Time Machine and Mail: a match made in hell

http://rondam.blogspot.com/2009/07/time-machine-and-mail-match-made-in.html

by lisper • 17 years ago

26 20 17 years ago

rondam.blogspot.com

a2tech• 17 years ago

Creating an Archive folder as he describes doesn't stop Time Machine from creating all those hard links everytime it runs-so his solution doesn't fix anything. He should upgrade to a faster disk for his backup to solve his issues. I have a very large collection of mailboxes on my machine and see none of these issues he's describing.

emordnilap• 17 years ago

I think he meant that making a hard link and copying a small file take about the same time (when storing emails as individual files.)

I think the archive folder idea is a workaround for Entourage. If you have one large file that rarely changes, then making a hard link to it would be much faster than copying it.

mjtsai• 17 years ago

Creating an archive folder does help because then Time Machine can create one hard link for the directory rather than a folder containing thousands of hard links to individual message files.

The archive folder is for Apple Mail, not Entourage. Entourage stores all the mail in a single database so it doesn't matter which folders the messages are in.

tesseract• 17 years ago

Traditionally (and even now in most unices) hard links to directories were not allowed, in order to prevent endless recursive cases. Apple added the feature to HFS+ in 10.5 so that Time Machine could make use of the optimization you describe. There are rules about directory hard links so that pathological recursion still cannot happen: http://lists.apple.com/archives/darwin-dev/2007/Dec/msg00029...

xenophanes• 17 years ago

if nothing in a folder changed, then the individual files aren't hardlinked. if you dump 5k files into an archive folder, then assuming your inbox has an update, and the archive folder doesn't, it's 5k less hardlinks being made.

Locke1689• 17 years ago

And for small files, like most mail messages tend to be unless they have a lot of attachments, creating a hard link is no faster than actually copying the file.

[citation needed]

jmtulloss• 17 years ago

In my unscientific trial, it looks like the hard link is an order of magnitude faster. Still, it takes time.

  $ du -sh README.markdown
  4.0K	README.markdown

  $ time ln README.markdown README.markdown.link

  real	0m0.002s
  user	0m0.000s
  sys	0m0.001s

  $ time cp README.markdown README.markdown.copy

  real	0m0.041s
  user	0m0.000s
  sys	0m0.002s

lisper2• 17 years ago

That's pretty unscientific :-) To measure anything that fast reliably you have to do it more than once:

    [ron@mickey:~/foo]$ cat foo
    foo
    
    [ron@mickey:~/foo]$ time for i in {1..1000}; do cp foo foo.c.$i; done
    real	0m2.705s
    user	0m0.524s
    sys	0m2.190s
    
    [ron@mickey:~/foo]$ time for i in {1..1000}; do ln foo foo.l.$i; done
    real	0m2.618s
    user	0m0.486s
    sys	0m2.008s

jff• 17 years ago

The real question is why the hell Time Machine backs up at a file level instead of at a block level.

Plan 9's Venti archival storage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venti and http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/venti/venti.html) stores data as blocks, which are referenced by SHA1 hashes. Since these blocks range between 512 bytes and 56 KB, a large file (like a mail file) gets split into many blocks. The brilliant thing is that a given block will only ever be stored once; your top-level filesystem then only has to keep track of which SHA1 hashes make up a file.

With this system, people have been keeping daily snapshots of their filesystems over the course of years, and the space consumption rate actually tends to decrease over time--see the graphs at http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/venti/venti.html

rarrrrrr2• 17 years ago

Backup systems make tradeoffs to be space efficient (block level backups) or computationally efficient (using full file backups that have mostly IO cost.)

Apple made the choice to have time machine operate with little CPU burden. While this would be a tremendously poor choice for an online storage system like SpiderOak, Dropbox, SugarSync, etc. it probably makes sense for them since it's usually working with a local external drive.

I admire much of Venti's design, but last I checked, Venti didn't support recovering the space from deleted items, except by way of making a new copy of the file system.

wmf• 17 years ago

Apple made the choice to have Time Machine operate with little CPU burden.

I don't know why, given that my CPU is a sunk cost. (Also, I suspect that Apple chose hard links instead of deltas for ease of implementation, not to save CPU cycles.)

last I checked, Venti didn't support recovering the space from deleted items, except by way of making a new copy of the file system.

I think the state of the art has moved on since Venti; Cumulus (and probably tarsnap) implements garbage collection to recover space. http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~mvrable/cumulus/

jf• 17 years ago

If I recall correctly, Venti doesn't support "recovering space from deleted items" by design - it was designed to store data on WORM drives.

gaius2• 17 years ago

Time Machine can be made to be "aware" of files that are effectively filesystems themselves - you can watch it as it backs up VirtualPC for example. It doesn't take the entire 10G virtual disk image every time.

allenbrunson• 17 years ago

i've never heard this before. how is it done?

chrismear• 17 years ago

I'm not sure this is Time Machine. I know that in VMware Fusion, at least, there's an option to turn your monolithic disk image into a set of smaller individual files. If you turn this on, then Time Machine only has to backup the smaller part-image file that's changed.

I know I've definitely seen Time Machine re-copying entire 10 GB virtual machine disk images before, with Parallels and VMware Fusion images, before I discovered this feature.

Time Machine and Mail: a match made in hell

Related Stories