Whoa. Time Machine wants HOW LONG to restore?

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by thenewguy, Nov 11, 2007.

  1. thenewguy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    #1
    So today I decided to erase/reinstall leopard after my previous upgrade in order to start from scratch. Long story short I decided that i had made a mistake and so I wanted to restore from my external backup Time Machine drive (I use a MBP).

    I put in the Leopard disc, went to Utilities: Restore system from Backup (with the time machine logo) and clicked through the menus.

    The first odd thing happened when I selected the backup folder and then selected the destination drive - you know how it does a "calculating disk space" thing? Well it took about 25 minutes. I thought, OK, its just indexing or something.

    So I hit restore. It wants.....are you sitting down?

    37 hours to restore my system. And this is after an hour, so it's not just that initial miscalculation that often happens.

    This is a USB 2.0 drive, an external Seagate FreeAgent 500gb. The time machine image shouldn't be more than 120gb at most, probably less.


    Anyone have any ideas? If Time Machine really takes 30+ hours to restore an image I'd say that is a severe limitation.
     
  2. thenewguy thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    #2
    after 3.5 hours it is now up to 40 hours that it wants. and is, in fact, only 5% done.
     
  3. Blubbert macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    #3
    Wow, that does seem absurdly long. I remember when i was using ipartition to move a 320gb partition on a FW400 drive, that took about 18 hours. I kinda wonder if you would get different speeds if you use USB2.0 or FW. USB is consistenly slower on long transfers, and im wandering if it has anything to do with that. However, 40 hours for 120gb seems too long.
     
  4. thenewguy thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    #4
    Ya.

    To make sure that it wasn't a fluke, the first time I tried it I aborted an hour into it and tried it again - same thing.

    I'd say this is a pretty severe fault of Time Machine here.

    Has anyone tried to restore large folders from TM within Leopard? Or is this only a result of from-CD restores?
     
  5. lugesm macrumors 6502a

    lugesm

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    #5
    This is a disturbing bit of information regarding Time Machine.

    I don't have an explanation, but I sure would like to see one from an authoritative source.

    Have you contacted Apple Service about this? I would think that they owe you an explanation.
     
  6. GSMiller macrumors 68000

    GSMiller

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Location:
    Kentucky
    #6
    Dayum. You could have manually backed everything up and restored it without the help of Time Machine a lot quicker than 40 hours!
     
  7. wrldwzrd89 macrumors G5

    wrldwzrd89

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2003
    Location:
    Solon, OH
    #7
    How very strange. I successfully did a full restore from a Time Machine backup about the same size as yours, in 1.5 hours. I was using a FireWire 400 drive.
     
  8. lugesm macrumors 6502a

    lugesm

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    #8
    Isn't FireWire 400 about the same speed as USB-2 ?
     
  9. xUKHCx Administrator emeritus

    xUKHCx

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Kop
    #9
    Technically it is slower in practise it is faster but shouldn't be that much faster
     
  10. skye12 macrumors 65816

    skye12

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2006
    Location:
    Austin, Tx
    #10
    It took SEVEN days to create the world. Whats the problem?
     
  11. thenewguy thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    #11
    Well after 8 hours it was still on the same time line - in fact longer. After 8 hours it was 8.9% done.

    As much as I wanted to let it run and test the whole procedure (And then transfer my backup files to a FW400 drive and try it from there) I just can't be w/o my computer for a number of days - so I scrapped the restore, installed from scratch and rebuilt the system manually (dragging over library files and all of that). what a PAIN - but at least it's a fresh system.

    I really think a reputable source needs to test this issue - with USB 2.0, FW400 and FW800 drives.

    And no, I didn't call Apple Service.
     
  12. emptyCup macrumors 65816

    emptyCup

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2005
    #12
    God didn't design your computer.
     
  13. notsofatjames macrumors 6502a

    notsofatjames

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Location:
    Wales, UK
    #13
    Apple is better than god
     
  14. lugesm macrumors 6502a

    lugesm

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    #14
    It would have been interesting and possibly fruitful if Apple CS had attempted to explain this.
     
  15. GSMiller macrumors 68000

    GSMiller

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Location:
    Kentucky
    #15
    On paper USB 2.0 is a bit faster but it doesn't maintain the same speed like Firewire...Or so I've heard. I don't own any fancy hardware that uses those fancy Firewire ports :p
     
  16. Jeremy1026 macrumors 68020

    Jeremy1026

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2007
    #16
    I restored my MB from Time Machine via a USB 2.0 external HDD, it took about 30 mins to retore 40GB of information.
     
  17. brkirch macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2001
    #17
    40 hours for 120 GB means that you are getting about 900 KBytes/sec. USB 1.1 has a maximum speed of 12 MBits/sec or about 1.5 MBytes/sec. That means that you are getting USB 1.1 - not USB 2.0 - speeds for your drive for some reason.
     
  18. killmoms macrumors 68040

    killmoms

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #18
    Can a low-grade USB cable cause 2.0-capable ports to fail over to 1.1 speeds?

    This is why I avoid USB in general (except for things like flash drives). Firewire-only in my house for external hard drives and whatnot.
     
  19. OdduWon macrumors 6502a

    OdduWon

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Location:
    CaliVerse
    #19
    Some External drives have more than one FW or USB port on the back, will hooking up two wires be 2X faster :confused:
     
  20. wrldwzrd89 macrumors G5

    wrldwzrd89

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2003
    Location:
    Solon, OH
    #20
    No, it wouldn't - your Mac would become very confused, instead.
     
  21. Yateball macrumors regular

    Yateball

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    #21
    More than likely it'd stop working altogether
     
  22. FoxyKaye macrumors 68000

    FoxyKaye

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, Terre d'Ange, Bas Lag, Gallifrey
    #22
    A low-grade cable can definitely diminish transfer performance, but all the way down to 1.1 speeds, I'm not sure...

    Could be a bad cable, could be a failing internal or external HDD, could be that the external drive is in fact hooked up to a USB 1.1 port - the OP didn't specify the nature of the system. Even if the external drive is USB 2.0, it won't get these kinds of transfer speeds on a 1.1 port.
     
  23. forrestmc4 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #23
    Sounds like the OP is using a USB 1.1 port. OP, give us some specs to work with.
     
  24. killmoms macrumors 68040

    killmoms

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #24
    He mentioned he uses a MacBook Pro, so, no USB 1.1 port there, that's for sure.
     
  25. odinsride macrumors 65816

    odinsride

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    #25
    Those extra ports are for daisy chaining additional devices.
     

Share This Page