![which format to use for time machine on mac which format to use for time machine on mac](http://www.rainydaymagazine.com/RDM2012/RainyDaySOHO/BackupDrive/TimeMachineSetup/3TBInfoBig.jpg)
![which format to use for time machine on mac which format to use for time machine on mac](https://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/firefox-voice-search-widget.png)
The total sizes given for Files Cloned gives the expanded size of the clone-copy ( l: 5 GB) and a much smaller size of p: 1.4 MB. The total sizes given for Files Copied gives both the total expanded sizes of the two ‘original’ sparse files ( l: 10.04 GB), and a much smaller size as p: 48.2 MB. Of particular interest here are two lines. That process took approximately 0.8 seconds, and occurred before any comparison had been made between reference and stable snapshots, although both were mounted at the time.Ĭopying the files to the backup took just over 0.8 seconds, at the end of which Time Machine gave the following information about that backup:Ĥ8.480 Finished copying from volume "Data"ĥ63 Total Items Added (l: 15.09 GB p: 98.7 MB)Ģ810 Total Items Propagated (shallow) (l: Zero KB p: Zero KB)ġ020960 Total Items Propagated (recursive) (l: 150.27 GB p: 132.98 GB)ġ021523 Total Items in Backup (l: 165.36 GB p: 133.08 GB)ġ56 Files Copied (l: 10.04 GB p: 48.2 MB)Ħ Files Delta Copied (l: 47.9 MB p: 49.2 MB)ġ194 Directories Move Skipped (l: Zero KB p: Zero KB) | 1019344 items propagated (l: 135.45 GB p: 118.11 GB)ġ616 Files Move Skipped (l: Zero KB p: Zero KB) | 1616 items propagated (l: 14.81 GB p: 14.87 GB)Ģ23 Directories Copied (l: Zero KB p: Zero KB)Ĥ8.480 Reference Snapshot comparisons: Mtch:2922Ĥ8.480 Baseline comparisons: Mtch:2922,MdDte:158 Using that, TMA decided that 607 items totalling 110.1 MB had changed, not 10 or 15 GB. Of the strategies available, Time Machine chose FSEvents to determine what needed to be backed up, as it normally does for Data volumes. I then examined log extracts for the Time Machine backup which made backup copies of the three test files. Both the backups and the restored files appeared identical, with the same sparse file and shared data flags as the original files. Test files were created using Sparsity, and their status checked using Precize.įollowing the next Time Machine backup to an APFS volume, the three test files were located in Time Machine and restored from there. According to the Finder, each of those three files was 5 GB in size, but each actually occupied just a few KB on disk. Two were sparse files, whose expanded size was 5 GB each, and the third was a duplicate of one of those. To test this, I created three files on an APFS volume being backed up to an APFS volume, under macOS 11.2.3.
![which format to use for time machine on mac which format to use for time machine on mac](https://documento.mx/img/detail/5c1154bd90969.jpg)
This article explores whether Time Machine backing up to APFS (TMA) is more efficient, as most of us suspect.
#Which format to use for time machine on mac full
The result is that APFS sparse files have to be expanded to their full size, and APFS clones have to be expanded into whole files too, making HFS+ inefficient as a file system for hosting backups of APFS volumes. The latter include lack of support for sparse files, and limiting copying to whole files rather than changed storage blocks. When Time Machine backs up to HFS+ (TMH), it both uses the features of that file system to its advantage with directory hard links, and suffers from its limitations.