Time Machine and Logos indexer DO NOT like each other!

Page 1 of 1 (14 items)
This post has 13 Replies | 0 Followers

Posts 8893
fgh | Forum Activity | Posted: Sun, Dec 5 2010 7:07 AM

1) Logos starts indexing some small download (like the Lexham update the other day).

2) Time Machine has the bad taste of finding this an excellent time for the hourly back-up.

3) Done separately these processes would have taken a couple of minutes each. Done simultaneously they take something like 2 hours! During which time the computer is, of course, not all that responsive.

This is slightly annoying...

I can't say with absolute certainty that it happens every time, but it has certainly happened enough times for me to believe it happens every time. I'll try to remember to manually run Time Machine just before indexing in the future, until this is fixed, but of course I'll forget more often than not...

I also just saw another post mentioning Time Capsule as a probable cause for an increased number of errors, so there might be something bigger going on as well: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/26776/197953.aspx#197953.

"The Christian way of life isn't so much an assignment to be performed, as a gift to be received."  Wilfrid Stinissen

Mac Pro OS 10.9.

Posts 1874
Alan Macgregor | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 5 2010 7:35 AM

I have noticed this also, though my indexing never seems to last as long.

My guess, FWIW, is that something in the OS backup system is triggered when a new app installation/update is initiated.

If that is the case (and I could be way off beam here) then I reckon that pausing the indexing until the Time Machine update is completed, which doesn't take long. After that restart the indexing which, as you say is done in a fairly short time these days.

iMac Retina 5K, 27": 4GHz; 16GB RAM;MacOS 10.12.2; 1TB FD; Logos 7

MacBook Air 13.3": 1.8GHz; 4GB RAM; MacOS 10.12.2; 256GB SSD; Logos 7

iPad Pro 32GB WiFi iOS 10.2

iPhone 5s 32GB iOS 10.2

Posts 8893
fgh | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 5 2010 8:42 AM

I should probably add -- and I just checked this -- that my Logos Library Index is excluded from being backed-up. So there shouldn't be a problem because Time Machine is trying to back up an index that's changing every split second.

Though, coming to think of it, my Bible Index is not excluded, and Lexham is most definitely a Bible! Did I just figure this one out by myself? If that is so, I'm pretty impressed with myself! I'll exclude the Bible Index as well, and we'll see.

Alan

I don't think there is any triggering; just the ordinary hourly back-up. When I said that I believe it happens every time, I just meant that I believe the excessive indexing/back-up times happen every time Time Machine happens to start while indexing is already going on. 

EDIT: Though if my guess above is correct, then it's obviously only happened with Bibles, and not with other resources, and I just haven't noticed the difference. Or Time Machine has never happened to start during any other resource indexing, and I haven't gotten the chance to notice the difference. 

"The Christian way of life isn't so much an assignment to be performed, as a gift to be received."  Wilfrid Stinissen

Mac Pro OS 10.9.

Posts 10715
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 5 2010 11:19 AM

fgh:
I don't think there is any triggering; just the ordinary hourly back-up. When I said that I believe it happens every time, I just meant that I believe the excessive indexing/back-up times happen every time Time Machine happens to start while indexing is already going on. 

I have never noticed anything like this happening on my system, but I will try to watch in the future to see it it does happen. If it does, I will report here and submit logs.

Posts 8893
fgh | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 5 2010 11:51 AM

Jack Caviness:
have never noticed anything like this happening on my system

Do you have the Library and Bible Indexes excluded from the back-up or not?

"The Christian way of life isn't so much an assignment to be performed, as a gift to be received."  Wilfrid Stinissen

Mac Pro OS 10.9.

Posts 10715
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 5 2010 11:58 AM

fgh:
Do you have the Library and Bible Indexes excluded from the back-up or not?

The only thing I exclude from backup are Parallels VMs because they can fill a 500 Gig HD in a day.

Posts 8893
fgh | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 5 2010 12:41 PM

Then I guess it's probably not my Bible Index that's causing the problem. Unless your computer is so much stronger than mine that it can handle the 'extra stress' without you noticing it.

"The Christian way of life isn't so much an assignment to be performed, as a gift to be received."  Wilfrid Stinissen

Mac Pro OS 10.9.

Posts 10715
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 5 2010 1:20 PM

fgh:
Then I guess it's probably not my Bible Index that's causing the problem. Unless your computer is so much stronger than mine that it can handle the 'extra stress' without you noticing it.

I don't know about stronger, but I do have 11 GB or RAM. That will probably make considerable difference.

Posts 8893
fgh | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 5 2010 1:52 PM

Probably... I have 2.

"The Christian way of life isn't so much an assignment to be performed, as a gift to be received."  Wilfrid Stinissen

Mac Pro OS 10.9.

Posts 10715
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 5 2010 5:56 PM

fgh:

Probably... I have 2.

That may be part of your problem. I just looked that the Activity Monitor, and L4 Mac is using almost a full GB by itself. Addition of RAM is one of the most cost-efficient ways to upgrade a computer. I would recommend that you add at least 2GB for a total of 4 GB. That is what I have in my MBP, and it gives acceptable service on L4 Mac.

Posts 38
Scott Stackelhouse | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 6 2010 10:03 AM

Time Machine runs once an hour; It also will backup after the computer wakes from sleep if it's been more than an hour since last backup.

Input/Output operations are one of the slowest things in our computers.  If Logos is indexing, there is a lot of hard drive activity.  When you add Time Machine, you are at least doubling that, and to make things worse, the hard drive head has to swing back and forth to different parts of the disk each time a context switch occurs.

If you are running low on memory, you can add virtual memory page swapping to that hard drive activity.

When things go bad with IO, they really fly off into the weeds.  Or desert.  

More memory will help with regard to adding virtual memory swapping to the mix, and it gives the OS more leeway to cache the filesystem which probably helps with the indexing.  Time Machine is backing up data so it's always going to need literal access to the drive.

It would be nice if there was an app that could let you know how much hard drive activity was caused by virtual memory thrashing vs application access.  Either way, more memory will probably help, though with dimishing returns.

Memory has gotten pretty cheap lately.  I bought 8 gigs for my laptop from these people (http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Newer%20Technology/8566DDR3S8GP/) a couple months ago.  I paid about $170 then.  Looks like it's less than $120 now (for my 2009 MBP).  That's a bargain for a nice upgrade.

The other thing you can do that would dramatically improve performance of IO/Hard drive trahsing would be to upgrade to a Solid State Disk.  These are still very expensive for what you get.  Great performance, not much space.  There are ways to cram 2 hard drives in your laptop if you are tech savvy, or have a friend who can help.  In that case you could get a less expensive SSD that is low capacity, and keep a large platter based HD for apps that don't need high speed access.

Someday I'd like to do that, but for now it's too much money.

Posts 8893
fgh | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 6 2010 4:13 PM

I fully intend to upgrade to 8GB at some point. Probably relatively soon.

That said, the computer is less than 3 months old. I bought it just days before I bought Logos, and Tech support assured me Logos would work fine with 2GB. So it should!

I accept that indexing takes longer on my Mini than on a more powerful computer with more RAM. I also accept that simultaneous indexing and back-upping might take a bit longer than doing the same tasks separately. But not 1,5-2 hours instead of ... what? ... 10 minutes? 15? That's absurd!

I ordered an upgrade this morning (though I haven't heard anything back yet). I'll make sure to remember to shut Time Machine off before I start indexing that one. But that's a temporary solution one can use for the occasional huge download. If I tried using it for every little 20MB update, I'd very soon forget to put it back on afterwards, and what use is a back-up copy if it's not up to date? So I really hope excluding the Bible Index has (sort of) solved it, or that Logos fixes this relatively soon.

"The Christian way of life isn't so much an assignment to be performed, as a gift to be received."  Wilfrid Stinissen

Mac Pro OS 10.9.

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 7 2010 12:19 AM

Using Apple's Activity Monitor to watch memory use good idea - after restarting Mac, Page Outs is 0, if lots of Page Outs, then opening fewer programs at same time or upgrading memory good idea.

On a computer running only Logos, suspect 2 GB adequate.  On my iMac, have used 12 GB RAM running many programs (one was Logos 4 Mac).

fgh:
But not 1,5-2 hours instead of ... what? ... 10 minutes? 15? That's absurd!

Trying to index and simultaneously backup can be similar to congested rush hour traffic - some car(s) merging into traffic means minutes delay for many (can add up to hours).

Personally have excluded all Logos index files from Time Machine backup (can use Rebuild Index command to completely rebuild indexes - no need for backup - would rather keep other backups in Time Machine).

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 698
LogosEmployee

fgh:
I accept that indexing takes longer on my Mini than on a more powerful computer with more RAM. I also accept that simultaneous indexing and back-upping might take a bit longer than doing the same tasks separately. But not 1,5-2 hours instead of ... what? ... 10 minutes? 15? That's absurd!

Both backing up and indexing are largely disk-bound. You have two disk-hungry operations vying for the same (typically slowish) disk.

This will be exacerbated by insufficient RAM, which will lead to swapping. Swapping while indexing and backing up will likely result in severely degraded performance system-wide.

Director of Engineering for Enterprise and Operations

Page 1 of 1 (14 items) | RSS