Parallels disk image tough on Time Machine?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: on xenical a vendre commander xenical en France soft pharmacie en ligne canada xenical Generique Inde xenical canada commande en ligne femme en termes de xenical en France
Next: self-powered usb hub
From: Bob on 5 May 2008 17:54 I remember reading that an application like Outlook could be tough on Time Machine because it uses one big data file that changes often, and so Time Machine has to keep writing this entire file to the external disk (unlike Mail.app that, I believe, keeps its data as individual files so that only the relatively smaller files that change get backed up). If this is correct, does this mean that the Parallels entire disc image must be written and rewritten every hour (or whatever) by Time Machine because it's essentially one potentially huge file (if that's how Parallels does it)? Is it possible to backup, say, Outlook's data (from inside Parallels running XP) to a separate disk as you normally would running XP natively -- that is, saving the data separate and "outside" of the disk image Parallels work with?
From: Richard Maine on 5 May 2008 18:17 Bob <no(a)mailplease.com> wrote: > I remember reading that an application like Outlook could be tough on Time > Machine because it uses one big data file that changes often, and so Time > Machine has to keep writing this entire file to the external disk (unlike > Mail.app that, I believe, keeps its data as individual files so that only > the relatively smaller files that change get backed up). > > If this is correct, does this mean that the Parallels entire disc image must > be written and rewritten every hour (or whatever) by Time Machine because > it's essentially one potentially huge file (if that's how Parallels does > it)? Yes, definitely. Therefore, one usually excludes the Parallels disk image from Time machine. Note that it does get written only if it changed during the hour, so if you happen not to be running WIndows then, it won't change. But if you are running Windows, then something in the file will be changed, guaranteed (and worse, it is probably changing during th ebackup). > Is it possible to backup, say, Outlook's data (from inside Parallels running > XP) to a separate disk as you normally would running XP natively -- that is, > saving the data separate and "outside" of the disk image Parallels work > with? Yes. That's A common way to do it, and the one I use. It depends on the particular application how easy it is to make it keep copies of its data on a separate drive. For Quicken and Quickbooks (which I use), it is easy. The separate drive in question is a Mac folder mounted as a network drive in Windows; Parallels (and VMware) provide easy ways to do that. If you are looking at Outlook, then I don't see how this particularly helps. It is Outlook's own file that is problematic, so that's going to continue to be problematic no matter where you store it. Storing it in a Parallsls disk image just makes the problem bigger. I suppose that at least you could control how often it gets copied, which in turn will control how often TM backs it up. But then, I don't use Outlook, so everything I know about it is second or third hand. -- Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: weedhopper on 5 May 2008 22:04 "Richard Maine" <nospam(a)see.signature> wrote in message news:1igh3dg.v0t8t2wqsmrsN%nospam(a)see.signature... > Bob <no(a)mailplease.com> wrote: > >> I remember reading that an application like Outlook could be tough on >> Time >> Machine because it uses one big data file that changes often, and so Time >> Machine has to keep writing this entire file to the external disk (unlike >> Mail.app that, I believe, keeps its data as individual files so that only >> the relatively smaller files that change get backed up). >> >> If this is correct, does this mean that the Parallels entire disc image >> must >> be written and rewritten every hour (or whatever) by Time Machine because >> it's essentially one potentially huge file (if that's how Parallels does >> it)? > > Yes, definitely. Therefore, one usually excludes the Parallels disk > image from Time machine. Note that it does get written only if it > changed during the hour, so if you happen not to be running WIndows > then, it won't change. But if you are running Windows, then something in > the file will be changed, guaranteed (and worse, it is probably changing > during th ebackup). No - XP would put it in cashe and save it until it could load it. >> Is it possible to backup, say, Outlook's data (from inside Parallels >> running >> XP) to a separate disk as you normally would running XP natively -- that >> is, >> saving the data separate and "outside" of the disk image Parallels work >> with? You are complicating matters by having Parallels on your machine. you don't need it. > Yes. That's A common way to do it, and the one I use. It depends on the > particular application how easy it is to make it keep copies of its data > on a separate drive. For Quicken and Quickbooks (which I use), it is > easy. The separate drive in question is a Mac folder mounted as a > network drive in Windows; Parallels (and VMware) provide easy ways to do > that. > > If you are looking at Outlook, then I don't see how this particularly > helps. It is Outlook's own file that is problematic, so that's going to > continue to be problematic no matter where you store it. No. It is not an Outlook problem. You have overcomplicated your machine. > >Storing it in a Parallsls disk image just makes the problem bigger. I >suppose that at > least you could control how often it gets copied, which in turn will > control how often TM backs it up. > > But then, I don't use Outlook, so everything I know about it is second > or third hand. Yes - that is evident.
From: steveballmer on 5 May 2008 22:24 On May 5, 5:54 pm, "Bob" <n...(a)mailplease.com> wrote: > I remember reading that an application like Outlook could be tough on Time > Machine because it uses one big data file that changes often, and so Time > Machine has to keep writing this entire file to the external disk (unlike > Mail.app that, I believe, keeps its data as individual files so that only > the relatively smaller files that change get backed up). > > If this is correct, does this mean that the Parallels entire disc image must > be written and rewritten every hour (or whatever) by Time Machine because > it's essentially one potentially huge file (if that's how Parallels does > it)? > > Is it possible to backup, say, Outlook's data (from inside Parallels running > XP) to a separate disk as you normally would running XP natively -- that is, > saving the data separate and "outside" of the disk image Parallels work > with? Delete the Mac partition!
From: Jerry Kindall on 5 May 2008 22:45
In article <2104c084-1656-4d89-aaf7-339746f4dfb7(a)z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, steveballmer <ballmerrules(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 5, 5:54�pm, "Bob" <n...(a)mailplease.com> wrote: > > I remember reading that an application like Outlook could be tough on Time > > Machine because it uses one big data file that changes often, and so Time > > Machine has to keep writing this entire file to the external disk (unlike > > Mail.app that, I believe, keeps its data as individual files so that only > > the relatively smaller files that change get backed up). > > > > If this is correct, does this mean that the Parallels entire disc image must > > be written and rewritten every hour (or whatever) by Time Machine because > > it's essentially one potentially huge file (if that's how Parallels does > > it)? > > > > Is it possible to backup, say, Outlook's data (from inside Parallels running > > XP) to a separate disk as you normally would running XP natively -- that is, > > saving the data separate and "outside" of the disk image Parallels work > > with? > > Delete the Mac partition! Time Machine won't work at all if you do that. -- Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA <http://www.jerrykindall.com/> Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address. This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses. |