 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Mac Applications / October 2008Partitioning for SuperDuper!
I want to create and save a SuperDuper! clone of my 320 GB internal drive to a 750 GB external drive. So as not to waste most of the external's available capacity, I intend to partition it. I have learned that it's advisable to create a partition larger than the drive to be cloned, to allow for extra "working" space when SD! does its "Smart Updates." But no one can suggest how much extra space to allocate. Anyone know?  SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.4) > I want to create and save a SuperDuper! clone of my 320 GB internal drive to > a 750 GB external drive. So as not to waste most of the external's available [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Anyone know? My own experience has been that if the size of the clone is set to the same size as that being cloned that SuperDuper! will create a backup without a problem. SignatureJames Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com >> I want to create and save a SuperDuper! clone of my 320 GB internal drive to >> a 750 GB external drive. So as not to waste most of the external's available [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > size as that being cloned that SuperDuper! will create a backup without a > problem. Which "size" number do you use? (i.e., a 320 " decimal" GB drive is about 300 "binary" GB, which is what a Get Info will report.) SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.4) [querying about how one states the size of a hard drive] > Which "size" number do you use? (i.e., a 320 " decimal" GB drive is about > 300 "binary" GB, which is what a Get Info will report.) I go by the sizes reported by Disk Utility which states that my Maxtor 320 GB drives can hold 2998.1 GB of data. SignatureJames Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com > [querying about how one states the size of a hard drive] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I go by the sizes reported by Disk Utility which states that my Maxtor 320 GB > drives can hold 2998.1 GB of data. So, did you set the partition for 320 or 298.1? SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.4) [in the context of partitioning a disk drive into two volumes] > So, did you set the partition for 320 or 298.1? I partitioned using Disk Utility, selecting the scheme of two partitions. This way there was no need to enter the partition size itself. SignatureJames Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com > [in the context of partitioning a disk drive into two volumes] > >> So, did you set the partition for 320 or 298.1? > > I partitioned using Disk Utility, selecting the scheme of two partitions. > This way there was no need to enter the partition size itself. I guess I don't understand. You took an empty drive and partitioned it in two? If so, IIRC, OS X by default creates two equal-sized partitions. SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.4) >> [in the context of partitioning a disk drive into two volumes] >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I guess I don't understand. You took an empty drive and partitioned it in > two? If so, IIRC, OS X by default creates two equal-sized partitions. If one partitions a drive using Disk Utility you have the option of selecting how many partitions you want and the default size of each partition is 1/n of the total disk size where n is the number of partitions selected. SignatureJames Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com >>> [in the context of partitioning a disk drive into two volumes] >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > how many partitions you want and the default size of each partition is 1/n of > the total disk size where n is the number of partitions selected. ??? Aren't we going around in a circle? You said: > My own experience has been that if the size of the clone is set to the same > size as that being cloned that SuperDuper! will create a backup without a > problem. I then asked: > Which "size" number do you use? (i.e., a 320 " decimal" GB drive is about > 300 "binary" GB, which is what a Get Info will report.) You responded: > I go by the sizes reported by Disk Utility which states that my Maxtor 320 GB > drives can hold 2998.1 GB of data. I asked: > So, did you set the partition for 320 or 298.1? Then you said: > I partitioned using Disk Utility, selecting the scheme of two partitions. > This way there was no need to enter the partition size itself. SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.4) On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:28:34 -0500, Nick Naym wrote (in article <C523B3B2.13123%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>): > ??? Aren't we going around in a circle? You said: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> I partitioned using Disk Utility, selecting the scheme of two partitions. >> This way there was no need to enter the partition size itself. I'll say that perhaps we are just going in semi-circles! :-) I am aware that a disk manufacturer will report as 320 GB a drive that Disk Utility will report as 298.1 GB. The manufacturer's stated sizes are 160 GB for my internal drive and 320 GB for my external drive whidh is the target of a SuperDuper! backup. Using Disk Utility I partitioned that external drive into two partitions, paying no attention to and not entering any numbers for the sizes of the partitions. SignatureJames Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com >> ??? Aren't we going around in a circle? You said: >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > into two partitions, paying no attention to and not entering any numbers for > the sizes of the partitions. Sounds like a full circle to me ;) , as I'm right back where I started with my original question: > I want to create and save a SuperDuper! clone of my 320 GB internal drive to > a 750 GB external drive. So as not to waste most of the external's available > capacity, I intend to partition it. I have learned that it's advisable to > create a partition larger than the drive to be cloned, to allow for extra > "working" space when SD! does its "Smart Updates." But no one can suggest > how much extra space to allocate. SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.4) > Sounds like a full circle to me ;) , as I'm right back where I started with > my original question: Maybe just a full square! :-) Going back to the question raised in the opening posting in this thread.... a) open Disk Utility b) check the size reported for your main drive c) selecdt the target drive d) partition the target drive so that one partition has the same stated size as the main drive e) set that partition as the target for your SuperDuper! backup f) do whatever you want with the other partition(s) SignatureJames Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com >> Sounds like a full circle to me ;) , as I'm right back where I started with >> my original question: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > f) do whatever you want with the other partition(s) I understand the general approach. But I also know that there are occasions when SD! _can_ have a problem making a Smart Update unless there is additional space (above and beyond the eventual size of the updated clone) available as "working space" for it to move things around, etc. when it updates the clone. SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.4) [responding to my stating how one can use Disk Utility to create a disk partition the same size as one's internal drive and which will be used as the recipient of a SuperDuper! backkup] > I understand the general approach. But I also know that there are occasions > when SD! _can_ have a problem making a Smart Update unless there is > additional space (above and beyond the eventual size of the updated clone) > available as "working space" for it to move things around, etc. when it > updates the clone. What you say is technically true, but as a user of SuperDuper! for a number of years now I have never experienced a problem when having the target drive be the same size as the source drive. I think if under such circumstances a problem did arise it would likely be a signal that the source drive is too full. SignatureJames Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com > [responding to my stating how one can use Disk Utility to create a disk > partition the same size as one's internal drive and which will be used as the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > problem did arise it would likely be a signal that the source drive is too > full. So, how much bigger is your target drive (or partition) compared to your internal drive? SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.4) > So, how much bigger is your target drive (or partition) compared to your > internal drive? My SuperDuper! source and target drives are the same size, The total size and number of files on the target are just a bit smaller on the target as SuperDuper! doesn't backup, as recommended by Apple, certain files. SignatureJames Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com >> So, how much bigger is your target drive (or partition) compared to your >> internal drive? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the target as SuperDuper! doesn't backup, as recommended by Apple, certain > files. Full circle! ;) SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.4) >[responding to my stating how one can use Disk Utility to create a disk >partition the same size as one's internal drive and which will be used as the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >problem did arise it would likely be a signal that the source drive is too >full. I have an internal 500 GB drive and an external 750 GB drive partioned into 250 GB and 500 GB. I use the 500 GB partition for SuperDuper. My internal drive is about 2/3 full. Every now and then I need to do some file reorganization and I move many LARGE files around into different directories. When SD next runs, it sees that files/folders have changed and it begins to copy these files to the external drive. But these files already exist on the external drive -- only in a different folder. Before SD can delete the older versions the disk fills up and SD quits. So it does help to have a larger capacity that the original drive. -db- Signature+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ | David O. Blanchard dob@npgcable.com Flagstaff, Arizona | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ ... ... > ... I move many LARGE files around into > different directories. When SD next runs, it sees that files/folders > have changed and it begins to copy these files to the external drive. > But these files already exist on the external drive -- only in a > different folder. Before SD can delete the older versions the disk > fills up and SD quits. ... How does it subsequently recover? SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.4) >... >... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >How does it subsequently recover? It doesn't. I re-run SD with "Erase then Copy...", then resume Smart Updates. A real pain. It has happened twice but now I minimize the moving of files/folders to avoid this problem. -db- Signature+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ | David O. Blanchard dob@npgcable.com Flagstaff, Arizona | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > >How does it subsequently recover? > > > It doesn't. I re-run SD with "Erase then Copy...", then resume Smart > Updates. A real pain. It has happened twice but now I minimize the > moving of files/folders to avoid this problem. i usually delete the folder(s) of stuff that changed to free up some space, rather than clone the entire drive. >> ... >> ... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -db- That's clearly a good reason for allocating _a lot_ of extra space when setting up a partition for SD! Hmmm...In effect, you've created a SD! volume that's 50% larger than the "working" size of your internal drive -- yet you _still_ run into occasional problems? Those "many LARGE files" must occupy a _significant_ amount of space! (You may want to -- _need_ to -- back up those "many LARGE files" to their own dedicated backup drive, before your internal drive fills up much with much more data.) SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.4) >>>> ... I move many LARGE files around into >>>> different directories. When SD next runs, it sees that files/folders [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >own dedicated backup drive, before your internal drive fills up much with >much more data.) The data files vary in size up to about 150 MB and collectively they consume about 275 GB, or more than 1/2 of the internal drive. These files are generated at the rate of two new files per day so the collection continues to grow. But the retention period of the older and larger files (about 150 GB total) is drawing to a close and I will be able to delete them soon. Once that is done, there shouldn't be a problem with SD for two reasons: the total storage will have decreased substantially and, more importantly, the remaining, newer files are smaller and therefore less likely to cause the disk to fill when SD first copies and then deletes. -db- Signature+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ | David O. Blanchard dob@npgcable.com Flagstaff, Arizona | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > But I also know that there are occasions > when SD! _can_ have a problem making a Smart Update unless there is > additional space (above and beyond the eventual size of the updated clone) > available as "working space" for it to move things around, etc. when it > updates the clone. Can you please provide some references for this. Signaturedorayme > In article <C523DE78.1313F%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym > <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Can you please provide some references for this. Here is a snippet from the SuperDuper! online user guide. Unfortunately the spacing between paragraphs got lost in the copying and pasting. ==================== Out of space Out of space errors are signaled by a message in the log similar to ³No space left on device². This could mean the disk is really full, or that damage to the file is making OS X think the disk is full. If the destination volume is actually full, and the source volume should definitely fit on the destination, this could be because Smart Update needs more ³working space². This is because Smart Update works its way through a volume in a single pass, and copies or deletes files and folders as it encounters them. If you rename a large folder or file, or add one folder and delete another, Smart Update may encounter the new file or folder before it deletes the old. In that case, it temporarily needs enough disk space to hold both the old and new versions. To work around this problem, simply perform a single Erase, then copy, and then switch back to Smart Update. A file that¹s being aggressively written to at the moment it¹s being backed up can also cause a volume to become full. When this happens, the file can look bigger to OS X than it really is, which fills the destination volume. In this situation, you should also use Erase, then copy, and make sure that no programs are running during the copy by logging out and back in with Shift held down. If the file listed in the log isn¹t large, and isn¹t being actively written to, it¹s possible that the file itself is damaged. To repair, use Disk Utility or DiskWarrior to check the structure of the source and destination volumes, then try the backup again. (Note that you might need to restart from your OSX Install Disc to repair the source volume. To do so, boot from the disc, then choose Disk Utility from the Installer menu. Use that to repair the disc¹s structure (not permissions use the buttons on the right hand side). Then, boot back and give the backup another try. ==================== SignatureJames Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com > > In article <C523DE78.1313F%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym > > <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Out of space Out of space errors are signaled by a message in the log similar > to 3No space left on device2. Righto, thanks. My policy has been never to come close to filling any hard disk. So, I guess, having same size disk works for me. Also note that out of space error messages can indicate faults that need fixing and that having a backup that is much bigger than the disk being copied could mask and store up trouble. This latter does not mean you should not have such a larger disk, just that there is a certain silver lining to not having it larger. Signaturedorayme > [querying about how one states the size of a hard drive] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I go by the sizes reported by Disk Utility which states that my Maxtor 320 GB > drives can hold 2998.1 GB of data. Wow! nearly 10-fold compression -- outstanding. ;-) SignatureTom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF > > I want to create and save a SuperDuper! clone of my 320 GB internal drive to > > a 750 GB external drive. So as not to waste most of the external's available [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > size as that being cloned that SuperDuper! will create a backup without a > problem. I am glad to hear this. I have two 250GB inside my G4, one is purely for BU and have an external one partitioned for 250GB (for a second external mostly unplugged HD) and other partitions for other things. And I simply assumed all was fine with SD, even with smart update. Signaturedorayme > I want to create and save a SuperDuper! clone of my 320 GB internal drive to > a 750 GB external drive. So as not to waste most of the external's available [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Anyone know? Nick, I have an external HD that I partitioned into two drives called SuperDuper Back Up and Time Machine Back Up. I then back up my primary drive with SD and TM to the external drive. This has been working great and has saved my six more than one time. If I had to give up one, the TM would go. >> I want to create and save a SuperDuper! clone of my 320 GB internal drive to >> a 750 GB external drive. So as not to waste most of the external's available [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > This has been working great and has saved my six more than > one time. If I had to give up one, the TM would go. I already have another 750 GB external devoted entirely to TM. But devoting the second 750 GB drive entirely to SD! Seems like an incredible waste of space. SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.4) > >> I want to create and save a SuperDuper! clone of my 320 GB internal drive > >> to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the second 750 GB drive entirely to SD! Seems like an incredible waste of > space. I agree.... you are wasting a drive by dedicating it to the TM. Partition it and do both TM and SD to the same drive >>>> I want to create and save a SuperDuper! clone of my 320 GB internal drive >>>> to [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I agree.... you are wasting a drive by dedicating it to the TM. > Partition it and do both TM and SD to the same drive Huh? Dedicating one drive to TM is wasteful? Don't you mean "SD" instead of "TM?" SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.4) > >>>> I want to create and save a SuperDuper! clone of my 320 GB internal drive > >>>> to [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Huh? Dedicating one drive to TM is wasteful? Don't you mean "SD" instead of > "TM?" Sorry if I was not clear but I use one external drive for both SD and TM and it works great. >>>>>> I want to create and save a SuperDuper! clone of my 320 GB internal drive >>>>>> to [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Sorry if I was not clear but I use one external drive for both SD and TM > and it works great. How big is the internal; how full is it; and how big is the SD/TM external? SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.4) > How big is the internal; how full is it; and how big is the SD/TM external? I replied to the wrong post My primary drive is 250 but I only use about 80. Split a 300 GB external into two equal partitions. One for TM and the other for SD. Both are happy and everything works. > I agree.... you are wasting a drive by dedicating it to the TM. > Partition it and do both TM and SD to the same drive The point is that there's no benefit of any sort to devoting more space to a clone backup than the source volume's capacity, whereas the larger the TM volume, the further back in time your backups will go. You may never go back that far to recover files, of course, but there's still a potential benefit. SignatureI kill Google Groups posts. See http://improve-usenet.org for details. <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude >> I agree.... you are wasting a drive by dedicating it to the TM. >> Partition it and do both TM and SD to the same drive [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > never go back that far to recover files, of course, but there's still a > potential benefit. There is a benefit: It provides additional "headroom" for SD! to do its Smart Updates. SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.4) > > The point is that there's no benefit of any sort to devoting more space > > to a clone backup than the source volume's capacity, whereas the larger [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There is a benefit: It provides additional "headroom" for SD! to do its > Smart Updates. By the time that matters your source is so close to full that you need to do something about that directly. Anyway, my point in responding to aRKay was to explain why the larger the potentially better for TM but not so for SD. SignatureI kill Google Groups posts. See http://improve-usenet.org for details. <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude >>> The point is that there's no benefit of any sort to devoting more space >>> to a clone backup than the source volume's capacity, whereas the larger [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > By the time that matters your source is so close to full that you need > to do something about that directly. Not true. "Out of Space" errors could be triggered by insufficient "working space" on the destination volume. From the user manual: -------------------------- Out of space Out of space errors are signaled by a message in the log similar to ³No space left on device². This could mean the disk is really full, or that damage to the file is making OS X think the disk is full. If the destination volume is actually full, and the source volume should definitely fit on the destination, this could be because Smart Update needs more ³working space². This is because Smart Update works its way through a volume in a single pass, and copies or deletes files and folders as it encounters them. If you rename a large folder or file, or add one folder and delete another, Smart Update may encounter the new file or folder before it deletes the old. In that case, it temporarily needs enough disk space to hold both the old and new versions. To work around this problem, simply perform a single Erase, then copy, and then switch back to Smart Update. A file that¹s being aggressively written to at the moment it¹s being backed up can also cause a volume to become full. When this happens, the file can look bigger to OS X than it really is, which fills the destination volume. In this situation, you should also use Erase, then copy, and make sure that no programs are running during the copy by logging out and back in with Shift held down. If the file listed in the log isn¹t large, and isn¹t being actively written to, it¹s possible that the file itself is damaged. To repair, use Disk Utility or DiskWarrior to check the structure of the source and destination volumes, then try the backup again. (Note that you might need to restart from your OSX Install Disc to repair the source volume. To do so, boot from the disc, then choose Disk Utility from the Installer menu. Use that to repair the disc¹s structure (not permissions use the buttons on the right hand side). Then, boot back and give the backup another try. -------------------------- (BTW: TaliesinSoft quoted the same text earlier this week.) > Anyway, my point in responding to aRKay was to explain why the larger > the potentially better for TM but not so for SD. I understand. But I think it could be misleading, unless aRKay has been following -- and interpreting your statement in the context of -- the thread in more detail. SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.4) > >> There is a benefit: It provides additional "headroom" for SD! to do its > >> Smart Updates. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Not true. "Out of Space" errors could be triggered by insufficient "working > space" on the destination volume. I know that, but if your source and target volumes are the same size, this will only happen if the source is close to full. SignatureI kill Google Groups posts. See http://improve-usenet.org for details. <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude > > >> There is a benefit: It provides additional "headroom" for SD! to do its > > >> Smart Updates. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I know that, but if your source and target volumes are the same size, > this will only happen if the source is close to full. I've felt for a long time that partitioning is more expensive (in terms of time and effort spent on the day that you run out of space in one of the partitions) than simply purchasing larger drives. When you partition, you impose hard limits on what would otherwise be limited only by the size of the physical device. You could also increase the risk of data loss depending on usage, because multiple partitions are at risk when the device fails. SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR >snip > I've felt for a long time that partitioning is more expensive (in terms > of time and effort spent on the day that you run out of space in one of > the partitions) than simply purchasing larger drives. To me one partition for Time Machine and one for a clone (Carbon Copy Cloner or Super Duper) seems ideal. If the internal disk fails you can just boot from the clone and keep working. Time Machine gives you an incremental backup in case a file becomes corrupted or you delete something and need it later. Ned > > >> There is a benefit: It provides additional "headroom" for SD! to do its > > >> Smart Updates. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I know that, but if your source and target volumes are the same size, > this will only happen if the source is close to full. it will happen any time you move more files than fits in the free space. for instance, if you move or rename a folder containing 30 gigs of photos, videos and/or music and the drive has 25 gigs free (not what one would consider 'close to full'), you *will* have a problem. also, being close to full is not an issue for non-boot drives. > > > Not true. "Out of Space" errors could be triggered by insufficient > > > "working space" on the destination volume. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of photos, videos and/or music and the drive has 25 gigs free (not what > one would consider 'close to full'), you *will* have a problem. The OP is backing up his boot drive, a 320 GB internal drive. When he has over 295 GB on it, I _would_ consider it close to full. > also, being close to full is not an issue for non-boot drives. True, but... SignatureI kill Google Groups posts. See http://improve-usenet.org for details. <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude > >> I agree.... you are wasting a drive by dedicating it to the TM. > >> Partition it and do both TM and SD to the same drive [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > There is a benefit: It provides additional "headroom" for SD! to do its > Smart Updates. Not to beat a dead horse.... The TM will will up whatever partition size you allocate then start tossing the oldest to make space for new updates. My primary drive uses about 80 GB out of the 250 GB drive. I have a 300 GB External drive that has two partitions. One for the TM is 150 and the other for SD is about the same. The TM filled up its partition pretty fast and now tosses the oldest each time it needs more space and SD is happy with its partition. I do not let the TM do it own thing. I keep it off until I am ready to back up then run it. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.