backup

[Charles Dyer]

On 31 Oct 2007, at 11:20:32, Shawn Erickson wrote:

>
> On Oct 31, 2007, at 6:00 AM, Larry Sica wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 31, 2007, at 8:40 AM, LuKreme wrote:
>>
>>> On 30-Oct-2007, at 23:32, Charles Dyer wrote:
>>>> It has now been well over 12 hours, and Time Machine has backed  
>>>> up 115.11 GB out of 323.4.
>>>>
>>>> In the words of Jay Leno, that's not slow, that's FEMA slow. If  
>>>> normal hourly backup time is of that order, I'll be turning Time  
>>>> Machine off and going back to my old stand by, SuperDuper!.
>>>
>>> I have no idea how long Time Machine's hourly backups are because  
>>> I have not, as yet, noticed it doing them.  That is to say,  
>>> whatever it is giving up in speed is more than made up for by the  
>>> fact that my machine continues to be usable and responsive the  
>>> entire time.
>>
>>
>> The initial backup did take a long time it seemed, but since then  
>> it's not seemed to.  Also no issues with speed or anything here. I  
>> was reading that apple discussion.  Seems like they all have that  
>> LaCie drive hooked up.   Works great so far.
>
> I have a Mac Pro with two 500 GiB drives mirrored (had that for a  
> while for my in house online backup device) and time machine works  
> very fast. I only know it is taking place by the slight amount of  
> drive chatter I can hear.

I'm backing up from an iMac G5. I wonder how many of those reporting  
problems are using PPC machines rather than Intel machines? Also, I'm  
backing up to a FireWire 400 device. I wonder how many reporting  
problems are using FireWire, and if so, how many are using FireWire  
400? And how many are using SATA or eSATA?

>
>
> Soon I will be bringing on my laptops to time machine to file shares  
> from this same mirror... of course may have to look at getting two  
> 750 or  1TB drives to mirror soon :)
>
> -Shawn
> _______________________________________________
> MacOSX-talk mailing list
> MacOSX-talk at omnigroup.com
> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk