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
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
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
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
, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
...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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
: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
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
In order to keep this topic relevant, I ask that you all please hold off
for a bit and we'll post info soon.
Regards,
Patrick Woolsey
==
Bare Bones Software, Inc.http://www.barebones.com
P.O. Box 1048, Bedford, MA 01730-1048
--
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
25 matches
Mail list logo