Replacing Hard Drive and avoiding full Time Machine Backup

Pondini wrote:

Gator TPK wrote:

. . .

I did restore both my Main, and Developers partion.

How? Did you do a full system restore of the OSX partition, or install OSX and use Setup Assistant?

Time Machine still hasn't done a successful backup. It looks as if it's working now, (but stuck again at 85 MB out of 670 GB).

That may be because it's trying to recover the partial backup. See below.

So it is doing a full back up, even though there are "breadcrumbs"

It shouldn't be doing a full backup of the OSX partition if you restored as above. But it will try to do a full backup of a data-only partition, since there's no way to restore one and leave the trail it needs.

In both cases, you may be able to force it, since you're on Lion, via #B6 in Time Machine - Troubleshooting. You'll have to do the "associate disk" procedure twice - once for the OSX volume (pink box), once for the data-only volume (tan box).

Can anyone explain why the ".inProgress" package file is so large? It's triple the volume I'm trying to back up.

I'm not sure I follow all the back and forth, but it may have copies of things from more than one failed backup, or drives/partitions that shouldn't be backed-up. And/or, it may have gotten corrupted in the process.

I'd suggest deleting that package via the Finder. Emptying the trash will take a very long time, and may give you problems with locked files, permissions, etc. If so, see #E6 in the Troubleshooting article.

Then do the "associate disk" procedures, then try another backup.

Thanks for the quick reply Pondini,

I restored both my Main and Developers partition using Lion's "Recovery" partition and restored from TimeMachine Backup. I have done this three times on the failling HDD and TimeMachine resumed as normal. It was the original HDD after all, even after the last time I zeroed it out to remap the bad blocks (this, of course did not solve the failling HDD problem).

Let me explain how I got there. When I got the iMac back finally from service (next time, I'm going to replace he HDD on my own, paying for it too and a larger HDD, I've done it twice on other iMacs), they put Mac OS X 10.6.7 and old iLife '09 on it. I re-downloaded Lion from the App store, then I updated via Software Update everything including OS X 10.6.8 v1.1. Then I ran the Lion installer and started up in Lion v10.7.2 (from the directly downloaded latest installer version 1.0.13 I think).

Then, I restarted holding the option key (right after the chime, doesn't work if you hold the option before), and then chose "Recovery". I then used disk utility to repartition the new small 1TB HDD to an 850 GB and 150 GB partition. I quit Disk Utilites, and it went back to the four options, one being restore from TimeMachine Backup. I did that with the developers partition because it would only take about 1.5 hours, being smaller. It started with a later version of Lion great. Then I restored my main partition, and that took about 7 hours. So the partions appeared identical as before on my failing HDD, even the Applications started up as were running 5 days ago.

The only thing I can think of is the two individual partitions were slightly different sizes (I think I reduced my developers partition by about 50GB because it wasn't needed), and that's why TimeMachine is acting as if my restored HDD is different than the original. Eventhough the data is identical, to the point of starting up the same apps it crashed with on the old failling HDD.

I just read the Time Machine - Troubleshooting page, and it has some very valuable and interesting information, thanks for that. I wished I had read about this before. I'm hoping my TimeMachine restore will finish up, however long it takes. I'm curious what is in the 1.97 TB package file and what I end up with. I have 807 GB remaining on my 3TB HD, so my last two months of backups obviously don't have all 670 GB of my main partition data.

With the older iMac (24"), I actually created a 500 GB partition (space remaining) on a misc backup 2 TB HD and restored with TimeMachine the same way there. I'm running the iMac off the 500 GB partition via FireWire 800 for now till the $90 2 TB HDD ships into my local store. It's an incredible price. But with this Time Machine backup, all the previous days are already gone. I just checked and the Preference Pane is finally reporting that my oldest and lastest back up are December 8 (today being Dec 10), and it's at 228 GB of 440 GB. I'll let that one go (continue), and probably try a different TimeMachine Restore from the 1TB TimeMachine HDD to the new 2 TB internal iMac HDD. Perhaps the "Associate an OS X volume" in the Pink box?

Thanks for this valuable information. TimeMachine with my failing iMac HDDs in the past month has always worked so flawlesly that I thought it was near perfect, I see now, this is not the case if you use different HDDs, even if always in the same iMac.

Update: after being stuck at 86.1 MB on a 670 GB backup for over an hour, it's at 181.9 MB and holding while Disk Activity shows writing around 40 MB/s? I'm begining to understand the possible corruptions in the 1.97 TB ".inProgress" package file. I'm still weary of just deleting that package file via the Finder (and possibly loosing lots of previous backups?). I'll contintue to monitor.

Gator TPK wrote:

. . .

I did that with the developers partition because it would only take about 1.5 hours, being smaller. It started with a later version of Lion great. Then I restored my main partition, and that took about 7 hours.

Ah, both partitions had OSX installed? I hadn't realized that.

The only thing I can think of is the two individual partitions were slightly different sizes

Shouldn't matter. When you did the first backup, Time Machine should have "associated" the OSX disk it was running on with the backups of the previous version of that volume.

But I don't think it will do that for the other disk, even if it had OSX on it, since it's not the one it was running on. It's also possible it completely lost track of what had happened -- I've never tried it with two OSX volumes (that's not exactly a common setup, after all).

And, I don't know exactly what gets put in the SystemMigration.log as the "trail" for Time Machine to use.

I'm still weary of just deleting that package file via the Finder (and possibly loosing lots of previous backups?).

No, you won't lose any previous backups, if I understand the scenario correctly. The in.Progress package is not integrated into the backups yet -- you cannot see it via the TM browser, etc. If the backup does complete normally, whatever should have been backed-up will be converted into a normal backup, and anything left over (from failed backups of the orginal volumes) will be lost. So I suspect you'll get a lot of space back.

Keep us posted.

Pondini wrote:

Gator TPK wrote:

. . .

I did that with the developers partition because it would only take about 1.5 hours, being smaller. It started with a later version of Lion great. Then I restored my main partition, and that took about 7 hours.

Ah, both partitions had OSX installed? I hadn't realized that.

The only thing I can think of is the two individual partitions were slightly different sizes

Shouldn't matter. When you did the first backup, Time Machine should have "associated" the OSX disk it was running on with the backups of the previous version of that volume.

But I don't think it will do that for the other disk, even if it had OSX on it, since it's not the one it was running on. It's also possible it completely lost track of what had happened -- I've never tried it with two OSX volumes (that's not exactly a common setup, after all).

And, I don't know exactly what gets put in the SystemMigration.log as the "trail" for Time Machine to use.

I'm still weary of just deleting that package file via the Finder (and possibly loosing lots of previous backups?).

No, you won't lose any previous backups, if I understand the scenario correctly. The in.Progress package is not integrated into the backups yet -- you cannot see it via the TM browser, etc. If the backup does complete normally, whatever should have been backed-up will be converted into a normal backup, and anything left over (from failed backups of the orginal volumes) will be lost. So I suspect you'll get a lot of space back.

Keep us posted.

Thanks for the new info. My Time Machine is backing up both partitions as usual, and always worked fine that way before. Here's a window shot of my TimeMachine HDD:

This goes down to 2011-10-13 (October 13, 2011). So I suppose that's all I have left. I'm not really worried, after all I wasn't going to restore a Lion Preview 2 partition or anything.

As you can see in the window shot, I have two folders in the dated folders, those are my two partitions. Time Machine will backup everything and every partition it sees unless I exclude them. But TimeMachine will not let me restore an entire HDD. It just shows me my backed up partitions. That's why I had to create two partitions and then restore each indivitually. Also, I restored my main 10.7.2 partition just the same, using the "Recovery" volume. TimeMachine is currently trying to back up both partitions as usual in one backup folder. I just can't restore both at once. (I never did repartition the old HDD, even when zeroing out one partition, and I restored from TimeMachine fine for each partition and backups prodeced fine as Delta backups)

But it is interesting that on the older iMac, there were about 7 different TimeMachine (OS X partitions) backups, even though I only had two partitions (on that iMac also, one Lion, one Snow Leopard) even though I only use two partitions. I'm sure all those 7 TimeMachine backups are gone now! (On the old 24" iMac)

I've been using dual boot on all my Macs for quite awhile, I forgot that this wasn't usual. But it's a life savor if one doesn't boot! I use the other to repair to broken partition or back it up.

Since the last post, it's backed up 0.2 MB of 670 GB. I think I'll follow your advice and delete the 1.93 TB (did it change from 1.97 TB?) package. I'll study Time Machine - Troubleshooting some more and go from there.

Thanks again.

(Why isn't system wide spell checking and autocorrection working in this post? It's working everywhere else! I didn't realize how much I miss that red underline turning purple)

P.S. I've been Folding@Home and it make's my 27" iMac aluminum case about 130° F. I imagine the internal HDD hangs around that temperature too. Right now it's at 127° F (53° C) and I'm not running my 8 logical cores at 100% Folding. the HDD must be working hard now. In your opinion, does heat really speed up HDD failure?I've been running since April 3, 2011, till last Sunday. Same with the 24" iMac, but it uses a lower 35 Watt Mobile Core 2 Duo, so I don't think heat was much of an issue, but the HDD failed there too! (The Core i7 core's are about 50° F cooler now, but even the screen is 127° F; 54° C now! Must be the HDD usage, though it's not doing much, and Ambient Air is 25°C; 77° F)

Gator TPK wrote:

. . .

Time Machine will backup everything and every partition it sees unless I exclude them.

All internal volumes are included by default; all externals are excluded by default. But note that when you erase a volume, it gets a new UUID, and will be included or excluded separately.

But TimeMachine will not let me restore an entire HDD. It just shows me my backed up partitions.

Correct; one volume at a time, and only OSX partitons via the Restore System From Backups option. You can restore data-only drives via the "Star Wars" display.

But it is interesting that on the older iMac, there were about 7 different TimeMachine (OS X partitions) backups, even though I only had two partitions (on that iMac also, one Lion, one Snow Leopard) even though I only use two partitions. I'm sure all those 7 TimeMachine backups are gone now! (On the old 24" iMac)

Every time you erase a partition, it's treated as a different one, unless Time Machine can follow the trail in the SystemMigration.log. That's likely why there were so many.

(Why isn't system wide spell checking and autocorrection working in this post? It's working everywhere else! I didn't realize how much I miss that red underline turning purple)

It's this #^$*% forum software. 😢 😠 You have to click the "abc" icon at the right of the edit window toolbar to spell-check.

In your opinion, does heat really speed up HDD failure?

Beats me. It no doubt varies by drive construction and fan placement, and is one of those things where if you ask 5 people, you'll get 7 opinions. 😝

Pondini wrote:

(Why isn't system wide spell checking and autocorrection working in this post? It's working everywhere else! I didn't realize how much I miss that red underline turning purple)

It's this #^$*% forum software. 😢 😠 You have to click the "abc" icon at the right of the edit window toolbar to spell-check.

In your opinion, does heat really speed up HDD failure?

Beats me. It no doubt varies by drive construction and fan placement, and is one of those things where if you ask 5 people, you'll get 7 opinions. 😝

Thanks for confirming all the other points. And thanks for the Auto-correction not working in this #^$*% forum software info, glad it's not just my Mac.

That gives me a little hope that my folding@home hasn't been destroying my HDDs, though it's possible. I do believe that everyone has their opinions. I mean, even I can't find anywhere that one brand of HDD is consistently more reliable than another.

I did just find this link:

PassMark Software - Hard Drive Benchmark Charts

I guess some HDD are better than others especially at the top, but at the bottom with my Seagate ST31000528ASQ that they put in this iMac under Apple Care (I think it's the same drive as before!) I can see that WD, Toshiba, and Seagate are all over the place! Hardly any difference between the brands 2/3 down the list. Edit: I just realized that this list of HDD are performance only and not reliability scores.

Update: the disk writing to my new internal HDD is actually moving alot, but stuck now at 279.2 MB of 670 GB. If it isn't up to 50 GB in an hour. I'm following your advise and going to give myself nearly 2 TB free space by deleting the ".inProgress" package. Though, the other Folders only hold around 263 GB of backup data, nothing close to my total of 670 GB. So those folders in my Time Machine Backup HDD are just delta backups. If I delete the 1.93 TB ".inProgress" package. I'll have to start from scratch and the delta backups are no good? Or is it possible that 806 GB available and the 1.93 TB file size are not really the correct amounts, and my historical delta backups do have all the needed information to restore a file from October? Does the SystemMigration.log have all this info to make the past delta backups useful after a full TimeMachine backup?

Gator TPK wrote:

. .

Though, the other Folders only hold around 263 GB of backup data, nothing close to my total of 670 GB.

You have to be very careful how you measure the sizes of things in Time Machine backups -- there's a bit of smoke and mirrors going on.

If I delete the 1.93 TB ".inProgress" package. I'll have to start from scratch and the delta backups are no good?

No, all previous completed backups should be fine.

my historical delta backups do have all the needed information to restore a file from October?

Every remaining backup is, in effect, a full one. It has the entire contents of your Mac as of that backup. You should be able to restore individual items, or an entire partition, from any of them.

Seems contradictory, I know, but see How Time Machine works its Magic.

Does the SystemMigration.log have all this info to make the past delta backups useful after a full TimeMachine backup?

No, that's 99% just info logged during a restore or migration, for a techie to pick through if there's a problem. It only comes into play with Time Machine when it finds a new drive, to figure out whether it's really new data or not.

Pondini wrote:

Gator TPK wrote:

. .

Though, the other Folders only hold around 263 GB of backup data, nothing close to my total of 670 GB.

You have to be very careful how you measure the sizes of things in Time Machine backups -- there's a bit of smoke and mirrors going on.

If I delete the 1.93 TB ".inProgress" package. I'll have to start from scratch and the delta backups are no good?

No, all previous completed backups should be fine.

my historical delta backups do have all the needed information to restore a file from October?

Every remaining backup is, in effect, a full one. It has the entire contents of your Mac as of that backup. You should be able to restore individual items, or an entire partition, from any of them.

Seems contradictory, I know, but see How Time Machine works its Magic.

Does the SystemMigration.log have all this info to make the past delta backups useful after a full TimeMachine backup?

No, that's 99% just info logged during a restore or migration, for a techie to pick through if there's a problem. It only comes into play with Time Machine when it finds a new drive, to figure out whether it's really new data or not.

Wow, Time Machine is Magic. I'll have to really read that awesome link. I just noticed the URL, it's your site!

Thanks for this wonderful info. I do understand that the file sizes and space remaining, etc. can be smoke and mirrors.

But I really have to wrap my head around this fact that each one of these delta backups has the entire contents of that day's (or hour's) backup. At the moment, I just can't see that. I am a scientist, and I understand what Delta means and the whole concept, but it's just that, Delta, partial info to make a whole from other previous info. Untill I take the time to read up on that page How Time Machine works its Magic I'll have to take your word for it! I'm still an awe that each Dated folder can create a whole backup!

I'm off to a meeting, I'll read that last link when I get back and keep you posted.

Thanks again.

Since you're a scientist, I suspect the word "elegant" might come to mind when you read that page. 😉

Pondini wrote:

Since you're a scientist, I suspect the word "elegant" might come to mind when you read that page. 😉

Yes, "Elegant" is a beautiful word. We love simple and elegant. Simple functions, explanations, Occam's razor. Time Machine does this pretty well.

I looked over the last link (How Time Machine works its Magic). The explanation is elegant. Thanks!

So obviously there is a total of 670 GB of data stored on the Time Machine HDD. I can't use the finder and delete all the folders except for one and expect the one dated folder to do a complete backup.

On another subject, here's a window shot of that single 1.93 TB package contents, it explains the size:

There are three folders that all have both partitions inside that are around 640 GB. What would happen if I deleted all but the 636.93 GB Folder? I have a feeling that either the finder won't let me do it, or it would really confuse Time Machine, and the package itself won't make much sense to TM anyway if I did do that?

But if you say all those other delta backup folders have my complete backup (as a whole, not individually), I'll delete the whole package, and start backup again. If the backup want's to do a full 670 GB copy again, then shouldn't I try the " 'Inherit' a backup " terminal command, instead of the " 'Associate' an OS X volume ", since TimeMachine is backing up both partitions?

To sum up. I have a great working internal HDD in my 27" iMac now, with both partitions working perfectly. The problem is that TimeMachine hasn't once completed a backup since I restored both partitions. The iMac's partitions were restored from this very TimeMachine backup. So they are the same backups. I have seen the dialog box saying TimeMachine couldn't make a backup, please check your TimeMachine Hard Drive with Disk Utilities. I have done that, and the TM Backup drive is fine (appears fine to Disk Utilities, and it did take over an hour to Verify; "Repair" button was used, though no Repair was needed).

Update: The old 24" iMac successfully did a full back up (and 4 more hourly) from my temporary external startup drive (500 GB partition on a 2 TB "internal" (no case) drive created by TM restore. But it erased my "Snow Leopard" partition I had on the TM HDD from yesterday. Perhaps it's because I excluded it today because it was part of the failing internal HDD. I just included it and trying it again (hopefully the falling internal HDD will last for this SL partition backup, and not ruin my TM Backups). I'd like to save both partitions for the new 2 TB internal drive due for purchase and installation tomorrow morning.

Gator TPK wrote:

. . .

The explanation is elegant.

Oh, thanks, but I didn't mean the explanation - - I meant the way it works!

I can't use the finder and delete all the folders except for one and expect the one dated folder to do a complete backup.

You shouldn't use the Finder, but yes, you can delete all but one date-stamped (completed) backup folder, and it will be a full backup you can restore and run.

There are three folders that all have both partitions inside that are around 640 GB. What would happen if I deleted all but the 636.93 GB Folder? I have a feeling that either the finder won't let me do it, or it would really confuse Time Machine, and the package itself won't make much sense to TM anyway if I did do that?

I don't think any of them are complete (if they were, they'd have been converted into actual backup folders). Time Machine seems to create the folder structure first, then copy the files, or something -- it's not clear, and of course not documented.

But if you say all those other delta backup folders have my complete backup (as a whole, not individually),

The ones in the In.Progress file almost certainly aren't, but each of the others is a complete "snapshot" of the way your system (both partitions) looked at the time.

I'll delete the whole package, and start backup again.

That's probably your best bet.

shouldn't I try the " 'Inherit' a backup " terminal command, instead of the " 'Associate' an OS X volume ",

No, "inherit" is for a different Mac (or new logic board). To do the "inherit" you drag the folder in the backups for the old Mac into the Terminal window.

"Associate" is for a new disk/partition (or an erased one). You'll need to do it twice, once for the drive you're running on when you do it (the pink box); separately for the other one (the tan box). The tan box says it's for a data-only volume, since that's the vast majority, but is really the same procedure -- it just replaces the "/" path in the pink box with the path to the second partition.

You'll be dragging different disks from the backups, to associate "new" partition #1 with the backups of "old" partition #1; and "new" partition #2 with the backups of "old" partition #2.

The old 24" iMac successfully did a full back up (and 4 more hourly) from my temporary external startup drive (500 GB partition on a 2 TB "internal" (no case) drive created by TM restore. But it erased my "Snow Leopard" partition I had on the TM HDD from yesterday. Perhaps it's because I excluded it today

Do you mean it deleted the backup of the SL partition? It won't appear in any backups since it was excluded, but should still be on previous ones (unless TM ran out of room and had to delete the earlier backups).

I see you're correct, and you mentioned it once before, I'll have to do the associate procedure twice, one for each volume. However they are both OS X Volumes. I haven't actually tried it yet, and doing and reading about it are two different things, it may be clear to me when I get there. But it doesn't appear to matter that I'm using the pink box because I happen to be using the current volume and should use the tan box for the other just because I'm not using it at the moment (it's not a data only volume, it is also a bootable OS X Volume).

Near the top of this page I posted a window shot, where you could see the two volumes inside one dated folder. My current Volume is "Machintosh HD" (OS X 10.7.2), the other "Mac OS Lion GM" (a later build of OS X, I'm not sure the extent of Apple's NDA). Just because it's the other volume I should use the pink box on both because the other volume is an OS X Volume, right?

Also, about the old 24" iMac, I did exclude the SL Volume, and the SL volume backup from the last remaining December 8 backup dissappeared. I just looked and the oldest backup is now December 10, that's why the SL Volume dissappeared. But I don't know why it deleted my only last hourly backup before the HDD failure, as it deleted every other folder dated back to March. The 1TB TimeMachine HDD is only half full now. Anyhow, I included SL again, and it's created 5 more hourly backups successfully. I turned TimeMachine off (it wasn't running at the moment, and the TM HDD has a .inProgress (0 KB) package time dated at 4:04 AM, the same time as the last complete delta backup. Just a little confused to why it started a package then and it wasn't running.)

I mention that I turned off TM because I don't want any problems with the SL Volume not backing up anymore (it's a partition on the failing internal HDD), the current volume is the temporary external HDD (but full previous Dec 8 Backup from TimeMachine). Hopefully I'll get the new $90 2TB HDDs from local sore this morning before anyone else grabs them. Then I'll do a Time Machine Restore again on the new internal HDD for both partitions and hope it does a normal first backup! (unlike this 27" iMac that got the new internal HDD through Apple Care, and I've explained all this earlier.)

I just looked (I fell asleep after the last post and never deleted the .inProgress 1.93 TB package) and TimeMachine on this 27" iMac is at 33.5 GB and copying at 60 MB/s! Perhaps it'll actually finally do a regular backup on it own without my help, it just needs two days to work it out and delete six months of backups (It did that two days ago, creating the 1.93 TB package file which is now (but not showing) much larger now). Whoa, while I am typing, it just stopped and flashed and told me the backup failed. Ok, perhaps, it won't ever work. (I'll use the pink box to associate both backups because they are both OS X Volumes.)

Thanks for your help, I'll keep you posted.

Gator TPK wrote:

I see you're correct, and you mentioned it once before, I'll have to do the associate procedure twice, one for each volume. However they are both OS X Volumes.

I must not be explaining this clearly, so let me try again;

It doesn't matter whether OSX is on the volume or not (I used that example in the two boxes only because the second volume is usually data-only).

Notice the difference in the part of the command you copy from the pink box and the one in the tan box; the only difference is the "/" at the end of the one in the pink box.

That's the first "argument" in the command, indicating the volume you want to associate with a volume in the backups. "/" is the path to the OSX volume you're running from when you execute the command.

In the tan box, the "/" is not there; instead, you drag the "other" new volume there to create the path. Terminal will convert that into somerthing like "/Volumes/<second volume name>".

Then, in both boxes, you leave a space, and drag the appropriate volume from the backups, which Terminal will convert into a path to that volume.

I guess I'll have to expand the tan box there (I was trying to keep it simple). 😉

Also, about the old 24" iMac, I did exclude the SL Volume, and the SL volume backup from the last remaining December 8 backup dissappeared. I just looked and the oldest backup is now December 10, that's why the SL Volume dissappeared. But I don't know why it deleted my only last hourly backup before the HDD failure, as it deleted every other folder dated back to March.

It depends on how long the SL volume was included and when backups were run. After every backup, regardless of space available, it deletes any "expired" backups: any backup less than 24 hours old is deleted, except the first of the day, which is kept for a month. After a month, all remaining "daily" backups are deleted, except the first of the week.

When there isn't enough space for a new backup, it deletes the exipred ones first. If that doesn't make enough room, then it starts deleting the oldest backups.

Pondini wrote:

Gator TPK wrote:

I see you're correct, and you mentioned it once before, I'll have to do the associate procedure twice, one for each volume. However they are both OS X Volumes.

I must not be explaining this clearly, so let me try again;

It doesn't matter whether OSX is on the volume or not (I used that example in the two boxes only because the second volume is usually data-only).

Notice the difference in the part of the command you copy from the pink box and the one in the tan box; the only difference is the "/" at the end of the one in the pink box.

That's the first "argument" in the command, indicating the volume you want to associate with a volume in the backups. "/" is the path to the OSX volume you're running from when you execute the command.

In the tan box, the "/" is not there; instead, you drag the "other" new volume there to create the path. Terminal will convert that into somerthing like "/Volumes/<second volume name>".

Then, in both boxes, you leave a space, and drag the appropriate volume from the backups, which Terminal will convert into a path to that volume.

I guess I'll have to expand the tan box there (I was trying to keep it simple). 😉

Also, about the old 24" iMac, I did exclude the SL Volume, and the SL volume backup from the last remaining December 8 backup dissappeared. I just looked and the oldest backup is now December 10, that's why the SL Volume dissappeared. But I don't know why it deleted my only last hourly backup before the HDD failure, as it deleted every other folder dated back to March.

It depends on how long the SL volume was included and when backups were run. After every backup, regardless of space available, it deletes any "expired" backups: any backup less than 24 hours old is deleted, except the first of the day, which is kept for a month. After a month, all remaining "daily" backups are deleted, except the first of the week.

When there isn't enough space for a new backup, it deletes the exipred ones first. If that doesn't make enough room, then it starts deleting the oldest backups.

My apologies, I went into the terminal command and started typing the commands, it became clear what the "/" was for, being on the current volume. I know the syntax in Unix has to be perfect, and every character has to be exact, even the spaces. It's been a while since I actually typed code. I use the terminal occasionally, but for commands I already know, or copy and paste someone else's suggested commands. It should have been clear just reading the command on your web page!

I didn't actually associate the volumes yet though. I've been trying to delete the ".inProgress" package file for a while now. I usually get "error code -8072". I tried "Trash It!", that works fine when the file is already in the trash. But of course I can't move that package to the trash, it has to be deleted immediately. I've tried "Cocktail", and I have managed to delete the individual empty folders inside the package. But it wasn't able to follow through with the deletion process on the other folders with partial copies of my volumes.

I've checked permissions, and I've even added my name to the permissions, but can't change (Me) to "Read & Write" (I get "(error code -8076)"). I'm trying another "Finder" delete with authentication, but as you said, it takes time to either finish or get a different error message. I got this familiar message: (of course it doesn't apply! I have checked all those things, and there is no active "Locked" box on this package file anyway; it's grayed out.)

I've even tried to move the ".inPackage" file to the ".Trashes" (on the TM HDD) folder just to get it in the trash to delete from there with "Trash It!", but I get:

Next I'm going to trying "chflags -R nouchg " in the terminal on the package and see if that works just to unlock everything if that's causing the problems. It's still running. (I see over 50 "Permission denied" so far, now I'm seeing stupid stuff where I was burning a Windows Outlook.pst file to DVD for someone else, I can't delete that .pst file and everything in it! I forgot "Windows" permissions carry over sometimes it seems.).

I have Time Machine off for now, it was just adding folders to the package and failing. Also, the two "Locum" process have been running when it appears that I'm not doing anything (not emptying the trash). The TM HDDis also very active, even with Time Machine off and the only thing I can see is possibly the "mds" process working on it. But it doesn't appear to be cleaning anything up, then again, I guess it wouldn't.

I hesitate to use the sudo command, unless someone else suggests it. Do you have any other suggestions on how to delete this pesky ".inProgress" file. Or shall I try "sudo chflags -R nouchg "?

You weren't kidding when you said yesterday, I might run into some problems deleting this ".inProgress" package!

Thanks for your continued help, 🙂

Tom

Gator TPK wrote:

. . .

I hesitate to use the sudo command, unless someone else suggests it. Do you have any other suggestions on how to delete this pesky ".inProgress" file.

You might be able to use sudo rm -rf on it, but that's just a guess (I avoid Terminal if at all possible, and know just enough UNIX to get in trouble 😉 ).

Pondini wrote:

Gator TPK wrote:

. . .

I hesitate to use the sudo command, unless someone else suggests it. Do you have any other suggestions on how to delete this pesky ".inProgress" file.

You might be able to use sudo rm -rf on it, but that's just a guess (I avoid Terminal if at all possible, and know just enough UNIX to get in trouble 😉 ).

I'm thoroughly impressed with your response times! I was outside and my iPhone "dinged" letting me know.

The "chflags -R nouchg " command is still running, telling me all the stupid JUNK files that I don't have permissions to unlock! (I'm going to make a text file out of this list for sure!) I know I'm an Administrator, but even that doesn't allow me to put "root" in the "Sharing & Permissions" in the info box. Though when I tried, it added "admin", but it's a read only also, as well as (Me).

Thanks for the "sudo rm -rf" suggestion. 🙂