Re: Hint of solution for Time Machine & Sheepshaver
- 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.
--- In email@example.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?
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "John Rethorst" <jrethorst@...> wrote:
>That was the point of the discussion I read. If you installed Leopard while you had an
> 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.
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.