Re: Qt about Time Machine

[Steve Kalkwarf]

If Yojimbo is NOT running, will Time Machine backup
the database correctly?


Yes, it will.

Steve


--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list .
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: Qt about Time Machine

[Ted Wood]

On 15-Apr-08, at 12:28 PM, Mary Kay Trail wrote:


If Yojimbo is NOT running, will Time Machine backup
the database correctly?


Yes, Time Machine works at the file system level, separate from all  
other applications.


~Ted

--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list .
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]>

Qt about Time Machine

[Mary Kay Trail]

I am a new Mac owner and have minimal knowledge other
than using MS Office applications.

I have read some of the discussions about the
inability to backup Yojimbo with Time Machine. My
question is:

If Yojimbo is NOT running, will Time Machine backup
the database correctly?

Thanks in advance.

MK Trail


  

Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

-- 
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list .
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?

[Ted Wood]

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 .
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?

[Jason Carman]

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 .
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 .
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?

[Steven Huey]

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 .
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 Ransom]

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 .
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 .
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?

[Robert Occhialini Jr.]

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 .
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?

[Niels Kobschätzki]

In Apr 5, 2008, at 11:45 PM, Doug Ransom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
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.


And still Apple doesn't get it right. I guess moving away from Core  
Data would be a major rewrite.
It is Apple's fault and not Barebones. They are using an official API  
and Apple does not gets it developers support right. I do not want to  
know what they hacked together for making Aperture working with Time  
Machine


Niels








--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list .
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 Ransom]

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]>  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 .
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 .
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?

[Jon Morby]

On 4 Apr 2008, at 23:02, 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.




You mean you're relying on Apple to come up with transaction level  
backups?  Even the open source community hasn't worked that one out  
properly yet



... ahhh .. no I see what you mean :)




I'm certain someone will come up with a solution in the next year or  
so which will be adopted by Apple for the benefit of all :)


Regards,
Jon Morby
FidoNet Registration Services Ltd


web: www.fido.net
tel: +44 (0) 845 004 3050
fax: +44 (0) 845 004 3051

--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list .
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?

[Ted Wood]

Hi Doug,

You might try excluding your Yojimbo data file from Time Machine  
backups and using a different backup strategy for your Yojimbo data?


~Ted



On 4-Apr-08, at 2:48 PM, Doug Ransom 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.



Doug Ransom



--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list .
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 .
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?

[Rich Siegel]

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.


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 .
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]>

Time to change the data store to play with time machine?

[Doug Ransom]

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.



Doug Ransom



--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list .
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?

[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 .
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]

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 .
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

[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 .
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]

"Robert Sweet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sez:

>And where exactly is the folder we should exclude?
>





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

[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 .
> 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

[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 .
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]

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 .
>  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 .
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

[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 .
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 .
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

[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:  <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]

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:  <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

[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:  <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 .
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

[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 .
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

[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:
>  >>
>  >> <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 .
>  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 .
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

[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 .
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]

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 .
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

[Steve Kalkwarf]

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 .
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?

[Patrick Woolsey]

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.
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: Time Machine?

[Niels Kobschätzki]

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 .
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?

[Kenneth Kirksey]

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.




--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list .
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?

[david]

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 .
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 .
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?

[Niels Kobschätzki]

On Oct 31, 2007, at 1:25 PM, 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.


That is working on the symptom, which came up through the combination  
of Yojimbo and Time Machine and not working on the problem…


Niels
--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list .
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?

[Kenneth Kirksey]

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 .
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?

[Niels Kobschätzki]

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 .
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?

[Tobias Horvath]

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.


Toby


--
Tobias Horvath   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://www.tobyx.com/>



--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list .
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?

[Bill Rowe]

On 10/29/07 at 3:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raj Nayak) wrote:

Just wondering if anyone has tried Yojimbo with Time Machine 
yet?  Since Yojimbo stores all of its files as one giant 
database --

almost 2 gigabytes for me -- I'm wondering if Time Machine knows how
to back it up incrementally, or whether it just copies a new version
of the database on every backup?


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.


Also, your phrasing isn't totally clear here. "back it up 
incrementally" could be taken to mean "back up Yojimbo's 
database incrementally". If so, then no Time Machine doesn't do 
this. Or, your phrase could be taken to mean "back up the hard 
drive incrementally". If so, Time Machine does do this.


Note,I haven't yet installed Leopard (I plan to do so this 
weekend). So, my comments above are based on what others have 
written rather than direct experience.


--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list .
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?

[Jon Baer]

Maybe a related issue to Aperture problem? Id check back @ this thread  
in next few days ... I hope this is not a general CoreData problem.


http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306853

- Jon

On Oct 29, 2007, at 3:07 PM, Raj Nayak wrote:


Hi folks,

Just wondering if anyone has tried Yojimbo with Time Machine yet?
Since Yojimbo stores all of its files as one giant database --  
almost 2 gigabytes for me -- I'm wondering if Time Machine knows how  
to back it up incrementally, or whether it just copies a new version  
of the database on every backup?


Incidentally, I'd like Yojimbo a lot more if it didn't store all the  
files in one database.  I'm always worried about corruption issues  
and long-term accessibility...


Take care,
Raj

--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list .
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 .
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]>

Time Machine?

[Raj Nayak]

Hi folks,

Just wondering if anyone has tried Yojimbo with Time Machine yet?
Since Yojimbo stores all of its files as one giant database -- almost  
2 gigabytes for me -- I'm wondering if Time Machine knows how to back  
it up incrementally, or whether it just copies a new version of the  
database on every backup?


Incidentally, I'd like Yojimbo a lot more if it didn't store all the  
files in one database.  I'm always worried about corruption issues and  
long-term accessibility...


Take care,
Raj

--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list .
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]>