From brett.dikeman at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 12:09:25 2008 From: brett.dikeman at gmail.com (Brett Dikeman) Date: Wed Jan 2 12:09:30 2008 Subject: Leopard Server Admin SPOD Message-ID: <9d9c4a330801021209jc75131k37277fe5915a5385@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, I've got Leopard Server installed on a Powerbook G4. It was working fine until I came back from vacation and tried to connect to it from another system using Server Admin. Upon launch, I get the spinning pizza of death for a good minute or two, and the system appears greyed out in the list with the lightning-bolt "disconnected" icon. Clicking on "Available Servers" causes a "permanent" episode of the SPOD; I gave up waiting and force-quit it, only to get an error report request when it crashes. I've removed the server from the list, restarted Server Admin, and re-added it. No luck. Anyone seen something similar? Here's what I found in the console log: 1/2/08 1:58:44 PM Server Admin[389] *** -[NSMutableParagraphStyle removeTransaction:]: unrecognized selector sent to instance 0x16ca3fc0 1/2/08 1:58:44 PM Server Admin[389] *** -[NSMutableParagraphStyle removeTransaction:]: unrecognized selector sent to instance 0x16ca3fc0 1/2/08 2:00:57 PM Server Admin[389] *** -[GroupTextField windowDidResignKey:]: unrecognized selector sent to instance 0x15e04970 1/2/08 2:00:57 PM Server Admin[389] *** -[GroupTextField windowDidResignKey:]: unrecognized selector sent to instance 0x15e04970 Second launch, after applying updates to both systems, rebooting both: 1/2/08 2:50:26 PM Server Admin[250] doClickAltImage: Workgroup Admin is just as bad- after clicking "Connect" to login to the server, I get the same SPOD for several minutes, but it eventually connects. File, web, and iCal service all continue to work well- as do local use of Workgroup Admin and Server Admin... Brett From mah at jump-ing.de Wed Jan 2 12:32:15 2008 From: mah at jump-ing.de (Markus Hitter) Date: Wed Jan 2 12:32:29 2008 Subject: Leopard Server Admin SPOD In-Reply-To: <9d9c4a330801021209jc75131k37277fe5915a5385@mail.gmail.com> References: <9d9c4a330801021209jc75131k37277fe5915a5385@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <751F1F2A-5DF3-4D8E-9896-56D22976B9E5@jump-ing.de> Am 02.01.2008 um 21:09 schrieb Brett Dikeman: > Anyone seen something similar? Yepp, after upgrading from 10.4.10 to 10.4.11 AFP shares started to become extremly slow. Slow, like 5 minutes to show the 20 items of a folder's contents. Switching to NFS solved the problem as well as staying with AFP and rolling back to (reinstalling) 10.4.10 on the client machine. Arbitrarily from rolling back I got the feeling this had something to do with indexing getting way to much attention and saturating the connection. I didn't check this theory, though. Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ From johnmusbach1 at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 15:17:22 2008 From: johnmusbach1 at gmail.com (John Musbach) Date: Wed Jan 2 15:17:30 2008 Subject: Leopard Server Admin SPOD In-Reply-To: <9d9c4a330801021209jc75131k37277fe5915a5385@mail.gmail.com> References: <9d9c4a330801021209jc75131k37277fe5915a5385@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <17c8e29e0801021517m776c6e3bl1fb5c5e7709a444f@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 2, 2008 12:09 PM, Brett Dikeman wrote: > Upon launch, I get the spinning pizza of death for a good minute or > two, and the system appears greyed out in the list with the > lightning-bolt "disconnected" icon. Clicking on "Available Servers" > causes a "permanent" episode of the SPOD; I gave up waiting and > force-quit it, only to get an error report request when it crashes. > > Anyone seen something similar? Do you have your network dns configured properly? Mac OS X Server performs badly when DNS is either not configured or misconfigured. -- Best Regards, John Musbach From brett.dikeman at gmail.com Thu Jan 3 08:30:08 2008 From: brett.dikeman at gmail.com (Brett Dikeman) Date: Thu Jan 3 08:30:11 2008 Subject: Leopard Server Admin SPOD In-Reply-To: <17c8e29e0801021517m776c6e3bl1fb5c5e7709a444f@mail.gmail.com> References: <9d9c4a330801021209jc75131k37277fe5915a5385@mail.gmail.com> <17c8e29e0801021517m776c6e3bl1fb5c5e7709a444f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9d9c4a330801030830k63953e45q95d99a2201414746@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 2, 2008 6:17 PM, John Musbach wrote: > Do you have your network dns configured properly? Mac OS X Server > performs badly when DNS is either not configured or misconfigured. Yup, I do. Both forward and reverse DNS entries are correct, and the machine has consistent names set throughout its configuration (I had earlier problems with DNS- I used mDNS hostnames, etc. and some stuff broke.) Brett From sroebuck at mac.com Thu Jan 3 09:12:22 2008 From: sroebuck at mac.com (Scott Roebuck) Date: Thu Jan 3 09:12:28 2008 Subject: Mail Attachment Problem... Message-ID: Hello and Happy New Year! Since installing the 10.4.11, Quicktime 7.3.1, all inline Quicktime movies are reduced to postage stamp size regardless of actual movie footprint. These small icons are frequently doubled over other text. Collapsing and expanding the window gets rid of the doubling, but the postage stamp size remains. Receivers using apple mail see the movie at the correct size. I also have a problem where as all or most of my .bundle files appear as folders and do not serve there purpose. Could this be related? Thanks in advance for any suggestions. Scott - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. From sroebuck at mac.com Thu Jan 3 10:39:09 2008 From: sroebuck at mac.com (Scott Roebuck) Date: Thu Jan 3 10:39:15 2008 Subject: Mail Attachment Problem... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: UPDATE... It is just not .bundle files, it is also .component files. I assume that these files are not working properly in this state. Case in point were my Title 3D .bundle files in /Library/Application Support/Final Cut Pro System Support/Plugins/. I had to convert these to .plugin files in order for them to work in FCP. They worked fine as an actual .bundle file prior to 10.4.11 update. Any suggestions on how to change these back to their original form. I Thanks in advance for any direction. Scott On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:12 AM, Scott Roebuck wrote: > Hello and Happy New Year! > > Since installing the 10.4.11, Quicktime 7.3.1, all inline Quicktime > movies are reduced to postage stamp size regardless of actual movie > footprint. These small icons are frequently doubled over other > text. Collapsing and expanding the window gets rid of the doubling, > but the postage stamp size remains. Receivers using apple mail see > the movie at the correct size. > > I also have a problem where as all or most of my .bundle files > appear as folders and do not serve there purpose. Could this be > related? > > Thanks in advance for any suggestions. > > Scott > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > No trees were killed in the sending of this message. > However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. > > > _______________________________________________ > MacOSX-admin mailing list > MacOSX-admin@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin ____________ This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this electronic message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or by telephone (323-860-4000), and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk or otherwise. Thank you. From shoop at iwiring.net Thu Jan 3 13:25:01 2008 From: shoop at iwiring.net (Dan Shoop) Date: Thu Jan 3 13:25:14 2008 Subject: Mail Attachment Problem... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 3, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Scott Roebuck wrote: > UPDATE... > > It is just not .bundle files, it is also .component files. > > I assume that these files are not working properly in this state. > Case in point were my Title 3D .bundle files in /Library/Application > Support/Final Cut Pro System Support/Plugins/. > > I had to convert these to .plugin files in order for them to work in > FCP. They worked fine as an actual .bundle file prior to 10.4.11 > update. > > Any suggestions on how to change these back to their original form. I > > Thanks in advance for any direction. > > Scott > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:12 AM, Scott Roebuck wrote: > >> Hello and Happy New Year! >> >> Since installing the 10.4.11, Quicktime 7.3.1, all inline Quicktime >> movies are reduced to postage stamp size regardless of actual movie >> footprint. These small icons are frequently doubled over other >> text. Collapsing and expanding the window gets rid of the doubling, >> but the postage stamp size remains. Receivers using apple mail see >> the movie at the correct size. >> >> I also have a problem where as all or most of my .bundle files >> appear as folders and do not serve there purpose. Could this be >> related? >> >> Thanks in advance for any suggestions. >> >> Scott >> >> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> No trees were killed in the sending of this message. >> However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MacOSX-admin mailing list >> MacOSX-admin@omnigroup.com >> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin > > > ____________ > > This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic > Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only > for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain > information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from > disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this message is > not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for > delivering this electronic message to the intended recipient, you > are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this > communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > transmission in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail > or by telephone (323-860-4000), and destroy the original > transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them > to disk or otherwise. Thank you. .bundles *are* directories. Check to make sure that the .bundles you are looking at really do have the .bundle extension. How are you observing the files? If the answer is using the Finder, try using ls. -dhan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Shoop Computer Scientist iWiring / U.S. Technical Services shoop@iwiring.net AOL IM .................... iWiring Nextel .................... 1-714-363-1174 Operations TOC (24/7) ..... 1-866-901-USTS USTS Offices .............. 1-714-374-6300 For immediate response for urgent matters please speak to the Duty Officer at the USTS Tactical Operations Center (above) who can reach me by radio. From sroebuck at mac.com Thu Jan 3 14:07:15 2008 From: sroebuck at mac.com (Scott Roebuck) Date: Thu Jan 3 14:07:20 2008 Subject: Mail Attachment Problem... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58F2ACB8-4AC3-4E08-A670-3C7609443B3C@mac.com> Dan, Humor me... just for a minute, believe that I know that it is a .bundle or .component file and that it should look and act differently than what it does... What do I do next? I am not the only person who has experienced this phenomena. Even though there are but a few post on Apple/Support/Discussions concerning this, it generally is happening on a MacBook Pro. I have 12 FCP editing systems which are a mixture of PowerPCs and MacPros running the same versions of OS and QT and none of them have exhibited this behavior. I am not even sure that this is related to the postage stamp size QuickTime attachments, but as the title3D .bundle files would not allow me to use title3d in FCP until they were converted to .plugin files, I just thought maybe. I simply wanted to know if anyone has experienced this problem or knows of a workaround or real solution. Thanks much, Scott On Jan 3, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Dan Shoop wrote: > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Scott Roebuck wrote: > >> UPDATE... >> >> It is just not .bundle files, it is also .component files. >> >> I assume that these files are not working properly in this state. >> Case in point were my Title 3D .bundle files in /Library/ >> Application Support/Final Cut Pro System Support/Plugins/. >> >> I had to convert these to .plugin files in order for them to work >> in FCP. They worked fine as an actual .bundle file prior to >> 10.4.11 update. >> >> Any suggestions on how to change these back to their original form. I >> >> Thanks in advance for any direction. >> >> Scott >> >> On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:12 AM, Scott Roebuck wrote: >> >>> Hello and Happy New Year! >>> >>> Since installing the 10.4.11, Quicktime 7.3.1, all inline >>> Quicktime movies are reduced to postage stamp size regardless of >>> actual movie footprint. These small icons are frequently doubled >>> over other text. Collapsing and expanding the window gets rid of >>> the doubling, but the postage stamp size remains. Receivers using >>> apple mail see the movie at the correct size. >>> >>> I also have a problem where as all or most of my .bundle files >>> appear as folders and do not serve there purpose. Could this be >>> related? >>> >>> Thanks in advance for any suggestions. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> >>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>> No trees were killed in the sending of this message. >>> However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MacOSX-admin mailing list >>> MacOSX-admin@omnigroup.com >>> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin >> >> >> ____________ >> >> This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic >> Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended >> only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may >> contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt >> from disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this >> message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent >> responsible for delivering this electronic message to the intended >> recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution >> or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you >> have received this transmission in error, please notify us >> immediately by reply e-mail or by telephone (323-860-4000), and >> destroy the original transmission and its attachments without >> reading them or saving them to disk or otherwise. Thank you. > > > .bundles *are* directories. > > Check to make sure that the .bundles you are looking at really do > have the .bundle extension. > > How are you observing the files? If the answer is using the Finder, > try using ls. > > > -dhan > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > Dan Shoop > Computer Scientist > iWiring / U.S. Technical Services > > shoop@iwiring.net > AOL IM .................... iWiring > Nextel .................... 1-714-363-1174 > Operations TOC (24/7) ..... 1-866-901-USTS > USTS Offices .............. 1-714-374-6300 > > For immediate response for urgent matters please speak to the Duty > Officer > at the USTS Tactical Operations Center (above) who can reach me by > radio. > > ____________ This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this electronic message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or by telephone (323-860-4000), and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk or otherwise. Thank you. From cdevers at pobox.com Thu Jan 3 18:24:32 2008 From: cdevers at pobox.com (Chris Devers) Date: Thu Jan 3 18:24:47 2008 Subject: Mail Attachment Problem... Message-ID: <7240E3E6-523B-4514-BA2E-4942D920BDFA@pobox.com> I seem to remember seeing the same general problem before (bundles not being interpreted correctly -- .app programs not launching, .pkg installers not installing, etc), and in at least some cases fixing it by removing the Launch Services cache: /Library/Caches/com.apple.LaunchServices* There may be a less draconian or more direct way to fix it than just draining the cache folder(s), but it's a simple & relatively side- effect-free thing to try. If that doesn't work, some of the things AppleJack does (repair permissions, validate the syntax of plist files with plutil, etc) are a good next step. If that still doesn't work, trying another user account should at least narrow down whether it is a user data problem or a corrupt system install problem. If the latter -- that is, if another account has the same problem and mucking around with /Library/Caches and / Library/Preferences doesn't help -- then archive & install. If it's user data, try renaming ~/Library/Preferences, then if that doesn't work just rename the whole ~/Library tree. If that still doesn't work, reinstall the system anyway, as something is very broken. -- Chris Devers On Jan 3, 2008, at 5:07 PM, Scott Roebuck wrote: > Dan, > > Humor me... just for a minute, believe that I know that it is > a .bundle or .component file and that it should look and act > differently than what it does... What do I do next? > > I am not the only person who has experienced this phenomena. Even > though there are but a few post on Apple/Support/Discussions > concerning this, it generally is happening on a MacBook Pro. > > I have 12 FCP editing systems which are a mixture of PowerPCs and > MacPros running the same versions of OS and QT and none of them have > exhibited this behavior. > > I am not even sure that this is related to the postage stamp size > QuickTime attachments, but as the title3D .bundle files would not > allow me to use title3d in FCP until they were converted to .plugin > files, I just thought maybe. > > I simply wanted to know if anyone has experienced this problem or > knows of a workaround or real solution. > > Thanks much, > > Scott > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Dan Shoop wrote: > >> >> On Jan 3, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Scott Roebuck wrote: >> >>> UPDATE... >>> >>> It is just not .bundle files, it is also .component files. >>> >>> I assume that these files are not working properly in this state. >>> Case in point were my Title 3D .bundle files in /Library/ >>> Application Support/Final Cut Pro System Support/Plugins/. >>> >>> I had to convert these to .plugin files in order for them to work >>> in FCP. They worked fine as an actual .bundle file prior to >>> 10.4.11 update. >>> >>> Any suggestions on how to change these back to their original >>> form. I >>> >>> Thanks in advance for any direction. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:12 AM, Scott Roebuck wrote: >>> >>>> Hello and Happy New Year! >>>> >>>> Since installing the 10.4.11, Quicktime 7.3.1, all inline >>>> Quicktime movies are reduced to postage stamp size regardless of >>>> actual movie footprint. These small icons are frequently doubled >>>> over other text. Collapsing and expanding the window gets rid of >>>> the doubling, but the postage stamp size remains. Receivers using >>>> apple mail see the movie at the correct size. >>>> >>>> I also have a problem where as all or most of my .bundle files >>>> appear as folders and do not serve there purpose. Could this be >>>> related? >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance for any suggestions. >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> >>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>>> No trees were killed in the sending of this message. >>>> However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MacOSX-admin mailing list >>>> MacOSX-admin@omnigroup.com >>>> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin >>> >>> >>> ____________ >>> >>> This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic >>> Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended >>> only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may >>> contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt >>> from disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this >>> message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent >>> responsible for delivering this electronic message to the intended >>> recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution >>> or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you >>> have received this transmission in error, please notify us >>> immediately by reply e-mail or by telephone (323-860-4000), and >>> destroy the original transmission and its attachments without >>> reading them or saving them to disk or otherwise. Thank you. >> >> >> .bundles *are* directories. >> >> Check to make sure that the .bundles you are looking at really do >> have the .bundle extension. >> >> How are you observing the files? If the answer is using the Finder, >> try using ls. >> >> >> -dhan >> >> --- >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Dan Shoop >> Computer Scientist >> iWiring / U.S. Technical Services >> >> shoop@iwiring.net >> AOL IM .................... iWiring >> Nextel .................... 1-714-363-1174 >> Operations TOC (24/7) ..... 1-866-901-USTS >> USTS Offices .............. 1-714-374-6300 >> >> For immediate response for urgent matters please speak to the Duty >> Officer >> at the USTS Tactical Operations Center (above) who can reach me by >> radio. >> >> > > > ____________ > > This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic > Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only > for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain > information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from > disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this message is > not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for > delivering this electronic message to the intended recipient, you > are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this > communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > transmission in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail > or by telephone (323-860-4000), and destroy the original > transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them > to disk or otherwise. Thank you. > > > _______________________________________________ > MacOSX-admin mailing list > MacOSX-admin@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin From saigon at ufl.edu Wed Jan 9 06:54:25 2008 From: saigon at ufl.edu (Trang Le) Date: Wed Jan 9 10:00:17 2008 Subject: rc.shutdown Message-ID: <0D628B18-8B54-4B6F-AE36-ABED0B15A214@ufl.edu> What happens to the rc.shutdown file? It is in the etc directory in 10.4.x. I modified that file to do some maintenance work when a user log out in our lab. Trang Le University of Florida From johnmusbach1 at gmail.com Wed Jan 9 10:32:16 2008 From: johnmusbach1 at gmail.com (John Musbach) Date: Wed Jan 9 10:32:18 2008 Subject: rc.shutdown In-Reply-To: <0D628B18-8B54-4B6F-AE36-ABED0B15A214@ufl.edu> References: <0D628B18-8B54-4B6F-AE36-ABED0B15A214@ufl.edu> Message-ID: <17c8e29e0801091032x5febba99ga74dccd7529524c5@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 9, 2008 6:54 AM, Trang Le wrote: > What happens to the rc.shutdown file? It is in the etc directory in > 10.4.x. I modified that file to do some maintenance work when a user > log out in our lab. In general a regular rc files contents is executed as root upon startup of the operating system, however in this case the rc.shutdown file is executed when the shutdown proceedure is executed. Instead if you want a script to execute on logout you should create a logout hook with the following terminal command: sudo defaults write com.apple.loginwindow LogoutHook path_to_script -- Best Regards, John Musbach From blenko at martingalesystems.com Wed Jan 9 16:13:31 2008 From: blenko at martingalesystems.com (Tom M.Blenko) Date: Wed Jan 9 16:20:01 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives Message-ID: <5eaf825620e54705f4118ddfc0447404@martingalesystems.com> I bought three LaCie drives in the past two years (2x500GB, 1x2TB). 2TB had to go back after about three months, turned out to be a power supply failure (but my data was wiped by LaCie nonetheless). All three drives failed during the same 2-week period this past October. I haven't had time to spend a day with the LaCie tech support folks but I've tried them with multiple cables and multiple machines and I'm not optimistic. I bought these drives and thought I paid a modest premium for better quality. I'm very unhappy with the quality. These *are* the backup drives and prior to the current incident I thought maintaining backups across multiple drives was a pretty good way to get a high degree of reliability. So -- what does anyone use for a reliable Firewire drive? I am willing to pay more but I want a much better product than the LaCie's. And while I'm at it, do anyone have a vendor they've had good experience with for recovering data from drives? Tom From gsslist+osxadmin at anthropohedron.net Wed Jan 9 16:30:40 2008 From: gsslist+osxadmin at anthropohedron.net (Gregory Seidman) Date: Wed Jan 9 16:37:52 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <5eaf825620e54705f4118ddfc0447404@martingalesystems.com> References: <5eaf825620e54705f4118ddfc0447404@martingalesystems.com> Message-ID: <20080110003037.GA28651@anthropohedron.net> On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:13:31PM -0800, Tom M.Blenko wrote: [...] > So -- what does anyone use for a reliable Firewire drive? I am willing to > pay more but I want a much better product than the LaCie's. http://dealmac.com/categories/Computer/Storage/Hard-Drives/External-Hard-Drives/Fire-Wire/240.html I don't bother with reliable. I do RAID. Get a few cheap ones and mirror. > And while I'm at it, do anyone have a vendor they've had good experience > with for recovering data from drives? Unless it's really vital, the cost is ridiculous. > Tom --Greg From scott_ribe at killerbytes.com Wed Jan 9 18:11:04 2008 From: scott_ribe at killerbytes.com (Scott Ribe) Date: Wed Jan 9 18:17:48 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <5eaf825620e54705f4118ddfc0447404@martingalesystems.com> Message-ID: I've done well with Wiebetech. And when there have been problems, tech support has been excellent. -- Scott Ribe scott_ribe@killerbytes.com http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 722-0567 voice From mgf at mgfconsulting.net Wed Jan 9 20:28:19 2008 From: mgf at mgfconsulting.net (Mike Friedman) Date: Wed Jan 9 20:28:41 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <5eaf825620e54705f4118ddfc0447404@martingalesystems.com> References: <5eaf825620e54705f4118ddfc0447404@martingalesystems.com> Message-ID: I used DriveSavers once years ago when the admin prior to me forgot to backup a database that a client had paid us to develop. Oops. Cost $2k but it worked and saved us from looking like idiots in front of the client. On Jan 9, 2008, at 4:13 PM, Tom M.Blenko wrote: > > I bought three LaCie drives in the past two years (2x500GB, 1x2TB). > 2TB had to go back after about three months, turned out to be a > power supply failure (but my data was wiped by LaCie nonetheless). > All three drives failed during the same 2-week period this past > October. I haven't had time to spend a day with the LaCie tech > support folks but I've tried them with multiple cables and multiple > machines and I'm not optimistic. > > I bought these drives and thought I paid a modest premium for better > quality. I'm very unhappy with the quality. These *are* the backup > drives and prior to the current incident I thought maintaining > backups across multiple drives was a pretty good way to get a high > degree of reliability. > > So -- what does anyone use for a reliable Firewire drive? I am > willing to pay more but I want a much better product than the LaCie's. > > And while I'm at it, do anyone have a vendor they've had good > experience with for recovering data from drives? > > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > MacOSX-admin mailing list > MacOSX-admin@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin ======================= Mike Friedman MGF Consulting Computers without Attitude http://www.mgfconsulting.net 415-648-6560 (office) 415-823-9990 (mobile) Yahoo Messenger/AIM: sfmike64 From andrew.merenbach at ucla.edu Wed Jan 9 20:57:49 2008 From: andrew.merenbach at ucla.edu (Andrew Merenbach) Date: Wed Jan 9 20:58:00 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <5eaf825620e54705f4118ddfc0447404@martingalesystems.com> References: <5eaf825620e54705f4118ddfc0447404@martingalesystems.com> Message-ID: <8807421E-B1C2-4C28-B590-23537203B423@ucla.edu> Hi, Tom, I recommend the OWC Guardian MAXimus. It's a RAID-1 device with two internal SATA drives, and can be connected in a multitude of ways to your computer. No need for special software or network drives -- just format it and forget it. I use it now for my Time Machine backups and have had not a single hiccough. Cheers, Andrew On Jan 9, 2008, at 4:13 PM, Tom M.Blenko wrote: > > I bought three LaCie drives in the past two years (2x500GB, 1x2TB). > 2TB had to go back after about three months, turned out to be a > power supply failure (but my data was wiped by LaCie nonetheless). > All three drives failed during the same 2-week period this past > October. I haven't had time to spend a day with the LaCie tech > support folks but I've tried them with multiple cables and multiple > machines and I'm not optimistic. > > I bought these drives and thought I paid a modest premium for better > quality. I'm very unhappy with the quality. These *are* the backup > drives and prior to the current incident I thought maintaining > backups across multiple drives was a pretty good way to get a high > degree of reliability. > > So -- what does anyone use for a reliable Firewire drive? I am > willing to pay more but I want a much better product than the LaCie's. > > And while I'm at it, do anyone have a vendor they've had good > experience with for recovering data from drives? > > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > MacOSX-admin mailing list > MacOSX-admin@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin From bill at cheeseman.name Thu Jan 10 01:48:52 2008 From: bill at cheeseman.name (Bill Cheeseman) Date: Thu Jan 10 01:50:12 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <5eaf825620e54705f4118ddfc0447404@martingalesystems.com> Message-ID: on 2008-01-09 7:13 PM, Tom M.Blenko at blenko@martingalesystems.com wrote: > I bought three LaCie drives in the past two years (2x500GB, 1x2TB). 2TB > had to go back after about three months, turned out to be a power > supply failure After bad experiences with other manufacturers, I have used LaCie external Firewire drives exclusively for several years. I'm very happy with them. Two of my d2 drives appeared to have failed after a couple of years. I happened to think to try switching the power cord/power brick from a good drive to the "bad" drive, and it came right back to life. I ordered a new power cord from LaCie for less than $20, and the drives have been fine ever since. My conclusion: LaCie drives are very good and very reliable, but they could do a little better job with the power bricks. -- Bill Cheeseman - bill@cheeseman.name Quechee Software, Quechee, Vermont, USA www.quecheesoftware.com PreFab Software - www.prefabsoftware.com From erikwb at iet.ntnu.no Thu Jan 10 02:12:24 2008 From: erikwb at iet.ntnu.no (Erik Wessel-Berg) Date: Thu Jan 10 02:24:33 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39E43E5F-0FB0-4EEE-A446-7521C46A7CA7@iet.ntnu.no> On 10. jan.. 2008, at 10.48, Bill Cheeseman wrote: > > My conclusion: LaCie drives are very good and very reliable, but > they could > do a little better job with the power bricks. I second that conclusion. I've had two power supply failures with my LaCie drives in the last four years. ______________________________________________________ Erik Wessel-Berg Dept. of Electronics and Telecommunications, NTNU N-7491 Trondheim, NORWAY http://www.iet.ntnu.no/en/ ______________________________________________________ From jearle at gmail.com Thu Jan 10 02:42:05 2008 From: jearle at gmail.com (Jared Earle) Date: Thu Jan 10 02:42:09 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <39E43E5F-0FB0-4EEE-A446-7521C46A7CA7@iet.ntnu.no> References: <39E43E5F-0FB0-4EEE-A446-7521C46A7CA7@iet.ntnu.no> Message-ID: <5bbc0cd60801100242i103135fk668366a1571a1ca5@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 10, 2008 10:12 AM, Erik Wessel-Berg wrote: > > On 10. jan.. 2008, at 10.48, Bill Cheeseman wrote: > > > > My conclusion: LaCie drives are very good and very reliable, but > > they could > > do a little better job with the power bricks. > > I second that conclusion. I've had two power supply failures with my > LaCie drives in the last four years. A friend of mine in the office just had the PSU replaced on his Lacie. He was told by the shop "It's not uncommon." -- Jared Earle :: There is no SPORK jearle@gmail.com :: http://www.23x.net The Spodcast :: http://spodcast.org From shoop at iwiring.net Thu Jan 10 06:24:30 2008 From: shoop at iwiring.net (Dan Shoop) Date: Thu Jan 10 06:24:37 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <39E43E5F-0FB0-4EEE-A446-7521C46A7CA7@iet.ntnu.no> References: <39E43E5F-0FB0-4EEE-A446-7521C46A7CA7@iet.ntnu.no> Message-ID: <66B19A2C-D4BA-4FC0-8434-47A03EA40065@iwiring.net> On Jan 10, 2008, at 5:12 AM, Erik Wessel-Berg wrote: > > On 10. jan.. 2008, at 10.48, Bill Cheeseman wrote: >> >> My conclusion: LaCie drives are very good and very reliable, but >> they could >> do a little better job with the power bricks. > > I second that conclusion. I've had two power supply failures with my > LaCie drives in the last four years. I'd chime in that I also concur and that the drives used themselves are far better than many of the other vendors that you popularly see. The weakness appears to be that they use underpowered wall rats. This said, LaCie sells both good drives and better drives. Their lower end models seem to be the ones that are the more troublesome, and mostly not from the drives themselves; the power supplies used are just cheaper. Since bad power (and heat) are what kill drives, whatever you can do to improve either is in your best interest. Even fronting the wall rats with a power conditioner has demonstrate marked improvement in lifespans. I'd also caution that many models (and not just LaCie's), and especially in the 500GB+ models such as the 500GB and certainly the 2TB "drives" you mentioned, aren't actually one drive but two in a RAID0 configuration. This has a significantly worse MTBF since you have two mechanisms that can each fail, either one of which will cause you to lose your data. All this said, I also agree with the others. Disks are relatively cheap today. Consider RAID and redundant backup drives to protect the data. You may also want to take a look at zfs which is now available on OS X and working wonderfully so far and offers quite a lot of ease in DAS management, far superior protection (even at a fil and block level) that RAID, data intergrity (something not offered by RAID or bare drives), data redundancy and backup. -dhan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Shoop Computer Scientist iWiring / U.S. Technical Services shoop@iwiring.net AOL IM .................... iWiring Nextel .................... 1-714-363-1174 Operations TOC (24/7) ..... 1-866-901-USTS USTS Offices .............. 1-714-374-6300 For immediate response for urgent matters please speak to the Duty Officer at the USTS Tactical Operations Center (above) who can reach me by radio. From kremels at kreme.com Thu Jan 10 06:46:11 2008 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Thu Jan 10 06:46:13 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <20080110003037.GA28651@anthropohedron.net> References: <5eaf825620e54705f4118ddfc0447404@martingalesystems.com> <20080110003037.GA28651@anthropohedron.net> Message-ID: On 9-Jan-2008, at 17:30, Gregory Seidman wrote: > I don't bother with reliable. I do RAID. Get a few cheap ones and > mirror. RAID is not backup. -- Why can't you be in a good mood? How hard is it to decide to be in a good mood and be in a good mood once in a while?" From jearle at gmail.com Thu Jan 10 06:53:14 2008 From: jearle at gmail.com (Jared Earle) Date: Thu Jan 10 06:53:17 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: References: <5eaf825620e54705f4118ddfc0447404@martingalesystems.com> <20080110003037.GA28651@anthropohedron.net> Message-ID: <5bbc0cd60801100653h5aaec2f9p1814a5a7fc097182@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 10, 2008 2:46 PM, LuKreme wrote: > On 9-Jan-2008, at 17:30, Gregory Seidman wrote: > > I don't bother with reliable. I do RAID. Get a few cheap ones and > > mirror. > > RAID is not backup. It is if you store your time machine files on it. ;) -- Jared Earle :: There is no SPORK jearle@gmail.com :: http://www.23x.net The Spodcast :: http://spodcast.org From bill at cheeseman.name Thu Jan 10 07:03:16 2008 From: bill at cheeseman.name (Bill Cheeseman) Date: Thu Jan 10 07:03:53 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: <66B19A2C-D4BA-4FC0-8434-47A03EA40065@iwiring.net> Message-ID: on 2008-01-10 9:24 AM, Dan Shoop at shoop@iwiring.net wrote: > You may also want to take a look at zfs which is now available > on OS X and working wonderfully so far and offers quite a lot of ease > in DAS management, far superior protection (even at a fil and block > level) that RAID, data intergrity (something not offered by RAID or > bare drives), data redundancy and backup. Do you have a reference handy for instructions on how to set ZFS up (using external Firewire drives)? I haven't started looking into that yet. -- Bill Cheeseman - bill@cheeseman.name Quechee Software, Quechee, Vermont, USA www.quecheesoftware.com PreFab Software - www.prefabsoftware.com From scott_ribe at killerbytes.com Thu Jan 10 07:06:17 2008 From: scott_ribe at killerbytes.com (Scott Ribe) Date: Thu Jan 10 07:06:21 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <5bbc0cd60801100653h5aaec2f9p1814a5a7fc097182@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > It is if you store your time machine files on it. ;) Speaking of which, has anybody tried Time Machine + ZFS? I've been meaning to check the combination, but haven't gotten around to it. -- Scott Ribe scott_ribe@killerbytes.com http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 722-0567 voice From shoop at iwiring.net Thu Jan 10 07:08:08 2008 From: shoop at iwiring.net (Dan Shoop) Date: Thu Jan 10 07:08:18 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 10, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Bill Cheeseman wrote: > on 2008-01-10 9:24 AM, Dan Shoop at shoop@iwiring.net wrote: > >> You may also want to take a look at zfs which is now available >> on OS X and working wonderfully so far and offers quite a lot of ease >> in DAS management, far superior protection (even at a fil and block >> level) that RAID, data intergrity (something not offered by RAID or >> bare drives), data redundancy and backup. > > Do you have a reference handy for instructions on how to set ZFS up > (using > external Firewire drives)? I haven't started looking into that yet. ZFS is a /filesystem/. As such whether the "disks" are firewire or files on a volume the operations are the same. have you bothered to Google? -dhan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Shoop Computer Scientist iWiring / U.S. Technical Services shoop@iwiring.net AOL IM .................... iWiring Nextel .................... 1-714-363-1174 Operations TOC (24/7) ..... 1-866-901-USTS USTS Offices .............. 1-714-374-6300 For immediate response for urgent matters please speak to the Duty Officer at the USTS Tactical Operations Center (above) who can reach me by radio. From shoop at iwiring.net Thu Jan 10 07:08:56 2008 From: shoop at iwiring.net (Dan Shoop) Date: Thu Jan 10 07:09:01 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 10, 2008, at 10:06 AM, Scott Ribe wrote: >> It is if you store your time machine files on it. ;) > > Speaking of which, has anybody tried Time Machine + ZFS? I've been > meaning > to check the combination, but haven't gotten around to it. What would be the point? ZFS makes Time Machine look primitive. -dhan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Shoop Computer Scientist iWiring / U.S. Technical Services shoop@iwiring.net AOL IM .................... iWiring Nextel .................... 1-714-363-1174 Operations TOC (24/7) ..... 1-866-901-USTS USTS Offices .............. 1-714-374-6300 For immediate response for urgent matters please speak to the Duty Officer at the USTS Tactical Operations Center (above) who can reach me by radio. From gsslist+osxadmin at anthropohedron.net Thu Jan 10 07:10:59 2008 From: gsslist+osxadmin at anthropohedron.net (Gregory Seidman) Date: Thu Jan 10 07:11:07 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: References: <5eaf825620e54705f4118ddfc0447404@martingalesystems.com> <20080110003037.GA28651@anthropohedron.net> Message-ID: <20080110151059.GA3519@anthropohedron.net> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 07:46:11AM -0700, LuKreme wrote: > On 9-Jan-2008, at 17:30, Gregory Seidman wrote: >> I don't bother with reliable. I do RAID. Get a few cheap ones and mirror. > > RAID is not backup. Backup is orthogonal to reliability. My backup strategy is unrelated to my reliability strategy. Any hardware has a MTBF rating. RAID (above level 0) lets you increase the reliability of the system arbitrarily by increasing the MTBF for the entire system to the point where you can replace failed units faster than a partial failure is likely to turn into a total failure, avoiding downtime. (Note that Google does something similar with entire computers.) That's the point. Backups are not about avoiding failures, they are about recovering from failures. RAID protects you from a certain class of failures. Backups let you recover from a broader class of failures, but have nothing to do with downtime. Time, money, and effort can be applied to a system to increase reliability and/or recoverability. The value of your data and your specific uptime needs will inform choices about how much time, money, and effort to dedicate to each. Incidentally, Google dedicates time, money, and effort only to reliability, doesn't try to back things up with anything other than redundancy, and doesn't even bother culling failed units. --Greg From scott_ribe at killerbytes.com Thu Jan 10 07:16:50 2008 From: scott_ribe at killerbytes.com (Scott Ribe) Date: Thu Jan 10 07:16:56 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > What would be the point? ZFS makes Time Machine look primitive. ZFS does not preserve old versions of files. It's quite nice RAID with advanced management & reliability features, but it's not backup. -- Scott Ribe scott_ribe@killerbytes.com http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 722-0567 voice From bsilver at chrononomicon.com Thu Jan 10 07:38:41 2008 From: bsilver at chrononomicon.com (Bart Silverstrim) Date: Thu Jan 10 07:38:17 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47863C01.1070302@chrononomicon.com> Scott Ribe wrote: >> What would be the point? ZFS makes Time Machine look primitive. > > ZFS does not preserve old versions of files. It's quite nice RAID with > advanced management & reliability features, but it's not backup. Isn't there a filesystem (maybe it was primarily for Linux) that will "mirror" a disk (or volume? partition?) to another machine over a network? From scott_ribe at killerbytes.com Thu Jan 10 08:09:52 2008 From: scott_ribe at killerbytes.com (Scott Ribe) Date: Thu Jan 10 08:09:57 2008 Subject: ZFS, backup Message-ID: > Isn't there a filesystem (maybe it was primarily for Linux) that will > "mirror" a disk (or volume? partition?) to another machine over a network? There are such filesystems (& other software combos). But that still doesn't give you back up in the sense of maintaining a history of older versions. -- Scott Ribe scott_ribe@killerbytes.com http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 722-0567 voice From gsslist+osxadmin at anthropohedron.net Thu Jan 10 08:12:37 2008 From: gsslist+osxadmin at anthropohedron.net (Gregory Seidman) Date: Thu Jan 10 08:12:44 2008 Subject: ZFS, backup In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080110161237.GA7885@anthropohedron.net> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:09:52AM -0700, Scott Ribe wrote: > > Isn't there a filesystem (maybe it was primarily for Linux) that will > > "mirror" a disk (or volume? partition?) to another machine over a network? > > There are such filesystems (& other software combos). But that still doesn't > give you back up in the sense of maintaining a history of older versions. Actually, I think ZFS supports efficient, copy-on-write filesystem snapshotting. That means it can, indeed, maintain a history of older versions. Note that this has nothing to do with recoverability from disk or machine failure, however, and does not replace (all) the purpose of good backups. > Scott Ribe --Greg From bill at cheeseman.name Thu Jan 10 08:15:50 2008 From: bill at cheeseman.name (Bill Cheeseman) Date: Thu Jan 10 08:16:12 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: on 2008-01-10 10:08 AM, Dan Shoop at shoop@iwiring.net wrote: > On Jan 10, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Bill Cheeseman wrote: > >> Do you have a reference handy for instructions on how to set ZFS up >> (using external Firewire drives)? I haven't started looking into that yet. > > ... have you bothered to Google? Are you asking whether I have started looking into that yet? ;) -- Bill Cheeseman - bill@cheeseman.name Quechee Software, Quechee, Vermont, USA www.quecheesoftware.com PreFab Software - www.prefabsoftware.com From jwelch at bynkii.com Thu Jan 10 08:34:01 2008 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Thu Jan 10 08:34:10 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <5bbc0cd60801100653h5aaec2f9p1814a5a7fc097182@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 01/10/2008 08:53 AM, "Jared Earle" wrote: >>> I don't bother with reliable. I do RAID. Get a few cheap ones and >>> mirror. >> >> RAID is not backup. > > It is if you store your time machine files on it. ;) No, then it's more-reliable storage for near-line backup. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From jwelch at bynkii.com Thu Jan 10 08:34:37 2008 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Thu Jan 10 08:34:44 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 01/10/2008 09:08 AM, "Dan Shoop" wrote: >>> It is if you store your time machine files on it. ;) >> >> Speaking of which, has anybody tried Time Machine + ZFS? I've been >> meaning >> to check the combination, but haven't gotten around to it. > > > What would be the point? ZFS makes Time Machine look primitive. At the FS level, yes. At the UI and integration level, no. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From bsilver at chrononomicon.com Thu Jan 10 09:15:52 2008 From: bsilver at chrononomicon.com (Bart Silverstrim) Date: Thu Jan 10 09:15:28 2008 Subject: ZFS, backup In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478652C8.1040809@chrononomicon.com> Scott Ribe wrote: >> Isn't there a filesystem (maybe it was primarily for Linux) that will >> "mirror" a disk (or volume? partition?) to another machine over a network? > > There are such filesystems (& other software combos). But that still doesn't > give you back up in the sense of maintaining a history of older versions. > Oh, I understand that. I was looking at it from a reliability standpoint, wanting to have a "hot host" on standby should hardware go kaput. From list-omnigroup at fsck.net Thu Jan 10 12:27:53 2008 From: list-omnigroup at fsck.net (Eugene) Date: Thu Jan 10 12:27:59 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080110202753.GA199@Macintosh.local> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:16:50AM CST, Scott Ribe wrote: > Dan Shoop wrote: > > > > What would be the point? ZFS makes Time Machine look primitive. > > ZFS does not preserve old versions of files. It's quite nice RAID with > advanced management & reliability features, but it's not backup. Versioning filesystem? You want Files-11. Oh, how I long for thee, VMS... sorta... -- Eugene http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ From milov at cslab.uwlax.edu Thu Jan 10 12:39:30 2008 From: milov at cslab.uwlax.edu (Milo Velimirovic) Date: Thu Jan 10 12:39:36 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <20080110202753.GA199@Macintosh.local> References: <20080110202753.GA199@Macintosh.local> Message-ID: <4C92EDD4-6AAD-4BDD-A7D6-0608D41DC4BF@cslab.uwlax.edu> On Jan 10, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Eugene wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:16:50AM CST, Scott Ribe > wrote: >> Dan Shoop wrote: >>> >>> What would be the point? ZFS makes Time Machine look primitive. >> >> ZFS does not preserve old versions of files. It's quite nice RAID >> with >> advanced management & reliability features, but it's not backup. > > Versioning filesystem? You want Files-11. > > Oh, how I long for thee, VMS... sorta... VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you get to use UNIX. from a button someone gave me many years ago. :) > > > > -- > Eugene > http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ > _______________________________________________ > MacOSX-admin mailing list > MacOSX-admin@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin -- Milo Velimirovi?, Unix Computer Network Administrator 608-785-6618 Office - 608-386-2817 Cell University of Wisconsin - La Crosse La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 USA 43 48 48 N 91 13 53 W -- The problem with thinking is that if you think out a 30 second explanation, it passes over the 5 second sound-byte crowd. -- Steve Wozniak From shoop at iwiring.net Thu Jan 10 17:20:18 2008 From: shoop at iwiring.net (Dan Shoop) Date: Thu Jan 10 17:20:28 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <72A10B25-C9BB-4D7C-83BF-16AA157348EB@iwiring.net> On Jan 10, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Scott Ribe wrote: >> What would be the point? ZFS makes Time Machine look primitive. > > ZFS does not preserve old versions of files. Ah, yes and no. It preserves the changed blocks, effectively allowing you to access older versions of the file snapshot'ed or sent. > It's quite nice RAID with > advanced management & reliability features, but it's not backup. It's not RAID at all, but does offer features very similar. It also can duplicate files so that if they become corrupted or lost they are recoverable. -dhan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Shoop Computer Scientist iWiring / U.S. Technical Services shoop@iwiring.net AOL IM .................... iWiring Nextel .................... 1-714-363-1174 Operations TOC (24/7) ..... 1-866-901-USTS USTS Offices .............. 1-714-374-6300 For immediate response for urgent matters please speak to the Duty Officer at the USTS Tactical Operations Center (above) who can reach me by radio. From shoop at iwiring.net Thu Jan 10 17:21:31 2008 From: shoop at iwiring.net (Dan Shoop) Date: Thu Jan 10 17:21:38 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 10, 2008, at 11:34 AM, John C. Welch wrote: > On 01/10/2008 09:08 AM, "Dan Shoop" wrote: > >>>> It is if you store your time machine files on it. ;) >>> >>> Speaking of which, has anybody tried Time Machine + ZFS? I've been >>> meaning >>> to check the combination, but haven't gotten around to it. >> >> >> What would be the point? ZFS makes Time Machine look primitive. > > At the FS level, yes. At the UI and integration level, no. From a UI standpoint you just access the appropriate directory path, very similar to your droids^H Time Machine. -dhan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Shoop Computer Scientist iWiring / U.S. Technical Services shoop@iwiring.net AOL IM .................... iWiring Nextel .................... 1-714-363-1174 Operations TOC (24/7) ..... 1-866-901-USTS USTS Offices .............. 1-714-374-6300 For immediate response for urgent matters please speak to the Duty Officer at the USTS Tactical Operations Center (above) who can reach me by radio. From shoop at iwiring.net Thu Jan 10 17:22:54 2008 From: shoop at iwiring.net (Dan Shoop) Date: Thu Jan 10 17:23:03 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <4C92EDD4-6AAD-4BDD-A7D6-0608D41DC4BF@cslab.uwlax.edu> References: <20080110202753.GA199@Macintosh.local> <4C92EDD4-6AAD-4BDD-A7D6-0608D41DC4BF@cslab.uwlax.edu> Message-ID: <5FA9FEDA-627D-4358-B291-665C45BD6DA7@iwiring.net> On Jan 10, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Milo Velimirovic wrote: > > On Jan 10, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Eugene wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:16:50AM CST, Scott Ribe > > wrote: >>> Dan Shoop wrote: >>>> >>>> What would be the point? ZFS makes Time Machine look primitive. >>> >>> ZFS does not preserve old versions of files. It's quite nice RAID >>> with >>> advanced management & reliability features, but it's not backup. >> >> Versioning filesystem? You want Files-11. >> >> Oh, how I long for thee, VMS... sorta... > > VMS is a text-only adventure game. > If you win you get to use UNIX. Obviously they never played with VMS. It was Unix that was far more text based being that VMS systems incorporated X-11 far easier and often than Unix systems. -dhan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Shoop Computer Scientist iWiring / U.S. Technical Services shoop@iwiring.net AOL IM .................... iWiring Nextel .................... 1-714-363-1174 Operations TOC (24/7) ..... 1-866-901-USTS USTS Offices .............. 1-714-374-6300 For immediate response for urgent matters please speak to the Duty Officer at the USTS Tactical Operations Center (above) who can reach me by radio. From jwelch at bynkii.com Thu Jan 10 17:30:37 2008 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Thu Jan 10 17:30:44 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 01/10/2008 19:21 PM, "Dan Shoop" wrote: >>>>> It is if you store your time machine files on it. ;) >>>> >>>> Speaking of which, has anybody tried Time Machine + ZFS? I've been >>>> meaning >>>> to check the combination, but haven't gotten around to it. >>> >>> >>> What would be the point? ZFS makes Time Machine look primitive. >> >> At the FS level, yes. At the UI and integration level, no. > > > From a UI standpoint you just access the appropriate directory path, > very similar to your droids^H Time Machine. Actually, thinking about it more, comparing Time Machine to ZFS is like comparing a house to the ground it sits on. As long as the ground is good for the house, who cares? Time Machine will work as well with ZFS as HFSX as with any FS that supports the things it needs. What TM offers that *any* fs doesn't is ease of use and a good UI and Layer 8 integration so the users can easily back up data. Neither the User nor the Application should give a rat's patootie about the FS underneath as long as it works, which is as it should be. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From shoop at iwiring.net Thu Jan 10 17:32:10 2008 From: shoop at iwiring.net (Dan Shoop) Date: Thu Jan 10 17:32:16 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <779A85C1-1FBE-484B-B3C7-80EDE2AD0037@iwiring.net> On Jan 10, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Bill Cheeseman wrote: > on 2008-01-10 10:08 AM, Dan Shoop at shoop@iwiring.net wrote: > >> On Jan 10, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Bill Cheeseman wrote: >> >>> Do you have a reference handy for instructions on how to set ZFS up >>> (using external Firewire drives)? I haven't started looking into >>> that yet. >> >> ... have you bothered to Google? > > Are you asking whether I have started looking into that yet? ;) I meant if you bothered to Google you'd find plenty of instructions for which you claimed to be searching relating to ZFS. -dhan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Shoop Computer Scientist iWiring / U.S. Technical Services shoop@iwiring.net AOL IM .................... iWiring Nextel .................... 1-714-363-1174 Operations TOC (24/7) ..... 1-866-901-USTS USTS Offices .............. 1-714-374-6300 For immediate response for urgent matters please speak to the Duty Officer at the USTS Tactical Operations Center (above) who can reach me by radio. From shoop at iwiring.net Thu Jan 10 18:51:34 2008 From: shoop at iwiring.net (Dan Shoop) Date: Thu Jan 10 18:51:41 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37BF781F-70E9-439A-AC8B-1141D4889FDD@iwiring.net> On Jan 10, 2008, at 8:30 PM, John C. Welch wrote: > On 01/10/2008 19:21 PM, "Dan Shoop" wrote: > >>>>>> It is if you store your time machine files on it. ;) >>>>> >>>>> Speaking of which, has anybody tried Time Machine + ZFS? I've been >>>>> meaning >>>>> to check the combination, but haven't gotten around to it. >>>> >>>> >>>> What would be the point? ZFS makes Time Machine look primitive. >>> >>> At the FS level, yes. At the UI and integration level, no. >> >> >> From a UI standpoint you just access the appropriate directory path, >> very similar to your droids^H Time Machine. > > Actually, thinking about it more, comparing Time Machine to ZFS is > like > comparing a house to the ground it sits on. As long as the ground is > good > for the house, who cares? Time Machine will work as well with ZFS as > HFSX as > with any FS that supports the things it needs. I guess the point I was trying to make is that ZFS makes Time Machine moot. It just does it's thing and doesn't need to have all the overheard of fsevents and nasty hard links for directories. You just tell the filesystem to handle backing itself up and you're done or you do it on demand. And it's easily accessible since it's always part of your existing filesystem. > What TM offers that *any* fs doesn't is ease of use and a good UI > and Layer > 8 integration so the users can easily back up data. Neither the User > nor the > Application should give a rat's patootie about the FS underneath as > long as > it works, which is as it should be. But ZFS doesn't need a UI to access the backed up files, they're exposed in the filesystem. (Which one could argue is also the case if you examine a Time Machine volume, with the exception there that it's a different filesystem.) -dhan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Shoop Computer Scientist iWiring / U.S. Technical Services shoop@iwiring.net AOL IM .................... iWiring Nextel .................... 1-714-363-1174 Operations TOC (24/7) ..... 1-866-901-USTS USTS Offices .............. 1-714-374-6300 For immediate response for urgent matters please speak to the Duty Officer at the USTS Tactical Operations Center (above) who can reach me by radio. From jwelch at bynkii.com Thu Jan 10 19:16:31 2008 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Thu Jan 10 19:16:37 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <37BF781F-70E9-439A-AC8B-1141D4889FDD@iwiring.net> Message-ID: On 01/10/2008 20:51 PM, "Dan Shoop" wrote: >> Actually, thinking about it more, comparing Time Machine to ZFS is >> like >> comparing a house to the ground it sits on. As long as the ground is >> good >> for the house, who cares? Time Machine will work as well with ZFS as >> HFSX as >> with any FS that supports the things it needs. > > I guess the point I was trying to make is that ZFS makes Time Machine > moot. It just does it's thing and doesn't need to have all the > overheard of fsevents and nasty hard links for directories. You just > tell the filesystem to handle backing itself up and you're done or you > do it on demand. And it's easily accessible since it's always part of > your existing filesystem. That's not why people like Time Machine. The FS is not the usability. The FS doesn't provide a way to only search for mail in Mail.app, or just for Numbers files in Numbers. ZFS doesn't make TM moot anymore than having a nice engine makes the seats and the GPS moot. All have value. To be technical, TM makes the FS meaningless. As long as the FS supports TM's needs, it's immaterial. ZFS, HFSX, whatever. That's how it SHOULD be. This idea that someone who just wants to back their stuff up needs to care about the FS is inane, and lazy. It's making things easy on programmers, and harder on the people using the programs, and that's NOT how things are supposed to work. > >> What TM offers that *any* fs doesn't is ease of use and a good UI >> and Layer >> 8 integration so the users can easily back up data. Neither the User >> nor the >> Application should give a rat's patootie about the FS underneath as >> long as >> it works, which is as it should be. > > > But ZFS doesn't need a UI to access the backed up files, they're > exposed in the filesystem. (Which one could argue is also the case if > you examine a Time Machine volume, with the exception there that it's > a different filesystem.) Dan, stop missing the point. TM is abstracted from the filesystem, just like other applications are. The value of TM is not in silly propellerhead FS arguments over who has the biggest FS 'nads. It's in the fact that if I'm in Numbers, and I need to find an old version of the spreadsheet I'm working on, I hit the time machine icon, scroll a bit, and bang, I'm good. No searching a file system. No running spotlight or other queries against backup/creation/modification dates or other file metadata. You just see the version you want, and ba-doom, it's good. ZFS, ZFS+, SuperZFS, those are not going to provide that ease of use. The UI, the usability is what has real value. The FS underneath it is at worst a non-issue, and at *best* a non-issue, because that's what it's supposed to be to people using TM: a non-issue. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From scott_ribe at killerbytes.com Thu Jan 10 19:53:18 2008 From: scott_ribe at killerbytes.com (Scott Ribe) Date: Thu Jan 10 19:53:22 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <72A10B25-C9BB-4D7C-83BF-16AA157348EB@iwiring.net> Message-ID: > Ah, yes and no. It preserves the changed blocks, effectively allowing > you to access older versions of the file snapshot'ed or sent. >> It's quite nice RAID with >> advanced management & reliability features, but it's not backup. Doh, I had forgotten the snapshot capabilities. So yes, ZFS provides capabilities that could be used for backup in the sense I meant. > It's not RAID at all, but does offer features very similar. Eh? It can keep redundant copies spread across redundant disks. It can do more than that, flexibly, so I'd call it a superset of RAID. > It also can duplicate files so that if they become corrupted or lost > they are recoverable. In multiple ways, "RAIDish" and "snapshotish". -- Scott Ribe scott_ribe@killerbytes.com http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 722-0567 voice From scott_ribe at killerbytes.com Thu Jan 10 20:01:39 2008 From: scott_ribe at killerbytes.com (Scott Ribe) Date: Thu Jan 10 20:01:43 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <37BF781F-70E9-439A-AC8B-1141D4889FDD@iwiring.net> Message-ID: > I guess the point I was trying to make is that ZFS makes Time Machine > moot. It just does it's thing and doesn't need to have all the > overheard of fsevents and nasty hard links for directories. You just > tell the filesystem to handle backing itself up and you're done or you > do it on demand. Yeah, I don't know about others, but I kind of glossed past that amid all my excitement about ZFS reliability features. (Software that tells the truth about disk errors, as opposed to that lying cheating SOB called S.M.A.R.T.) I still don't think ZFS moots Time Machine, as much as it provides (or perhaps I should say might in the future provide) a better implementation base for Time Machine's UI. -- Scott Ribe scott_ribe@killerbytes.com http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 722-0567 voice From johnmusbach1 at gmail.com Thu Jan 10 20:50:50 2008 From: johnmusbach1 at gmail.com (John Musbach) Date: Thu Jan 10 20:58:05 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: References: <66B19A2C-D4BA-4FC0-8434-47A03EA40065@iwiring.net> Message-ID: <17c8e29e0801102050u1b278413wc766e09f450b251a@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 10, 2008 7:03 AM, Bill Cheeseman wrote: > Do you have a reference handy for instructions on how to set ZFS up (using > external Firewire drives)? I haven't started looking into that yet. While the framework is there for zfs support in Leopard currently only read only support exists at this time. -- Best Regards, John Musbach From jwelch at bynkii.com Thu Jan 10 22:43:52 2008 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Thu Jan 10 22:43:59 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <37BF781F-70E9-439A-AC8B-1141D4889FDD@iwiring.net> Message-ID: On 01/10/2008 20:51 PM, "Dan Shoop" wrote: > I guess the point I was trying to make is that ZFS makes Time Machine > moot. It just does it's thing and doesn't need to have all the > overheard of fsevents and nasty hard links for directories. Also, fsevents aren't for the FS, they're for higher level programs that want to know when things happen to the FS. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From kremels at kreme.com Thu Jan 10 22:55:17 2008 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Thu Jan 10 22:55:19 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10-Jan-2008, at 08:16, Scott Ribe wrote: >> What would be the point? ZFS makes Time Machine look primitive. > > ZFS does not preserve old versions of files. Er... it's supposed to. -- and I lift my glass to the Awful Truth / which you can't reveal to the Ears of Youth / except to say it isn't worth a dime From kremels at kreme.com Thu Jan 10 23:01:46 2008 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Thu Jan 10 23:01:49 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5D3D0917-38D9-4B8C-8FC3-75F65D250EFA@kreme.com> On 10-Jan-2008, at 20:16, John C. Welch wrote: >> But ZFS doesn't need a UI to access the backed up files, they're >> exposed in the filesystem. (Which one could argue is also the case if >> you examine a Time Machine volume, with the exception there that it's >> a different filesystem.) > > Dan, stop missing the point. TM is abstracted from the filesystem, > just like > other applications are. The value of TM is not in silly > propellerhead FS > arguments over who has the biggest FS 'nads. Time Machine is two things. One is a UI into the backups of files on your computer, and this has nothing to do with the underlying FS. The other is a backup scheme using hard links to track changed files, and this scheme is time based and can easily miss versions of files (in fact, likely will in a rapidly changing file). ZFS makes this second part of TM irrelevant as it handles changed files 1) automatically 2) transparently 3) absolutely. It is a much better 'backup' scheme than the one employed by TM. For this portion of TM, the underlying FS is highly relevant. -- The fact that Bob and John are married does nothing to diminish anyone else?s marriage any more than a black woman marrying a white man, a Jew marrying a Catholic, or an ugly Lyle marrying a Pretty Woman. From chad+macosx at objectwerks.com Fri Jan 11 00:13:35 2008 From: chad+macosx at objectwerks.com (Chad Leigh objectwerks inc) Date: Fri Jan 11 00:13:40 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: References: <5eaf825620e54705f4118ddfc0447404@martingalesystems.com> <20080110003037.GA28651@anthropohedron.net> Message-ID: On Jan 10, 2008, at 7:46 AM, LuKreme wrote: > On 9-Jan-2008, at 17:30, Gregory Seidman wrote: >> I don't bother with reliable. I do RAID. Get a few cheap ones and >> mirror. > > RAID is not backup. > He did not say it was. It is a more reliable medium on which to backup to. My MacPro has 4x 750GB drives in it. They are configured in 2 x RAID 1 volumes (sw raid 1 mirror). One if the boot drive/data disk and one is for time machine. Chad From chad+macosx at objectwerks.com Fri Jan 11 00:14:56 2008 From: chad+macosx at objectwerks.com (Chad Leigh objectwerks inc) Date: Fri Jan 11 00:15:00 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3938D8A2-FC1F-4265-A2E1-589D1BAC488D@objectwerks.com> On Jan 10, 2008, at 8:16 AM, Scott Ribe wrote: >> What would be the point? ZFS makes Time Machine look primitive. > > ZFS does not preserve old versions of files. It's quite nice RAID with > advanced management & reliability features, but it's not backup. Actually ZFS snapshots allow a certain amount of preservation of old files. Chad From shoop at iwiring.net Fri Jan 11 01:34:02 2008 From: shoop at iwiring.net (Dan Shoop) Date: Fri Jan 11 01:34:07 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: <17c8e29e0801102050u1b278413wc766e09f450b251a@mail.gmail.com> References: <66B19A2C-D4BA-4FC0-8434-47A03EA40065@iwiring.net> <17c8e29e0801102050u1b278413wc766e09f450b251a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 10, 2008, at 11:50 PM, John Musbach wrote: > On Jan 10, 2008 7:03 AM, Bill Cheeseman wrote: >> Do you have a reference handy for instructions on how to set ZFS up >> (using >> external Firewire drives)? I haven't started looking into that yet. > > While the framework is there for zfs support in Leopard currently only > read only support exists at this time. Not true. -dhan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Shoop Computer Scientist iWiring / U.S. Technical Services shoop@iwiring.net AOL IM .................... iWiring Nextel .................... 1-714-363-1174 Operations TOC (24/7) ..... 1-866-901-USTS USTS Offices .............. 1-714-374-6300 For immediate response for urgent matters please speak to the Duty Officer at the USTS Tactical Operations Center (above) who can reach me by radio. From shoop at iwiring.net Fri Jan 11 01:34:50 2008 From: shoop at iwiring.net (Dan Shoop) Date: Fri Jan 11 01:34:57 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12B31518-0FC6-42C4-9756-E0ACCE4CA103@iwiring.net> On Jan 11, 2008, at 1:43 AM, John C. Welch wrote: > On 01/10/2008 20:51 PM, "Dan Shoop" wrote: > >> I guess the point I was trying to make is that ZFS makes Time Machine >> moot. It just does it's thing and doesn't need to have all the >> overheard of fsevents and nasty hard links for directories. > > Also, fsevents aren't for the FS, they're for higher level programs > that > want to know when things happen to the FS. Um... like Time Machine. In reality fsevents supports Time Machine and not much (usefully) else. -dhan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Shoop Computer Scientist iWiring / U.S. Technical Services shoop@iwiring.net AOL IM .................... iWiring Nextel .................... 1-714-363-1174 Operations TOC (24/7) ..... 1-866-901-USTS USTS Offices .............. 1-714-374-6300 For immediate response for urgent matters please speak to the Duty Officer at the USTS Tactical Operations Center (above) who can reach me by radio. From shoop at iwiring.net Fri Jan 11 01:41:10 2008 From: shoop at iwiring.net (Dan Shoop) Date: Fri Jan 11 01:41:18 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <317D56A0-38A5-4C62-B414-63B1FEF45D89@iwiring.net> On Jan 10, 2008, at 10:16 PM, John C. Welch wrote: > On 01/10/2008 20:51 PM, "Dan Shoop" wrote: > >>> Actually, thinking about it more, comparing Time Machine to ZFS is >>> like >>> comparing a house to the ground it sits on. As long as the ground is >>> good >>> for the house, who cares? Time Machine will work as well with ZFS as >>> HFSX as >>> with any FS that supports the things it needs. >> >> I guess the point I was trying to make is that ZFS makes Time Machine >> moot. It just does it's thing and doesn't need to have all the >> overheard of fsevents and nasty hard links for directories. You just >> tell the filesystem to handle backing itself up and you're done or >> you >> do it on demand. And it's easily accessible since it's always part of >> your existing filesystem. > > That's not why people like Time Machine. The FS is not the > usability. The FS > doesn't provide a way to only search for mail in Mail.app, or just for > Numbers files in Numbers. ZFS doesn't make TM moot anymore than > having a > nice engine makes the seats and the GPS moot. All have value. To be > technical, TM makes the FS meaningless. As long as the FS supports > TM's > needs, it's immaterial. ZFS, HFSX, whatever. So you like the abstraction and the API.That's good. > That's how it SHOULD be. This idea that someone who just wants to > back their > stuff up needs to care about the FS is inane, and lazy. Well I'd hardly call it lazy. The majority of ppl don't backup. Or use Time Machine. A filesystem that allows you to be lazy passes the "mom test" far better. > It's making things > easy on programmers, and harder on the people using the programs, > and that's > NOT how things are supposed to work. It does no such thing. ZFS provides a method to seamlessly protect data in ways that Time Machine can't. Time machine can't fix corrupted files. Time Machine can't work with only one volume to protect data. ZFS permits you to have backups w/o programmers. If you want to fal back, you just roll backwards. >> >>> What TM offers that *any* fs doesn't is ease of use and a good UI >>> and Layer >>> 8 integration so the users can easily back up data. Neither the User >>> nor the >>> Application should give a rat's patootie about the FS underneath as >>> long as >>> it works, which is as it should be. >> >> >> But ZFS doesn't need a UI to access the backed up files, they're >> exposed in the filesystem. (Which one could argue is also the case if >> you examine a Time Machine volume, with the exception there that it's >> a different filesystem.) > > Dan, stop missing the point. TM is abstracted from the filesystem, > just like > other applications are. The value of TM is not in silly > propellerhead FS > arguments over who has the biggest FS 'nads. It's in the fact that > if I'm in > Numbers, and I need to find an old version of the spreadsheet I'm > working > on, I hit the time machine icon, scroll a bit, and bang, I'm good. No > searching a file system. Which requires programmer intervention. It requires programmers to utilize APIs. It requires a lot of effort by many more people. Nothing happens wih TM automagically. Nothing. With ZFS if you find you're f**cked you can just issue a command or two and be back to where you were previously. Sure there's not eye candy and dancing bears but then again you don't need them either. > No running spotlight or other queries against > backup/creation/modification dates or other file metadata. I'm not sure why you feel that's necessary with ZFS, though it certainly could be with Time Machine. > You just see the version you want, and ba-doom, it's good. Um... and ZFS doesn't do that how? Heck, you can even use the (ugh) Finder. > The UI, the usability is what has real value. Which is exactly what ZFS is designed to avoid. Special UIs. > The FS underneath it is at > worst a non-issue, and at *best* a non-issue, because that's what it's > supposed to be to people using TM: a non-issue. Yes Time machine works fine for those that use it, those who have programs coded to it, and works nicely if everyone is interested in expending time and effort with handling Time Machine cruft. But how many people are running Time Machine? Certainly no one with one disk, like your fabled Powerbook/MacBook users on the road. And that's exactly where ZFS scores, as it can protect you even in the situation where you have one spindle. Oh, and I might add that TM is extremely more wasteful in space requirements. Need I mention how bad it is with large, ephemeral files??? It suck donkey balls for disk images, Parallels/ VMware, .mboxes, ... the list goes on. -dhan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Shoop Computer Scientist iWiring / U.S. Technical Services shoop@iwiring.net AOL IM .................... iWiring Nextel .................... 1-714-363-1174 Operations TOC (24/7) ..... 1-866-901-USTS USTS Offices .............. 1-714-374-6300 For immediate response for urgent matters please speak to the Duty Officer at the USTS Tactical Operations Center (above) who can reach me by radio. From david at idiomatrix.com Fri Jan 11 03:11:29 2008 From: david at idiomatrix.com (David Herren) Date: Fri Jan 11 03:11:48 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 10, 2008, at 8:21 PM, Dan Shoop wrote: > From a UI standpoint you just access the appropriate directory path, > very similar to your droids^H Time Machine. I'm sorry. Why are you consistently confrontational and arrogant? If you're too good to actually help and contribute, then just go somewhere else where you won't be soiled by our conversations that are so clearly beneath you. /david -- david herren - shoreham, vt us na terra solsys orionarm "He has Van Gogh's ear for music." --- Billy Wilder From bill at cheeseman.name Fri Jan 11 03:19:07 2008 From: bill at cheeseman.name (Bill Cheeseman) Date: Fri Jan 11 03:30:26 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: <779A85C1-1FBE-484B-B3C7-80EDE2AD0037@iwiring.net> Message-ID: >>> On Jan 10, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Bill Cheeseman wrote: >>> >>>> Do you have a reference handy for instructions on how to set ZFS up It looks like zfs.macosforge.org is a good place to start. And the downloads there and on ADC reportedly contain setup instructions for the latest read-write version. -- Bill Cheeseman - bill@cheeseman.name Quechee Software, Quechee, Vermont, USA www.quecheesoftware.com PreFab Software - www.prefabsoftware.com From jwelch at bynkii.com Fri Jan 11 04:45:57 2008 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Fri Jan 11 04:46:19 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <12B31518-0FC6-42C4-9756-E0ACCE4CA103@iwiring.net> Message-ID: On 01/11/2008 03:34 AM, "Dan Shoop" wrote: >>> I guess the point I was trying to make is that ZFS makes Time Machine >>> moot. It just does it's thing and doesn't need to have all the >>> overheard of fsevents and nasty hard links for directories. >> >> Also, fsevents aren't for the FS, they're for higher level programs >> that >> want to know when things happen to the FS. > > > Um... like Time Machine. > > In reality fsevents supports Time Machine and not much (usefully) else. Incorrect. There are a number of things that use fsevents. Try RTFM'ing the Mac OS X 10.5 Dev Docs a bit better. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From jwelch at bynkii.com Fri Jan 11 05:06:00 2008 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Fri Jan 11 05:06:09 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <317D56A0-38A5-4C62-B414-63B1FEF45D89@iwiring.net> Message-ID: On 01/11/2008 03:41 AM, "Dan Shoop" wrote: >> That's how it SHOULD be. This idea that someone who just wants to >> back their >> stuff up needs to care about the FS is inane, and lazy. > > Well I'd hardly call it lazy. The majority of ppl don't backup. Or use > Time Machine. A filesystem that allows you to be lazy passes the "mom > test" far better. >From what I can tell, the majority of Mac OS X 10.5 users are jumping on Time Machine like a cat on tuna. The fact that the FS lets you back up easier is useless if the restore is manual and tedious. Backup programs have been around forever. Why was TM even needed? Oh wait, because they were designed by geeks for geeks, and they all kinda sucked to use. TM is an attempt to make backup not suck and not be so highly modal. > >> It's making things >> easy on programmers, and harder on the people using the programs, >> and that's >> NOT how things are supposed to work. > > It does no such thing. ZFS provides a method to seamlessly protect > data in ways that Time Machine can't. Time machine can't fix corrupted > files. Time Machine can't work with only one volume to protect data. > > ZFS permits you to have backups w/o programmers. If you want to fal > back, you just roll backwards. And every copy of ZFS ships with a UI that is as easy to use as TM's, and integrates with every application in the same obvious, discoverable way as TM, allowing you to, for example, roll back a specific spreadsheet to a specific version without having to manually do a FS Search? And it can do this to a network volume? *REALLY*? Oh Dan, please, do show me the links to the screenshots showing the ZFS UI that does this that ships as a standard part of ZFS. Please, please do? > >>> >>>> What TM offers that *any* fs doesn't is ease of use and a good UI >>>> and Layer >>>> 8 integration so the users can easily back up data. Neither the User >>>> nor the >>>> Application should give a rat's patootie about the FS underneath as >>>> long as >>>> it works, which is as it should be. >>> >>> >>> But ZFS doesn't need a UI to access the backed up files, they're >>> exposed in the filesystem. (Which one could argue is also the case if >>> you examine a Time Machine volume, with the exception there that it's >>> a different filesystem.) >> >> Dan, stop missing the point. TM is abstracted from the filesystem, >> just like >> other applications are. The value of TM is not in silly >> propellerhead FS >> arguments over who has the biggest FS 'nads. It's in the fact that >> if I'm in >> Numbers, and I need to find an old version of the spreadsheet I'm >> working >> on, I hit the time machine icon, scroll a bit, and bang, I'm good. No >> searching a file system. > > Which requires programmer intervention. It requires programmers to > utilize APIs. It requires a lot of effort by many more people. Nothing > happens wih TM automagically. Nothing. It does to the *user* and that's the part that counts. > > With ZFS if you find you're f**cked you can just issue a command or > two and be back to where you were previously. Sure there's not eye > candy and dancing bears but then again you don't need them either. Bulldookey. The non-technical users do. The secretaries. The mothers who just want to write a letter to their children. The fathers who just want to do the same. You know who I'm talking about Dan, they're the people that IT people support. *They* need that eye candy and dancing bears. Just like you aren't going to teach every driver to rebuild an engine, *nor should you have to*, you're not going to teach everyone who uses a computer the ins and outs of the low-level FS commands. That's been tried for decades, and look how well *that* worked. > >> No running spotlight or other queries against >> backup/creation/modification dates or other file metadata. > > I'm not sure why you feel that's necessary with ZFS, though it > certainly could be with Time Machine. What, ZFS can READ YOUR MIND too? You don't need to do ANYTHING to find an old file? You just say "ZFS! I COMMAND YOU TO BRING ME THIS SPREADSHEET FROM A WEEK AGO! MAKE IT SO!"?? It's *magical*? Sorry dude, you have to do SOMETHING to find the data. > >> You just see the version you want, and ba-doom, it's good. > > Um... and ZFS doesn't do that how? Heck, you can even use the (ugh) > Finder. Again...the UI is important. > >> The UI, the usability is what has real value. > > Which is exactly what ZFS is designed to avoid. Special UIs. You're either being deliberately obtuse or you haven't talked to someone not in IT every in your life. It's up to you which one, because the third option would make you too dumb to actually type, so that's not really possible, now is it. UI matters and you know it. If it didn't, you wouldn't be supporting Macs OR Windows, and we'd all be using Linux in a command line shell. In fact Dan, you use Mail...why, that's a...*special UI*, now isn't it. Why it would appear that even YOU find value in them. Why dan? All you need is Pine, right? Why Mail, if "special UIs" are to be avoided? > >> The FS underneath it is at >> worst a non-issue, and at *best* a non-issue, because that's what it's >> supposed to be to people using TM: a non-issue. > > Yes Time machine works fine for those that use it, those who have > programs coded to it, and works nicely if everyone is interested in > expending time and effort with handling Time Machine cruft. But how > many people are running Time Machine? Certainly no one with one disk, > like your fabled Powerbook/MacBook users on the road. And that's > exactly where ZFS scores, as it can protect you even in the situation > where you have one spindle. Until your hard drive has a mechanical failure, then you're every bit as hosed as you would be with any FS. Unless you're going to tell me that ZFS also has maaaaaagical hardware protection that keeps electromechanical failure from happening. You know what people on the road do Dan? They spend the money for a FW/USB drive, and...OMGWTFKHAAAAAAAN!!!!111 They back up to THAT! JANET!BRAD!JANET!DRSCOTT!ROCKY!UGH! How is that POSSIBLE? Don't be a prat Dan, you know perfectly well that mobile users have portable drives they back up to on the road, and TM works perfectly well for that. As far as how many people are running TM? Well, while the plural of anecdote is still not data, anecdotal accounts suggest that your impressions of it's non-use are rather wrong. > > Oh, and I might add that TM is extremely more wasteful in space > requirements. Need I mention how bad it is with large, ephemeral > files??? It suck donkey balls for disk images, Parallels/ > VMware, .mboxes, ... the list goes on. OMG, TM is not TEH PURFECKT! What.a.shocking.revelation. I am so stunned. Oh wait, no, no I'm not. TM, like ZFS, has areas it's good in, and areas it's not. Wow, it's just like every piece of software or hardware created in the totality of human computer history. Didn't see THAT coming. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From scott_ribe at killerbytes.com Fri Jan 11 06:46:50 2008 From: scott_ribe at killerbytes.com (Scott Ribe) Date: Fri Jan 11 06:46:56 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <5D3D0917-38D9-4B8C-8FC3-75F65D250EFA@kreme.com> Message-ID: > ZFS makes this second part of TM irrelevant as it handles changed > files 1) automatically 2) transparently 3) absolutely. It is a much > better 'backup' scheme than the one employed by TM. For this portion > of TM, the underlying FS is highly relevant. I don't think so. I think you have to explicitly take a snapshot in order to preserve versions, otherwise the space for old blocks remains eligible for reuse. -- Scott Ribe scott_ribe@killerbytes.com http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 722-0567 voice From mah at jump-ing.de Fri Jan 11 07:42:43 2008 From: mah at jump-ing.de (Markus Hitter) Date: Fri Jan 11 07:42:47 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8C61947C-CFE6-4592-9E43-83EB0443EF5E@jump-ing.de> Am 11.01.2008 um 14:06 schrieb John C. Welch: > Backup programs have been around forever. Why was TM even needed? > Oh wait, because they were designed by geeks for geeks, and they > all kinda sucked to use. Exactly. That said, making Time Machine use ZFS's built in backup capabilities or having a Time Machine-like GUI for ZFS would be even better. Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ From jwelch at bynkii.com Fri Jan 11 07:51:20 2008 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Fri Jan 11 07:51:31 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <8C61947C-CFE6-4592-9E43-83EB0443EF5E@jump-ing.de> Message-ID: On 01/11/2008 09:42 AM, "Markus Hitter" wrote: >> Backup programs have been around forever. Why was TM even needed? >> Oh wait, because they were designed by geeks for geeks, and they >> all kinda sucked to use. > > Exactly. > > That said, making Time Machine use ZFS's built in backup capabilities > or having a Time Machine-like GUI for ZFS would be even better. Oh, I'm not saying that TM can't be improved, or that ZFS wouldn't help at all. I agree that there's a lot in ZFS that's really neat, but it's not the magic spell of purfeckt FS that it's been made to be, and in fact, has a lot of habits that are kind of sucky for a consumer/desktop OS. For servers? It's T&G, no doubt. But it ain't perfect for every need, nothing is, and the sooner the OMGZFS!!! Hysteria calms the heck down, the better off everyone will be. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From brett.dikeman at gmail.com Fri Jan 11 19:06:30 2008 From: brett.dikeman at gmail.com (Brett Dikeman) Date: Fri Jan 11 19:06:33 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: References: <66B19A2C-D4BA-4FC0-8434-47A03EA40065@iwiring.net> <17c8e29e0801102050u1b278413wc766e09f450b251a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9d9c4a330801111906gba7539bwbe65e5cfe628507c@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 10, 2008, at 11:50 PM, John Musbach wrote: > > While the framework is there for zfs support in Leopard currently only > > read only support exists at this time. On Jan 11, 2008 4:34 AM, Dan Shoop wrote: > Not true. Leopard did not ship with write support for ZFS, and still does not have it. Try it for yourself, if you insist on not believing what is common knowledge (and, I can't help but add, easily "googled", as you lambasted someone earlier.) === $dd if=/dev/zero of=./zfs.dmg bs=1000000 count=512 $ sudo zpool create ./zfs.dmg Password: ZFS Readonly implemntation is loaded! To download the full ZFS read/write kext with all functionality enabled, please go to http://developer.apple.com Read-Only ZFS Implementation unrecognized command 'create' === I STRONGLY urge extreme caution using ZFS. ZFS is unstable, feature-incomplete, and slow in almost every port that exists. On FreeBSD, it's in the 7.0 (not stable) tree, and requires significant usage-case-specific tweaking to keep from crashing for several freebsd bleeding-edge users. On its native 64 bit Solaris, Sun's response to most ZFS problems is, "buy more memory", and Sun doesn't even recommend running ZFS on 32 bit Solaris systems. The 3rd-party port of ZFS to MacOS has a caveat list several bullet points long, one of which is that you cannot remove a firewire or USB device if it is part of a pool. Running ZFS on any sort of production environment on anything except 64 bit Sun hardware w/Solaris means running on borrowed time, at least for the moment. That is clearly demonstrated with Apple's refusal to release write support as anything but a developer preview. The good news is that there are a lot of people excited about it, and a lot of people coding, testing, porting. Patience is a virtue. By the way, Dan- please do something about the 17 lines of signature in your posts. Common net-etiquette is 3-4 lines. Brett From kremels at kreme.com Fri Jan 11 23:32:48 2008 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Fri Jan 11 23:32:51 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: <9d9c4a330801111906gba7539bwbe65e5cfe628507c@mail.gmail.com> References: <66B19A2C-D4BA-4FC0-8434-47A03EA40065@iwiring.net> <17c8e29e0801102050u1b278413wc766e09f450b251a@mail.gmail.com> <9d9c4a330801111906gba7539bwbe65e5cfe628507c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11-Jan-2008, at 20:06, Brett Dikeman wrote: > On Jan 10, 2008, at 11:50 PM, John Musbach wrote: >>> While the framework is there for zfs support in Leopard currently >>> only >>> read only support exists at this time. > > On Jan 11, 2008 4:34 AM, Dan Shoop wrote: > >> Not true. > > Leopard did not ship with write support for ZFS, and still does not > have it. It did not ship with it, it is easily added. Saying "only read only support exists" is simply wrong as r/w support quite definitely exists for Leopard. > The 3rd-party port of ZFS to MacOS has a caveat list several bullet > points long, one of which is that you cannot remove a firewire or USB > device if it is part of a pool. Naturally. > Running ZFS on any sort of production environment on anything except > 64 bit Sun hardware w/Solaris means running on borrowed time, at > least for the moment. I don't think that's quite true. > That is clearly demonstrated with Apple's refusal to release write > support as anything but a developer preview. So, I'm confused. You know r/w support exists yet you say it doesn't? -- This story shall the good man teach his son; And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by, From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remember'd; From neil at laubenthal.net Sat Jan 12 03:20:54 2008 From: neil at laubenthal.net (Neil Laubenthal) Date: Sat Jan 12 03:21:03 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: References: <66B19A2C-D4BA-4FC0-8434-47A03EA40065@iwiring.net> <17c8e29e0801102050u1b278413wc766e09f450b251a@mail.gmail.com> <9d9c4a330801111906gba7539bwbe65e5cfe628507c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <24782AD6-69D8-417D-B1F3-6EDD1FF75635@laubenthal.net> On Jan 12, 2008, at 02:32, LuKreme wrote: > It did not ship with it, it is easily added. Saying "only read only > support exists" is simply wrong as r/w support quite definitely > exists for Leopard. AFAIK it exists only directly as a download from other than Apple . . . and it's not (r/w support) included from Apple; so saying that only read-only support is certainly valid. Apple hasn't officially blessed it yet; and since the discussion is about using it either with or instead of Time Machine . . . it's unreasonable to really expect users to download, compile, and configure it via the command line. OTOH, Apple will likely eventually include it . . . so getting a head start _for testing purposes_ only might be worthwhile. > > So, I'm confused. You know r/w support exists yet you say it doesn't? See above . . . I have no idea of support currently exists in any developer previews of 10.5.x . . . I heard that it was in some of the betas before Leopard's release but it's gone now . . . so yes, it's true that support doesn't exist. Support means that Apple officially says it's OK to use and it's got some kind of documentation that an end user could use to configure it. Hooks internally so that it can be added eventually doesn't mean support. It may be that ZFS is the cat's meow . . . but in the long term most users care about it just about as much as they care about HFS+ . . . which is . . . "it's the format of the drive". If ZFS becomes available and has neat gizmo features through Disk Utility to use it . . . great; but what users care about is _using_ it for something useful. . . not having it just for the sake of having it. From bill at cheeseman.name Sat Jan 12 05:24:24 2008 From: bill at cheeseman.name (Bill Cheeseman) Date: Sat Jan 12 05:26:16 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: <24782AD6-69D8-417D-B1F3-6EDD1FF75635@laubenthal.net> Message-ID: on 2008-01-12 6:20 AM, Neil Laubenthal at neil@laubenthal.net wrote: > On Jan 12, 2008, at 02:32, LuKreme wrote: >> It did not ship with it, it is easily added. Saying "only read only >> support exists" is simply wrong as r/w support quite definitely >> exists for Leopard. > > AFAIK it exists only directly as a download from other than > Apple . . . and it's not (r/w support) included from Apple; so saying > that only read-only support is certainly valid. As I posted yesterday, it is available with r/w support at zfs.macosforge.org. That site is apparently hosted by Apple, and as far as I can tell from reading the faq and other pages, Apple engineers are running it and preparing to feed updates back into Leopard at an appropriate time. Hopefully, Mr. Shoop will set me straight if I'm mistaken. ;) -- Bill Cheeseman - bill@cheeseman.name Quechee Software, Quechee, Vermont, USA www.quecheesoftware.com PreFab Software - www.prefabsoftware.com From andreas at harmless.de Sat Jan 12 04:55:31 2008 From: andreas at harmless.de (Andreas Mayer) Date: Sat Jan 12 05:27:22 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: <24782AD6-69D8-417D-B1F3-6EDD1FF75635@laubenthal.net> References: <66B19A2C-D4BA-4FC0-8434-47A03EA40065@iwiring.net> <17c8e29e0801102050u1b278413wc766e09f450b251a@mail.gmail.com> <9d9c4a330801111906gba7539bwbe65e5cfe628507c@mail.gmail.com> <24782AD6-69D8-417D-B1F3-6EDD1FF75635@laubenthal.net> Message-ID: <869B5AAA-CE43-4D3C-B020-928A6F5E21EF@harmless.de> Am 12.01.2008 um 12:20 Uhr schrieb Neil Laubenthal: > AFAIK it exists only directly as a download from other than Apple Since I'm not sure what I am allowed to say without breaching the terms of my Apple developer connection account, I'll just kindly suggest, you log in to *your* developer account - a free one will do - and check out the available downloads under "Mac OS X". Andreas From david at idiomatrix.com Sat Jan 12 06:56:06 2008 From: david at idiomatrix.com (David Herren) Date: Sat Jan 12 06:56:24 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: References: <66B19A2C-D4BA-4FC0-8434-47A03EA40065@iwiring.net> <17c8e29e0801102050u1b278413wc766e09f450b251a@mail.gmail.com> <9d9c4a330801111906gba7539bwbe65e5cfe628507c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46F92CDB-DB95-40EA-A53A-603A0D0C7FAF@idiomatrix.com> On Jan 12, 2008, at 2:32 AM, LuKreme wrote: >> Leopard did not ship with write support for ZFS, and still does not >> have it. > > It did not ship with it, it is easily added. Saying "only read only > support exists" is simply wrong as r/w support quite definitely > exists for Leopard. > >> The 3rd-party port of ZFS to MacOS has a caveat list several bullet >> points long, one of which is that you cannot remove a firewire or USB >> device if it is part of a pool. > > Naturally. > >> Running ZFS on any sort of production environment on anything >> except 64 bit Sun hardware w/Solaris means running on borrowed >> time, at least for the moment. > > I don't think that's quite true. > >> That is clearly demonstrated with Apple's refusal to release write >> support as anything but a developer preview. > > So, I'm confused. You know r/w support exists yet you say it doesn't? Semantics. I'm not confused. Try not to intentionally obfuscate the issue. Leopard did not ship with is still not _shipping_ with R/W ZFS support. "Shipping" as in available on the retail install discs or pre- installed. I think that's brain dead clear. Just because developers can download a pre-release shouldn't be too terribly confusing to understand the difference. /david -- david herren - shoreham, vt us na terra solsys orionarm All those of you who believe in psycho-kinesis, raise my hand. From david at idiomatrix.com Sat Jan 12 06:58:14 2008 From: david at idiomatrix.com (David Herren) Date: Sat Jan 12 06:58:32 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 12, 2008, at 8:24 AM, Bill Cheeseman wrote: > Hopefully, Mr. Shoop will set me straight if I'm mistaken. ;) I know I kneeled at the oracle this morning to beseech his guidance... /david -- david herren - shoreham, vt, us na terra solsys orionarm Candidate for 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not be negative." From neil at laubenthal.net Sat Jan 12 09:24:15 2008 From: neil at laubenthal.net (Neil Laubenthal) Date: Sat Jan 12 09:24:22 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5C353B61-4043-4B3E-B6EE-E50D38B4677A@laubenthal.net> On Jan 12, 2008, at 08:24, Bill Cheeseman wrote: > > As I posted yesterday, it is available with r/w support at > zfs.macosforge.org. That site is apparently hosted by Apple, and as > far as I > can tell from reading the faq and other pages, Apple engineers are > running > it and preparing to feed updates back into Leopard at an appropriate > time. Ah . . . I wasn't questioning the eventual inclusion of r/w capability into Leopard . . . just noting that as of today it (r/w) isn't. I recalled your post about availability from yesterday . . . but couldn't find it to re-check who the host was before I posted. From neil at laubenthal.net Sat Jan 12 09:26:16 2008 From: neil at laubenthal.net (Neil Laubenthal) Date: Sat Jan 12 09:26:24 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: <869B5AAA-CE43-4D3C-B020-928A6F5E21EF@harmless.de> References: <66B19A2C-D4BA-4FC0-8434-47A03EA40065@iwiring.net> <17c8e29e0801102050u1b278413wc766e09f450b251a@mail.gmail.com> <9d9c4a330801111906gba7539bwbe65e5cfe628507c@mail.gmail.com> <24782AD6-69D8-417D-B1F3-6EDD1FF75635@laubenthal.net> <869B5AAA-CE43-4D3C-B020-928A6F5E21EF@harmless.de> Message-ID: <8B580F88-05FA-4D32-8BE0-3D4F4D40521B@laubenthal.net> On Jan 12, 2008, at 07:55, Andreas Mayer wrote: > > Since I'm not sure what I am allowed to say without breaching the > terms of my Apple developer connection account, I'll just kindly > suggest, you log in to *your* developer account - a free one will do > - and check out the available downloads under "Mac OS X". I'll do that . . . but however interesting what I find might be . . . it's still the developer connection and not an official part of Leopard. My point was the the statement that "it's currently not supported" seemed certainly valid to me. From jwelch at bynkii.com Sat Jan 12 09:59:04 2008 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Sat Jan 12 09:59:11 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: <8B580F88-05FA-4D32-8BE0-3D4F4D40521B@laubenthal.net> Message-ID: On 01/12/2008 11:26 AM, "Neil Laubenthal" wrote: >> Since I'm not sure what I am allowed to say without breaching the >> terms of my Apple developer connection account, I'll just kindly >> suggest, you log in to *your* developer account - a free one will do >> - and check out the available downloads under "Mac OS X". > > I'll do that . . . but however interesting what I find might be . . . > it's still the developer connection and not an official part of > Leopard. My point was the the statement that "it's currently not > supported" seemed certainly valid to me. It seemed clear to me. "Beta from ADC" = !supported except by you. "build it from Mac Ports" = !supported except by you. If you install it and bad things happen, and you try to get enterprise support to help you, I will hazard that their reply will be "We don't support r/w ZFS" -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From donmontalvo at mac.com Sat Jan 12 11:37:29 2008 From: donmontalvo at mac.com (Don Montalvo) Date: Sat Jan 12 11:37:32 2008 Subject: Reliable Firewire drives In-Reply-To: <20080110200004.529A1AF72E@forums.omnigroup.com> References: <20080110200004.529A1AF72E@forums.omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <4642C3F5-41B8-4A43-9929-420C5359FE02@mac.com> Gregory Seidman wrote: > > I don't bother with reliable. I do RAID. Get a few cheap ones and > mirror. Yep...two large drives, mirror (I prefer SoftRAID, with email notification script) and leave worries behind. LaCie "big" disks shouldn't be used for storage. Don From ian at techsuperpowers.com Sat Jan 12 11:17:30 2008 From: ian at techsuperpowers.com (W.Ian Blanton) Date: Sat Jan 12 12:17:39 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: References: <66B19A2C-D4BA-4FC0-8434-47A03EA40065@iwiring.net> <17c8e29e0801102050u1b278413wc766e09f450b251a@mail.gmail.com> <9d9c4a330801111906gba7539bwbe65e5cfe628507c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 12, 2008, at 2:32 AM, LuKreme wrote: > So, I'm confused. You know r/w support exists yet you say it doesn't? Well, let's narrow down the terminology: The capability exists to add ZFS r/w to Mac OS X 10.5. It is, unsupported, in the sense that it ain't ready, even though it came from Apple. In the same sense Time Machine existed as a capability before Apple released Leopard, it was unsupported. No one would argue that it didn't exist, but if you called Apple for support, they would politely inquire WTH you were doing with Leopard/10.5. Writing this I realize that there is a caveat. Apparently, since the r/w capability comes from the Apple Developers Connection (ADC) program, it is supported by Apple through the ADC. But, I would bet you dollars to donuts that somewhere in the documentation it says something like "God help you if you use it on a production machine". Which is Apple's way of saying "Hey, don't blame us, if it eats your data, you're the one running unsupported software." Seems pretty simple to me. -Ian -- W. "Ian" Blanton, Director of Consulting Group, Tech Superpowers, Inc. Technology for Genius (tm). All Mac, all the way. 252 Newbury St. Boston, MA. 02116 http://www.techsuperpowers.com Phone: 617.267.9716x705 Net: Ian@techsuperpowers.com From kremels at kreme.com Sat Jan 12 14:09:43 2008 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Sat Jan 12 14:09:47 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: <46F92CDB-DB95-40EA-A53A-603A0D0C7FAF@idiomatrix.com> References: <66B19A2C-D4BA-4FC0-8434-47A03EA40065@iwiring.net> <17c8e29e0801102050u1b278413wc766e09f450b251a@mail.gmail.com> <9d9c4a330801111906gba7539bwbe65e5cfe628507c@mail.gmail.com> <46F92CDB-DB95-40EA-A53A-603A0D0C7FAF@idiomatrix.com> Message-ID: On 12-Jan-2008, at 07:56, David Herren wrote: > On Jan 12, 2008, at 2:32 AM, LuKreme wrote: >> So, I'm confused. You know r/w support exists yet you say it >> doesn't? > > Semantics. I'm not confused. Try not to intentionally obfuscate the > issue. Leopard did not ship with is still not _shipping_ with R/W > ZFS support. That's not what was said. What was said was that IT DID NOT EXIST. This is wrong. -- Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. From huntc at internode.on.net Sun Jan 13 01:24:26 2008 From: huntc at internode.on.net (Christopher Hunt) Date: Sun Jan 13 01:24:33 2008 Subject: Apache, Tomcat, mod_proxy_ajp and Leopard Message-ID: <3EE9F29E-CB79-4C83-8B01-82FAE3E367E0@internode.on.net> Hi there, I'm attempting to configure tomcat with apache on Mac OS X Leopard and I'm having a little difficulty. Firstly I have http://127.0.0.1:8080/mypath working i.e. Tomcat is up and running. Secondly I can telnet to localhost/8009 so AJP appears to be up and running. My Tomcat config for AJP looks as follows: I then created a ajp.conf file in /etc/apache2/other with the following contents: ProxyPass ajp://localhost:8009/mypath/ However attempting http://127.0.0.1/mypath yields a 404 (http://127.0.0.1/ works fine so Apache is up). Anything Mac OS X Leopard specific that I'm missing? Thanks for any help. Cheers, -C From finlay.dobbie at gmail.com Sun Jan 13 04:36:33 2008 From: finlay.dobbie at gmail.com (Finlay Dobbie) Date: Sun Jan 13 04:36:34 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: References: <66B19A2C-D4BA-4FC0-8434-47A03EA40065@iwiring.net> <17c8e29e0801102050u1b278413wc766e09f450b251a@mail.gmail.com> <9d9c4a330801111906gba7539bwbe65e5cfe628507c@mail.gmail.com> <46F92CDB-DB95-40EA-A53A-603A0D0C7FAF@idiomatrix.com> Message-ID: On Jan 12, 2008 10:09 PM, LuKreme wrote: > That's not what was said. What was said was that IT DID NOT EXIST. > This is wrong. Depends on which "it" you're referring to. It's great when mailing lists have people all arguing that other people each other are wrong and they are right, when in fact everyone is in agreement. There does exist a shipping, final r/o ZFS implementation in Leopard out of the box. There does exist a pre-release r/w ZFS implementation available via either ADC or MacOSForge. There does NOT exist a supported, shipping, final r/w ZFS implementation. Can we drop it now? -- Finlay From n8 at adullmoment.com Sun Jan 13 12:48:28 2008 From: n8 at adullmoment.com (nate st.germain) Date: Sun Jan 13 12:55:36 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) (Finlay Dobbie) Message-ID: <1A5A21D4-2163-48B1-99CD-6AD3ACCAB49D@adullmoment.com> > There does exist a shipping, final r/o ZFS implementation in Leopard > out of the box. > There does exist a pre-release r/w ZFS implementation available via > either ADC or MacOSForge. > There does NOT exist a supported, shipping, final r/w ZFS > implementation. agreed. i especially didn't understand the post about ADC not being a part of apple. sure? r/w zfs exists on os x. use it if you want, but like most things, don't expect enterprise support from apple. "unsupported" ? "doesn't exist." From merlyn at stonehenge.com Sun Jan 13 12:57:22 2008 From: merlyn at stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Date: Sun Jan 13 12:57:25 2008 Subject: ZFS In-Reply-To: <1A5A21D4-2163-48B1-99CD-6AD3ACCAB49D@adullmoment.com> (nate st germain's message of "Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:48:28 -0500") References: <1A5A21D4-2163-48B1-99CD-6AD3ACCAB49D@adullmoment.com> Message-ID: <86abn9o34d.fsf@blue.stonehenge.com> >>>>> "nate" =3D=3D nate st germain writes: nate> r/w zfs exists on os x. use it if you want, but like most things, do= n't nate> expect enterprise support from apple. "unsupported" =AD "doesn't exi= st." Where? Is it a simple download? --=20 Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl trainin= g! From brett.dikeman at gmail.com Sun Jan 13 13:08:07 2008 From: brett.dikeman at gmail.com (Brett Dikeman) Date: Sun Jan 13 13:08:11 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: References: <66B19A2C-D4BA-4FC0-8434-47A03EA40065@iwiring.net> <17c8e29e0801102050u1b278413wc766e09f450b251a@mail.gmail.com> <9d9c4a330801111906gba7539bwbe65e5cfe628507c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9d9c4a330801131308x61a5c257q278160c2533e826@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 12, 2008 2:32 AM, Lewis Butler wrote: > > Running ZFS on any sort of production environment on anything except > > 64 bit Sun hardware w/Solaris means running on borrowed time, at > > least for the moment. > > I don't think that's quite true. http://www.google.com/search?q=zfs+crash http://www.google.com/search?q=zfs+corrupt ZFS is not in STABLE in FreeBSD and there are numerous reports of it crashing. The documentation for the ZFS FUSE module clearly states "do not use this for anything important." The MacPorts ZFS driver contains an errata list that demonstrates it has very basic problems with both the implementation of the filesystem and the operating system's support for ZFS-isms. Apple only provides read support in the release of Leopard. I don't know how much clearer I can make it to you that ZFS is not a stable filesystem. It is not considered ready for production on anything except 64-bit Solaris, and even on that platform, it has issues. For example, even on Solaris 10 8/07, it can't be used as a root filesystem. > So, I'm confused. You know r/w support exists yet you say it doesn't? There is a difference between "fully integrated, released, and officially support" and "a developer preview for testing purposes." ADC is not intended to be an 'early season pass' for Apple fanboys. It is to allow developers to build and test against upcoming versions of Apple software. ZFS has many core differences from typical filesystems- and supports additional attributes and controls. MacOS X is not fully ready for them- nor are some of Apple's applications. Brett From brett.dikeman at gmail.com Sun Jan 13 13:27:22 2008 From: brett.dikeman at gmail.com (Brett Dikeman) Date: Sun Jan 13 13:27:25 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) (Finlay Dobbie) In-Reply-To: <1A5A21D4-2163-48B1-99CD-6AD3ACCAB49D@adullmoment.com> References: <1A5A21D4-2163-48B1-99CD-6AD3ACCAB49D@adullmoment.com> Message-ID: <9d9c4a330801131327p620f102djafee7c1b736a870b@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 13, 2008 3:48 PM, nate st.germain wrote: > agreed. i especially didn't understand the post about ADC not being a > part of apple. sure? > > r/w zfs exists on os x. use it if you want, but like most things, > don't expect enterprise support from apple. "unsupported" ? "doesn't > exist." That's a substantial implied misrepresentation of the purpose and stability of developer previews. They are NOT TARGETED FOR END USERS. Developer previews are released with errata or caveats that are often lengthy or contain serious bugs developers are expected to either work around or live with. Sometimes ones that involve panics, data loss, etc. "Developer Preview" does not mean "use it because you think you're a 133t mac guy." They exist only for the purposes of allowing third parties to develop and validate against the software/features/changes Apple is considering releasing. It is several notches down from "beta" or "release candidate." From johnmusbach1 at gmail.com Sun Jan 13 14:00:27 2008 From: johnmusbach1 at gmail.com (John Musbach) Date: Sun Jan 13 14:00:34 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: References: <66B19A2C-D4BA-4FC0-8434-47A03EA40065@iwiring.net> <17c8e29e0801102050u1b278413wc766e09f450b251a@mail.gmail.com> <9d9c4a330801111906gba7539bwbe65e5cfe628507c@mail.gmail.com> <46F92CDB-DB95-40EA-A53A-603A0D0C7FAF@idiomatrix.com> Message-ID: <17c8e29e0801131400s66a653b9u25fee444e32c47ef@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 13, 2008 4:36 AM, Finlay Dobbie wrote: > There does exist a shipping, final r/o ZFS implementation in Leopard > out of the box. > There does exist a pre-release r/w ZFS implementation available via > either ADC or MacOSForge. > There does NOT exist a supported, shipping, final r/w ZFS implementation. This is false, the implementation shipping with Leopard is READ ONLY!!! John-Musbachs-MacBook:~ JohnM$ uname -a Darwin John-Musbachs-MacBook.local 9.1.0 Darwin Kernel Version 9.1.0: Wed Oct 31 17:46:22 PDT 2007; root:xnu-1228.0.2~1/RELEASE_I386 i386 John-Musbachs-MacBook:~ JohnM$ dd if=/dev/zero of=./zfs.dmg bs=1000000 count=512512+0 records in 512+0 records out 512000000 bytes transferred in 15.069295 secs (33976373 bytes/sec) John-Musbachs-MacBook:~ JohnM$ su John Password: bash-3.2$ sudo zpool create ./zfs.dmg Password: ZFS Readonly implemntation is loaded! To download the full ZFS read/write kext with all functionality enabled, please go to http://developer.apple.com Read-Only ZFS Implementation unrecognized command 'create' usage: zpool command args ... where 'command' is one of the following: list [-H] [-o field[,field]*] [pool] ... iostat [-v] [pool] ... [interval [count]] status [-vx] [pool] ... online ... offline [-t] ... scrub [-s] ... import [-d dir] [-D] import [-d dir] [-D] [-f] [-o opts] [-R root] -a import [-d dir] [-D] [-f] [-o opts] [-R root ] [newpool] history [] -- Best Regards, John Musbach From justin at mac.com Sun Jan 13 14:29:33 2008 From: justin at mac.com (Justin C. Walker) Date: Sun Jan 13 14:30:21 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: <17c8e29e0801131400s66a653b9u25fee444e32c47ef@mail.gmail.com> References: <66B19A2C-D4BA-4FC0-8434-47A03EA40065@iwiring.net> <17c8e29e0801102050u1b278413wc766e09f450b251a@mail.gmail.com> <9d9c4a330801111906gba7539bwbe65e5cfe628507c@mail.gmail.com> <46F92CDB-DB95-40EA-A53A-603A0D0C7FAF@idiomatrix.com> <17c8e29e0801131400s66a653b9u25fee444e32c47ef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <03BD82AE-3E91-4C8A-84EF-3C444365122A@mac.com> On Jan 13, 2008, at 14:00 , John Musbach wrote: > On Jan 13, 2008 4:36 AM, Finlay Dobbie > wrote: >> There does exist a shipping, final r/o ZFS implementation in Leopard >> out of the box. >> There does exist a pre-release r/w ZFS implementation available via >> either ADC or MacOSForge. >> There does NOT exist a supported, shipping, final r/w ZFS >> implementation. > > This is false, the implementation shipping with Leopard is READ > ONLY!!! Which part of Finlay's mail is false? The part where he says that - there *is* a shipping r/o implementation of ZFS in Leopard? ^^^ - there *is* a r/w implementation on sourceforge? ^^^ - there *is not* a r/w shipping implementation in (say) Mac OS X? ^^^ - everyone is in agreement? Justin -- Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon at Large Director Institute for the Enhancement of the Director's Income ----------- Nobody knows the trouble I've been ----------- From finlay.dobbie at gmail.com Sun Jan 13 16:19:51 2008 From: finlay.dobbie at gmail.com (Finlay Dobbie) Date: Sun Jan 13 16:19:54 2008 Subject: ZFS In-Reply-To: <86abn9o34d.fsf@blue.stonehenge.com> References: <1A5A21D4-2163-48B1-99CD-6AD3ACCAB49D@adullmoment.com> <86abn9o34d.fsf@blue.stonehenge.com> Message-ID: On Jan 13, 2008 8:57 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > >>>>> "nate" == nate st germain writes: > > nate> r/w zfs exists on os x. use it if you want, but like most things, don't > nate> expect enterprise support from apple. "unsupported" ? "doesn't exist." > > Where? Is it a simple download? As has been repeatedly stated, a developer preview can be obtained from either of two locations: 1. From 2. From -- Finlay From jwelch at bynkii.com Sun Jan 13 16:48:30 2008 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Sun Jan 13 16:48:41 2008 Subject: ZFS (was Reliable Firewire drives) In-Reply-To: <17c8e29e0801131400s66a653b9u25fee444e32c47ef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 01/13/2008 16:00 PM, "John Musbach" wrote: >> There does exist a shipping, final r/o ZFS implementation in Leopard >> out of the box. >> There does exist a pre-release r/w ZFS implementation available via >> either ADC or MacOSForge. >> There does NOT exist a supported, shipping, final r/w ZFS implementation. > > This is false, the implementation shipping with Leopard is READ ONLY!!! So you agree with Finlay. Glad that's cleared up. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From lists.fabian at e-lumo.com Mon Jan 14 03:40:16 2008 From: lists.fabian at e-lumo.com (Fabian Peters) Date: Mon Jan 14 03:40:21 2008 Subject: G5 OS X 10.4 user account corruption Message-ID: <989FA3A2-B76F-436E-B7B4-8792BF7402E8@e-lumo.com> Hi all, I'm once more confronted with a strange condition: On startup, the login panel is shown as normal, the user logs in and the login-window disappears. The user-defined desktop-image appears, but neither the menu bar nor the dock nor any icons on the desktop show up. 2 different G5 machines have had this problem so far. For the first time it occurred after a power failure but now it keeps coming back, even after reinstalling the system from scratch. To fix the issue, I had to create a new user account via an admin account on the machine. I then moved the various folders (Desktop, Documents, Library...) from the old account to the