Re: On Yojimbo and Time Machine

2008-02-19 Thread TjL
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 - script?

2008-02-19 Thread Jeff Wechter
Well, since Yojimbo needs to be shut down for a Time Machine backup, perhaps
someone can either cobble together a simple script or share the script they've
already written. I don't have the chops, sorry.

For example, Filemaker Server has a built-in backup function that, at a user
designated interval, quits the program, copies the database(s) to another
location, then restarts the program. Typically these are later backed up by a
system wide backup.

I've been doing this manually (dupe db, compress db, discard dupe), but a
script could be ideal. Or was this mentioned and I missed it?

Jeff

--
--
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

2008-02-18 Thread Dennis

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

2008-02-15 Thread Florian Leitner
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

2008-02-15 Thread Rhet Turnbull
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

2008-02-15 Thread Robert Sweet
And where exactly is the folder we should exclude?
Thanks.


On Feb 13, 2008 3:22 PM, Niels Kobschaetzki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 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: On Yojimbo and Time Machine

2008-02-15 Thread Lance


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

2008-02-15 Thread Patrick Woolsey
Robert Sweet [EMAIL PROTECTED] sez:

And where exactly is the folder we should exclude?


http://faq.barebones.com/do_getanswer.php?record_id=133



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

2008-02-14 Thread Patrick Woolsey
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

2008-02-14 Thread Rhet Turnbull
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

2008-02-14 Thread Jan Erik Moström

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]


Re: On Yojimbo and Time Machine

2008-02-14 Thread Rhet Turnbull
 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

2008-02-14 Thread Kenneth Kirksey


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

2008-02-14 Thread TjL
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

2008-02-14 Thread Patrick Woolsey
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

2008-02-14 Thread TjL
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

2008-02-13 Thread Niels Kobschaetzki
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]