 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4
01-30-2010, 12:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Time Machine volumes are very complex to copy, very difficult & time consuming to evaluate, and hard link recreation does not update the file count... which isn't to say it's not doing anything. And they're very different in content than 'straight up' HFS+ volumes.
__________________
--Dave Nanian 
|
| Tags |
| performance, slow |
| 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 |
| Problems scheduling multiple backups | diamondsw | General | 11 | 10-07-2009 12:28 PM |
| SD and TM backups - what goes first? | Moses3d | General | 14 | 02-19-2008 02:53 PM |
| Scheduling Rotating backups | Tangobozo | General | 1 | 09-18-2006 07:49 AM |
| Feature request: "Run scheduled backups NOW" option | ChicagoLarry | General | 1 | 09-11-2006 01:29 PM |
| SuperDuper vs Tiger - slower backups? | 2stepbay | General | 31 | 10-01-2005 12:22 AM |
Threaded Mode