Re: On Yojimbo and Time Machine

[Jan Erik Moström]

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 .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
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]

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 .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
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

[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.
P.O. Box 1048, Bedford, MA 01730-1048

-- 
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
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]

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 .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
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

[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 .
>  To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  List archives:  
>  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 .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
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

[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  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 .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
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

[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 .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
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

[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:
>  >>
>  >> 
>  >>
>  >> 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.
>  P.O. Box 1048, Bedford, MA 01730-1048
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  --
>  --
>  This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>   the mailing list .
>  To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  List archives:  
>  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 .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
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

[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:
>>
>> 
>>
>> 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.
P.O. Box 1048, Bedford, MA 01730-1048





-- 
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working 
correctly? Please send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>