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 database....waiting...waiting...you get the picture.


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]>

Reply via email to