f



Disk test utility?

A few Mac OS versions ago, there was quite an assortment of utilities 
for testing disk drives. Now, I am unable to identify even one that will 
actually test the disk surface.

There are a number of utilities that test the directory structure. There 
are some that will report the S.M.A.R.T. data. But I can't find one that 
will scan the disk surface for bad sectors. [Unfortunately I realized 
that disk test utilities no longer do this, when my backup drive proved 
unreadable. Fortunately, I had a backup to the backup, so I only lost a 
week or two of updates.]

Disk Tools Pro is advertised to do a surface scan. However, its system 
requirements state that it "even" works with Mountain Lion. The online 
system compatibility reports provide no information later than Mountain 
Lion.

I am assuming (hoping?!) that there is some way to monitor the health of 
a disk drive. Can someone point me at some current information? Thanks.
0
Ed
12/18/2015 1:18:29 AM
comp.sys.mac.apps 21416 articles. 3 followers. xxx613 (1334) is leader. Post Follow

553 Replies
1534 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 56

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday, 17 December 2015 20:18 -0500, 
 in article <gPudndZ1zuR4w-7LnZ2dnUU7-VednZ2d@giganews.com>, 
 Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:

> A few Mac OS versions ago, there was quite an assortment of 
> utilities for testing disk drives. Now, I am unable to identify even 
> one that will actually test the disk surface.

DiskWarrior 5 <http://www.alsoft.com/DiskWarrior/> should fit the job.

- -- 
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com>
 Be kind to animals; kiss a shark.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlZzdZYACgkQUrwpmRoS3uuwBACbBLtB1+i46k/zn9RjTRFmXX1b
wCoAn3/ybr3p1Jj3zp2I65svgn9OXvYw
=IzxL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
David
12/18/2015 2:55:18 AM
In article <alpine.OSX.2.20.1512172053010.30529@mako.ath.cx>, David
Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote:

> > A few Mac OS versions ago, there was quite an assortment of 
> > utilities for testing disk drives. Now, I am unable to identify even 
> > one that will actually test the disk surface.
> 
> DiskWarrior 5 <http://www.alsoft.com/DiskWarrior/> should fit the job.

it won't, as it does not do a surface scan.

tech tool pro does, but surface scans aren't completely reliable.
0
nospam
12/18/2015 3:20:10 AM
Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:

> A few Mac OS versions ago, there was quite an assortment of utilities
> for testing disk drives. Now, I am unable to identify even one that will
> actually test the disk surface.

Drive Genius does a surface scan in its "Physical Check" tab. 

<https://www.prosofteng.com/drive-genius-4/>

0
nmassello
12/18/2015 4:42:38 AM
In message <gPudndZ1zuR4w-7LnZ2dnUU7-VednZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
> A few Mac OS versions ago, there was quite an assortment of utilities 
> for testing disk drives. Now, I am unable to identify even one that will 
> actually test the disk surface.

What were some of the ones that you think tested disk drives in previous
versions?

> There are a number of utilities that test the directory structure. There 
> are some that will report the S.M.A.R.T. data. But I can't find one that 
> will scan the disk surface for bad sectors.

There are many reasons for this. Primarily, because it is a waste of
time. Secondarily because the drives themselves do this. Tertiarily
because you will gain nothing by doing this.

> Disk Tools Pro is advertised to do a surface scan. However, its system 
> requirements state that it "even" works with Mountain Lion. The online 
> system compatibility reports provide no information later than Mountain 
> Lion.

I believe they have an email address you can ask about later systems.

> I am assuming (hoping?!) that there is some way to monitor the health of 
> a disk drive. Can someone point me at some current information? Thanks.

You are under the mistaken belief that scanning the drive like it's 1985
is helpful, so it is hard to predict what you think "monitor the health
of a disk drive" entails.

Pop it in a old PC with a non USB keyboard and run Spinrite at level 4
on it if you want to do something that might be useful, or level 2 if
the drive is giving actual errors.


-- 
"How good bad music and bad reasons sound when we march against an
enemy." -  Friedrich Nietzsche
0
Lewis
12/18/2015 6:45:17 AM
On 2015-12-17 20:18, Ed Anson wrote:
> A few Mac OS versions ago, there was quite an assortment of utilities
> for testing disk drives. Now, I am unable to identify even one that will
> actually test the disk surface.
>
> There are a number of utilities that test the directory structure. There
> are some that will report the S.M.A.R.T. data. But I can't find one that
> will scan the disk surface for bad sectors. [Unfortunately I realized
> that disk test utilities no longer do this, when my backup drive proved
> unreadable. Fortunately, I had a backup to the backup, so I only lost a
> week or two of updates.]
>
> Disk Tools Pro is advertised to do a surface scan. However, its system
> requirements state that it "even" works with Mountain Lion. The online
> system compatibility reports provide no information later than Mountain
> Lion.
>
> I am assuming (hoping?!) that there is some way to monitor the health of
> a disk drive. Can someone point me at some current information? Thanks.


While a decade or more ago I would use such tools, today my philosophy 
is backup everything a lot (multiple drives) and don't hesitate to 
decommission a drive that's acting bad.

At about 30 cents per GB (YMMV) it's just not worth fretting over hard 
disk health very much.

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/18/2015 6:34:22 PM
On 2015-12-18, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> While a decade or more ago I would use such tools, today my philosophy 
> is backup everything a lot (multiple drives) and don't hesitate to 
> decommission a drive that's acting bad.
>
> At about 30 cents per GB (YMMV) it's just not worth fretting over hard 
> disk health very much.

Yep. Back it up, and when a drive gives you problems, erase it and
restore. If erasing doesn't fix it, toss it and get a replacement.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/18/2015 6:59:52 PM
On 12/18/15 1:45 AM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <gPudndZ1zuR4w-7LnZ2dnUU7-VednZ2d@giganews.com>
>    Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>> A few Mac OS versions ago, there was quite an assortment of utilities
>> for testing disk drives. Now, I am unable to identify even one that will
>> actually test the disk surface.
>
> What were some of the ones that you think tested disk drives in previous
> versions?

It's been awhile since I actually checked. But IIRC Disk Utility did 
that at one time. Perhaps DiskWarrior did as well. But I'm not sure any 
more.

>
>> There are a number of utilities that test the directory structure. There
>> are some that will report the S.M.A.R.T. data. But I can't find one that
>> will scan the disk surface for bad sectors.
>
> There are many reasons for this. Primarily, because it is a waste of
> time. Secondarily because the drives themselves do this. Tertiarily
> because you will gain nothing by doing this.

These are interesting assertions. Why do you think it's a waste of time 
to find out whether the disk surface can record and retrieve data? Up 
until recently, I thought that disk drives would report problems, but I 
got a rude surprise.

A couple of weeks ago, I started a routine operation to make a copy of a 
Time Machine backup disk. [I typically do incremental backups using 
SuperDuper!] After running for several hours, the backup failed due to 
an I/O error -- apparently due to a bad sector. I spent about a week, 
trying to save as much information as I could, but I kept getting more 
file copy failures. I then realized two things:
1. My disk drive had been corrupting/losing data for some time without 
my knowledge.
2. I had no way to assess the extent of the problem since I couldn't 
find any way to find out how many sectors had gone bad.

It's been a long time since I had a similar issue. Previously, though, I 
was able to assess the disk and map out any bad sectors. That appears to 
not be possible now, and I wonder why that has changed.

>
>> Disk Tools Pro is advertised to do a surface scan. However, its system
>> requirements state that it "even" works with Mountain Lion. The online
>> system compatibility reports provide no information later than Mountain
>> Lion.
>
> I believe they have an email address you can ask about later systems.

Since their published information is so out of date, I think I would 
rather rely on an independent assessment from someone who is using their 
product. If nobody is using their product, that tells me something that 
they would not likely tell me.

>
>> I am assuming (hoping?!) that there is some way to monitor the health of
>> a disk drive. Can someone point me at some current information? Thanks.
>
> You are under the mistaken belief that scanning the drive like it's 1985
> is helpful, so it is hard to predict what you think "monitor the health
> of a disk drive" entails.

So enlighten me. Why is it no longer helpful to know how many sectors 
are no longer working? If there is a better way to get that information 
than a disk scan, what is it? [I was hoping SMART would help, but it 
tells me everything except what I need to know -- and it doesn't appear 
to be supported for the external drive in question.]

>
> Pop it in a old PC with a non USB keyboard and run Spinrite at level 4
> on it if you want to do something that might be useful, or level 2 if
> the drive is giving actual errors.
>
>

0
Ed
12/19/2015 12:29:02 AM
On 12/18/15 1:34 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> While a decade or more ago I would use such tools, today my philosophy
> is backup everything a lot (multiple drives) and don't hesitate to
> decommission a drive that's acting bad.
>
> At about 30 cents per GB (YMMV) it's just not worth fretting over hard
> disk health very much.

That is roughly what my approach has been. But recently I discovered 
that my backup had gone bad without any warning. Right now, the only way 
I know how to determine whether a backup is even readable (let alone 
valid) is to try a full copy to another drive. But that takes several 
hours and doesn't tell me a lot when it fails.

See my more detailed story elsewhere in this thread.

0
Ed
12/19/2015 12:34:46 AM
In article <7rmdncohq7JTOenLnZ2dnUU7-N-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
<EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> A few Mac OS versions ago, there was quite an assortment of utilities
> >> for testing disk drives. Now, I am unable to identify even one that will
> >> actually test the disk surface.
> >
> > What were some of the ones that you think tested disk drives in previous
> > versions?
> 
> It's been awhile since I actually checked. But IIRC Disk Utility did 
> that at one time. Perhaps DiskWarrior did as well. But I'm not sure any 
> more.

neither did.

> >> There are a number of utilities that test the directory structure. There
> >> are some that will report the S.M.A.R.T. data. But I can't find one that
> >> will scan the disk surface for bad sectors.
> >
> > There are many reasons for this. Primarily, because it is a waste of
> > time. Secondarily because the drives themselves do this. Tertiarily
> > because you will gain nothing by doing this.
> 
> These are interesting assertions. Why do you think it's a waste of time 
> to find out whether the disk surface can record and retrieve data? Up 
> until recently, I thought that disk drives would report problems, but I 
> got a rude surprise.

drives automatically remap bad sectors, which means that you can't
reliably scan for them. 

> A couple of weeks ago, I started a routine operation to make a copy of a 
> Time Machine backup disk. [I typically do incremental backups using 
> SuperDuper!] After running for several hours, the backup failed due to 
> an I/O error -- apparently due to a bad sector. I spent about a week, 
> trying to save as much information as I could, but I kept getting more 
> file copy failures. I then realized two things:
> 1. My disk drive had been corrupting/losing data for some time without 
> my knowledge.
> 2. I had no way to assess the extent of the problem since I couldn't 
> find any way to find out how many sectors had gone bad.

if you were getting copy failures, then you already know that the drive
is failing. 

replace it and either toss the failing drive or use it for test
purposes.



> >> I am assuming (hoping?!) that there is some way to monitor the health of
> >> a disk drive. Can someone point me at some current information? Thanks.
> >
> > You are under the mistaken belief that scanning the drive like it's 1985
> > is helpful, so it is hard to predict what you think "monitor the health
> > of a disk drive" entails.
> 
> So enlighten me. Why is it no longer helpful to know how many sectors 
> are no longer working? If there is a better way to get that information 
> than a disk scan, what is it? [I was hoping SMART would help, but it 
> tells me everything except what I need to know -- and it doesn't appear 
> to be supported for the external drive in question.]

smart can work with some external enclosures and a custom driver.
0
nospam
12/19/2015 12:54:38 AM
In article <1vKdneCVU_67O-nLnZ2dnUU7-eGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
<EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:

> > While a decade or more ago I would use such tools, today my philosophy
> > is backup everything a lot (multiple drives) and don't hesitate to
> > decommission a drive that's acting bad.
> >
> > At about 30 cents per GB (YMMV) it's just not worth fretting over hard
> > disk health very much.
> 
> That is roughly what my approach has been. But recently I discovered 
> that my backup had gone bad without any warning. Right now, the only way 
> I know how to determine whether a backup is even readable (let alone 
> valid) is to try a full copy to another drive. But that takes several 
> hours and doesn't tell me a lot when it fails.

that's why multiple backups are important.
0
nospam
12/19/2015 12:54:38 AM
Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:

> But IIRC Disk Utility did that at one time. 

Not a surface scan per se, but if you zero the disk with a secure erase,
Disk Utility will (or at least used to) report if there are sectors it
can't write to. 

0
nmassello
12/19/2015 1:55:40 AM
In article <1mfn2hc.ws2q1q1dwtc3cN%nmassello@yahoo.com>, Neill Massello
<nmassello@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > But IIRC Disk Utility did that at one time. 
> 
> Not a surface scan per se, but if you zero the disk with a secure erase,
> Disk Utility will (or at least used to) report if there are sectors it
> can't write to. 

actually that causes bad sectors to be remapped. it will only report
something if there aren't any spares left to remap, which means the
drive is really fucked.
0
nospam
12/19/2015 2:18:44 AM
On 12/18/15 7:54 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <1vKdneCVU_67O-nLnZ2dnUU7-eGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
> <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> While a decade or more ago I would use such tools, today my philosophy
>>> is backup everything a lot (multiple drives) and don't hesitate to
>>> decommission a drive that's acting bad.
>>>
>>> At about 30 cents per GB (YMMV) it's just not worth fretting over hard
>>> disk health very much.
>>
>> That is roughly what my approach has been. But recently I discovered
>> that my backup had gone bad without any warning. Right now, the only way
>> I know how to determine whether a backup is even readable (let alone
>> valid) is to try a full copy to another drive. But that takes several
>> hours and doesn't tell me a lot when it fails.
>
> that's why multiple backups are important.
>

I do maintain multiple backups, which is why I was finally able to piece 
together a reasonable approximation of my desired backup -- minus about 
two weeks of history.

However, there is a limit to how many backups I can afford. At the 
quoted rate of 30 cents per GB, each backup would cost about $900. 
Fortunately, the drives I use cost less than that. Still, I already have 
more money invested in backup disks for my server than in the server itself.

There is also the fact that each backup requires several hours to 
complete. There are only so many hours in a day.

Rather than keep large numbers of backups, my approach has been to keep 
a few backups and take good care of them. Unfortunately, I was surprised 
to find that, at the first manifest sign of failure, my backup already 
had multiple unreadable files. For my application (Time Machine server) 
that translates to multiple unusable system backups.

So my real question is: Is there a way to get earlier warning if a disk 
is about to fail? Perhaps I should look into getting external drives 
that support SMART. Should I be looking at s RAID array for the primary 
TM backup? [So far, my search has turned up an external RAID box that 
also supports SMART and will proactively alert me when problems start to 
occur.]

I'm still trying to learn what my options are. But it seems clear that 
my backup strategy needs some improvement.
0
Ed
12/19/2015 2:21:23 AM
In article <oOSdncP7f865IunLnZ2dnUU7-aednZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
<EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:

> >>> While a decade or more ago I would use such tools, today my philosophy
> >>> is backup everything a lot (multiple drives) and don't hesitate to
> >>> decommission a drive that's acting bad.
> >>>
> >>> At about 30 cents per GB (YMMV) it's just not worth fretting over hard
> >>> disk health very much.
> >>
> >> That is roughly what my approach has been. But recently I discovered
> >> that my backup had gone bad without any warning. Right now, the only way
> >> I know how to determine whether a backup is even readable (let alone
> >> valid) is to try a full copy to another drive. But that takes several
> >> hours and doesn't tell me a lot when it fails.
> >
> > that's why multiple backups are important.
> 
> I do maintain multiple backups, which is why I was finally able to piece 
> together a reasonable approximation of my desired backup -- minus about 
> two weeks of history.
> 
> However, there is a limit to how many backups I can afford. At the 
> quoted rate of 30 cents per GB, each backup would cost about $900. 

your prices are high.

3tb drives are under $100, or about 3c/gb.

> Fortunately, the drives I use cost less than that. Still, I already have 
> more money invested in backup disks for my server than in the server itself.

how much is your data worth?

> There is also the fact that each backup requires several hours to 
> complete. There are only so many hours in a day.

incrementals don't take much time and you don't have to babysit it
either. 

> Rather than keep large numbers of backups, my approach has been to keep 
> a few backups and take good care of them. Unfortunately, I was surprised 
> to find that, at the first manifest sign of failure, my backup already 
> had multiple unreadable files. For my application (Time Machine server) 
> that translates to multiple unusable system backups.
> 
> So my real question is: Is there a way to get earlier warning if a disk 
> is about to fail? Perhaps I should look into getting external drives 
> that support SMART. Should I be looking at s RAID array for the primary 
> TM backup? [So far, my search has turned up an external RAID box that 
> also supports SMART and will proactively alert me when problems start to 
> occur.]

if smart says a drive is bad, then it's bad, but if smart says a drive
is good it doesn't mean much. it could be fine or it could crash within
hours. it just means it's currently within specs.
0
nospam
12/19/2015 2:31:52 AM
In message <7rmdncohq7JTOenLnZ2dnUU7-N-dnZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/18/15 1:45 AM, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <gPudndZ1zuR4w-7LnZ2dnUU7-VednZ2d@giganews.com>
>>    Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> A few Mac OS versions ago, there was quite an assortment of utilities
>>> for testing disk drives. Now, I am unable to identify even one that will
>>> actually test the disk surface.
>>
>> What were some of the ones that you think tested disk drives in previous
>> versions?

> It's been awhile since I actually checked. But IIRC Disk Utility did 
> that at one time. Perhaps DiskWarrior did as well. But I'm not sure any 
> more.

Nope. Neither of those did surface scans.

>>> There are a number of utilities that test the directory structure. There
>>> are some that will report the S.M.A.R.T. data. But I can't find one that
>>> will scan the disk surface for bad sectors.
>>
>> There are many reasons for this. Primarily, because it is a waste of
>> time. Secondarily because the drives themselves do this. Tertiarily
>> because you will gain nothing by doing this.

> These are interesting assertions. Why do you think it's a waste of time 
> to find out whether the disk surface can record and retrieve data?

Because drives do this themselves.

> A couple of weeks ago, I started a routine operation to make a copy of a 
> Time Machine backup disk. [I typically do incremental backups using 
> SuperDuper!] After running for several hours, the backup failed due to 
> an I/O error -- apparently due to a bad sector. I spent about a week, 
> trying to save as much information as I could, but I kept getting more 
> file copy failures. I then realized two things:
> 1. My disk drive had been corrupting/losing data for some time without 
> my knowledge.
> 2. I had no way to assess the extent of the problem since I couldn't 
> find any way to find out how many sectors had gone bad.

This is when a tool like Spinrite comes in handy.

> It's been a long time since I had a similar issue. Previously, though, I 
> was able to assess the disk and map out any bad sectors. That appears to 
> not be possible now, and I wonder why that has changed.

Because disk do this on their own.


-- 
We will fight for Bovine Freedom and hold our large heads high We will
run free with the Buffalo or die
0
Lewis
12/19/2015 5:45:33 AM
In message <1vKdneCVU_67O-nLnZ2dnUU7-eGdnZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/18/15 1:34 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>> While a decade or more ago I would use such tools, today my philosophy
>> is backup everything a lot (multiple drives) and don't hesitate to
>> decommission a drive that's acting bad.
>>
>> At about 30 cents per GB (YMMV) it's just not worth fretting over hard
>> disk health very much.

> That is roughly what my approach has been. But recently I discovered 
> that my backup had gone bad without any warning. Right now, the only way 
> I know how to determine whether a backup is even readable (let alone 
> valid) is to try a full copy to another drive. But that takes several 
> hours and doesn't tell me a lot when it fails.

I lost a drive without warning. I did not have a local backup at the
time because I was moving things around and was relying on my one copy.
So I restored from my Backblaze backup.

-- 
Humans are always slightly lost. It's a basic characteristic. It
explains a lot about them.
0
Lewis
12/19/2015 5:47:23 AM
In message <oOSdncP7f865IunLnZ2dnUU7-aednZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
> There is also the fact that each backup requires several hours to 
> complete. There are only so many hours in a day.

Then you are doing backups wrong.

-- 
SHERRI DOES NOT "GOT BACK" Bart chalkboard Ep. AABF07
0
Lewis
12/19/2015 5:48:37 AM
On 12/19/15 12:45 AM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <7rmdncohq7JTOenLnZ2dnUU7-N-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
>    Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/18/15 1:45 AM, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <gPudndZ1zuR4w-7LnZ2dnUU7-VednZ2d@giganews.com>
>>>     Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> A few Mac OS versions ago, there was quite an assortment of utilities
>>>> for testing disk drives. Now, I am unable to identify even one that will
>>>> actually test the disk surface.
>>>
>>> What were some of the ones that you think tested disk drives in previous
>>> versions?
>
>> It's been awhile since I actually checked. But IIRC Disk Utility did
>> that at one time. Perhaps DiskWarrior did as well. But I'm not sure any
>> more.
>
> Nope. Neither of those did surface scans.
>
>>>> There are a number of utilities that test the directory structure. There
>>>> are some that will report the S.M.A.R.T. data. But I can't find one that
>>>> will scan the disk surface for bad sectors.
>>>
>>> There are many reasons for this. Primarily, because it is a waste of
>>> time. Secondarily because the drives themselves do this. Tertiarily
>>> because you will gain nothing by doing this.
>
>> These are interesting assertions. Why do you think it's a waste of time
>> to find out whether the disk surface can record and retrieve data?
>
> Because drives do this themselves.
>
>> A couple of weeks ago, I started a routine operation to make a copy of a
>> Time Machine backup disk. [I typically do incremental backups using
>> SuperDuper!] After running for several hours, the backup failed due to
>> an I/O error -- apparently due to a bad sector. I spent about a week,
>> trying to save as much information as I could, but I kept getting more
>> file copy failures. I then realized two things:
>> 1. My disk drive had been corrupting/losing data for some time without
>> my knowledge.
>> 2. I had no way to assess the extent of the problem since I couldn't
>> find any way to find out how many sectors had gone bad.
>
> This is when a tool like Spinrite comes in handy.

I had never heard of Spinrite, so I checked it out. It would indeed do 
what I need -- except that it only runs on Windows. Although there ways 
around that problem, none are convenient enough to be practical for 
preventive maintenance. I might consider it for recovery, though.

That said, the information about Spinrite filled me in on what disk 
drives are doing these days. I was already aware of most of the 
information. The missing piece -- which my recent experience began to 
show me -- is that the automatic re-mapping of failing sectors only 
happens when those failing sectors are read. Given that my backups are 
incremental, large portions are seldom (if ever) read. My fear is that a 
failure can go unnoticed until the backup is needed to restore a drive. 
Worst case, this could happen to multiple backups if they are not 
checked from time to time.

>
>> It's been a long time since I had a similar issue. Previously, though, I
>> was able to assess the disk and map out any bad sectors. That appears to
>> not be possible now, and I wonder why that has changed.
>
> Because disk do this on their own.
>
>

So what I'm really looking for, it seems, is something that runs in the 
background and reads every sector from time to time. If the re-mapping 
is done by the drive, so much the better. But it still needs to notice 
the failing sector. Is there anything that does that on a Mac? If not, 
is there another practical way to get the job done?

0
Ed
12/19/2015 4:53:03 PM
In article <jMqdndGUovjtFujLnZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
<EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:

> I had never heard of Spinrite, so I checked it out. It would indeed do 
> what I need -- except that it only runs on Windows. Although there ways 
> around that problem, none are convenient enough to be practical for 
> preventive maintenance. I might consider it for recovery, though.

he's working on a mac version.

> That said, the information about Spinrite filled me in on what disk 
> drives are doing these days. I was already aware of most of the 
> information. The missing piece -- which my recent experience began to 
> show me -- is that the automatic re-mapping of failing sectors only 
> happens when those failing sectors are read. Given that my backups are 
> incremental, large portions are seldom (if ever) read. My fear is that a 
> failure can go unnoticed until the backup is needed to restore a drive. 
> Worst case, this could happen to multiple backups if they are not 
> checked from time to time.

bad sectors are also remapped on writes.

> So what I'm really looking for, it seems, is something that runs in the 
> background and reads every sector from time to time. If the re-mapping 
> is done by the drive, so much the better. But it still needs to notice 
> the failing sector. Is there anything that does that on a Mac? If not, 
> is there another practical way to get the job done?

the drive does that automatically when the sector is accessed.
0
nospam
12/19/2015 5:30:11 PM
On 2015-12-18, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> Pop it in a old PC with a non USB keyboard and run Spinrite at level 4
> on it if you want to do something that might be useful, or level 2 if
> the drive is giving actual errors.

If it's giving actual errors, there's no need to test it any further. 
It's done and must be replaced if it's over threshold.
0
Howard
12/19/2015 10:25:01 PM
On 2015-12-19, Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
> A couple of weeks ago, I started a routine operation to make a copy of a 
> Time Machine backup disk. [I typically do incremental backups using 
> SuperDuper!] After running for several hours, the backup failed due to 
> an I/O error -- apparently due to a bad sector. I spent about a week, 
> trying to save as much information as I could, but I kept getting more 
> file copy failures. I then realized two things:

1) if it's throwing errors, it's toast.  Replace it.
2) It's a backup drive.  If it loses data, replace it and start over.

> So enlighten me. Why is it no longer helpful to know how many sectors 
> are no longer working? If there is a better way to get that information 
> than a disk scan, what is it? [I was hoping SMART would help, but it 
> tells me everything except what I need to know -- and it doesn't appear 
> to be supported for the external drive in question.]

The drive replaces bad sectors from a pool of sectors set aside for this
purpose at the factory.  If it's out of replacement sectors, the drive
is toast and needs to be replaced STAT.
0
Howard
12/19/2015 10:27:58 PM
On 2015-12-19, Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
> So what I'm really looking for, it seems, is something that runs in the 
> background and reads every sector from time to time. If the re-mapping 
> is done by the drive, so much the better. But it still needs to notice 
> the failing sector. Is there anything that does that on a Mac? If not, 
> is there another practical way to get the job done?

Use RAID-1 and keep up with your system logs somehow.  Add redundancy. 

Disk drives fail.  They're built with that understanding in such a way
to, as much as possible, mitigate it for a long time, but they fail at
some point no matter what.  Alternatives include adding another
technology like tapes (giggle) and SSDs.  Personally, I gave up on tapes
long ago, have not yet seen reasonably priced SSDs for my purposes, and
simply make about five backups for every volume I've got.  Massive
redundancy, off-site backups, onsite backups, backups using different
methods.

If you're worried about your data, suspenders AND belt.  And more
suspenders, and more belts.  The storage tech we've got so far is only
reliable to a point, which means that it's not especially reliable. 
Plan for it.
0
Howard
12/19/2015 10:39:55 PM
On 2015-12-19, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <oOSdncP7f865IunLnZ2dnUU7-aednZ2d@giganews.com> 
>   Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>> There is also the fact that each backup requires several hours to 
>> complete. There are only so many hours in a day.
>
> Then you are doing backups wrong.

rsync is the only way.
0
Howard
12/19/2015 10:45:38 PM
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 11:53:03 -0500, Ed Anson wrote
(in article <jMqdndGUovjtFujLnZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com>):

> So what I'm really looking for, it seems, is something that runs in the 
> background and reads every sector from time to time. If the re-mapping 
> is done by the drive, so much the better. But it still needs to notice 
> the failing sector. Is there anything that does that on a Mac? If not, 
> is there another practical way to get the job done?

I have both Tech Tool and Drive Genius and they both have this 
capability (ie reading every sector).  The only thing missing seems to 
be the ability to automatically run them periodically.  You could 
probably use Applescript GUI scripting and launchd to accomplish that.

-- 
Nelson

0
Nelson
12/19/2015 10:51:15 PM
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 17:51:15 -0500, Nelson wrote
(in article <0001HW.D29B499300638222B01029BF@news.astraweb.com>):

> On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 11:53:03 -0500, Ed Anson wrote
> (in article <jMqdndGUovjtFujLnZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com>):
> 
>> So what I'm really looking for, it seems, is something that runs in the 
>> background and reads every sector from time to time. If the re-mapping 
>> is done by the drive, so much the better. But it still needs to notice 
>> the failing sector. Is there anything that does that on a Mac? If not, 
>> is there another practical way to get the job done?
> 
> I have both Tech Tool and Drive Genius and they both have this 
> capability (ie reading every sector).  The only thing missing seems to 
> be the ability to automatically run them periodically.  You could 
> probably use Applescript GUI scripting and launchd to accomplish that.
> 
> 

Actually, Drive Genius automatically does this once a week. From the 
User Guide:

	�	Physical problems: DrivePulse� performs a Scan on a disk to search 
for bad blocks on the hard drive ensuring the physical integrity of the 
device. DrivePulse� is scheduled to Scan once a week.


-- 
Nelson

0
Nelson
12/19/2015 11:08:33 PM
In message <jMqdndGUovjtFujLnZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/19/15 12:45 AM, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <7rmdncohq7JTOenLnZ2dnUU7-N-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>    Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 12/18/15 1:45 AM, Lewis wrote:
>>>> In message <gPudndZ1zuR4w-7LnZ2dnUU7-VednZ2d@giganews.com>
>>>>     Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> A few Mac OS versions ago, there was quite an assortment of utilities
>>>>> for testing disk drives. Now, I am unable to identify even one that will
>>>>> actually test the disk surface.
>>>>
>>>> What were some of the ones that you think tested disk drives in previous
>>>> versions?
>>
>>> It's been awhile since I actually checked. But IIRC Disk Utility did
>>> that at one time. Perhaps DiskWarrior did as well. But I'm not sure any
>>> more.
>>
>> Nope. Neither of those did surface scans.
>>
>>>>> There are a number of utilities that test the directory structure. There
>>>>> are some that will report the S.M.A.R.T. data. But I can't find one that
>>>>> will scan the disk surface for bad sectors.
>>>>
>>>> There are many reasons for this. Primarily, because it is a waste of
>>>> time. Secondarily because the drives themselves do this. Tertiarily
>>>> because you will gain nothing by doing this.
>>
>>> These are interesting assertions. Why do you think it's a waste of time
>>> to find out whether the disk surface can record and retrieve data?
>>
>> Because drives do this themselves.
>>
>>> A couple of weeks ago, I started a routine operation to make a copy of a
>>> Time Machine backup disk. [I typically do incremental backups using
>>> SuperDuper!] After running for several hours, the backup failed due to
>>> an I/O error -- apparently due to a bad sector. I spent about a week,
>>> trying to save as much information as I could, but I kept getting more
>>> file copy failures. I then realized two things:
>>> 1. My disk drive had been corrupting/losing data for some time without
>>> my knowledge.
>>> 2. I had no way to assess the extent of the problem since I couldn't
>>> find any way to find out how many sectors had gone bad.
>>
>> This is when a tool like Spinrite comes in handy.

> I had never heard of Spinrite, so I checked it out. It would indeed do 
> what I need -- except that it only runs on Windows.

No it doesn't run on Windows. It runs one any x86 machine, including a
Mac. The issue with using it on a Mac (or modern PC) is the software
predates USB, and isn't capable of waking up to a USB keypress.

> So what I'm really looking for, it seems, is something that runs in the 
> background and reads every sector from time to time. If the re-mapping 
> is done by the drive, so much the better. But it still needs to notice 
> the failing sector. Is there anything that does that on a Mac? If not, 
> is there another practical way to get the job done?

dd if=/dev/disk# of=/dev/null bs=4k

-- 
I CAN'T SEE DEAD PEOPLE Bart chalkboard Ep. BABF05
0
Lewis
12/20/2015 6:34:07 AM
In message <slrnn7bngi.hq1.howard@foxtrot.local> 
  Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-19, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> In message <oOSdncP7f865IunLnZ2dnUU7-aednZ2d@giganews.com> 
>>   Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> There is also the fact that each backup requires several hours to 
>>> complete. There are only so many hours in a day.
>>
>> Then you are doing backups wrong.

> rsync is the only way.

And it doesn't take hours if you are doing it right after the first
backup.

-- 
The reaper does not listen to the harvest. --Reaper Man
0
Lewis
12/20/2015 6:39:22 AM
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <slrnn7bngi.hq1.howard@foxtrot.local> 
>   Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-19, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> In message <oOSdncP7f865IunLnZ2dnUU7-aednZ2d@giganews.com> 
>>> Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> There is also the fact that each backup requires several hours to 
>>>> complete. There are only so many hours in a day.
>>> 
>>> Then you are doing backups wrong.
> 
>> rsync is the only way.
> 
> And it doesn't take hours if you are doing it right after the first
> backup.

Neither does Time Machine or any other incremental backup solution. And
rsync isn't anywhere close to the only way. As a matter of fact, it's best
not to rely on just one method. ; ) 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/20/2015 5:27:58 PM
On 12/19/15 12:30 PM, nospam wrote:
>> So what I'm really looking for, it seems, is something that runs in the
>> >background and reads every sector from time to time. If the re-mapping
>> >is done by the drive, so much the better. But it still needs to notice
>> >the failing sector. Is there anything that does that on a Mac? If not,
>> >is there another practical way to get the job done?
> the drive does that automatically when the sector is accessed.

That is good. So now all I need is a way to make sure every sector is 
accessed periodically. With an incremental backup, that doesn't happen 
as a matter of course.
0
Ed
12/20/2015 10:18:55 PM
In article <avudnS_q4qnStOrLnZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
<EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> So what I'm really looking for, it seems, is something that runs in the
> >> >background and reads every sector from time to time. If the re-mapping
> >> >is done by the drive, so much the better. But it still needs to notice
> >> >the failing sector. Is there anything that does that on a Mac? If not,
> >> >is there another practical way to get the job done?
>
> > the drive does that automatically when the sector is accessed.
> 
> That is good. So now all I need is a way to make sure every sector is 
> accessed periodically. 

no you don't.

> With an incremental backup, that doesn't happen 
> as a matter of course.

so what?

what matters are the sectors that have data on them.

note that all drives have *some* bad sectors. what you want to know is
if that number is growing, which means the drive is on its way out if
not already gone.
0
nospam
12/20/2015 10:23:52 PM
On 12/19/15 5:39 PM, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-19, Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>> So what I'm really looking for, it seems, is something that runs in the
>> background and reads every sector from time to time. If the re-mapping
>> is done by the drive, so much the better. But it still needs to notice
>> the failing sector. Is there anything that does that on a Mac? If not,
>> is there another practical way to get the job done?
>
> Use RAID-1 and keep up with your system logs somehow.  Add redundancy.
>
> Disk drives fail.  They're built with that understanding in such a way
> to, as much as possible, mitigate it for a long time, but they fail at
> some point no matter what.  Alternatives include adding another
> technology like tapes (giggle) and SSDs.  Personally, I gave up on tapes
> long ago, have not yet seen reasonably priced SSDs for my purposes, and
> simply make about five backups for every volume I've got.  Massive
> redundancy, off-site backups, onsite backups, backups using different
> methods.
>
> If you're worried about your data, suspenders AND belt.  And more
> suspenders, and more belts.  The storage tech we've got so far is only
> reliable to a point, which means that it's not especially reliable.
> Plan for it.
>
I'm certainly aware of all of that. And I DO have multiple layers of 
backups, as you suggest. So I thought I was pretty well protected -- 
until I discovered that a backup can fail without my noticing it. I had 
provided for recovering from failure, but only if I know I need to. 
Unless I have timely warning of a failure, multiple failures can occur 
before I become aware. Worst case, all backups have gone bad before I 
know I need one.

That's why I'm looking for a practical way to know when a disk (or a 
sector) has gone bad.

In my story (see elsewhere in this thread) I recounted how I got 
blind-sided by multiple sector failures. Since bad blocks are 
automatically re-mapped, as others have pointed out, it would seem that 
there was some bit rot while nobody was looking. I'm trying to figure 
out how to detect that while I can still easily recover.
0
Ed
12/20/2015 10:25:58 PM
In article <4bSdndpx2_Bqt-rLnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
<EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:

> >
> > If you're worried about your data, suspenders AND belt.  And more
> > suspenders, and more belts.  The storage tech we've got so far is only
> > reliable to a point, which means that it's not especially reliable.
> > Plan for it.
> >
> I'm certainly aware of all of that. And I DO have multiple layers of 
> backups, as you suggest. So I thought I was pretty well protected -- 
> until I discovered that a backup can fail without my noticing it. I had 
> provided for recovering from failure, but only if I know I need to. 
> Unless I have timely warning of a failure, multiple failures can occur 
> before I become aware. Worst case, all backups have gone bad before I 
> know I need one.

the chances of multiple backups all failing at the same time are
*extremely* low.
0
nospam
12/20/2015 10:33:10 PM
On 2015-12-20, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> what matters are the sectors that have data on them.
>
> note that all drives have *some* bad sectors. what you want to know is
> if that number is growing, which means the drive is on its way out if
> not already gone.

Yep, and that's something various SMART utilities can tell you. One I've
used through the years is smartmontools, which gives a pretty thorough
report including bad and reallocated sectors:

<https://www.smartmontools.org>

Note that Disk Utility only reports a very basic SMART status of
"verified" (disk is probably healthy) or "failed" (disk failed some
critical tests).

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/20/2015 10:37:32 PM
On 2015-12-20, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> In message <slrnn7bngi.hq1.howard@foxtrot.local> 
>>   Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-19, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>> In message <oOSdncP7f865IunLnZ2dnUU7-aednZ2d@giganews.com> 
>>>> Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> There is also the fact that each backup requires several hours to 
>>>>> complete. There are only so many hours in a day.
>>>> 
>>>> Then you are doing backups wrong.
>> 
>>> rsync is the only way.
>> 
>> And it doesn't take hours if you are doing it right after the first
>> backup.
>
> Neither does Time Machine or any other incremental backup solution. And
> rsync isn't anywhere close to the only way. As a matter of fact, it's best
> not to rely on just one method. ; ) 

Time Machine is what rsync is a backup to.  If you've got other methods,
I'd like to hear about them.
0
Howard
12/20/2015 11:00:57 PM
On 2015-12-20, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-20, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> In message <slrnn7bngi.hq1.howard@foxtrot.local> 
>>>   Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2015-12-19, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>>> In message <oOSdncP7f865IunLnZ2dnUU7-aednZ2d@giganews.com> 
>>>>> Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> There is also the fact that each backup requires several hours to 
>>>>>> complete. There are only so many hours in a day.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Then you are doing backups wrong.
>>> 
>>>> rsync is the only way.
>>> 
>>> And it doesn't take hours if you are doing it right after the first
>>> backup.
>>
>> Neither does Time Machine or any other incremental backup solution. And
>> rsync isn't anywhere close to the only way. As a matter of fact, it's best
>> not to rely on just one method. ; ) 
>
> Time Machine is what rsync is a backup to.  If you've got other methods,
> I'd like to hear about them.

While I don't bother with rsync on my Macs at home for regular backups,
I do rely on it for backing up certain data on enterprise servers I
manage, along with other enterprise backup solutions.

At home, I use a combination of Time Machine backups to multiple
destinations (including off-site) and SuperDuper. Essentially, I have
multiple Time Machine backups and clones, so if one fails, I always have
another to fall back to.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/20/2015 11:13:24 PM
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:25:58 -0500, Ed Anson wrote
(in article <4bSdndpx2_Bqt-rLnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com>):

> That's why I'm looking for a practical way to know when a disk (or a 
> sector) has gone bad

I'll repeat this here since you seem to have missed my response in 
another part of the thread:

Drive Genius automatically does this once a week. From the 
User Guide:

	�	Physical problems: DrivePulse� performs a Scan on a disk to search 
for bad blocks on the hard drive ensuring the physical integrity of the 
device. DrivePulse� is scheduled to Scan once a week.


-- 
Nelson

0
Nelson
12/20/2015 11:35:19 PM
In article <0001HW.D29CA56700B5071EB02919BF@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson
<nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:

> > That's why I'm looking for a practical way to know when a disk (or a 
> > sector) has gone bad
> 
> I'll repeat this here since you seem to have missed my response in 
> another part of the thread:
> 
> Drive Genius automatically does this once a week. From the 
> User Guide:
> 
>  �  Physical problems: DrivePulse� performs a Scan on a disk to search 
> for bad blocks on the hard drive ensuring the physical integrity of the 
> device. DrivePulse� is scheduled to Scan once a week.

it definitely is *not* doing a scan because such a scan would take
many, many hours to complete and isn't reliable anyway.

what it's probably doing is checking smart data, which is not a big
deal and can be done for free.
0
nospam
12/20/2015 11:40:37 PM
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 18:40:37 -0500, nospam wrote
(in article <201220151840375881%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

> In article <0001HW.D29CA56700B5071EB02919BF@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson
> <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>>> That's why I'm looking for a practical way to know when a disk (or a 
>>> sector) has gone bad
>> 
>> I'll repeat this here since you seem to have missed my response in 
>> another part of the thread:
>> 
>> Drive Genius automatically does this once a week. From the 
>> User Guide:
>> 
>> �  Physical problems: DrivePulse� performs a Scan on a disk to search 
>> for bad blocks on the hard drive ensuring the physical integrity of the 
>> device. DrivePulse� is scheduled to Scan once a week.
> 
> it definitely is *not* doing a scan because such a scan would take
> many, many hours to complete and isn't reliable anyway.
> 
> what it's probably doing is checking smart data, which is not a big
> deal and can be done for free.

You are wrong.  It reads every block on the disk in the background and, 
indeed, takes many, many hours to complete.  After two days it is 37% 
through a 5 TB usb drive.

-- 
Nelson

0
Nelson
12/21/2015 2:09:59 AM
In article <0001HW.D29CC9A700BD8626B02919BF@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson
<nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >>> That's why I'm looking for a practical way to know when a disk (or a 
> >>> sector) has gone bad
> >> 
> >> I'll repeat this here since you seem to have missed my response in 
> >> another part of the thread:
> >> 
> >> Drive Genius automatically does this once a week. From the 
> >> User Guide:
> >> 
> >> �  Physical problems: DrivePulse� performs a Scan on a disk to search 
> >> for bad blocks on the hard drive ensuring the physical integrity of the 
> >> device. DrivePulse� is scheduled to Scan once a week.
> > 
> > it definitely is *not* doing a scan because such a scan would take
> > many, many hours to complete and isn't reliable anyway.
> > 
> > what it's probably doing is checking smart data, which is not a big
> > deal and can be done for free.
> 
> You are wrong.  It reads every block on the disk in the background and, 
> indeed, takes many, many hours to complete.  After two days it is 37% 
> through a 5 TB usb drive.

bullshit it does.

a full surface scan would be a really *dumb* thing to do on a
continuous basis and an incredibly good reason never to install such
garbage ever. at a minimum, it would greatly increase wear and tear on
the drive.

they claim it takes an hour to scan (although an older version):
<https://www.prosofteng.com/blog/monitor-your-hard-drive-with-drive-puls
e�/>
  Drive Pulse� monitors for physical problems by performing scans to
  search for bad blocks on the hard drive. This ensures the physical
  integrity of the drive. The scan takes about an hour to complete and
  is scheduled to run weekly. All DrivePulse scans are ONLY run when
  your Mac is idle, meaning you�re not currently using it. If you come
  back to your Mac while a scan is running, the scan is put on hold.
  This allows for minimal impact on your workflow, while still
  protecting you with automated checks

that is *not* a full surface scan, and 'minimal impact' means it's not
zero. in other words, this makes the system slower.
0
nospam
12/21/2015 2:53:35 AM
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:53:35 -0500, nospam wrote
(in article <201220152153350550%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

> In article <0001HW.D29CC9A700BD8626B02919BF@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson
> <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>> That's why I'm looking for a practical way to know when a disk (or a 
>>>>> sector) has gone bad
>>>> 
>>>> I'll repeat this here since you seem to have missed my response in 
>>>> another part of the thread:
>>>> 
>>>> Drive Genius automatically does this once a week. From the 
>>>> User Guide:
>>>> 
>>>> �  Physical problems: DrivePulse� performs a Scan on a disk to search 
>>>> for bad blocks on the hard drive ensuring the physical integrity of the 
>>>> device. DrivePulse� is scheduled to Scan once a week.
>>> 
>>> it definitely is *not* doing a scan because such a scan would take
>>> many, many hours to complete and isn't reliable anyway.
>>> 
>>> what it's probably doing is checking smart data, which is not a big
>>> deal and can be done for free.
>> 
>> You are wrong.  It reads every block on the disk in the background and, 
>> indeed, takes many, many hours to complete.  After two days it is 37% 
>> through a 5 TB usb drive.
> 
> bullshit it does.
> 
> a full surface scan would be a really *dumb* thing to do on a
> continuous basis and an incredibly good reason never to install such
> garbage ever. at a minimum, it would greatly increase wear and tear on
> the drive.
> 
> they claim it takes an hour to scan (although an older version):
> <https://www.prosofteng.com/blog/monitor-your-hard-drive-with-drive-puls
> e�/>
>   Drive Pulse� monitors for physical problems by performing scans to
>   search for bad blocks on the hard drive. This ensures the physical
>   integrity of the drive. The scan takes about an hour to complete and
>   is scheduled to run weekly. All DrivePulse scans are ONLY run when
>   your Mac is idle, meaning you�re not currently using it. If you come
>   back to your Mac while a scan is running, the scan is put on hold.
>   This allows for minimal impact on your workflow, while still
>   protecting you with automated checks
> 
> that is *not* a full surface scan, and 'minimal impact' means it's not
> zero. in other words, this makes the system slower.


First, it doesn't do it on a continuous basis.  It does it every ten 
days.

Jennifer is some marketing bimbo.  It probably took an hour on her 
machine because she had a small drive.  It certainly wouldn't take an 
hour just to check the SMART status or file system if that were all it 
were doing as you claim.

I can watch it marching slowly through the sectors on my 5 TB drives in 
the background using Activity Monitor.  And as soon as I do anything 
else, it stops.

I can also launch the test manually in the foreground and it displays a 
progress bar with the number of blocks read, the number to read, and 
how long it will take.  In the case of the 5TB drive it says it will 
take about a day scanning continuously to scan all the blocks.  Unless 
I missed something, that is the same thing "Spinrite" does.

Doing anything at all will make the system slower including backing up. 
 If it only runs while the machine is idle, what is the problem?

-- 
Nelson

0
Nelson
12/21/2015 4:09:46 AM
In article <0001HW.D29CE5BA00C41A7DB02919BF@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson
<nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >>>>> That's why I'm looking for a practical way to know when a disk (or a 
> >>>>> sector) has gone bad
> >>>> 
> >>>> I'll repeat this here since you seem to have missed my response in 
> >>>> another part of the thread:
> >>>> 
> >>>> Drive Genius automatically does this once a week. From the 
> >>>> User Guide:
> >>>> 
> >>>> �  Physical problems: DrivePulse� performs a Scan on a disk to search 
> >>>> for bad blocks on the hard drive ensuring the physical integrity of the 
> >>>> device. DrivePulse� is scheduled to Scan once a week.
> >>> 
> >>> it definitely is *not* doing a scan because such a scan would take
> >>> many, many hours to complete and isn't reliable anyway.
> >>> 
> >>> what it's probably doing is checking smart data, which is not a big
> >>> deal and can be done for free.
> >> 
> >> You are wrong.  It reads every block on the disk in the background and, 
> >> indeed, takes many, many hours to complete.  After two days it is 37% 
> >> through a 5 TB usb drive.
> > 
> > bullshit it does.
> > 
> > a full surface scan would be a really *dumb* thing to do on a
> > continuous basis and an incredibly good reason never to install such
> > garbage ever. at a minimum, it would greatly increase wear and tear on
> > the drive.
> > 
> > they claim it takes an hour to scan (although an older version):
> > <https://www.prosofteng.com/blog/monitor-your-hard-drive-with-drive-puls
> > e�/>
> >   Drive Pulse� monitors for physical problems by performing scans to
> >   search for bad blocks on the hard drive. This ensures the physical
> >   integrity of the drive. The scan takes about an hour to complete and
> >   is scheduled to run weekly. All DrivePulse scans are ONLY run when
> >   your Mac is idle, meaning you�re not currently using it. If you come
> >   back to your Mac while a scan is running, the scan is put on hold.
> >   This allows for minimal impact on your workflow, while still
> >   protecting you with automated checks
> > 
> > that is *not* a full surface scan, and 'minimal impact' means it's not
> > zero. in other words, this makes the system slower.
> 
> First, it doesn't do it on a continuous basis.  It does it every ten 
> days.

it says weekly. however, it is about a previous version.

> Jennifer is some marketing bimbo.  It probably took an hour on her 
> machine because she had a small drive.  It certainly wouldn't take an 
> hour just to check the SMART status or file system if that were all it 
> were doing as you claim.

it doesn't matter whether you think she's a bimbo or not. she's the
marketing manager and it's her responsibility to make accurate public
statements about their products.

in the user manual, they say physical damage (which is a bit vague) is
checked *monthly*, while file corruption and fragmentation (completely
useless) are checked daily or weekly, respectively:
<https://www.prosofteng.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Drive-Genius-4-He
lp.pdf>
  Physical problems: When enabled, DrivePulse checks drives for
  physical damage. This test is scheduled to run once a month.

  Consistency problems: When enabled, DrivePulse checks drives for data
  corruption issues. This test is scheduled to run once a day.

  Fragmentation: When enabled, DrivePulse checks drives for data
  fragmentation that can lead to poor performance. This test is
  scheduled to run once a week.

> I can watch it marching slowly through the sectors on my 5 TB drives in 
> the background using Activity Monitor.  And as soon as I do anything 
> else, it stops.

that right there is reason to remove it.

> I can also launch the test manually in the foreground and it displays a 
> progress bar with the number of blocks read, the number to read, and 
> how long it will take.  In the case of the 5TB drive it says it will 
> take about a day scanning continuously to scan all the blocks.  Unless 
> I missed something, that is the same thing "Spinrite" does.

in a nutshell, spinrite retries blocks for as long as it takes to get
the data out of them.

> Doing anything at all will make the system slower including backing up. 

backups are useful. 

routine bad block scans are not.

>  If it only runs while the machine is idle, what is the problem?

because it's completely unnecessary and is actually reducing the life
of the drive it claims to protect. 

there is no need to constantly scan for bad blocks. it's a *complete*
waste of time. all that's needed is check smart data every so often to
see if the reallocated sector count is increasing. all drives have
*some* bad blocks, but if that number is growing (other than an
occasional one every once in a while, which is normal), there are
problems.
0
nospam
12/21/2015 4:33:17 AM
> > > If you're worried about your data, suspenders AND belt.  And more
> > > suspenders, and more belts.  The storage tech we've got so far is only
> > > reliable to a point, which means that it's not especially reliable.
> > > Plan for it.
> > >
> > I'm certainly aware of all of that. And I DO have multiple layers of 
> > backups, as you suggest. So I thought I was pretty well protected -- 
> > until I discovered that a backup can fail without my noticing it. I had 
> > provided for recovering from failure, but only if I know I need to. 
> > Unless I have timely warning of a failure, multiple failures can occur 
> > before I become aware. Worst case, all backups have gone bad before I 
> > know I need one.

> the chances of multiple backups all failing at the same time are
> *extremely* low.

Like burned in the same physical place. ;)
-- 
Merry Christmas/Season's Greetings/:) Holidays & May The Force Be With U!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
 / /\ /\ \                 Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /    Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
    ( )     ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
0
ANTant
12/21/2015 6:30:23 AM
On 2015-12-20, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> While I don't bother with rsync on my Macs at home for regular backups,
> I do rely on it for backing up certain data on enterprise servers I
> manage, along with other enterprise backup solutions.
>
> At home, I use a combination of Time Machine backups to multiple
> destinations (including off-site) and SuperDuper. Essentially, I have
> multiple Time Machine backups and clones, so if one fails, I always have
> another to fall back to.

I'm not familiar with SuperDuper.  I am familiar with Carbon Copy
Cloner, which uses rsync.  If I'd known it used rsync, I wouldn't have
bothered paying money for it, as I was already doing so on my own, and
my scripts are rather more flexible, since I can modify them.

I used to use Retrospect, but that was back when I was using tapes.  I
found it very good, but that day has passed.
0
Howard
12/21/2015 9:05:22 AM
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 23:33:17 -0500, nospam wrote
(in article <201220152333179489%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

> In article <0001HW.D29CE5BA00C41A7DB02919BF@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson
> <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>>>> That's why I'm looking for a practical way to know when a disk (or a 
>>>>>>> sector) has gone bad
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'll repeat this here since you seem to have missed my response in 
>>>>>> another part of the thread:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Drive Genius automatically does this once a week. From the 
>>>>>> User Guide:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> �  Physical problems: DrivePulse� performs a Scan on a disk to search 
>>>>>> for bad blocks on the hard drive ensuring the physical integrity of the 
>>>>>> device. DrivePulse� is scheduled to Scan once a week.
>>>>> 
>>>>> it definitely is *not* doing a scan because such a scan would take
>>>>> many, many hours to complete and isn't reliable anyway.
>>>>> 
>>>>> what it's probably doing is checking smart data, which is not a big
>>>>> deal and can be done for free.
>>>> 
>>>> You are wrong.  It reads every block on the disk in the background and, 
>>>> indeed, takes many, many hours to complete.  After two days it is 37% 
>>>> through a 5 TB usb drive.
>>> 
>>> bullshit it does.
>>> 
>>> a full surface scan would be a really *dumb* thing to do on a
>>> continuous basis and an incredibly good reason never to install such
>>> garbage ever. at a minimum, it would greatly increase wear and tear on
>>> the drive.
>>> 
>>> they claim it takes an hour to scan (although an older version):
>>> <https://www.prosofteng.com/blog/monitor-your-hard-drive-with-drive-puls
>>> e�/>
>>> Drive Pulse� monitors for physical problems by performing scans to
>>> search for bad blocks on the hard drive. This ensures the physical
>>> integrity of the drive. The scan takes about an hour to complete and
>>> is scheduled to run weekly. All DrivePulse scans are ONLY run when
>>> your Mac is idle, meaning you�re not currently using it. If you come
>>> back to your Mac while a scan is running, the scan is put on hold.
>>> This allows for minimal impact on your workflow, while still
>>> protecting you with automated checks
>>> 
>>> that is *not* a full surface scan, and 'minimal impact' means it's not
>>> zero. in other words, this makes the system slower.
>> 
>> First, it doesn't do it on a continuous basis.  It does it every ten 
>> days.
> 
> it says weekly. however, it is about a previous version.
> 
>> Jennifer is some marketing bimbo.  It probably took an hour on her 
>> machine because she had a small drive.  It certainly wouldn't take an 
>> hour just to check the SMART status or file system if that were all it 
>> were doing as you claim.
> 
> it doesn't matter whether you think she's a bimbo or not. she's the
> marketing manager and it's her responsibility to make accurate public
> statements about their products.

LOL!  Have you ever held a job in the real world :)  Particularly since 
Affirmative Action quotas were implemented?

> 
> in the user manual, they say physical damage (which is a bit vague) is
> checked *monthly*, while file corruption and fragmentation (completely
> useless) are checked daily or weekly, respectively:
> <https://www.prosofteng.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Drive-Genius-4-He
> lp.pdf>
>   Physical problems: When enabled, DrivePulse checks drives for
>   physical damage. This test is scheduled to run once a month.
> 
>   Consistency problems: When enabled, DrivePulse checks drives for data
>   corruption issues. This test is scheduled to run once a day.
> 
>   Fragmentation: When enabled, DrivePulse checks drives for data
>   fragmentation that can lead to poor performance. This test is
>   scheduled to run once a week.
> 
>> I can watch it marching slowly through the sectors on my 5 TB drives in 
>> the background using Activity Monitor.  And as soon as I do anything 
>> else, it stops.
> 
> that right there is reason to remove it.

Your argument has "progressed" from "It definitely doesn't do it" to 
nitpicking about how frequently it does it. And from "it definitely is 
*not* doing a scan" to "you should remove it because it does a scan".

> 
>> I can also launch the test manually in the foreground and it displays a 
>> progress bar with the number of blocks read, the number to read, and 
>> how long it will take.  In the case of the 5TB drive it says it will 
>> take about a day scanning continuously to scan all the blocks.  Unless 
>> I missed something, that is the same thing "Spinrite" does.
> 
> in a nutshell, spinrite retries blocks for as long as it takes to get
> the data out of them.
> 
>> Doing anything at all will make the system slower including backing up. 
> 
> backups are useful. 
> 
> routine bad block scans are not.
> 
>> If it only runs while the machine is idle, what is the problem?
> 
> because it's completely unnecessary and is actually reducing the life
> of the drive it claims to protect. 
> 
> there is no need to constantly scan for bad blocks. it's a *complete*
> waste of time. all that's needed is check smart data every so often to
> see if the reallocated sector count is increasing. all drives have
> *some* bad blocks, but if that number is growing (other than an
> occasional one every once in a while, which is normal), there are
> problems.

Adding asterisks to your words does not make your "arguments" any more 
compelling.  That which can be asserted without evidence can be 
dismissed without evidence.  Cite us some studies and published data 
which demonstrate that scanning for bad blocks affects drive life or 
harms it in some other way.  Otherwise, this is just another of your 
trademark rants.

Relying on smart data is not an option for drives which don't support 
smart.  I have yet to see an external, desktop drive which does.  Maybe 
this is to keep the cost down or maybe there is a technical reason they 
can't.  I don't know.

OP was looking for a Mac application which monitored the drives similar 
to "spinrite".  Drive Genius does that.

-- 
Nelson

0
Nelson
12/21/2015 10:07:58 AM
In article <slrnn7fg6i.jfb.howard@foxtrot.local>,
 Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> I'm not familiar with SuperDuper.  I am familiar with Carbon Copy
> Cloner, which uses rsync.  If I'd known it used rsync, I wouldn't have
> bothered paying money for it, as I was already doing so on my own, and
> my scripts are rather more flexible, since I can modify them.

Intresting. Mr. Bombich has published several useful articles about 
using rsync.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner
0
Warren
12/21/2015 1:32:36 PM
In article <slrnn7fg6i.jfb.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
<howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> > While I don't bother with rsync on my Macs at home for regular backups,
> > I do rely on it for backing up certain data on enterprise servers I
> > manage, along with other enterprise backup solutions.
> >
> > At home, I use a combination of Time Machine backups to multiple
> > destinations (including off-site) and SuperDuper. Essentially, I have
> > multiple Time Machine backups and clones, so if one fails, I always have
> > another to fall back to.
> 
> I'm not familiar with SuperDuper.  I am familiar with Carbon Copy
> Cloner, which uses rsync.  If I'd known it used rsync, I wouldn't have
> bothered paying money for it, as I was already doing so on my own, and
> my scripts are rather more flexible, since I can modify them.

superduper uses its own copy engine, designed specifically for mac
volumes, including time machine. 

> I used to use Retrospect, but that was back when I was using tapes.  I
> found it very good, but that day has passed.

retrospect was great in its day.
0
nospam
12/21/2015 4:09:34 PM
In article <0001HW.D29D39AE00D7C78EB01029BF@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson
<nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:

> > in the user manual, they say physical damage (which is a bit vague) is
> > checked *monthly*, while file corruption and fragmentation (completely
> > useless) are checked daily or weekly, respectively:
> > <https://www.prosofteng.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Drive-Genius-4-He
> > lp.pdf>
> >   Physical problems: When enabled, DrivePulse checks drives for
> >   physical damage. This test is scheduled to run once a month.
> > 
> >   Consistency problems: When enabled, DrivePulse checks drives for data
> >   corruption issues. This test is scheduled to run once a day.
> > 
> >   Fragmentation: When enabled, DrivePulse checks drives for data
> >   fragmentation that can lead to poor performance. This test is
> >   scheduled to run once a week.
> > 
> >> I can watch it marching slowly through the sectors on my 5 TB drives in 
> >> the background using Activity Monitor.  And as soon as I do anything 
> >> else, it stops.
> > 
> > that right there is reason to remove it.
> 
> Your argument has "progressed" from "It definitely doesn't do it" to 
> nitpicking about how frequently it does it. And from "it definitely is 
> *not* doing a scan" to "you should remove it because it does a scan".

nope. it definitely doesn't do a full surface scan. all it's doing is
some cursory test. 

doing routine surface scans is incredibly stupid for a variety of
reasons, mainly because smart *already* tracks it and it only needs to
query that, that a surface scan doesn't actually mean much (bad blocks
can get remapped) and if someone uses their computer a lot and sleeps
it when not in use, a complete scan would never have enough time to
complete.

....
> >> If it only runs while the machine is idle, what is the problem?
> > 
> > because it's completely unnecessary and is actually reducing the life
> > of the drive it claims to protect. 
> > 
> > there is no need to constantly scan for bad blocks. it's a *complete*
> > waste of time. all that's needed is check smart data every so often to
> > see if the reallocated sector count is increasing. all drives have
> > *some* bad blocks, but if that number is growing (other than an
> > occasional one every once in a while, which is normal), there are
> > problems.
> 
> Adding asterisks to your words does not make your "arguments" any more 
> compelling.  That which can be asserted without evidence can be 
> dismissed without evidence.  Cite us some studies and published data 
> which demonstrate that scanning for bad blocks affects drive life or 
> harms it in some other way.  Otherwise, this is just another of your 
> trademark rants.

it's common sense. 

doing a surface scan is additional disk activity that otherwise would
not occur. 

> Relying on smart data is not an option for drives which don't support 
> smart. 

all drives these days support smart.

> I have yet to see an external, desktop drive which does. Maybe 
> this is to keep the cost down or maybe there is a technical reason they 
> can't.  I don't know.

the technical reason is that ata doesn't support smart. some chipsets
add support for it but they require a custom driver. with that, you can
get smart on an external enclosure.

smart isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway. even if smart says a
drive is fine, a drive can still fail. 

> OP was looking for a Mac application which monitored the drives similar 
> to "spinrite".  Drive Genius does that.

no it doesn't.
0
nospam
12/21/2015 4:09:36 PM
On 2015-12-21, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>
> I'm not familiar with SuperDuper.  I am familiar with Carbon Copy
> Cloner, which uses rsync.  If I'd known it used rsync, I wouldn't have
> bothered paying money for it, as I was already doing so on my own, and
> my scripts are rather more flexible, since I can modify them.

SuperDuper is nice. I've owned a license since 2007.

> I used to use Retrospect, but that was back when I was using tapes.  I
> found it very good, but that day has passed.

Same here - used it for many, many years. The OS X version was a
complete cluster fuck though. I stopped upgrading it at version 8, and
sold my tape drive and library on eBay. Hard drives are faster, more
convenient, and cheaper.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/21/2015 4:32:13 PM
On 12/20/15 5:37 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-12-20, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> what matters are the sectors that have data on them.
>>
>> note that all drives have *some* bad sectors. what you want to know is
>> if that number is growing, which means the drive is on its way out if
>> not already gone.
>
> Yep, and that's something various SMART utilities can tell you. One I've
> used through the years is smartmontools, which gives a pretty thorough
> report including bad and reallocated sectors:
>
> <https://www.smartmontools.org>
>
> Note that Disk Utility only reports a very basic SMART status of
> "verified" (disk is probably healthy) or "failed" (disk failed some
> critical tests).
>
Yes. I'm beginning to lean in the direction of replacing my external 
disk with one that supports SMART, possibly even a RAID-1 array. I 
already have a utility that periodically checks the SMART information 
and lets me know if anything is amiss. Currently, it works only with my 
internal drive.

I'm still concerned about bit rot on files that aren't regularly 
accessed. As pointed out, I don't really need to access every sector -- 
just every sector that is in use. Short of a full backup, I still don't 
have a good way to do that. I'm still looking into Drive Genius and 
DiskTools Pro, but I'm not quite convinced that either of them is what I 
want. I'm still researching alternatives. One thing I'm considering is 
that, if I switch to a Thunderbolt drive, doing a full backup 
occasionally might become practical and would certainly make sure all 
the relevant sectors are accessed.

0
Ed
12/21/2015 4:48:01 PM
On 12/20/15 5:33 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <4bSdndpx2_Bqt-rLnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
> <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> If you're worried about your data, suspenders AND belt.  And more
>>> suspenders, and more belts.  The storage tech we've got so far is only
>>> reliable to a point, which means that it's not especially reliable.
>>> Plan for it.
>>>
>> I'm certainly aware of all of that. And I DO have multiple layers of
>> backups, as you suggest. So I thought I was pretty well protected --
>> until I discovered that a backup can fail without my noticing it. I had
>> provided for recovering from failure, but only if I know I need to.
>> Unless I have timely warning of a failure, multiple failures can occur
>> before I become aware. Worst case, all backups have gone bad before I
>> know I need one.
>
> the chances of multiple backups all failing at the same time are
> *extremely* low.
>
That was my thinking until recently. But I'm not talking about backups 
failing at the same time. My concern is that if a failure goes unnoticed 
for long enough another backup can also fail. Unless I make sure I 
notice a failure in a reasonable period of time, there is a 
vulnerability I had not considered before.
0
Ed
12/21/2015 4:51:30 PM
In article <s9udnUJO6OvfsOXLnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
<EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> what matters are the sectors that have data on them.
> >>
> >> note that all drives have *some* bad sectors. what you want to know is
> >> if that number is growing, which means the drive is on its way out if
> >> not already gone.
> >
> > Yep, and that's something various SMART utilities can tell you. One I've
> > used through the years is smartmontools, which gives a pretty thorough
> > report including bad and reallocated sectors:
> >
> > <https://www.smartmontools.org>
> >
> > Note that Disk Utility only reports a very basic SMART status of
> > "verified" (disk is probably healthy) or "failed" (disk failed some
> > critical tests).
> >
> Yes. I'm beginning to lean in the direction of replacing my external 
> disk with one that supports SMART, possibly even a RAID-1 array.

raid is not a backup.

> I  already have a utility that periodically checks the SMART information 
> and lets me know if anything is amiss. Currently, it works only with my 
> internal drive.
> 
> I'm still concerned about bit rot on files that aren't regularly 
> accessed.

non-issue.

> As pointed out, I don't really need to access every sector -- 
> just every sector that is in use. 

that automatically happens when the sector is used

> Short of a full backup, I still don't 
> have a good way to do that. I'm still looking into Drive Genius and 
> DiskTools Pro, but I'm not quite convinced that either of them is what I 
> want. I'm still researching alternatives. One thing I'm considering is 
> that, if I switch to a Thunderbolt drive, doing a full backup 
> occasionally might become practical and would certainly make sure all 
> the relevant sectors are accessed.

thunderbolt is gross overkill for a backup.
0
nospam
12/21/2015 5:23:28 PM
In article <dPCdnc9fepGOs-XLnZ2dnUU7-e2dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
<EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 12/20/15 5:33 PM, nospam wrote:
> > In article <4bSdndpx2_Bqt-rLnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
> > <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> If you're worried about your data, suspenders AND belt.  And more
> >>> suspenders, and more belts.  The storage tech we've got so far is only
> >>> reliable to a point, which means that it's not especially reliable.
> >>> Plan for it.
> >>>
> >> I'm certainly aware of all of that. And I DO have multiple layers of
> >> backups, as you suggest. So I thought I was pretty well protected --
> >> until I discovered that a backup can fail without my noticing it. I had
> >> provided for recovering from failure, but only if I know I need to.
> >> Unless I have timely warning of a failure, multiple failures can occur
> >> before I become aware. Worst case, all backups have gone bad before I
> >> know I need one.
> >
> > the chances of multiple backups all failing at the same time are
> > *extremely* low.
> 
> That was my thinking until recently. 

the probability has not changed.

> But I'm not talking about backups 
> failing at the same time. My concern is that if a failure goes unnoticed 
> for long enough another backup can also fail. Unless I make sure I 
> notice a failure in a reasonable period of time, there is a 
> vulnerability I had not considered before.

test the backups every once in a while.

nothing is guaranteed 100%
0
nospam
12/21/2015 5:23:29 PM
On 12/21/15 12:23 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <s9udnUJO6OvfsOXLnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
> <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>> what matters are the sectors that have data on them.
>>>>
>>>> note that all drives have *some* bad sectors. what you want to know is
>>>> if that number is growing, which means the drive is on its way out if
>>>> not already gone.
>>>
>>> Yep, and that's something various SMART utilities can tell you. One I've
>>> used through the years is smartmontools, which gives a pretty thorough
>>> report including bad and reallocated sectors:
>>>
>>> <https://www.smartmontools.org>
>>>
>>> Note that Disk Utility only reports a very basic SMART status of
>>> "verified" (disk is probably healthy) or "failed" (disk failed some
>>> critical tests).
>>>
>> Yes. I'm beginning to lean in the direction of replacing my external
>> disk with one that supports SMART, possibly even a RAID-1 array.
>
> raid is not a backup.


Nobody said it was. But it CAN reduce the likelihood of data loss. As 
such it can be a useful component of the over-all backup strategy. 
However, my primary focus here is on early detection of failures and 
SMART can help with that. If I can get both in one box (and I can), that 
might be worth looking into.

>
>> I  already have a utility that periodically checks the SMART information
>> and lets me know if anything is amiss. Currently, it works only with my
>> internal drive.
>>
>> I'm still concerned about bit rot on files that aren't regularly
>> accessed.
>
> non-issue.

Are you saying that bit rot never happens? My experience suggests otherwise.


>
>> As pointed out, I don't really need to access every sector --
>> just every sector that is in use.
>
> that automatically happens when the sector is used

Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning. By "in use" I meant that it is 
holding important data. Which is why I need a way to assure that it is 
accessed from time to time. That doesn't happen by itself with 
incremental backups.

>
>> Short of a full backup, I still don't
>> have a good way to do that. I'm still looking into Drive Genius and
>> DiskTools Pro, but I'm not quite convinced that either of them is what I
>> want. I'm still researching alternatives. One thing I'm considering is
>> that, if I switch to a Thunderbolt drive, doing a full backup
>> occasionally might become practical and would certainly make sure all
>> the relevant sectors are accessed.
>
> thunderbolt is gross overkill for a backup.

Perhaps, but in my case it might be the most cost-effective way to 
upgrade. My backup disk operates more slowly than it should, largely due 
to the interface it is using. Unless I replace the server altogether, 
the only performance improvement available is using Thunderbolt. It also 
appears to be the only interface available to my server that supports SMART.
>

0
Ed
12/21/2015 9:25:48 PM
On 12/21/15 12:23 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <dPCdnc9fepGOs-XLnZ2dnUU7-e2dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
> <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/20/15 5:33 PM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <4bSdndpx2_Bqt-rLnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
>>> <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're worried about your data, suspenders AND belt.  And more
>>>>> suspenders, and more belts.  The storage tech we've got so far is only
>>>>> reliable to a point, which means that it's not especially reliable.
>>>>> Plan for it.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm certainly aware of all of that. And I DO have multiple layers of
>>>> backups, as you suggest. So I thought I was pretty well protected --
>>>> until I discovered that a backup can fail without my noticing it. I had
>>>> provided for recovering from failure, but only if I know I need to.
>>>> Unless I have timely warning of a failure, multiple failures can occur
>>>> before I become aware. Worst case, all backups have gone bad before I
>>>> know I need one.
>>>
>>> the chances of multiple backups all failing at the same time are
>>> *extremely* low.
>>
>> That was my thinking until recently.
>
> the probability has not changed.
>
>> But I'm not talking about backups
>> failing at the same time. My concern is that if a failure goes unnoticed
>> for long enough another backup can also fail. Unless I make sure I
>> notice a failure in a reasonable period of time, there is a
>> vulnerability I had not considered before.
>
> test the backups every once in a while.

That is exactly what I am trying to do. That is exactly why I am trying 
to find a practical tool for doing just that. But the only way I know to 
test the backup is to access every block of every file on it.

>
> nothing is guaranteed 100%

Indeed. But I'm trying to find a backup strategy that gets closer to 
that than what I have now.

>

0
Ed
12/21/2015 9:29:39 PM
In message <UbadnXVxZr_e8uXLnZ2dnUU7-f-dnZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/21/15 12:23 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <dPCdnc9fepGOs-XLnZ2dnUU7-e2dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
>> <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/20/15 5:33 PM, nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <4bSdndpx2_Bqt-rLnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
>>>> <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're worried about your data, suspenders AND belt.  And more
>>>>>> suspenders, and more belts.  The storage tech we've got so far is only
>>>>>> reliable to a point, which means that it's not especially reliable.
>>>>>> Plan for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm certainly aware of all of that. And I DO have multiple layers of
>>>>> backups, as you suggest. So I thought I was pretty well protected --
>>>>> until I discovered that a backup can fail without my noticing it. I had
>>>>> provided for recovering from failure, but only if I know I need to.
>>>>> Unless I have timely warning of a failure, multiple failures can occur
>>>>> before I become aware. Worst case, all backups have gone bad before I
>>>>> know I need one.
>>>>
>>>> the chances of multiple backups all failing at the same time are
>>>> *extremely* low.
>>>
>>> That was my thinking until recently.
>>
>> the probability has not changed.
>>
>>> But I'm not talking about backups
>>> failing at the same time. My concern is that if a failure goes unnoticed
>>> for long enough another backup can also fail. Unless I make sure I
>>> notice a failure in a reasonable period of time, there is a
>>> vulnerability I had not considered before.
>>
>> test the backups every once in a while.

> That is exactly what I am trying to do. That is exactly why I am trying 
> to find a practical tool for doing just that. But the only way I know to 
> test the backup is to access every block of every file on it.

This is because you are stuck in the 1990s.

You test backups by doing a test recovery from them.

>> nothing is guaranteed 100%

> Indeed. But I'm trying to find a backup strategy that gets closer to 
> that than what I have now.

Backblaze, Carbonite, or Crashplan.

-- 
Slab: Jus' say 'AarrghaarrghpleeassennononoUGH'. --Feet of Clay
0
Lewis
12/21/2015 9:52:41 PM
In article <CoGdnaEKMqXB8-XLnZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
<EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:

> >>>
> >> Yes. I'm beginning to lean in the direction of replacing my external
> >> disk with one that supports SMART, possibly even a RAID-1 array.
> >
> > raid is not a backup.
> 
> 
> Nobody said it was. 

true, but many people think it is. it's not. raid is about high
availability.

> But it CAN reduce the likelihood of data loss. 

nope. that's a myth. 

files can still become corrupt, which are instantly mirrored to the
other drives.

all a raid does is reduce any down time when a drive fails. unless you
need 100% uptime, it's a waste of money.

> As 
> such it can be a useful component of the over-all backup strategy. 
> However, my primary focus here is on early detection of failures and 
> SMART can help with that. If I can get both in one box (and I can), that 
> might be worth looking into.

you're better off with an additional backup than a raid.

> >> I  already have a utility that periodically checks the SMART information
> >> and lets me know if anything is amiss. Currently, it works only with my
> >> internal drive.
> >>
> >> I'm still concerned about bit rot on files that aren't regularly
> >> accessed.
> >
> > non-issue.
> 
> Are you saying that bit rot never happens? My experience suggests otherwise.

for a hard drive, it's low enough that it can be considered zero.

for cd/dvd, bit rot can be an issue because the media deteriorates and
people typically buy shit quality discs which doesn't help.

> >> As pointed out, I don't really need to access every sector --
> >> just every sector that is in use.
> >
> > that automatically happens when the sector is used
> 
> Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning. By "in use" I meant that it is 
> holding important data. Which is why I need a way to assure that it is 
> accessed from time to time.

that won't help.

if the write to the sector succeeded then the sector is fine. if the
sector was bad, it will have been remapped on the fly. if the write
fails, then you have problems.

> That doesn't happen by itself with 
> incremental backups.

yes it does.

> >> Short of a full backup, I still don't
> >> have a good way to do that. I'm still looking into Drive Genius and
> >> DiskTools Pro, but I'm not quite convinced that either of them is what I
> >> want. I'm still researching alternatives. One thing I'm considering is
> >> that, if I switch to a Thunderbolt drive, doing a full backup
> >> occasionally might become practical and would certainly make sure all
> >> the relevant sectors are accessed.
> >
> > thunderbolt is gross overkill for a backup.
> 
> Perhaps, but in my case it might be the most cost-effective way to 
> upgrade. My backup disk operates more slowly than it should, largely due 
> to the interface it is using. Unless I replace the server altogether, 
> the only performance improvement available is using Thunderbolt. It also 
> appears to be the only interface available to my server that supports SMART.

backups don't need speed. let it run overnight while you sleep if
necessary.

an incremental backup doesn't take much time, often just minutes. the
speed increase of thunderbolt will be completely wasted unless you're
making full clones all the time, which would not be a wise backup
strategy.
0
nospam
12/21/2015 10:00:11 PM
In article <UbadnXVxZr_e8uXLnZ2dnUU7-f-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
<EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> But I'm not talking about backups
> >> failing at the same time. My concern is that if a failure goes unnoticed
> >> for long enough another backup can also fail. Unless I make sure I
> >> notice a failure in a reasonable period of time, there is a
> >> vulnerability I had not considered before.
> >
> > test the backups every once in a while.
> 
> That is exactly what I am trying to do. That is exactly why I am trying 
> to find a practical tool for doing just that. But the only way I know to 
> test the backup is to access every block of every file on it.

restore to a spare drive every so often.
0
nospam
12/21/2015 10:00:12 PM
On 12/21/15 5:00 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <CoGdnaEKMqXB8-XLnZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
> <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>> Yes. I'm beginning to lean in the direction of replacing my external
>>>> disk with one that supports SMART, possibly even a RAID-1 array.
>>>
>>> raid is not a backup.
>>
>>
>> Nobody said it was.
>
> true, but many people think it is. it's not. raid is about high
> availability.
>
>> But it CAN reduce the likelihood of data loss.
>
> nope. that's a myth.
>
> files can still become corrupt, which are instantly mirrored to the
> other drives.
>
> all a raid does is reduce any down time when a drive fails. unless you
> need 100% uptime, it's a waste of money.
>
>> As
>> such it can be a useful component of the over-all backup strategy.
>> However, my primary focus here is on early detection of failures and
>> SMART can help with that. If I can get both in one box (and I can), that
>> might be worth looking into.
>
> you're better off with an additional backup than a raid.
>
>>>> I  already have a utility that periodically checks the SMART information
>>>> and lets me know if anything is amiss. Currently, it works only with my
>>>> internal drive.
>>>>
>>>> I'm still concerned about bit rot on files that aren't regularly
>>>> accessed.
>>>
>>> non-issue.
>>
>> Are you saying that bit rot never happens? My experience suggests otherwise.
>
> for a hard drive, it's low enough that it can be considered zero.
>
> for cd/dvd, bit rot can be an issue because the media deteriorates and
> people typically buy shit quality discs which doesn't help.
>
>>>> As pointed out, I don't really need to access every sector --
>>>> just every sector that is in use.
>>>
>>> that automatically happens when the sector is used
>>
>> Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning. By "in use" I meant that it is
>> holding important data. Which is why I need a way to assure that it is
>> accessed from time to time.
>
> that won't help.
>
> if the write to the sector succeeded then the sector is fine. if the
> sector was bad, it will have been remapped on the fly. if the write
> fails, then you have problems.
>
>> That doesn't happen by itself with
>> incremental backups.
>
> yes it does.
>
>>>> Short of a full backup, I still don't
>>>> have a good way to do that. I'm still looking into Drive Genius and
>>>> DiskTools Pro, but I'm not quite convinced that either of them is what I
>>>> want. I'm still researching alternatives. One thing I'm considering is
>>>> that, if I switch to a Thunderbolt drive, doing a full backup
>>>> occasionally might become practical and would certainly make sure all
>>>> the relevant sectors are accessed.
>>>
>>> thunderbolt is gross overkill for a backup.
>>
>> Perhaps, but in my case it might be the most cost-effective way to
>> upgrade. My backup disk operates more slowly than it should, largely due
>> to the interface it is using. Unless I replace the server altogether,
>> the only performance improvement available is using Thunderbolt. It also
>> appears to be the only interface available to my server that supports SMART.
>
> backups don't need speed. let it run overnight while you sleep if
> necessary.
>
> an incremental backup doesn't take much time, often just minutes. the
> speed increase of thunderbolt will be completely wasted unless you're
> making full clones all the time, which would not be a wise backup
> strategy.
>

True. An incremental backup doesn't require a lot of speed. That is part 
of why I configured my system the way I did. However, I now have some 
new information that is causing me to think differently:
1. It is necessary to test a disk from time to time. That requires a lot 
more speed to get done in a reasonable amount of time. Besides, even 
SuperDuper insists on a full backup once in awhile. With my current 
setup, a full backup requires about ten hours.
2. In order to monitor the health of my drive, I need to use SMART. The 
information I have found so far indicates that USB does not support 
SMART but Thunderbolt does. My server requires that I use one or the other.

It's not clear to my why you seem to think that a sector, once written, 
can never become unreadable. That seems to be what you're saying when 
you assert that periodic testing is not necessary. If you mean something 
else, please clarify.

This whole thread started because I got blind-sided by an unreadable 
file. I have no idea how long it was unreadable before I noticed. 
Because the drive doesn't support SMART, I don't know whether that might 
have helped. In the final analysis, I am looking for a way to prevent a 
repetition the problem.
0
Ed
12/22/2015 2:01:31 AM
In article <kqSdnXsoEvNmM-XLnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
<EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:

> >>>
> >>> thunderbolt is gross overkill for a backup.
> >>
> >> Perhaps, but in my case it might be the most cost-effective way to
> >> upgrade. My backup disk operates more slowly than it should, largely due
> >> to the interface it is using. Unless I replace the server altogether,
> >> the only performance improvement available is using Thunderbolt. It also
> >> appears to be the only interface available to my server that supports
> >> SMART.
> >
> > backups don't need speed. let it run overnight while you sleep if
> > necessary.
> >
> > an incremental backup doesn't take much time, often just minutes. the
> > speed increase of thunderbolt will be completely wasted unless you're
> > making full clones all the time, which would not be a wise backup
> > strategy.
> >
> 
> True. An incremental backup doesn't require a lot of speed. That is part 
> of why I configured my system the way I did. However, I now have some 
> new information that is causing me to think differently:
> 1. It is necessary to test a disk from time to time. That requires a lot 
> more speed to get done in a reasonable amount of time.

nope, because it's done so rarely that a few hours less won't matter.

> Besides, even 
> SuperDuper insists on a full backup once in awhile. 

no it doesn't.

> With my current 
> setup, a full backup requires about ten hours.

even if it did, let it run overnight.

> 2. In order to monitor the health of my drive, I need to use SMART. The 
> information I have found so far indicates that USB does not support 
> SMART but Thunderbolt does. My server requires that I use one or the other.

some enclosures support smart over usb using a custom driver. this has
been mentioned a few times already.

> It's not clear to my why you seem to think that a sector, once written, 
> can never become unreadable. That seems to be what you're saying when 
> you assert that periodic testing is not necessary. If you mean something 
> else, please clarify.

the chances are far too low to matter and it doesn't matter if it
happens since there are multiple backups.

if you only have one backup, your backup strategy is the problem, not
testing sectors.

> This whole thread started because I got blind-sided by an unreadable 
> file. I have no idea how long it was unreadable before I noticed. 
> Because the drive doesn't support SMART, I don't know whether that might 
> have helped. In the final analysis, I am looking for a way to prevent a 
> repetition the problem.

that's what multiple backups are for, with at least one offsite in case
of fire, flood, theft, etc.
0
nospam
12/22/2015 2:08:14 AM
On 12-21-2015 20:01, Ed Anson wrote:
> This whole thread started because I got blind-sided by an unreadable file.

A file that you had no backup for?  You successfully wrote a file and 
then something made it unreadable before the next backup?

0
Happy
12/22/2015 3:59:15 AM
On 12-21-2015 15:29, Ed Anson wrote:
> That is exactly what I am trying to do. That is exactly why I am trying
> to find a practical tool for doing just that. But the only way I know to
> test the backup is to access every block of every file on it.

If the filepath/names relative to the roots are the same AND
    the filedates are the same                            AND
    the checksums are different
then you have a corrupted file.
0
Happy
12/22/2015 4:04:50 AM
On 2015-12-22 03:59:15 +0000, "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> said:

> On 12-21-2015 20:01, Ed Anson wrote:
>> This whole thread started because I got blind-sided by an unreadable file.
> 
> A file that you had no backup for?  You successfully wrote a file and 
> then something made it unreadable before the next backup?

I had a bad RAM stick once that would routinely result in corrupted 
files that just wouldn't read when reopened.

I assume they were being corrupted when the file was re-saved... but 
you would have no way of knowing it was a bad file until the next time 
you opened it.

If the file had been corrupted, it might be several backups down the 
road, before the file was discovered.
-- 
Liberals believe in global warming because of the scientific data.
Conservatives don't believe in global warming because it felt a little 
nippy this morning.

0
FPP
12/22/2015 12:39:02 PM
Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?

biblioholic medievalist via iPad
0
Erilar
12/22/2015 6:00:46 PM
On 2015-12-22 13:00, Erilar wrote:
> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?

https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT201250
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Machine_(OS_X)

PS: fix your sig:  2 dashes and a space above the sig.

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/22/2015 6:09:49 PM
In article <n5c2vk$n78$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
<drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?

solid, but you want more than just one backup.
0
nospam
12/22/2015 6:13:57 PM
On 12/21/15 11:04 PM, Happy.Hobo wrote:
> On 12-21-2015 15:29, Ed Anson wrote:
>> That is exactly what I am trying to do. That is exactly why I am trying
>> to find a practical tool for doing just that. But the only way I know to
>> test the backup is to access every block of every file on it.
>
> If the filepath/names relative to the roots are the same AND
>     the filedates are the same                            AND
>     the checksums are different
> then you have a corrupted file.

Are you saying that ALL files have checksums? If so, that's the first I 
heard of it. My understanding is that checksums are recorded at the 
sector level only, except for some file-type-specific cases that are 
irrelevant here.
0
Ed
12/22/2015 7:01:24 PM
In article <iKqdnT3JObGYA-TLnZ2dnUU7-NmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ed Anson
<EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> That is exactly what I am trying to do. That is exactly why I am trying
> >> to find a practical tool for doing just that. But the only way I know to
> >> test the backup is to access every block of every file on it.
> >
> > If the filepath/names relative to the roots are the same AND
> >     the filedates are the same                            AND
> >     the checksums are different
> > then you have a corrupted file.
> 
> Are you saying that ALL files have checksums? If so, that's the first I 
> heard of it.

of course they do. all it take is to calculate it.

it's incredibly time consuming to do that but it can be done. 

> My understanding is that checksums are recorded at the 
> sector level only, except for some file-type-specific cases that are 
> irrelevant here.

sector error correction is a separate issue.
0
nospam
12/22/2015 7:46:55 PM
On 2015-12-22, Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/21/15 11:04 PM, Happy.Hobo wrote:
>> On 12-21-2015 15:29, Ed Anson wrote:
>>> That is exactly what I am trying to do. That is exactly why I am trying
>>> to find a practical tool for doing just that. But the only way I know to
>>> test the backup is to access every block of every file on it.
>>
>> If the filepath/names relative to the roots are the same AND
>>     the filedates are the same                            AND
>>     the checksums are different
>> then you have a corrupted file.
>
> Are you saying that ALL files have checksums? If so, that's the first I 
> heard of it. My understanding is that checksums are recorded at the 
> sector level only, except for some file-type-specific cases that are 
> irrelevant here.

HFS+ does not use checksums. Any and all corruption below the block level
is invisible.

(And neither do most other filesystems, other than ZFS and (presumably)
btrfs).

-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 64th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
0
Huge
12/22/2015 8:19:24 PM
In article <h7KdnXRpCNoGR-fLnZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt V.
Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> The problem is  both USB ports are filled with HD, my computer, my thumb
> >> drive, my printer and my keyboard/mouse.
> >
> > that's why they make usb hubs.
> 
> That is WITH two hubs. 

get hubs with more ports.

two 8-10 port hubs should cover pretty much any situation. 

> More than that they start acting weird and 
> apparently aren't getting enough juice.

the drives are bus-powered????

in any event, get a better hub, one that can source enough power for
all attached devices.

> I run into the same problem with 
> electrical outlets if I go powered.

that's why they make extension strips.

> >> I do the SuperDuper! once a
> >> day, so I guess I could disconnect something, do the back up and then
> >> reconnect with little worry. Keep the TM drive connected at all times.
> >
> > or you could put the time machine drive on the network.
> 
> You mean with Time Capsule or connect the drive I am using directly to 
> the network (and if so, how?

time capsule is the easiest option, but time machine also supports a
shared drive from another mac. 

a network time machine drive also means that it's not always mounted
and therefore can't be accidentally corrupted.
0
nospam
12/23/2015 1:01:01 AM
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <n5c2vk$n78$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> 
>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
> 
> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
> 

Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do more?

-- 
biblioholic medievalist via iPad
0
Erilar
12/23/2015 1:37:02 AM
In article <n5ctn4$s9q$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
<drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> >> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
> >> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
> >> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
> > 
> > solid, but you want more than just one backup.
> 
> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do more?

dvds are horrible for backups. they degrade over time and keeping them
organized is a pain in the ass. they're also more expensive than hard
drives for the same amount of space.

buy a couple of hard drives and back up to each one, then put at least
one of them off site somewhere, or use one of the cloud backup
services.
0
nospam
12/23/2015 1:40:55 AM
On 2015-12-23, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <n5c2vk$n78$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
>> 
>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
>
> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do more?

Better to invest in a cheap external drive, connect it to your Mac, and
allow Time Machine to use it for backups in addition to your Time
Capsule. You can get a 1TB USB 3 hard drive on Amazon for around $60 at
the moment.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/23/2015 4:05:05 AM
In article <ddukrhFpejrU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >> 
> >>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
> >>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
> >>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
> >> 
> >> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
> >
> > Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do more?
> 
> Better to invest in a cheap external drive, connect it to your Mac, and
> allow Time Machine to use it for backups in addition to your Time
> Capsule. You can get a 1TB USB 3 hard drive on Amazon for around $60 at
> the moment.

since she's already using time machine, a better option is to make a
clone, as each protects against different types of failures.
0
nospam
12/23/2015 5:40:42 AM
On 2015-12-21, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> raid is not a backup.

It's a hardware backup, in case of hardware failure.  I agree it doesn't
backup files, but it does make the hardware more redundant.
0
Howard
12/23/2015 6:39:41 AM
On 2015-12-22, Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
> Are you saying that ALL files have checksums? If so, that's the first I 
> heard of it. My understanding is that checksums are recorded at the 
> sector level only, except for some file-type-specific cases that are 
> irrelevant here.

$ md5 somedirectory > checksumm.txt

At a later time, repeat the command and compare the two output files. 
If there's a change and you haven't changed the files, something's wrong.
0
Howard
12/23/2015 6:52:30 AM
On 12/22/15 11:05 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-12-23, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <n5c2vk$n78$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
>>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
>>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
>>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
>>>
>>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
>>
>> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do more?
>
> Better to invest in a cheap external drive, connect it to your Mac, and
> allow Time Machine to use it for backups in addition to your Time
> Capsule. You can get a 1TB USB 3 hard drive on Amazon for around $60 at
> the moment.
>
   I back up TM and Super Duper to different partitions on the same USB 
HD. I also back up to Carbonite. I am a writer and I keep drafts of my 
articles on a thumb drive. Is this a good set up?

0
Kurt
12/23/2015 11:55:29 AM
In article <7uOdncgtVJ0tFufLnZ2dnUU7-SOdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 "Kurt V. Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 12/22/15 11:05 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> > On 2015-12-23, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> >> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>> In article <n5c2vk$n78$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
> >>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
> >>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to 
> >>>> a
> >>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
> >>>
> >>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
> >>
> >> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do 
> >> more?
> >
> > Better to invest in a cheap external drive, connect it to your Mac, and
> > allow Time Machine to use it for backups in addition to your Time
> > Capsule. You can get a 1TB USB 3 hard drive on Amazon for around $60 at
> > the moment.
> >
>    I back up TM and Super Duper to different partitions on the same USB 
> HD. I also back up to Carbonite. I am a writer and I keep drafts of my 
> articles on a thumb drive. Is this a good set up?

M-Disk?

http://www.mdisc.com/
-- 
teleportation kills
0
android
12/23/2015 1:00:16 PM
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 20:40:55 -0500, nospam wrote
(in article <221220152040556818%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

> In article <n5ctn4$s9q$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> 
>>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
>>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
>>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
>>> 
>>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
>> 
>> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do more?
> 
> dvds are horrible for backups. they degrade over time and keeping them
> organized is a pain in the ass. they're also more expensive than hard
> drives for the same amount of space.
> 
> buy a couple of hard drives and back up to each one, then put at least
> one of them off site somewhere, or use one of the cloud backup
> services.

I hate to agree with nospam but he's right about this one.  Even a 
broken clock is right twice a day :) I bought into the "100 year DVD" 
myth after abandoning tapes and found a significant number unreadable 
after just a few years.

-- 
Nelson

0
Nelson
12/23/2015 2:47:25 PM
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 01:52:30 -0500, Howard S Shubs wrote
(in article <slrnn7kh5e.m90.howard@foxtrot.local>):

> On 2015-12-22, Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Are you saying that ALL files have checksums? If so, that's the first I 
>> heard of it. My understanding is that checksums are recorded at the 
>> sector level only, except for some file-type-specific cases that are 
>> irrelevant here.
> 
> $ md5 somedirectory > checksumm.txt
> 
> At a later time, repeat the command and compare the two output files. 
> If there's a change and you haven't changed the files, something's wrong.

Won't that give false positives for things like an updated Spotlight 
database or .DS_Store files for example?

-- 
Nelson

0
Nelson
12/23/2015 2:57:44 PM
In message <7uOdncgtVJ0tFufLnZ2dnUU7-SOdnZ2d@earthlink.com> 
  Kurt V. Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 12/22/15 11:05 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2015-12-23, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In article <n5c2vk$n78$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
>>>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
>>>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
>>>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
>>>>
>>>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
>>>
>>> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do more?
>>
>> Better to invest in a cheap external drive, connect it to your Mac, and
>> allow Time Machine to use it for backups in addition to your Time
>> Capsule. You can get a 1TB USB 3 hard drive on Amazon for around $60 at
>> the moment.
>>
>    I back up TM and Super Duper to different partitions on the same USB 
> HD.
When (not if, when) that drive fails both backups are gone.

> I also back up to Carbonite. I am a writer and I keep drafts of my 
> articles on a thumb drive. Is this a good set up?

Assuming the thumb drive files are also on Carbonite, it's OK. I would
put your clone and TM on separate drives.


-- 
K is for KATE who was struck by an axe
L is for Leo who swallowed some tacks
0
Lewis
12/23/2015 3:27:12 PM
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ddukrhFpejrU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
>>>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
>>>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
>>>> 
>>>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
>>> 
>>> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do more?
>> 
>> Better to invest in a cheap external drive, connect it to your Mac, and
>> allow Time Machine to use it for backups in addition to your Time
>> Capsule. You can get a 1TB USB 3 hard drive on Amazon for around $60 at
>> the moment.
> 
> since she's already using time machine, a better option is to make a
> clone, as each protects against different types of failures.

Sure, why not. That may require spending a little more money depending on
the clone tool you use, but it would be a bit better. I use the paid
version of SuperDuper so that I can schedule automatic clones. Not sure if
CarbonCopyCloner does scheduled backups for free or not.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/23/2015 4:05:16 PM
Kurt V. Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 12/22/15 11:05 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2015-12-23, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In article <n5c2vk$n78$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
>>>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
>>>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
>>>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
>>>> 
>>>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
>>> 
>>> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do more?
>> 
>> Better to invest in a cheap external drive, connect it to your Mac, and
>> allow Time Machine to use it for backups in addition to your Time
>> Capsule. You can get a 1TB USB 3 hard drive on Amazon for around $60 at
>> the moment.
>> 
>   I back up TM and Super Duper to different partitions on the same USB 
> HD. I also back up to Carbonite. I am a writer and I keep drafts of my 
> articles on a thumb drive. Is this a good set up?

It's good that you are using two different backup methods, but bad that
both are to the same drive, because if the drive dies, you lose both sets
of backups.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/23/2015 4:05:17 PM
Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 01:52:30 -0500, Howard S Shubs wrote
> (in article <slrnn7kh5e.m90.howard@foxtrot.local>):
> 
>> On 2015-12-22, Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Are you saying that ALL files have checksums? If so, that's the first I 
>>> heard of it. My understanding is that checksums are recorded at the 
>>> sector level only, except for some file-type-specific cases that are 
>>> irrelevant here.
>> 
>> $ md5 somedirectory > checksumm.txt
>> 
>> At a later time, repeat the command and compare the two output files. 
>> If there's a change and you haven't changed the files, something's wrong.
> 
> Won't that give false positives for things like an updated Spotlight 
> database or .DS_Store files for example?

Yes.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/23/2015 4:10:44 PM
On 12/23/15 11:05 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Kurt V. Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 12/22/15 11:05 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-23, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> In article <n5c2vk$n78$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
>>>>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
>>>>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
>>>>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
>>>>>
>>>>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do more?
>>>
>>> Better to invest in a cheap external drive, connect it to your Mac, and
>>> allow Time Machine to use it for backups in addition to your Time
>>> Capsule. You can get a 1TB USB 3 hard drive on Amazon for around $60 at
>>> the moment.
>>>
>>    I back up TM and Super Duper to different partitions on the same USB
>> HD. I also back up to Carbonite. I am a writer and I keep drafts of my
>> articles on a thumb drive. Is this a good set up?
>
> It's good that you are using two different backup methods, but bad that
> both are to the same drive, because if the drive dies, you lose both sets
> of backups.
>
The problem is  both USB ports are filled with HD, my computer, my thumb 
drive, my printer and my keyboard/mouse.  I do the SuperDuper! once a 
day, so I guess I could disconnect something, do the back up and then 
reconnect with little worry. Keep the TM drive connected at all times.

0
Kurt
12/23/2015 5:05:42 PM
In article <PZGdneQz1pH6SefLnZ2dnUU7-dednZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt V.
Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >>    I back up TM and Super Duper to different partitions on the same USB
> >> HD. I also back up to Carbonite. I am a writer and I keep drafts of my
> >> articles on a thumb drive. Is this a good set up?
> >
> > It's good that you are using two different backup methods, but bad that
> > both are to the same drive, because if the drive dies, you lose both sets
> > of backups.
> >
> The problem is  both USB ports are filled with HD, my computer, my thumb 
> drive, my printer and my keyboard/mouse. 

that's why they make usb hubs.

> I do the SuperDuper! once a 
> day, so I guess I could disconnect something, do the back up and then 
> reconnect with little worry. Keep the TM drive connected at all times.

or you could put the time machine drive on the network.
0
nospam
12/23/2015 5:07:12 PM
In article <PZGdneQz1pH6SefLnZ2dnUU7-dednZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 "Kurt V. Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 12/23/15 11:05 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> > Kurt V. Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/22/15 11:05 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> >>> On 2015-12-23, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> >>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>> In article <n5c2vk$n78$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
> >>>>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups 
> >>>>>> work(
> >>>>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up 
> >>>>>> to a
> >>>>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do 
> >>>> more?
> >>>
> >>> Better to invest in a cheap external drive, connect it to your Mac, and
> >>> allow Time Machine to use it for backups in addition to your Time
> >>> Capsule. You can get a 1TB USB 3 hard drive on Amazon for around $60 at
> >>> the moment.
> >>>
> >>    I back up TM and Super Duper to different partitions on the same USB
> >> HD. I also back up to Carbonite. I am a writer and I keep drafts of my
> >> articles on a thumb drive. Is this a good set up?
> >
> > It's good that you are using two different backup methods, but bad that
> > both are to the same drive, because if the drive dies, you lose both sets
> > of backups.
> >
> The problem is  both USB ports are filled with HD, my computer, my thumb 
> drive, my printer and my keyboard/mouse.  I do the SuperDuper! once a 
> day, so I guess I could disconnect something, do the back up and then 
> reconnect with little worry. Keep the TM drive connected at all times.

USB hubs are dirt cheap ...

Isaac
0
isw
12/23/2015 5:19:13 PM
On 12/23/15 12:07 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <PZGdneQz1pH6SefLnZ2dnUU7-dednZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt V.
> Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>     I back up TM and Super Duper to different partitions on the same USB
>>>> HD. I also back up to Carbonite. I am a writer and I keep drafts of my
>>>> articles on a thumb drive. Is this a good set up?
>>>
>>> It's good that you are using two different backup methods, but bad that
>>> both are to the same drive, because if the drive dies, you lose both sets
>>> of backups.
>>>
>> The problem is  both USB ports are filled with HD, my computer, my thumb
>> drive, my printer and my keyboard/mouse.
>
> that's why they make usb hubs.

That is WITH two hubs. More than that they start acting weird and 
apparently aren't getting enough juice. I run into the same problem with 
electrical outlets if I go powered.
>
>> I do the SuperDuper! once a
>> day, so I guess I could disconnect something, do the back up and then
>> reconnect with little worry. Keep the TM drive connected at all times.
>
> or you could put the time machine drive on the network.

You mean with Time Capsule or connect the drive I am using directly to 
the network (and if so, how?
'
>

0
Kurt
12/23/2015 5:32:11 PM
On 2015-12-23, Kurt V. Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> You mean with Time Capsule or connect the drive I am using directly to 
> the network (and if so, how?

Connect an external hard drive to any Mac running OS X Server's Time
Machine network backup service. Then set computers on the network to
back up to that hard drive through Time Machine.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/23/2015 5:49:53 PM
On 12/23/15 12:49 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-12-23, Kurt V. Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> You mean with Time Capsule or connect the drive I am using directly to
>> the network (and if so, how?
>
> Connect an external hard drive to any Mac running OS X Server's Time
> Machine network backup service. Then set computers on the network to
> back up to that hard drive through Time Machine.
>
  Thanks again for  your patience. I am running a MacBookPro (Mid 2015) 
running 10.10.5.  Would I have OS X Server's Time Machine readily 
available or is something I need to d/l and set up? What do I ask the 
search function on Apple.com to get to the knowledge base article I need 
to walk me through this?


0
Kurt
12/23/2015 6:05:13 PM
In article <qYadnd-mL8fEf-fLnZ2dnUU7-XWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt V.
Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> You mean with Time Capsule or connect the drive I am using directly to
> >> the network (and if so, how?
> >
> > Connect an external hard drive to any Mac running OS X Server's Time
> > Machine network backup service. Then set computers on the network to
> > back up to that hard drive through Time Machine.
> >
>   Thanks again for  your patience. I am running a MacBookPro (Mid 2015) 
> running 10.10.5.  Would I have OS X Server's Time Machine readily 
> available or is something I need to d/l and set up? What do I ask the 
> search function on Apple.com to get to the knowledge base article I need 
> to walk me through this?

all you need to do is share a hard drive from another mac. os x server
is not required.

however, if you have os x server, you can set up a drive to look like a
time capsule, which makes it automatically show up for clients.
0
nospam
12/23/2015 6:18:59 PM
On 2015-12-23, Kurt V. Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 12/23/15 12:49 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2015-12-23, Kurt V. Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> You mean with Time Capsule or connect the drive I am using directly to
>>> the network (and if so, how?
>>
>> Connect an external hard drive to any Mac running OS X Server's Time
>> Machine network backup service. Then set computers on the network to
>> back up to that hard drive through Time Machine.
>>
>  Thanks again for  your patience. I am running a MacBookPro (Mid 2015) 
> running 10.10.5.  Would I have OS X Server's Time Machine readily 
> available or is something I need to d/l and set up? What do I ask the 
> search function on Apple.com to get to the knowledge base article I need 
> to walk me through this?

As nospam said, Server isn't needed, but does make setup easier. Server
is an app on the App Store, currently priced at $19.99:

<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/os-x-server/id883878097?mt=12>

The benefits of using Server are:

* You can designate any folder on any volume connected to the Mac
running Server as a Time Machine backup destination. So rather than
having to dedicate an entire volume to backups, you have more freedom in
how to allocate space to backups.

* Designated backup destinations are automatically displayed in the
System Preferences > Time Machine panel on all other Macs on the network.

* You can limit the amount of space made available for each backup
destination.

Here's an article that shows you the basic setup steps. It's pretty
simple:

<http://www.techrepublic.com/article/pro-tip-configure-the-time-machine-service-in-os-x-server/>

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/23/2015 9:08:10 PM
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:19:13 -0500, isw wrote
(in article <isw-1F5679.09191323122015@news-roam.garlic.com>):

> In article <PZGdneQz1pH6SefLnZ2dnUU7-dednZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>  "Kurt V. Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/23/15 11:05 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> Kurt V. Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/22/15 11:05 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-12-23, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <n5c2vk$n78$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
>>>>>>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups 
>>>>>>>> work(
>>>>>>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up 
>>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do 
>>>>>> more?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Better to invest in a cheap external drive, connect it to your Mac, and
>>>>> allow Time Machine to use it for backups in addition to your Time
>>>>> Capsule. You can get a 1TB USB 3 hard drive on Amazon for around $60 at
>>>>> the moment.
>>>>> 
>>>> I back up TM and Super Duper to different partitions on the same USB
>>>> HD. I also back up to Carbonite. I am a writer and I keep drafts of my
>>>> articles on a thumb drive. Is this a good set up?
>>> 
>>> It's good that you are using two different backup methods, but bad that
>>> both are to the same drive, because if the drive dies, you lose both sets
>>> of backups.
>>> 
>> The problem is  both USB ports are filled with HD, my computer, my thumb 
>> drive, my printer and my keyboard/mouse.  I do the SuperDuper! once a 
>> day, so I guess I could disconnect something, do the back up and then 
>> reconnect with little worry. Keep the TM drive connected at all times.
> 
> USB hubs are dirt cheap ...

Indeed.  But I had a problem with Seagate Desktop Drives randomly 
unmounting when connected to a MacAlly hub.  Both support groups blamed 
the other's design.  I never did resolve it.  I just connected the disk 
directly to one of the computer's usb ports and used the hub for 
printers, etc.  It is an externally powered hub too.  Since that 
experience I have been leery of connecting disk drives to usb hubs.

-- 
Nelson

0
Nelson
12/23/2015 11:59:39 PM
On 2015-12-23, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:19:13 -0500, isw wrote
> (in article <isw-1F5679.09191323122015@news-roam.garlic.com>):
>
>> In article <PZGdneQz1pH6SefLnZ2dnUU7-dednZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>>  "Kurt V. Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 12/23/15 11:05 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> Kurt V. Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The problem is  both USB ports are filled with HD, my computer, my thumb 
>>> drive, my printer and my keyboard/mouse.  I do the SuperDuper! once a 
>>> day, so I guess I could disconnect something, do the back up and then 
>>> reconnect with little worry. Keep the TM drive connected at all times.
>> 
>> USB hubs are dirt cheap ...
>
> Indeed.  But I had a problem with Seagate Desktop Drives randomly 
> unmounting when connected to a MacAlly hub.  Both support groups blamed 
> the other's design.  I never did resolve it.  I just connected the disk 
> directly to one of the computer's usb ports and used the hub for 
> printers, etc.  It is an externally powered hub too.  Since that 
> experience I have been leery of connecting disk drives to usb hubs.

The solution there is to connect the *other* peripherals to the hub
(keyboard, mouse, printer, thumb drives, and so on) and use the built-in
ports for hard drives.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/24/2015 12:14:58 AM
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <n5ctn4$s9q$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> 
>>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
>>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
>>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
>>> 
>>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
>> 
>> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do more?
> 
> dvds are horrible for backups. they degrade over time and keeping them
> organized is a pain in the ass. they're also more expensive than hard
> drives for the same amount of space.
> 
> buy a couple of hard drives and back up to each one, then put at least
> one of them off site somewhere, or use one of the cloud backup
> services.
> 

My Time Capsule is connected wirelessly, so I don't need a physical
connection.  I also have a data file on it of things I don't want changed. 
Would adding another Time Capsule wirelessly do the job or is that
pointless? I don't even know whether that's possible.

-- 
biblioholic medievalist via iPad
0
Erilar
12/24/2015 12:25:21 AM
Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-23, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In article <n5c2vk$n78$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
>>>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
>>>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
>>>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
>>>> 
>>>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
>>> 
>>> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do more?
>> 
>> Better to invest in a cheap external drive, connect it to your Mac, and
>> allow Time Machine to use it for backups in addition to your Time
>> Capsule. You can get a 1TB USB 3 hard drive on Amazon for around $60 at
>> the moment.
>> 
> 
> USB is a bit of a problem with the new laptop because it has so few ports
> to begin with 8-(

There are devices called USB hubs that add more ports.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/24/2015 12:46:21 AM
Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <ddukrhFpejrU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
>>>>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
>>>>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
>>>>> 
>>>>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
>>>> 
>>>> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do more?
>>> 
>>> Better to invest in a cheap external drive, connect it to your Mac, and
>>> allow Time Machine to use it for backups in addition to your Time
>>> Capsule. You can get a 1TB USB 3 hard drive on Amazon for around $60 at
>>> the moment.
>> 
>> since she's already using time machine, a better option is to make a
>> clone, as each protects against different types of failures.
> 
> Make a clone? Of what and how?

A clone (copy) of the hard drive via utilities such as Super Duper or
Carbon Copy Cloner

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/24/2015 12:46:22 AM
In article <n5fdsn$ahb$3@dont-email.me>, Erilar
<drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> My Time Capsule is connected wirelessly, so I don't need a physical
> connection.  I also have a data file on it of things I don't want changed. 
> Would adding another Time Capsule wirelessly do the job or is that
> pointless? I don't even know whether that's possible.

it's possible and not pointless but it's less useful than having a
clone. that way you have two different types of backups.
0
nospam
12/24/2015 1:01:01 AM
On 12/23/15, 21:28, David Empson wrote:
> Howard S Shubs<howard@shubs.net>  wrote:
>
>> On 2015-12-24, Jolly Roger<jollyroger@pobox.com>  wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-23, Nelson<nelson@nowhere.com>  wrote:
>>>> Indeed.  But I had a problem with Seagate Desktop Drives randomly
>>>> unmounting when connected to a MacAlly hub.  Both support groups blamed
>>>> the other's design.  I never did resolve it.  I just connected the disk
>>>> directly to one of the computer's usb ports and used the hub for
>>>> printers, etc.  It is an externally powered hub too.  Since that
>>>> experience I have been leery of connecting disk drives to usb hubs.
>>>
>>> The solution there is to connect the *other* peripherals to the hub
>>> (keyboard, mouse, printer, thumb drives, and so on) and use the built-in
>>> ports for hard drives.
>>
>> Plural?  I thought that these days, there's only one USB port, at best.
>> Not so?
>
> The only current Mac which has a single USB port is the 2015 MacBook,
> which has a single USB type-C port for power and/or USB peripherals
> and/or display output, depending on what you plug in (potentially
> needing an adapter or hub for multiple devices or uses).
>
> Everyt other Mac since 2010 has at least two USB ports on notebooks, at
> least four on desktops. That doesn't count Thunderbolt ports on 2011 and
> later models (everthing apart from the 2015 MacBook has at least one),
> which can be adapted to USB, nor other expansion options on some models.
>
> Early MacBooks (2006 to 2010 models) had two USB ports.
>
> Early MacBook Airs (from 2008) had a single USB port, but 2010 and later
> models have two.
>
> Every MacBook Pro has at least two USB ports, 17-inch models had three.
>
> Mac Minis started with two USB ports back in 2005 (PowerPC G4), but have
> had at least four in the Intel era (2009 models had five).
>
> iMacs started with two USB ports back in 1998 (PowerPC G3), went to
> three for G4, G5 and early Intel models, and four since 2009.
>
> Mac Pro started with 5 USB ports and dropped to 4 with the Late 2013
> redesign.
>
> The Xserve started with two USB ports, then three for the 2008 and final
> 2009 models.
>
> If there is an Apple USB keyboard involved, it has two more USB ports
> via a built-in hub. The 2007 and later (aluminium) keyboards can provide
> 500 mA via one of those ports (more to certain Apple peripherals), if
> the host Mac is new enough (2008 or later or some Mid/Late 2007).
>


Some years ago my printer wouldn't connect through a hub, only directly 
to a USB port on the MacBook. Ever since I have kept a MacBook USB port 
free for connecting peripherals that are only used for short tasks, like 
syncing and charging my iPod Classic, printing, etc. Would a hub serve 
for these tasks on my much later model MacBook and printer?


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
0
AV3
12/24/2015 1:01:01 AM
In article <n5fnce$duu$1@news.albasani.net>, AV3
<arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Some years ago my printer wouldn't connect through a hub, only directly 
> to a USB port on the MacBook. 

then you had a shitty hub.

> Ever since I have kept a MacBook USB port 
> free for connecting peripherals that are only used for short tasks, like 
> syncing and charging my iPod Classic, printing, etc. Would a hub serve 
> for these tasks on my much later model MacBook and printer?

of course it would.
0
nospam
12/24/2015 1:01:01 AM
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2015-12-23, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <n5c2vk$n78$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
>>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
>>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
>>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
>>> 
>>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
>> 
>> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do more?
> 
> Better to invest in a cheap external drive, connect it to your Mac, and
> allow Time Machine to use it for backups in addition to your Time
> Capsule. You can get a 1TB USB 3 hard drive on Amazon for around $60 at
> the moment.
> 

USB is a bit of a problem with the new laptop because it has so few ports
to begin with 8-(

-- 
biblioholic medievalist via iPad
0
Erilar
12/24/2015 1:01:01 AM
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ddukrhFpejrU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
>>>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
>>>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
>>>> 
>>>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
>>> 
>>> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do more?
>> 
>> Better to invest in a cheap external drive, connect it to your Mac, and
>> allow Time Machine to use it for backups in addition to your Time
>> Capsule. You can get a 1TB USB 3 hard drive on Amazon for around $60 at
>> the moment.
> 
> since she's already using time machine, a better option is to make a
> clone, as each protects against different types of failures.
> 

Make a clone? Of what and how?

-- 
biblioholic medievalist via iPad
0
Erilar
12/24/2015 1:01:01 AM
On 2015-12-24, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> I have my 3TB Time Machine drive connected to one of the USB3 ports on
> my massive Manhattan USB hub and have never had an issue.
>
><http://www.amazon.com/Manhattan-Port-USB-Hub-161718/dp/B0074024XU/>

Not all hubs are created equal.  This one sounds over-ported or
underpowered.  Four amps for 24 ports??  It sounds like it properly
needs a dedicated 20A circuit just for this hub.
0
Howard
12/24/2015 1:01:01 AM
> >>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
> >>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
> >>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
> >>> 
> >>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
> >> 
> >> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do more?
> > 
> > dvds are horrible for backups. they degrade over time and keeping them
> > organized is a pain in the ass. they're also more expensive than hard
> > drives for the same amount of space.
> > 
> > buy a couple of hard drives and back up to each one, then put at least
> > one of them off site somewhere, or use one of the cloud backup
> > services.

> I hate to agree with nospam but he's right about this one.  Even a 
> broken clock is right twice a day :) I bought into the "100 year DVD" 
> myth after abandoning tapes and found a significant number unreadable 
> after just a few years.

Nothing lasts forever. :(
-- 
Merry Christmas/Season's Greetings/:) Holidays & May The Force Be With U!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
 / /\ /\ \                 Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /    Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
    ( )     ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
0
ANTant
12/24/2015 1:37:19 AM
On 2015-12-23, Kurt V. Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The problem is  both USB ports are filled with HD, my computer, my thumb 
> drive, my printer and my keyboard/mouse.  I do the SuperDuper! once a 
> day, so I guess I could disconnect something, do the back up and then 
> reconnect with little worry. Keep the TM drive connected at all times.

Or you could add another USB hub to get more ports.
0
Howard
12/24/2015 1:45:23 AM
On 2015-12-23, Kurt V. Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That is WITH two hubs. More than that they start acting weird and 
> apparently aren't getting enough juice. I run into the same problem with 
> electrical outlets if I go powered.

Sounds like it's time to hire an electrician to fix your power situation.
0
Howard
12/24/2015 1:46:35 AM
On 2015-12-23, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Indeed.  But I had a problem with Seagate Desktop Drives randomly 
> unmounting when connected to a MacAlly hub.  Both support groups blamed 
> the other's design.  I never did resolve it.  I just connected the disk 
> directly to one of the computer's usb ports and used the hub for 
> printers, etc.  It is an externally powered hub too.  Since that 
> experience I have been leery of connecting disk drives to usb hubs.

Me too.  I bought a USB 3 hub and connected everything to it.  Then I
had random disconnects of everything connected to the hub.  I contacted
the hub manufacturer and they sent me another hub, but the previous USB
2 hub was stable with the same devices, so I'm a bit leary of swapping
the replacement in.  My notebook doesn't do USB 3, I was being proactive,
so the speed difference is not yet relevant.
0
Howard
12/24/2015 1:50:27 AM
On 2015-12-24, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2015-12-23, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Indeed.  But I had a problem with Seagate Desktop Drives randomly 
>> unmounting when connected to a MacAlly hub.  Both support groups blamed 
>> the other's design.  I never did resolve it.  I just connected the disk 
>> directly to one of the computer's usb ports and used the hub for 
>> printers, etc.  It is an externally powered hub too.  Since that 
>> experience I have been leery of connecting disk drives to usb hubs.
>
> The solution there is to connect the *other* peripherals to the hub
> (keyboard, mouse, printer, thumb drives, and so on) and use the built-in
> ports for hard drives.

Plural?  I thought that these days, there's only one USB port, at best. 
Not so?
0
Howard
12/24/2015 1:51:27 AM
On 2015-12-24, Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:
>> I hate to agree with nospam but he's right about this one.  Even a 
>> broken clock is right twice a day :) I bought into the "100 year DVD" 
>> myth after abandoning tapes and found a significant number unreadable 
>> after just a few years.
>
> Nothing lasts forever. :(

I never had a 9-track tape fail me.  Then again, I've not seen a 9-track
tape drive since 1999, and the tapes are kinda... small relating to
storage space.  I don't remember if DDS tapes ever failed me.  The drives
had a tendency to do that, though I admit that I've not tried my last one
in... quite a while.  Plugging a SCSI drive into a 2009 MBP is difficult.
0
Howard
12/24/2015 1:54:10 AM
On 2015-12-23, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 01:52:30 -0500, Howard S Shubs wrote
> (in article <slrnn7kh5e.m90.howard@foxtrot.local>):
>
>> On 2015-12-22, Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Are you saying that ALL files have checksums? If so, that's the first I 
>>> heard of it. My understanding is that checksums are recorded at the 
>>> sector level only, except for some file-type-specific cases that are 
>>> irrelevant here.
>> 
>> $ md5 somedirectory > checksumm.txt
>> 
>> At a later time, repeat the command and compare the two output files. 
>> If there's a change and you haven't changed the files, something's wrong.
>
> Won't that give false positives for things like an updated Spotlight 
> database or .DS_Store files for example?

I don't know that those would be false positives so much as unimportant.

Then again, Spotlight-related anything is unimportant and irrelevant,
unless you enjoy useless CPU and I/O drains.
0
Howard
12/24/2015 1:55:44 AM
Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> On 2015-12-24, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > On 2015-12-23, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> Indeed.  But I had a problem with Seagate Desktop Drives randomly 
> >> unmounting when connected to a MacAlly hub.  Both support groups blamed
> >> the other's design.  I never did resolve it.  I just connected the disk
> >> directly to one of the computer's usb ports and used the hub for 
> >> printers, etc.  It is an externally powered hub too.  Since that 
> >> experience I have been leery of connecting disk drives to usb hubs.
> >
> > The solution there is to connect the *other* peripherals to the hub
> > (keyboard, mouse, printer, thumb drives, and so on) and use the built-in
> > ports for hard drives.
> 
> Plural?  I thought that these days, there's only one USB port, at best.
> Not so?

The only current Mac which has a single USB port is the 2015 MacBook,
which has a single USB type-C port for power and/or USB peripherals
and/or display output, depending on what you plug in (potentially
needing an adapter or hub for multiple devices or uses).

Everyt other Mac since 2010 has at least two USB ports on notebooks, at
least four on desktops. That doesn't count Thunderbolt ports on 2011 and
later models (everthing apart from the 2015 MacBook has at least one),
which can be adapted to USB, nor other expansion options on some models.

Early MacBooks (2006 to 2010 models) had two USB ports.

Early MacBook Airs (from 2008) had a single USB port, but 2010 and later
models have two.

Every MacBook Pro has at least two USB ports, 17-inch models had three.

Mac Minis started with two USB ports back in 2005 (PowerPC G4), but have
had at least four in the Intel era (2009 models had five).

iMacs started with two USB ports back in 1998 (PowerPC G3), went to
three for G4, G5 and early Intel models, and four since 2009.

Mac Pro started with 5 USB ports and dropped to 4 with the Late 2013
redesign.

The Xserve started with two USB ports, then three for the 2008 and final
2009 models.

If there is an Apple USB keyboard involved, it has two more USB ports
via a built-in hub. The 2007 and later (aluminium) keyboards can provide
500 mA via one of those ports (more to certain Apple peripherals), if
the host Mac is new enough (2008 or later or some Mid/Late 2007).

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz
0
dempson
12/24/2015 2:28:29 AM
In article <slrnn7mjsv.n7n.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
<howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> > The solution there is to connect the *other* peripherals to the hub
> > (keyboard, mouse, printer, thumb drives, and so on) and use the built-in
> > ports for hard drives.
> 
> Plural?  I thought that these days, there's only one USB port, at best. 
> Not so?

not so.

only the retina macbook has one usb-c port and that's all it needs.
0
nospam
12/24/2015 3:39:22 AM
In article <n5fdsm$ahb$2@dont-email.me>, Erilar
<drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> >>> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do
> >>> more?
> >> 
> >> Better to invest in a cheap external drive, connect it to your Mac, and
> >> allow Time Machine to use it for backups in addition to your Time
> >> Capsule. You can get a 1TB USB 3 hard drive on Amazon for around $60 at
> >> the moment.
> > 
> > since she's already using time machine, a better option is to make a
> > clone, as each protects against different types of failures.
> 
> Make a clone? Of what and how?

a clone of your hard drive. that way you'll have two backups, one being
a time machine archive and the other a clone. 

as for how to do clone, use either superduper or carbon copy cloner.
0
nospam
12/24/2015 4:02:28 AM
In message <0001HW.D2A09F9B00A51EA2B01029BF@news.astraweb.com> 
  Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:19:13 -0500, isw wrote
> (in article <isw-1F5679.09191323122015@news-roam.garlic.com>):

>> In article <PZGdneQz1pH6SefLnZ2dnUU7-dednZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>>  "Kurt V. Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 12/23/15 11:05 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> Kurt V. Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/22/15 11:05 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>>> On 2015-12-23, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <n5c2vk$n78$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
>>>>>>>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups 
>>>>>>>>> work(
>>>>>>>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up 
>>>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do 
>>>>>>> more?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Better to invest in a cheap external drive, connect it to your Mac, and
>>>>>> allow Time Machine to use it for backups in addition to your Time
>>>>>> Capsule. You can get a 1TB USB 3 hard drive on Amazon for around $60 at
>>>>>> the moment.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> I back up TM and Super Duper to different partitions on the same USB
>>>>> HD. I also back up to Carbonite. I am a writer and I keep drafts of my
>>>>> articles on a thumb drive. Is this a good set up?
>>>> 
>>>> It's good that you are using two different backup methods, but bad that
>>>> both are to the same drive, because if the drive dies, you lose both sets
>>>> of backups.
>>>> 
>>> The problem is  both USB ports are filled with HD, my computer, my thumb 
>>> drive, my printer and my keyboard/mouse.  I do the SuperDuper! once a 
>>> day, so I guess I could disconnect something, do the back up and then 
>>> reconnect with little worry. Keep the TM drive connected at all times.
>> 
>> USB hubs are dirt cheap ...

> Indeed.  But I had a problem with Seagate Desktop Drives randomly 
> unmounting when connected to a MacAlly hub.

Seagate's Desktops drives (at least the older ones with the vertical
design that made them look sort of like a WiFi router) were *terrible*
and had disconnection problems on my Macs and PCs even with no USB hubs.

The current Seagates (black boxes with blue bottoms) seem to be fine so
far. I wouldn't have bought them, but I needed a drive to clear off a
RAID so I could pull the drives and upgrade it and Costco had a 5TB for
$120. I was able to move 4.2TB of data off the RAID and them remake it
from a 6TB striped array to a 16TB striped array :)

> the other's design.  I never did resolve it.  I just connected the disk 
> directly to one of the computer's usb ports and used the hub for 
> printers, etc.  It is an externally powered hub too.  Since that 
> experience I have been leery of connecting disk drives to usb hubs.

I have my 3TB Time Machine drive connected to one of the USB3 ports on
my massive Manhattan USB hub and have never had an issue.

<http://www.amazon.com/Manhattan-Port-USB-Hub-161718/dp/B0074024XU/>

-- 
Commander: "Seems odd you'd name your ship after a battle you were on
the wrong side of." 
 
Mal: "May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the
wrong one."
0
Lewis
12/24/2015 6:51:43 AM
In message <slrnn7mjsv.n7n.howard@foxtrot.local> 
  Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-24, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-23, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> Indeed.  But I had a problem with Seagate Desktop Drives randomly 
>>> unmounting when connected to a MacAlly hub.  Both support groups blamed 
>>> the other's design.  I never did resolve it.  I just connected the disk 
>>> directly to one of the computer's usb ports and used the hub for 
>>> printers, etc.  It is an externally powered hub too.  Since that 
>>> experience I have been leery of connecting disk drives to usb hubs.
>>
>> The solution there is to connect the *other* peripherals to the hub
>> (keyboard, mouse, printer, thumb drives, and so on) and use the built-in
>> ports for hard drives.

> Plural?  I thought that these days, there's only one USB port, at best. 
> Not so?

The only computer Apple makes with a single port is the MacBook which
has a USB-C port, which with a decent hub can handle many USB3 ports and
HDMI and Ethernet all at once.


-- 
You are responsible for your Rose
0
Lewis
12/24/2015 6:53:01 AM
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 20:55:44 -0500, Howard S Shubs wrote
(in article <slrnn7mk50.n7n.howard@foxtrot.local>):

> On 2015-12-23, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 01:52:30 -0500, Howard S Shubs wrote
>> (in article <slrnn7kh5e.m90.howard@foxtrot.local>):
>> 
>>> On 2015-12-22, Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Are you saying that ALL files have checksums? If so, that's the first I 
>>>> heard of it. My understanding is that checksums are recorded at the 
>>>> sector level only, except for some file-type-specific cases that are 
>>>> irrelevant here.
>>> 
>>> $ md5 somedirectory > checksumm.txt
>>> 
>>> At a later time, repeat the command and compare the two output files. 
>>> If there's a change and you haven't changed the files, something's wrong.
>> 
>> Won't that give false positives for things like an updated Spotlight 
>> database or .DS_Store files for example?
> 
> I don't know that those would be false positives so much as unimportant.

I though you were suggesting calculating a single md5 checksum for the 
entire backup.  In that case, changes in the .DS_Store files, although 
unimportant, would cause the checksum to be different, thereby 
defeating your purpose.  I also notice from the md5 man page that it 
only works on files and strings.  You get an error message if you feed 
it a directory.

It should be easy enough, however, to write a shell script to calculate 
the md5 checksum of each relevant file in the backup, save it, and 
compare it later with a subsequent run.  That would indeed detect 
errors and at the same time accomplish the much denigrated "every 
sector scan".  Naturally, it would be time consuming.  And it would 
only detect errors, not correct them.  For that you would still need an 
alternate backup.  Never the less, for critical data, it may not be too 
high a price to pay.

-- 
Nelson

0
Nelson
12/24/2015 10:46:32 AM
On 12/23/15 4:08 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
> destination.
>
> Here's an article that shows you the basic setup steps. It's pretty
> simple:
>
> <http://www.techrepublic.com/article/pro-tip-configure-the-time-machine-service-in-os-x-server/>
>
Thanks. I'll try it after things calm down on Saturday or Sunday...

0
Kurt
12/24/2015 11:53:51 AM
Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> 
> Spotlight-related anything is unimportant and irrelevant,
> unless you enjoy useless CPU and I/O drains.

Nonsense. I find Spotlight extremely useful.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/24/2015 3:41:14 PM
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-23, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> In article <n5c2vk$n78$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
>>>>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
>>>>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
>>>>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
>>>>> 
>>>>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
>>>> 
>>>> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do more?
>>> 
>>> Better to invest in a cheap external drive, connect it to your Mac, and
>>> allow Time Machine to use it for backups in addition to your Time
>>> Capsule. You can get a 1TB USB 3 hard drive on Amazon for around $60 at
>>> the moment.
>>> 
>> 
>> USB is a bit of a problem with the new laptop because it has so few ports
>> to begin with 8-(
> 
> There are devices called USB hubs that add more ports.
> 

I have one around somewhere that I used with an earlier setup, but if I
remember correctly, some things didn't work as well with that setup, and
I'd still be losing one of my two direct hubs for one inconveniently
located.

-- 
biblioholic medievalist via iPad
0
Erilar
12/24/2015 3:50:16 PM
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <ddukrhFpejrU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
>>>>>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to a
>>>>>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do more?
>>>> 
>>>> Better to invest in a cheap external drive, connect it to your Mac, and
>>>> allow Time Machine to use it for backups in addition to your Time
>>>> Capsule. You can get a 1TB USB 3 hard drive on Amazon for around $60 at
>>>> the moment.
>>> 
>>> since she's already using time machine, a better option is to make a
>>> clone, as each protects against different types of failures.
>> 
>> Make a clone? Of what and how?
> 
> A clone (copy) of the hard drive via utilities such as Super Duper or
> Carbon Copy Cloner
> 

Another thing to acquire and plug in somewhere, right?

-- 
biblioholic medievalist via iPad
0
Erilar
12/24/2015 3:50:16 PM
Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-24, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-23, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> Indeed.  But I had a problem with Seagate Desktop Drives randomly 
>>> unmounting when connected to a MacAlly hub.  Both support groups blamed 
>>> the other's design.  I never did resolve it.  I just connected the disk 
>>> directly to one of the computer's usb ports and used the hub for 
>>> printers, etc.  It is an externally powered hub too.  Since that 
>>> experience I have been leery of connecting disk drives to usb hubs.
>> 
>> The solution there is to connect the *other* peripherals to the hub
>> (keyboard, mouse, printer, thumb drives, and so on) and use the built-in
>> ports for hard drives.
> 
> Plural?  I thought that these days, there's only one USB port, at best. 
> Not so?
> 

I have two, both inconveniently located.

-- 
biblioholic medievalist via iPad
0
Erilar
12/24/2015 3:50:17 PM
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnn7mjsv.n7n.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
> <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> 
>>> The solution there is to connect the *other* peripherals to the hub
>>> (keyboard, mouse, printer, thumb drives, and so on) and use the built-in
>>> ports for hard drives.
>> 
>> Plural?  I thought that these days, there's only one USB port, at best. 
>> Not so?
> 
> not so.
> 
> only the retina macbook has one usb-c port and that's all it needs.
> 

All it needs to connect a hub?

-- 
biblioholic medievalist via iPad
0
Erilar
12/24/2015 3:50:18 PM
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <n5fdsn$ahb$3@dont-email.me>, Erilar
> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> 
>> My Time Capsule is connected wirelessly, so I don't need a physical
>> connection.  I also have a data file on it of things I don't want changed. 
>> Would adding another Time Capsule wirelessly do the job or is that
>> pointless? I don't even know whether that's possible.
> 
> it's possible and not pointless but it's less useful than having a
> clone. that way you have two different types of backups.
> 

Which I also have to buy, right? And can those be connected wirelessly?

-- 
biblioholic medievalist via iPad
0
Erilar
12/24/2015 3:50:18 PM
On 2015-12-24, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> Seagate's Desktops drives (at least the older ones with the vertical
> design that made them look sort of like a WiFi router) were *terrible*
> and had disconnection problems on my Macs and PCs even with no USB hubs.
>
> The current Seagates (black boxes with blue bottoms) seem to be fine so
> far.

I have one of each. The older vertical one has been in constant
operation (Time Machine backup drive) for several years. Neither one has
given me a problem. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/24/2015 4:17:54 PM
In message <0001HW.D2A1373800C8A723B01029BF@news.astraweb.com> 
  Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> It should be easy enough, however, to write a shell script to calculate 
> the md5 checksum of each relevant file in the backup, save it, and 
> compare it later with a subsequent run.

find . -type f -exec md5 {} \;

I don't recommend this, md5 is *slow*.

Running md5 on a 850MB video took nearly 20 seconds.

-- 
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great
pleasure." Clarence Darrow
0
Lewis
12/24/2015 5:10:55 PM
In message <de2k5iFoomiU1@mid.individual.net> 
  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2015-12-24, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>
>> Seagate's Desktops drives (at least the older ones with the vertical
>> design that made them look sort of like a WiFi router) were *terrible*
>> and had disconnection problems on my Macs and PCs even with no USB hubs.
>>
>> The current Seagates (black boxes with blue bottoms) seem to be fine so
>> far.

> I have one of each. The older vertical one has been in constant
> operation (Time Machine backup drive) for several years. Neither one has
> given me a problem. 

I had 4 of the upright Seagate Desktop drives fail (out of 4).

-- 
I know it all. I just can't remember it simultaneously.
0
Lewis
12/24/2015 5:11:50 PM
On 2015-12-24 12:10, Lewis wrote:
> In message <0001HW.D2A1373800C8A723B01029BF@news.astraweb.com>
>    Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> It should be easy enough, however, to write a shell script to calculate
>> the md5 checksum of each relevant file in the backup, save it, and
>> compare it later with a subsequent run.
>
> find . -type f -exec md5 {} \;
>
> I don't recommend this, md5 is *slow*.
>
> Running md5 on a 850MB video took nearly 20 seconds.

Just MD5'd a 873 MB video.  Took 6 seconds with an encrypted external 
drive (USB 3).  (Simple command:  md5 "Bob's racing movies.mov")

Took less than 3 seconds from the system HD and less than 2 seconds from 
a Ram disk.  (Of course it took a few seconds to move it to the Ram disk 
in the first place...)

(3.4 GHz i7).


-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/24/2015 5:33:11 PM
On 2015-12-24, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <de2k5iFoomiU1@mid.individual.net> 
>   Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-24, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>
>>> Seagate's Desktops drives (at least the older ones with the vertical
>>> design that made them look sort of like a WiFi router) were *terrible*
>>> and had disconnection problems on my Macs and PCs even with no USB hubs.
>>>
>>> The current Seagates (black boxes with blue bottoms) seem to be fine so
>>> far.
>
>> I have one of each. The older vertical one has been in constant
>> operation (Time Machine backup drive) for several years. Neither one has
>> given me a problem. 
>
> I had 4 of the upright Seagate Desktop drives fail (out of 4).

This one is a 3TB. I've had lots of Seagate 3TB bare drives fail either
prematurely (replaced for free) or just after warranty expiration.
Seagate had a lot of problems with those for a few years. So far, so
good with this one...

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/24/2015 5:40:47 PM
In article <n5h42u$v4q$2@dont-email.me>, Erilar
<drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> > A clone (copy) of the hard drive via utilities such as Super Duper or
> > Carbon Copy Cloner
> > 
> 
> Another thing to acquire and plug in somewhere, right?

you can get a bus-powered drive if you don't want to plug anything into
the wall.
0
nospam
12/24/2015 5:46:14 PM
In article <n5h430$v4q$5@dont-email.me>, Erilar
<drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> >> My Time Capsule is connected wirelessly, so I don't need a physical
> >> connection.  I also have a data file on it of things I don't want changed. 
> >> Would adding another Time Capsule wirelessly do the job or is that
> >> pointless? I don't even know whether that's possible.
> > 
> > it's possible and not pointless but it's less useful than having a
> > clone. that way you have two different types of backups.
> 
> Which I also have to buy, right? 

you will need a hard drive but they're cheap.

> And can those be connected wirelessly?

they can be but then it won't be a bootable clone. 

the advantage of a clone is that if your hard drive fails, you can
simply reboot from the clone and keep working, whereas with a time
machine archive, you would need to get a replacement hard drive and
restore from the time machine archive.

you can make a clone wirelessly, but it would be a disk image file
which is not bootable, negating one of the advantages of a clone.

both time machine and a clone are useful.
0
nospam
12/24/2015 5:46:15 PM
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 19:25:21 -0500, Erilar wrote
(in article <n5fdsn$ahb$3@dont-email.me>):

> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <n5ctn4$s9q$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> Can I sneak in sideways with a question?  I don't know how backups work(
>>>>> more than superficially), but the Time Machine on my Mac is backed up to 
>>>>> a
>>>>> TimeCapsule.  How solid is that?
>>>> 
>>>> solid, but you want more than just one backup.
>>> 
>>> Well, I've backed up some important things to DVDs. Maybe I should do more?
>> 
>> dvds are horrible for backups. they degrade over time and keeping them
>> organized is a pain in the ass. they're also more expensive than hard
>> drives for the same amount of space.
>> 
>> buy a couple of hard drives and back up to each one, then put at least
>> one of them off site somewhere, or use one of the cloud backup
>> services.
>> 
> 
> My Time Capsule is connected wirelessly, so I don't need a physical
> connection.  I also have a data file on it of things I don't want changed. 
> Would adding another Time Capsule wirelessly do the job or is that
> pointless? I don't even know whether that's possible.

Check your router.  A lot of them have usb ports for shared drives.  My 
NetGear one does but I've never tried to use it so I can't say how well 
it would work.  Maybe someone else has some experience.

-- 
Nelson

0
Nelson
12/24/2015 6:21:17 PM
In article <0001HW.D2A1A1CD00E1A1E4B01029BF@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson
<nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:

> 
> Check your router.  A lot of them have usb ports for shared drives.  My 
> NetGear one does but I've never tried to use it so I can't say how well 
> it would work.  Maybe someone else has some experience.

they're usually slow and time machine doesn't officially support drives
attached to routers anyway.
0
nospam
12/24/2015 6:37:04 PM
In message <wb-dnbog9J_KseHLnZ2dnUU7-X-dnZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-12-24 12:10, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <0001HW.D2A1373800C8A723B01029BF@news.astraweb.com>
>>    Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> It should be easy enough, however, to write a shell script to calculate
>>> the md5 checksum of each relevant file in the backup, save it, and
>>> compare it later with a subsequent run.
>>
>> find . -type f -exec md5 {} \;
>>
>> I don't recommend this, md5 is *slow*.
>>
>> Running md5 on a 850MB video took nearly 20 seconds.

> Just MD5'd a 873 MB video.  Took 6 seconds with an encrypted external 
> drive (USB 3).  (Simple command:  md5 "Bob's racing movies.mov")

Checks.

Oh, my mistake. I was running it on a network mount.

> Took less than 3 seconds from the system HD and less than 2 seconds from 
> a Ram disk.  (Of course it took a few seconds to move it to the Ram disk 
> in the first place...)

It's still slow. If you're going to process, say, your Documents folder,
you'll be waiting a good long while.


-- 
"I have no choice but to believe in free will." - Randy Wayne White
0
Lewis
12/24/2015 7:33:00 PM
On 2015-12-24, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 20:55:44 -0500, Howard S Shubs wrote
> (in article <slrnn7mk50.n7n.howard@foxtrot.local>):
>
>> On 2015-12-23, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 01:52:30 -0500, Howard S Shubs wrote
>>> (in article <slrnn7kh5e.m90.howard@foxtrot.local>):
>>> 
>>>> On 2015-12-22, Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Are you saying that ALL files have checksums? If so, that's the first I 
>>>>> heard of it. My understanding is that checksums are recorded at the 
>>>>> sector level only, except for some file-type-specific cases that are 
>>>>> irrelevant here.
>>>> 
>>>> $ md5 somedirectory > checksumm.txt
>>>> 
>>>> At a later time, repeat the command and compare the two output files. 
>>>> If there's a change and you haven't changed the files, something's wrong.
>>> 
>>> Won't that give false positives for things like an updated Spotlight 
>>> database or .DS_Store files for example?
>> 
>> I don't know that those would be false positives so much as unimportant.
>
> I though you were suggesting calculating a single md5 checksum for the 
> entire backup.  In that case, changes in the .DS_Store files, although 
> unimportant, would cause the checksum to be different, thereby 
> defeating your purpose.  I also notice from the md5 man page that it 
> only works on files and strings.  You get an error message if you feed 
> it a directory.

What I was thinking of was the md5sum command.  First, you generate a
list of checksums into a file.  Later, you can use that file to check
whether any files have changed by using the "-c" option.  It's good for
making sure a list of static files has remained static.

so

$ md5sum some-list-of-files > sums.txt

Later...

$ md5sum -c < sums.txt  #this might not be correct, but it's the right idea.
0
Howard
12/24/2015 11:29:32 PM
On 2015-12-24, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> It's still slow. If you're going to process, say, your Documents folder,
> you'll be waiting a good long while.

According to the md5sum man page, it's better to use a SHA-based utility
instead.  They exist as sha224sum(1), sha256sum(1), sha384sum(1),
sha512sum(1).  I don't know how fast these are, relatively speaking,
with md5sum.
0
Howard
12/24/2015 11:32:24 PM
On 2015-12-24, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Spotlight-related anything is unimportant and irrelevant,
>> unless you enjoy useless CPU and I/O drains.
>
> Nonsense. I find Spotlight extremely useful.

I don't.  I find it to be a drain of system resources, to attach disks
which don't need indexing, and the whole concept is bogus to me, yet there's
no apparent way to turn it off or kill it in such a way that it'll stay dead.

If I want to find a file, I use the find(1) command.  If I'm looking for
content in the file, I use grep(1).  WTF do I need Spotlight for??

The whole point of Mac OS X is that things like this can be done
efficiently in whichever interface is more appropriate to them.  Using a
GUI for this is silly, at best.  Why have a UNIX shell available if you're
not going to use it when you should?
0
Howard
12/24/2015 11:35:31 PM
On 2015-12-24 14:33, Lewis wrote:
> In message <wb-dnbog9J_KseHLnZ2dnUU7-X-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
>    Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-24 12:10, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <0001HW.D2A1373800C8A723B01029BF@news.astraweb.com>
>>>     Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> It should be easy enough, however, to write a shell script to calculate
>>>> the md5 checksum of each relevant file in the backup, save it, and
>>>> compare it later with a subsequent run.
>>>
>>> find . -type f -exec md5 {} \;
>>>
>>> I don't recommend this, md5 is *slow*.
>>>
>>> Running md5 on a 850MB video took nearly 20 seconds.
>
>> Just MD5'd a 873 MB video.  Took 6 seconds with an encrypted external
>> drive (USB 3).  (Simple command:  md5 "Bob's racing movies.mov")
>
> Checks.
>
> Oh, my mistake. I was running it on a network mount.
>
>> Took less than 3 seconds from the system HD and less than 2 seconds from
>> a Ram disk.  (Of course it took a few seconds to move it to the Ram disk
>> in the first place...)
>
> It's still slow. If you're going to process, say, your Documents folder,
> you'll be waiting a good long while.

One could write a program that maintains a simple DB of names of large 
files with the presumed correct md5 and then slowly walk around the 
files over time to look for corrupted files or corrupted copies and 
report on them.  I do have code for the MD5 somewhere around here ...

Indeed the MD5 app on my computer is not 64 bit but I have source code 
for a module that I can compile as 64 bit.  Could be a little quicker 
with a bit of work.

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/24/2015 11:44:01 PM
On 2015-12-24, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-24, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Spotlight-related anything is unimportant and irrelevant,
>>> unless you enjoy useless CPU and I/O drains.
>>
>> Nonsense. I find Spotlight extremely useful.
>
> I don't.

That's all well and good; just don't try to pretend others don't find it
useful. Spotlight isn't unimportant or irrelevant for the vast majority
of Mac users.

> I find it to be a drain of system resources

I don't find it to be a significant drain on resources.

> to attach disks which don't need indexing, 

Ad the volume to the Spotlight ignore list. Problem solved.

> and the whole concept is bogus to me, 

Searching for files, mail, contacts, and much more with rich metadata
and criteria isn't bogus at all to me.

> yet there's no apparent way to turn it off or kill it in such a way
> that it'll stay dead.

sudo launchctl unload -w
/System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.metadata.mds.plist

> If I want to find a file, I use the find(1) command.  If I'm looking for
> content in the file, I use grep(1).  WTF do I need Spotlight for??

Spotlight finds many things that are not files, and find and grep are
not only *much* slower in comparison, but also won't find items that
aren't in the specified search path. You may not appreciate these
advantages, but don't expect me to dismiss them.

> The whole point of Mac OS X is that things like this can be done
> efficiently in whichever interface is more appropriate to them.

In many ways, Spotlight is *much* more efficient than command-line
utilities.

> Using a GUI for this is silly, at best.

Nonsense. And Spotlight comes with a command-line tool called mdfind if
that's what you want.

> Why have a UNIX shell available if you're not going to use it when you
> should?

Nobody is suggesting you should use Spotlight when other tools are
better suited for your needs.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/25/2015 1:21:46 AM
In article <slrnn7p0a3.ocu.howard@foxtrot.local>,
 Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> On 2015-12-24, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Spotlight-related anything is unimportant and irrelevant,
> >> unless you enjoy useless CPU and I/O drains.
> >
> > Nonsense. I find Spotlight extremely useful.
> 
> I don't.  I find it to be a drain of system resources, to attach disks
> which don't need indexing, and the whole concept is bogus to me, yet there's
> no apparent way to turn it off or kill it in such a way that it'll stay dead.
> 
> If I want to find a file, I use the find(1) command.  If I'm looking for
> content in the file, I use grep(1).  WTF do I need Spotlight for??
> 
> The whole point of Mac OS X is that things like this can be done
> efficiently in whichever interface is more appropriate to them.  Using a
> GUI for this is silly, at best.  Why have a UNIX shell available if you're
> not going to use it when you should?

Howard, since you don't find mdfind useful, I take it you've also 
disabled the mlocate task that runs as part of the weekly periodic 
maintenance.  No need to waste resources to make the locate command work.

Is OpenVMS still available?

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]


0
Michael
12/25/2015 3:54:24 AM
In message <slrnn7p048.ocu.howard@foxtrot.local> 
  Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-24, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> It's still slow. If you're going to process, say, your Documents folder,
>> you'll be waiting a good long while.

> According to the md5sum man page, it's better to use a SHA-based utility
> instead.  They exist as sha224sum(1), sha256sum(1), sha384sum(1),
> sha512sum(1).  I don't know how fast these are, relatively speaking,
> with md5sum.

SHA is better because md5 is subject to collisions. It's not very
likely, but it can happen, especially if a file is crafted to collide.

shasum -a 224 -b is several times slower than md5.

-- 
Mac OSX - Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than fixing
Windows.
0
Lewis
12/25/2015 5:23:55 AM
In message <slrnn7p0a3.ocu.howard@foxtrot.local> 
  Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> If I want to find a file, I use the find(1) command.  If I'm looking for
> content in the file, I use grep(1).  WTF do I need Spotlight for??

Running a grep -ir over your entire file system would take many hours.
Over my filesystem it would take *days*.

find and grep are great tools, but for searching through millions of
files they are woefully inadequate.

-- 
Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains.
0
Lewis
12/25/2015 5:26:10 AM
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 18:44:01 -0500, Alan Browne wrote
(in article <hb6dnXyGtYfbHuHLnZ2dnUU7-KOdnZ2d@giganews.com>):

> On 2015-12-24 14:33, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <wb-dnbog9J_KseHLnZ2dnUU7-X-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-24 12:10, Lewis wrote:
>>>> In message <0001HW.D2A1373800C8A723B01029BF@news.astraweb.com>
>>>> Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> It should be easy enough, however, to write a shell script to calculate
>>>>> the md5 checksum of each relevant file in the backup, save it, and
>>>>> compare it later with a subsequent run.
>>>> 
>>>> find . -type f -exec md5 {} \;
>>>> 
>>>> I don't recommend this, md5 is *slow*.
>>>> 
>>>> Running md5 on a 850MB video took nearly 20 seconds.
>> 
>>> Just MD5'd a 873 MB video.  Took 6 seconds with an encrypted external
>>> drive (USB 3).  (Simple command:  md5 "Bob's racing movies.mov")
>> 
>> Checks.
>> 
>> Oh, my mistake. I was running it on a network mount.
>> 
>>> Took less than 3 seconds from the system HD and less than 2 seconds from
>>> a Ram disk.  (Of course it took a few seconds to move it to the Ram disk
>>> in the first place...)
>> 
>> It's still slow. If you're going to process, say, your Documents folder,
>> you'll be waiting a good long while.
> 
> One could write a program that maintains a simple DB of names of large 
> files with the presumed correct md5 and then slowly walk around the 
> files over time to look for corrupted files or corrupted copies and 
> report on them.  I do have code for the MD5 somewhere around here ...
> 
> Indeed the MD5 app on my computer is not 64 bit but I have source code 
> for a module that I can compile as 64 bit.  Could be a little quicker 
> with a bit of work.

It would be a trivial Applescript using "do shell command" and 
"database events".  Use launchd to run as a faceless background 
application only at night when you are not using the computer.

-- 
Nelson

0
Nelson
12/25/2015 12:31:49 PM
On 2015-12-25 07:31, Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 18:44:01 -0500, Alan Browne wrote
> (in article <hb6dnXyGtYfbHuHLnZ2dnUU7-KOdnZ2d@giganews.com>):
>
>> On 2015-12-24 14:33, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <wb-dnbog9J_KseHLnZ2dnUU7-X-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2015-12-24 12:10, Lewis wrote:
>>>>> In message <0001HW.D2A1373800C8A723B01029BF@news.astraweb.com>
>>>>> Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> It should be easy enough, however, to write a shell script to calculate
>>>>>> the md5 checksum of each relevant file in the backup, save it, and
>>>>>> compare it later with a subsequent run.
>>>>>
>>>>> find . -type f -exec md5 {} \;
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't recommend this, md5 is *slow*.
>>>>>
>>>>> Running md5 on a 850MB video took nearly 20 seconds.
>>>
>>>> Just MD5'd a 873 MB video.  Took 6 seconds with an encrypted external
>>>> drive (USB 3).  (Simple command:  md5 "Bob's racing movies.mov")
>>>
>>> Checks.
>>>
>>> Oh, my mistake. I was running it on a network mount.
>>>
>>>> Took less than 3 seconds from the system HD and less than 2 seconds from
>>>> a Ram disk.  (Of course it took a few seconds to move it to the Ram disk
>>>> in the first place...)
>>>
>>> It's still slow. If you're going to process, say, your Documents folder,
>>> you'll be waiting a good long while.
>>
>> One could write a program that maintains a simple DB of names of large
>> files with the presumed correct md5 and then slowly walk around the
>> files over time to look for corrupted files or corrupted copies and
>> report on them.  I do have code for the MD5 somewhere around here ...
>>
>> Indeed the MD5 app on my computer is not 64 bit but I have source code
>> for a module that I can compile as 64 bit.  Could be a little quicker
>> with a bit of work.
>
> It would be a trivial Applescript using "do shell command" and
> "database events".  Use launchd to run as a faceless background
> application only at night when you are not using the computer.

Looking at the source code I have it works on 16 and 32 bit words at a 
time.  I could probably optimize it to work on 64 bits most of the time 
which would save a lot of cycles and take advantage of the intel 64 bit 
architecture.  I can also optimize to keep intermediate variables in 
register resulting in faster code than the generic md5.  Needs some 
analysis to grok the function and modify the code (or write it from 
scratch).

As to when, the processor (in my case) is under utilized most of the day 
in any case so doing it in background continuously with generous sleep 
periods would be fine.  I can parallel it out over several files 
corresponding to the physical number of disks.

All that to say, "Apple Script?  Eh?"

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/25/2015 2:35:33 PM
On 12-24-2015 23:23, Lewis wrote:
> In message <slrnn7p048.ocu.howard@foxtrot.local>
>    Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> According to the md5sum man page, it's better to use a SHA-based utility
>> instead.  They exist as sha224sum(1), sha256sum(1), sha384sum(1),
>> sha512sum(1).  I don't know how fast these are, relatively speaking,
>> with md5sum.
>
> SHA is better because md5 is subject to collisions. It's not very
> likely, but it can happen, especially if a file is crafted to collide.
>
> shasum -a 224 -b is several times slower than md5.

For 1.2 GB tarfile on internal SSD, that command took 8.453 seconds.

'md5' took 3.433 seconds, 'sum' took 2.335 seconds

Slower, but not "several times"

0
Happy
12/26/2015 1:01:01 AM
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <n5h42u$v4q$2@dont-email.me>, Erilar
> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> 
>>> A clone (copy) of the hard drive via utilities such as Super Duper or
>>> Carbon Copy Cloner
>>> 
>> 
>> Another thing to acquire and plug in somewhere, right?
> 
> you can get a bus-powered drive if you don't want to plug anything into
> the wall.
> 

I've reached the point where I'd need to add another power strip just for
power 8-(. And some things can only be connected to the computer because
they allow wireless connection.

-- 
biblioholic medievalist via iPad
0
Erilar
12/26/2015 7:35:19 PM
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <n5h430$v4q$5@dont-email.me>, Erilar
> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> 
>>>> My Time Capsule is connected wirelessly, so I don't need a physical
>>>> connection.  I also have a data file on it of things I don't want changed. 
>>>> Would adding another Time Capsule wirelessly do the job or is that
>>>> pointless? I don't even know whether that's possible.
>>> 
>>> it's possible and not pointless but it's less useful than having a
>>> clone. that way you have two different types of backups.
>> 
>> Which I also have to buy, right? 
> 
> you will need a hard drive but they're cheap.
> 
>> And can those be connected wirelessly?
> 
> they can be but then it won't be a bootable clone. 
> 
> the advantage of a clone is that if your hard drive fails, you can
> simply reboot from the clone and keep working, whereas with a time
> machine archive, you would need to get a replacement hard drive and
> restore from the time machine archive.
> 
> you can make a clone wirelessly, but it would be a disk image file
> which is not bootable, negating one of the advantages of a clone.
> 
> both time machine and a clone are useful.
> 

New confusion.  My Time Capsule isn't a bootable backup because it's
connected wirelessly?

-- 
biblioholic medievalist via iPad
0
Erilar
12/26/2015 7:35:20 PM
In article <n5mq0t$u6a$2@dont-email.me>, Erilar
<drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> 
> New confusion.  My Time Capsule isn't a bootable backup because it's
> connected wirelessly?

it's not bootable because it's a network drive. you have it connected
wirelessly but it could be connected via wired ethernet.
0
nospam
12/26/2015 7:45:09 PM
Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <n5h42u$v4q$2@dont-email.me>, Erilar
>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> Another thing to acquire and plug in somewhere, right?
>> 
>> you can get a bus-powered drive if you don't want to plug anything into
>> the wall.
> 
> I've reached the point where I'd need to add another power strip just for
> power 8-(. 

Bus-powered drives don't require a power outlet connection since they
obtain power from the USB/FireWire/Thunderbolt port itself.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/26/2015 9:24:45 PM
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <n5mq0t$u6a$2@dont-email.me>, Erilar
> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> New confusion.  My Time Capsule isn't a bootable backup because it's
>> connected wirelessly?
> 
> it's not bootable because it's a network drive. you have it connected
> wirelessly but it could be connected via wired ethernet.

Note that a non-bootable backup is still very useful since you can restore
from it if you have another drive to restore the backup onto. Being able to
boot from it is just an added convenience.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/26/2015 9:26:18 PM
In article <de8evqF7ppiU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >> New confusion.  My Time Capsule isn't a bootable backup because it's
> >> connected wirelessly?
> > 
> > it's not bootable because it's a network drive. you have it connected
> > wirelessly but it could be connected via wired ethernet.
> 
> Note that a non-bootable backup is still very useful since you can restore
> from it if you have another drive to restore the backup onto. Being able to
> boot from it is just an added convenience.

also note that a directly attached time machine drive (not a time
capsule) is bootable.
0
nospam
12/26/2015 9:28:35 PM
On 2015-12-25, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2015-12-24, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-24, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Spotlight-related anything is unimportant and irrelevant,
>>>> unless you enjoy useless CPU and I/O drains.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. I find Spotlight extremely useful.
>>
>> I don't.
>
> That's all well and good; just don't try to pretend others don't find it
> useful. Spotlight isn't unimportant or irrelevant for the vast majority
> of Mac users.

That's not relevant.  I'm me.  I'm not the "vast majority".


>> to attach disks which don't need indexing, 
>
> Ad the volume to the Spotlight ignore list. Problem solved.

....and when I reinitialize a drive?  Or connect a drive only sometimes? 
My system is not static that way.


>> and the whole concept is bogus to me, 
>
> Searching for files, mail, contacts, and much more with rich metadata
> and criteria isn't bogus at all to me.

If I want to search for files, mail, contacts, or whatever, I know where
to look.  I'm not lazy enough to want to use a general search utility
like Spotlight to find things when I have a good idea where to find them.


>> yet there's no apparent way to turn it off or kill it in such a way
>> that it'll stay dead.
>
> sudo launchctl unload -w
> /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.metadata.mds.plist

Will that really work, or will Apple, in its infinite wisdom, re-enable
it at the next minor update?

I really wish Linux was ready for general desktop use, with companies
like Microsoft and Adobe producing their bread-and-butter software for
it.  I'd drop Apple like a rotten fruit.  They were great back in the
day, but now they're way past their "use by" date.


>> If I want to find a file, I use the find(1) command.  If I'm looking for
>> content in the file, I use grep(1).  WTF do I need Spotlight for??
>
> Spotlight finds many things that are not files, and find and grep are
> not only *much* slower in comparison, but also won't find items that
> aren't in the specified search path. You may not appreciate these
> advantages, but don't expect me to dismiss them.

This is UNIX.  You some kind of heretic, saying there are things which
aren't files??  Everything's a file!

Anyway, they might be slower, as you say, but find(1) and grep(1) do not
require siphoning system resources at times when I'm not using them. 
That can't be said about Spotlight.  It does its indexing frequently,
and I use it maybe a few times a year.  Major waste of my time, it is,
and I often find it using CPU and/or I/O bandwidth I need for something
I'm actively doing.


>> The whole point of Mac OS X is that things like this can be done
>> efficiently in whichever interface is more appropriate to them.
>
> In many ways, Spotlight is *much* more efficient than command-line
> utilities.

Like anything, it's a matter of which concessions do you want to make. 
In this case, Spotlight might be faster at time of use, but it's done by
using system resources and disk space when you're not using it.  System
utilities like find(1) and grep(1) don't do that and have to do their
work when invoked.  I prefer the latter.


>> Using a GUI for this is silly, at best.
>
> Nonsense. And Spotlight comes with a command-line tool called mdfind if
> that's what you want.

Nice, but not really relevant.  I want a set of utilities which doesn't
require using system resources which I need on MY demand, where MY
demand is MUCH higher priority, on MY priority list, than mds'.  I
haven't looked to see if mds nices itself.  I hope it does, but it still
sucks down resources I need, for not enough benefit TO ME.

>> Why have a UNIX shell available if you're not going to use it when you
>> should?
>
> Nobody is suggesting you should use Spotlight when other tools are
> better suited for your needs.

I must've missed the point of your argument, then.  Perhaps you could
summarize your thesis?
0
Howard
12/26/2015 11:09:07 PM
On 12-23-2015 19:54, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-24, Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:
>>> I hate to agree with nospam but he's right about this one.  Even a
>>> broken clock is right twice a day :) I bought into the "100 year DVD"
>>> myth after abandoning tapes and found a significant number unreadable
>>> after just a few years.
>>
>> Nothing lasts forever. :(
>
> I never had a 9-track tape fail me.  Then again, I've not seen a 9-track
> tape drive since 1999, and the tapes are kinda... small relating to
> storage space.  I don't remember if DDS tapes ever failed me.  The drives
> had a tendency to do that, though I admit that I've not tried my last one
> in... quite a while.  Plugging a SCSI drive into a 2009 MBP is difficult.

I've got an iomega zip-drive for sale.  :-)

0
Happy
12/26/2015 11:10:16 PM
On 12-23-2015 11:32, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
> That is WITH two hubs. More than that they start acting weird and
> apparently aren't getting enough juice. I run into the same problem with
> electrical outlets if I go powered.

I have a self-powered external drive which for reasons I can't figure 
out gets a write error when plugged into a powered hub, but works fine 
when plugged in directly.  Other things work fine both ways.

When the external gets an error, Mac OS or the drive itself switches it 
to read-only until I reboot.
0
Happy
12/26/2015 11:17:15 PM
On 12-22-2015 06:39, FPP wrote:
> On 2015-12-22 03:59:15 +0000, "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> said:
>
>> On 12-21-2015 20:01, Ed Anson wrote:
>>> This whole thread started because I got blind-sided by an unreadable
>>> file.
>>
>> A file that you had no backup for?  You successfully wrote a file and
>> then something made it unreadable before the next backup?
>
> I had a bad RAM stick once that would routinely result in corrupted
> files that just wouldn't read when reopened.
>
> I assume they were being corrupted when the file was re-saved... but you
> would have no way of knowing it was a bad file until the next time you
> opened it.
>
> If the file had been corrupted, it might be several backups down the
> road, before the file was discovered.

If you have one good backup shortly before the failure, the others don't 
matter.
0
Happy
12/26/2015 11:22:38 PM
On 12-24-2015 11:10, Lewis wrote:
> In message <0001HW.D2A1373800C8A723B01029BF@news.astraweb.com>
>    Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> It should be easy enough, however, to write a shell script to calculate
>> the md5 checksum of each relevant file in the backup, save it, and
>> compare it later with a subsequent run.
>
> find . -type f -exec md5 {} \;
>
> I don't recommend this, md5 is *slow*.
>
> Running md5 on a 850MB video took nearly 20 seconds.

Spinner, external?

On a tar file 1.2 GB on an internal SSD, 'md5' took 3.433 seconds.
'sum' took 2.335 seconds

So, about fifty minutes for one terabyte�just in time for the next 
backup.  :-)

0
Happy
12/26/2015 11:33:47 PM
On 12-24-2015 17:29, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> What I was thinking of was the md5sum command.  First, you generate a

On my 10.11.2, 'md5sum' is not in my path.

'md5' is but it doesn't have a -c option.
0
Happy
12/26/2015 11:42:19 PM
On 12-24-2015 09:41, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>
>> Spotlight-related anything is unimportant and irrelevant,
>> unless you enjoy useless CPU and I/O drains.
>
> Nonsense. I find Spotlight extremely useful.

I find it useful occasionally.  But most of the time, it fails to find 
files that I know exist.  I have to go to shell and 'find'

0
Happy
12/26/2015 11:43:27 PM
On 2015-12-25, Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnn7p0a3.ocu.howard@foxtrot.local>,
>  Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-12-24, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> > Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> Spotlight-related anything is unimportant and irrelevant,
>> >> unless you enjoy useless CPU and I/O drains.
>> >
>> > Nonsense. I find Spotlight extremely useful.
>> 
>> I don't.  I find it to be a drain of system resources, to attach disks
>> which don't need indexing, and the whole concept is bogus to me, yet there's
>> no apparent way to turn it off or kill it in such a way that it'll stay dead.
>> 
>> If I want to find a file, I use the find(1) command.  If I'm looking for
>> content in the file, I use grep(1).  WTF do I need Spotlight for??
>> 
>> The whole point of Mac OS X is that things like this can be done
>> efficiently in whichever interface is more appropriate to them.  Using a
>> GUI for this is silly, at best.  Why have a UNIX shell available if you're
>> not going to use it when you should?
>
> Howard, since you don't find mdfind useful, I take it you've also 
> disabled the mlocate task that runs as part of the weekly periodic 
> maintenance.  No need to waste resources to make the locate command work.

This is the first I've heard of mlocate.


> Is OpenVMS still available?

I think so, but anyone still running it really needs to get on the ball.
It's on life support.  HP sold it to a company created to support it. 
HP wouldn't have done that if they thought there was profit remaining
there. They also killed off their own remaining operating systems like
HP-UX and MCE(?).

It's like a position I received a call from a recruiter a few months
ago.  Seems there's a company in the LA area looking for a MACRO-11
programmer.  I can't imagine how they've lasted this long, unless
someone just retired.  According to the req, they're generating new
MACRO-11 code, though they're porting to some other OS. Crazy shit.  No
sane tech is going to waste time on such things unless they're at the
end of their career and don't need to be ready for the future.  At least
use C instead of MACRO-11!!
0
Howard
12/26/2015 11:45:18 PM
On 12-24-2015 17:35, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> I don't.  I find [spotlight] to be a drain of system resources, to attach disks
> which don't need indexing, and the whole concept is bogus to me, yet there's
> no apparent way to turn it off or kill it in such a way that it'll stay dead.

Not to mention that while failing to find what I want, it will tell me 
how many zillions of similar things I have on my backup disk and in Mail 
attachments and MobileBackups and �

> If I want to find a file, I use the find(1) command.  If I'm looking for
> content in the file, I use grep(1).  WTF do I need Spotlight for??

Ditto.
0
Happy
12/26/2015 11:46:33 PM
On 2015-12-25, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <slrnn7p0a3.ocu.howard@foxtrot.local> 
>   Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> If I want to find a file, I use the find(1) command.  If I'm looking for
>> content in the file, I use grep(1).  WTF do I need Spotlight for??
>
> Running a grep -ir over your entire file system would take many hours.
> Over my filesystem it would take *days*.
>
> find and grep are great tools, but for searching through millions of
> files they are woefully inadequate.

Do you often have NO idea where something is?
0
Howard
12/26/2015 11:47:51 PM
On 2015-12-26, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-25, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-24, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-24, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Spotlight-related anything is unimportant and irrelevant,
>>>>> unless you enjoy useless CPU and I/O drains.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. I find Spotlight extremely useful.
>>>
>>> I don't.
>>
>> That's all well and good; just don't try to pretend others don't find it
>> useful. Spotlight isn't unimportant or irrelevant for the vast majority
>> of Mac users.
>
> That's not relevant.  I'm me.  I'm not the "vast majority".

It's relevant when you don't qualify your statement that
"Spotlight-related anything is unimportant and irrelevant" with "for
me", implying that it's unimportant and irrelevant for all people. Since
you don't speak for the rest of us, that is a lie. So be sure to do that
next time if that's what you really mean. ; )

>>> to attach disks which don't need indexing, 
>>
>> Ad the volume to the Spotlight ignore list. Problem solved.
>
> ...and when I reinitialize a drive?  Or connect a drive only sometimes? 

You simply add it to the exclusion list. Not a big deal.

>>> and the whole concept is bogus to me, 
>>
>> Searching for files, mail, contacts, and much more with rich metadata
>> and criteria isn't bogus at all to me.
>
> If I want to search for files, mail, contacts, or whatever, I know where
> to look.

Nah. You don't have anywhere near the same flexibility with file-based
searches. It's not limited to mail etc - those were simply examples.
Nice try, but no cigar.

> I'm not lazy enough to want to use a general search utility

It's more about convenience and efficiency than "laziness". Remember:
computers should work for us - not the other way around.

>>> yet there's no apparent way to turn it off or kill it in such a way
>>> that it'll stay dead.
>>
>> sudo launchctl unload -w
>> /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.metadata.mds.plist
>
> Will that really work, or will Apple, in its infinite wisdom, re-enable
> it at the next minor update?

*shrug* I care not. You're the one with the silly obsession.

> I really wish Linux was ready for general desktop use
 
Something better exists, and it's called OS X.

> with companies like Microsoft and Adobe producing their
> bread-and-butter software for it.

Dream on. Linux will likely always be in the back seat by design. OS X
is king - like it or not.

> I'd drop Apple like a rotten fruit.

Go right on ahead. We (nor Apple) will miss the likes of you.

> They were great back in the day, but now they're way past their "use
> by" date.

Bullshit. They excel in many areas, as they always have. Let me know
when you can duplicate Continuity on your pitiful Linux box. *crickets
chirping* ; )

>>> If I want to find a file, I use the find(1) command.  If I'm looking for
>>> content in the file, I use grep(1).  WTF do I need Spotlight for??
>>
>> Spotlight finds many things that are not files, and find and grep are
>> not only *much* slower in comparison, but also won't find items that
>> aren't in the specified search path. You may not appreciate these
>> advantages, but don't expect me to dismiss them.
>
> This is UNIX.

No, it's UNIX on steroids.

> You some kind of heretic, saying there are things which
> aren't files??  Everything's a file!

Nope, file systems aren't the epitome of computing as you apparently
wish they were. Better things are here, and you're stuck in the past.

> Anyway, they might be slower

Glad you admit it. It's 100% true.

> but find(1) and grep(1) do not require siphoning system resources

Most of us notice no significant resource hit for using Spotlight.

> I use it maybe a few times a year.  Major waste of my time, it is,

Only for you. The rest of us enjoy using it frequently.

> and I often find it using CPU and/or I/O bandwidth I need for something
> I'm actively doing.

Sure you do. And I'm sure by disabling it you actually use those
mystical "missing" resources... : )

>>> The whole point of Mac OS X is that things like this can be done
>>> efficiently in whichever interface is more appropriate to them.
>>
>> In many ways, Spotlight is *much* more efficient than command-line
>> utilities.
>
> Like anything, it's a matter of which concessions do you want to make. 
> In this case, Spotlight might be faster at time of use

Glad you admit the truth.

> but it's done by using system resources and disk space when you're not
> using it.

So is 'locate' and many other utilities. You don't get to pretend
indexing is somehow limited to Spotlight. 

> System
> utilities like find(1) and grep(1) don't do that and have to do their
> work when invoked.

And are *much* less efficient as a result, yes. : )

> I prefer the latter.

Then next time you make a statement like "Spotlight-related anything is
unimportant and irrelevant", you should qualify it with "for me". : )

>>> Using a GUI for this is silly, at best.
>>
>> Nonsense. And Spotlight comes with a command-line tool called mdfind if
>> that's what you want.
>
> Nice, but not really relevant.

100% relevant since most people who use OS X are using a GUI-driven
interface.

> I want a set of utilities which doesn't
> require using system resources which I need on MY demand, where MY
> demand is MUCH higher priority, on MY priority list, than mds'.

Key word: "my". : )

> I
> haven't looked to see if mds nices itself.  I hope it does, but it still
> sucks down resources I need, for not enough benefit TO ME.

Key word: "me". : )

>>> Why have a UNIX shell available if you're not going to use it when you
>>> should?
>>
>> Nobody is suggesting you should use Spotlight when other tools are
>> better suited for your needs.
>
> I must've missed the point of your argument, then.  Perhaps you could
> summarize your thesis?

Very simple: Your blanket statement should be qualified with "for me",
since it does not apply to the rest of us. : )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/27/2015 12:32:13 AM
On 2015-12-27, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-12-27 13:27, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>> If you hold down the Command key, you should see the path at the bottom
>> of the search window. It's not a POSIX style path, but it's a path
>> nonetheless.
>
> Doh!  I had held down the option key and the command key (separately) 
> and looked at the bottom of the left panel since that's where the file 
> names are shown ...
>
> CMD: there's what I want at the bottom of the right panel.
>
> Thanks!

No prob. I made the same mistake a while back and had to resort to a web
search to remind myself why it wasn't working. Now it's (hopefully)
committed to long(er)-term memory... : D

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/27/2015 1:01:01 AM
On 12-26-2015 18:32, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> >System
>> >utilities like find(1) and grep(1) don't do that and have to do their
>> >work when invoked.
> And are*much*  less efficient as a result, yes. : )

I don't find spotlight OR find/grep to be resource hogs.  I never notice 
spotlight's indexing�it's only the poor results that bother me.

And I usually check spotlight first.  When it fails (most of the time), 
I put a find and/or grep command in the shell and continue doing other 
things until it has had time to finish.  I never notice any performance 
hit from it.

0
Happy
12/27/2015 1:36:53 AM
On 12-26-2015 17:45, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> end of their career and don't need to be ready for the future.  At least
> use C instead of MACRO-11!!

PLEASE don't promote one of the most error-prone languages ever!
0
Happy
12/27/2015 1:38:38 AM
On 12-26-2015 17:47, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-25, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> Running a grep -ir over your entire file system would take many hours.
>> Over my filesystem it would take *days*.
>>
>> find and grep are great tools, but for searching through millions of
>> files they are woefully inadequate.
>
> Do you often have NO idea where something is?

Don't know about Lewis, but I often have to hunt for something because I 
forgot where I put it or (even more often) I forgot to change the 
default save location when I saved it.

And your description of 'find' is unfair.  It took 32 seconds to list 
all 7800 PDF files on my SSD.  It took only 27 seconds to pass all 1.7 
million filenames to 'wc'  I realize it would be slower on a spinner, 
but I was never unhappy with it when I had one of those.
0
Happy
12/27/2015 1:51:42 AM
In article <n5nfbm$eh4$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
 "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:

> And I usually check spotlight first.  When it fails (most of the time)

I'd like to be a fly on the wall seeing why you manage to fail so 
much. Have you used Command_F or that silly and fiddly Q top right of 
the screen? Best to use former. The other facility to use is EasyFind 
for the rare cases of Spotlight being difficult.

-- 
dorayme
0
dorayme
12/27/2015 1:55:17 AM
On 2015-12-27, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
> On 12-26-2015 18:32, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> >System
>>> >utilities like find(1) and grep(1) don't do that and have to do their
>>> >work when invoked.
>> And are*much*  less efficient as a result, yes. : )
>
> I don't find spotlight OR find/grep to be resource hogs.  I never notice 
> spotlight's indexing

Same here. It's not an issue for me, on any of the several Macs I use.

> it's only the poor results that bother me.
>
> And I usually check spotlight first.  When it fails (most of the time), 
> I put a find and/or grep command in the shell and continue doing other 
> things until it has had time to finish.  I never notice any performance 
> hit from it.

I find Spotlight most of the time finds what I am looking for. I do use
find and grep on systems where Spotlight doesn't exist, or where the
search scope is very limited. Use the best tool for the job, of course.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/27/2015 3:34:48 AM
On 2015-12-26, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
> On 12-23-2015 11:32, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
>> That is WITH two hubs. More than that they start acting weird and
>> apparently aren't getting enough juice. I run into the same problem with
>> electrical outlets if I go powered.
>
> I have a self-powered external drive which for reasons I can't figure 
> out gets a write error when plugged into a powered hub, but works fine 
> when plugged in directly.  Other things work fine both ways.
>
> When the external gets an error, Mac OS or the drive itself switches it 
> to read-only until I reboot.

It's not surprising that USB has occasional issues with mass storage,
considering USB was originally designed for simplicity and low cost and
wasn't originally designed with mass storage in mind. USB was made
popular by Apple moving to USB-only keyboards and mice when the iMac was
first introduced. At that time USB keyboards and mice were relatively
rare in the rest of the computer industry and there were no USB hard
drives and mass storage devices. Mass storage was shoe-horned into the
design later on because mass storage manufacturers flocked to USB due to
the success of USB peripheral makers. USB uses a master-slave paradigm
that requires the host computer handle all scheduling and data flow
(resulting in CPU utilization), and where devices cannot talk directly
to each other. That means a problem on the host computer can cause
problems with USB storage devices that are non-existent with other more
robust protocols. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/27/2015 3:42:19 AM
On 2015-12-26, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-25, Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>> Howard, since you don't find mdfind useful, I take it you've also 
>> disabled the mlocate task that runs as part of the weekly periodic 
>> maintenance.  No need to waste resources to make the locate command work.
>
> This is the first I've heard of mlocate.
>
>> Is OpenVMS still available?
>
> I think so, but anyone still running it really needs to get on the ball.
> It's on life support.

*WHOOSH*

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/27/2015 3:43:52 AM
On 2015-12-26, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-25, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> In message <slrnn7p0a3.ocu.howard@foxtrot.local> 
>>   Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>> If I want to find a file, I use the find(1) command.  If I'm looking for
>>> content in the file, I use grep(1).  WTF do I need Spotlight for??
>>
>> Running a grep -ir over your entire file system would take many hours.
>> Over my filesystem it would take *days*.
>>
>> find and grep are great tools, but for searching through millions of
>> files they are woefully inadequate.
>
> Do you often have NO idea where something is?

Irrelevant. If I can find what I am looking for in a matter of a second
or two without having to specify where it is, I'll gladly do it.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/27/2015 3:46:30 AM
In article <slrnn7u7gj.qqs.howard@foxtrot.local>,
 Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> On 2015-12-25, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > On 2015-12-24, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> >> On 2015-12-24, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>> Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> Spotlight-related anything is unimportant and irrelevant,
> >>>> unless you enjoy useless CPU and I/O drains.
> >>>
> >>> Nonsense. I find Spotlight extremely useful.
> >>
> >> I don't.
> >
> > That's all well and good; just don't try to pretend others don't find it
> > useful. Spotlight isn't unimportant or irrelevant for the vast majority
> > of Mac users.
> 
> That's not relevant.  I'm me.  I'm not the "vast majority".
> 
> 
> >> to attach disks which don't need indexing, 
> >
> > Ad the volume to the Spotlight ignore list. Problem solved.
> 
> ...and when I reinitialize a drive?  Or connect a drive only sometimes? 
> My system is not static that way.
> 
> 
> >> and the whole concept is bogus to me, 
> >
> > Searching for files, mail, contacts, and much more with rich metadata
> > and criteria isn't bogus at all to me.
> 
> If I want to search for files, mail, contacts, or whatever, I know where
> to look.  I'm not lazy enough to want to use a general search utility
> like Spotlight to find things when I have a good idea where to find them.
> 
> 
> >> yet there's no apparent way to turn it off or kill it in such a way
> >> that it'll stay dead.
> >
> > sudo launchctl unload -w
> > /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.metadata.mds.plist
> 
> Will that really work, or will Apple, in its infinite wisdom, re-enable
> it at the next minor update?
> 
> I really wish Linux was ready for general desktop use, with companies
> like Microsoft and Adobe producing their bread-and-butter software for
> it.  I'd drop Apple like a rotten fruit.  They were great back in the
> day, but now they're way past their "use by" date.
> 
> 
> >> If I want to find a file, I use the find(1) command.  If I'm looking for
> >> content in the file, I use grep(1).  WTF do I need Spotlight for??
> >
> > Spotlight finds many things that are not files, and find and grep are
> > not only *much* slower in comparison, but also won't find items that
> > aren't in the specified search path. You may not appreciate these
> > advantages, but don't expect me to dismiss them.
> 
> This is UNIX.  You some kind of heretic, saying there are things which
> aren't files??  Everything's a file!
> 
> Anyway, they might be slower, as you say, but find(1) and grep(1) do not
> require siphoning system resources at times when I'm not using them. 
> That can't be said about Spotlight.  It does its indexing frequently,
> and I use it maybe a few times a year.  Major waste of my time, it is,
> and I often find it using CPU and/or I/O bandwidth I need for something
> I'm actively doing.
> 
> 
> >> The whole point of Mac OS X is that things like this can be done
> >> efficiently in whichever interface is more appropriate to them.
> >
> > In many ways, Spotlight is *much* more efficient than command-line
> > utilities.
> 
> Like anything, it's a matter of which concessions do you want to make. 
> In this case, Spotlight might be faster at time of use, but it's done by
> using system resources and disk space when you're not using it.  System
> utilities like find(1) and grep(1) don't do that and have to do their
> work when invoked.  I prefer the latter.
> 
> 
> >> Using a GUI for this is silly, at best.
> >
> > Nonsense. And Spotlight comes with a command-line tool called mdfind if
> > that's what you want.
> 
> Nice, but not really relevant.  I want a set of utilities which doesn't
> require using system resources which I need on MY demand, where MY
> demand is MUCH higher priority, on MY priority list, than mds'.  I
> haven't looked to see if mds nices itself.  I hope it does, but it still
> sucks down resources I need, for not enough benefit TO ME.
> 
> >> Why have a UNIX shell available if you're not going to use it when you
> >> should?
> >
> > Nobody is suggesting you should use Spotlight when other tools are
> > better suited for your needs.
> 
> I must've missed the point of your argument, then.  Perhaps you could
> summarize your thesis?

I don't know if it's relevant but if you use Time Machine, I don't know 
if the file system monitor that watches all the file system 
modifications is tied to Spotlight.  Why is this important?

Stand Along Backup (and ufsbackup) walked the VMS and UFS filesystems at 
the time they ran to produce a backup of the files that fit the profile 
of files you wanted backed up (incremental, differential, or full).  
Then marked the files as backed up when completed in the case of VMS and 
updated /etc/dumpdates for Solaris.  I've only ever done rsync backups 
with Linux, so I can't speak to that.

BUT.  BUT, if Spotlight is part of this mess, your Time Machine won't 
know what's been backed up since the last backup.  I think fseventd does 
the heavy lifting.

If you don't want Spotlight running, disable it from the System 
Preferences.  Or disable the launchd script to ensure it's turned off.  
Since it's offically part of Mac OS, Apple has every right to reenable 
it when the system is updated.  So after each update, check that 
Spotlight is disabled.

Don't want to bother?  Write a Puppet model to capture your system 
configuration and restore it after you upgrade.  You want stable, you're 
a big boy.  Stop whining and fix it yourself.

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]


0
Michael
12/27/2015 6:22:31 AM
On 2015-12-27, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2015-12-26, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-25, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-24, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2015-12-24, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>> Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Spotlight-related anything is unimportant and irrelevant,
>>>>>> unless you enjoy useless CPU and I/O drains.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense. I find Spotlight extremely useful.
>>>>
>>>> I don't.
>>>
>>> That's all well and good; just don't try to pretend others don't find it
>>> useful. Spotlight isn't unimportant or irrelevant for the vast majority
>>> of Mac users.
>>
>> That's not relevant.  I'm me.  I'm not the "vast majority".
>
> It's relevant when you don't qualify your statement that
> "Spotlight-related anything is unimportant and irrelevant" with "for
> me", implying that it's unimportant and irrelevant for all people. Since
> you don't speak for the rest of us, that is a lie. So be sure to do that
> next time if that's what you really mean. ; )

I'm glad you added that smiley.  But you still have a point.  I tend, as
I suspect many of us here might, to speak from the point of view of
someone with long and fairly deep computer science knowledge, or at
least awareness.  The point of view of those who don't have that
background doesn't occur to me.


> You simply add it to the exclusion list. Not a big deal.

It shouldn't need to be done every freaking time, if the utility is
intended for minimal interaction.  Do I have an answer to that which
covers both me and those who actually use it?  Not off-hand, but I
expect I could come up with something.


>> If I want to search for files, mail, contacts, or whatever, I know where
>> to look.
>
> Nah. You don't have anywhere near the same flexibility with file-based
> searches. It's not limited to mail etc - those were simply examples.
> Nice try, but no cigar.

I suppose that could be true, but it's not.  If I want to search mail
messages, I limit the search domain by using my e-mail client
(Mailsmith), just as when searching for a file in my home directory or
for a configuration file in /private.  In a sense, the "indexing" is
done in my head, where I know where I put things, or where they should
be.


> It's more about convenience and efficiency than "laziness". Remember:
> computers should work for us - not the other way around.

But since they don't...  As I said before, the other side of
"convenience and efficiency", where I really think that last word is not
appropriate, is at the cost of storage for the index and processing time
and I/O bandwidth to keep it up to date.  I'm not willing to provide
that for this utility.


>> Will that really work, or will Apple, in its infinite wisdom, re-enable
>> it at the next minor update?
>
> *shrug* I care not. You're the one with the silly obsession.

Uh huh.  I'm afraid I asked *you* the question.


>> I really wish Linux was ready for general desktop use
>  
> Something better exists, and it's called OS X.

You're begging the question.  The point is a judgement call.  I think
Mac OS X has been going downhill for several years, since Mac OS X 10.7.
Unfortunately, the only other viable option is Windows, which HAD been
improving until W8, but there it is.

My position is that Linux needs to save the day, but without the
cooperation of major software houses, it has no real chance on the
desktop.

>
>> with companies like Microsoft and Adobe producing their
>> bread-and-butter software for it.
>
> Dream on. Linux will likely always be in the back seat by design. OS X
> is king - like it or not.

Tell it to Microsoft.  I prefer Mac OS X to Windows, but it's getting to
be a nearer thing all the time.  If Windows had a good UNIX-like shell
available, which it doesn't, it might be something I'd consider.


>> I'd drop Apple like a rotten fruit.
>
> Go right on ahead. We (nor Apple) will miss the likes of you.

You'd not miss me even a little?  I'm hurt.


>> They were great back in the day, but now they're way past their "use
>> by" date.
>
> Bullshit. They excel in many areas, as they always have. Let me know
> when you can duplicate Continuity on your pitiful Linux box. *crickets
> chirping* ; )

What do you mean by "continuity"?  If you mean backwards compatibility,
I'm using slrn for USENET because Apple broke Open Transport and
therefore MT-Newswatcher, which beats slrn all hollow.  They toss out
APIs without consideration for those who are using them.  Without
consideration for the possability that the software involved is no
longer being maintained but is still being used.  They've done it often.
Backward compatibility?  Please.  They could maintain it by having glue
code, but they don't.


>>>> If I want to find a file, I use the find(1) command.  If I'm looking for
>>>> content in the file, I use grep(1).  WTF do I need Spotlight for??
>>>
>>> Spotlight finds many things that are not files, and find and grep are
>>> not only *much* slower in comparison, but also won't find items that
>>> aren't in the specified search path. You may not appreciate these
>>> advantages, but don't expect me to dismiss them.
>>
>> This is UNIX.
>
> No, it's UNIX on steroids.

It's BSD UNIX, stop with the bullshit.


>> You some kind of heretic, saying there are things which
>> aren't files??  Everything's a file!
>
> Nope, file systems aren't the epitome of computing as you apparently
> wish they were. Better things are here, and you're stuck in the past.

Such as?


>> Anyway, they might be slower
>
> Glad you admit it. It's 100% true.
>
>> but find(1) and grep(1) do not require siphoning system resources
>
> Most of us notice no significant resource hit for using Spotlight.

I do.  I sometimes use applications which need every bit of resources,
and when mds fires up, it's definitely noticable.  Or do you not use
things like Photoshop, World of Warcraft, or other games and highly
CPU-bound software?


>> I use it maybe a few times a year.  Major waste of my time, it is,
>
> Only for you. The rest of us enjoy using it frequently.

Good for you.


> Sure you do. And I'm sure by disabling it you actually use those
> mystical "missing" resources... : )

See above.  It might be helpful if I were to upgrade my hardware, but
until that's an option, I've got what I've got, and Apple makes them
less and less upgradable every few years.  IMHO, the best notebook
machine they've ever made was the Wallstreet 2.


>> but it's done by using system resources and disk space when you're not
>> using it.
>
> So is 'locate' and many other utilities. You don't get to pretend
> indexing is somehow limited to Spotlight. 

Ah, there's more doing this.  Great.  :-(  Now I get to hunt down these
utilities and disable them.  My position is not limited to Spotlight. 
The computer is mine, and should be tunable to what I need it for. 
Other CPU and I/O suckers should be disable-able.

> And are *much* less efficient as a result, yes. : )

Nope, I don't agree with your thesis.  They do all their work when
they're needed, and do not suck resources when they're not in use.  The
others do, even when their results are never used.  So, which is more
efficient, again?  I must've misheard you.


> Then next time you make a statement like "Spotlight-related anything is
> unimportant and irrelevant", you should qualify it with "for me". : )

And include things like locate(1), yes.


> 100% relevant since most people who use OS X are using a GUI-driven
> interface.

And those of us who use GUI at times, and always have Terminal open,
have another point of view.  Terminal is the main benefit of Mac OS X. 
Windows has nothing like it, as the DOS prompt, while useful, is
proprietary.


> Very simple: Your blanket statement should be qualified with "for me",
> since it does not apply to the rest of us. : )

You don't use Terminal much?
0
Howard
12/27/2015 7:17:42 AM
On 2015-12-27, Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnn7u7gj.qqs.howard@foxtrot.local>,
>  Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:

>> I must've missed the point of your argument, then.  Perhaps you could
>> summarize your thesis?
>
> I don't know if it's relevant but if you use Time Machine, I don't know 
> if the file system monitor that watches all the file system 
> modifications is tied to Spotlight.  Why is this important?
>
> Stand Along Backup (and ufsbackup) walked the VMS and UFS filesystems at 
> the time they ran to produce a backup of the files that fit the profile 
> of files you wanted backed up (incremental, differential, or full).  
> Then marked the files as backed up when completed in the case of VMS and 
> updated /etc/dumpdates for Solaris.  I've only ever done rsync backups 
> with Linux, so I can't speak to that.
>
> BUT.  BUT, if Spotlight is part of this mess, your Time Machine won't 
> know what's been backed up since the last backup.  I think fseventd does 
> the heavy lifting.

I'm not sure.  What I *am* sure about is that when, on the rare occasion
I need to restore something, I try Time Machine first.  The restore task
generally doesn't work well, so I have to go dig in the TM disk for the
backup I'm interested in and restore the file(s) myself.  When that
doesn't work, which happens occasionally when the file system is
corrupt, I use one of my other backups.


> If you don't want Spotlight running, disable it from the System 
> Preferences.  Or disable the launchd script to ensure it's turned off.  
> Since it's offically part of Mac OS, Apple has every right to reenable 
> it when the system is updated.  So after each update, check that 
> Spotlight is disabled.
>
> Don't want to bother?  Write a Puppet model to capture your system 
> configuration and restore it after you upgrade.  You want stable, you're 
> a big boy.  Stop whining and fix it yourself.

If I had the option, I'd delete everything from the OS which VMS would
have considered a layered product, like such things as GarageBand and
Photos, the last of which interferes with my process when loading up
photo images to the system.  I *might* keep iTunes, but I'd likely be
able to find something more efficient without the onerous license
agreement Apple provides.
0
Howard
12/27/2015 7:46:25 AM
On 2015-12-26, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
> On 12-24-2015 17:29, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>> What I was thinking of was the md5sum command.  First, you generate a
>
> On my 10.11.2, 'md5sum' is not in my path.
>
> 'md5' is but it doesn't have a -c option.

Yes, it turns out that md5sum isn't on Mac OS X, at least by default. 
Try shasum(1) instead.
0
Howard
12/27/2015 7:55:31 AM
On 2015-12-27, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
> On 12-26-2015 17:45, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>> end of their career and don't need to be ready for the future.  At least
>> use C instead of MACRO-11!!
>
> PLEASE don't promote one of the most error-prone languages ever!

The language isn't error-prone.  The users might be.  I've gotten very
good results using it.  And compared to MACRO-11??  Please.
0
Howard
12/27/2015 7:57:14 AM
On 2015-12-27, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2015-12-26, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-25, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> In message <slrnn7p0a3.ocu.howard@foxtrot.local> 
>>>   Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>> If I want to find a file, I use the find(1) command.  If I'm looking for
>>>> content in the file, I use grep(1).  WTF do I need Spotlight for??
>>>
>>> Running a grep -ir over your entire file system would take many hours.
>>> Over my filesystem it would take *days*.
>>>
>>> find and grep are great tools, but for searching through millions of
>>> files they are woefully inadequate.
>>
>> Do you often have NO idea where something is?
>
> Irrelevant. If I can find what I am looking for in a matter of a second
> or two without having to specify where it is, I'll gladly do it.

My experience with Spotlight is more akin to that of Happy Hobo than to
yours.
0
Howard
12/27/2015 7:58:58 AM
In article <slrnn7v44m.r9h.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
<howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> >> They were great back in the day, but now they're way past their "use
> >> by" date.
> >
> > Bullshit. They excel in many areas, as they always have. Let me know
> > when you can duplicate Continuity on your pitiful Linux box. *crickets
> > chirping* ; )
> 
> What do you mean by "continuity"? 

continuity and handoff allow a user to start working on a mac and
continue working on an idevice or vice versa. it has nothing to do with
backwards compatibility, which apple goes well out of its way to
maintain, such as classic and rosetta. with the former, apps written in
1984 ran on osx 20 years later.

> If you mean backwards compatibility,
> I'm using slrn for USENET because Apple broke Open Transport and
> therefore MT-Newswatcher, which beats slrn all hollow.  

open transport was deprecated a long time ago and apps that used it had
plenty of opportunity to update. some did and others didn't. it's not
apple's fault that developers didn't bother.

> They toss out
> APIs without consideration for those who are using them.  Without
> consideration for the possability that the software involved is no
> longer being maintained but is still being used. 

why should apple give a shit about apps if the developers of those apps
have abandoned them? 

> They've done it often.
> Backward compatibility?  Please.  They could maintain it by having glue
> code, but they don't.

definitely not.

> >>>> If I want to find a file, I use the find(1) command.  If I'm looking for
> >>>> content in the file, I use grep(1).  WTF do I need Spotlight for??
> >>>
> >>> Spotlight finds many things that are not files, and find and grep are
> >>> not only *much* slower in comparison, but also won't find items that
> >>> aren't in the specified search path. You may not appreciate these
> >>> advantages, but don't expect me to dismiss them.
> >>
> >> This is UNIX.
> >
> > No, it's UNIX on steroids.
> 
> It's BSD UNIX, stop with the bullshit.

it's much, much, much more than bsd unix.


> 
> > Sure you do. And I'm sure by disabling it you actually use those
> > mystical "missing" resources... : )
> 
> See above.  It might be helpful if I were to upgrade my hardware, but
> until that's an option, I've got what I've got, and Apple makes them
> less and less upgradable every few years. 

the vast majority of users do not upgrade the hardware. they want thin
and light.

> IMHO, the best notebook
> machine they've ever made was the Wallstreet 2.

definitely not. wallstreet was big, heavy, had heat and reliability
issues and also lacked usb and firewire, which came later. if you liked
that style of laptop, a pismo would be the one to get. 

the best laptop they've made is either the retina macbook for
portability or the retina macbook pro for power.
0
nospam
12/27/2015 11:03:28 AM
In article <slrnn7v6ep.r9h.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
<howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> >> end of their career and don't need to be ready for the future.  At least
> >> use C instead of MACRO-11!!
> >
> > PLEASE don't promote one of the most error-prone languages ever!
> 
> The language isn't error-prone.  The users might be.  I've gotten very
> good results using it.  And compared to MACRO-11??  Please.

c is very error prone because it lets programmers do stupid shit
without warning.

better languages prevent common (and no so common) mistakes, or at
least warn programmers that what they're doing may have undesirable
consequences.
0
nospam
12/27/2015 11:03:29 AM
On 2015-12-24 18:35, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-24, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Spotlight-related anything is unimportant and irrelevant,
>>> unless you enjoy useless CPU and I/O drains.
>>
>> Nonsense. I find Spotlight extremely useful.
>
> I don't.  I find it to be a drain of system resources, to attach disks
> which don't need indexing, and the whole concept is bogus to me, yet there's
> no apparent way to turn it off or kill it in such a way that it'll stay dead.

See spotlight privacy settings.

>
> If I want to find a file, I use the find(1) command.  If I'm looking for
> content in the file, I use grep(1).  WTF do I need Spotlight for??

Speed and simplicity.

>
> The whole point of Mac OS X is that things like this can be done
> efficiently in whichever interface is more appropriate to them.  Using a
> GUI for this is silly, at best.  Why have a UNIX shell available if you're
> not going to use it when you should?

If I'm not mistaken, Find (in Finder) uses the same databases as 
Spotlight in any case.  Spotlight is just a means to accessing the 
search with a layer of more clever search over it.

You can use "Privacy" settings to avoid searching folders or volumes if 
you like.

The purpose of GUI's is to simplify things for anyone accessing a 
function.  There is no glory, glamor or heroism in avoiding them if they 
do things more efficiently.  Finding a .pdf doc with Finder or Spotlight 
shows me the doc, I select it and pdf viewer is lauched.  This is far 
quicker and efficient than using the find and open commands.

Indeed I launch many programs using Spotlight: CMD-Spacebar, start 
typing the name of the app.  Often 1 or 2 chars is all that is needed.

Find? Seriously.  It's not 1990 anymore.



-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/27/2015 2:26:00 PM
On 2015-12-26 22:46, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-12-26, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-25, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> In message <slrnn7p0a3.ocu.howard@foxtrot.local>
>>>    Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>> If I want to find a file, I use the find(1) command.  If I'm looking for
>>>> content in the file, I use grep(1).  WTF do I need Spotlight for??
>>>
>>> Running a grep -ir over your entire file system would take many hours.
>>> Over my filesystem it would take *days*.
>>>
>>> find and grep are great tools, but for searching through millions of
>>> files they are woefully inadequate.
>>
>> Do you often have NO idea where something is?
>
> Irrelevant. If I can find what I am looking for in a matter of a second
> or two without having to specify where it is, I'll gladly do it.

My sole complaint with Spotlight is it doesn't show the full path of the 
found file.  In some cases this is an issue because I might 
inadvertently load an older version of the file.
eg:   y/b/c/name rather than x/b/c/name

That's not a very common case so not too much worry.  If I'm not sure 
there's always Finder's Search.

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/27/2015 3:55:42 PM
On 2015-12-26 18:46, Happy.Hobo wrote:
> On 12-24-2015 17:35, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>> I don't.  I find [spotlight] to be a drain of system resources, to
>> attach disks
>> which don't need indexing, and the whole concept is bogus to me, yet
>> there's
>> no apparent way to turn it off or kill it in such a way that it'll
>> stay dead.
>
> Not to mention that while failing to find what I want, it will tell me
> how many zillions of similar things I have on my backup disk and in Mail
> attachments and MobileBackups and �

Privacy settings can be used to lock out those from the dB.
>
>> If I want to find a file, I use the find(1) command.  If I'm looking for
>> content in the file, I use grep(1).  WTF do I need Spotlight for??

Convenience, speed, efficiency.

Both you and Howard seem to have forgotten that the computer is there to 
serve you and not the reverse.

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/27/2015 3:57:31 PM
On 2015-12-26 18:43, Happy.Hobo wrote:
> On 12-24-2015 09:41, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Spotlight-related anything is unimportant and irrelevant,
>>> unless you enjoy useless CPU and I/O drains.
>>
>> Nonsense. I find Spotlight extremely useful.
>
> I find it useful occasionally.  But most of the time, it fails to find
> files that I know exist.  I have to go to shell and 'find'
>

You'd be better served, when Spotlight fails to locate what you want, to 
use CMD-F in a Finder window.  Far more context for the search can be 
added easily (eg: content of the file or simply filename).

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/27/2015 3:58:58 PM
On 2015-12-27 02:46, Howard S Shubs wrote:

> I *might* keep iTunes, but I'd likely be
> able to find something more efficient without the onerous license
> agreement Apple provides.

Yes, it's very, very expensive.  I hear you.


-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/27/2015 4:00:23 PM
On 2015-12-27 02:46, Howard S Shubs wrote:

> If I had the option, I'd delete everything from the OS which VMS would
> have considered a layered product,

You seem to have dismissed the notion that computers are there to serve 
us and not the reverse.  Computers today are immensely powerful v. even 
10 years ago.  Disks are huge, memory is huge and fast, processors are 
multi-core blazing monsters.  Let them do the work for you.

> Photos, the last of which interferes with my process when loading up
> photo images to the system.

	Easy to prevent - see the checkbox in Photos.
	No more interference.  (I wish it were a pref, however)


-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/27/2015 4:03:40 PM
In message <slrnn7u7gj.qqs.howard@foxtrot.local> 
  Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> I really wish Linux was ready for general desktop use,

Next year is the year of Desktop Linux.
No, really. Next year, for sure. Why are you laughing? I mean it, next
year will be the year. This time for sure.

<Bwahahahahaha>

Hint: Linux will *never* be ready for general desktop use. *Never*.

>> Spotlight finds many things that are not files, and find and grep are
>> not only *much* slower in comparison, but also won't find items that
>> aren't in the specified search path. You may not appreciate these
>> advantages, but don't expect me to dismiss them.

> This is UNIX.  You some kind of heretic, saying there are things which
> aren't files??  Everything's a file!

No, many things are not files.

-- 
Please to meet you, Rose. Now run for your life!
0
Lewis
12/27/2015 4:42:50 PM
Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-27, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> 
>> It's relevant when you don't qualify your statement that
>> "Spotlight-related anything is unimportant and irrelevant" with "for
>> me", implying that it's unimportant and irrelevant for all people. Since
>> you don't speak for the rest of us, that is a lie. So be sure to do that
>> next time if that's what you really mean. ; )
> 
> I'm glad you added that smiley.  But you still have a point.  I tend, as
> I suspect many of us here might, to speak from the point of view of
> someone with long and fairly deep computer science knowledge, or at
> least awareness.  The point of view of those who don't have that
> background doesn't occur to me.

Background is irrelevant. Spotlight can be useful to those of us with
extensive knowledge and experience as well. I've worked with computers
since the mid 80s, and have worked in the professional software field for
20+ years, and I find it useful.

>> You simply add it to the exclusion list. Not a big deal.
> 
> It shouldn't need to be done every freaking time, if the utility is
> intended for minimal interaction.  

It doesn't need to be done at all for most of us who aren't obsessed with
disabling it.

There have been only a handful of times since the initial introduction of
Spotlight that I recall it malfunctioning and using too much CPU. It's just
not a common problem in reality. And if I connect a volume that hasn't ever
been indexed for a few minutes and Spotlight doesn't get to finish indexing
it before I eject it, no harm is done. It's just not a big deal.

>> Nah. You don't have anywhere near the same flexibility with file-based
>> searches. It's not limited to mail etc - those were simply examples.
>> Nice try, but no cigar.
> 
> I suppose that could be true, but it's not.  If I want to search mail
> messages, I limit the search domain by using my e-mail client
> (Mailsmith)

Hate to break it to you, but Mailsmith uses Spotlight to index and search
your mail. ; )

> just as when searching for a file in my home directory or
> for a configuration file in /private.  In a sense, the "indexing" is
> done in my head, where I know where I put things, or where they should
> be.

Limited file search has limited uses. But if I have a directory of
documents including PDF, rich text, HTML, and so on, and I want to quickly
see any document that mentions a particular topic, technology, tool,
whatever, it's almost always faster in practice to search using Spotlight
than using an iterative search tool on the command line. Use the best tool
for the job - often that tool is Spotlight in practice.

>> It's more about convenience and efficiency than "laziness". Remember:
>> computers should work for us - not the other way around.
> 
> But since they don't...  

Arguable.

> As I said before, the other side of
> "convenience and efficiency", where I really think that last word is not
> appropriate, is at the cost of storage for the index 

And what percentage of space does Spotlight index take in this day of many
gigabytes or even terabytes of storage space?

> and processing time
> and I/O bandwidth to keep it up to date.  

How much CPU do you think Spotlight takes on a daily basis? I don't find
that it prevents me from doing anything I want with my CPU, nor is it even
a significant blip on the radar most of the time. The Meds processes don't
consume isles of CPU on a regular basis on any of the machines I work with.

> I'm not willing to provide
> that for this utility.

So disable it completely.

>>> Will that really work, or will Apple, in its infinite wisdom, re-enable
>>> it at the next minor update?
>> 
>> *shrug* I care not. You're the one with the silly obsession.
> 
> Uh huh.  I'm afraid I asked *you* the question.

Does it work? Yes, reportedly. Will it last through a minor update?
Probably. 

> I think
> Mac OS X has been going downhill for several years, since Mac OS X 10.7.

In some ways, but in other ways, it has improved drastically. Nothing is
perfect. And OS X has outdone Linux as a desktop OS consistently for many
years. 

> Unfortunately, the only other viable option is Windows, which HAD been
> improving until W8, but there it is.

Windows still uses the fucking registry. DLL hell is still a thing after
all these years. And if you care about not being spied on, Windows is one
of your last good choices. Enough said. It's effectively gone nowhere in
many respects, and has nose dived in others.

> My position is that Linux needs to save the day, but without the
> cooperation of major software houses, it has no real chance on the
> desktop.

Linux on the desktop is a non-starter for anyone who wants their desktop to
work well for them. It's terrific at running services, but shitty at
desktop stuff. That doesn't change much over the years due to the lack of
focus in the Linux community. OS X is the desktop OS Linux wishes it was.

>>> with companies like Microsoft and Adobe producing their
>>> bread-and-butter software for it.
>> 
>> Dream on. Linux will likely always be in the back seat by design. OS X
>> is king - like it or not.
> 
> Tell it to Microsoft.  I prefer Mac OS X to Windows, but it's getting to
> be a nearer thing all the time.  If Windows had a good UNIX-like shell
> available, which it doesn't, it might be something I'd consider.

No thanks. Even with Cygwin, it's still just as shitty a desktop OS.

>>> I'd drop Apple like a rotten fruit.
>> 
>> Go right on ahead. We (nor Apple) will miss the likes of you.
> 
> You'd not miss me even a little?  I'm hurt.

That was said somewhat jokingly, but you should know Apple really won't
miss you much. ; )

>> Let me know
>> when you can duplicate Continuity on your pitiful Linux box. *crickets
>> chirping* ; )
> 
> What do you mean by "continuity"?  If you mean backwards compatibility,
> I'm using slrn for USENET because Apple broke Open Transport and
> therefore MT-Newswatcher, which beats slrn all hollow.  They toss out
> APIs without consideration for those who are using them.  Without
> consideration for the possability that the software involved is no
> longer being maintained but is still being used.  They've done it often.
> Backward compatibility?  Please.  They could maintain it by having glue
> code, but they don't.

Uh huh. There's a shining example of how bullheadedly maintaining backward
compatibility no matter what can stifle real progress of an operating
system. It's called Windows. No thanks. 

Open Transport was introduced way back in 1995 in classic Mac OS (System
7.5.2). It was deprecated in 2004 and finally ended 10 years later. So
developers had a literal decade to update their applications to newer
socket APIs that replaced Open Transport and were in use by most UNIX-like
operating systems.

But that's not even what I meant when I said Continuity. What I was talking
about is an extremely useful set of technologies in recent versions of OS X
called "Continuity" that is largely unmatched in other mainstream desktop
operating systems - especially Linux:

<https://www.apple.com/osx/continuity/>

In practice it is *incredibly* useful and works very well. Interesting that
you aren't aware of it.

>>> This is UNIX.
>> 
>> No, it's UNIX on steroids.
> 
> It's BSD UNIX, stop with the bullshit.

No, OS X is much more than just the core UNIX layer.

>> Nope, file systems aren't the epitome of computing as you apparently
>> wish they were. Better things are here.
> 
> Such as?

Databases, for one.

>> Most of us notice no significant resource hit for using Spotlight.
> 
> I do.  

How much? Can you even quantify it? Doubt it.

> I sometimes use applications which need every bit of resources,
> and when mds fires up, it's definitely noticable.  Or do you not use
> things like Photoshop, World of Warcraft, or other games and highly
> CPU-bound software?

Actually I do, regularly, and Spotlight process CPU utilization doesn't
impact them in any significant manner. That includes fast-paced 3D rendered
FPS games, too.

>> Sure you do. And I'm sure by disabling it you actually use those
>> mystical "missing" resources... : )
> 
> See above.  

Quantify it please. I'm genuinely interested, because I see no significant
hit.

> It might be helpful if I were to upgrade my hardware, but
> until that's an option, I've got what I've got, and Apple makes them
> less and less upgradable every few years.  IMHO, the best notebook
> machine they've ever made was the Wallstreet 2.

It sounds almost like your real resource problem isn't as much due to
Spotlight in particular as it is using outdated hardware to run modern OS
versions...

>> So is 'locate' and many other utilities. You don't get to pretend
>> indexing is somehow limited to Spotlight. 
> 
> Ah, there's more doing this.  Great.  :-(  Now I get to hunt down these
> utilities and disable them.  My position is not limited to Spotlight. 

It sounds like your real problem is expecting to be able to run modern
versions of operating systems on slow and resource constrained hardware.

> The computer is mine, and should be tunable to what I need it for. 

How is it not?

> Other CPU and I/O suckers should be disable-able.

They are, at the detriment of usability. You can't have it both ways.

>> And are *much* less efficient as a result, yes. : )
> 
> Nope, I don't agree with your thesis.  They do all their work when
> they're needed, and do not suck resources when they're not in use.  The
> others do, even when their results are never used.  So, which is more
> efficient, again?  I must've misheard you.

Finding what I need in a second or three with Spotlight will *always* be
more efficient to me than waiting a few minutes while find or grep churns
away. On a desktop OS, efficiency of usability is very important.

>> 100% relevant since most people who use OS X are using a GUI-driven
>> interface.
> 
> And those of us who use GUI at times, and always have Terminal open,
> have another point of view.  

I always have a terminal window open. So that's irrelevant.

> Terminal is the main benefit of Mac OS X. 

Nope. Not by a long shot. If that's all you want, you should feel at home
with Linux.

> Windows has nothing like it, as the DOS prompt, while useful, is
> proprietary.

Windows sucks.

>> Very simple: Your blanket statement should be qualified with "for me",
>> since it does not apply to the rest of us. : )
> 
> You don't use Terminal much?

All day, every day, actually.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/27/2015 6:07:36 PM
On 2015-12-27, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-27, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Irrelevant. If I can find what I am looking for in a matter of a second
>> or two without having to specify where it is, I'll gladly do it.
>
> My experience with Spotlight is more akin to that of Happy Hobo than to
> yours.

It doesn't sound like you use Spotlight very much at all. So how much
experience can you realistically have with it versus someone who uses it
frequently?

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/27/2015 6:15:18 PM
On 2015-12-27, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnn7v44m.r9h.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
><howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>
>> They toss out APIs without consideration for those who are using
>> them.  Without consideration for the possability that the software
>> involved is no longer being maintained but is still being used. 
>
> why should apple give a shit about apps if the developers of those apps
> have abandoned them? 

Great point.

>> They've done it often.  Backward compatibility?  Please.  They could
>> maintain it by having glue code, but they don't.
>
> definitely not.

Yes, and the fact is Apple *did* maintain Open Transport support from
the mid 1990s onward, after sockets were in more common use across the
entire industry, and also supported it for a decade after it was
deprecated back in 2005 or whatever it was. Open Transport enjoyed a
long life of backward compatibility. 

>>> Sure you do. And I'm sure by disabling it you actually use those
>>> mystical "missing" resources... : )
>> 
>> See above.  It might be helpful if I were to upgrade my hardware, but
>> until that's an option, I've got what I've got, and Apple makes them
>> less and less upgradable every few years. 
>
> the vast majority of users do not upgrade the hardware. they want thin
> and light.

I think he means "replacing outdated hardware with newer and more capable
hardware". Seems like he may be using very old hardware with limited
resources compared with today's machines.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/27/2015 6:22:15 PM
On 2015-12-27, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-12-26 22:46, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>> Irrelevant. If I can find what I am looking for in a matter of a second
>> or two without having to specify where it is, I'll gladly do it.
>
> My sole complaint with Spotlight is it doesn't show the full path of the 
> found file.  In some cases this is an issue because I might 
> inadvertently load an older version of the file.
> eg:   y/b/c/name rather than x/b/c/name
>
> That's not a very common case so not too much worry.  If I'm not sure 
> there's always Finder's Search.

If you hold down the Command key, you should see the path at the bottom
of the search window. It's not a POSIX style path, but it's a path
nonetheless.

That said, I've got my own complaints about Spotlight, that I won't
bother recalling at the moment. Nothing's perfect, but I do very often
find it more useful than command-line search utilities.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/27/2015 6:27:24 PM
On 2015-12-27, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>
>> As I said before, the other side of "convenience and efficiency",
>> where I really think that last word is not appropriate, is at the
>> cost of storage for the index 
>
> And what percentage of space does Spotlight index take in this day of
> many gigabytes or even terabytes of storage space?

Example: On the 500 GB startup volume of my Mac Pro, the
/.Spotlight-V100 index directory uses 2 GB of space. 

That's 0.4% of my total storage space - it's just not an issue.

>> and processing time and I/O bandwidth to keep it up to date.  
>
> How much CPU do you think Spotlight takes on a daily basis? I don't
> find that it prevents me from doing anything I want with my CPU, nor
> is it even a significant blip on the radar most of the time. The Meds
> processes don't consume isles of CPU on a regular basis on any of the
> machines I work with.

Another example: This is how much CPU Spotlight typically uses on my
machines:

<http://i.imgur.com/zmCiDku.png>

Again, it's just not an issue.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/27/2015 6:37:43 PM
In message <deann8FolrgU1@mid.individual.net> 
  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> And what percentage of space does Spotlight index take in this day of many
> gigabytes or even terabytes of storage space?

Well, on my laptop it is using 2.7GB of the 250GB SSD. For the math
challenged, that is 1%. On the 3TB fusion iMac, spotlight is using
3.5GB, or a bit over 0.1%.

>> and processing time
>> and I/O bandwidth to keep it up to date.  

> How much CPU do you think Spotlight takes on a daily basis? I don't find
> that it prevents me from doing anything I want with my CPU, nor is it even
> a significant blip on the radar most of the time. The Meds processes don't
> consume isles of CPU on a regular basis on any of the machines I work with.

Once the initial indexing is done, spotlight is completely invisible
95%+ of the time. I HAVE had it get into a state where it ate up the CPU
on idle, and once of twice I've had to reset its database.

Frankly, I've had more issues with Time Machine than I've ever had with
Spotlight, and I've had precious few problems with Time Machine.

on my laptop mds and mds_stores and mdworker combine for between 0.1% of
the CPU and 2% of the CPU as I watch them. They are usually under 0.5%.

That is to say, the "resources' they consume are completely ephemeral
and not enough to impact anything at all.

They consume far less of the CPU on my iMac.

-- 
And, btw, my face cannot go blue because I have no face, I am not like that...
 --Dorayme, in a fit of nonsensical drivel
0
Lewis
12/27/2015 10:59:01 PM
On 2015-12-27 11:42, Lewis wrote:
> In message <slrnn7u7gj.qqs.howard@foxtrot.local>
>    Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> I really wish Linux was ready for general desktop use,
>
> Next year is the year of Desktop Linux.

Applause!



-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/27/2015 11:04:54 PM
On 2015-12-27 13:27, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-12-27, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-26 22:46, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. If I can find what I am looking for in a matter of a second
>>> or two without having to specify where it is, I'll gladly do it.
>>
>> My sole complaint with Spotlight is it doesn't show the full path of the
>> found file.  In some cases this is an issue because I might
>> inadvertently load an older version of the file.
>> eg:   y/b/c/name rather than x/b/c/name
>>
>> That's not a very common case so not too much worry.  If I'm not sure
>> there's always Finder's Search.
>
> If you hold down the Command key, you should see the path at the bottom
> of the search window. It's not a POSIX style path, but it's a path
> nonetheless.

Doh!  I had held down the option key and the command key (separately) 
and looked at the bottom of the left panel since that's where the file 
names are shown ...

CMD: there's what I want at the bottom of the right panel.

Thanks!

>
> That said, I've got my own complaints about Spotlight, that I won't
> bother recalling at the moment. Nothing's perfect, but I do very often
> find it more useful than command-line search utilities.

Hell yes.


-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/27/2015 11:08:11 PM
On 2015-12-26 18:09, Howard S Shubs wrote:

> This is UNIX.  You some kind of heretic, saying there are things which
> aren't files??  Everything's a file!

1990 says "hi".

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/27/2015 11:10:15 PM
On 2015-12-26 18:42, Happy.Hobo wrote:
> On 12-24-2015 17:29, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>> What I was thinking of was the md5sum command.  First, you generate a
>
> On my 10.11.2, 'md5sum' is not in my path.
>
> 'md5' is but it doesn't have a -c option.

md5 is on my mac.   But I might have put it there a long time ago in an 
OS version far, far away.


-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/27/2015 11:49:05 PM
On 2015-12-26 18:38, Happy.Hobo wrote:
> On 12-24-2015 23:23, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <slrnn7p048.ocu.howard@foxtrot.local>
>>    Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>> According to the md5sum man page, it's better to use a SHA-based utility
>>> instead.  They exist as sha224sum(1), sha256sum(1), sha384sum(1),
>>> sha512sum(1).  I don't know how fast these are, relatively speaking,
>>> with md5sum.
>>
>> SHA is better because md5 is subject to collisions. It's not very
>> likely, but it can happen, especially if a file is crafted to collide.
>>
>> shasum -a 224 -b is several times slower than md5.
>
> For 1.2 GB tarfile on internal SSD, that command took 8.453 seconds.
>
> 'md5' took 3.433 seconds, 'sum' took 2.335 seconds
>
> Slower, but not "several times"

What order did you do that?

It may simply be that the file was in ram cache for the 2nd and 3rd 
passes.  Yes, even over 1.x GB.  Or even just a large chunk of the file.


-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/27/2015 11:50:43 PM
In article <slrnn7v5qh.r9h.howard@foxtrot.local>,
 Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> On 2015-12-27, Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> > In article <slrnn7u7gj.qqs.howard@foxtrot.local>,
> >  Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> 
> >> I must've missed the point of your argument, then.  Perhaps you could
> >> summarize your thesis?
> >
> > I don't know if it's relevant but if you use Time Machine, I don't know 
> > if the file system monitor that watches all the file system 
> > modifications is tied to Spotlight.  Why is this important?
> >
> > Stand Along Backup (and ufsbackup) walked the VMS and UFS filesystems at 
> > the time they ran to produce a backup of the files that fit the profile 
> > of files you wanted backed up (incremental, differential, or full).  
> > Then marked the files as backed up when completed in the case of VMS and 
> > updated /etc/dumpdates for Solaris.  I've only ever done rsync backups 
> > with Linux, so I can't speak to that.
> >
> > BUT.  BUT, if Spotlight is part of this mess, your Time Machine won't 
> > know what's been backed up since the last backup.  I think fseventd does 
> > the heavy lifting.
> 
> I'm not sure.  What I *am* sure about is that when, on the rare occasion
> I need to restore something, I try Time Machine first.  The restore task
> generally doesn't work well, so I have to go dig in the TM disk for the
> backup I'm interested in and restore the file(s) myself.  When that
> doesn't work, which happens occasionally when the file system is
> corrupt, I use one of my other backups.
> 
> 
> > If you don't want Spotlight running, disable it from the System 
> > Preferences.  Or disable the launchd script to ensure it's turned off.  
> > Since it's offically part of Mac OS, Apple has every right to reenable 
> > it when the system is updated.  So after each update, check that 
> > Spotlight is disabled.
> >
> > Don't want to bother?  Write a Puppet model to capture your system 
> > configuration and restore it after you upgrade.  You want stable, you're 
> > a big boy.  Stop whining and fix it yourself.
> 
> If I had the option, I'd delete everything from the OS which VMS would
> have considered a layered product, like such things as GarageBand and
> Photos, the last of which interferes with my process when loading up
> photo images to the system.  I *might* keep iTunes, but I'd likely be
> able to find something more efficient without the onerous license
> agreement Apple provides.

I don't have GarageBand or Photos on my machine.  I never installed them 
(they weren't installed when I bought the machine). I only marginally 
use iPhoto but I do use iTunes regularly and would miss it.

Puppet apparently can configure and maintain MacOS, Linux, and Windows.  
Why not build a model, save it to github and use it to restore your 
system after every update?

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]


0
Michael
12/28/2015 12:41:46 AM
On 2015-12-28 10:15, Nelson wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 18:08:11 -0500, Alan Browne wrote
> (in article <Pb6dnXNbo8HG8h3LnZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>):
>
>> Doh!  I had held down the option key and the command key (separately) and
>> looked at the bottom of the left panel since that's where the file names are
>> shown ...
>
> I don't see anything when I hold down either or both.  All I see is a
> popup if I hover the mouse pointer over  one of the found items.

When you have a list in Spotlight highlight a file in the list (make it 
blue).  Then hold the CMD key down.  At the bottom of the right panel in 
Spotlight you'll see the path - not copyable but at least you'll know 
where the file is.

I've been playing with this - and I note that it doesn't always show the 
path.  eg: some pdf's it shows, others not.  It does seem consistent for 
folders.

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/28/2015 1:01:01 AM
On 2015-12-28, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-27, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> This is UNIX.  You some kind of heretic, saying there are things which
>>> aren't files??  Everything's a file!
>>
>> No, many things are not files.
>
> Heretic.

Let us know when you can find all photos with your mom's face in them
within 2-3 seconds. Plenty other examples of how file system paradigm
pales in comparison with more modern techniques are available on
request.  : )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/28/2015 1:01:01 AM
isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:
> In article <deaoscFokvrU3@mid.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-12-27, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-26 22:46, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Irrelevant. If I can find what I am looking for in a matter of a second
>>>> or two without having to specify where it is, I'll gladly do it.
>>> 
>>> My sole complaint with Spotlight is it doesn't show the full path of the 
>>> found file.  In some cases this is an issue because I might 
>>> inadvertently load an older version of the file.
>>> eg:   y/b/c/name rather than x/b/c/name
>>> 
>>> That's not a very common case so not too much worry.  If I'm not sure 
>>> there's always Finder's Search.
>> 
>> If you hold down the Command key, you should see the path at the bottom
>> of the search window. It's not a POSIX style path, but it's a path
>> nonetheless.
> 
> If you do Menu/View/Show Path Bar, the path is there all the time and 
> you don't need to hold down Command. 

That effects Finder windows, but not the Spotlight search window, which is
what Alan is talking about.

> Then, after a Spotlight search, 
> just click on the file you want to know about and there's its path.

Sure, but what Alan wanted was to see the paths of items in the Spotlight
search window.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/28/2015 1:01:01 AM
On 2015-12-27, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnn7v44m.r9h.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
><howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>
>> >> They were great back in the day, but now they're way past their "use
>> >> by" date.
>> >
>> > Bullshit. They excel in many areas, as they always have. Let me know
>> > when you can duplicate Continuity on your pitiful Linux box. *crickets
>> > chirping* ; )
>> 
>> What do you mean by "continuity"? 
>
> continuity and handoff allow a user to start working on a mac and
> continue working on an idevice or vice versa. it has nothing to do with
> backwards compatibility, which apple goes well out of its way to
> maintain, such as classic and rosetta. with the former, apps written in
> 1984 ran on osx 20 years later.

Okay, continuity isn't an issue for me, since I only have the one Apple product.

Yes, they supported those apps for years.  Then they broke them.


>> IMHO, the best notebook
>> machine they've ever made was the Wallstreet 2.
>
> definitely not. wallstreet was big, heavy, had heat and reliability
> issues and also lacked usb and firewire, which came later. if you liked
> that style of laptop, a pismo would be the one to get. 

The Wallstreet was very upgradable.  Fantastic stuff.  I upgraded from a
G3 to a G4, upgraded memory, had a number of different plug-in
modules...  It was great.
0
Howard
12/28/2015 1:17:11 AM
On 2015-12-27, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> There have been only a handful of times since the initial introduction of
> Spotlight that I recall it malfunctioning and using too much CPU. It's just
> not a common problem in reality. And if I connect a volume that hasn't ever
> been indexed for a few minutes and Spotlight doesn't get to finish indexing
> it before I eject it, no harm is done. It's just not a big deal.

Except that it prevents you from ejecting the drive, at least at first.


> Hate to break it to you, but Mailsmith uses Spotlight to index and search
> your mail. ; )

You sure about that?  If so, Spotlight is VERY slow.


> Limited file search has limited uses. But if I have a directory of
> documents including PDF, rich text, HTML, and so on, and I want to quickly
> see any document that mentions a particular topic, technology, tool,
> whatever, it's almost always faster in practice to search using Spotlight
> than using an iterative search tool on the command line. Use the best tool
> for the job - often that tool is Spotlight in practice.

I can't imagine needing such a feature.  What it comes down to is the
basic difference of position that I don't want my resources tapped for
something I don't use, and you don't mind such.  There's no argument
either of us can make to change the others' mind.


>>> It's more about convenience and efficiency than "laziness". Remember:
>>> computers should work for us - not the other way around.
>> 
>> But since they don't...  
>
> Arguable.

You have a HAL in your back pocket?  I don't.  Last I looked, computers are
fun, generally useful, and a PITA at times.  Some times, rather more than a
PITA.  OTOH, that keeps some of us employed.


> How much CPU do you think Spotlight takes on a daily basis? I don't find
> that it prevents me from doing anything I want with my CPU, nor is it even
> a significant blip on the radar most of the time. The Meds processes don't
> consume isles of CPU on a regular basis on any of the machines I work with.

And I do find it prevents me.  As I said above, this is not an arguable
position, in the sense that we will not agree.


> Windows still uses the fucking registry. DLL hell is still a thing after
> all these years. And if you care about not being spied on, Windows is one
> of your last good choices. Enough said. It's effectively gone nowhere in
> many respects, and has nose dived in others.

Er, maybe you mis-phrased that?  W10, and backported to W7, is horribly
invasive wrt privacy.


>> Tell it to Microsoft.  I prefer Mac OS X to Windows, but it's getting to
>> be a nearer thing all the time.  If Windows had a good UNIX-like shell
>> available, which it doesn't, it might be something I'd consider.
>
> No thanks. Even with Cygwin, it's still just as shitty a desktop OS.

As I said, a *good* UNIX-like shell.  I specifically said that.  Cygwin
sucks ass.  Always has.


>> You'd not miss me even a little?  I'm hurt.
>
> That was said somewhat jokingly, but you should know Apple really won't
> miss you much. ; )

They won't miss me at all, having already fired me once due to my
attitude last year. There won't be a second chance.  Any subsequent
manager considering hiring me will talk with the first one, and that's
all she wrote.


> In practice it is *incredibly* useful and works very well. Interesting that
> you aren't aware of it.

As I said in a post a few minutes ago, which you won't have seen yet, I
only run one Apple device.  Continuity between my one device and itself
is kind of a non-issue.

I bought an iPhone 5c when I started at Apple, so I could use their
internal apps, but as soon as I left, I went back to my Android phone. 
I sold the 5c to a friend.

>>> Nope, file systems aren't the epitome of computing as you apparently
>>> wish they were. Better things are here.
>> 
>> Such as?
>
> Databases, for one.

Databases are files.


>>> Most of us notice no significant resource hit for using Spotlight.
>> 
>> I do.  
>
> How much? Can you even quantify it? Doubt it.

It's a few percent, but when I need everything I've got, that's
noticeable.  I run Activity Monitor at all times, so I can see such
performance degredation.   Yes, Activity Monitor itself sucks some
power, but it's worth its keep.  I don't find Spotlight does the same.


> Actually I do, regularly, and Spotlight process CPU utilization doesn't
> impact them in any significant manner. That includes fast-paced 3D rendered
> FPS games, too.

Perhaps you're running newer hardware than my mid-2009 MBP?


>> It might be helpful if I were to upgrade my hardware, but
>> until that's an option, I've got what I've got, and Apple makes them
>> less and less upgradable every few years.  IMHO, the best notebook
>> machine they've ever made was the Wallstreet 2.
>
> It sounds almost like your real resource problem isn't as much due to
> Spotlight in particular as it is using outdated hardware to run modern OS
> versions...

Let's just say it makes me sensitive to such issues.


> It sounds like your real problem is expecting to be able to run modern
> versions of operating systems on slow and resource constrained hardware.

I want to run Mac OS X on my SE in 4MiB of memory?  Not quite.


>> Nope, I don't agree with your thesis.  They do all their work when
>> they're needed, and do not suck resources when they're not in use.  The
>> others do, even when their results are never used.  So, which is more
>> efficient, again?  I must've misheard you.
>
> Finding what I need in a second or three with Spotlight will *always* be
> more efficient to me than waiting a few minutes while find or grep churns
> away. On a desktop OS, efficiency of usability is very important.

Thing is, Spotlight rarely works well for me.  Good thing I organize my
system in such a way that I can limit searches to small parts of the
file system.


> Nope. Not by a long shot. If that's all you want, you should feel at home
> with Linux.

I'm still working on that.  Linux doesn't have a good GUI.  I want both.
 The shell interface definitely has its uses, but there are times when a
GUI is more appropriate.


>> Windows has nothing like it, as the DOS prompt, while useful, is
>> proprietary.
>
> Windows sucks.

Windows, therefore, is a great way to make money for those willing to
use it.  If I hadn't made a stupid career decision in 2006, I might
still be one of them, concentrating on Linux and Windows.  I'm trying to
backfill these days.


>>> Very simple: Your blanket statement should be qualified with "for me",
>>> since it does not apply to the rest of us. : )
>> 
>> You don't use Terminal much?
>
> All day, every day, actually.

Then I guess I'm missing why we're arguing.
0
Howard
12/28/2015 1:36:09 AM
On 2015-12-27, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-12-27 02:46, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>
>> If I had the option, I'd delete everything from the OS which VMS would
>> have considered a layered product,
>
> You seem to have dismissed the notion that computers are there to serve 
> us and not the reverse.  Computers today are immensely powerful v. even 
> 10 years ago.  Disks are huge, memory is huge and fast, processors are 
> multi-core blazing monsters.  Let them do the work for you.

Yes, they're much more powerful.  The hardware has improved a lot over
the last 70 years.  But they're still not HAL, and they still require
MUCH more knowledge to use well than they should, even the Mac.


>> Photos, the last of which interferes with my process when loading up
>> photo images to the system.
>
> 	Easy to prevent - see the checkbox in Photos.
> 	No more interference.  (I wish it were a pref, however)

Where is that?  I just did a quick check through the main window, all
the menus, and the prefs.  I saw nothing relevant.
0
Howard
12/28/2015 1:41:42 AM
On 2015-12-27, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnn7v6ep.r9h.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
><howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>
>> >> end of their career and don't need to be ready for the future.  At least
>> >> use C instead of MACRO-11!!
>> >
>> > PLEASE don't promote one of the most error-prone languages ever!
>> 
>> The language isn't error-prone.  The users might be.  I've gotten very
>> good results using it.  And compared to MACRO-11??  Please.
>
> c is very error prone because it lets programmers do stupid shit
> without warning.

If I want to shoot myself in the foot, I should be able to.  If a
programmer has no training in assembly language, I agree she/he
shouldn't be using C.


> better languages prevent common (and no so common) mistakes, or at
> least warn programmers that what they're doing may have undesirable
> consequences.

What's the most recent version of C you've used?
0
Howard
12/28/2015 1:43:30 AM
On 2015-12-27, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2015-12-27, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-27, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. If I can find what I am looking for in a matter of a second
>>> or two without having to specify where it is, I'll gladly do it.
>>
>> My experience with Spotlight is more akin to that of Happy Hobo than to
>> yours.
>
> It doesn't sound like you use Spotlight very much at all. So how much
> experience can you realistically have with it versus someone who uses it
> frequently?

I've given it lots of chances.  I still attempt to use the search box in
Finder windows, and I find that most of the "results" are noise,
drowning out any actual signal.
0
Howard
12/28/2015 1:44:36 AM
On 2015-12-27, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-12-24 18:35, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>> On 2015-12-24, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Spotlight-related anything is unimportant and irrelevant,
>>>> unless you enjoy useless CPU and I/O drains.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. I find Spotlight extremely useful.
>>
>> I don't.  I find it to be a drain of system resources, to attach disks
>> which don't need indexing, and the whole concept is bogus to me, yet there's
>> no apparent way to turn it off or kill it in such a way that it'll stay dead.
>
> See spotlight privacy settings.

That works on specific locations.  And those locations have to have been
available at some point, and they have to be specifically disabled.  I
want OPT-IN, not OPT-OUT.


>> If I want to find a file, I use the find(1) command.  If I'm looking for
>> content in the file, I use grep(1).  WTF do I need Spotlight for??
>
> Speed and simplicity.

If I wanted that, and I do, Spotlight doesn't deliver.  As I said, too
much noise to find the signal.  If I need Spotlight to find the results
I care about in a Spotlight results list, that's not very useful to me.


> If I'm not mistaken, Find (in Finder) uses the same databases as 
> Spotlight in any case.  Spotlight is just a means to accessing the 
> search with a layer of more clever search over it.

I'm pretty sure you're right that Finder uses Spotlight.  What I said
earlier about noise and signal.
0
Howard
12/28/2015 1:47:51 AM
On 2015-12-27, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> Both you and Howard seem to have forgotten that the computer is there to 
> serve you and not the reverse.

No, we're complaining that it doesn't.
0
Howard
12/28/2015 1:49:12 AM
On 2015-12-27, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> This is UNIX.  You some kind of heretic, saying there are things which
>> aren't files??  Everything's a file!
>
> No, many things are not files.

Heretic.
0
Howard
12/28/2015 1:50:00 AM
On 12-27-2015 17:50, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2015-12-26 18:38, Happy.Hobo wrote:
>> On 12-24-2015 23:23, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <slrnn7p048.ocu.howard@foxtrot.local>
>>>    Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>> According to the md5sum man page, it's better to use a SHA-based
>>>> utility
>>>> instead.  They exist as sha224sum(1), sha256sum(1), sha384sum(1),
>>>> sha512sum(1).  I don't know how fast these are, relatively speaking,
>>>> with md5sum.
>>>
>>> SHA is better because md5 is subject to collisions. It's not very
>>> likely, but it can happen, especially if a file is crafted to collide.
>>>
>>> shasum -a 224 -b is several times slower than md5.
>>
>> For 1.2 GB tarfile on internal SSD, that command took 8.453 seconds.
>>
>> 'md5' took 3.433 seconds, 'sum' took 2.335 seconds
>>
>> Slower, but not "several times"
>
> What order did you do that?
>
> It may simply be that the file was in ram cache for the 2nd and 3rd
> passes.  Yes, even over 1.x GB.  Or even just a large chunk of the file.
>
>

Having considered that, I did 'md5' and 'sum'  more than once, 
alternating, and picked the highest for each.  shasum I only did once, 
but it was some time later, so if it had been cached, it probably was no 
longer.
0
Happy
12/28/2015 2:04:22 AM
On 12-27-2015 01:55, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-26, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>> On 12-24-2015 17:29, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>> What I was thinking of was the md5sum command.  First, you generate a
>>
>> On my 10.11.2, 'md5sum' is not in my path.
>>
>> 'md5' is but it doesn't have a -c option.
>
> Yes, it turns out that md5sum isn't on Mac OS X, at least by default.
> Try shasum(1) instead.

'md5' is faster than 'shasum' and 'sum' is faster than either.

0
Happy
12/28/2015 2:06:30 AM
On 12-26-2015 19:55, dorayme wrote:
> In article <n5nfbm$eh4$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
>   "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>
>> And I usually check spotlight first.  When it fails (most of the time)
>
> I'd like to be a fly on the wall seeing why you manage to fail so
> much. Have you used Command_F or that silly and fiddly Q top right of
> the screen? Best to use former. The other facility to use is EasyFind
> for the rare cases of Spotlight being difficult.

Maybe Apple just hates me.  Siri usually fails, too.  :-)

I don't use Cmd-F because that does not invoke spotlight unless you 
first move focus to Finder.

0
Happy
12/28/2015 2:08:45 AM
On 12-27-2015 01:17, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> Tell it to Microsoft.  I prefer Mac OS X to Windows, but it's getting to
> be a nearer thing all the time.  If Windows had a good UNIX-like shell

Well, it WAS until as you said, Windows 8.

And this year, MS takes spyware to a whole new level!
0
Happy
12/28/2015 2:11:05 AM
On 12-27-2015 01:46, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> If I had the option, I'd delete everything from the OS which VMS would
> have considered a layered product, like such things as GarageBand and
> Photos, the last of which interferes with my process when loading up
> photo images to the system.  I*might*  keep iTunes, but I'd likely be
> able to find something more efficient without the onerous license
> agreement Apple provides.

Who told you you can't delete them?  I have removed several 
Apple-bundled apps from my machine.
0
Happy
12/28/2015 2:14:47 AM
Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-27, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> There have been only a handful of times since the initial introduction of
>> Spotlight that I recall it malfunctioning and using too much CPU. It's just
>> not a common problem in reality. And if I connect a volume that hasn't ever
>> been indexed for a few minutes and Spotlight doesn't get to finish indexing
>> it before I eject it, no harm is done. It's just not a big deal.
> 
> Except that it prevents you from ejecting the drive, at least at first.

No it doesn't.

>> Hate to break it to you, but Mailsmith uses Spotlight to index and search
>> your mail. ; )
> 
> You sure about that?  If so, Spotlight is VERY slow.

Moving the goal posts now, are we?

>> Limited file search has limited uses. But if I have a directory of
>> documents including PDF, rich text, HTML, and so on, and I want to quickly
>> see any document that mentions a particular topic, technology, tool,
>> whatever, it's almost always faster in practice to search using Spotlight
>> than using an iterative search tool on the command line. Use the best tool
>> for the job - often that tool is Spotlight in practice.
> 
> I can't imagine needing such a feature.  

You admit you don't use it; so you wouldn't know.

> What it comes down to is the
> basic difference of position that I don't want my resources tapped for
> something I don't use, and you don't mind such.  There's no argument
> either of us can make to change the others' mind.

You haven't demonstrated this mystical resource usage. And I've shown that
Spotlight generally uses zero resources while not in direct use.

>> How much CPU do you think Spotlight takes on a daily basis? I don't find
>> that it prevents me from doing anything I want with my CPU, nor is it even
>> a significant blip on the radar most of the time. The Meds processes don't
>> consume isles of CPU on a regular basis on any of the machines I work with.
> 
> And I do find it prevents me.  

Prevents you from what? So far you haven't backed up your assertion with
any verifyable data. I call bullshit.

>> Windows still uses the fucking registry. DLL hell is still a thing after
>> all these years. And if you care about not being spied on, Windows is one
>> of your last good choices. Enough said. It's effectively gone nowhere in
>> many respects, and has nose dived in others.
> 
> Er, maybe you mis-phrased that?  W10, and backported to W7, is horribly
> invasive wrt privacy.

Nothing is mid-phrased above. 

> As I said, a *good* UNIX-like shell.  I specifically said that.  Cygwin
> sucks ass.  Always has.

Windows sucks ass. Always has.

>> Apple really won't miss you much. ; )
> 
> They won't miss me at all, having already fired me once due to my
> attitude last year. 

Ah, the truth comes out.

> There won't be a second chance.  Any subsequent
> manager considering hiring me will talk with the first one, and that's
> all she wrote.

Sounds like a good idea.

>> In practice it is *incredibly* useful and works very well. Interesting that
>> you aren't aware of it.
> 
> As I said in a post a few minutes ago, which you won't have seen yet, I
> only run one Apple device.  Continuity between my one device and itself
> is kind of a non-issue.

Still makes you just as ignorant.

> I bought an iPhone 5c when I started at Apple, so I could use their
> internal apps, but as soon as I left, I went back to my Android phone. 
> I sold the 5c to a friend.

Sounds about right. I'm surprised they hired you at all. At least they
corrected their mistake. I work with Apple employees, and have more as
friends, and you don't seem to fit the mold. No offense, just calling it
like I see it.

>>>> Nope, file systems aren't the epitome of computing as you apparently
>>>> wish they were. Better things are here.
>>> 
>>> Such as?
>> 
>> Databases, for one.
> 
> Databases are files.

Not nearly the same thing, even if the distinction is beyond you.

>>>> Most of us notice no significant resource hit for using Spotlight.
>>> 
>>> I do.  
>> 
>> How much? Can you even quantify it? Doubt it.
> 
> It's a few percent, but when I need everything I've got, that's
> noticeable.  I run Activity Monitor at all times so I can see such
> performance degredation.   Yes, Activity Monitor itself sucks some
> power, but it's worth its keep.  

Activity Monitor generally uses much more CPU than Spotliggt.

> I don't find Spotlight does the same.

Of course not, since you don't even use Spotlight.

>> Actually I do, regularly, and Spotlight process CPU utilization doesn't
>> impact them in any significant manner. That includes fast-paced 3D rendered
>> FPS games, too.
> 
> Perhaps you're running newer hardware than my mid-2009 MBP?

That's an old machine with a relatively slow processor, RAM, busses,
motherboard - definitely resource constrained by today's standards.

My current desktop is a 2008 Mac Pro. I also have a 2011 MacBook Pro. No
problem there either. I've also used Spotlight on much older Macs (a Mac
mini Core Solo, an older Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro, and several other models),
with all of the various OS X versions. Naturally, the older models run best
with older operating systems. 

Everything that runs is naturally more of a hit to resource constrained
systems than more modern systems with more modern resource constraints. You
can't blame Spotlight for that. The world is passing them by. 

>>> It might be helpful if I were to upgrade my hardware, but
>>> until that's an option, I've got what I've got, and Apple makes them
>>> less and less upgradable every few years.  IMHO, the best notebook
>>> machine they've ever made was the Wallstreet 2.
>> 
>> It sounds almost like your real resource problem isn't as much due to
>> Spotlight in particular as it is using outdated hardware to run modern OS
>> versions...
> 
> Let's just say it makes me sensitive to such issues.

Sounds like a simple case of old resource constrained hardware to me.

>> It sounds like your real problem is expecting to be able to run modern
>> versions of operating systems on slow and resource constrained hardware.
> 
> I want to run Mac OS X on my SE in 4MiB of memory?  Not quite.

Not quite, but definitely old hardware that is much less capable than
modern hardware.

>>> Nope, I don't agree with your thesis.  They do all their work when
>>> they're needed, and do not suck resources when they're not in use.  The
>>> others do, even when their results are never used.  So, which is more
>>> efficient, again?  I must've misheard you.
>> 
>> Finding what I need in a second or three with Spotlight will *always* be
>> more efficient to me than waiting a few minutes while find or grep churns
>> away. On a desktop OS, efficiency of usability is very important.
> 
> Thing is, Spotlight rarely works well for me.  

Not much works well on a lowly Core 2 Duo these days.

>> Nope. Not by a long shot. If that's all you want, you should feel at home
>> with Linux.
> 
> I'm still working on that.  Linux doesn't have a good GUI.  I want both.

OS X.

>> Windows sucks.
> 
> Windows, therefore, is a great way to make money for those willing to
> use it.  

Sounds like a pitiful existence to me; but to each, his own. I prefer to
actually enjoy my work.

If I hadn't made a stupid career decision in 2006, 

Working for Apple? That's just a wasted opportunity.

>>>> Very simple: Your blanket statement should be qualified with "for me",
>>>> since it does not apply to the rest of us. : )
>>> 
>>> You don't use Terminal much?
>> 
>> All day, every day, actually.
> 
> Then I guess I'm missing why we're arguing.

Simple: Spotlight is very useful. : )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/28/2015 2:15:42 AM
Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-27, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-27, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-27, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Irrelevant. If I can find what I am looking for in a matter of a second
>>>> or two without having to specify where it is, I'll gladly do it.
>>> 
>>> My experience with Spotlight is more akin to that of Happy Hobo than to
>>> yours.
>> 
>> It doesn't sound like you use Spotlight very much at all. So how much
>> experience can you realistically have with it versus someone who uses it
>> frequently?
> 
> I've given it lots of chances.  I still attempt to use the search box in
> Finder windows, and I find that most of the "results" are noise,
> drowning out any actual signal.

What version OS X? : )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/28/2015 2:15:42 AM
On 12-27-2015 19:41, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>> >>Photos, the last of which interferes with my process when loading up
>>> >>photo images to the system.
>> >
>> >	Easy to prevent - see the checkbox in Photos.
>> >	No more interference.  (I wish it were a pref, however)
> Where is that?  I just did a quick check through the main window, all
> the menus, and the prefs.  I saw nothing relevant.

Depends on how you are loading photos.  If you plug something in and 
Photos launches, look in the upper right corner for something like "Open 
Photos for this device"
0
Happy
12/28/2015 2:16:55 AM
On 12-27-2015 19:43, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-27, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnn7v6ep.r9h.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
>> <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> end of their career and don't need to be ready for the future.  At least
>>>>> use C instead of MACRO-11!!
>>>>
>>>> PLEASE don't promote one of the most error-prone languages ever!
>>>
>>> The language isn't error-prone.  The users might be.  I've gotten very
>>> good results using it.  And compared to MACRO-11??  Please.
>>
>> c is very error prone because it lets programmers do stupid shit
>> without warning.
>
> If I want to shoot myself in the foot, I should be able to.  If a
> programmer has no training in assembly language, I agree she/he
> shouldn't be using C.

My attitude is that if I shoot myself in the foot, it should be because 
I _wanted_ to.  I once read a book called "C Traps and Pitfalls" 
Two-thirds of the items take can't be easily done in better languages.
0
Happy
12/28/2015 2:20:42 AM
On 12-27-2015 09:55, Alan Browne wrote:
> My sole complaint with Spotlight is it doesn't show the full path of the
> found file.  In some cases this is an issue because I might
> inadvertently load an older version of the file.

Contextual menu "Show in Finder"
0
Happy
12/28/2015 2:22:02 AM
On 12-27-2015 09:57, Alan Browne wrote:
>> Not to mention that while failing to find what I want, it will tell me
>> how many zillions of similar things I have on my backup disk and in Mail
>> attachments and MobileBackups and �
>
> Privacy settings can be used to lock out those from the dB.

I eventually found that, but there's still too much noise and too many 
failures to include the target in all the noise that I have to scroll 
through.
0
Happy
12/28/2015 2:25:03 AM
In message <Pb6dnXJbo8FL8h3LnZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-12-26 18:09, Howard S Shubs wrote:

>> This is UNIX.  You some kind of heretic, saying there are things which
>> aren't files??  Everything's a file!

> 1990 says "hi".

It wasn't true in 1990 either.

-- 
"His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork." - Mae West
0
Lewis
12/28/2015 2:31:44 AM
In article <slrnn813cn.s89.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
<howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> >> >> They were great back in the day, but now they're way past their "use
> >> >> by" date.
> >> >
> >> > Bullshit. They excel in many areas, as they always have. Let me know
> >> > when you can duplicate Continuity on your pitiful Linux box. *crickets
> >> > chirping* ; )
> >> 
> >> What do you mean by "continuity"? 
> >
> > continuity and handoff allow a user to start working on a mac and
> > continue working on an idevice or vice versa. it has nothing to do with
> > backwards compatibility, which apple goes well out of its way to
> > maintain, such as classic and rosetta. with the former, apps written in
> > 1984 ran on osx 20 years later.
> 
> Okay, continuity isn't an issue for me, since I only have the one Apple
> product.
> 
> Yes, they supported those apps for years.  Then they broke them.

apple didn't break anything.

apple announced long ago that open transport was deprecated, giving
developers *plenty* of time to update. some did, some didn't. there's
nothing apple can do about developers who chose not to bother.

it was also clear that classic and powerpc emulation (rosetta) would o
away one day. again, some developers updated and some didn't.

> >> IMHO, the best notebook
> >> machine they've ever made was the Wallstreet 2.
> >
> > definitely not. wallstreet was big, heavy, had heat and reliability
> > issues and also lacked usb and firewire, which came later. if you liked
> > that style of laptop, a pismo would be the one to get. 
> 
> The Wallstreet was very upgradable.  Fantastic stuff.  I upgraded from a
> G3 to a G4, upgraded memory, had a number of different plug-in
> modules...  It was great.

was being the key, and who wants to carry and fuss with all of those
modules anyway.

today, there are far more powerful laptops at a fraction of the weight,
with *way* better battery life.
0
nospam
12/28/2015 2:35:57 AM
In article <slrnn814u2.s89.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
<howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> >> >> end of their career and don't need to be ready for the future.  At least
> >> >> use C instead of MACRO-11!!
> >> >
> >> > PLEASE don't promote one of the most error-prone languages ever!
> >> 
> >> The language isn't error-prone.  The users might be.  I've gotten very
> >> good results using it.  And compared to MACRO-11??  Please.
> >
> > c is very error prone because it lets programmers do stupid shit
> > without warning.
> 
> If I want to shoot myself in the foot, I should be able to.

you still can, but you have to explicitly tell the compiler you're
going to do that. modern languages prevent stupid mistakes and everyone
makes them.

the key is that you can't *unintentionally* shoot yourself in the foot.

the moment you ship a product, you're in effect shooting *other*
people's feet and that's *not* cool.

users do not like software that crashes or destroys their data or lets
the bad guys take advantage of an exploit.

> If a
> programmer has no training in assembly language, I agree she/he
> shouldn't be using C.

programmers do not need training in assembly language.

let the computer worry about assembly code. a compiler can output *far*
better and more optimized code than a programmer ever could (and in
much less time) in almost every case.

the programmer should concentrate on well designed algorithms and
easily maintainable code.

> > better languages prevent common (and no so common) mistakes, or at
> > least warn programmers that what they're doing may have undesirable
> > consequences.
> 
> What's the most recent version of C you've used?

c has improved a bit over the years, but it's still outdated and too
easy to fuck up. users don't like it when apps fuck up.
0
nospam
12/28/2015 2:35:58 AM
In article <n5q5un$5rr$6@speranza.aioe.org>, Happy.Hobo
<Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:

> > If I had the option, I'd delete everything from the OS which VMS would
> > have considered a layered product, like such things as GarageBand and
> > Photos, the last of which interferes with my process when loading up
> > photo images to the system.  I*might*  keep iTunes, but I'd likely be
> > able to find something more efficient without the onerous license
> > agreement Apple provides.
> 
> Who told you you can't delete them?  I have removed several 
> Apple-bundled apps from my machine.

parts or all of them will come back in an update and they don't take up
much space anyway.
0
nospam
12/28/2015 2:35:59 AM
In article <n5q5jd$5rr$4@speranza.aioe.org>,
 "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:

> On 12-26-2015 19:55, dorayme wrote:
> > In article <n5nfbm$eh4$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
> >   "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> And I usually check spotlight first.  When it fails (most of the time)
> >
....
> > The other facility to use is EasyFind
> > for the rare cases of Spotlight being difficult.
> 
> Maybe Apple just hates me.  Siri usually fails, too.  :-)
> 
> I don't use Cmd-F because that does not invoke spotlight unless you 
> first move focus to Finder.

That is a reason? You are kidding, of course?

-- 
dorayme
0
dorayme
12/28/2015 4:10:57 AM
On 2015-12-28, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

>> I bought an iPhone 5c when I started at Apple, so I could use their
>> internal apps, but as soon as I left, I went back to my Android phone. 
>> I sold the 5c to a friend.
>
> Sounds about right. I'm surprised they hired you at all. At least they
> corrected their mistake. I work with Apple employees, and have more as
> friends, and you don't seem to fit the mold. No offense, just calling it
> like I see it.

If I'd known what I was in for, I'd never have accepted the position.  I
was *applying* for a job located in Cincinatti, but it turned out to be
in Cupertino.  I should have stopped it right there.


>> Databases are files.
>
> Not nearly the same thing, even if the distinction is beyond you.

They're not implemented in files?


>> It's a few percent, but when I need everything I've got, that's
>> noticeable.  I run Activity Monitor at all times so I can see such
>> performance degredation.   Yes, Activity Monitor itself sucks some
>> power, but it's worth its keep.  
>
> Activity Monitor generally uses much more CPU than Spotliggt.
>
>> I don't find Spotlight does the same.
>
> Of course not, since you don't even use Spotlight.

Right, but the mds task does, in the background.  I don't have to use it
for it to actively use resources.


>> I'm still working on that.  Linux doesn't have a good GUI.  I want both.
>
> OS X.

That's why I'm running it at all.


> If I hadn't made a stupid career decision in 2006, 
>
> Working for Apple? That's just a wasted opportunity.

No, working with OpenVMS after working with Red Hat Linux and Windows
for a number of years.  I was at Apple last year (2014).  I did mention
buying an iPhone 5c.  In 2006, that wasn't available.
0
Howard
12/28/2015 4:23:28 AM
On 2015-12-28, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnn814u2.s89.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
><howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> If a
>> programmer has no training in assembly language, I agree she/he
>> shouldn't be using C.
>
> programmers do not need training in assembly language.

It's a good idea to understand what the computer is doing.  I've had
that save my butt on many occasions.  Poorly trained people will, of
course, not do as well as someone who is well trained.


> c has improved a bit over the years, but it's still outdated and too
> easy to fuck up. users don't like it when apps fuck up.

We were talking about programmers.  Users aren't relevent to this, as
users don't care what tools are used.  They don't like it when any *app*
fucks up, no matter what it's written in.  Personally, I have a program
I like and use occasionally.  It's written in Java.  It's slower than
fuck, and occasionally crashes.
0
Howard
12/28/2015 4:29:03 AM
On 2015-12-28, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-27, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-27, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2015-12-27, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Irrelevant. If I can find what I am looking for in a matter of a second
>>>>> or two without having to specify where it is, I'll gladly do it.
>>>> 
>>>> My experience with Spotlight is more akin to that of Happy Hobo than to
>>>> yours.
>>> 
>>> It doesn't sound like you use Spotlight very much at all. So how much
>>> experience can you realistically have with it versus someone who uses it
>>> frequently?
>> 
>> I've given it lots of chances.  I still attempt to use the search box in
>> Finder windows, and I find that most of the "results" are noise,
>> drowning out any actual signal.
>
> What version OS X? : )

I'm currently running El Capitan.  I've been running Mac OS X since
10.0, and before that, Mac OS since 1985.
0
Howard
12/28/2015 4:30:06 AM
On 2015-12-28, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2015-12-28, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-27, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>> This is UNIX.  You some kind of heretic, saying there are things which
>>>> aren't files??  Everything's a file!
>>>
>>> No, many things are not files.
>>
>> Heretic.
>
> Let us know when you can find all photos with your mom's face in them
> within 2-3 seconds. Plenty other examples of how file system paradigm
> pales in comparison with more modern techniques are available on
> request.  : )

You're saying Spotlight can identify my Mom's face w/o anything to tell
it that it's my Mom's face?  Then I'd agree with you that there's a
point to it.  Since it doesn't, I already have a way to identify images
with my Mom in them.  It's called "text files which contain descriptions
of my images", at least for film.  Digital is another issue.  There's
nothing that Spotlight has that will identify the face of unknown people
w/o any clue about who they are.
0
Howard
12/28/2015 4:32:54 AM
On 2015-12-28, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
> On 12-27-2015 01:46, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>> If I had the option, I'd delete everything from the OS which VMS would
>> have considered a layered product, like such things as GarageBand and
>> Photos, the last of which interferes with my process when loading up
>> photo images to the system.  I*might*  keep iTunes, but I'd likely be
>> able to find something more efficient without the onerous license
>> agreement Apple provides.
>
> Who told you you can't delete them?  I have removed several 
> Apple-bundled apps from my machine.

The Finder told me.  I don't remember what happened when I did it as
root from Terminal.  I just tried it again.  Even as root, I'm told
"Operation not permitted" for every file in the package.
0
Howard
12/28/2015 4:37:22 AM
In article <slrnn81erl.sf8.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
<howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> >>>> This is UNIX.  You some kind of heretic, saying there are things which
> >>>> aren't files??  Everything's a file!
> >>>
> >>> No, many things are not files.
> >>
> >> Heretic.
> >
> > Let us know when you can find all photos with your mom's face in them
> > within 2-3 seconds. Plenty other examples of how file system paradigm
> > pales in comparison with more modern techniques are available on
> > request.  : )
> 
> You're saying Spotlight can identify my Mom's face w/o anything to tell
> it that it's my Mom's face?  Then I'd agree with you that there's a
> point to it. 

he's talking about going beyond the limitations of the file system.

spotlight is one implementation. there are others, including several
asset management apps that can do facial recognition and even scene
recognition.

"photos of mary and susan but not julie"
"photos of paris in winter"
"photos of dogs"

> Since it doesn't, I already have a way to identify images
> with my Mom in them.  It's called "text files which contain descriptions
> of my images", at least for film. 

that's actually a primitive database, one which is a pain in the ass to
create and maintain.

> Digital is another issue.  There's
> nothing that Spotlight has that will identify the face of unknown people
> w/o any clue about who they are.

apple's photos app (as well as iphoto) can, along with other asset
management apps.
0
nospam
12/28/2015 5:27:14 AM
In article <slrnn81ea0.sf8.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
<howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> >> I bought an iPhone 5c when I started at Apple, so I could use their
> >> internal apps, but as soon as I left, I went back to my Android phone. 
> >> I sold the 5c to a friend.
> >
> > Sounds about right. I'm surprised they hired you at all. At least they
> > corrected their mistake. I work with Apple employees, and have more as
> > friends, and you don't seem to fit the mold. No offense, just calling it
> > like I see it.
> 
> If I'd known what I was in for, I'd never have accepted the position.  I
> was *applying* for a job located in Cincinatti, but it turned out to be
> in Cupertino.  I should have stopped it right there.

how did you confuse the two?

didn't it say cupertino?

> >> Databases are files.
> >
> > Not nearly the same thing, even if the distinction is beyond you.
> 
> They're not implemented in files?

under the hood it could be, but who cares. the user never sees that
part nor interacts with it.

what matters are results.

users will be making high level queries, such as "photos of cats" or
"receipts from the apple store in 2015".
0
nospam
12/28/2015 5:27:15 AM
In article <slrnn81ekf.sf8.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
<howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> >> If a
> >> programmer has no training in assembly language, I agree she/he
> >> shouldn't be using C.
> >
> > programmers do not need training in assembly language.
> 
> It's a good idea to understand what the computer is doing.  I've had
> that save my butt on many occasions.  Poorly trained people will, of
> course, not do as well as someone who is well trained.

they understand what it's doing by writing high level code and well
designed algorithms, not assembly level code.

in fact, they might not even know what processor their apps will be
running on.

what matters are algorithms, reliability and code maintainability.

as i said, the compiler will output *much* better assembly than humans
can in almost every case.

> > c has improved a bit over the years, but it's still outdated and too
> > easy to fuck up. users don't like it when apps fuck up.
> 
> We were talking about programmers.  Users aren't relevent to this, as
> users don't care what tools are used.  They don't like it when any *app*
> fucks up, no matter what it's written in. 

exactly the point.

that's why smart programmers choose modern languages that make it very
difficult to fuck up, if not impossible. 

> Personally, I have a program
> I like and use occasionally.  It's written in Java.  It's slower than
> fuck, and occasionally crashes.

whatever app that happens to be is poorly written. that's not a flaw of
java, but rather a flaw of its design. shitty software can be written
in any language.
0
nospam
12/28/2015 5:27:16 AM
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-12-18, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> > While a decade or more ago I would use such tools, today my philosophy
> > is backup everything a lot (multiple drives) and don't hesitate to 
> > decommission a drive that's acting bad.
> >
> > At about 30 cents per GB (YMMV) it's just not worth fretting over hard
> > disk health very much.
> 
> Yep. Back it up, and when a drive gives you problems, erase it and
> restore. If erasing doesn't fix it, toss it and get a replacement.

Plus modern OS file systems and HD self dianostics automatically deal
with bad sectors to a degree rarely ever requiring manual intervention.
The OP is wasting time and money better spent on implementing
comprehensive backup.

-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
0
jamiekg
12/28/2015 5:58:28 AM
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-12-24, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > In message <de2k5iFoomiU1@mid.individual.net> 
> >   Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> On 2015-12-24, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Seagate's Desktops drives (at least the older ones with the vertical
> >>> design that made them look sort of like a WiFi router) were *terrible*
> >>> and had disconnection problems on my Macs and PCs even with no USB hubs.
> >>>
> >>> The current Seagates (black boxes with blue bottoms) seem to be fine so
> >>> far.
> >
> >> I have one of each. The older vertical one has been in constant
> >> operation (Time Machine backup drive) for several years. Neither one has
> >> given me a problem. 
> >
> > I had 4 of the upright Seagate Desktop drives fail (out of 4).
> 
> This one is a 3TB. I've had lots of Seagate 3TB bare drives fail either
> prematurely (replaced for free) or just after warranty expiration.
> Seagate had a lot of problems with those for a few years. So far, so
> good with this one...

I remember that period - I had one Seagate USB HD replaced three times
under warranty (but with shipping from NZ to Singapore! :-\ ), finally
with a newer more reliable model.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
0
jamiekg
12/28/2015 11:37:41 AM
On 2015-12-27 20:41, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-27, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-27 02:46, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>
>>> If I had the option, I'd delete everything from the OS which VMS would
>>> have considered a layered product,
>>
>> You seem to have dismissed the notion that computers are there to serve
>> us and not the reverse.  Computers today are immensely powerful v. even
>> 10 years ago.  Disks are huge, memory is huge and fast, processors are
>> multi-core blazing monsters.  Let them do the work for you.
>
> Yes, they're much more powerful.  The hardware has improved a lot over
> the last 70 years.  But they're still not HAL, and they still require
> MUCH more knowledge to use well than they should, even the Mac.

Which has nothing to do with the simple tasks of indexing files and then 
letting apps (Finder's Find and Spotlight) take care of search.

Using command line utes to do what later apps do more efficiently and 
intelligently (not to say it's AI), is okay and good and is not a drain 
on resources: it's using the resources as they are meant to be used and 
taking advantage of more powerful hardware to do so.

>
>
>>> Photos, the last of which interferes with my process when loading up
>>> photo images to the system.
>>
>> 	Easy to prevent - see the checkbox in Photos.
>> 	No more interference.  (I wish it were a pref, however)
>
> Where is that?  I just did a quick check through the main window, all
> the menus, and the prefs.  I saw nothing relevant.

Hook up a camera or card.  Photos starts and wants to import.  Look at 
the checkboxes up top on the app.  Silly way to do things to be sure, 
but there it is.


-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/28/2015 2:44:18 PM
On 2015-12-27 20:47, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-27, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-24 18:35, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-24, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Spotlight-related anything is unimportant and irrelevant,
>>>>> unless you enjoy useless CPU and I/O drains.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. I find Spotlight extremely useful.
>>>
>>> I don't.  I find it to be a drain of system resources, to attach disks
>>> which don't need indexing, and the whole concept is bogus to me, yet there's
>>> no apparent way to turn it off or kill it in such a way that it'll stay dead.
>>
>> See spotlight privacy settings.
>
> That works on specific locations.  And those locations have to have been
> available at some point, and they have to be specifically disabled.  I
> want OPT-IN, not OPT-OUT.

My suggestion is that, as a starting point, you opt-out of everything 
that is off of your main disk.  This assumes that you keep most work on 
your main disk.

Can't help you on opt-in over opt out, but to make things behave as 
smooth as possible for doubtful you, that's what I suggest.


>
>
>>> If I want to find a file, I use the find(1) command.  If I'm looking for
>>> content in the file, I use grep(1).  WTF do I need Spotlight for??
>>
>> Speed and simplicity.
>
> If I wanted that, and I do, Spotlight doesn't deliver.  As I said, too
> much noise to find the signal.  If I need Spotlight to find the results
> I care about in a Spotlight results list, that's not very useful to me.

A poor craftsman blames his tools.  Spotlight finds what I'm looking for 
at least 9 times in 10.  Elsewise, Finder's Find, with or without 
various filter settings finds it - just less quickly because it's less 
quick to spec.
>
>
>> If I'm not mistaken, Find (in Finder) uses the same databases as
>> Spotlight in any case.  Spotlight is just a means to accessing the
>> search with a layer of more clever search over it.
>
> I'm pretty sure you're right that Finder uses Spotlight.  What I said
> earlier about noise and signal.

No.  That's not what I said.  The mds daemon searches and builds the 
index saving the keywords and filenames in a database.  Both Spotlight 
and Finder's Find use that same database but with different search 
approaches.  The former being more clever and broad the later being more 
literal and narrow.  [1]

As to noise and signal I put it to you that you are 1000x quicker 
picking out the result you seek from a Spotlight list than you are 
setting up a perfect outcome search in command line.

[1] I assume both use the same mds generated db, but it may be two 
separate ones.
-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/28/2015 2:54:32 PM
On 2015-12-27 20:49, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-27, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> Both you and Howard seem to have forgotten that the computer is there to
>> serve you and not the reverse.
>
> No, we're complaining that it doesn't.

Because you're being deliberately obtuse and clinging to the past.


-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/28/2015 2:55:03 PM
On 2015-12-27 20:50, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-27, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> This is UNIX.  You some kind of heretic, saying there are things which
>>> aren't files??  Everything's a file!
>>
>> No, many things are not files.
>
> Heretic.

He's right.  Unix could not maintain the simple file based model if it 
was to adapt to the myriad advances in interfaces that are in common 
use.  Whether well worn things such as TPC/IP or recent things such as 
bluetooth, the "data stream is a file" approach simply can't work in 
real time in the real world.

You're clinging to a once elegant notion that's not workable in the real 
time world of computing.


-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/28/2015 2:57:59 PM
On 2015-12-27 21:04, Happy.Hobo wrote:
> On 12-27-2015 17:50, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2015-12-26 18:38, Happy.Hobo wrote:
>>> On 12-24-2015 23:23, Lewis wrote:
>>>> In message <slrnn7p048.ocu.howard@foxtrot.local>
>>>>    Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>>> According to the md5sum man page, it's better to use a SHA-based
>>>>> utility
>>>>> instead.  They exist as sha224sum(1), sha256sum(1), sha384sum(1),
>>>>> sha512sum(1).  I don't know how fast these are, relatively speaking,
>>>>> with md5sum.
>>>>
>>>> SHA is better because md5 is subject to collisions. It's not very
>>>> likely, but it can happen, especially if a file is crafted to collide.
>>>>
>>>> shasum -a 224 -b is several times slower than md5.
>>>
>>> For 1.2 GB tarfile on internal SSD, that command took 8.453 seconds.
>>>
>>> 'md5' took 3.433 seconds, 'sum' took 2.335 seconds
>>>
>>> Slower, but not "several times"
>>
>> What order did you do that?
>>
>> It may simply be that the file was in ram cache for the 2nd and 3rd
>> passes.  Yes, even over 1.x GB.  Or even just a large chunk of the file.
>>
>>
>
> Having considered that, I did 'md5' and 'sum'  more than once,
> alternating, and picked the highest for each.  shasum I only did once,
> but it was some time later, so if it had been cached, it probably was no
> longer.

You can't really know.  Cached data sticks for a long time - there's no 
timeout on it.

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/28/2015 2:58:47 PM
On 2015-12-27 20:43, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-27, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnn7v6ep.r9h.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
>> <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> end of their career and don't need to be ready for the future.  At least
>>>>> use C instead of MACRO-11!!
>>>>
>>>> PLEASE don't promote one of the most error-prone languages ever!
>>>
>>> The language isn't error-prone.  The users might be.  I've gotten very
>>> good results using it.  And compared to MACRO-11??  Please.
>>
>> c is very error prone because it lets programmers do stupid shit
>> without warning.
>
> If I want to shoot myself in the foot, I should be able to.  If a
> programmer has no training in assembly language, I agree she/he
> shouldn't be using C.

Many people program in C for decades having never seen assembler.

C is shit.  It has always been shit and will always be shit.

It should be banished.

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/28/2015 3:08:40 PM
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 18:08:11 -0500, Alan Browne wrote
(in article <Pb6dnXNbo8HG8h3LnZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>):

> Doh!  I had held down the option key and the command key (separately) and 
> looked at the bottom of the left panel since that's where the file names are 
> shown ...

I don't see anything when I hold down either or both.  All I see is a 
popup if I hover the mouse pointer over  one of the found items.

-- 
Nelson

0
Nelson
12/28/2015 3:15:59 PM
Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> 
>> This one is a 3TB. I've had lots of Seagate 3TB bare drives fail either
>> prematurely (replaced for free) or just after warranty expiration.
>> Seagate had a lot of problems with those for a few years. So far, so
>> good with this one...
> 
> I remember that period - I had one Seagate USB HD replaced three times
> under warranty (but with shipping from NZ to Singapore! :-\ ), finally
> with a newer more reliable model.

IIRC, it started in 2011, when there was a massive flood in Thailand. And
it threw the entire hard drive industry for a loop for some time after.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/28/2015 4:25:12 PM
Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 18:08:11 -0500, Alan Browne wrote
> (in article <Pb6dnXNbo8HG8h3LnZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>):
> 
>> Doh!  I had held down the option key and the command key (separately) and 
>> looked at the bottom of the left panel since that's where the file names are 
>> shown ...
> 
> I don't see anything when I hold down either or both.  All I see is a 
> popup if I hover the mouse pointer over  one of the found items.

Are you perhaps running an older version of OS X?

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/28/2015 4:30:12 PM
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-12-28 10:15, Nelson wrote:
> 
> I've been playing with this - and I note that it doesn't always show the 
> path.  eg: some pdf's it shows, others not.  It does seem consistent for 
> folders.

That's interesting. I haven't noticed that; but then I don't always need
the path, and don't use that feature often. I wonder what the distinction
is...

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/28/2015 4:30:13 PM
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:02:16 -0500, Alan Browne wrote
(in article <1NWdnYaKObqVwBzLnZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com>):

> When you have a list in Spotlight highlight a file in the list (make it 
> blue).  Then hold the CMD key down.  At the bottom of the right panel in 
> Spotlight you'll see the path

Nope.  Nothing happens.  I'm on Snow Leopard.  Maybe they added this 
feature later.  I don't see any "right panel" either.  Just the one 
drop down list with "Show All" at the top and "Spotlight Preferences" 
at the bottom.

-- 
Nelson

0
Nelson
12/28/2015 4:30:33 PM
Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:02:16 -0500, Alan Browne wrote
> (in article <1NWdnYaKObqVwBzLnZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com>):
> 
>> When you have a list in Spotlight highlight a file in the list (make it 
>> blue).  Then hold the CMD key down.  At the bottom of the right panel in 
>> Spotlight you'll see the path
> 
> Nope.  Nothing happens.  I'm on Snow Leopard.  Maybe they added this 
> feature later.  

Yep.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/28/2015 4:34:58 PM
In article <deaoscFokvrU3@mid.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-12-27, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> > On 2015-12-26 22:46, Jolly Roger wrote:
> >>
> >> Irrelevant. If I can find what I am looking for in a matter of a second
> >> or two without having to specify where it is, I'll gladly do it.
> >
> > My sole complaint with Spotlight is it doesn't show the full path of the 
> > found file.  In some cases this is an issue because I might 
> > inadvertently load an older version of the file.
> > eg:   y/b/c/name rather than x/b/c/name
> >
> > That's not a very common case so not too much worry.  If I'm not sure 
> > there's always Finder's Search.
> 
> If you hold down the Command key, you should see the path at the bottom
> of the search window. It's not a POSIX style path, but it's a path
> nonetheless.

If you do Menu/View/Show Path Bar, the path is there all the time and 
you don't need to hold down Command. Then, after a Spotlight search, 
just click on the file you want to know about and there's its path.

Also, every folder icon in the path display is "hot"; you can 
double-click on it and the selected folder will open.

Isaac
0
isw
12/28/2015 5:37:19 PM
On 2015-12-28 12:37, isw wrote:
> In article <deaoscFokvrU3@mid.individual.net>,
>   Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-12-27, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-26 22:46, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. If I can find what I am looking for in a matter of a second
>>>> or two without having to specify where it is, I'll gladly do it.
>>>
>>> My sole complaint with Spotlight is it doesn't show the full path of the
>>> found file.  In some cases this is an issue because I might
>>> inadvertently load an older version of the file.
>>> eg:   y/b/c/name rather than x/b/c/name
>>>
>>> That's not a very common case so not too much worry.  If I'm not sure
>>> there's always Finder's Search.
>>
>> If you hold down the Command key, you should see the path at the bottom
>> of the search window. It's not a POSIX style path, but it's a path
>> nonetheless.
>
> If you do Menu/View/Show Path Bar, the path is there all the time and
> you don't need to hold down Command. Then, after a Spotlight search,
> just click on the file you want to know about and there's its path.

eh?  I have "show path bar" on in Finder - that does not make the path 
appear in Spotlight w/o selecting the folder or file on the left panel 
and holding CMD to see the path on the bottom of the right panel.
>
> Also, every folder icon in the path display is "hot"; you can
> double-click on it and the selected folder will open.


-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/28/2015 7:07:32 PM
On 2015-12-28, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-28, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>> I bought an iPhone 5c when I started at Apple, so I could use their
>>> internal apps, but as soon as I left, I went back to my Android phone. 
>>> I sold the 5c to a friend.
>>
>> Sounds about right. I'm surprised they hired you at all. At least they
>> corrected their mistake. I work with Apple employees, and have more as
>> friends, and you don't seem to fit the mold. No offense, just calling it
>> like I see it.
>
> If I'd known what I was in for, I'd never have accepted the position.

What were you in for?

> I was *applying* for a job located in Cincinatti, but it turned out to
> be in Cupertino.  I should have stopped it right there.

Typo? Mis-read?

>>> Databases are files.
>>
>> Not nearly the same thing, even if the distinction is beyond you.
>
> They're not implemented in files?

Irrelevant. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/28/2015 7:33:14 PM
On 2015-12-28, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-28, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-27, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2015-12-27, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-12-27, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Irrelevant. If I can find what I am looking for in a matter of a second
>>>>>> or two without having to specify where it is, I'll gladly do it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My experience with Spotlight is more akin to that of Happy Hobo than to
>>>>> yours.
>>>> 
>>>> It doesn't sound like you use Spotlight very much at all. So how much
>>>> experience can you realistically have with it versus someone who uses it
>>>> frequently?
>>> 
>>> I've given it lots of chances.  I still attempt to use the search box in
>>> Finder windows, and I find that most of the "results" are noise,
>>> drowning out any actual signal.
>>
>> What version OS X? : )
>
> I'm currently running El Capitan.  I've been running Mac OS X since
> 10.0, and before that, Mac OS since 1985.

The majority of the time, Spotlight finds exactly what I am looking for.
Your search methods are suspect to me. Can you give a concrete example
of how Spotlight search results are too noisy and don't find what you
are looking for please?

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/28/2015 7:34:52 PM
On 2015-12-27 23:23, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-28, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
On 2015-12-XX::XX:XX, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>> Databases are files.
>>
>> Not nearly the same thing, even if the distinction is beyond you.
>
> They're not implemented in files?

Of course - but you seem to be confusing the old state Unix (serial 
files) with direct block access within files which is a basic 
requirement of databases.  Databases would grind to a crawl if they 
accessed files as originally practiced in Unix.

>
>>> It's a few percent, but when I need everything I've got, that's
>>> noticeable.  I run Activity Monitor at all times so I can see such
>>> performance degredation.   Yes, Activity Monitor itself sucks some
>>> power, but it's worth its keep.
>>
>> Activity Monitor generally uses much more CPU than Spotliggt.
>>
>>> I don't find Spotlight does the same.
>>
>> Of course not, since you don't even use Spotlight.
>
> Right, but the mds task does, in the background.  I don't have to use it
> for it to actively use resources.

mds does very little once the origianl indexing pass is finished.  After 
that it's just maintenance.

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/28/2015 8:55:28 PM
On 2015-12-27 21:31, Lewis wrote:
> In message <Pb6dnXJbo8FL8h3LnZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>
>    Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-26 18:09, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>
>>> This is UNIX.  You some kind of heretic, saying there are things which
>>> aren't files??  Everything's a file!
>
>> 1990 says "hi".
>
> It wasn't true in 1990 either.


I didn't want to shock Howard too badly.  I don't recall when Unix began 
it's transition from the ideal of everything is a file to reality.  I'm 
sure it didn't break out everywhere at once.


-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/28/2015 9:20:16 PM
On 2015-12-27 21:25, Happy.Hobo wrote:
> On 12-27-2015 09:57, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> Not to mention that while failing to find what I want, it will tell me
>>> how many zillions of similar things I have on my backup disk and in Mail
>>> attachments and MobileBackups and �
>>
>> Privacy settings can be used to lock out those from the dB.
>
> I eventually found that, but there's still too much noise and too many
> failures to include the target in all the noise that I have to scroll
> through.


You must be extraordinary.

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/28/2015 10:37:10 PM
In message <r6WdnVscY_8NOhzLnZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-12-27 21:31, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <Pb6dnXJbo8FL8h3LnZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>
>>    Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-26 18:09, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>
>>>> This is UNIX.  You some kind of heretic, saying there are things which
>>>> aren't files??  Everything's a file!
>>
>>> 1990 says "hi".
>>
>> It wasn't true in 1990 either.


> I didn't want to shock Howard too badly.  I don't recall when Unix began 
> it's transition from the ideal of everything is a file to reality. 

The instant anyone created a database on a UNIX system. Soooo, 1970?

-- 
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head. --Hogfather
0
Lewis
12/29/2015 12:28:21 AM
On 2015-12-29, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-29, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnn8462n.tdk.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
>><howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>
>>> using files.
>>
>> that's just an implementation detail which makes no difference to the
>> user.
>
> Yes and no.

Mostly: yes.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/29/2015 1:01:01 AM
In article <AfKdnW8lot1HXR_LnZ2dnUU7-T-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> >>>>>> Where is that?  I just did a quick check through the main window, all
> >>>>>> the menus, and the prefs.  I saw nothing relevant.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hook up a camera or card.  Photos starts and wants to import.  Look at
> >>>>> the checkboxes up top on the app.  Silly way to do things to be sure,
> >>>>> but there it is.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unfortunately, it's ineffective.  After importing images, I have the
> >>>> camera reformat the chip to remove the old data, which makes Photos lose
> >>>> track of it.
> >>>
> >>> there is no need to reformat the card every time.
> >>>
> >>> erase all photos after importing (which can be automatic if you prefer)
> >>> and then put it back in the camera, or erase the card in the camera.
> >>> either way works.
> >>
> >> I erase the card in the camera by reformatting it.  It's simplest.
> >
> > the simplest is have the photos automatically deleted after importing.
> 
> Never liked that idea.  I verify they're on disk and at least Time 
> Machine has cycled before manually deleting the images.

agreed, but he wants the simplest solution. he didn't ask for a safe
and redundant solution.

> >> Or
> >> do I?  I forget.  Either way, when I put the chip in the computer next
> >> time, it's not recognized as the same chip.
> >
> > that's because a newly formatted card (or any volume) is rightly seen
> > as a different device.
> 
> No such issue here.  I just reformatted a CF card in camera and 
> connected it to the Mac.  Photos stayed mute.  It recognized the CF Card 
> serno. (or some other unique attribute).

then you disabled autolaunch some other way.

the way it detects it is by the device's uuid, which changes whenever
it's reformatted. that's how it knows the difference between cards (or
drives) with the same name.

> > again, there's no need to reformat all the time. instead, select all &
> > delete, either on the computer or in the camera.
> >
> >>>> And there's no way to disable it entirely.
> >>>
> >>> yes there is.
> >>
> >> Please, enlighten me.  Photos.app can't be deleted,
> >
> > it can if you really want to but that's a bad idea for many reasons
> >
> >> OPT-OUT isn't
> >> reliable, OPT-IN isn't an option.  What's left?
> >
> > <http://petapixel.com/2015/12/21/stop-apple-photos-from-auto-launching-i
> > n-os-x-with-one-command/>
> 
> Nice!
> 
> Next to see if that survives the next major upgrade (or minor for that 
> matter ...)

it probably won't :)
0
nospam
12/29/2015 1:01:01 AM
In article <defubeF39qhU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >> the simplest is have the photos automatically deleted after importing.
> >
> > Never liked that idea.  I verify they're on disk and at least Time 
> > Machine has cycled before manually deleting the images.
> 
> I'm not sure your fear is really warranted. I've used that feature of
> Photos (iPhoto) for many years, and it has never failed me. That said,
> most cameras will allow you to delete individual photos rather than
> reformatting the entire card.

his point is that to be sure nothing is lost, the user should verify
that the photos were copied properly without any corruption or other
problems prior to deleting them on the card. although unlikely, it's
possible that something could go wrong.
0
nospam
12/29/2015 1:01:01 AM
On 2015-12-28, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnn81ekf.sf8.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
><howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> Personally, I have a program
>> I like and use occasionally.  It's written in Java.  It's slower than
>> fuck, and occasionally crashes.
>
> whatever app that happens to be is poorly written. that's not a flaw of
> java, but rather a flaw of its design. shitty software can be written
> in any language.

I think that was my point.  C has the benefit of being close to the
hardware.  That's useful for some situations.
0
Howard
12/29/2015 5:19:15 AM
On 2015-12-28, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnn81erl.sf8.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
><howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> Since it doesn't, I already have a way to identify images
>> with my Mom in them.  It's called "text files which contain descriptions
>> of my images", at least for film. 
>
> that's actually a primitive database, one which is a pain in the ass to
> create and maintain.

Of course it is.  It's also a directory tree.  I used to see occasional
references to RMS as a database.  Kinda blew my mind when I first saw
that POV.


>> Digital is another issue.  There's
>> nothing that Spotlight has that will identify the face of unknown people
>> w/o any clue about who they are.
>
> apple's photos app (as well as iphoto) can, along with other asset
> management apps.

I use Lightroom.  There's definitely a db in there, using files.
0
Howard
12/29/2015 5:21:27 AM
On 2015-12-28, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-12-27 20:41, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>> Where is that?  I just did a quick check through the main window, all
>> the menus, and the prefs.  I saw nothing relevant.
>
> Hook up a camera or card.  Photos starts and wants to import.  Look at 
> the checkboxes up top on the app.  Silly way to do things to be sure, 
> but there it is.

Unfortunately, it's ineffective.  After importing images, I have the
camera reformat the chip to remove the old data, which makes Photos lose
track of it.

And there's no way to disable it entirely.
0
Howard
12/29/2015 5:24:18 AM
On 2015-12-28, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-12-27 20:47, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>> That works on specific locations.  And those locations have to have been
>> available at some point, and they have to be specifically disabled.  I
>> want OPT-IN, not OPT-OUT.
>
> My suggestion is that, as a starting point, you opt-out of everything 
> that is off of your main disk.  This assumes that you keep most work on 
> your main disk.
>
> Can't help you on opt-in over opt out, but to make things behave as 
> smooth as possible for doubtful you, that's what I suggest.

Yeah, it's a problem.  If I have a backup drive which is not always
connected (sometimes it's offsite), I have to remember to OPT-OUT.  If I
reformat or replace the drive, I have to remember to OPT-OUT again. 
Apple just ... doesn't get it.


>> If I wanted that, and I do, Spotlight doesn't deliver.  As I said, too
>> much noise to find the signal.  If I need Spotlight to find the results
>> I care about in a Spotlight results list, that's not very useful to me.
>
> A poor craftsman blames his tools.  Spotlight finds what I'm looking for 
> at least 9 times in 10.  Elsewise, Finder's Find, with or without 
> various filter settings finds it - just less quickly because it's less 
> quick to spec.

They're not my tools.  They're Apple's tools.  I had nothing to do with
designing or implementing them.  If they were my tools, they'd do what I
wanted.

You've "borrowed" someone else's tools and made do.  I bet you'd do
better with tools you wrote yourself, if you wanted to take the time. In
effect, I've done the same by using tools of my choice, which some people
here seem to be bothered by.


>> I'm pretty sure you're right that Finder uses Spotlight.  What I said
>> earlier about noise and signal.
>
> No.  That's not what I said.  The mds daemon searches and builds the 
> index saving the keywords and filenames in a database.  Both Spotlight 
> and Finder's Find use that same database but with different search 
> approaches.  The former being more clever and broad the later being more 
> literal and narrow.  [1]

Interesting point.  I assume they use the same db also.


> As to noise and signal I put it to you that you are 1000x quicker 
> picking out the result you seek from a Spotlight list than you are 
> setting up a perfect outcome search in command line.

Trying to find one item in a list of 500 is not quick.  It requires a
sub-search to find the signal.

Having a tool which, and I'm not saying Spotlight does this, but making
a point, which finds EVERYTHING, EVERY time, is certainly quick, but not
very useful.

I once proposed a VERY fast math library, which would always return the
answer "17".  It would be VERY quick to calculate this, but not very
accurate most of the time.  This was in answer to a DEC engineer who
built a math library which was accurate to 1/2 bit (read: ±1 bit), but
fairly slow. Great if you wanted ultimate accuracy, but not everyone
needs that all the time.  The reverse was my "17" math library, which I
got from "The Phantom Tollbooth"'s Humbug character.
0
Howard
12/29/2015 5:34:40 AM
On 2015-12-28, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-12-27 21:31, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <Pb6dnXJbo8FL8h3LnZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>
>>    Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-26 18:09, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>
>>>> This is UNIX.  You some kind of heretic, saying there are things which
>>>> aren't files??  Everything's a file!
>>
>>> 1990 says "hi".
>>
>> It wasn't true in 1990 either.
>
>
> I didn't want to shock Howard too badly.  I don't recall when Unix began 
> it's transition from the ideal of everything is a file to reality.  I'm 
> sure it didn't break out everywhere at once.

<catatonic />
0
Howard
12/29/2015 5:37:15 AM
On 2015-12-29, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <r6WdnVscY_8NOhzLnZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com> 
>   Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-27 21:31, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <Pb6dnXJbo8FL8h3LnZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>
>>>    Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2015-12-26 18:09, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This is UNIX.  You some kind of heretic, saying there are things which
>>>>> aren't files??  Everything's a file!
>>>
>>>> 1990 says "hi".
>>>
>>> It wasn't true in 1990 either.
>
>
>> I didn't want to shock Howard too badly.  I don't recall when Unix began 
>> it's transition from the ideal of everything is a file to reality. 
>
> The instant anyone created a database on a UNIX system. Soooo, 1970?

Every time I see a db, it always looks like a file system in one way or
another.  If I look at it in a shell, it's a set of files, whether on
UNIX or OpenVMS.  I haven't tried it on IBM's big iron OSs.
0
Howard
12/29/2015 5:38:40 AM
On 2015-12-28, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnn81ea0.sf8.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
><howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>
>> >> I bought an iPhone 5c when I started at Apple, so I could use their
>> >> internal apps, but as soon as I left, I went back to my Android phone. 
>> >> I sold the 5c to a friend.
>> >
>> > Sounds about right. I'm surprised they hired you at all. At least they
>> > corrected their mistake. I work with Apple employees, and have more as
>> > friends, and you don't seem to fit the mold. No offense, just calling it
>> > like I see it.
>> 
>> If I'd known what I was in for, I'd never have accepted the position.  I
>> was *applying* for a job located in Cincinatti, but it turned out to be
>> in Cupertino.  I should have stopped it right there.
>
> how did you confuse the two?
>
> didn't it say cupertino?

No, it said Cincinnati.  Turns out it was being recruited or something
out of an office in Cincinnati.  I wanted to move there to take care of
my parents, if and when.  At this point, I'm trying to move to Denver.


>> They're not implemented in files?
>
> under the hood it could be, but who cares. the user never sees that
> part nor interacts with it.

As a sys admin, I care about it a lot.  I have to maintain it, by
supporting the DBAs.  I'm not a user.  When working, I'm generally in
the shell.  On Linux, not Mac OS [X].

The last time I did anything to support Mac OS in production was around
1990 in Greenwich, CT.  There was a pathologist involved, as a client. 
And she knew how to use her scalpel, at least on dead things.  I didn't
want her to try it on me!  No, make that 1999 in Dallas, to support an
art department. They were relieved to have some support for a change.
0
Howard
12/29/2015 5:45:35 AM
In article <slrnn845uj.tdk.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
<howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> >> Personally, I have a program
> >> I like and use occasionally.  It's written in Java.  It's slower than
> >> fuck, and occasionally crashes.
> >
> > whatever app that happens to be is poorly written. that's not a flaw of
> > java, but rather a flaw of its design. shitty software can be written
> > in any language.
> 
> I think that was my point.  C has the benefit of being close to the
> hardware.  That's useful for some situations.

very, very few situations does that matter. embedded devices comes to
mind, but not general purpose computers.
0
nospam
12/29/2015 5:51:28 AM
In article <slrnn8462n.tdk.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
<howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> >> Digital is another issue.  There's
> >> nothing that Spotlight has that will identify the face of unknown people
> >> w/o any clue about who they are.
> >
> > apple's photos app (as well as iphoto) can, along with other asset
> > management apps.
> 
> I use Lightroom.  There's definitely a db in there, 

that's the whole point. 

lightroom uses a database so that it can go beyond the limitations of
the file system.

direct file system access is primitive and very limiting. eventually it
will go away. 

> using files.

that's just an implementation detail which makes no difference to the
user.
0
nospam
12/29/2015 5:51:29 AM
In article <slrnn84682.tdk.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
<howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> >> Where is that?  I just did a quick check through the main window, all
> >> the menus, and the prefs.  I saw nothing relevant.
> >
> > Hook up a camera or card.  Photos starts and wants to import.  Look at 
> > the checkboxes up top on the app.  Silly way to do things to be sure, 
> > but there it is.
> 
> Unfortunately, it's ineffective.  After importing images, I have the
> camera reformat the chip to remove the old data, which makes Photos lose
> track of it.

there is no need to reformat the card every time. 

erase all photos after importing (which can be automatic if you prefer)
and then put it back in the camera, or erase the card in the camera.
either way works.

> And there's no way to disable it entirely.

yes there is.
0
nospam
12/29/2015 5:51:30 AM
On 2015-12-28, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-12-27 23:23, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>> On 2015-12-28, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
> On 2015-12-XX::XX:XX, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>>> Databases are files.
>>>
>>> Not nearly the same thing, even if the distinction is beyond you.
>>
>> They're not implemented in files?
>
> Of course - but you seem to be confusing the old state Unix (serial 
> files) with direct block access within files which is a basic 
> requirement of databases.  Databases would grind to a crawl if they 
> accessed files as originally practiced in Unix.

Wait, I only said "files".  I didn't specify anything beyond that.  We
may be in agreement.  I said nothing of tape.


>> Right, but the mds task does, in the background.  I don't have to use it
>> for it to actively use resources.
>
> mds does very little once the origianl indexing pass is finished.  After 
> that it's just maintenance.

When things are going right, perhaps.  I see it active for an
indeterminate time fairly frequently.  That's when it gets my attention.
0
Howard
12/29/2015 5:58:47 AM
On 2015-12-28, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2015-12-28, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-28, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2015-12-27, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-12-27, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2015-12-27, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Irrelevant. If I can find what I am looking for in a matter of a second
>>>>>>> or two without having to specify where it is, I'll gladly do it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My experience with Spotlight is more akin to that of Happy Hobo than to
>>>>>> yours.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It doesn't sound like you use Spotlight very much at all. So how much
>>>>> experience can you realistically have with it versus someone who uses it
>>>>> frequently?
>>>> 
>>>> I've given it lots of chances.  I still attempt to use the search box in
>>>> Finder windows, and I find that most of the "results" are noise,
>>>> drowning out any actual signal.
>>>
>>> What version OS X? : )
>>
>> I'm currently running El Capitan.  I've been running Mac OS X since
>> 10.0, and before that, Mac OS since 1985.
>
> The majority of the time, Spotlight finds exactly what I am looking for.
> Your search methods are suspect to me. Can you give a concrete example
> of how Spotlight search results are too noisy and don't find what you
> are looking for please?

Okay, I just entered "Hey, Ho", expecting a music file by the Lumineers.
The result was singular, not a list.  It opened a PDF file containing a
novel by Robert A. Heinlein.  Whoops.  Let's try it correctly, "Ho Hey".
Went back to the PDF file.  Hm.

When I went back in to try again, it opened a window showing the PDF
file as the top hit, and the directory containing the music file, named
the same, as the second item.  Then a bunch of PDF files.

Searching for "t.txt", which is my standard temporary file, it found a
few plus a few other things.  Perhaps it has improved to some degree. 
Still, a PDF file with nothing like "ho hey" in the name, nor anything
relevant internally?
0
Howard
12/29/2015 6:06:28 AM
In message <slrnn846rf.tdk.howard@foxtrot.local> 
  Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-28, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-27 20:47, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>> That works on specific locations.  And those locations have to have been
>>> available at some point, and they have to be specifically disabled.  I
>>> want OPT-IN, not OPT-OUT.
>>
>> My suggestion is that, as a starting point, you opt-out of everything 
>> that is off of your main disk.  This assumes that you keep most work on 
>> your main disk.
>>
>> Can't help you on opt-in over opt out, but to make things behave as 
>> smooth as possible for doubtful you, that's what I suggest.

> Yeah, it's a problem.  If I have a backup drive which is not always
> connected (sometimes it's offsite), I have to remember to OPT-OUT.  If I
> reformat or replace the drive, I have to remember to OPT-OUT again. 
> Apple just ... doesn't get it.

SOMEONE doesn't get it, yes.

-- 
Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.
0
Lewis
12/29/2015 6:17:28 AM
On 2015-12-29, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnn845uj.tdk.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
><howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>
>> >> Personally, I have a program
>> >> I like and use occasionally.  It's written in Java.  It's slower than
>> >> fuck, and occasionally crashes.
>> >
>> > whatever app that happens to be is poorly written. that's not a flaw of
>> > java, but rather a flaw of its design. shitty software can be written
>> > in any language.
>> 
>> I think that was my point.  C has the benefit of being close to the
>> hardware.  That's useful for some situations.
>
> very, very few situations does that matter. embedded devices comes to
> mind, but not general purpose computers.

How do you think code generation happens?  Is it magic?  Yes, it's not
many who need it, but there are definitely a group of programmers out
there who need to understand it.
0
Howard
12/29/2015 7:12:37 AM
On 2015-12-29, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnn8462n.tdk.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
><howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>
>> using files.
>
> that's just an implementation detail which makes no difference to the
> user.

Yes and no.  I, as a user, have occasionally mis-named a new catalog and
had to go in and rename the files involved to fix it.

As a system manager, I don't see this issue as minor.
0
Howard
12/29/2015 7:13:59 AM
On 2015-12-29, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnn84682.tdk.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
><howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>
>> >> Where is that?  I just did a quick check through the main window, all
>> >> the menus, and the prefs.  I saw nothing relevant.
>> >
>> > Hook up a camera or card.  Photos starts and wants to import.  Look at 
>> > the checkboxes up top on the app.  Silly way to do things to be sure, 
>> > but there it is.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, it's ineffective.  After importing images, I have the
>> camera reformat the chip to remove the old data, which makes Photos lose
>> track of it.
>
> there is no need to reformat the card every time. 
>
> erase all photos after importing (which can be automatic if you prefer)
> and then put it back in the camera, or erase the card in the camera.
> either way works.

I erase the card in the camera by reformatting it.  It's simplest.  Or
do I?  I forget.  Either way, when I put the chip in the computer next
time, it's not recognized as the same chip.


>> And there's no way to disable it entirely.
>
> yes there is.

Please, enlighten me.  Photos.app can't be deleted, OPT-OUT isn't
reliable, OPT-IN isn't an option.  What's left?
0
Howard
12/29/2015 7:15:51 AM
In article <slrnn847fu.tdk.howard@foxtrot.local>,
 Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> On 2015-12-28, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnn81ea0.sf8.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
> ><howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >> I bought an iPhone 5c when I started at Apple, so I could use their
> >> >> internal apps, but as soon as I left, I went back to my Android phone. 
> >> >> I sold the 5c to a friend.
> >> >
> >> > Sounds about right. I'm surprised they hired you at all. At least they
> >> > corrected their mistake. I work with Apple employees, and have more as
> >> > friends, and you don't seem to fit the mold. No offense, just calling it
> >> > like I see it.
> >> 
> >> If I'd known what I was in for, I'd never have accepted the position.  I
> >> was *applying* for a job located in Cincinatti, but it turned out to be
> >> in Cupertino.  I should have stopped it right there.
> >
> > how did you confuse the two?
> >
> > didn't it say cupertino?
> 
> No, it said Cincinnati.  Turns out it was being recruited or something
> out of an office in Cincinnati.  I wanted to move there to take care of
> my parents, if and when.  At this point, I'm trying to move to Denver.
> 
> 
> >> They're not implemented in files?
> >
> > under the hood it could be, but who cares. the user never sees that
> > part nor interacts with it.
> 
> As a sys admin, I care about it a lot.  I have to maintain it, by
> supporting the DBAs.  I'm not a user.  When working, I'm generally in
> the shell.  On Linux, not Mac OS [X].
> 
> The last time I did anything to support Mac OS in production was around
> 1990 in Greenwich, CT.  There was a pathologist involved, as a client. 
> And she knew how to use her scalpel, at least on dead things.  I didn't
> want her to try it on me!  No, make that 1999 in Dallas, to support an
> art department. They were relieved to have some support for a change.

I'm not sure if you'd trust SMART disks, but I'll share my experience on 
servers in a datacenter.  We ran a small server farm of 60 Fedora 17 
boxes for a bunch of chip designers as a compute farm.  Each machine had 
a 4TB system disk with the OS and the rest of the disk as the /extra 
partition and /tmp was disk space instead of swap.  Some systems tried 
using /extra for temporary storage but it became easier for designers to 
just keep their files on the NFS file shares.

Some of the older machines had 3TB disks that started show errors in the 
SMART reporter, so my boss swapped those out with 4TB disks and reloaded 
the OS.  Since all the data was on NFS, this was simple.  He stashed 
those drives away to be electronically shredded and ewasted as time 
permitted.

I was told to build a system which wasn't going to be used for the 
designers but for Nagios monitoring and other sysadmin tasks.  So it was 
pretty minimal.  I got the chassis and motherboard, CPUs, and memory but 
was going to use one of the 4TB disks we kept as extras.  I thought I'd 
save money by using one of the 3TB disks.

It turns out that even though the entire disk wasn't being accessed, 
there were still SMART errors that kept increasing..  As I copied stuff 
to the /extras partition, I started getting I/O errors and the SMART 
error count went up.  I confessed my sins to my boss, fell on my sword, 
and rebuilt the system on a new 4TB disk.

SMART enabled drives may be what you want.  Some drives have this 
feature on my Mac.  My original Apple Western Digital drive, the Toshiba 
4TB I got from OWC, and the Crucial SSD are all SMART drives but the 
Newer Technology 2TB is not. I use SMARTreporter to monitor drive 
integrity.

You may think that you have to touch each track to ensure that you've 
still got a viable drive.  That's your call on if you want to write code 
to do that.  Or you can trust the SMART features of drives that have 
this feature.

I fairly certain that datacenters don't have time to mess with your way 
so they just monitor the SMART status and remove drives that start 
showing errors.

YMMV.

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]


0
Michael
12/29/2015 7:56:45 AM
On 2015-12-29, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-28, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnn81erl.sf8.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
>><howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>> Since it doesn't, I already have a way to identify images
>>> with my Mom in them.  It's called "text files which contain descriptions
>>> of my images", at least for film. 
>>
>> that's actually a primitive database, one which is a pain in the ass to
>> create and maintain.
>
> Of course it is.  It's also a directory tree.  I used to see occasional
> references to RMS as a database.  Kinda blew my mind when I first saw
> that POV.

*WHOOSH*

Manually copying image files to whatever specific folder in disk
followed by manually updating plain text files cannot hold a candle to
simply importing a photo into the Photos database and having the photo
automatically show up under Faces > Mom. : )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/29/2015 3:49:38 PM
On 2015-12-29, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-28, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-27 20:41, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>> Where is that?  I just did a quick check through the main window, all
>>> the menus, and the prefs.  I saw nothing relevant.
>>
>> Hook up a camera or card.  Photos starts and wants to import.  Look at 
>> the checkboxes up top on the app.  Silly way to do things to be sure, 
>> but there it is.
>
> Unfortunately, it's ineffective.  After importing images, I have the
> camera reformat the chip to remove the old data, which makes Photos lose
> track of it.
>
> And there's no way to disable it entirely.

If you allow Photos to delete the images it imports, you don't have to
reformat the entire card. Simple.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/29/2015 3:52:29 PM
On 2015-12-28 19:28, Lewis wrote:
> In message <r6WdnVscY_8NOhzLnZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>    Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-27 21:31, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <Pb6dnXJbo8FL8h3LnZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>
>>>     Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2015-12-26 18:09, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This is UNIX.  You some kind of heretic, saying there are things which
>>>>> aren't files??  Everything's a file!
>>>
>>>> 1990 says "hi".
>>>
>>> It wasn't true in 1990 either.
>
>
>> I didn't want to shock Howard too badly.  I don't recall when Unix began
>> it's transition from the ideal of everything is a file to reality.
>
> The instant anyone created a database on a UNIX system. Soooo, 1970?

For direct record access, sure.

But I/O as "not-a-file"?  Quite a bit later, I assume.

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/29/2015 3:53:58 PM
On 2015-12-29, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-29, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> there is no need to reformat the card every time. 
>>
>> erase all photos after importing (which can be automatic if you prefer)
>> and then put it back in the camera, or erase the card in the camera.
>> either way works.
>
> I erase the card in the camera by reformatting it.  It's simplest.

No, simplest is allowing Photos to delete the images it imports.

> Either way, when I put the chip in the computer next
> time, it's not recognized as the same chip.

You're doing it wrong. And I suspect this applies to many aspects of how
you use OS X. Some people are so stuck in their ways, they make life
harder for themselves because they are unable to adapt. I call them
dinosaurs. The world pases them by because the rest of us don't allow
insignificant changes to become obstacles.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/29/2015 3:55:10 PM
On 2015-12-29 00:19, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-28, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnn81ekf.sf8.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
>> <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>> Personally, I have a program
>>> I like and use occasionally.  It's written in Java.  It's slower than
>>> fuck, and occasionally crashes.
>>
>> whatever app that happens to be is poorly written. that's not a flaw of
>> java, but rather a flaw of its design. shitty software can be written
>> in any language.
>
> I think that was my point.  C has the benefit of being close to the
> hardware.  That's useful for some situations.

A lot of languages are close to the hardware.  Pascal, Ada, many others 
provide all sorts of hooks (via register, memory access, software 
interrupt (x86)) to read/control h/w on a very wide range of OS' and 
platforms.

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/29/2015 3:57:00 PM
On 2015-12-29, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-28, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> My suggestion is that, as a starting point, you opt-out of everything 
>> that is off of your main disk.  This assumes that you keep most work on 
>> your main disk.
>>
>> Can't help you on opt-in over opt out, but to make things behave as 
>> smooth as possible for doubtful you, that's what I suggest.
>
> Yeah, it's a problem.  If I have a backup drive which is not always
> connected (sometimes it's offsite), I have to remember to OPT-OUT.  If I
> reformat or replace the drive, I have to remember to OPT-OUT again. 
> Apple just ... doesn't get it.

Oh, you poor mistreated thing! You have to click a couple widgets when
you reformat your backup drive! That happens how often for you? : D

>>> If I wanted that, and I do, Spotlight doesn't deliver.  As I said, too
>>> much noise to find the signal.  If I need Spotlight to find the results
>>> I care about in a Spotlight results list, that's not very useful to me.
>>
>> A poor craftsman blames his tools.  Spotlight finds what I'm looking for 
>> at least 9 times in 10.  Elsewise, Finder's Find, with or without 
>> various filter settings finds it - just less quickly because it's less 
>> quick to spec.
>
> They're not my tools.  They're Apple's tools.  I had nothing to do with
> designing or implementing them.  

Neither are the wrenches, hammers, etc in your tool box. They are made
by someone else too. The saying applies equally in both situations. Real
craftsmen adapt rather than blaming the tools.

> If they were my tools, they'd do what I wanted.

Good craftsman learn to use the right tool for the job.

> You've "borrowed" someone else's tools and made do.

Most tools are made by others, silly.

>> As to noise and signal I put it to you that you are 1000x quicker 
>> picking out the result you seek from a Spotlight list than you are 
>> setting up a perfect outcome search in command line.
>
> Trying to find one item in a list of 500 is not quick.  It requires a
> sub-search to find the signal.

If you have 500 hits, your search criteria sucks.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/29/2015 4:02:16 PM
On 2015-12-29, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>
> Every time I see a db, it always looks like a file system in one way or
> another.

When the only tool you use is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/29/2015 4:03:38 PM
On 2015-12-29 00:24, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-28, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-27 20:41, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>> Where is that?  I just did a quick check through the main window, all
>>> the menus, and the prefs.  I saw nothing relevant.
>>
>> Hook up a camera or card.  Photos starts and wants to import.  Look at
>> the checkboxes up top on the app.  Silly way to do things to be sure,
>> but there it is.
>
> Unfortunately, it's ineffective.  After importing images, I have the
> camera reformat the chip to remove the old data, which makes Photos lose
> track of it.

I reformat in camera every few cycles and Photos still tracks the card 
and doesn't open on it anymore.

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/29/2015 4:04:01 PM
On 2015-12-29, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-28, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> under the hood it could be, but who cares. the user never sees that
>> part nor interacts with it.
>
> As a sys admin, I care about it a lot.  I have to maintain it, by
> supporting the DBAs.

You act as if you are the only one here doing system administration.
You'd be *very* wrong.

> I'm not a user.

Wrong. We are all users.

> When working, I'm generally in the shell.  On Linux, not Mac OS [X].

Irrelevant since we're talking about OS X here.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/29/2015 4:05:03 PM
On 2015-12-29, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-28, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> mds does very little once the origianl indexing pass is finished.  After 
>> that it's just maintenance.
>
> When things are going right, perhaps.  I see it active for an
> indeterminate time fairly frequently.  That's when it gets my attention.

"That pesky mds process is using 1% of my CPU again! DAMMIT!!"

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/29/2015 4:06:49 PM
On 2015-12-29 00:34, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-28, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-27 20:47, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>> That works on specific locations.  And those locations have to have been
>>> available at some point, and they have to be specifically disabled.  I
>>> want OPT-IN, not OPT-OUT.
>>
>> My suggestion is that, as a starting point, you opt-out of everything
>> that is off of your main disk.  This assumes that you keep most work on
>> your main disk.
>>
>> Can't help you on opt-in over opt out, but to make things behave as
>> smooth as possible for doubtful you, that's what I suggest.
>
> Yeah, it's a problem.  If I have a backup drive which is not always
> connected (sometimes it's offsite), I have to remember to OPT-OUT.  If I
> reformat or replace the drive, I have to remember to OPT-OUT again.
> Apple just ... doesn't get it.

More like you're making life far more complicated than it needs to be. 
I mean how often does one really need to re-format a drive?  I have 4 
external HD's here that were formatted 2 or more years ago.  I have USB 
keys that get re-formatted about once per year.  Maybe.

>
>
>>> If I wanted that, and I do, Spotlight doesn't deliver.  As I said, too
>>> much noise to find the signal.  If I need Spotlight to find the results
>>> I care about in a Spotlight results list, that's not very useful to me.
>>
>> A poor craftsman blames his tools.  Spotlight finds what I'm looking for
>> at least 9 times in 10.  Elsewise, Finder's Find, with or without
>> various filter settings finds it - just less quickly because it's less
>> quick to spec.
>
> They're not my tools.  They're Apple's tools.  I had nothing to do with
> designing or implementing them.  If they were my tools, they'd do what I
> wanted.

Nice spin.  But there's nothing wrong with Apple's tools.  You're just 
not employing them well.

> You've "borrowed" someone else's tools and made do.  I bet you'd do
> better with tools you wrote yourself, if you wanted to take the time. In
> effect, I've done the same by using tools of my choice, which some people
> here seem to be bothered by.

I write a lot of my own code related to personal and work projects, but 
they are higher level things.  For low level stuff I use what's 
available and learn to use it appropriately.  From over 30 years of 
using and programming computers I can safely say that the most basic OS 
X tools of today blow away the methods of 20+ years ago that you seem 
wont to cling to.

>>> I'm pretty sure you're right that Finder uses Spotlight.  What I said
>>> earlier about noise and signal.
>>
>> No.  That's not what I said.  The mds daemon searches and builds the
>> index saving the keywords and filenames in a database.  Both Spotlight
>> and Finder's Find use that same database but with different search
>> approaches.  The former being more clever and broad the later being more
>> literal and narrow.  [1]
>
> Interesting point.  I assume they use the same db also.
>
>
>> As to noise and signal I put it to you that you are 1000x quicker
>> picking out the result you seek from a Spotlight list than you are
>> setting up a perfect outcome search in command line.
>
> Trying to find one item in a list of 500 is not quick.  It requires a
> sub-search to find the signal.

Seems your search criteria is too loose.

>
> Having a tool which, and I'm not saying Spotlight does this, but making
> a point, which finds EVERYTHING, EVERY time, is certainly quick, but not
> very useful.
>
> I once proposed a VERY fast math library, which would always return the
> answer "17".  It would be VERY quick to calculate this, but not very
> accurate most of the time.  This was in answer to a DEC engineer who
> built a math library which was accurate to 1/2 bit (read: ±1 bit), but
> fairly slow. Great if you wanted ultimate accuracy, but not everyone
> needs that all the time.  The reverse was my "17" math library, which I
> got from "The Phantom Tollbooth"'s Humbug character.

Amusing.  I used to write realtime code on not very fast micros, so I 
often hard coded (in assembler) routines to do specific multiplications. 
  eg   "a X 12" was two shifts (3&2 bits) and one addition.  So wherever 
the code needed a fixed multiplication there would be a specific bit of 
code to do it.  How many dB SNR?  One really big (for those days) lookup 
table.  Etc.

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/29/2015 4:14:22 PM
On 2015-12-29, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-28, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> The majority of the time, Spotlight finds exactly what I am looking for.
>> Your search methods are suspect to me. Can you give a concrete example
>> of how Spotlight search results are too noisy and don't find what you
>> are looking for please?
>
> Okay, I just entered "Hey, Ho", expecting a music file by the Lumineers.

Where is this music file located? Is it imported into iTunes?

> The result was singular, not a list.  It opened a PDF file containing a
> novel by Robert A. Heinlein.  Whoops.  Let's try it correctly, "Ho Hey".
> Went back to the PDF file.  Hm.

No doubt that PDF contains the search phrase. Since you didn't specify
you didn't want PDF documents, it's a good thing it showed up.

> When I went back in to try again, it opened a window showing the PDF
> file as the top hit, and the directory containing the music file, named
> the same, as the second item.  Then a bunch of PDF files.

Then you did something differently that time you searched, but you
haven't told us what.

What I would do, if I were only interested in audio files, is search
for:

	kind: audio Hey

That would find only audio files with "Hey" in them.

> Searching for "t.txt", which is my standard temporary file, it found a
> few plus a few other things.

That's expected operation, yes.

> Perhaps it has improved to some degree. 
> Still, a PDF file with nothing like "ho hey" in the name, nor anything
> relevant internally?

Oh, it's definitely got those words in it.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/29/2015 4:14:40 PM
On 2015-12-29 00:38, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-29, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> In message <r6WdnVscY_8NOhzLnZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>    Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-27 21:31, Lewis wrote:
>>>> In message <Pb6dnXJbo8FL8h3LnZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>
>>>>     Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-12-26 18:09, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> This is UNIX.  You some kind of heretic, saying there are things which
>>>>>> aren't files??  Everything's a file!
>>>>
>>>>> 1990 says "hi".
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't true in 1990 either.
>>
>>
>>> I didn't want to shock Howard too badly.  I don't recall when Unix began
>>> it's transition from the ideal of everything is a file to reality.
>>
>> The instant anyone created a database on a UNIX system. Soooo, 1970?
>
> Every time I see a db, it always looks like a file system in one way or
> another.  If I look at it in a shell, it's a set of files, whether on
> UNIX or OpenVMS.  I haven't tried it on IBM's big iron OSs.

I think you're missing the point that I/O on Unix has not been solely 
file based for a very long time.


-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/29/2015 4:15:20 PM
On 2015-12-29 00:58, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-28, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-27 23:23, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-28, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> On 2015-12-XX::XX:XX, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>>>> Databases are files.
>>>>
>>>> Not nearly the same thing, even if the distinction is beyond you.
>>>
>>> They're not implemented in files?
>>
>> Of course - but you seem to be confusing the old state Unix (serial
>> files) with direct block access within files which is a basic
>> requirement of databases.  Databases would grind to a crawl if they
>> accessed files as originally practiced in Unix.
>
> Wait, I only said "files".  I didn't specify anything beyond that.  We
> may be in agreement.  I said nothing of tape.

Somewhere up there in the thread you implied that Unix I/O was still 
file based.  That's not true and hasn't been since the 80's at least and 
possibly longer.  The original notion in Unix that everything was a file 
meant they were read serially.  That notion has been dead for decades.

>
>
>>> Right, but the mds task does, in the background.  I don't have to use it
>>> for it to actively use resources.
>>
>> mds does very little once the origianl indexing pass is finished.  After
>> that it's just maintenance.
>
> When things are going right, perhaps.  I see it active for an
> indeterminate time fairly frequently.  That's when it gets my attention.

 From time to time it re-indexes.  Why?  Maybe it detects a fault, maybe 
it's db gets too messy or large so it rebuilds it.  I really haven't 
noticed it being active in a very long time (not the least because they 
removed the dot from the mag-glass icon in the upper right that 
indicated an indexing pass...

It helps to shut off Monitor and leave it off.  Lots happens in the 
background and there's no need to watch unless the CPU or I/O seems 
sluggish.  Don't see that often anymore.  Beachballs are rare.  Kernel 
panics?  Don't recall any in the last 5+ years.

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/29/2015 4:20:33 PM
On 2015-12-29 02:15, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-29, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnn84682.tdk.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
>> <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Where is that?  I just did a quick check through the main window, all
>>>>> the menus, and the prefs.  I saw nothing relevant.
>>>>
>>>> Hook up a camera or card.  Photos starts and wants to import.  Look at
>>>> the checkboxes up top on the app.  Silly way to do things to be sure,
>>>> but there it is.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, it's ineffective.  After importing images, I have the
>>> camera reformat the chip to remove the old data, which makes Photos lose
>>> track of it.
>>
>> there is no need to reformat the card every time.
>>
>> erase all photos after importing (which can be automatic if you prefer)
>> and then put it back in the camera, or erase the card in the camera.
>> either way works.
>
> I erase the card in the camera by reformatting it.  It's simplest.  Or
> do I?  I forget.  Either way, when I put the chip in the computer next
> time, it's not recognized as the same chip.

No such issue here.  Indeed I just tested it to be sure.


-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/29/2015 4:21:53 PM
In message <slrnn84cp7.th3.howard@foxtrot.local> 
  Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-29, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnn84682.tdk.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
>><howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>
>>> >> Where is that?  I just did a quick check through the main window, all
>>> >> the menus, and the prefs.  I saw nothing relevant.
>>> >
>>> > Hook up a camera or card.  Photos starts and wants to import.  Look at 
>>> > the checkboxes up top on the app.  Silly way to do things to be sure, 
>>> > but there it is.
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately, it's ineffective.  After importing images, I have the
>>> camera reformat the chip to remove the old data, which makes Photos lose
>>> track of it.
>>
>> there is no need to reformat the card every time. 
>>
>> erase all photos after importing (which can be automatic if you prefer)
>> and then put it back in the camera, or erase the card in the camera.
>> either way works.

> I erase the card in the camera by reformatting it. 

That's silly.

> It's simplest.

Of course it is not. It's an extra step. Import and delete on import
means one click and one step and it means you aren't forcing the
computer (and the camera) to process the card as a new card every time.

>>> And there's no way to disable it entirely.
>>
>> yes there is.

> Please, enlighten me.  Photos.app can't be deleted, OPT-OUT isn't
> reliable, OPT-IN isn't an option.  What's left?

Stop formatting the card. Problem (you created) solved.


-- 
Try to realize it's all within yourself/No one else can make you change
0
Lewis
12/29/2015 4:26:32 PM
In article <slrnn84cj5.th3.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
<howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> >> >> Personally, I have a program
> >> >> I like and use occasionally.  It's written in Java.  It's slower than
> >> >> fuck, and occasionally crashes.
> >> >
> >> > whatever app that happens to be is poorly written. that's not a flaw of
> >> > java, but rather a flaw of its design. shitty software can be written
> >> > in any language.
> >> 
> >> I think that was my point.  C has the benefit of being close to the
> >> hardware.  That's useful for some situations.
> >
> > very, very few situations does that matter. embedded devices comes to
> > mind, but not general purpose computers.
> 
> How do you think code generation happens?  Is it magic?

from the compiler.

> Yes, it's not
> many who need it, but there are definitely a group of programmers out
> there who need to understand it.

as i said, very few.
0
nospam
12/29/2015 4:49:27 PM
In article <slrnn84cln.th3.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
<howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> >> using files.
> >
> > that's just an implementation detail which makes no difference to the
> > user.
> 
> Yes and no.  I, as a user, have occasionally mis-named a new catalog and
> had to go in and rename the files involved to fix it.

that's a high level function where the user does not need direct file
access.

> As a system manager, I don't see this issue as minor.

it is.
0
nospam
12/29/2015 4:49:28 PM
In article <slrnn84cp7.th3.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
<howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> >> >> Where is that?  I just did a quick check through the main window, all
> >> >> the menus, and the prefs.  I saw nothing relevant.
> >> >
> >> > Hook up a camera or card.  Photos starts and wants to import.  Look at 
> >> > the checkboxes up top on the app.  Silly way to do things to be sure, 
> >> > but there it is.
> >> 
> >> Unfortunately, it's ineffective.  After importing images, I have the
> >> camera reformat the chip to remove the old data, which makes Photos lose
> >> track of it.
> >
> > there is no need to reformat the card every time. 
> >
> > erase all photos after importing (which can be automatic if you prefer)
> > and then put it back in the camera, or erase the card in the camera.
> > either way works.
> 
> I erase the card in the camera by reformatting it.  It's simplest.  

the simplest is have the photos automatically deleted after importing. 

> Or
> do I?  I forget.  Either way, when I put the chip in the computer next
> time, it's not recognized as the same chip.

that's because a newly formatted card (or any volume) is rightly seen
as a different device.

again, there's no need to reformat all the time. instead, select all &
delete, either on the computer or in the camera. 

> >> And there's no way to disable it entirely.
> >
> > yes there is.
> 
> Please, enlighten me.  Photos.app can't be deleted, 

it can if you really want to but that's a bad idea for many reasons

> OPT-OUT isn't
> reliable, OPT-IN isn't an option.  What's left?

<http://petapixel.com/2015/12/21/stop-apple-photos-from-auto-launching-i
n-os-x-with-one-command/>
0
nospam
12/29/2015 4:49:29 PM
In article <vilain-6A5DB2.23564428122015@news.individual.net>, Michael
Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:

> SMART enabled drives may be what you want.  Some drives have this 
> feature on my Mac.  My original Apple Western Digital drive, the Toshiba 
> 4TB I got from OWC, and the Crucial SSD are all SMART drives but the 
> Newer Technology 2TB is not. I use SMARTreporter to monitor drive 
> integrity.
> 
> You may think that you have to touch each track to ensure that you've 
> still got a viable drive.  That's your call on if you want to write code 
> to do that.  Or you can trust the SMART features of drives that have 
> this feature.

all modern drives have smart.
0
nospam
12/29/2015 4:49:30 PM
On 2015-12-29 11:49, nospam wrote:
> In article <slrnn84cp7.th3.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
> <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Where is that?  I just did a quick check through the main window, all
>>>>>> the menus, and the prefs.  I saw nothing relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hook up a camera or card.  Photos starts and wants to import.  Look at
>>>>> the checkboxes up top on the app.  Silly way to do things to be sure,
>>>>> but there it is.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, it's ineffective.  After importing images, I have the
>>>> camera reformat the chip to remove the old data, which makes Photos lose
>>>> track of it.
>>>
>>> there is no need to reformat the card every time.
>>>
>>> erase all photos after importing (which can be automatic if you prefer)
>>> and then put it back in the camera, or erase the card in the camera.
>>> either way works.
>>
>> I erase the card in the camera by reformatting it.  It's simplest.
>
> the simplest is have the photos automatically deleted after importing.

Never liked that idea.  I verify they're on disk and at least Time 
Machine has cycled before manually deleting the images.

>
>> Or
>> do I?  I forget.  Either way, when I put the chip in the computer next
>> time, it's not recognized as the same chip.
>
> that's because a newly formatted card (or any volume) is rightly seen
> as a different device.

No such issue here.  I just reformatted a CF card in camera and 
connected it to the Mac.  Photos stayed mute.  It recognized the CF Card 
serno. (or some other unique attribute).

> again, there's no need to reformat all the time. instead, select all &
> delete, either on the computer or in the camera.
>
>>>> And there's no way to disable it entirely.
>>>
>>> yes there is.
>>
>> Please, enlighten me.  Photos.app can't be deleted,
>
> it can if you really want to but that's a bad idea for many reasons
>
>> OPT-OUT isn't
>> reliable, OPT-IN isn't an option.  What's left?
>
> <http://petapixel.com/2015/12/21/stop-apple-photos-from-auto-launching-i
> n-os-x-with-one-command/>

Nice!

Next to see if that survives the next major upgrade (or minor for that 
matter ...)

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/29/2015 5:20:26 PM
On 2015-12-29, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-12-29 11:49, nospam wrote:
>>
>> the simplest is have the photos automatically deleted after importing.
>
> Never liked that idea.  I verify they're on disk and at least Time 
> Machine has cycled before manually deleting the images.

I'm not sure your fear is really warranted. I've used that feature of
Photos (iPhoto) for many years, and it has never failed me. That said,
most cameras will allow you to delete individual photos rather than
reformatting the entire card.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/29/2015 5:31:26 PM
On 2015-12-29 12:31, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-12-29, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-29 11:49, nospam wrote:
>>>
>>> the simplest is have the photos automatically deleted after importing.
>>
>> Never liked that idea.  I verify they're on disk and at least Time
>> Machine has cycled before manually deleting the images.
>
> I'm not sure your fear is really warranted. I've used that feature of
> Photos (iPhoto) for many years, and it has never failed me. That said,
> most cameras will allow you to delete individual photos rather than
> reformatting the entire card.

Good habits ≠ Fear.  Some habits from yore are hard to give up.  Doesn't 
cost me anything, anyway other than deleting the set in Bridge or Finder 
and emptying the Trash.

As to re-formatting that's also a habit from the early days of digital 
photography where the CW was to re-format every time.  I never did that, 
I'd go 3 - 5 loads before doing it.  The notion at the time was that not 
formatting left the card file structure fragmented and that it could 
slow down shooting rate (which wasn't very fast in early digital cameras 
- not that I often shot fast).

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/29/2015 5:52:08 PM
On 2015-12-29 12:47, nospam wrote:
> In article <AfKdnW8lot1HXR_LnZ2dnUU7-T-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Where is that?  I just did a quick check through the main window, all
>>>>>>>> the menus, and the prefs.  I saw nothing relevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hook up a camera or card.  Photos starts and wants to import.  Look at
>>>>>>> the checkboxes up top on the app.  Silly way to do things to be sure,
>>>>>>> but there it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, it's ineffective.  After importing images, I have the
>>>>>> camera reformat the chip to remove the old data, which makes Photos lose
>>>>>> track of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> there is no need to reformat the card every time.
>>>>>
>>>>> erase all photos after importing (which can be automatic if you prefer)
>>>>> and then put it back in the camera, or erase the card in the camera.
>>>>> either way works.
>>>>
>>>> I erase the card in the camera by reformatting it.  It's simplest.
>>>
>>> the simplest is have the photos automatically deleted after importing.
>>
>> Never liked that idea.  I verify they're on disk and at least Time
>> Machine has cycled before manually deleting the images.
>
> agreed, but he wants the simplest solution. he didn't ask for a safe
> and redundant solution.
>
>>>> Or
>>>> do I?  I forget.  Either way, when I put the chip in the computer next
>>>> time, it's not recognized as the same chip.
>>>
>>> that's because a newly formatted card (or any volume) is rightly seen
>>> as a different device.
>>
>> No such issue here.  I just reformatted a CF card in camera and
>> connected it to the Mac.  Photos stayed mute.  It recognized the CF Card
>> serno. (or some other unique attribute).
>
> then you disabled autolaunch some other way.

Nope.  Just removed the check mark in Photos.

> the way it detects it is by the device's uuid, which changes whenever
> it's reformatted. that's how it knows the difference between cards (or
> drives) with the same name.

Then perhaps my camera doesn't change the UUID when it formats.

>
>>> again, there's no need to reformat all the time. instead, select all &
>>> delete, either on the computer or in the camera.
>>>
>>>>>> And there's no way to disable it entirely.
>>>>>
>>>>> yes there is.
>>>>
>>>> Please, enlighten me.  Photos.app can't be deleted,
>>>
>>> it can if you really want to but that's a bad idea for many reasons
>>>
>>>> OPT-OUT isn't
>>>> reliable, OPT-IN isn't an option.  What's left?
>>>
>>> <http://petapixel.com/2015/12/21/stop-apple-photos-from-auto-launching-i
>>> n-os-x-with-one-command/>
>>
>> Nice!
>>
>> Next to see if that survives the next major upgrade (or minor for that
>> matter ...)
>
> it probably won't :)

Indeed.


-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/29/2015 5:54:14 PM
In article <_bWdnWDyZdfUVR_LnZ2dnUU7-bGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> 
> As to re-formatting that's also a habit from the early days of digital 
> photography where the CW was to re-format every time.  I never did that, 
> I'd go 3 - 5 loads before doing it.  The notion at the time was that not 
> formatting left the card file structure fragmented and that it could 
> slow down shooting rate (which wasn't very fast in early digital cameras 
> - not that I often shot fast).

myth.

there is no fragmentation if all photos are deleted.

if *some* photos are deleted and others kept, then there will be
fragmentation, which *might* be an issue, but that's only if someone is
pushing the limits of the camera's buffer and card, and that's not
usually the case.

even those with cameras such as a nikon d4 don't shoot at 10 fps all
the time, plus it has a good size buffer so the card doesn't really
matter.
0
nospam
12/29/2015 5:59:45 PM
In article <_bWdnWPyZddbVR_LnZ2dnUU7-bEAAAAA@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> >>>> Or
> >>>> do I?  I forget.  Either way, when I put the chip in the computer next
> >>>> time, it's not recognized as the same chip.
> >>>
> >>> that's because a newly formatted card (or any volume) is rightly seen
> >>> as a different device.
> >>
> >> No such issue here.  I just reformatted a CF card in camera and
> >> connected it to the Mac.  Photos stayed mute.  It recognized the CF Card
> >> serno. (or some other unique attribute).
> >
> > then you disabled autolaunch some other way.
> 
> Nope.  Just removed the check mark in Photos.

something else is going on.

> > the way it detects it is by the device's uuid, which changes whenever
> > it's reformatted. that's how it knows the difference between cards (or
> > drives) with the same name.
> 
> Then perhaps my camera doesn't change the UUID when it formats.

it does.
0
nospam
12/29/2015 5:59:45 PM
On 2015-12-29 12:59, nospam wrote:
> In article <_bWdnWPyZddbVR_LnZ2dnUU7-bEAAAAA@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Or
>>>>>> do I?  I forget.  Either way, when I put the chip in the computer next
>>>>>> time, it's not recognized as the same chip.
>>>>>
>>>>> that's because a newly formatted card (or any volume) is rightly seen
>>>>> as a different device.
>>>>
>>>> No such issue here.  I just reformatted a CF card in camera and
>>>> connected it to the Mac.  Photos stayed mute.  It recognized the CF Card
>>>> serno. (or some other unique attribute).
>>>
>>> then you disabled autolaunch some other way.
>>
>> Nope.  Just removed the check mark in Photos.
>
> something else is going on.
>
>>> the way it detects it is by the device's uuid, which changes whenever
>>> it's reformatted. that's how it knows the difference between cards (or
>>> drives) with the same name.
>>
>> Then perhaps my camera doesn't change the UUID when it formats.
>
> it does.

Well, from the beginning of the Photos nonsense I've checked off some 
half dozen cards.  Two of those have been reformatted several times in 
camera.  But Photos no longer starts with those cards.

	disutil info disk9
	disutil info disk9s1
	
    do not even give a Volume UUID (disk or volume).

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/29/2015 6:16:14 PM
On 2015-12-21, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> Relying on smart data is not an option for drives which don't support 
> smart.  I have yet to see an external, desktop drive which does.  Maybe 
> this is to keep the cost down or maybe there is a technical reason they 
> can't.  I don't know.

I've had a drive fail when SMART reported no errors, even after I'd let
the drive cool down overnight and manage to remount it.

IOW while SMART might be a good indicator that a drive is on its way to
failure, it's not an indicator that the drive won't fail sometime soon.

-- 
An invention needs to make sense in the world in which it's finished,
not the world in which it's started.                  -- Ray Kurzweil
0
Paul
12/29/2015 7:47:25 PM
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:49:30 -0500, nospam wrote
(in article <291220151149303685%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

> In article <vilain-6A5DB2.23564428122015@news.individual.net>, Michael
> Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> 
>> SMART enabled drives may be what you want.  Some drives have this 
>> feature on my Mac.  My original Apple Western Digital drive, the Toshiba 
>> 4TB I got from OWC, and the Crucial SSD are all SMART drives but the 
>> Newer Technology 2TB is not. I use SMARTreporter to monitor drive 
>> integrity.
>> 
>> You may think that you have to touch each track to ensure that you've 
>> still got a viable drive.  That's your call on if you want to write code 
>> to do that.  Or you can trust the SMART features of drives that have 
>> this feature.
> 
> all modern drives have smart.

But how, oh wise one, does one access it on an external drive?

-- 
Nelson

0
Nelson
12/29/2015 7:49:38 PM
On 2015-12-19, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-19, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> In message <oOSdncP7f865IunLnZ2dnUU7-aednZ2d@giganews.com> 
>>   Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> There is also the fact that each backup requires several hours to 
>>> complete. There are only so many hours in a day.
>>
>> Then you are doing backups wrong.
>
> rsync is the only way.

Normal Time Machine backups, SuperDuper clones and rsync to a ZFS system
are my current methods.

-- 
An invention needs to make sense in the world in which it's finished,
not the world in which it's started.                  -- Ray Kurzweil
0
Paul
12/29/2015 7:55:19 PM
On 2015-12-29 14:49, Nelson wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:49:30 -0500, nospam wrote
> (in article <291220151149303685%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>
>> In article <vilain-6A5DB2.23564428122015@news.individual.net>, Michael
>> Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>> SMART enabled drives may be what you want.  Some drives have this
>>> feature on my Mac.  My original Apple Western Digital drive, the Toshiba
>>> 4TB I got from OWC, and the Crucial SSD are all SMART drives but the
>>> Newer Technology 2TB is not. I use SMARTreporter to monitor drive
>>> integrity.
>>>
>>> You may think that you have to touch each track to ensure that you've
>>> still got a viable drive.  That's your call on if you want to write code
>>> to do that.  Or you can trust the SMART features of drives that have
>>> this feature.
>>
>> all modern drives have smart.
>
> But how, oh wise one, does one access it on an external drive?

You don't have to be wise to Google.

http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/47045/s-m-a-r-t-for-usb-and-firewire-drives

That said, I'd verify that it works with El Capitan before paying for 
it.  Not clear from corecode's site:

https://www.corecode.at/smartreporter/ -- not sure about 10.11 compat.

https://www.volitans-software.com/apps/smart-utility/ -- 10.11 OK

http://binaryfruit.com/drivedx/usb-drive-support -- 10.11 OK

Caveat: 10.11 OK above is per the s/w vendors.  Not me!

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/29/2015 7:58:55 PM
In article <0001HW.D2A84E020271FC34B02919BF@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson
<nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >> SMART enabled drives may be what you want.  Some drives have this 
> >> feature on my Mac.  My original Apple Western Digital drive, the Toshiba 
> >> 4TB I got from OWC, and the Crucial SSD are all SMART drives but the 
> >> Newer Technology 2TB is not. I use SMARTreporter to monitor drive 
> >> integrity.
> >> 
> >> You may think that you have to touch each track to ensure that you've 
> >> still got a viable drive.  That's your call on if you want to write code 
> >> to do that.  Or you can trust the SMART features of drives that have 
> >> this feature.
> > 
> > all modern drives have smart.
> 
> But how, oh wise one, does one access it on an external drive?

he didn't say anything about internal or external drives. he said to
get a smart enabled drive. all drives are smart enabled.

smart won't be seen on external drives, however, some bridge chips go
beyond the spec and sends it, but it requires a custom driver to read
it, as it's not part of the spec. choose an enclosure that does.

this was mentioned a week or so ago and is being discussed currently in
another subthread. do try to keep up.
0
nospam
12/29/2015 8:02:22 PM
>> Having considered that, I did 'md5' and 'sum'  more than once,
>> alternating, and picked the highest for each.  shasum I only did once,
>> but it was some time later, so if it had been cached, it probably was no
>> longer.
>
> You can't really know.  Cached data sticks for a long time - there's no
> timeout on it.
>

But I only have 8 GB and I did a lot of other stuff in between. 
Probably including a time machine backup.

0
Happy
12/29/2015 9:11:19 PM
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <n5mq0t$u6a$2@dont-email.me>, Erilar
> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> New confusion.  My Time Capsule isn't a bootable backup because it's
>> connected wirelessly?
> 
> it's not bootable because it's a network drive. you have it connected
> wirelessly but it could be connected via wired ethernet.
> 

I'm afraid I don't understand. I don't even know offhand if both TC and
laptop HAVE ethernet ports, but why? I believe I do have a spare ethernet
cable somewhere in my cable collection. (”spare" because that's what
connects the G4 to the airport, I believe. At 81 with undependable knees, I
don't crawl under the desk with a flashlight to sort out connections except
in dire emergency)

-- 
biblioholic medievalist via iPad
0
Erilar
12/29/2015 9:12:34 PM
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <n5mq0t$u6a$2@dont-email.me>, Erilar
>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> New confusion.  My Time Capsule isn't a bootable backup because it's
>>> connected wirelessly?
>> 
>> it's not bootable because it's a network drive. you have it connected
>> wirelessly but it could be connected via wired ethernet.
> 
> Note that a non-bootable backup is still very useful since you can restore
> from it if you have another drive to restore the backup onto. Being able to
> boot from it is just an added convenience.
> 

I'm getting into strange territory here, I fear.  Having had one laptop die
rather spectacularly, I'd assumed the need to reboot would be onto a new
laptop.  Am I off track?

-- 
biblioholic medievalist via iPad
0
Erilar
12/29/2015 9:12:35 PM
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <de8evqF7ppiU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> New confusion.  My Time Capsule isn't a bootable backup because it's
>>>> connected wirelessly?
>>> 
>>> it's not bootable because it's a network drive. you have it connected
>>> wirelessly but it could be connected via wired ethernet.
>> 
>> Note that a non-bootable backup is still very useful since you can restore
>> from it if you have another drive to restore the backup onto. Being able to
>> boot from it is just an added convenience.
> 
> also note that a directly attached time machine drive (not a time
> capsule) is bootable.
> 

I'm very definitely in strange territory here or I'm having a stupidity
attack today. Time machine drive? I thought Time Machine was backing up to
the Time Capsule? 

-- 
biblioholic medievalist via iPad
0
Erilar
12/29/2015 9:12:35 PM
On 12-27-2015 20:15, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Windows sucks ass. Always has.

I found Windows Seven tolerable.  Otherwise, I agree.
0
Happy
12/29/2015 9:13:47 PM
On 12-27-2015 22:23, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>
>>> >>Databases are files.
>> >
>> >Not nearly the same thing, even if the distinction is beyond you.
> They're not implemented in files?

Knowing that a complex database may be in a single file adds nothing to 
one's ability to do anything useful with it.

0
Happy
12/29/2015 9:16:46 PM
In article <n5usr5$pr3$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
<drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> >> New confusion.  My Time Capsule isn't a bootable backup because it's
> >> connected wirelessly?
> > 
> > it's not bootable because it's a network drive. you have it connected
> > wirelessly but it could be connected via wired ethernet.
> > 
> 
> I'm afraid I don't understand. I don't even know offhand if both TC and
> laptop HAVE ethernet ports, but why?

they do.

> I believe I do have a spare ethernet
> cable somewhere in my cable collection. (�spare" because that's what
> connects the G4 to the airport, I believe. At 81 with undependable knees, I
> don't crawl under the desk with a flashlight to sort out connections except
> in dire emergency)

the time capsule can replace your airport base station.
0
nospam
12/29/2015 9:23:39 PM
In article <n5usr6$pr3$2@dont-email.me>, Erilar
<drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> >>> New confusion.  My Time Capsule isn't a bootable backup because it's
> >>> connected wirelessly?
> >> 
> >> it's not bootable because it's a network drive. you have it connected
> >> wirelessly but it could be connected via wired ethernet.
> > 
> > Note that a non-bootable backup is still very useful since you can restore
> > from it if you have another drive to restore the backup onto. Being able to
> > boot from it is just an added convenience.
> 
> I'm getting into strange territory here, I fear.  Having had one laptop die
> rather spectacularly, I'd assumed the need to reboot would be onto a new
> laptop.  Am I off track?

if the laptop fails, you'll need to replace the laptop and then set it
up from a backup. bootability is not an issue in that case.

if the hard drive in the laptop (or desktop) fails, you can boot off of
a clone and keep working until you get a replacement drive.
0
nospam
12/29/2015 9:23:40 PM
In article <n5usr7$pr3$3@dont-email.me>, Erilar
<drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> >>>> New confusion.  My Time Capsule isn't a bootable backup because it's
> >>>> connected wirelessly?
> >>> 
> >>> it's not bootable because it's a network drive. you have it connected
> >>> wirelessly but it could be connected via wired ethernet.
> >> 
> >> Note that a non-bootable backup is still very useful since you can restore
> >> from it if you have another drive to restore the backup onto. Being able to
> >> boot from it is just an added convenience.
> > 
> > also note that a directly attached time machine drive (not a time
> > capsule) is bootable.
> 
> I'm very definitely in strange territory here or I'm having a stupidity
> attack today. Time machine drive? I thought Time Machine was backing up to
> the Time Capsule?

time machine can use a directly attached drive (firewire, usb) or a
network drive (time capsule, mac with file sharing).

if you use a directly attached drive, then you can boot from it
(there's a recovery partition on it) and then do a reinstall and
restore from the time machine backup that's on the same drive.

if you use a time capsule, you will have to boot off the mac's own
recovery partition, which if you replace the drive with a brand new
drive, won't be there. in that case, you'll need to do internet
recovery, assuming the mac is recent enough for that, or a usb
installer.
0
nospam
12/29/2015 9:23:41 PM
On 12-29-2015 01:15, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> I erase the card in the camera by reformatting it.  It's simplest.  Or
> do I?  I forget.  Either way, when I put the chip in the computer next
> time, it's not recognized as the same chip.

I have Photos turned off.  Graphic Converter imports much faster and 
doesn't tell me I am not allowed to make decisions about how images 
should be organized.  It also deletes them as files.

I do not "put the chip in the computer."  I connect the USB cable that 
came with the camera between it and the computer.

If I were forced to put the SD card in the Mac, I wouldn't need to 
reformat it to remove the files.  A simple

rm -rf /Volumes/<SD-card>/*

is just as effective and faster.

(Or drag them to trash and then empty it)
0
Happy
12/29/2015 9:30:48 PM
On 12-27-2015 23:27, nospam wrote:
> they understand what it's doing by writing high level code and well
> designed algorithms, not assembly level code.

That should be (and usually is) the general case.  But it's once in a 
great while that assembler or machine language is useful.  It enabled
me to prove to a nay-saying "expert" that there was a hardware fault in 
the CPU of a VAX.
0
Happy
12/29/2015 9:40:26 PM
On 12-29-2015 09:57, Alan Browne wrote:
> A lot of languages are close to the hardware.  Pascal, Ada, many others
> provide all sorts of hooks (via register, memory access, software
> interrupt (x86)) to read/control h/w on a very wide range of OS' and
> platforms.

Some Ada compilers allow you to embed a section of assmembly language 
right in an Ada file with a pragma.
0
Happy
12/29/2015 9:42:28 PM
On 12-28-2015 16:37, Alan Browne wrote:
>> I eventually found that, but there's still too much noise and too many
>> failures to include the target in all the noise that I have to scroll
>> through.
>
> You must be extraordinary.

I'v known that for fifty years, but how did Spotlight find out?
0
Happy
12/29/2015 9:46:42 PM
On 12-27-2015 09:58, Alan Browne wrote:
> You'd be better served, when Spotlight fails to locate what you want, to
> use CMD-F in a Finder window.  Far more context for the search can be
> added easily (eg: content of the file or simply filename).

I'll try it next time.
0
Happy
12/29/2015 9:49:28 PM
In article <n5uu26$f10$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Happy.Hobo
<Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:

> On 12-29-2015 01:15, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> > I erase the card in the camera by reformatting it.  It's simplest.  Or
> > do I?  I forget.  Either way, when I put the chip in the computer next
> > time, it's not recognized as the same chip.
> 
> I have Photos turned off.  Graphic Converter imports much faster 

the speed limitation is with usb, and in your case, the camera, not the
app, which can import as fast as the interface will allow.

> and 
> doesn't tell me I am not allowed to make decisions about how images 
> should be organized. It also deletes them as files.

nothing prevents you from organizing images any way you want,
regardless of how they're imported.

> I do not "put the chip in the computer."  I connect the USB cable that 
> came with the camera between it and the computer.

that's slower than with a card reader.

> If I were forced to put the SD card in the Mac, I wouldn't need to 
> reformat it to remove the files.  A simple
> 
> rm -rf /Volumes/<SD-card>/*
> 
> is just as effective and faster.
>
> (Or drag them to trash and then empty it)

or let the computer erase them automatically on import, which you claim
you're doing.
0
nospam
12/29/2015 10:30:05 PM
In article <n5uuk7$f10$2@speranza.aioe.org>, Happy.Hobo
<Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:

> > they understand what it's doing by writing high level code and well
> > designed algorithms, not assembly level code.
> 
> That should be (and usually is) the general case.  But it's once in a 
> great while that assembler or machine language is useful.  It enabled
> me to prove to a nay-saying "expert" that there was a hardware fault in 
> the CPU of a VAX.

very rare.
0
nospam
12/29/2015 10:30:06 PM
On 2015-12-29 16:11, Happy.Hobo wrote:
>
>>> Having considered that, I did 'md5' and 'sum'  more than once,
>>> alternating, and picked the highest for each.  shasum I only did once,
>>> but it was some time later, so if it had been cached, it probably was no
>>> longer.
>>
>> You can't really know.  Cached data sticks for a long time - there's no
>> timeout on it.
>>
>
> But I only have 8 GB and I did a lot of other stuff in between. Probably
> including a time machine backup.

You simply don't know what was or wasn't there between tests.  If you 
really want to do the test then re-boot each time.  That could be made 
simpler by testing within a VM for comparative speeds (%).


-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/29/2015 10:48:27 PM
Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> On 2015-12-21, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > Relying on smart data is not an option for drives which don't support 
> > smart.  I have yet to see an external, desktop drive which does.  Maybe 
> > this is to keep the cost down or maybe there is a technical reason they 
> > can't.  I don't know.

> I've had a drive fail when SMART reported no errors, even after I'd let
> the drive cool down overnight and manage to remount it.

Same here in my client's 2013 MBP after he dropped it. Smartctl 
program and Apple store's test did see tons of errors.
-- 
Quote of the Week: "Yeah, what's left of it. I was in the militia -- 
national guard... That's good! Wasn't any war any more than there's war 
between men and ants." --stranger; "And we're eat-able ants. I found 
that out... What will they do with us?" --Pierson from H.G. Wells' The 
War of the Worlds
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
 / /\ /\ \                 Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /    Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
    ( )     ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
0
ANTant
12/30/2015 1:01:01 AM
On 2015-12-29 16:42, Happy.Hobo wrote:
> On 12-29-2015 09:57, Alan Browne wrote:
>> A lot of languages are close to the hardware.  Pascal, Ada, many others
>> provide all sorts of hooks (via register, memory access, software
>> interrupt (x86)) to read/control h/w on a very wide range of OS' and
>> platforms.
>
> Some Ada compilers allow you to embed a section of assmembly language
> right in an Ada file with a pragma.

Yep.  But we wrote the assembler separately and integrated at link time. 
  I doubt our Ada compiler (early 90's) even supported inline assembler. 
  Turbo Pascal from version 4. or 5. did and when there was data packing 
to do, I'd do it inline.  Otherwise link an object file from assembler. 
  I did a lot of I/O for Pascal in assembler or direct mem-mapped access 
from Pascal.  Today I wouldn't bother.  I did write a pseudo random 
number generator in assembler a few years ago - needs a rewrite for 64 
but.  Need a O-tuit.

-- 
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with shitty luck."
               ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02
0
Alan
12/30/2015 1:24:49 AM
On 2015-12-29, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
> On 12-29-2015 01:15, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>> I erase the card in the camera by reformatting it.  It's simplest.  Or
>> do I?  I forget.  Either way, when I put the chip in the computer next
>> time, it's not recognized as the same chip.
>
> I have Photos turned off.  Graphic Converter imports much faster

I've used both, and they import at about the same speed as far as I can
tell. Any difference is negligible.

> and doesn't tell me I am not allowed to make decisions about how
> images should be organized.

How does Photos prevent you from organizing your photos how they
supposedly should be organized, exactly? I have close to 15,000 photos
in my database and have no problems organizing them as I want and
finding photos I want quickly.

> It also deletes them as files.

So does Photos, but with Photos I don't have to fuck with the file
system at all, which is a benefit. Other media management apps are
similar in that respect. File systems suck for media management.

> I do not "put the chip in the computer."  I connect the USB cable that 
> came with the camera between it and the computer.

That's a lot slower for most of my cameras. It's way faster to use a
media card reader.

> If I were forced to put the SD card in the Mac, I wouldn't need to 
> reformat it to remove the files.  A simple
>
> rm -rf /Volumes/<SD-card>/*
>
> is just as effective and faster.
>
> (Or drag them to trash and then empty it)

Yep, another reason I prefer to import from the card rather than the
camera.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/30/2015 1:38:18 AM
On 2015-12-29, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <n5mq0t$u6a$2@dont-email.me>, Erilar
>>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> New confusion.  My Time Capsule isn't a bootable backup because it's
>>>> connected wirelessly?
>>> 
>>> it's not bootable because it's a network drive. you have it connected
>>> wirelessly but it could be connected via wired ethernet.
>> 
>> Note that a non-bootable backup is still very useful since you can restore
>> from it if you have another drive to restore the backup onto. Being able to
>> boot from it is just an added convenience.
>
> I'm getting into strange territory here, I fear.  Having had one laptop die
> rather spectacularly, I'd assumed the need to reboot would be onto a new
> laptop.  Am I off track?

That's correct, but if you were backing up to an external USB, Firewire,
or Thunderbolt hard drive rather than a Time Capsule, when your laptop
drive died, you could simply connect the external drive and boot from
that in a pinch. With the Time Capsule you don't have that convenience.

It's not a huge issue, and realistically, booting from your only good
backup wouldn't be a good idea anyway since there's a chance you could
do something to risk losing that data while booting on it. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/30/2015 1:41:56 AM
On 12-29-2015 19:41, Jolly Roger wrote:
> That's correct, but if you were backing up to an external USB, Firewire,
> or Thunderbolt hard drive rather than a Time Capsule, when your laptop
> drive died, you could simply connect the external drive and boot from
> that in a pinch. With the Time Capsule you don't have that convenience.

I thought the Time Capsule also had an RJ-11 port.
0
Happy
12/30/2015 7:04:21 AM
In article <n5vvlk$5jo$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Happy.Hobo
<Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:

> On 12-29-2015 19:41, Jolly Roger wrote:
> > That's correct, but if you were backing up to an external USB, Firewire,
> > or Thunderbolt hard drive rather than a Time Capsule, when your laptop
> > drive died, you could simply connect the external drive and boot from
> > that in a pinch. With the Time Capsule you don't have that convenience.
> 
> I thought the Time Capsule also had an RJ-11 port.

it has an rj45 ethernet port.

the very first airport had an rj11 port for its modem, but that was
over 15 years ago.
0
nospam
12/30/2015 7:07:14 AM
On 12-29-2015 16:30, nospam wrote:
> In article <n5uu26$f10$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Happy.Hobo
> <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 12-29-2015 01:15, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>> I erase the card in the camera by reformatting it.  It's simplest.  Or
>>> do I?  I forget.  Either way, when I put the chip in the computer next
>>> time, it's not recognized as the same chip.
>>
>> I have Photos turned off.  Graphic Converter imports much faster
>
> the speed limitation is with usb, and in your case, the camera, not the
> app, which can import as fast as the interface will allow.

When I connect a camera or iPhone or iPad to the computer with its USB 
cable, and import with GraphicConverter it is faster than when I connect 
a camera or iPhone or iPad to the computer with its USB cable, and 
import with Photos.  And the difference is NOT due to USB.  Stop hunting 
so hard to find an argument.

>> and
>> doesn't tell me I am not allowed to make decisions about how images
>> should be organized. It also deletes them as files.
>
> nothing prevents you from organizing images any way you want,
> regardless of how they're imported.

Photos by default organizes by GPS tags (but not very well) and by date. 
  Changing that is a major pain.

>> I do not "put the chip in the computer."  I connect the USB cable that
>> came with the camera between it and the computer.
>
> that's slower than with a card reader.

It's also easier than with the card reader.
0
Happy
12/30/2015 7:11:35 AM
On 12-29-2015 19:24, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2015-12-29 16:42, Happy.Hobo wrote:
>> On 12-29-2015 09:57, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> A lot of languages are close to the hardware.  Pascal, Ada, many others
>>> provide all sorts of hooks (via register, memory access, software
>>> interrupt (x86)) to read/control h/w on a very wide range of OS' and
>>> platforms.
>>
>> Some Ada compilers allow you to embed a section of assmembly language
>> right in an Ada file with a pragma.
>
> Yep.  But we wrote the assembler separately and integrated at link time.
>   I doubt our Ada compiler (early 90's) even supported inline assembler.
>   Turbo Pascal from version 4. or 5. did and when there was data packing
> to do, I'd do it inline.  Otherwise link an object file from assembler.
>   I did a lot of I/O for Pascal in assembler or direct mem-mapped access
> from Pascal.  Today I wouldn't bother.  I did write a pseudo random
> number generator in assembler a few years ago - needs a rewrite for 64
> but.  Need a O-tuit.

AFAIK, inline assembler is an extension authorized by Ada '95.

http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~baker/ada/gnat/html/gnat_ugn_29.html

0
Happy
12/30/2015 7:16:28 AM
On 12-30-2015 01:07, nospam wrote:
> In article <n5vvlk$5jo$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Happy.Hobo
> <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 12-29-2015 19:41, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> That's correct, but if you were backing up to an external USB, Firewire,
>>> or Thunderbolt hard drive rather than a Time Capsule, when your laptop
>>> drive died, you could simply connect the external drive and boot from
>>> that in a pinch. With the Time Capsule you don't have that convenience.
>>
>> I thought the Time Capsule also had an RJ-11 port.
>
> it has an rj45 ethernet port.

Yeah, I swapped 'em.  So, can't network boot through a cat-5 cable?

0
Happy
12/30/2015 7:19:13 AM
Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
> On 12-29-2015 19:41, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> That's correct, but if you were backing up to an external USB, Firewire,
>> or Thunderbolt hard drive rather than a Time Capsule, when your laptop
>> drive died, you could simply connect the external drive and boot from
>> that in a pinch. With the Time Capsule you don't have that convenience.
> 
> I thought the Time Capsule also had an RJ-11 port.

What does that have to do with it?

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/30/2015 7:48:56 AM
In article <n60037$6m4$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Happy.Hobo
<Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:

> >> On 12-29-2015 01:15, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> >>> I erase the card in the camera by reformatting it.  It's simplest.  Or
> >>> do I?  I forget.  Either way, when I put the chip in the computer next
> >>> time, it's not recognized as the same chip.
> >>
> >> I have Photos turned off.  Graphic Converter imports much faster
> >
> > the speed limitation is with usb, and in your case, the camera, not the
> > app, which can import as fast as the interface will allow.
> 
> When I connect a camera or iPhone or iPad to the computer with its USB 
> cable, and import with GraphicConverter it is faster than when I connect 
> a camera or iPhone or iPad to the computer with its USB cable, and 
> import with Photos.  And the difference is NOT due to USB.  Stop hunting 
> so hard to find an argument.

i'm not hunting. i've used iphoto, photos, lightroom and also copy
photos directly in finder. the limiting factor is usb, *especially* if
you're connected to the camera which is much slower than a card reader.

> >> and
> >> doesn't tell me I am not allowed to make decisions about how images
> >> should be organized. It also deletes them as files.
> >
> > nothing prevents you from organizing images any way you want,
> > regardless of how they're imported.
> 
> Photos by default organizes by GPS tags (but not very well) and by date. 
>   Changing that is a major pain.

nonsense.

it organizes the photos any way you want. it's entirely up to you.

what's a major pain is organizing your photos *without* an asset
manager such as photos or lightroom.

> >> I do not "put the chip in the computer."  I connect the USB cable that
> >> came with the camera between it and the computer.
> >
> > that's slower than with a card reader.
> 
> It's also easier than with the card reader.

not really, but regardless, it's not enough to offset the speed hit. 

just about all cameras are usb 2, and usually a slow implementation. a
usb 2 card reader is faster and a usb 3 card reader *substantially* so.
0
nospam
12/30/2015 2:33:13 PM
In article <n600hg$74a$2@speranza.aioe.org>, Happy.Hobo
<Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:

> >>> That's correct, but if you were backing up to an external USB, Firewire,
> >>> or Thunderbolt hard drive rather than a Time Capsule, when your laptop
> >>> drive died, you could simply connect the external drive and boot from
> >>> that in a pinch. With the Time Capsule you don't have that convenience.
> >>
> >> I thought the Time Capsule also had an RJ-11 port.
> >
> > it has an rj45 ethernet port.
> 
> Yeah, I swapped 'em.  So, can't network boot through a cat-5 cable?

no.
0
nospam
12/30/2015 2:33:14 PM
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <n60037$6m4$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Happy.Hobo
> <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> When I connect a camera or iPhone or iPad to the computer with its USB 
>> cable, and import with GraphicConverter it is faster than when I connect 
>> a camera or iPhone or iPad to the computer with its USB cable, and 
>> import with Photos.  And the difference is NOT due to USB.  Stop hunting 
>> so hard to find an argument.
> 
> i'm not hunting. i've used iphoto, photos, lightroom and also copy
> photos directly in finder. the limiting factor is usb, *especially* if
> you're connected to the camera which is much slower than a card reader.

Yep. 

>> Photos by default organizes by GPS tags (but not very well) and by date. 
>> Changing that is a major pain.
> 
> nonsense.
> 
> it organizes the photos any way you want. it's entirely up to you.

Yep. He obviously hasn't used it much at all, if that's what he thinks.
That, or he's completely inept when it comes to using very basic software
features.

> what's a major pain is organizing your photos *without* an asset
> manager such as photos or lightroom.

And anyone who argues that is a fool.

>>>> I do not "put the chip in the computer."  I connect the USB cable that
>>>> came with the camera between it and the computer.
>>> 
>>> that's slower than with a card reader.
>> 
>> It's also easier than with the card reader.
> 
> not really, but regardless, it's not enough to offset the speed hit. 
> 
> just about all cameras are usb 2, and usually a slow implementation. a
> usb 2 card reader is faster and a usb 3 card reader *substantially* so.

It's true. Every camera I've used has had a much slower USB implementation
than card readers. Plugging in a cable is not significantly easier than
plugging in a card anyway.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/30/2015 3:55:22 PM
In message <n5vvlk$5jo$1@speranza.aioe.org> 
  Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
> On 12-29-2015 19:41, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> That's correct, but if you were backing up to an external USB, Firewire,
>> or Thunderbolt hard drive rather than a Time Capsule, when your laptop
>> drive died, you could simply connect the external drive and boot from
>> that in a pinch. With the Time Capsule you don't have that convenience.

> I thought the Time Capsule also had an RJ-11 port.

Why would any modern computer hardware have an RJ-11 port?

-- 
'But it'll kill him!' 'It could have been worse.' 'What?' 'It could have
been us.'
0
Lewis
12/30/2015 4:50:32 PM
In message <deid3aFmhh1U1@mid.individual.net> 
  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <n60037$6m4$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Happy.Hobo
>> <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>> When I connect a camera or iPhone or iPad to the computer with its USB 
>>> cable, and import with GraphicConverter it is faster than when I connect 
>>> a camera or iPhone or iPad to the computer with its USB cable, and 
>>> import with Photos.  And the difference is NOT due to USB.  Stop hunting 
>>> so hard to find an argument.
>> 
>> i'm not hunting. i've used iphoto, photos, lightroom and also copy
>> photos directly in finder. the limiting factor is usb, *especially* if
>> you're connected to the camera which is much slower than a card reader.

> Yep. 

The speed difference is dramatic on some cameras. I've seen plenty that
claimed USB2 but performed at USB 1.1 speeds.

>>>>> I do not "put the chip in the computer."  I connect the USB cable that
>>>>> came with the camera between it and the computer.
>>>> 
>>>> that's slower than with a card reader.
>>> 
>>> It's also easier than with the card reader.
>> 
>> not really, but regardless, it's not enough to offset the speed hit. 
>> 
>> just about all cameras are usb 2, and usually a slow implementation. a
>> usb 2 card reader is faster and a usb 3 card reader *substantially* so.

> It's true. Every camera I've used has had a much slower USB implementation
> than card readers. Plugging in a cable is not significantly easier than
> plugging in a card anyway.

With the shitty mini and micro-USB plugs on most cameras, it is
significantly harder.

Also, who connects a phone or iPad to the computer to sync photos? That
all happens in zero-time automagically.

The *only* time I physically connect my iPhone to my computer is to
install the iOS betas.

-- 
Silence is golden, duct tape is silver.
0
Lewis
12/30/2015 4:56:30 PM
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <n5vvlk$5jo$1@speranza.aioe.org> 
>   Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>> On 12-29-2015 19:41, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> That's correct, but if you were backing up to an external USB, Firewire,
>>> or Thunderbolt hard drive rather than a Time Capsule, when your laptop
>>> drive died, you could simply connect the external drive and boot from
>>> that in a pinch. With the Time Capsule you don't have that convenience.
> 
>> I thought the Time Capsule also had an RJ-11 port.
> 
> Why would any modern computer hardware have an RJ-11 port?

Follow-up questions:

Why would someone bother with using registered jack numbering rather than
simply saying "Ethernet"?

When is the last time you booted from a hard disk connected with an
Ethernet cable?

Inquiring minds wanna know. : D

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR 
0
Jolly
12/30/2015 5:00:05 PM
Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:

> So, can't network boot through a cat-5 cable?

You can, but not from a Time Capsule. 

0
nmassello
12/30/2015 8:36:07 PM
On 2015-12-30, Neill Massello <nmassello@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>
>> So, can't network boot through a cat-5 cable?
>
> You can, but not from a Time Capsule. 

That's because Time Machine backup volumes are not NetBoot volumes.
NetBoot / NetRestore volumes are special disk images created by the
System Image Utility application built into OS X from OS X installation
images or valid OS X source volumes, and are a completely different
thing than a Time Machine backup volume.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/30/2015 10:26:09 PM
Happy.Hobo wrote:
> On 12-29-2015 16:30, nospam wrote:
>> In article <n5uu26$f10$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Happy.Hobo
>> <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12-29-2015 01:15, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>>> I erase the card in the camera by reformatting it.  It's simplest.  Or
>>>> do I?  I forget.  Either way, when I put the chip in the computer next
>>>> time, it's not recognized as the same chip.
>>>
>>> I have Photos turned off.  Graphic Converter imports much faster
>>
>> the speed limitation is with usb, and in your case, the camera, not the
>> app, which can import as fast as the interface will allow.
>
> When I connect a camera or iPhone or iPad to the computer with its USB
> cable, and import with GraphicConverter it is faster than when I connect
> a camera or iPhone or iPad to the computer with its USB cable, and
> import with Photos.  And the difference is NOT due to USB.  Stop hunting
> so hard to find an argument.
>
>>> and
>>> doesn't tell me I am not allowed to make decisions about how images
>>> should be organized. It also deletes them as files.
>>
>> nothing prevents you from organizing images any way you want,
>> regardless of how they're imported.
>
> Photos by default organizes by GPS tags (but not very well) and by date.
>   Changing that is a major pain.
>
>>> I do not "put the chip in the computer."  I connect the USB cable that
>>> came with the camera between it and the computer.
>>
>> that's slower than with a card reader.
>
> It's also easier than with the card reader.
Why is it easier than with the card reader.
Plug the reader in Open the card slot on camera and remove card. Plugin 
Reader. Use your desire Photo Program Photos, iPhoto, DXO, Nikon 
Transfer, LightRoom , Photoshop download your photos and eject card. The 
unplug card fro reader and insert back in Camera. Work on Photos. Except 
for the steps of removing from camera and  inserting in reader and 
removing from reader the steps are identical. Its much slower through 
Camera and eats camera battery faster than you can say Rumple Stilskin.

-- 
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.      "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net    mailto:pjonescet@comcast.net
http://phillipjones-cet.net/
0
PhillipJones
12/30/2015 10:27:47 PM
On 2015-12-29, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2015-12-29, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-29, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> there is no need to reformat the card every time. 
>>>
>>> erase all photos after importing (which can be automatic if you prefer)
>>> and then put it back in the camera, or erase the card in the camera.
>>> either way works.
>>
>> I erase the card in the camera by reformatting it.  It's simplest.
>
> No, simplest is allowing Photos to delete the images it imports.

You must've missed the several posts where I effectively said "I don't
use Photos and want to delete it because it gets in the way of my
workflow".


>> Either way, when I put the chip in the computer next
>> time, it's not recognized as the same chip.
>
> You're doing it wrong. And I suspect this applies to many aspects of how
> you use OS X. Some people are so stuck in their ways, they make life
> harder for themselves because they are unable to adapt. I call them
> dinosaurs. The world pases them by because the rest of us don't allow
> insignificant changes to become obstacles.

Got news for you, apparently.  The idea that the computer is supposed to
work FOR ME, and not the reverse means that I'm always doing it right.
If the computer doesn't work in such a way as to help me, the computer
is wrong.  As I've been saying, Mac OS X is a little better than some,
but we don't yet have good operating systems.

Telling noobs that the mouse is a pointing device, then being surprised
that they use it like a light pen, is amazingly arrogant.
0
Howard
12/31/2015 1:01:01 AM
On 2015-12-29, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2015-12-29, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>
>> Every time I see a db, it always looks like a file system in one way or
>> another.
>
> When the only tool you use is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. 

I see these things in Terminal or the equivalent. That's how a system
manager works.
0
Howard
12/31/2015 1:01:01 AM
On 2015-12-29, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2015-12-29, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-28, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <slrnn81erl.sf8.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
>>><howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>> Since it doesn't, I already have a way to identify images
>>>> with my Mom in them.  It's called "text files which contain descriptions
>>>> of my images", at least for film. 
>>>
>>> that's actually a primitive database, one which is a pain in the ass to
>>> create and maintain.
>>
>> Of course it is.  It's also a directory tree.  I used to see occasional
>> references to RMS as a database.  Kinda blew my mind when I first saw
>> that POV.
>
> *WHOOSH*
>
> Manually copying image files to whatever specific folder in disk
> followed by manually updating plain text files cannot hold a candle to
> simply importing a photo into the Photos database and having the photo
> automatically show up under Faces > Mom. : )

You assume I'm telling you everything.  Let's fill in the blanks a bit.

For digital images from my DSLR or other digital camera, I import from
the chip, maybe via a temp directory, into Lightroom.  This documents
what the images are due to importing them into Lightroom catalogs on a
per-subject basis (each Lightroom catalog is a different subject).  I
can also import them into multiple Lightroom databases.

For *film* images, I scan the film in using a Nikon LS-50 and VueScan,
into a directory.  Then I document what the images are into a text file
so I can search them via BBEdit or grep.  Then I index them into a
database in Lightroom as above.  More methods to search is better.  The
text files are to be consistant with an older workflow which pre-dates
digital cameras.
0
Howard
12/31/2015 1:01:01 AM
On 2015-12-31, Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> On 2015-12-29, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> If you allow Photos to delete the images it imports, you don't have to
>> reformat the entire card. Simple.
>
> That makes sense if I'm using Photos.app, which means it's irrelevant.

Nope, since the same thing applies to *any* media management app,
including Lightroom, which you have said you use. Photos was only an
example. The point stands and is 100% relevant.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
0
Jolly
12/31/2015 1:01:01 AM
On 2015-12-29, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-12-29 02:15, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>> On 2015-12-29, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <slrnn84682.tdk.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
>>> <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Where is that?  I just did a quick check through the main window, all
>>>>>> the menus, and the prefs.  I saw nothing relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hook up a camera or card.  Photos starts and wants to import.  Look at
>>>>> the checkboxes up top on the app.  Silly way to do things to be sure,
>>>>> but there it is.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, it's ineffective.  After importing images, I have the
>>>> camera reformat the chip to remove the old data, which makes Photos lose
>>>> track of it.
>>>
>>> there is no need to reformat the card every time.
>>>
>>> erase all photos after importing (which can be automatic if you prefer)
>>> and then put it back in the camera, or erase the card in the camera.
>>> either way works.
>>
>> I erase the card in the camera by reformatting it.  It's simplest.  Or
>> do I?  I forget.  Either way, when I put the chip in the computer next
>> time, it's not recognized as the same chip.
>
> No such issue here.  Indeed I just tested it to be sure.

Maybe they've changed it.
0
Howard
12/31/2015 10:06:37 AM
On 2015-12-29, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <slrnn84cp7.th3.howard@foxtrot.local> 
>   Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-29, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <slrnn84682.tdk.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
>>><howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> Where is that?  I just did a quick check through the main window, all
>>>> >> the menus, and the prefs.  I saw nothing relevant.
>>>> >
>>>> > Hook up a camera or card.  Photos starts and wants to import.  Look at 
>>>> > the checkboxes up top on the app.  Silly way to do things to be sure, 
>>>> > but there it is.
>>>> 
>>>> Unfortunately, it's ineffective.  After importing images, I have the
>>>> camera reformat the chip to remove the old data, which makes Photos lose
>>>> track of it.
>>>
>>> there is no need to reformat the card every time. 
>>>
>>> erase all photos after importing (which can be automatic if you prefer)
>>> and then put it back in the camera, or erase the card in the camera.
>>> either way works.
>
>> I erase the card in the camera by reformatting it. 
>
> That's silly.
>
>> It's simplest.
>
> Of course it is not. It's an extra step. Import and delete on import
> means one click and one step and it means you aren't forcing the
> computer (and the camera) to process the card as a new card every time.

You have a strange way to look at this.  It's better for the camera to
manage files on its storage medium.  Rather than delete each image, it's
best to delete them as a group.  That can be done by telling it to
delete all the photos or by reformatting the card.

So compare the following:

1) tell it to delete photos
2) tell it all photos
3) yes, I mean all
4) okay do it

or

1) reformat the chip
2) yes I'm sure
3) okay, do it

which is shorter?


> Stop formatting the card. Problem (you created) solved.

See above.  I'm not interested in customizing my behavior for software I
never wanted, never asked for, and want it to disappear.  I just want it
gone.  Computer works FOR ME, right?
0
Howard
12/31/2015 10:12:41 AM
On 2015-12-29, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnn84cp7.th3.howard@foxtrot.local>, Howard S Shubs
><howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>
>> >> >> Where is that?  I just did a quick check through the main window, all
>> >> >> the menus, and the prefs.  I saw nothing relevant.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hook up a camera or card.  Photos starts and wants to import.  Look at 
>> >> > the checkboxes up top on the app.  Silly way to do things to be sure, 
>> >> > but there it is.
>> >> 
>> >> Unfortunately, it's ineffective.  After importing images, I have the
>> >> camera reformat the chip to remove the old data, which makes Photos lose
>> >> track of it.
>> >
>> > there is no need to reformat the card every time. 
>> >
>> > erase all photos after importing (which can be automatic if you prefer)
>> > and then put it back in the camera, or erase the card in the camera.
>> > either way works.
>> 
>> I erase the card in the camera by reformatting it.  It's simplest.  
>
> the simplest is have the photos automatically deleted after importing. 

I write protect the chip before insertion to prevent Mac OS X from
writing garbage files to it and making it absolutely necessary to
reformat the thing.

You also assume that I import directly from the card, which is often not
a good plan.  If I have multiple subjects on a card, and I import one
subject at a time, the card may be ejected each time, depending on
settings in Lightroom.  It's simpler to copy the whole chip to a
temporary folder, eject it, then work from the temp folder.  Then I can
remove the chip and clear it.

It's also faster, as moving a file from one directory on a file system
to another directory on the same file system takes less time than
copying it from a chip then updating the directory on the chip to delete
the file.  SD chips aren't the fastest things in the world.


> that's because a newly formatted card (or any volume) is rightly seen
> as a different device.

Which is why it's a problem for telling Photos.app to not touch the
chip, and we're back where we started.


> it can if you really want to but that's a bad idea for many reasons

Such as?  If you can help me delete it, I can likely find other things
to remove as well, such as Image Capture and mds.  And Mail.app, which
has been known to get in the way.  I'd add "Safari", but I'm not sure if
that'd rip out the whole web rendering engine, which I have to admit
would be a Bad Idea.


>
>> OPT-OUT isn't
>> reliable, OPT-IN isn't an option.  What's left?
>
><http://petapixel.com/2015/12/21/stop-apple-photos-from-auto-launching-in-os-x-with-one-command/>

Thank you.  Now to see if it works next time I import from my digital
camera.
0
Howard
12/31/2015 10:25:00 AM
On 2015-12-29, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-12-29 11:49, nospam wrote:
>> the simplest is have the photos automatically deleted after importing.
>
> Never liked that idea.  I verify they're on disk and at least Time 
> Machine has cycled before manually deleting the images.

I'm not willing to wait for TM.  I rsync to a device or a server
immediately.


>> <http://petapixel.com/2015/12/21/stop-apple-photos-from-auto-launching-i
>> n-os-x-with-one-command/>
>
> Nice!
>
> Next to see if that survives the next major upgrade (or minor for that 
> matter ...)

Good point.  Remains to be seen.
0
Howard
12/31/2015 10:26:34 AM
On 2015-12-29, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2015-12-29, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-29 11:49, nospam wrote:
>>>
>>> the simplest is have the photos automatically deleted after importing.
>>
>> Never liked that idea.  I verify they're on disk and at least Time 
>> Machine has cycled before manually deleting the images.
>
> I'm not sure your fear is really warranted. I've used that feature of
> Photos (iPhoto) for many years, and it has never failed me. That said,

You've just jinxed yourself.  It's going to happen to you soon.  I'm
sorry.  I hope you have good backups.
0
Howard
12/31/2015 10:27:35 AM
On 2015-12-29, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Next to see if that survives the next major upgrade (or minor for that 
>> matter ...)
>
> it probably won't :)

Aren't we all quite the optimists. :->
0
Howard
12/31/2015 10:29:43 AM
On 2015-12-29, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-12-29 12:47, nospam wrote:
>> In article <AfKdnW8lot1HXR_LnZ2dnUU7-T-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Where is that?  I just did a quick check through the main window, all
>>>>>>>>> the menus, and the prefs.  I saw nothing relevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hook up a camera or card.  Photos starts and wants to import.  Look at
>>>>>>>> the checkboxes up top on the app.  Silly way to do things to be sure,
>>>>>>>> but there it is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately, it's ineffective.  After importing images, I have the
>>>>>>> camera reformat the chip to remove the old data, which makes Photos lose
>>>>>>> track of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> there is no need to reformat the card every time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> erase all photos after importing (which can be automatic if you prefer)
>>>>>> and then put it back in the camera, or erase the card in the camera.
>>>>>> either way works.
>>>>>
>>>>> I erase the card in the camera by reformatting it.  It's simplest.
>>>>
>>>> the simplest is have the photos automatically deleted after importing.
>>>
>>> Never l