The huge amount of extra time seems to come at the beginning. Once SD gets beyond a certain point, it zips along like it used to. I do agree that the pre-binding at the end seems to run a little longer but for me that's not the lion's share of it.

Just to update, what I used to do in about 5 minutes is now taking 20-30 minutes. I know you are working on it; but I thought I'd let you know that time is not clearing up the issue ... although I suppose there really hasn't been a huge amount of time since the weekend. :-)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-01-2009, 09:53 PM
dnanian's Avatar
dnanian dnanian is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Weston, MA
Posts: 14,745
Send a message via AIM to dnanian
Well... adjusting prebinding is new to 2.6, so I don't think it would have taken no time... but it can take longer under SL. We're trying to find a different way.

And I think people are onto something with the whole 'compressed files are expanding' thing, even though it shouldn't be. We are looking into it. No sense chiming in with a "me too" if you're thinking about it, unless you have more to add: we're trying like hell to get to the bottom of what's up.
__________________
--Dave Nanian
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-02-2009, 07:23 AM
nkhester nkhester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnanian View Post
Well... adjusting prebinding is new to 2.6, so I don't think it would have taken no time... but it can take longer under SL. We're trying to find a different way.
I had failed to notice this added step. So, yes, all I had noted with earlier SD backups is that the last step was accomplished very quickly.

I trust we'll all wait patiently for this to be resolved.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interrupted backup: Stil valid Smart Update possible? Enc General 0 11-01-2007 03:38 PM
Spotlight Privacy tab refuses to recognize SuperDuper Smart Update -- 100% repeatable RFMoya General 4 09-22-2007 01:46 PM
Slow smart update of very large file - feature request? dtb General 1 07-27-2007 05:46 PM
Smart Update Question gbjerry General 1 06-24-2006 07:43 AM
Smart Update Vs Copy Newer etb General 4 06-06-2006 10:48 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.