Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Hint of solution for Time Machine & Sheepshaver

Expand Messages
  • ted_m_p_lee
    In trying to get an answer to another question I stumbled on what may be a solution to the problem that Time Machine can t be smart about backing up the
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      In trying to get an answer to another question I stumbled on what may be a solution to the
      problem that Time Machine can't be smart about backing up the Sheepshaver volume.
      Apparently FileVault in Leopard uses a different kind of sparse-volume to store the user's
      directory than does Tiger. Whatever the difference is, it comes in blocks of some kind and
      Time Machine is able to back up the blocks separately, rather than the whole volume at once
      (which is what happens if you switch over to Leopard with an account current FileVaulted). I
      wonder if that would work with the SheepShaver volume? I'm not yet set up to try it but was
      wondering if anybody else has -- or can't the SheepShaver volume be sparse?

      Ted Lee
      Minnetonka, MN
    • John Rethorst
      Leopard has a file system that lets you update parts of files. I don t know more than that; maybe un-filevault your home folder and re-filevault it? IAC
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Leopard has a file system that lets you update parts of files.
        I don't know more than that; maybe un-filevault your home
        folder and re-filevault it? IAC there's no difference in
        structure between the SS volume and any other file. AFAIK
        the SS volume could be made sparse.

        John R.



        --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "ted_m_p_lee" <tmplee@...> wrote:

        > In trying to get an answer to another question I stumbled
        > on what may be a solution to the problem that Time
        > Machine can't be smart about backing up the Sheepshaver
        > volume. Apparently FileVault in Leopard uses a different
        > kind of sparse-volume to store the user's directory than
        > does Tiger. Whatever the difference is, it comes in
        > blocks of some kind and Time Machine is able to back up
        > the blocks separately, rather than the whole volume at
        > once (which is what happens if you switch over to Leopard
        > with an account current FileVaulted). I wonder if that
        > would work with the SheepShaver volume? I'm not yet set
        > up to try it but was wondering if anybody else has -- or
        > can't the SheepShaver volume be sparse?
      • ted_m_p_lee
        ... That was the point of the discussion I read. If you installed Leopard while you had an account File-Vaulted, Time-Machine had to back up the account s
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 2, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "John Rethorst" <jrethorst@...> wrote:
          >
          > Leopard has a file system that lets you update parts of files.
          > I don't know more than that; maybe un-filevault your home
          > folder and re-filevault it? IAC there's no difference in
          > structure between the SS volume and any other file. AFAIK
          > the SS volume could be made sparse.
          >

          That was the point of the discussion I read. If you installed Leopard while you had an
          account File-Vaulted, Time-Machine had to back up the account's sparse file all at once. But
          if you turned time-vault off, upgraded to Leopard, and then turned Time-Vault back on, the
          new sparse file was backed up in blocks. So maybe you have to create the Sheepshaver
          volume in Leopard and not use the one in the distribution. I guess someone will just have to
          play with it and see. I'll let you know if I get around to it before anyone else.

          Ted
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.