On 07/09/2022 17:03, nospam wrote:

In article <tfaev8$2708$[email protected]>, Richard Tobin <[email protected]> wrote:

Is the following summary of how you can use a disk for both Time
Machine and other storage correct?

don't do that. time machine wants the entire drive. you could partition
it, but drives are cheap enough that there's no reason do that. get
another drive for whatever other storage you might need.

Agreed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Is the following summary of how you can use a disk for both Time
Machine and other storage correct?

If you use HFS+ for the disk:

- you can store other data either on the Time Machine volume or on
another volume on the same disk
- if you use two volumes you are stuck with the sizes you chose
- you can't use HFS+ for a new Time Machine volume on the latest
versions of MacOS

If you use APFS:

- you can't store other data on the Time Machine volume; you must
create a second one
- but you don't have to choose the volume sizes in advance, they
will just share the space

-- Richard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <tfaev8$2708$[email protected]>, Richard Tobin <[email protected]> wrote:

Is the following summary of how you can use a disk for both Time
Machine and other storage correct?

don't do that. time machine wants the entire drive. you could partition
it, but drives are cheap enough that there's no reason do that. get
another drive for whatever other storage you might need.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/09/2022 17:03, nospam wrote:

In article <tfaev8$2708$[email protected]>, Richard Tobin <[email protected]> wrote:

Is the following summary of how you can use a disk for both Time
Machine and other storage correct?

don't do that. time machine wants the entire drive. you could partition
it, but drives are cheap enough that there's no reason do that. get
another drive for whatever other storage you might need.

Problem is finding enough sockets to plug everything in to :-)

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <tfaktg$9hl5$[email protected]>, Graeme Wall <[email protected]> wrote:

Is the following summary of how you can use a disk for both Time
Machine and other storage correct?

don't do that. time machine wants the entire drive. you could partition
it, but drives are cheap enough that there's no reason do that. get
another drive for whatever other storage you might need.

Problem is finding enough sockets to plug everything in to :-)

mains or usb?

both have solutions.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/09/2022 19:05, nospam wrote:

In article <tfaktg$9hl5$[email protected]>, Graeme Wall <[email protected]> wrote:

Is the following summary of how you can use a disk for both Time
Machine and other storage correct?

don't do that. time machine wants the entire drive. you could partition
it, but drives are cheap enough that there's no reason do that. get
another drive for whatever other storage you might need.

Problem is finding enough sockets to plug everything in to :-)

mains or usb?

both have solutions.

Mains is actually easier than usb/lightning/thunderbolt! I've 2 x 4-way
panels for mains. For signals, the only spare port on the mini is the
hdmi as I have nothing that uses it. That takes care of the scanner,
display, TM drive, charging/sync for iphones/ipads/keyboard and mouse.
The studio display ports will have the printer, cd/dvd drive and stills
camera connection, leaves me with one spare usb port for another
external drive.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sep 7, 2022, Graeme Wall wrote
(in article <tfatq6$af2i$[email protected]>):

Mains is actually easier than usb/lightning/thunderbolt! I've 2 x 4-way panels for mains.

When I had my study rewired, the electrician asked how many power points I wanted under my desk. I said twenty should be enough. He was amazed, but
fitted them.

I'm currently using seventeen, although I did once need nineteen.

Waste of time fitting that twentieth, then.

MST

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07 Sep 2022 at 22:12:33 BST, Martin S Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sep 7, 2022, Graeme Wall wrote
(in article <tfatq6$af2i$[email protected]>):

Mains is actually easier than usb/lightning/thunderbolt! I've 2 x 4-way
panels for mains.

When I had my study rewired, the electrician asked how many power points I wanted under my desk. I said twenty should be enough. He was amazed, but fitted them.

I just had a floor pocket put in, with four AC, and the usual phone+ethernet sockets. Most of my actual socket are after the UPS which uses just one of the power sockets.

--
Tim

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/09/2022 22:12, Martin S Taylor wrote:

On Sep 7, 2022, Graeme Wall wrote
(in article <tfatq6$af2i$[email protected]>):

Mains is actually easier than usb/lightning/thunderbolt! I've 2 x 4-way
panels for mains.

When I had my study rewired, the electrician asked how many power points I wanted under my desk. I said twenty should be enough. He was amazed, but fitted them.

I'm currently using seventeen, although I did once need nineteen.

Waste of time fitting that twentieth, then.

I've two more 4 way panels and two single wall sockets in the rest of
the study. Just about copes :-)



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7 Sep 2022 at 22:12:33 BST, "Martin S Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sep 7, 2022, Graeme Wall wrote
(in article <tfatq6$af2i$[email protected]>):

Mains is actually easier than usb/lightning/thunderbolt! I've 2 x 4-way
panels for mains.

When I had my study rewired, the electrician asked how many power points I wanted under my desk. I said twenty should be enough. He was amazed, but fitted them.

I'm currently using seventeen, although I did once need nineteen.

Waste of time fitting that twentieth, then.

Heh. My "all the things" table has a pair of 9 way sockets under, of
which three are available.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"The only way to comprehend what mathematicians mean
by infinity is to contemplate the extent of human stupidity."
-- Voltaire

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/09/2022 16:56, Richard Tobin wrote:

Is the following summary of how you can use a disk for both Time
Machine and other storage correct?

If you use HFS+ for the disk:

- you can store other data either on the Time Machine volume or on
another volume on the same disk
- if you use two volumes you are stuck with the sizes you chose
- you can't use HFS+ for a new Time Machine volume on the latest
versions of MacOS

If you use APFS:

- you can't store other data on the Time Machine volume; you must
create a second one
- but you don't have to choose the volume sizes in advance, they
will just share the space

I would agree with the 'don't do that' answers too. In my experience TM
cane be quite hard on drives, so I wouldn't want to risk storing other
primary data on there with it.

It's also worth considering that TM may not be a true 'backup', but a
way to recover data or a system in an emergency, or for migrating to
another machine. My thought there is simply because of the number of
failed TM drives I've had over the years it's been around. Although
while the drives themselves remain problem free, TM has always been a
good resource for me.

I was using TM on a HFS+ drive here after I upgraded my iMac to
Monterey, but that was already existing.

However, I've recently started again with it, and formatted it as APFS.
Can't say I've noticed any difference, it works fine either way. But I
do use it as a dedicated drive, with only TM being used on it (always have).


--
Andy H

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <tfd3vs$or6g$[email protected]>,
Andy Hewitt <[email protected]> wrote:

Is the following summary of how you can use a disk for both Time
Machine and other storage correct?

If you use HFS+ for the disk:

- you can store other data either on the Time Machine volume or on
another volume on the same disk
- if you use two volumes you are stuck with the sizes you chose
- you can't use HFS+ for a new Time Machine volume on the latest
versions of MacOS

If you use APFS:

- you can't store other data on the Time Machine volume; you must
create a second one
- but you don't have to choose the volume sizes in advance, they
will just share the space

I would agree with the 'don't do that' answers too. In my experience TM
cane be quite hard on drives, so I wouldn't want to risk storing other >primary data on there with it.

In most cases, a Time Machine disk - assuming it's only backing up one
disk - will be *less* heavily used than the disk it's backing up,
since many short-lived files will never make it to the backup. Of
course nowadays your primary disk will usually be an SSD, which
complicates comparisons.

But in any case, I wouldn't suggest using it for primary data, because
you'd want a backup of it! The sort of thing I was thinking of is
a backup copy of some static data that's not on the Mac.

I'd still appreciate it if someone could confirm the technical summary
above.

-- Richard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/09/2022 17:34, Richard Tobin wrote:

In article <tfd3vs$or6g$[email protected]>,
Andy Hewitt <[email protected]> wrote:

Is the following summary of how you can use a disk for both Time
Machine and other storage correct?

If you use HFS+ for the disk:

- you can store other data either on the Time Machine volume or on
another volume on the same disk
- if you use two volumes you are stuck with the sizes you chose
- you can't use HFS+ for a new Time Machine volume on the latest
versions of MacOS

If you use APFS:

- you can't store other data on the Time Machine volume; you must
create a second one
- but you don't have to choose the volume sizes in advance, they
will just share the space

I would agree with the 'don't do that' answers too. In my experience TM
cane be quite hard on drives, so I wouldn't want to risk storing other
primary data on there with it.

In most cases, a Time Machine disk - assuming it's only backing up one
disk - will be *less* heavily used than the disk it's backing up,
since many short-lived files will never make it to the backup. Of
course nowadays your primary disk will usually be an SSD, which
complicates comparisons.

Yup, had the discussion before with that. Mine does backup a couple of
extra drives too, and I can hear it chuntering away frequently, more
than any other disk I use.

As I said 'In my experience'. The TM drive has been the one I've
replaced most often for hardware failures.

But in any case, I wouldn't suggest using it for primary data, because
you'd want a backup of it! The sort of thing I was thinking of is
a backup copy of some static data that's not on the Mac. >
I'd still appreciate it if someone could confirm the technical summary
above.

Have you checked the Apple documentation?

--
Andy H

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/09/2022 18:28, Andy Hewitt wrote:

On 08/09/2022 17:34, Richard Tobin wrote:

In article <tfd3vs$or6g$[email protected]>,
Andy Hewitt  <[email protected]> wrote:

Is the following summary of how you can use a disk for both Time
Machine and other storage correct?

If you use HFS+ for the disk:

   - you can store other data either on the Time Machine volume or on >>>>      another volume on the same disk
   - if you use two volumes you are stuck with the sizes you chose
   - you can't use HFS+ for a new Time Machine volume on the latest
     versions of MacOS

If you use APFS:

   - you can't store other data on the Time Machine volume; you must >>>>      create a second one
   - but you don't have to choose the volume sizes in advance, they
     will just share the space

I would agree with the 'don't do that' answers too. In my experience TM
cane be quite hard on drives, so I wouldn't want to risk storing other
primary data on there with it.

In most cases, a Time Machine disk - assuming it's only backing up one
disk - will be *less* heavily used than the disk it's backing up,
since many short-lived files will never make it to the backup.  Of
course nowadays your primary disk will usually be an SSD, which
complicates comparisons.

Yup, had the discussion before with that. Mine does backup a couple of
extra drives too, and I can hear it chuntering away frequently, more
than any other disk I use.

Is it feasible to run two TM drives, one backing up the internal drive
and the other separately backing up an external drive?


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9 Sep 2022 at 21:31:31 BST, "Graeme Wall" <[email protected]>
wrote:

On 08/09/2022 18:28, Andy Hewitt wrote:

On 08/09/2022 17:34, Richard Tobin wrote:

In article <tfd3vs$or6g$[email protected]>,
Andy Hewitt <[email protected]> wrote:

Is the following summary of how you can use a disk for both Time
Machine and other storage correct?

If you use HFS+ for the disk:

- you can store other data either on the Time Machine volume or on >>>>> another volume on the same disk
- if you use two volumes you are stuck with the sizes you chose
- you can't use HFS+ for a new Time Machine volume on the latest
versions of MacOS

If you use APFS:

- you can't store other data on the Time Machine volume; you must >>>>> create a second one
- but you don't have to choose the volume sizes in advance, they
will just share the space

I would agree with the 'don't do that' answers too. In my experience TM >>>> cane be quite hard on drives, so I wouldn't want to risk storing other >>>> primary data on there with it.

In most cases, a Time Machine disk - assuming it's only backing up one
disk - will be *less* heavily used than the disk it's backing up,
since many short-lived files will never make it to the backup. Of
course nowadays your primary disk will usually be an SSD, which
complicates comparisons.

Yup, had the discussion before with that. Mine does backup a couple of
extra drives too, and I can hear it chuntering away frequently, more
than any other disk I use.

Is it feasible to run two TM drives, one backing up the internal drive
and the other separately backing up an external drive?

Yes. You can add an indeterminate number of TM destinations, and TM will round-robin through the available ones each time it starts up (ie every
hour). So you'd get hourly backups to the internal except when the
external was connected, when it would alternate between them.

That indeterminate number is at least 4, as that's how many I've had set
at one time :)

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"The more wrong a guy gets, the louder he yells at the person
trying to help him. Which, inevitably, makes him even
wronger. But less helped."
-- Merlin Mann

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/09/2022 01:56, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:

On 9 Sep 2022 at 21:31:31 BST, "Graeme Wall" <[email protected]> wrote:

In most cases, a Time Machine disk - assuming it's only backing up one >>>> disk - will be *less* heavily used than the disk it's backing up,
since many short-lived files will never make it to the backup. Of
course nowadays your primary disk will usually be an SSD, which
complicates comparisons.

Yup, had the discussion before with that. Mine does backup a couple of
extra drives too, and I can hear it chuntering away frequently, more
than any other disk I use.

Is it feasible to run two TM drives, one backing up the internal drive
and the other separately backing up an external drive?

Yes. You can add an indeterminate number of TM destinations, and TM will round-robin through the available ones each time it starts up (ie every hour). So you'd get hourly backups to the internal except when the
external was connected, when it would alternate between them.

That indeterminate number is at least 4, as that's how many I've had set
at one time :)

Interesting, I must admit, I hadn't considered that possibility.
Although, like others, it does add the issue of connections and space to
put the drives.

Also, I've been gradually cutting down the number of drives I keep
permanently running here, only running them when I actually need the
data on them. Indeed, I'm not even leaving my iMac running all the time
either. It can be days between times I need to use it, and because I
want to save energy when it has no use being left running. It's not
significant for sure, but is measurable, and it all does add up to
noticeable savings.

Although this is mainly because I'm migrating myself away from using the desktop machine over time, and eventually will have no need for any
external HDDs (that's some time away though, as I built a solution to
moving to an iDevice only setup here).

I know I can use my iPad Pro to store stuff on an external drive, but
it's not as slick as using the desktop at the moment.

To be honest, the Time Machine drive actually has little purpose now. If
I wipe and restore any device now, it simply syncs with my iCloud data,
and all is available again. I rarely use the TM data for anything at
all, and it's unlikely to be needed for a new desktop, if my iMac dies completely, it's unlikely to be replaced (although I'd probably bung a
new HDD/SSD into it if that's all it needed).

Cheers.

--
Andy H

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/09/2022 01:56, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:

On 9 Sep 2022 at 21:31:31 BST, "Graeme Wall" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 08/09/2022 18:28, Andy Hewitt wrote:

On 08/09/2022 17:34, Richard Tobin wrote:

In article <tfd3vs$or6g$[email protected]>,
Andy Hewitt <[email protected]> wrote:

Is the following summary of how you can use a disk for both Time
Machine and other storage correct?

If you use HFS+ for the disk:

- you can store other data either on the Time Machine volume or on >>>>>> another volume on the same disk
- if you use two volumes you are stuck with the sizes you chose >>>>>> - you can't use HFS+ for a new Time Machine volume on the latest >>>>>> versions of MacOS

If you use APFS:

- you can't store other data on the Time Machine volume; you must >>>>>> create a second one
- but you don't have to choose the volume sizes in advance, they >>>>>> will just share the space

I would agree with the 'don't do that' answers too. In my experience TM >>>>> cane be quite hard on drives, so I wouldn't want to risk storing other >>>>> primary data on there with it.

In most cases, a Time Machine disk - assuming it's only backing up one >>>> disk - will be *less* heavily used than the disk it's backing up,
since many short-lived files will never make it to the backup. Of
course nowadays your primary disk will usually be an SSD, which
complicates comparisons.

Yup, had the discussion before with that. Mine does backup a couple of
extra drives too, and I can hear it chuntering away frequently, more
than any other disk I use.

Is it feasible to run two TM drives, one backing up the internal drive
and the other separately backing up an external drive?

Yes. You can add an indeterminate number of TM destinations, and TM will round-robin through the available ones each time it starts up (ie every hour). So you'd get hourly backups to the internal except when the
external was connected, when it would alternate between them.

That indeterminate number is at least 4, as that's how many I've had set
at one time :)

Useful, thanks.



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)