My MBP 2010 17" only has 2GB left and there is no announcement of MBP 2016

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by hajime, Sep 7, 2016.

  1. hajime macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    #1
    Back in January, I upgraded the HD of my MBP to 1TB Samsung Evo 850 SSD. As we all know, no new announcement about new MBP today. We also do not know for sure if we could buy a new MBP in October. What suggestion do you have? Shall I upgrade the SSD of my 2010 MBP to 2T and wait for Kaby Lake MBP hopefully to be available next year?
     
  2. Mr_Brightside_@ macrumors 68030

    Mr_Brightside_@

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Location:
    Toronto
  3. theluggage macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    #3
    Why not get a "data doubler" or similar, which lets you mount a second HD or SSD in place of the optical drive?
     
  4. McScooby macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Location:
    The Paps of Glenn Close, Scotland.
    #4
    I'd say get used to 1TB, unless you expect to drop over $4k for a 2TB MBP if it launches!;)
     
  5. blesscheese macrumors 6502a

    blesscheese

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Location:
    Central CA
    #5
    Well, I'll raise you, my 2009 MBA finally had a hinge break *YESTERDAY*, and I've been waiting for a new MBA, or a thinner rMBP, but -- you guessed it -- neither was announced today. I guess I'll have to limp along for another 4 weeks, doubtless something about Mac's ("isn't that what my grandparents use?") will eventually dribble out...
     
  6. Samuelsan2001 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    #6
    Firstly turn time machine off and on then reboot, you may well free up some space that is being used for local backups. Then just delete some old rubbish you no longer need or use, finally archive any seldom use files, media etc on an external drive. You may be surprised how much space you can create with a bit of housecleaning.
     
  7. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #7
    Instead of forgoing a backup solution which is dangerous and not recommended issue the following terminal command
    Code:
    sudo tmutil disablelocal
    This will stop the local snapshots
     
  8. Samuelsan2001 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    #8
    I must admit I do assume that people have an external backup of some description, if they don't then they only have themselves to blame.
     
  9. chrfr macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    #9
    Time Machine is an external backup.
     
  10. Samuelsan2001 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    #10
    No time machine will make local snapshots on your internal hard drive if it is turned on and you have no specified external connected.

    You can use it to make an external back up that is its primary use of course, but this is for when you are on the move away from an external drive, this can use up a surprising amount of space over time.
     
  11. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #11
    And you told him to stop that backup
    --- Post Merged, Sep 8, 2016 ---
    It makes internal snapshots, but it then backs up to an external drive. Its not an internal backup only solution
     
  12. Samuelsan2001, Sep 8, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2016

    Samuelsan2001 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    #12
    No I told him to turn of his time machine and turn it back on again to free up space on his internal hard drive my assumption was he used an external as a back up and would have recent back up to use if anything went wrong.

    I know it's not internal only but if they haven't backed up in ages a surprising amount of space can be taken up by those snapshots.

    Hopefully this little article will express this better than me as I'm clearly not making much sense.

    http://www.howtogeek.com/212207/how...d-by-time-machines-local-backups-on-your-mac/
     
  13. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #13
    That has zero affect. The local snaps will be deleted but will be recreated with usage.

    My solution doesn't stop the backups, but stops the local snapshops
     
  14. Samuelsan2001 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    #14
    True but if it's used 100gb in local snapshots (see article above) then that will see the op through for a few months.
     
  15. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #15
    or he can just turn off the local snapshots and save more space ;)
     
  16. Samuelsan2001 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    #16
    True but then they don't have those snapshots to fall back on in the future as you yourself pointed out..

    My advice was in reply to the original question about needing enough space for a few months until the new mbp's come out. Not a permanent solution to the local snapshot possible issue.

    Of course this all may be an utterly pointless discussion if they have TM turned off already, or very little space taken up by snapshots, then we'll just look silly....
     
  17. hajime thread starter macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    #17
    If I create a Time Machine backup of the MBP 2010. Then, delete most of the user data (as I have a copy in the external drive) on the local SSD or reinstalling Mac OS and then copy just a few user files, will the machine run faster? I am not sure but I think I read somebody mentioning that when the disk space is running out, the system becomes slower.

    For your information, I have partitioned 600GB for Mac OS and 400GB for Bootcamp Windows.
     
  18. psingh01 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #18
    your mbp may not be able to work with a 2TB drive. At least I don't think mine can't when I checked. I had a datadoubler on mine but it drains the battery fast (not that I ever used it much unplugged). That is your best bet other than an external drive.

    it is no longer my main machine and I "upgraded" to a macbook air 3 years ago. Roughly the same performance in a smaller/lighter package. Only has a 512gb so I had to deal with using an external drive for things like itunes/photo libraries. The rest is ok.
     
  19. ApfelKuchen macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Location:
    Between the coasts
    #19
    Machines generally run faster when they have a bit more free space than you have. The rule of thumb is to have 10% of free space, though that's a very imprecise rule, as 10% of a 128GB drive (12.8 GB) is just a bit more than 1% of a 1TB drive. You certainly don't need 60 GB of free space on your 600 GB partition to avoid performance problems. You might aim to have 15-20 GB of free space. That'll leave enough space to upgrade to MacOS Sierra when the time comes.

    Note that, if you delete files from your HDD and depend on your Time Machine backup if you need them again... you don't have a real backup of those files. To be safe, move the files to a second external drive - the "backup" will still be in Time Machine.

    You may also want to include that second external drive in your new Time Machine backups, especially if you're adding/modifying the files on that second external drive. Go into Preferences > Time Machine >Options... and remove the external drive from the Exclude list.

    Your machine could be updated to Sierra, provided you clear enough free space. With Sierra, you can take advantage of Optimized Storage. It may save you space without buying extra storage in iCloud... but if you wanted to buy iCloud storage you'd have yet another option for managing space while waiting for the next MacBook model.
     
  20. hajime thread starter macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    #20

    Thanks. As far as I recall, a certain amount of disk space is required in order to make the copy operation works. Anybody knows the amount? I recall that in the past, I had so few disk space that deleting files nor copying was not possible. Don't recall if it was under Mac OS or Windows 7.
     
  21. ApfelKuchen macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Location:
    Between the coasts
    #21
    The amount is variable, as it depends on the size of the file you're copying. There's a certain amount of space needed over and above the file size, but modern operating systems can be performing so many tasks hidden from the user (caching and the like) that it seems pointless to come up with a hard-and-fast number for that "overhead." You could be streaming a video that requires more space for buffering than the copy operation you're trying to do at the same time.
     

Share This Page