|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is there something special about Time Machine and SD that explains this?
Usually when I do a smart update, SD will take substantially less time than an erase and copy...often a difference of hours for, say, a 500GB data volume.
I have a 1.5TB Time Machine volumen that has about 1.1TB used. I wanted to replace that drive with a 2TB drive. I started to copy the TM volume, and about 7 hours in the thermometer was showing about 90% done and about 6Million of the 8Million files done. All good. There was a high wind warning in our area, and I decided to stop the copy and shut down the machine. I then picked it up the next day. I expected that SD would fly through the part already backed up. Instead, the backup took 5 hours, yet only 2.5GB was reported as copied. This puzzles me. Is this expected behavior for a TM volume? |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Time Machine Issue with Restored Clone | sdsl | General | 3 | 10-14-2012 08:18 PM |
Time Machine Copy | jerrykrinock | General | 1 | 04-02-2010 01:36 PM |
Needed: Time Machine and SuperDuper guidance | kapalama | General | 7 | 08-13-2009 07:55 AM |
Error 18 in Time Machine.... | iith096 | General | 4 | 10-20-2008 03:57 PM |
A different angle on SD & Time Machine integration | badlydrawnboy | General | 10 | 10-26-2007 08:37 PM |