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
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
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
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
Robert Sweet [EMAIL PROTECTED] sez:
And where exactly is the folder we should exclude?
http://faq.barebones.com/do_getanswer.php?record_id=133
Regards,
Patrick Woolsey
==
Bare Bones Software, Inc.http://www.barebones.com
P.O. Box 1048, Bedford, MA 01730-1048
--
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
