f



Move Mac OS X Server G4/450->Mac mini G4 with CCC ok?

I have my fully configured Mac OS X Server 10.4.7 on a G4/450 and would 
like to move it to a Mac mini G4 as configured.
Is there anything that prevents doing this with CarbonCopyCloner 
(mounting my "new" Mac mini in target mode as a Firewire disk)?

TIA

Marc

-- 
Switzerland/Europe
<http://www.heusser.com>
remove CHEERS and from MERCIAL to get valid e-mail
0
marc.heusser (574)
7/24/2006 3:43:53 PM
comp.sys.mac.system 33446 articles. 2 followers. jfmezei.spamnot (9455) is leader. Post Follow

10 Replies
1116 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 30

In article <marc.heusser-7CF8B6.17434924072006@news.unizh.ch>,
 Marc Heusser <marc.heusser@CHEERSheusser.comMERCIALSPAMMERS.invalid> 
 wrote:

> I have my fully configured Mac OS X Server 10.4.7 on a G4/450 and would 
> like to move it to a Mac mini G4 as configured.
> Is there anything that prevents doing this with CarbonCopyCloner 
> (mounting my "new" Mac mini in target mode as a Firewire disk)?

Answering my own question: CCC did the job painlessly in half an hour, 
and the Mac mini picked up with no intervention at all where the G4/450 
left off (DNS, Mail server, web server). The only setting I changed was 
to first do a permission repair on the source disk. I did not need to 
change a single setting, in fact I started it up headlessly (no monitor, 
no keybard, no mouse) first and it worked like a charm.

Must have been tired when I asked the question ;-)

Marc

-- 
Switzerland/Europe
<http://www.heusser.com>
remove CHEERS and from MERCIAL to get valid e-mail
0
marc.heusser (574)
7/24/2006 11:53:46 PM
Marc Heusser <marc.heusser@CHEERSheusser.comMERCIALSPAMMERS.invalid>
wrote:

> I have my fully configured Mac OS X Server 10.4.7 on a G4/450 and would
> like to move it to a Mac mini G4 as configured.
> Is there anything that prevents doing this with CarbonCopyCloner 
> (mounting my "new" Mac mini in target mode as a Firewire disk)?

In principle, I think the system would work on a Mac Mini (assuming you
didn't have any special hardware such as extra hard drives in the
G4/450, with references to them in the server configuration).

I'd be hesitant to use CCC to clone a running Mac OS X Server system, as
it might not be in a stable state when cloned. It would be safer to boot
from another system and then use CCC to clone the server OS partition
onto the Mac Mini.

You might be able to get away with cloning the live system by shutting
down all server functions from the management tools.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz
0
dempson (3825)
7/25/2006 9:55:26 AM
In article <1hj17y8.17hup5m1ov0f2jN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
 dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> I'd be hesitant to use CCC to clone a running Mac OS X Server system, as
> it might not be in a stable state when cloned. It would be safer to boot
> from another system and then use CCC to clone the server OS partition
> onto the Mac Mini.

Come to think of it, your way is cleanest (using a third computer, 
connecting both systems in target disk mode as hard disks, and then 
using CCC to clone).

> 
> You might be able to get away with cloning the live system by shutting
> down all server functions from the management tools.

That is what I did.

Sometimes you can get away ...

Thank you

Marc

-- 
Switzerland/Europe
<http://www.heusser.com>
remove CHEERS and from MERCIAL to get valid e-mail
0
marc.heusser (574)
7/25/2006 6:59:18 PM
In article <marc.heusser-1A1A7D.20591425072006@news.unizh.ch>, Marc
Heusser <marc.heusser@CHEERSheusser.comMERCIALSPAMMERS.invalid> wrote:

> Thank you

I think perhaps your computer clock is out of whack, as your articles show
up out of´┐Żchronological order with other posts. :-)

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/26/2006 5:07:58 PM
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> In article <marc.heusser-1A1A7D.20591425072006@news.unizh.ch>, Marc
> Heusser <marc.heusser@CHEERSheusser.comMERCIALSPAMMERS.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Thank you
> 
> I think perhaps your computer clock is out of whack, as your articles show
> up out of chronological order with other posts. :-)

I think you are mistaken, at least for this thread and every other one I
can see recently from Marc in this newsgroup. The Date field in the news
header shows the local time of the poster, and their time zone.

Marc is in a timezone which is GMT+2 (central Europe), while I'm in
GMT+12 (New Zealand).

My post was made at Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:55:26 +1200 (9:55:26 GMT)
Marc' reply was made at Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:59:18 +0200 (18:59:18 GMT)

Looks fine to me. :-)

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz
0
dempson (3825)
7/26/2006 9:16:51 PM
In article <1hj4mts.nuj4t4ufjbqlN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> > I think perhaps your computer clock is out of whack, as your articles show
> > up out of chronological order with other posts. :-)
> 
> I think you are mistaken, at least for this thread and every other one I
> can see recently from Marc in this newsgroup. The Date field in the news
> header shows the local time of the poster, and their time zone.
> 
> Marc is in a timezone which is GMT+2 (central Europe), while I'm in
> GMT+12 (New Zealand).

The newsreader computes those timezones, of course.

> My post was made at Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:55:26 +1200 (9:55:26 GMT)
> Marc' reply was made at Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:59:18 +0200 (18:59:18 GMT)
> 
> Looks fine to me. :-)

Well, I do not know for sure: I just mentioned it, because they seemed to
show up in the wrong chronological order in my newsreader.

If your computer clocks are correct, just don't worry about it.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/26/2006 9:28:50 PM
On 7/26/06 10:07 AM, Hans Aberg wrote:
> In article <marc.heusser-1A1A7D.20591425072006@news.unizh.ch>, Marc
> Heusser <marc.heusser@CHEERSheusser.comMERCIALSPAMMERS.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Thank you
> 
> I think perhaps your computer clock is out of whack, as your articles show
> up out of chronological order with other posts. :-)
> 
All articles in this thread show up in chron. order for me, and that's
also using a threaded view, which has long been my choice in reading. Do
you use that?

-- 
john mcwilliams
0
jpmcw (1977)
7/26/2006 10:33:41 PM
In article <qZidnY2qi8kgcFrZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
jpmcw@comcast.net wrote:

> > I think perhaps your computer clock is out of whack, as your articles show
> > up out of chronological order with other posts. :-)
> > 
> All articles in this thread show up in chron. order for me, and that's
> also using a threaded view, which has long been my choice in reading. Do
> you use that?

I use Newswatcher-X, and I mark my own latest posts as unread, to keep
track of followups. Then your posts showed up in an older position, and no
other articles of any other threads did that. In the cases in the past
where this has happened, it has been due to poor timestamps on those
posts. But I have no idea what caused it.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/27/2006 6:41:19 AM
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> In article <1hj4mts.nuj4t4ufjbqlN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
> dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> 
> > > I think perhaps your computer clock is out of whack, as your articles show
> > > up out of chronological order with other posts. :-)
> > 
> > I think you are mistaken, at least for this thread and every other one I
> > can see recently from Marc in this newsgroup. The Date field in the news
> > header shows the local time of the poster, and their time zone.
> > 
> > Marc is in a timezone which is GMT+2 (central Europe), while I'm in
> > GMT+12 (New Zealand).
> 
> The newsreader computes those timezones, of course.

They are in the raw headers of the news article. They are generated by
the computer which posted the article, referring to its own system
configuration to determine the time zone.

I'm running MacSoup which simply displays the raw header, which is what
I was quoting below. (The GMT times are my calculated values.)

> > My post was made at Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:55:26 +1200 (9:55:26 GMT)
> > Marc' reply was made at Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:59:18 +0200 (18:59:18 GMT)
> > 
> > Looks fine to me. :-)
> 
> Well, I do not know for sure: I just mentioned it, because they seemed to
> show up in the wrong chronological order in my newsreader.

You might occasionally see a reply arriving before the preceding
message, due to delays in forwarding news articles between servers. Not
likely in this case as my post was nine hours earlier than the reply.

Perhaps NewsWatcher-X has a bug in its date/time sorting, where it isn't
paying attention to time zones. If you ignore the time zone, Marc's
article would appear earlier than mine.

> If your computer clocks are correct, just don't worry about it.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz
0
dempson (3825)
7/27/2006 12:32:53 PM
In article <1hj5rxk.1pu7e911qogn5pN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> > Well, I do not know for sure: I just mentioned it, because they seemed to
> > show up in the wrong chronological order in my newsreader.
> 
> You might occasionally see a reply arriving before the preceding
> message, due to delays in forwarding news articles between servers. Not
> likely in this case as my post was nine hours earlier than the reply.

I am aware of this, but the delay in this case would have been ont the
order days. That is why I reacted.

> Perhaps NewsWatcher-X has a bug in its date/time sorting, where it isn't
> paying attention to time zones. If you ignore the time zone, Marc's
> article would appear earlier than mine.

Doubt it, as it did not happened with any other posts. I have used this
program for years, before the Mac OS 9 version.

I really do not know: perhaps it was a "glitch".

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/27/2006 12:46:03 PM
Reply: