 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Mac Applications / May 2008Mozy is corrupting my backups
I've managed to backup only a few GBs so far due to the extremely slow upload speed I'm getting with Mozy. However I've tried restroring a few files already backed up - a jpeg, a PDF, and a few text clippings. The jpeg and the PDF were restored ok, but the text clippings all had their contents stripped away by Mozy :-( I'm now extremely concerned. Has anyone else experienced this? I'm not sure I trust Mozy with my other files. I mean - how on Earth do you screwup the backup of a text clipping? TIA, Jamie Kahn Genet  SignatureIf you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. > I've managed to backup only a few GBs so far due to the extremely slow > upload speed I'm getting with Mozy. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sure I trust Mozy with my other files. I mean - how on Earth do you > screwup the backup of a text clipping? By not copying the resource fork. This is very alarming. SignatureJerry Kindall, Seattle, WA <http://www.jerrykindall.com/> Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address. This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses. > > I've managed to backup only a few GBs so far due to the extremely slow > > upload speed I'm getting with Mozy. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > By not copying the resource fork. This is very alarming. Yes, well. I thought so! :-\ Heh. I'm going to run a few more tests tonight and see what it does to other similar types of files. Regards, Jamie Kahn Genet SignatureIf you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. > I've managed to backup only a few GBs so far due to the extremely slow > upload speed I'm getting with Mozy. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sure I trust Mozy with my other files. I mean - how on Earth do you > screwup the backup of a text clipping? So it appears Mozy doesn't support resource forks. Yuck... SignaturePlease send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts. JR > > I've managed to backup only a few GBs so far due to the extremely slow > > upload speed I'm getting with Mozy. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So it appears Mozy doesn't support resource forks. Yuck... If so it's screwing an awful lot of files I'm backing up... ugggg... SignatureIf you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. > > > I've managed to backup only a few GBs so far due to the extremely slow > > > upload speed I'm getting with Mozy. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > If so it's screwing an awful lot of files I'm backing up... ugggg... Do they advertise that they support Macs? If so, I'd say that classifies as false advertising, and is reason enough to demand your money back. SignaturePlease send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts. JR > Do they advertise that they support Macs? They do. I confess that I don't understand why anyone would backup critical data to an online company. The risks are too high IMO. SignatureWoodworking links and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com > > Do they advertise that they support Macs? > > They do. > > I confess that I don't understand why anyone would backup critical data > to an online company. The risks are too high IMO. I wouldn't do it either, for the same reason. SignaturePlease send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts. JR > > I confess that I don't understand why anyone would backup critical data > > to an online company. The risks are too high IMO. > > I wouldn't do it either, for the same reason. Um. Something slightly backwards here. The risks of *NOT* backing things up remotely would seem higher. Unless perhaps you are concerned with the privacy of your data. In that case, yes, the risks of remote backup are higher. Mozy claims to have it encrypted, and you can even use your own key if you like. But yes, there is certainly at least more risk there than if you don't let the data out of your house at all. But I didn't think that was the kind of risk you are talking about. Or perhaps you omitted an "only" in there somewhere. (In fact, I'm almost certain that is the case). I wouldn't have my only backup be one that I was trusting someone else with. I agree there. but the "only" there is really, really, important. If you use an online backup service as an additional level of backup, then that can only lower your risks of losing data; it can't increase them. While that might seem so obvious as to not merit saying, I *have* seen people misunderstand things that seemed even more obvious to me. (For example, I help my wife with her math tutoring center. One lady signed up her daughter at our $150/month rate and then was surprised when she got the $150 bill for the second month. She apparently didn't understand the "per month" part and thought that the $150/month for a 12 month commitment sounded like a lot better deal than $175/month for 6 months. Sigh.) I'm currently using Time Machine, SuperDuper, and Mozy, for 3 separate backups. Perhaps slight overkill, but I was using SuperDuper and Mozy before going to 10.5. When I went to 10.5, I wanted to leave my 10.4 backup untouched for a while (and SuperDuper took a while to support 105 anyway), so I got a separate new disk for TM. SignatureRichard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain > Um. Something slightly backwards here. The risks of *NOT* backing things > up remotely would seem higher. Who said anything about not backing up remotely? I said I will not rely on an online company for my remote backups. There is no assurance of any kind they will be there tomorrow. There is no assurance of any kind they are not scanning my documents. There is no assurance of any kind they are not sharing my information with others. There is no assurance of any kind they are running reliable systems. SignatureWoodworking links and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com > > Um. Something slightly backwards here. The risks of *NOT* backing things > > up remotely would seem higher. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > There is no assurance of any kind they will be there tomorrow. True, but while they are there, I have off-site backup in case of disaster. And I do have my local backups. Something about eggs and baskets. > There is no assurance of any kind they are not scanning my documents. Unlikely as mine are encrypted before they leave my system (OK there is a chance they have left a backdoor in the encryption their client does for me, but if anyone discovers this, it could result in lawsuits that might just make the company disappear). The company here is EMC (Mozy was purchased by EMC). > There is no assurance of any kind they are not sharing my information > with others. Again it is encrypted. If they are sharing, the others that might break that encryption have easier ways to get my information. It is called a search warrent, or one of those national security letters. > There is no assurance of any kind they are running reliable systems. Well if you think EMC makes lousy storage devices there are some fortune 500 companies that would like to know what you know. Then again it is possible the just have a bunch of Linux boxes in the back room with a few 1TB disks attached :-) And for me, this is all in addition to my own local backups. And since I'm paranoid, that is done using 3 different backup tools (Time Machine, SuperDuper!, and rsnapshot), with 1 in my home, and 2 on different disks on my office workstation (which I own and control). If you don't like EMC, then how about Amazon.com via JungleDisk. Or CrashPlan.com Bob Harris > If you don't like EMC, then how about Amazon.com via JungleDisk. > Or CrashPlan.com I'l pass. SignatureWoodworking links and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com > > If you don't like EMC, then how about Amazon.com via JungleDisk. > > Or CrashPlan.com > > I'l pass. Amazon's S3 with JungleDisk is what I'm now trialing. I'm not sure why Amazon wouldn't be trusted. Certainly more so than Mozy's parent company. I will absolutely be getting my money back from Mozy - this is unacceptable. BTW - has anyone duplicated my problem? With all the Leopard/Intel Mac troubles I have I wouldn't be too surprised if this turns out not to be Mozy's fault. Not a lot surprises me nowadays when it comes to the MacOS. Regards, Jamie Kahn Genet SignatureIf you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. > I'm not sure why > Amazon wouldn't be trusted. If you want to trust them with your data, that's your call. I trust ME with my data. Full stop. I especially don't trust a company to hold my data in the United States of America where it is subject to their laws, zero expectation of privacy, and the ability for anyone who has it to sell it to anyone else. Not a f.cking chance. SignatureWoodworking links and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com > I will absolutely be getting my money back from Mozy - this is > unacceptable. BTW - has anyone duplicated my problem? Yes, I get the same result you describe. Resource forks are not restored. SignatureTom "Tom" Harrington Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002 http://www.atomicbird.com/ > > I will absolutely be getting my money back from Mozy - this is > > unacceptable. BTW - has anyone duplicated my problem? > > Yes, I get the same result you describe. Resource forks are not > restored. I find it comical that a company would claim Macintosh compatibility and totally fail to support resource forks! They claim to have had a beta testing phase recently - this never came up?! Very strange... SignaturePlease send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts. JR > > > I will absolutely be getting my money back from Mozy - this is > > > unacceptable. BTW - has anyone duplicated my problem? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > totally fail to support resource forks! They claim to have had a beta > testing phase recently - this never came up?! Very strange... In my limited test, I got my Resource Fork back. But I'm a sample of 1. I suggest macsupport@mozy.com be contacted about this problem. Bob Harris > > I will absolutely be getting my money back from Mozy - this is > > unacceptable. BTW - has anyone duplicated my problem? > > Yes, I get the same result you describe. Resource forks are not > restored. And in my test I did get my Resource Fork back. I suggest contacting macsupport@mozy.com to see if they can identify the problem you are seeing and correct it. 'macsupport' has been very helpful in the past. Original: ls -l BinHex4 BinHex4/rsrc -rwxrwxr-x 1 harris 0 Jul 4 1986 BinHex4 -rwxrwxr-x 1 harris 7565 Jul 4 1986 BinHex4/rsrc Restored: ls -l Mozy/BinHex4 Mozy/BinHex4/rsrc -rw-r--r-- 1 harris 0 May 26 10:53 Mozy/BinHex4 -rw-r--r-- 1 harris 7565 May 26 10:53 Mozy/BinHex4/rsrc Bob Harris > > > I will absolutely be getting my money back from Mozy - this is > > > unacceptable. BTW - has anyone duplicated my problem? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > -rw-r--r-- 1 harris 0 May 26 10:53 Mozy/BinHex4 > -rw-r--r-- 1 harris 7565 May 26 10:53 Mozy/BinHex4/rsrc Did you use the "restore files" option on the Mozy menu? I don't know how else it can be done, but I'd like to be sure we actually did things the same way. SignatureTom "Tom" Harrington Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002 http://www.atomicbird.com/ > > > > I will absolutely be getting my money back from Mozy - this is > > > > unacceptable. BTW - has anyone duplicated my problem? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > how else it can be done, but I'd like to be sure we actually did things > the same way. I did it that way each time I repeated the test. SignatureIf you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. > > > > > I will absolutely be getting my money back from Mozy - this is > > > > > unacceptable. BTW - has anyone duplicated my problem? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I did it that way each time I repeated the test. Jamie, please contact Mozy support about this. I did and they've been very interested, since Mozy is supposed to support resource forks. They've asked for some specific information from my Mozy installation to help them diagnose it. The more people who report the problem, the more likely it is to get fixed. So get in touch with them and tell them what you're seeing. SignatureTom "Tom" Harrington Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002 http://www.atomicbird.com/ > > > > > > I will absolutely be getting my money back from Mozy - this is > > > > > > unacceptable. BTW - has anyone duplicated my problem? [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > The more people who report the problem, the more likely it is to get > fixed. So get in touch with them and tell them what you're seeing. Heya Tom. NP - I reported it at the first hint of trouble, but I'm not getting anywhere yet, other than to prove that both the Mac restore app and the web restore option both result in the same damaged text clippings. Still, I'll give their techs a chance to look into this further :-) Cheers, Jamie Kahn Genet SignatureIf you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. > > > > I will absolutely be getting my money back from Mozy - this is > > > > unacceptable. BTW - has anyone duplicated my problem? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > how else it can be done, but I'd like to be sure we actually did things > the same way. Yes, I used the Mozy -> Restore Files... I created an empty directory to restore the file into. Bob Harris > > > I will absolutely be getting my money back from Mozy - this is > > > unacceptable. BTW - has anyone duplicated my problem? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Bob Harris Are you at all concerned that the permissions and creation dates of the restored files are not the same as the originals? SignatureTom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF In article <tomstiller-D2AC00.17125526052008@newsgroups.comcast.net>, > > > > I will absolutely be getting my money back from Mozy - this is > > > > unacceptable. BTW - has anyone duplicated my problem? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Are you at all concerned that the permissions and creation dates of the > restored files are not the same as the originals? In a perfect world, I would prefer identical dates, but in my personal situation, Mozy is for disasters. I have local backups using Time Machine to a networked iBook as my home server, SuperDuper! to my workstation at work, and select files via rsnapshot to a different disk on my workstation at work. So Mozy is my worst case situation backup. Not having original dates is minor compared to what must have happened to loose the above 3 backups :-) And having my one of a kind data, family pictures, music, family videos, etc... is far more important to me than the original file dates. However, I may mention this to Mozy. You never know, user feedback can result in future improvements to a rather good v1 product. Bob Harris MozyHome for Mac has supported backing up and restoring resource forks since our 0.9 release in December 2007. If you are having problems, please upgrade to the recently released 1.0 version or contact macsupport@mozy.com. We want to resolve any problems you are experiencing with resource forks. > Are you at all concerned that the permissions and creation dates of the > restored files are not the same as the originals? Restoring the correct creation date should already work. Restoring the correct modification date will be fixed soon. Restoring permissions is not on our roadmap for the near future, but we're planning to support that as soon as we can. Dan Reese Mozy, Inc. In article <644539fd-674e-456f-bc86-fc264f3f4422@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > MozyHome for Mac has supported backing up and restoring resource forks > since our 0.9 release in December 2007. If you are having problems, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Dan Reese > Mozy, Inc. How about ACLs (both explicit and inherited) and extended attributes? SignatureTom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF > How about ACLs (both explicit and inherited) and extended attributes? Extended attributes, file ownership and file permissions are all planned. Currently, we're working on our Pro version for Mac so it's been put off a bit. But we'll get there. --Dan In article <644539fd-674e-456f-bc86-fc264f3f4422@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > MozyHome for Mac has supported backing up and restoring resource forks > since our 0.9 release in December 2007. If you are having problems, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Dan Reese > Mozy, Inc. Dan, I appreciate the personal attention from Mozy here and the concern over the issue, but it's clear that Mozy 1.0 is failing to support resource forks at least some of the time. I've had Mozy fail to restore resource forks and I've only ever used version 1.0. I've been going back and forth with Mozy support and so far all they've been able to tell me is that it should work, and that the log files I've sent them indicate that it did work. Still, restoring test files fails to bring back the resource fork. I was contacting the main support address-- "support@..." from the Mozy web site. Would it make any difference if I contacted "macsupport@...", or would that just get me to the same people? SignatureTom "Tom" Harrington Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002 http://www.atomicbird.com/ > In article > <644539fd-674e-456f-bc86-fc264f3f4422@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > sent them indicate that it did work. Still, restoring test files fails > to bring back the resource fork. Do you have the developer tools installed? If you do, you might try using /Developer/Tools/GetFileInfo original_file /Developer/Tools/GetFileInfo restored_file Is the output identical? You want to look closely at the 'attributes' as "Capital" letters indicate the attribute is set, and "Lowercase" letters mean the attribute is not set. eyes and ells can be confusing so check carefully. /bin/ls -le@ original_file/rsrc /bin/ls -le@ restored_file/rsrc to see that the resourced fork was not there, as well as show if there are any extended attributes. And finally the differences between /usr/bin/stat original_file /usr/bin/stat restored_file Based on feedback from Dan, I suspect there will be some differences. But what may be more useful, is giving those differences to macsupport@mozy.com > I was contacting the main support address-- "support@..." from the Mozy > web site. Would it make any difference if I contacted "macsupport@...", > or would that just get me to the same people? My previous experience with support@mozy.com vs macsupport@mozy.com was totally in favor of macsupport. It seemed when sending mail to 'support', they did not seem to grasp that when I said Mac OS X, that I was not using Windows. Using macsupport, they always seemed to have a Mac clue. Bob Harris > > In article > > <644539fd-674e-456f-bc86-fc264f3f4422@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > and "Lowercase" letters mean the attribute is not set. eyes and > ells can be confusing so check carefully. The attributes are identical-- "avbstclinmedz" in both cases. This check demonstrated that the restored file is also missing its type and creator codes, though that's probably not a huge concern on a disaster-only backup. At least it doesn't represent lost data. > /bin/ls -le@ original_file/rsrc > /bin/ls -le@ restored_file/rsrc > > to see that the resourced fork was not there, as well as show if > there are any extended attributes. I don't think "e" and "@" really make sense on the resource fork-- extended attributes and ACLs only apply to the file itself. Using those flags on the original and restored files (without "/rsrc") shows the original having com.apple.ResourceFork and com.apple.FinderInfo attributes, and the restored file having none. A plain "ls -l" on the resource fork path shows a nonzero resource fork on the original, and zero length on the restored copy. > And finally the differences between > > /usr/bin/stat original_file > /usr/bin/stat restored_file The only significant difference is that the original file shows 336 blocks allocated, while the restored file only has 96. That's consistent with the results of "ls -l", so it doesn't really add anything. [Other insignificant differences included things like the files having different inode numbers, which is expected.] > Based on feedback from Dan, I suspect there will be some > differences. But what may be more useful, is giving those > differences to macsupport@mozy.com I've already sent the "ls" numbers and the file sizes shown in the Finder to "support@...". The other commands don't seem to be adding much, unless there's some detail you have in mind that I didn't think of. > > I was contacting the main support address-- "support@..." from the Mozy > > web site. Would it make any difference if I contacted "macsupport@...", [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > when I said Mac OS X, that I was not using Windows. Using > macsupport, they always seemed to have a Mac clue. I'll try contacting them at that address too and see what happens. SignatureTom "Tom" Harrington Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002 http://www.atomicbird.com/ > I've been going back and forth with Mozy support and so far all they've > been able to tell me is that it should work, and that the log files I've > sent them indicate that it did work. Still, restoring test files fails > to bring back the resource fork. Log files indicate up load or restore? I am wondering if it gets there, but not necessarily back when you restore. That would certainly be consistent with both them and you being right, at least from available information. > I In article <kurtullman-6C675A.21584628052008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>, > > I've been going back and forth with Mozy support and so far all they've > > been able to tell me is that it should work, and that the log files I've [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be consistent with both them and you being right, at least from > available information. From what I could see, the log file includes pretty much everything Mozy does. I found both backup and restore operations listed. I also sent them all of the files found in /Library/Application Support/Mozy/, which includes a bunch of sqlite database files and some other stuff. Regardless, they keep telling me that resource forks are supported, while their software is not restoring them. It doesn't matter to me if a file was backed up if I can't restore it to its original state. SignatureTom "Tom" Harrington Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002 http://www.atomicbird.com/ > From what I could see, the log file includes pretty much everything Mozy > does. I found both backup and restore operations listed. I also sent [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > while their software is not restoring them. It doesn't matter to me if > a file was backed up if I can't restore it to its original state. It may be that their client software for Mac does indeed support resource forks, but the resource forks are being broken at the back end. if their servers are running something like Windows Server, then depending on how the resource files are being stored on their servers, it's entirely possible that they are doing something to clobber them. For example, some Windows backup software destroys Mac resource forks on files placed on the server using Services for Macintosh, and some file copy utilities do likewise. I would not be at all surprised to learn that your Mac files are being sent to live on a Windows or Linux server and something Mozy's doing on the back end is destroying them. SignaturePhotography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html > Dan, I appreciate the personal attention fromMozyhere and the concern > over the issue, but it's clear thatMozy1.0 is failing to support [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Tom "Tom" Harrington > Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002http://www.atomicbird.com/ Tom, Would you feel comfortable zipping up and emailing me a file that isn't working for you? Zipping it should preserve the resource fork for me to experiment with. The "support@" and "macsupport@" email addresses both go to our Support team, but I believe the alternate email address helps them classify things better. --Dan In article <8ccbd73b-ea0a-4084-bfc2-59764f8063d3@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > Dan, I appreciate the personal attention fromMozyhere and the concern > > over the issue, but it's clear thatMozy1.0 is failing to support [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > isn't working for you? Zipping it should preserve the resource fork > for me to experiment with. Will do, the file in question is an image that's on my web site anyway. SignatureTom "Tom" Harrington Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002 http://www.atomicbird.com/ > I will absolutely be getting my money back from Mozy - this is > unacceptable. BTW - has anyone duplicated my problem? Have you verified that no resources are in fact being stored / restored? Create a file with resources, back it up, then restore it and examine it. SignaturePlease send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts. JR > > I will absolutely be getting my money back from Mozy - this is > > unacceptable. BTW - has anyone duplicated my problem? > > Have you verified that no resources are in fact being stored / restored? > Create a file with resources, back it up, then restore it and examine it. You might use "Backup Bouncer" <http://www.n8gray.org/code/backup-bouncer/> to see how well the backup/restore functions. SignatureTom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF > > > If you don't like EMC, then how about Amazon.com via JungleDisk. > > > Or CrashPlan.com [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Regards, > Jamie Kahn Genet I just restored a file from Mozy which contains a Resource fork. I got the resource fork back. Original: ls -l BinHex4 BinHex4/rsrc -rwxrwxr-x 1 harris 0 Jul 4 1986 BinHex4 -rwxrwxr-x 1 harris 7565 Jul 4 1986 BinHex4/rsrc Restored: ls -l Mozy/BinHex4 Mozy/BinHex4/rsrc -rw-r--r-- 1 harris 0 May 26 10:53 Mozy/BinHex4 -rw-r--r-- 1 harris 7565 May 26 10:53 Mozy/BinHex4/rsrc I would suggest contacting macsupport@mozy.com and see if you can resolve the issue you are having. I have found that the 'macsupport' email address has been very responsive. Personally, I'm keeping Mozy as a one leg of my backup strategy. Bob Harris > I just restored a file from Mozy which contains a Resource fork. > I got the resource fork back. As a Clueless User (r) and not a Power User (tm), how would I know which of the file(s) would contain a resource fork and how would I find out if the resource came back. I also would suppose I should save the restored file to a directory different from the original so I don't mess something up. In article <kurtullman-90F37A.11131526052008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>, > > I just restored a file from Mozy which contains a Resource fork. > > I got the resource fork back. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > restored file to a directory different from the original so I don't mess > something up. He just showed you how to do it in the post to which you replied: ls -l BinHex4 BinHex4/rsrc That's a terminal command. 'ls' is the command, and '-l' and the path to the file (plus /rsrc) is the path to the file. So you can do this to find out if a given file contains a resource fork: 1. Open a terminal window. 2. Type: "ls -l " (without quotes - note the trailing space) 3. Drag any file into the terminal window to get the path. 4. Append (type) "/rsrc" to the end of the path. 5. Press Enter/Return on the keyboard. Any resources (if they exist) will be listed in the output. SignaturePlease send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts. JR > ls -l BinHex4 BinHex4/rsrc > > That's a terminal command. 'ls' is the command, and '-l' and the path to > the file (plus /rsrc) is the path to the file. Just a slight clarification: You can supply multiple paths to the 'ls' command. Above, these are two individual paths: BinHex4 BinHex4/rsrc The first path is the path to the data fork of the file (the default for the 'ls' command). This causes 'ls' to print information about the data fork. The second is the path to the resource fork of the file. This causes 'ls' to print information about the resource fork, if one exists. SignaturePlease send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts. JR > In article > <kurtullman-90F37A.11131526052008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > He just showed you how to do it in the post to which you replied: I told you I was clueless, didn't I?!?! (g) It just looked like part of the return to my untrained eye. Thanks to both of youse guys for the reply. K In article <kurtullman-D8BFA9.12043026052008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>, > > In article > > <kurtullman-90F37A.11131526052008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > part of the return to my untrained eye. Thanks to both of youse guys for > the reply. Ah - I see. Well now you know. : ) SignaturePlease send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts. JR > ls -l BinHex4 BinHex4/rsrc > > That's a terminal command. 'ls' is the command, and '-l' and the path to > the file (plus /rsrc) is the path to the file. Typo correction: That's a terminal command. 'ls' is the command, and '-l' and the path to the file (plus /rsrc) are command-line arguments. SignaturePlease send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts. JR > > Um. Something slightly backwards here. The risks of *NOT* backing things > > up remotely would seem higher. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > There is no assurance of any kind they are running reliable systems. Exactly. SignaturePlease send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts. JR > > > I confess that I don't understand why anyone would backup critical data > > > to an online company. The risks are too high IMO. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Um. Something slightly backwards here. The risks of *NOT* backing things > up remotely would seem higher. I never said I don't back up my data. > Unless perhaps you are concerned with the privacy of your data. In that > case, yes, the risks of remote backup are higher. Mozy claims to have it > encrypted, and you can even use your own key if you like. But yes, there > is certainly at least more risk there than if you don't let the data out > of your house at all. But I didn't think that was the kind of risk you > are talking about. Why not? That's a big risk. SignaturePlease send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts. JR > > > Do they advertise that they support Macs? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I wouldn't do it either, for the same reason. I'd be interested in hearing what kind of off-site backups you guys do. Is there any online approach you'd consider to be secure enough to use? SignatureTom "Tom" Harrington Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002 http://www.atomicbird.com/ > > > > Do they advertise that they support Macs? > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'd be interested in hearing what kind of off-site backups you guys do. > Is there any online approach you'd consider to be secure enough to use? My off-site backups consist of a set of VXA2 tapes I store in a fireproof safe off site. I rotate backup sets once a week, and recycle (erase) them every two months. SignaturePlease send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts. JR > I'd be interested in hearing what kind of off-site backups you guys do. I move my laptop between work and home, and back up to external hard drive in both locations. > Is there any online approach you'd consider to be secure enough to use? No, simply because the online backup can go away at any time and are not under my control. SignatureWoodworking links and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com >> I'd be interested in hearing what kind of off-site backups you guys do. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, simply because the online backup can go away at any time and are > not under my control. My strategy is similar to Dave's. I maintain both SuperDuper! and Time Machine backups at both home and office locations, taking my MacBook Pro almost daily to each location. SignatureJames Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com > >> I'd be interested in hearing what kind of off-site backups you guys do. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Machine backups at both home and office locations, taking my MacBook Pro > almost daily to each location. Right now the only off-site backups I trust are the DVD-Rs I store at work and family's places. Regards, Jamie Kahn Genet SignatureIf you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. "Dave Balderstone | > Do they advertise that they support Macs? | | They do. | | I confess that I don't understand why anyone would backup critical data | to an online company. The risks are too high IMO. Think KATRINA -- we lost one studio down to the foundation. Had back ups on site and across town (both totaled) Only thing that saved us in the short run was off site (way) on line back ups. We do have out of state hard copy back ups but those are not easily accessed. > Only thing that saved us in the short run was off site (way) on line back > ups. Contracted, B2B? SignatureWoodworking links and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com > Do they advertise that they support Macs? Yes, though until very recently, the Mac client was a beta. > If so, I'd say that > classifies as false advertising, and is reason enough to demand your > money back. Of course, your money back might be $0. (You can do up to 2 GB with the free account.) I'd also like to see a little more verification that they don't correctly do resource forks. While it does seem like a plausible theory to explain the observed behavior (I don't know what these text clippings are and whether the data in question might be in resource forks), it seems a rather large jump from "these files didn't restore right and that might indicate a problem with resource forks" to "demand money back." It seems to me that somewhere in there a few steps got omitted. That might include such things as 1. Verifying whether resource forks were indeed the problem and, if so, whether it is actually all resource forks or just some subset. 2. Checking with the vendor's support (which might also help address question 1). 3. Trying alternate ways of doing the restore (which vendor support might plausibly also suggest). There are two different options, which might well behave differently if there is a bug in something like that. (Well, there's a 3rd option, but getting them to mail you a restore cd/dvd costs money and I wouldn't do that just for an experiment like that). I've been quite happy with Mozy, including about 8GB of stuff sucessfully restored after my daughter's hard disk died. But it is true that I have very few, if any, files that have important stuff in resource forks. It is plausible that I might not have even noticed a problem with resource forks. SignatureRichard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.