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]