Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Why the Time Machine hate?' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Why the Time Machine hate?
Authored by: zpjet on Oct 05, '10 11:58:54PM

But even TimeMachine being "prepackaged high-level", it stores files in the most simple and smart way - using the hard links to do incremental backups. You can always find the files straight on the disk.

Which is the reason why it's the "disk hog" - it doesn't compress the files, but why, when prices of disks are going down every day?



[ Reply to This | # ]
Why the Time Machine hate?
Authored by: tedw on Oct 06, '10 01:38:45AM

true, but you can do the same thing with rsync, with more control and more transparency. if control and transparency are what you're after...



[ Reply to This | # ]
Why the Time Machine hate?
Authored by: Anonymous on Oct 06, '10 01:08:21PM

Time Machine is two things: 1. a frontend to an rsync-based archiver, and 2. a UI to navigate backups created by rsync.

It would be really very straightforward to use part 2 to navigate, and write your own #1 that does everything the same way as Time Machine.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Why the Time Machine hate?
Authored by: tedw on Oct 06, '10 01:52:58PM

Well, the problem with this, as I see it, is that I don't know how to use TM as a front end without setting it up to actually start making backups. if you design your own rsync thingee, I can't see any way to get it to work with TM. Plus, I personally use an updated version of rsync (rsync 3.0.x handles resources forks better than the 2.6.9 version that ships with leopard and snow leopard), but I don't know whether TM uses the system version of rsync or its own internal implementation, and I don't know what the changes in options keys from 2.6.9 to 3.0.x (which are noteworthy) would do to TM. that's just one of those black-box problems that comes from working with pre-structured interfaces.



[ Reply to This | # ]