Hi Chad, Both the TM drive and the source drive are 3-TB. I am not at home right now, but I'm pretty sure that both have more than 2-TB of free space. Even if the source drive has 1-TB of files, I bet that more than 500-GB are excluded (due to not backing up Movies, Music, Pictures), so my guess is that only about 200-GB is being backed up.
I don't know the break-down of big files versus small files, but I doubt it has changed much from a few months ago (i.e., before this problem started). If anything, the main increase in storage has been from additional (large) video files, not lots of small files. My problems probably started around the same time I upgraded to these larger drives, so perhaps the TM drive is going bad. I might swap that out and see if the problem goes away. Thanks, Gregg On 7 Mar 2012, at 4:11 PM, objectwerks inc wrote: > On Mar 7, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Dinse, Gregg (NIH/NIEHS) [E] wrote: > >> Both machines use an internal hard drive for the TM backups. > > Ok. I do TM to a network server over both Wifi and a wired ethernet. The > wired ethernet is much faster to back up the same amount of data. So it was > one area to explore. > >> Both TM backup drives still have a lot of empty space, though the TM drive >> at home is larger than the TM drive at work. > > Having enough empty space is an issue, though not what I was asking. I was > wondering about the disks being backed up. How big are those (how much data > is on them versus how big they are)? > >> I certainly have a few files at home that are larger than those at work, >> such as videos, but I exclude the Movies, Music, and Pictures directories >> from my TM backups, so that should not be the problem. > > I am more concerned about a lot of small files. My datasets that are a small > number of big files get backed up by TM much faster than the same overall > size of dataset composed of a ton of smaller files. It does comparisons on > all the file files and reading file info and comparing it for 200 gb worth of > small files takes a lot more time than the same amount of effort for a small > number of larger files. All the file attribute comparisons etc I am > guessing (since I am not intimately familiar with TM innards). > > Chad > >> Any other thoughts? >> >> Gregg >> >> On 7 Mar 2012, at 12:36 PM, objectwerks inc wrote: >> >>> How big are your data sets (how full with how much data are your disks)? >>> Is the one at home using a local TM disk or a TM disk on your network? Is >>> the data set composed of LOTS of little files? >>> >>> On Mar 7, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Dinse, Gregg (NIH/NIEHS) [E] wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On my Mac Pro at home, Time Machine runs for about 30 minutes of each >>>> hour, even when I have not created any new files. I also have a Mac Pro >>>> at work and it does NOT exhibit this behavior. Both are running the >>>> latest version of Snow Leopard (10.6.8). Does anyone have an idea about >>>> why Time Machine is running so much on one of these? I expect Time >>>> Machine to run for a short period (maybe a minute or two), even without >>>> many files changing, since I assume it still has to search for possible >>>> changes, but 25-30 minutes seems really excessive when nothing much has >>>> changed. Any thoughts? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Gregg _______________________________________________ MacOSX-talk mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
