info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What happens if I interrupt Cleaning Up part of time machine
11,556 views
Skip to first unread message
Kurt Ullman
Apr 10, 2015, 11:14:55 AM4/10/15
to
Storms coming through yesterday and I wanted to turn off the computer
and disconnect it from the electricity in case of lightening strike. I
was getting ready to shut it down and I saw that TM said it was cleaning
up. Anything untoward happens if I interupt that part of the back up?
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein
and disconnect it from the electricity in case of lightening strike. I
was getting ready to shut it down and I saw that TM said it was cleaning
up. Anything untoward happens if I interupt that part of the back up?
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein
Alan Browne
Apr 10, 2015, 12:09:12 PM4/10/15
to
On 2015-04-10 11:14, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> Storms coming through yesterday and I wanted to turn off the computer
> and disconnect it from the electricity in case of lightening strike. I
> was getting ready to shut it down and I saw that TM said it was cleaning
> up. Anything untoward happens if I interupt that part of the back up?
No UPS?
> Storms coming through yesterday and I wanted to turn off the computer
> and disconnect it from the electricity in case of lightening strike. I
> was getting ready to shut it down and I saw that TM said it was cleaning
> up. Anything untoward happens if I interupt that part of the back up?
You can interrupt TM at any time for any reason.
It will sort it out on the next backup.
J Burns
Apr 10, 2015, 12:09:14 PM4/10/15
to
On 4/10/15, 11:14 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> Storms coming through yesterday and I wanted to turn off the computer
> and disconnect it from the electricity in case of lightening strike. I
> was getting ready to shut it down and I saw that TM said it was cleaning
> up. Anything untoward happens if I interupt that part of the back up?
>
Here's some secondhand information.
> Storms coming through yesterday and I wanted to turn off the computer
> and disconnect it from the electricity in case of lightening strike. I
> was getting ready to shut it down and I saw that TM said it was cleaning
> up. Anything untoward happens if I interupt that part of the back up?
>
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1694649
I haven't seem TM cleaning up and haven't seen a "Skip Cleaning Up" button.
nospam
Apr 10, 2015, 12:23:59 PM4/10/15
to
In article <rrCdnZTA6dFxdbrI...@earthlink.com>, Kurt
reality, it does not always work that way.
Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Storms coming through yesterday and I wanted to turn off the computer
> and disconnect it from the electricity in case of lightening strike. I
> was getting ready to shut it down and I saw that TM said it was cleaning
> up. Anything untoward happens if I interupt that part of the back up?
in theory nothing because it should pick up where it left off. in
> Storms coming through yesterday and I wanted to turn off the computer
> and disconnect it from the electricity in case of lightening strike. I
> was getting ready to shut it down and I saw that TM said it was cleaning
> up. Anything untoward happens if I interupt that part of the back up?
reality, it does not always work that way.
Kurt Ullman
Apr 10, 2015, 12:24:00 PM4/10/15
to
In article <mg8shg$ho7$1...@dont-email.me>, J Burns <bur...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Thanks. Doesn't really answer my question, but thanks for the attempt
wrote:
Alan Baker
Apr 10, 2015, 12:47:50 PM4/10/15
to
On 2015-04-10 15:14:52 +0000, Kurt Ullman said:
> Storms coming through yesterday and I wanted to turn off the computer
> and disconnect it from the electricity in case of lightening strike. I
> was getting ready to shut it down and I saw that TM said it was cleaning
> up. Anything untoward happens if I interupt that part of the back up?
Time Machine only keeps:
> Storms coming through yesterday and I wanted to turn off the computer
> and disconnect it from the electricity in case of lightening strike. I
> was getting ready to shut it down and I saw that TM said it was cleaning
> up. Anything untoward happens if I interupt that part of the back up?
Hourly data for the preceding 24 hours.
Daily data for the last month
Weekly data for all previous months.
So with each backup, it needs to remove some files.
If you interrupt the "Cleaning up" stage, that won't happen until the
next time it backs up.
J Burns
Apr 10, 2015, 1:00:40 PM4/10/15
to
On 4/10/15, 12:23 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <mg8shg$ho7$1...@dont-email.me>, J Burns <bur...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/15, 11:14 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>>> Storms coming through yesterday and I wanted to turn off the computer
>>> and disconnect it from the electricity in case of lightening strike. I
>>> was getting ready to shut it down and I saw that TM said it was cleaning
>>> up. Anything untoward happens if I interupt that part of the back up?
>>>
>> Here's some secondhand information.
>> http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1694649
>>
>> I haven't seem TM cleaning up and haven't seen a "Skip Cleaning Up" button.
>
> Thanks. Doesn't really answer my question, but thanks for the attempt
>
I've seen "Skip this Backup" on the menu. I'll bet if I caught it
> In article <mg8shg$ho7$1...@dont-email.me>, J Burns <bur...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/15, 11:14 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>>> Storms coming through yesterday and I wanted to turn off the computer
>>> and disconnect it from the electricity in case of lightening strike. I
>>> was getting ready to shut it down and I saw that TM said it was cleaning
>>> up. Anything untoward happens if I interupt that part of the back up?
>>>
>> Here's some secondhand information.
>> http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1694649
>>
>> I haven't seem TM cleaning up and haven't seen a "Skip Cleaning Up" button.
>
> Thanks. Doesn't really answer my question, but thanks for the attempt
>
during cleanup, it would say "Skip Cleaning Up." Did you see it on the
menu? Apparently it would do no harm to click it.
Message has been deleted
Barry Margolin
Apr 10, 2015, 10:06:14 PM4/10/15
to
In article <0lugiahj8gfo6k781...@4ax.com>,
John <M...@the.keyboard> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 09:47:47 -0700, Alan Baker <em...@domain.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 2015-04-10 15:14:52 +0000, Kurt Ullman said:
> >
> >> Storms coming through yesterday and I wanted to turn off the computer
> >> and disconnect it from the electricity in case of lightening strike. I
> >> was getting ready to shut it down and I saw that TM said it was cleaning
> >> up. Anything untoward happens if I interupt that part of the back up?
> >
> >Time Machine only keeps:
> >
> >Hourly data for the preceding 24 hours.
> >
> >Daily data for the last month
> >
> >Weekly data for all previous months.
> >
> >So with each backup, it needs to remove some files.
>
> Is it possible to tell it to fuck off because I have more disk space
> than I know what to do with and I'd rather keep *everything* than risk
> losing that one, single file that I just *know* I'll need in ten years
> time?
> Or is tidying up part of the functionality and unkillable?
I think it's hard-coded.
So you're saying that you might have a file that was deleted less than a
week after it was created, but 10 years later you'll need to recover it?
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
John <M...@the.keyboard> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 09:47:47 -0700, Alan Baker <em...@domain.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 2015-04-10 15:14:52 +0000, Kurt Ullman said:
> >
> >> Storms coming through yesterday and I wanted to turn off the computer
> >> and disconnect it from the electricity in case of lightening strike. I
> >> was getting ready to shut it down and I saw that TM said it was cleaning
> >> up. Anything untoward happens if I interupt that part of the back up?
> >
> >Time Machine only keeps:
> >
> >Hourly data for the preceding 24 hours.
> >
> >Daily data for the last month
> >
> >Weekly data for all previous months.
> >
> >So with each backup, it needs to remove some files.
>
> than I know what to do with and I'd rather keep *everything* than risk
> losing that one, single file that I just *know* I'll need in ten years
> time?
> Or is tidying up part of the functionality and unkillable?
I think it's hard-coded.
So you're saying that you might have a file that was deleted less than a
week after it was created, but 10 years later you'll need to recover it?
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Message has been deleted
Király
Apr 11, 2015, 11:21:01 PM4/11/15
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> The only way to "lose" a file is to
>
> 1) No longer have the file on your computer
> 2) have the file have been off your computer for so long that the
> oldest backup doesn't contain it.
>
> So, if I have the files foobar.txt and I deleted it 01 Feb 2012 it will
> be in Time Machine as long as there is a backup older than 01 Feb 2012.
There's also the issue of having a file on your Mac for less than a
week; for example, a file that existed between April 10 and 15. That
file will remain in Time Machine until May 15. But if Time Machine only
retains April 9 and April 16 as the weekly backups, after May 15 the
file is gone for good.
Keep files for more than a week in the same location, in order for Time
Machine to retain copies of them (subject to your points 1 and 2 above.)
--
K.
Lang may your lum reek.
> The only way to "lose" a file is to
>
> 1) No longer have the file on your computer
> 2) have the file have been off your computer for so long that the
> oldest backup doesn't contain it.
>
> So, if I have the files foobar.txt and I deleted it 01 Feb 2012 it will
> be in Time Machine as long as there is a backup older than 01 Feb 2012.
There's also the issue of having a file on your Mac for less than a
week; for example, a file that existed between April 10 and 15. That
file will remain in Time Machine until May 15. But if Time Machine only
retains April 9 and April 16 as the weekly backups, after May 15 the
file is gone for good.
Keep files for more than a week in the same location, in order for Time
Machine to retain copies of them (subject to your points 1 and 2 above.)
--
K.
Lang may your lum reek.
Message has been deleted
Király
Apr 12, 2015, 11:15:41 AM4/12/15
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > There's also the issue of having a file on your Mac for less than a
> > week; for example, a file that existed between April 10 and 15. That
> > file will remain in Time Machine until May 15. But if Time Machine only
> > retains April 9 and April 16 as the weekly backups, after May 15 the
> > file is gone for good.
>
> Nope.
> > There's also the issue of having a file on your Mac for less than a
> > week; for example, a file that existed between April 10 and 15. That
> > file will remain in Time Machine until May 15. But if Time Machine only
> > retains April 9 and April 16 as the weekly backups, after May 15 the
> > file is gone for good.
>
LOL, are you serious?
Message has been deleted
Király
Apr 12, 2015, 12:20:33 PM4/12/15
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 1. Create a file.
> 2. Run Time Machine manually.
> 3. Delete the file after TM completes
> 4. repeat every day for a week.
> 5. Wait 32 days.
>
> All seven files will still be in Time Machine.
You are simply wrong about that, Lewis. Only the file that was in the
hourly TM backup that was retained as the daily would have been saved
(usually the first backup of the day.) And if you were lucky enough to
have had the above files retained in your daily backup every day, only
the daily backup retained as the weekly would have been saved. So at
best, you have only one of the above seven files after 32 days. More
likely, you have none of them.
Time Machine backups are snapshots of your system made at that time. If
you have a TM backup made two months ago, e.g. Feb 1, 8:00am, it is an
exact copy of what was on your system at that time. It doesn't contain
any files that weren't on your system at that time. If you had a file on
your Mac only on Jan 31 or only on Feb 2, it is gone.
> 1. Create a file.
> 2. Run Time Machine manually.
> 3. Delete the file after TM completes
> 4. repeat every day for a week.
> 5. Wait 32 days.
>
> All seven files will still be in Time Machine.
You are simply wrong about that, Lewis. Only the file that was in the
hourly TM backup that was retained as the daily would have been saved
(usually the first backup of the day.) And if you were lucky enough to
have had the above files retained in your daily backup every day, only
the daily backup retained as the weekly would have been saved. So at
best, you have only one of the above seven files after 32 days. More
likely, you have none of them.
Time Machine backups are snapshots of your system made at that time. If
you have a TM backup made two months ago, e.g. Feb 1, 8:00am, it is an
exact copy of what was on your system at that time. It doesn't contain
any files that weren't on your system at that time. If you had a file on
your Mac only on Jan 31 or only on Feb 2, it is gone.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Barry Margolin
Apr 13, 2015, 10:10:58 AM4/13/15
to
In article <slrnminipn...@amelia.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <mge5um$i1c$1...@dont-email.me>
True. But it's a full backup of what exists at the time of the backup.
It doesn't include files that were in the previous backup, but have
since been deleted.
And when it thins old backups, it doesn't merge in all the deleted files.
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <mge5um$i1c$1...@dont-email.me>
> Király <m...@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> 1. Create a file.
> >> 2. Run Time Machine manually.
> >> 3. Delete the file after TM completes
> >> 4. repeat every day for a week.
> >> 5. Wait 32 days.
> >>
> >> All seven files will still be in Time Machine.
>
> > You are simply wrong about that, Lewis.
>
> That is how it worked when I tested it back in... oh, 2009.
> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> 1. Create a file.
> >> 2. Run Time Machine manually.
> >> 3. Delete the file after TM completes
> >> 4. repeat every day for a week.
> >> 5. Wait 32 days.
> >>
> >> All seven files will still be in Time Machine.
>
> > You are simply wrong about that, Lewis.
>
>
> > Only the file that was in the
> > hourly TM backup that was retained as the daily would have been saved
>
> No, because EVERY snapshot is a full backup.
> > Only the file that was in the
> > hourly TM backup that was retained as the daily would have been saved
>
True. But it's a full backup of what exists at the time of the backup.
It doesn't include files that were in the previous backup, but have
since been deleted.
And when it thins old backups, it doesn't merge in all the deleted files.
Message has been deleted
Király
Apr 13, 2015, 6:18:57 PM4/13/15
to
On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 2:34:12 PM UTC-7, Lewis wrote:
> No, because of the way Time Machine does backups (hard links) Each
> backup starts with the entirety of the previous backup, then the files
> that are different/changed get added.
Absolutely false. Each Time Machine backup starts with the entirety *of the
volume it is backing up*, not with the entirety of the previous backup.
> As I said, I did test this specific test several years ago. Maybe I did
> it wrong?
You must have, because Time Machine does not and has never worked the way
you describe. And yes, I know this based on my having tested it myself. You
need to test it again yourself if you really believe that it works the way
you say it works.
> If you CHANGE a file, then the changes for that file will eventually
> decay to only keeping weekly snapshots of the changes.
Yes, and that's no different from adding a new file.
> No, because of the way Time Machine does backups (hard links) Each
> backup starts with the entirety of the previous backup, then the files
> that are different/changed get added.
Absolutely false. Each Time Machine backup starts with the entirety *of the
volume it is backing up*, not with the entirety of the previous backup.
> As I said, I did test this specific test several years ago. Maybe I did
> it wrong?
You must have, because Time Machine does not and has never worked the way
you describe. And yes, I know this based on my having tested it myself. You
need to test it again yourself if you really believe that it works the way
you say it works.
> If you CHANGE a file, then the changes for that file will eventually
> decay to only keeping weekly snapshots of the changes.
Yes, and that's no different from adding a new file.
Barry Margolin
Apr 13, 2015, 9:40:27 PM4/13/15
to
In article <0fc6209d-5205-48f4...@googlegroups.com>,
and previous backups.
>
> > As I said, I did test this specific test several years ago. Maybe I did
> > it wrong?
>
> You must have, because Time Machine does not and has never worked the way
> you describe. And yes, I know this based on my having tested it myself. You
> need to test it again yourself if you really believe that it works the way
> you say it works.
>
> > If you CHANGE a file, then the changes for that file will eventually
> > decay to only keeping weekly snapshots of the changes.
>
> Yes, and that's no different from adding a new file.
I just tested it myself. I deleted a file that had been around for a
couple of weeks, and did "Back Up Now". I then went into Time Machine,
selected the latest backup, and looked for the file. It wasn't there.
Király <ggra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 2:34:12 PM UTC-7, Lewis wrote:
> > No, because of the way Time Machine does backups (hard links) Each
> > backup starts with the entirety of the previous backup, then the files
> > that are different/changed get added.
>
> Absolutely false. Each Time Machine backup starts with the entirety *of the
> volume it is backing up*, not with the entirety of the previous backup.
Right. It uses hard links to merge identical files between the current
> On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 2:34:12 PM UTC-7, Lewis wrote:
> > No, because of the way Time Machine does backups (hard links) Each
> > backup starts with the entirety of the previous backup, then the files
> > that are different/changed get added.
>
> Absolutely false. Each Time Machine backup starts with the entirety *of the
> volume it is backing up*, not with the entirety of the previous backup.
and previous backups.
>
> > As I said, I did test this specific test several years ago. Maybe I did
> > it wrong?
>
> You must have, because Time Machine does not and has never worked the way
> you describe. And yes, I know this based on my having tested it myself. You
> need to test it again yourself if you really believe that it works the way
> you say it works.
>
> > If you CHANGE a file, then the changes for that file will eventually
> > decay to only keeping weekly snapshots of the changes.
>
> Yes, and that's no different from adding a new file.
couple of weeks, and did "Back Up Now". I then went into Time Machine,
selected the latest backup, and looked for the file. It wasn't there.
Alan Baker
Apr 13, 2015, 9:49:18 PM4/13/15
to
...but did you look at any others?
Király
Apr 13, 2015, 9:57:34 PM4/13/15
to
Alan Baker <em...@domain.com> wrote:
> You looked at the latest backup...
>
> ...but did you look at any others?
He didn't need to to prove this theorem - that backups contain snapshots
> You looked at the latest backup...
>
> ...but did you look at any others?
of the system only as it was at the time of the backup, and do not
contain files not on the system which may have been in previous
backups.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Király
Apr 14, 2015, 1:29:54 AM4/14/15
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > Absolutely false. Each Time Machine backup starts with the entirety *of the
> > volume it is backing up*, not with the entirety of the previous backup.
>
> No, you re absolutely wrong. If that were the case, every backup would
> > Absolutely false. Each Time Machine backup starts with the entirety *of the
> > volume it is backing up*, not with the entirety of the previous backup.
>
> take up the full space
Wrong. Time Machine is smart enough to make hard links to files it backs
up that it already finds in the previous backup.
> which is not the case. Most Time Machine backups are tiny.
Yes, because of the hard links. You are confusing two completely
different things (Time Machine makes hard links (true), and Time Machine
snapshots contain files that weren't on the Mac at the time that
snapshot was made (false)). One has nothing to do with the other.
> system.log:Apr 13 16:22:30 Jaka.local com.apple.backupd[64675]: Copied
> 700 items (1.61 GB) from volume Jaka. Linked 5251.
> system.log:Apr 13 17:48:36 Jaka.local com.apple.backupd[72137]: Copied
> 799 items (1.25 GB) from volume Jaka. Linked 5209.
So? That all looks normal to me.
>
> > You must have, because Time Machine does not and has never worked the way
> > you describe. And yes, I know this based on my having tested it myself. You
> > need to test it again yourself if you really believe that it works the way
> > you say it works.
>
> No, I really don't since I've never lost a file as you have described
> > You must have, because Time Machine does not and has never worked the way
> > you describe. And yes, I know this based on my having tested it myself. You
> > need to test it again yourself if you really believe that it works the way
> > you say it works.
>
> and I tested it and the result were what I expected. If you care enough,
> I suppose you can duplicate my test.
No, I cannot duplicate your test because it is not duplicatable.
I download a daily podcast and delete it the next day. Time Machine
backs it up every day. If what you claim is true, then all 28 of those
podcasts should be in my February 2015 backups, and even in my latest
backups. But they aren't. The four backups remaining from February are
5, 12, 19, and 26, and they each contain the one podcast that was on my
Mac at the time those backups were made. 4 podcasts archived by Time
Machine, 24 podcasts expunged from the backups throughout March. Your
idea that all 28 of those podcasts somehow get consolidated into those
four remaining February backups, or are carried forward into all future
backups, is simply wrong.
> The first think TimeMachine does in hard link the previous backup.
Wrong again. It does *not* hard link the previous backup. It makes a
copy of what is currently on the volume to be backed up, and if it finds
an identical copy of any file in the previous backup, it hard links
*that file* to the corresponding file in the previous backup, instead of
copying it anew. It does *not* hard link to the new backup any file that
is not currently on the volume being backed up.
> Then it copies changed files. This would work exactly as I described.
It would, but it doesn't work that way. I've taken you up on your
challenge to test it and have proven you wrong.
So now you take my test. Make a file foo. Run Time Machine. Delete foo
and make a file bar. Run Time Machine again. If your claim that Time
Machine hard links everything from the previous backup holds water, then
you should find both a file foo and a file bar in the latest backup.
Let me know what you find out.
Barry Margolin
Apr 14, 2015, 2:02:49 AM4/14/15
to
In article <slrnmiovov....@amelia.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <barmar-0B7AEF....@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>
> Riiiiight? That's not what I described at all.
It's EXACTLY what you described. You said that each backup starts with
everything from the previous backup, and then updates all the files that
were changed since then. If that were true, then this file would have
been in the latest backup, since it was in the previous backup. But it
wasn't in the latest backup.
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <barmar-0B7AEF....@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>
It's EXACTLY what you described. You said that each backup starts with
everything from the previous backup, and then updates all the files that
were changed since then. If that were true, then this file would have
been in the latest backup, since it was in the previous backup. But it
wasn't in the latest backup.
Király
Apr 14, 2015, 2:20:18 AM4/14/15
to
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> It's EXACTLY what you described. You said that each backup starts with
> everything from the previous backup, and then updates all the files that
> were changed since then. If that were true, then this file would have
> been in the latest backup, since it was in the previous backup. But it
> wasn't in the latest backup.
I'm getting ready to give up on Lewis. He seems to be happier believing
> It's EXACTLY what you described. You said that each backup starts with
> everything from the previous backup, and then updates all the files that
> were changed since then. If that were true, then this file would have
> been in the latest backup, since it was in the previous backup. But it
> wasn't in the latest backup.
it works the way he thinks it should work, rather than the way it
actually works.
Alan Baker
Apr 14, 2015, 3:31:35 AM4/14/15
to
Way to utterly miss the point.
David Empson
Apr 19, 2015, 12:55:05 AM4/19/15
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <barmar-31DF87....@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>
Each backup is a snapshot of the current state of the source drive at a
point in time, using hard links to previous backups for unchanged
files/folders, or new copies for changed/added files.
Files or folders deleted from the source drive are not present in the
next backup, i.e. that backup has no hard link to the previous backup of
deleted files or folders.
> > It doesn't include files that were in the previous backup, but have
> > since been deleted.
>
> Feel free to test it. As I said, I did test this specific test several
1. Wait until Time Machine has done its first backup of the day (or
force it by doing a manual backup). I'll refer to this as backup A. (The
first backup of the day is the one retained as the daily backup for the
next month.)
2. Create a file on the source drive.
3. Allow Time Machine to do its next hourly backup, or force it by doing
a manual backup. I'll refer to this as backup B.
4. Delete the file created in step 2.
5. Allow Time Machine to do another hourly backup, or force it by doing
a manual backup. I'll refer to this as backup C.
6. Confirm that the file created in step 2 is only present in backup B,
not in backup A or C.
7. Wait at least 24 hours, allowing Time Machine to do its automatic
cleanup of old backups.
8. Confirm that there is no longer any backup of the file created in
step 2, because Time Machine retained backup A but didn't retain backup
B.
A similar pattern applies to weekly backups. To have a long term backup,
the file must exist at the point the first Time Machine backup occurs on
a day, and that daily backup must be one which is retained as a weekly
backup. In effect, that means the file must exist on the source drive
for at least seven full days to ensure it will have a long term backup.
> If you CHANGE a file, then the changes for that file will eventually
> decay to only keeping weekly snapshots of the changes.
Same goes for deleting files. If a file didn't exist for a whole week,
it might not be in any backup after a month. If a file didn't exist for
a whole day, it might not be in any backup after a day.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
> In message <barmar-31DF87....@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>
> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article <slrnminipn...@amelia.local>,
> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> >> In message <mge5um$i1c$1...@dont-email.me>
> >> Király <m...@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
> >> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> >> 1. Create a file.
> >> >> 2. Run Time Machine manually.
> >> >> 3. Delete the file after TM completes
> >> >> 4. repeat every day for a week.
> >> >> 5. Wait 32 days.
> >> >>
> >> >> All seven files will still be in Time Machine.
> >>
> >> > You are simply wrong about that, Lewis.
> >>
> >> That is how it worked when I tested it back in... oh, 2009.
> >>
> >> > Only the file that was in the
> >> > hourly TM backup that was retained as the daily would have been saved
> >>
> >> No, because EVERY snapshot is a full backup.
>
> > True. But it's a full backup of what exists at the time of the backup.
>
> > In article <slrnminipn...@amelia.local>,
> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> >> In message <mge5um$i1c$1...@dont-email.me>
> >> Király <m...@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
> >> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> >> 1. Create a file.
> >> >> 2. Run Time Machine manually.
> >> >> 3. Delete the file after TM completes
> >> >> 4. repeat every day for a week.
> >> >> 5. Wait 32 days.
> >> >>
> >> >> All seven files will still be in Time Machine.
> >>
> >> > You are simply wrong about that, Lewis.
> >>
> >> That is how it worked when I tested it back in... oh, 2009.
> >>
> >> > Only the file that was in the
> >> > hourly TM backup that was retained as the daily would have been saved
> >>
> >> No, because EVERY snapshot is a full backup.
>
> > True. But it's a full backup of what exists at the time of the backup.
>
> No, because of the way Time Machine does backups (hard links) Each
> backup starts with the entirety of the previous backup, then the files
> that are different/changed get added.
No it doesn't.
> backup starts with the entirety of the previous backup, then the files
> that are different/changed get added.
Each backup is a snapshot of the current state of the source drive at a
point in time, using hard links to previous backups for unchanged
files/folders, or new copies for changed/added files.
Files or folders deleted from the source drive are not present in the
next backup, i.e. that backup has no hard link to the previous backup of
deleted files or folders.
> > It doesn't include files that were in the previous backup, but have
> > since been deleted.
>
> years ago. Maybe I did it wrong?
You must have. I did a similar test about a year ago:
1. Wait until Time Machine has done its first backup of the day (or
force it by doing a manual backup). I'll refer to this as backup A. (The
first backup of the day is the one retained as the daily backup for the
next month.)
2. Create a file on the source drive.
3. Allow Time Machine to do its next hourly backup, or force it by doing
a manual backup. I'll refer to this as backup B.
4. Delete the file created in step 2.
5. Allow Time Machine to do another hourly backup, or force it by doing
a manual backup. I'll refer to this as backup C.
6. Confirm that the file created in step 2 is only present in backup B,
not in backup A or C.
7. Wait at least 24 hours, allowing Time Machine to do its automatic
cleanup of old backups.
8. Confirm that there is no longer any backup of the file created in
step 2, because Time Machine retained backup A but didn't retain backup
B.
A similar pattern applies to weekly backups. To have a long term backup,
the file must exist at the point the first Time Machine backup occurs on
a day, and that daily backup must be one which is retained as a weekly
backup. In effect, that means the file must exist on the source drive
for at least seven full days to ensure it will have a long term backup.
> If you CHANGE a file, then the changes for that file will eventually
> decay to only keeping weekly snapshots of the changes.
it might not be in any backup after a month. If a file didn't exist for
a whole day, it might not be in any backup after a day.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
0 new messages