Re: Time to change the data store to play with time machine?
On 5-Apr-08, at 4:19 PM, Doug Ransom wrote: Angry - no - why would I be angry? Annoyed I am not getting the utility out of Time Machine I would expect, and disturbed all my files archived in Yojimbo are in one big opaque file - yes. (broken record reply, sorry) It's unfortunate that Apple didn't deliver a Core Data solution (to third-party developers) for proper Time Machine operation, but the onus is on Apple to fix this one. You have the option of _not_ using Time Machine where it doesn't make sense. Apple gave you that option, and it would make sense to use it in this case. Exclude the Yojimbo data store from being backed up and implement a different backup strategy. Problem solved. However, as a software architect, I agree with you on the big opaque file paradigm... in my databases, I store a record of an archived file in the database, but then the file separately. That reduces the size of the database tremendously, still provides adequate performance and indexing capabilities, and would be more compatible with Time Machine. So, I think there's room for a middle-ground solution. ~Ted -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to change the data store to play with time machine?
On 4-Apr-08, at 3:02 PM, Rich Siegel wrote: I suggest BareBones consider moving their data store out of the sqlite database and store Yojimbo entries onto the file system. The time machine backups are getting rather large when the whole database is backed up. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Yojimbo uses Core Data, which is a subsystem supplied by the OS for precisely the sort of data storage needs that Yojimbo has. The fact that Core Data uses sqlite is an implementation detail and is, by design, abstracted away from Core Data clients. Since Core Data is a fundamental part of the OS, we leave it to Apple to make sure that it plays nicely with other relevant OS components. Since Time Machine is brand new and there are still lots of angles to figure out, I have every confidence that in the long term, Time Machine will evolve as necessary to accommodate the needs of Core Data clients. From and uses perspective, Yojimbo is clearly missing the need for integration with state of the art backup available in Leopard - files that are changed are backed up. I am really not interested in whether you built Yobjimbo with CoreData and XML and C# and some thread pools or whatever. Leopard has been out a long time. Doug R. -- Rich Siegel Bare Bones Software, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:// www.barebones.com/ Someday I'll look back on all this and laugh... until they sedate me. -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to change the data store to play with time machine?
On Apr 5, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Doug Ransom wrote: On 4-Apr-08, at 3:02 PM, Rich Siegel wrote: I suggest BareBones consider moving their data store out of the sqlite database and store Yojimbo entries onto the file system. The time machine backups are getting rather large when the whole database is backed up. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Yojimbo uses Core Data, which is a subsystem supplied by the OS for precisely the sort of data storage needs that Yojimbo has. The fact that Core Data uses sqlite is an implementation detail and is, by design, abstracted away from Core Data clients. Since Core Data is a fundamental part of the OS, we leave it to Apple to make sure that it plays nicely with other relevant OS components. Since Time Machine is brand new and there are still lots of angles to figure out, I have every confidence that in the long term, Time Machine will evolve as necessary to accommodate the needs of Core Data clients. From and uses perspective, Yojimbo is clearly missing the need for integration with state of the art backup available in Leopard - files that are changed are backed up. I am really not interested in whether you built Yobjimbo with CoreData and XML and C# and some thread pools or whatever. Leopard has been out a long time. Doug Leopard has been out a long time ? Less than a year is not a long time, unless you are a toddler. I suspect you did not read Rich's reply carefully, or you did not understand it. Bare Bones built Yojimbo on top of Apple's technologies. It's reasonable for them to expect that Apple's subsequent technologies would be compatible or will be eventually made to be compatible. If you aren't interested in reading the answer, why did you ask the question in the first place? You were technologically prescriptive in your question, and then you get angry because their answer is explicit? I think that Rich's response was appropriate. You are starting to sound like you want a pony. Thanks Robert Occhialini -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to change the data store to play with time machine?
Didn't mean to be prescriptive. I am not a programmer and could care less about core data or whatever. Certainly I have some understanding of technology and it seems bizarre that no release has been forthcoming that plays well with Time Machine - it certainly is an indication Core Data is the wrong tool for the job. I am sure Apple has all sorts of tech that is or isn't appropriate for various applications. I often wonder if the Apple file system technology that comes with OSX would have been the right tool for Yojimbo (I only started to wonder when I was surprised to find out it wasn't the underlying tech for yojimbo other than storing one big blob). I would have expected Yojimbo to play well with RSync before leopard (and assumed it was), and now with Time Machine, the size of the backups is rather large (and i am hopeful the yojimbo archive is not corrupt). If you/they are waiting for apple to make Core Data practical for time machine compatibility, I saw this on WIkipedia (so it might be true): Core Data can serialize objects into XML, Binary, or SQLite for storage. With the release of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, developers can also create their own custom atomic store types. . Any application to the problem at hand? Angry - no - why would I be angry? Annoyed I am not getting the utility out of Time Machine I would expect, and disturbed all my files archived in Yojimbo are in one big opaque file - yes. Doug On 5-Apr-08, at 2:56 PM, Robert Occhialini Jr. wrote: On Apr 5, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Doug Ransom wrote: On 4-Apr-08, at 3:02 PM, Rich Siegel wrote: I suggest BareBones consider moving their data store out of the sqlite database and store Yojimbo entries onto the file system. The time machine backups are getting rather large when the whole database is backed up. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Yojimbo uses Core Data, which is a subsystem supplied by the OS for precisely the sort of data storage needs that Yojimbo has. The fact that Core Data uses sqlite is an implementation detail and is, by design, abstracted away from Core Data clients. Since Core Data is a fundamental part of the OS, we leave it to Apple to make sure that it plays nicely with other relevant OS components. Since Time Machine is brand new and there are still lots of angles to figure out, I have every confidence that in the long term, Time Machine will evolve as necessary to accommodate the needs of Core Data clients. From and uses perspective, Yojimbo is clearly missing the need for integration with state of the art backup available in Leopard - files that are changed are backed up. I am really not interested in whether you built Yobjimbo with CoreData and XML and C# and some thread pools or whatever. Leopard has been out a long time. Doug Leopard has been out a long time ? Less than a year is not a long time, unless you are a toddler. I suspect you did not read Rich's reply carefully, or you did not understand it. Bare Bones built Yojimbo on top of Apple's technologies. It's reasonable for them to expect that Apple's subsequent technologies would be compatible or will be eventually made to be compatible. If you aren't interested in reading the answer, why did you ask the question in the first place? You were technologically prescriptive in your question, and then you get angry because their answer is explicit? I think that Rich's response was appropriate. You are starting to sound like you want a pony. Thanks Robert Occhialini -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's workingcorrectly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to change the data store to play with time machine?
Doug, The types of Core Data stores currently available are XML, SQLite, Custom Atomic, and In Memory (which must be binary) on Wikipedia. The XML store is best used for debugging since it's just a text file that is human readable. It could be used for storing small amounts of data, but it would be far too slow for storing the web, PDF, and image data that Yojimbo is capable of. The In Memory store would solve your large Time Machine backups since none of your data would be backed up (since all your Yojimbo data would be in RAM), but every time you quit Yojimbo you'd lose all your data. Again, not a good choice. The downside of the Custom Atomic store (and also the XML format) is that by atomic Apple means that every time a change is saved to the Core Data store, the entire object graph is rewritten to the store. Again, for large Yojimbo databases this would be impractical. SQLite offers MUCH better performance than XML or a Custom Atomic store, and also offers partial updates so when something is added, removed, or changed in your Yojimbo library the entire object graph doesn't have to be rewritten to disk, only what has changed. With how cheap disk space is these days, I'd rather the developers at Bare Bones focus on adding more great features instead of writing a custom Core Data store or worry about storing Yojimbo items as individual files. - Steve On Apr 5, 2008, at 7:19 PM, Doug Ransom wrote: Core Data can serialize objects into XML, Binary, or SQLite for storage. With the release of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, developers can also create their own custom atomic store types. . Any application to the problem at hand? -- Steven Huey Software - http://www.stevenhuey.com -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to change the data store to play with time machine?
Hmm, I'm new to this. I'd like Yj to update only what was changed, but it sounds as if the available options don't allow that. I think Doug (correct me if I am wrong) was wanting just such a thing to keep up efficient use of disk space--the cheapness of price is relative :) My Yj backup is 13 gig when I make major changes, like a system or account restore, and would prohibit buying new drives. I am out of luck, I think, and concur spending time on new features( like, say, an option to flag a new item in the Quick Input Panel ;)) is a better use of time. On Apr 5, 2008, at 8:32 PM, Steven Huey wrote: Doug, The types of Core Data stores currently available are XML, SQLite, Custom Atomic, and In Memory (which must be binary) on Wikipedia. The XML store is best used for debugging since it's just a text file that is human readable. It could be used for storing small amounts of data, but it would be far too slow for storing the web, PDF, and image data that Yojimbo is capable of. The In Memory store would solve your large Time Machine backups since none of your data would be backed up (since all your Yojimbo data would be in RAM), but every time you quit Yojimbo you'd lose all your data. Again, not a good choice. The downside of the Custom Atomic store (and also the XML format) is that by atomic Apple means that every time a change is saved to the Core Data store, the entire object graph is rewritten to the store. Again, for large Yojimbo databases this would be impractical. SQLite offers MUCH better performance than XML or a Custom Atomic store, and also offers partial updates so when something is added, removed, or changed in your Yojimbo library the entire object graph doesn't have to be rewritten to disk, only what has changed. With how cheap disk space is these days, I'd rather the developers at Bare Bones focus on adding more great features instead of writing a custom Core Data store or worry about storing Yojimbo items as individual files. - Steve On Apr 5, 2008, at 7:19 PM, Doug Ransom wrote: Core Data can serialize objects into XML, Binary, or SQLite for storage. With the release of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, developers can also create their own custom atomic store types. . Any application to the problem at hand? -- Steven Huey Software - http://www.stevenhuey.com -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's workingcorrectly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On Yojimbo and Time Machine
On 2/18/08, Dennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sure Bare Bones has considered this option for Yojimbo. But I suspect there's greater complexity here than meets the eye. Perhaps there are tradeoffs having to do with record encryption or .Mac sync. Would we be willing to sacrifice those features for individual file storage? Most times I've heard the database vs individual files decision explained in terms of performance. Generally speaking a DB will be much faster, if I recall correctly. Encryption can be done on any file, so that's a non-issue. .Mac sync isn't working for me anyway. I'd trade reliable syncing for just about anything ATM. TjL -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On Yojimbo and Time Machine
On Feb 15, 2008, at 3:30 AM, Rhet Turnbull wrote: If Yojimbo stored records as separate files and kept metadata and/or index data in smaller DBs then the backup regime would only have to backup those files that had changed instead of the entire xxxMB sqllite file that Yojimbo uses now. I believe that would decrease the risk of inconsistency as opposed to the case now, where Yojimbo could write the the large database file while the backup is trying to copy it. I'm sure Bare Bones has considered this option for Yojimbo. But I suspect there's greater complexity here than meets the eye. Perhaps there are tradeoffs having to do with record encryption or .Mac sync. Would we be willing to sacrifice those features for individual file storage? -Dennis -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On Yojimbo and Time Machine
Coming to think of it, there would be a way to back up Yojimbo with Time Machine: you just need to create a sparse bundle disk image with Disk Utility, put your Yj DB on that and make the Yojimbo folder in ~/Library/Application Support/ an alias to the mountpoint of the image in /Volumes. Finally, write a little Automator script to mount the image, e.g. at startup, and start Yojimbo through the script after mounting the image. Time Machine can back up the Yj DB in pieces of 8 MB, because you chose sparse bundle disk image!. Basically, it is much the same as you might have already for Mail - e.g., I use an encrypted sparse bundle disk image for my mail folder, which I mount before starting mail, requesting the password and then starting Mail - and a nice way to safely store your e-mail, too. -Florian On 15.02.2008, at 7:37, Jan Erik Moström wrote: Rhet Turnbull [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08-02-14 15.58 I would never use a backup solution that didn't run on live data. Thankfully the days of they system is down for backup are long gone. Whether I use Time Machine or I use Super Duper or Chronosync or something else, I'm certainly not about to take my machine offline or logout to do the backup. Your misunderstanding me, if you run a backup on a programs data file (without the applications talking to each other) you always run the risk of inconsistent data (unless you have a filesystem that does some fancy stuff). For example, if you have an application with several files that in some way depend on each other - for example a database that store data as individual files and then have an index file to keep track of them - there is always the chance that the backup is done between the modification of the individual files which would make the data in the backup inconsistent. So while I'm running TM for my whole disk, I'm also running a second program for applications that is constantly running like my email program. jem -- Jan Erik Moström, www.mostrom.pp.se -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On Yojimbo and Time Machine
This is getting offtopic for Yojimbo so I won't continue past this email. I appreciate your comments Jan and I do understand the issue of data of data consistency. The only way to completely avoid that is to take the system completely down for backup and either run the backup in single user mode or better yet, run the backup in target disk mode without even the OS running. But I won't do that because of convenience nor will most other users. I don't ever close applications or log off my machine unless a software update forces me to and I suspect there are many more like me. Most people don't backup because it's inconvenient which is one of the main things that Apple was trying to address with Time Machine. Time Machine also has the added advantage of provided checkpoints throughout the day that you can roll-back to (at least for specific files). I'd much rather take the very small chance of data inconsistency than accept the inconvenience of offline backups. Now to get it back to Yojimbo so we're not completely off topic ;-) If Yojimbo stored records as separate files and kept metadata and/or index data in smaller DBs then the backup regime would only have to backup those files that had changed instead of the entire xxxMB sqllite file that Yojimbo uses now. I believe that would decrease the risk of inconsistency as opposed to the case now, where Yojimbo could write the the large database file while the backup is trying to copy it. And finally, once users get used to the power of Time Machine's rollback capability, they'll demand it. There are several times I wish I could have rolled back a Yojimbo record (this is exacerbated by Yojimbo's lack of read-only records which has allowed me to accidentally edit Yojimbo data that I didn't intend to). Cheers, Rhet On 2/15/08, Jan Erik Moström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rhet Turnbull [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08-02-14 15.58 I would never use a backup solution that didn't run on live data. Thankfully the days of they system is down for backup are long gone. Whether I use Time Machine or I use Super Duper or Chronosync or something else, I'm certainly not about to take my machine offline or logout to do the backup. Your misunderstanding me, if you run a backup on a programs data file (without the applications talking to each other) you always run the risk of inconsistent data (unless you have a filesystem that does some fancy stuff). For example, if you have an application with several files that in some way depend on each other - for example a database that store data as individual files and then have an index file to keep track of them - there is always the chance that the backup is done between the modification of the individual files which would make the data in the backup inconsistent. So while I'm running TM for my whole disk, I'm also running a second program for applications that is constantly running like my email program. jem -- Jan Erik Moström, www.mostrom.pp.se -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On Yojimbo and Time Machine
Hello- On Feb 14, 2008, at 4:24 PM, Jan Erik Moström wrote: Rhet Turnbull [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08-02-14 15.09 Then again, Yojimbo's habit of storing everything in a monolithic database has been one of my (few) critiques since Yojimbo was released. Curious, why is this bad? In the case of a backup the monolithic solution is extremely annoying. As a good analogue, consider Apple Mail. Each email is its own document. When my system backs itself up, each new message is backed up cleanly with a very small upload. In the case of Yojimbo, instead of pushing only those files that have changed, the backup takes much longer since the entire file needs to be copied repeatedly even if only a small change/addition occurred. I hope that BareBones and/or Apple gets this fixed soon. Requiring the user to have two separate backup plans is unacceptable. Hmmm, I would always be skeptical of a backup solution that runs on live data. By having individual files, the problem you rightly note above becomes less pronounced since the vast majority of the backup would happen to files that are closed. Obviously some sort of main db file which organizes these smaller files would still suffer from the problem, however in most cases these sorts of files could be rebuilt anyway since the important data (ie: the individual files) would be available. I use LifeAgent as my backup solution since it seems to work pretty well over wireless NAS (such as Airport extreme) and it tracks changing files in ~real time. For a laptop, it seems to work pretty well. Unfortunately though, my nightly backup over a wireless often consists of a the huge Yojimbo databasewaiting...waiting...you get the picture. -Lance -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On Yojimbo and Time Machine
Niels Kobschaetzki [EMAIL PROTECTED] sez: On Oct 31, 2007 5:03 PM, Steve Kalkwarf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before things get too far out of control, I want to clarify some facts about how Time Machine and Yojimbo. Yojimbo is built on CoreData, the same underlying technology as Aperture, and several other products. Because of issues related to how Time Machine and CoreData manage files on disk, Apple recommends excluding Aperture data from Time Machine backups, and managing Aperture backups independently: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306853 For the moment, we are recommending the same thing. The document states now that the problems are fixed with 10.5.2 for Aperture -- does this apply to Yojimbo as well? The cited change in 10.5.2 only resolves this issue for Aperture; I regret it does not affect other applications which use CoreData nor our prior guidance related to Yojimbo. Regards, Patrick Woolsey == Bare Bones Software, Inc.http://www.barebones.com P.O. Box 1048, Bedford, MA 01730-1048 -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On Yojimbo and Time Machine
I was unaware of the restriction regarding Yojimbo and Time Machine. Fortunately I haven't upgraded to Leopard yet (but had planned to do so now that the 10.5.2 update is out and in fact have the Leopard box sitting on my shelf). Time Machine was one of the driving reasons for me to upgrade to Leopard but Yj is an app I use everyday so this is an unacceptable situation. It is very regrettable that Apple would adopt a standard like CoreData only to make it incompatible with one of their flagship features. Then again, Yojimbo's habit of storing everything in a monolithic database has been one of my (few) critiques since Yojimbo was released. I hope that BareBones and/or Apple gets this fixed soon. Requiring the user to have two separate backup plans is unacceptable. Cheers, Rhet On 2/14/08, Patrick Woolsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Niels Kobschaetzki [EMAIL PROTECTED] sez: On Oct 31, 2007 5:03 PM, Steve Kalkwarf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before things get too far out of control, I want to clarify some facts about how Time Machine and Yojimbo. Yojimbo is built on CoreData, the same underlying technology as Aperture, and several other products. Because of issues related to how Time Machine and CoreData manage files on disk, Apple recommends excluding Aperture data from Time Machine backups, and managing Aperture backups independently: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306853 For the moment, we are recommending the same thing. The document states now that the problems are fixed with 10.5.2 for Aperture -- does this apply to Yojimbo as well? The cited change in 10.5.2 only resolves this issue for Aperture; I regret it does not affect other applications which use CoreData nor our prior guidance related to Yojimbo. Regards, Patrick Woolsey == Bare Bones Software, Inc.http://www.barebones.com P.O. Box 1048, Bedford, MA 01730-1048 -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On Yojimbo and Time Machine
Curious, why is this bad? 1. Backup...the entire DB file (mine is hundreds of MB) needs to be backed up. I backup everyday, both to external drive and offsite. That means the large Yojimbo file needs to be backed up every day, taking up unnecessary bandwidth and disk space. 2. Data integrity...if the database file gets corrupted, you could lose all your data instead of only 1 item. The Yojimbo competitor Together (http://reinventedsoftware.com/together/) does it this way, storing each record in a separate file. 3. Time Machine...this breaks things like time machine which offers roll-back capability. Contrast the way that Microsoft Outlook (not sure about Entourage) and Mail.app store mail messages. Outlook puts everything in a single database file. Mail.app stores each message in a separate file (but utilizes a database file for indexing). I have 3GB of email which means that Outlook would require backing up a 3GB file wheres for Mail.app, I only need to backup the new message files and the small index file. Hmmm, I would always be skeptical of a backup solution that runs on live data. I would never use a backup solution that didn't run on live data. Thankfully the days of they system is down for backup are long gone. Whether I use Time Machine or I use Super Duper or Chronosync or something else, I'm certainly not about to take my machine offline or logout to do the backup. Cheers, Rhet On 2/14/08, Jan Erik Moström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rhet Turnbull [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08-02-14 15.09 Then again, Yojimbo's habit of storing everything in a monolithic database has been one of my (few) critiques since Yojimbo was released. Curious, why is this bad? I hope that BareBones and/or Apple gets this fixed soon. Requiring the user to have two separate backup plans is unacceptable. Hmmm, I would always be skeptical of a backup solution that runs on live data. jem -- Jan Erik Moström, www.mostrom.pp.se -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On Yojimbo and Time Machine
On Feb 14, 2008, at 4:09 PM, Rhet Turnbull wrote: I hope that BareBones and/or Apple gets this fixed soon. Requiring the user to have two separate backup plans is unacceptable. For me it hasn't been that big of a deal. 1) I excluded my Yojimbo DB from my time machine backups 2) I set up a folder form my Yojimbo backups on the same drive as my Time Machine backup. 3) I have ChronoSync http://tinyurl.com/36yy9 backup my Yojimbo DB daily, and save the most recent 5 backups. -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On Yojimbo and Time Machine
On 2/14/08, Rhet Turnbull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curious, why is this bad? 1. Backup...the entire DB file (mine is hundreds of MB) needs to be backed up. I backup everyday, both to external drive and offsite. That means the large Yojimbo file needs to be backed up every day, taking up unnecessary bandwidth and disk space. 2. Data integrity...if the database file gets corrupted, you could lose all your data instead of only 1 item. The Yojimbo competitor Together (http://reinventedsoftware.com/together/) does it this way, storing each record in a separate file. It also, I would assume, is why .Mac fails to sync Yojimbo so often. Instead of syncing 1,000 small files, it is trying to sync one monolithic DB. I can't get it to work with .Mac or SyncTogether's latest beta. Contrast the way that Microsoft Outlook (not sure about Entourage) and Mail.app store mail messages. Outlook puts everything in a single database file. Mail.app stores each message in a separate file (but utilizes a database file for indexing). I have 3GB of email which means that Outlook would require backing up a 3GB file wheres for Mail.app, I only need to backup the new message files and the small index file. Um... are you sure about Outlook? I know it didn't used to be that way, as I would routinely have to make sure that the Outlook PST stayed below 2gb. Entourage doesn't store a single email per file. It too uses the same Huge Database Concept. Hmmm, I would always be skeptical of a backup solution that runs on live data. I would never use a backup solution that didn't run on live data. Thankfully the days of they system is down for backup are long gone. Whether I use Time Machine or I use Super Duper or Chronosync or something else, I'm certainly not about to take my machine offline or logout to do the backup. I certainly wouldn't be using Yojimbo or any other DB app while SuperDuper et al are running. Sure it might not throw an error but you still risk problems. I run SuperDuper at night when I go to bed and then have it shutdown/sleep the computer. I quit all my running apps except SD! TjL -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On Yojimbo and Time Machine
TjL [EMAIL PROTECTED] sez: It also, I would assume, is why .Mac fails to sync Yojimbo so often. Instead of syncing 1,000 small files, it is trying to sync one monolithic DB. [...] That's not the case; although .Mac must ultimately contain your whole data set before syncing between machines can take place, all data transfer takes place incrementally. Regards, Patrick Woolsey == Bare Bones Software, Inc.http://www.barebones.com P.O. Box 1048, Bedford, MA 01730-1048 -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On Yojimbo and Time Machine
On 2/14/08, Patrick Woolsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TjL [EMAIL PROTECTED] sez: It also, I would assume, is why .Mac fails to sync Yojimbo so often. Instead of syncing 1,000 small files, it is trying to sync one monolithic DB. [...] That's not the case; although .Mac must ultimately contain your whole data set before syncing between machines can take place, all data transfer takes place incrementally. Well then I wish I could figure out why it never works. No error messages in the dot-mac sync log that I can see, but I've got 8-9 more Yojimbo entries on one computer than the other, even after resetting sync data on both and choosing Merge *shrug* TjL -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On Yojimbo and Time Machine
On Oct 31, 2007 5:03 PM, Steve Kalkwarf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before things get too far out of control, I want to clarify some facts about how Time Machine and Yojimbo. Yojimbo is built on CoreData, the same underlying technology as Aperture, and several other products. Because of issues related to how Time Machine and CoreData manage files on disk, Apple recommends excluding Aperture data from Time Machine backups, and managing Aperture backups independently: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306853 For the moment, we are recommending the same thing. The document states now that the problems are fixed with 10.5.2 for Aperture -- does this apply to Yojimbo as well? Niels -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time Machine?
On Oct 31, 2007, at 1:13 PM, Tobias Horvath wrote: On Oct 31, 2007, at 5:01 AM, Bill Rowe wrote: There is a fairly detailed review Time Machine and some of the underlying details of how it works and why at http://feeds.arstechnica.com/~r/arstechnica/BAaf/~3/176498831/mac-os-x-10-5.ars . From the information presented there it is apparent Time Machine's granularity is at the file level. That is, Time Machine will copy any changed file in its entirety rather than incrementally. Note, it is only changed files that are copied. Unfortunately this is completely true. I believe Yojimbo has some internal file-based handling of Yojimbo items - it's iSync compatible after all - but I believe this to be a completely separate issue and, correct me BB if you may, I don't think moving away form the database file is not such an easy task. I hope it will happen tho. Luckily my database is less than a MB in size as I don't store PDFs and stuff in there, so I can handle the 24 MB it takes daily. Also, if you consider the Time Machine backup schedule, this is 30 + 24 Yojimbo changes backuped at most per day. My database has nearly 800 MB, steadily growing. Several other similar apps like Yojimbo don't work with a database but with single files. I guess it's possible to move away from the database, the first convert would be maybe somehow problematic. I'm not a developer but if I see it right then the functionality of Yojimbo would be kept with single-files (please in normal formats - keep a pdf a pdf and txt a txt and so on) and an extra index-file (shouldn't be that big, should it?) for the internal Yojimbo-search. If I would use Time Machine right now my database would be backed up several times a day and even a 500GB or bigger harddisk (base harddisk is 250GB) would be really fast full and Yojimbo would be the culprit that blocks the whole incremental thing because the database is so big… Niels -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time Machine?
You can change the Time Machine backup interval from 1 hour to whatever value you want by hacking the plist file. See the hint at: http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200710291721156 For me, a backup every 12 or 24 hours will suffice. -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time Machine?
My database is quite large. I've removed it from the TimeMachine backup list and it is one of a dozen or so files/folders that I use DejaVu to back up once a day. That is good enough for me given that for Yojimno each of my computers is also syncing every hour. david On Oct 31, 2007, at 8:25 AM, Kenneth Kirksey wrote: You can change the Time Machine backup interval from 1 hour to whatever value you want by hacking the plist file. See the hint at: http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200710291721156 For me, a backup every 12 or 24 hours will suffice. -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's workingcorrectly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Bromidic though it may sound, some questions don't have answers, which is a terribly difficult lesson to learn. ~~ Katharine Graham david [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time Machine?
On Oct 31, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Kenneth Kirksey wrote: On Oct 31, 2007, at 8:46 AM, Niels Kobschätzki wrote: For me, a backup every 12 or 24 hours will suffice. That is working on the symptom, which came up through the combination of Yojimbo and Time Machine and not working on the problem… No, it's being realistic. :) Time Machine works the way it does, and Yojimbo works the way it does, and neither will or should change. If there is any problem, I see it being with Time Machine having its default backup interval (1 hour) being _way_ too short. Well…when I work 1 hour can be even too long when I look at the idea of Time Machine: Giving me regular backups, if not even versions of files I work with. Something like a local SVN made user-friendly. When I work on papers, translations or presentations (and I won't talk here about stuff that goes into development-directions) 1 hour can be even too long. But that's my point of view - right now Time Machine has an even different problem (a clone-like backup is not possible and a nearly full 250GB-HDD cannot be even save once to a 250GB-HDD but that is another topic). Maybe I just should look once again on alternatives with Time Machine now additionally in mind (besides slow upcoming new versions, tags not in Spotlight integrated - something that shouldn't be hard to implement but I think I wait now for over 6 months and longer). The advantage over any similar product called sync is not so important anymore to me. Niels -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[admin] Re: Time Machine?
In order to keep this topic relevant, I ask that you all please hold off for a bit and we'll post info soon. Regards, Patrick Woolsey == Bare Bones Software, Inc.http://www.barebones.com P.O. Box 1048, Bedford, MA 01730-1048 -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Yojimbo and Time Machine
Before things get too far out of control, I want to clarify some facts about how Time Machine and Yojimbo. Yojimbo is built on CoreData, the same underlying technology as Aperture, and several other products. Because of issues related to how Time Machine and CoreData manage files on disk, Apple recommends excluding Aperture data from Time Machine backups, and managing Aperture backups independently: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306853 For the moment, we are recommending the same thing. Steve -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
