Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Time Machine and HD size

Mikebike125

Mikebike125

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Mar 25, 2007
410
65
Some basic questions about time machine.
First, I have a 2.4Ghz imac with a 500GB hd

1. If I get an external HD that is 500GB for Time machine to work, will TM require the entire drive or can I use it to store some other things also?

2. Does TM compress the data it stores?

3. I currently have only used 100GB on my current machine.
 
skunk for a demi-god thats a pretty half-arsed answer

1. Err... yes you can. time machine backs up to a folder called backups.db. you can store whatever you want on the external drive as long as it doesnt go in this folder.

2. No. although it does group past backups into days instead of hours if your interested.

3. yeah so? youve got ~400GB more backup space.
 
skunk said:
1 Apparently not

2 Apparently not

3 This is not a question.
Click to expand...
As if your response was helpful to anyone at all. So sorry but the last entry (#3) was not a question but rather a statement because I am sure others would want to know what size my HD is on my current machine.
 
I myself have a 500GB HDD.
After using TM for about a week, I began to run out of space, so this is what I did, and it is working beautifully.

Use Disk Utility to partition your external, I did 40 gigs for TM and the rest for everything else I was going to store on it. You can partition without erasing, and I have been using TM successfully for about 2 weeks now. Its done about 40 backups, the first one being the largest.

For you, I suggest partitioning to 140 gig, to allow for the first, huge, backup, and the extra forty for the small incrementals.

Hope that helps.
 
xXriderXx7 said:
For you, I suggest partitioning to 140 gig, to allow for the first, huge, backup, and the extra forty for the small incrementals.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the tip. I am going to get one, I have just heard that I need to make sure it is a Firewire drive. I started looking at all the drives that are on sale this weekend and they aal seem to be USB drives without FW capability.
 
Mikebike125 said:
Thanks for the tip. I am going to get one, I have just heard that I need to make sure it is a Firewire drive. I started looking at all the drives that are on sale this weekend and they aal seem to be USB drives without FW capability.
Click to expand...

Why do have to make sure that its a FW? USB drives work fine aswell, though have slower transfer speeds
 
xXriderXx7 said:
Agreed.
I am using a USB, and it works just fine.
Click to expand...
The guy at the Apple store had me under the impression that it is WAAAY faster.. How much I don't know. With Firewire and USB I am not sure if we are comparing a drinking straw to a garden hose or a drinking straw to a Fire Hose.

What are your thoughts?
 
richthomas said:
skunk for a demi-god thats a pretty half-arsed answer
Click to expand...
Let's clear one thing up. Demi-Gods are members who have contributed money ($25/year) to the site. They are not site moderators.

I think you took Skunk comment a little too seriously. It was meant to be amusing, I'm sure.

Mikebike125 said:
The guy at the Apple store had me under the impression that it is WAAAY faster.. How much I don't know. With Firewire and USB I am not sure if we are comparing a drinking straw to a garden hose or a drinking straw to a Fire Hose.

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
You're comparing a drinking straw to a bigger drinking straw. The speed difference for Time Machine will be negligible.
 
USB 2.0 is faster than Firewire 400, although the difference is negligible. Firewire 800 is considerably faster than USB and FW 400. If backup is the main purpose for the drive then speed really isn't much of an issue. You may still wish to purchase a drive that uses Firewire if for no other reason than to keep a USB port free (since USB is more widely used among peripherals). I have a Western Digital My Book 500GB USB drive. Very nice drive and works very well with Time Machine, speed is adequate but in hindsight I wish I had purchased a Firewire drive because now I am all out of powered USB connections and am now considering purchasing a hub. That's my 2 cents FWIW. :rolleyes:
 
If you are using about 100GB on your main computer, I would set aside 250-300GB for your Time Machine partition. That will get you a lot of backup space.
 
Incorrect.

CallsignBaron said:
USB 2.0 is faster than Firewire 400, although the difference is negligible. Firewire 800 is considerably faster than USB and FW 400. If backup is the main purpose for the drive then speed really isn't much of an issue. You may still wish to purchase a drive that uses Firewire if for no other reason than to keep a USB port free (since USB is more widely used among peripherals). I have a Western Digital My Book 500GB USB drive. Very nice drive and works very well with Time Machine, speed is adequate but in hindsight I wish I had purchased a Firewire drive because now I am all out of powered USB connections and am now considering purchasing a hub. That's my 2 cents FWIW. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You Sir are incorrect.

Firewire is always faster in real world tests.
Here are a few benchmarks preformed.

http://www.usb-ware.com/firewire-vs-usb.htm
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,847716,00.asp
 
xXriderXx7 said:
It is in fact faster, but for TM backups, I have not noticed any set backs by using USB.

Just wondering, what would you be using? Firewire 800 or 400?
Click to expand...
Well, I was looking at the FW400. I agree with the fact that most of the USB ports are getting used up pretty fast so FW seems like a better option. The primary use of this drive will be for TM and general back up stuff.
 
Just for use in the future I would go for a 750G drive to be on the safe side. Currently on my Mac Pro I have 1.3Tb with approx 600G used and a 1Tb Time Machine drive. my MBP has a 120G with 80 used and a 160G time machine drive.
 
If getting a FW drive one with a Oxford chipset is the better way to go, though more expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back