Discussion:
Mac OS X 10.3.1 is released via SU (U)
(too old to reply)
Laubenthal, Neil, CTR, OSD-NII
2003-11-11 10:57:31 UTC
Permalink
UNCLASSIFIED

There are a couple of gotcha's . . .

the FW800 bug . . .which may also affect FW400. Supposedly
10.3.1 fixes this.

filevault has corrupted H drives when allowed to reclaim
empty space . . . supposedly 10.3.1 fixes this too.

journaling has caused some problems . . . best for now to
turn it off until it gets fixed.

GeForce4MX video cards don't work correctly in sawtooth
motherboard G4/AGP models . . . the workaround is install
with the old card, replace a .kext with an older version,
and reinstall the card. OWC says it's an Apple problem
and they're waiting on Apple to issue a fix.

I personally believe that an Archive and Install is the best
way to go as long as you check all your login items, pref
panes and the like for current versions . . . a fair number
of them (Unsanity stuff, DefaultFolder, etc) needed fixes
to work right.

Other than that . . . this is a pretty no-brainer install.

My next machine to upgrade is my desktop file/web server . . .
I may do an upgrade on it instead of archive and install
just to see how it works; but most likely not.



-----Original Message-----
From: Mark F. Murphy [mailto:***@tyrell.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 1:14 PM
To: macosx-***@omnigroup.com
Subject: Re: Mac OS X 10.3.1 is released via SU


At 8:19 AM -0800 11/11/03, Shawn Erickson wrote:
>On Nov 11, 2003, at 7:41 AM, Mark F. Murphy wrote:
>
>>
>>So... is it safe to finally migrate to Panther?
>
>It had been safe for Panther since 10.3 on ALL of my systems.
>
>>Any serious gotchyas?
>
>The sky will fall... but only for less 2% of users.

I'm not a sky falling kind of guy.

However, there were some reported issues... none of which I think
would affect me...

However, I certainly wanted to play it a bit safe with this new major
release.

Some people have reported a clean install to be the best way... any
comments on going "upgrade" vs "clean" vs "archive"?

Any suggestions and experiences would be greatly appreciated.

mark

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development <mailto:***@tyrell.com>
Tyrell Software Corp <http://www.tyrell.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lukreme
2003-11-13 19:41:19 UTC
Permalink
On 11 Nov 2003, at 10:57, Laubenthal, Neil, CTR, OSD-NII wrote:
> UNCLASSIFIED
>
> There are a couple of gotcha's . . .
>
> the FW800 bug . . .which may also affect FW400

Does *NOT* affect FW400.

> . Supposedly 10.3.1 fixes this.

No, 10.3.1 has a minor patch that may help. New firmware is required to
fix it (it is a FW800 bug, not a OS X bug)

> journaling has caused some problems . . . best for now to
> turn it off until it gets fixed.

Bull. Have had it on since 10.2 was released. It has never caused a
problem.

--
No man is free who is not master of himself
Cyril Niklaus
2003-11-13 20:23:22 UTC
Permalink
On 14 nov. 03, at 12:08, Lukreme wrote:

> On 11 Nov 2003, at 10:57, Laubenthal, Neil, CTR, OSD-NII wrote:
> '
>> journaling has caused some problems . . . best for now to
>> turn it off until it gets fixed.
>
> Bull. Have had it on since 10.2 was released. It has never caused a
> problem.
Yeah, I've also been using since it was available on several HDs
without a problem at all. Where do you get those ideas from? Can you
substantiate those claims?

Cyril
Fabien Roy
2003-11-13 20:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Used journaling on my new iPod, lost everything. I had to put the iPod
on direct firewire mode. The iPod would endlessly cycle on data
verification after an abrupt disconnect.

Fabien.

On Nov 13, 2003, at 8:19 PM, Cyril Niklaus wrote:

>
> On 14 nov. 03, at 12:08, Lukreme wrote:
>
>> On 11 Nov 2003, at 10:57, Laubenthal, Neil, CTR, OSD-NII wrote:
>> '
>>> journaling has caused some problems . . . best for now to
>>> turn it off until it gets fixed.
>>
>> Bull. Have had it on since 10.2 was released. It has never caused a
>> problem.
> Yeah, I've also been using since it was available on several HDs
> without a problem at all. Where do you get those ideas from? Can you
> substantiate those claims?
>
> Cyril
>
> _______________________________________________
> MacOSX-talk mailing list
> MacOSX-***@omnigroup.com
> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
>
Lukreme
2003-11-14 03:08:11 UTC
Permalink
On 13 Nov 2003, at 21:51, Fabien Roy wrote:
> Used journaling on my new iPod, lost everything.

"lost" ?

And if the iPod doesn't like journaling that really has nothing to do
with OX X

--
So now you know the words to our song, pretty soon you'll all be
singing along, when you're sad, when you're lonely and it all turns out
wrong...
Fabien Roy
2003-11-14 10:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Considering that the iPod _IS_ also a Mac OS X HFS FireWire storage...
How this had nothing to do with Mac OS X. You try to use journaling
because the iPod has much more chances to be disconnected without
unmounting and you want it to be protected from corruption.
I ma not complaining, I am just stating a fact that IFAIK on _MY_ iPod
journaling may make you lose data. I just need to remember how to file
a bug :-)

Fabien
On Nov 14, 2003, at 3:03 AM, Lukreme wrote:

> On 13 Nov 2003, at 21:51, Fabien Roy wrote:
>> Used journaling on my new iPod, lost everything.
>
> "lost" ?
>
> And if the iPod doesn't like journaling that really has nothing to do
> with OX X
>
> --
> So now you know the words to our song, pretty soon you'll all be
> singing along, when you're sad, when you're lonely and it all turns
> out wrong...
Lukreme
2003-11-14 20:53:18 UTC
Permalink
On 14 Nov 2003, at 11:35, Fabien Roy wrote:
> Considering that the iPod _IS_ also a Mac OS X HFS FireWire storage...

No. The ipod is a Hard Drive with a completely different non-OS X
operating system on it.

Blaming OS X for problems that are only related to the ipod is a bit
lie blaming OS X because a windows machine on the same LAN keeps
crashing.

--
Use your key, unlock the door, see what fate might have in store. Come
explore your dreams and Creations, Enter the world of imagination.
Chad Leigh -- ObjectWerks Inc.
2003-11-14 21:16:51 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 14, 2003, at 9:50 PM, Lukreme wrote:

> On 14 Nov 2003, at 11:35, Fabien Roy wrote:
>> Considering that the iPod _IS_ also a Mac OS X HFS FireWire storage...
>
> No. The ipod is a Hard Drive with a completely different non-OS X
> operating system on it.
>
> Blaming OS X for problems that are only related to the ipod is a bit
> lie blaming OS X because a windows machine on the same LAN keeps
> crashing.
>

Uhh, this is not a fair assessment. When an Oxford based firewire
drive might have problems with journaling, for example, we might well
blame OS X *or* the firewire drive for the problem. This is not much
different than an iPod used in Firewire disk mode (and not in iPod
mode).

Chad
Fabien Roy
2003-11-14 22:55:04 UTC
Permalink
_Apple_ Mac OS X HFS Journaling system _MAY_ not be compatible with
_Apple_ iPod, period.
Note the above emphasis, unless the iPod _IS_ a third party add-on.

Thanks.

Fabien
On Nov 14, 2003, at 9:09 PM, Chad Leigh -- ObjectWerks Inc. wrote:

>
> On Nov 14, 2003, at 9:50 PM, Lukreme wrote:
>
>> On 14 Nov 2003, at 11:35, Fabien Roy wrote:
>>> Considering that the iPod _IS_ also a Mac OS X HFS FireWire
>>> storage...
>>
>> No. The ipod is a Hard Drive with a completely different non-OS X
>> operating system on it.
>>
>> Blaming OS X for problems that are only related to the ipod is a bit
>> lie blaming OS X because a windows machine on the same LAN keeps
>> crashing.
>>
>
> Uhh, this is not a fair assessment. When an Oxford based firewire
> drive might have problems with journaling, for example, we might well
> blame OS X *or* the firewire drive for the problem. This is not much
> different than an iPod used in Firewire disk mode (and not in iPod
> mode).
>
> Chad
>
> _______________________________________________
> MacOSX-talk mailing list
> MacOSX-***@omnigroup.com
> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
>
Lukreme
2003-11-15 00:04:29 UTC
Permalink
On 14 Nov 2003, at 23:54, Fabien Roy wrote:

> _Apple_ Mac OS X HFS Journaling system _MAY_ not be compatible with
> _Apple_ iPod, period.
> Note the above emphasis, unless the iPod _IS_ a third party add-on.

1) The ipod has nothing to do with "OS X"

2) Apple != "OS X"

3) HFS Journaling is a feature of HFS+, It is not a feature of "OS X"

4) iPod problems with HFS+ Journaling are not "OS X" problems.

--
Love seekest only self to please,
to bind another to its delight
Joys in another's loss of ease
And builds a hell in Heaven's despite!
Fabien Roy
2003-11-15 00:22:06 UTC
Permalink
Wow! So loss of data under OS X on an iPod is not an OS X problem.
Thanks for the enlightenment. I really feel educated now...

Fabien

On Nov 14, 2003, at 11:58 PM, Lukreme wrote:

> 4) iPod problems with HFS+ Journaling are not "OS X" problems.
Lukreme
2003-11-15 00:54:01 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Nov 2003, at 01:20, Fabien Roy wrote:
> Wow! So loss of data under OS X on an iPod is not an OS X problem.

See, it's the "under OS X" that is the problem. Nothing that you have
related about this problem has ANYTHING to do with OS X.

You enabled journaling (a HFS+ feature) on a ipod, running ipod
software (not running OS X). You said that caused a loss of data.
Perhaps the ipod OS does not handle journaling well? maybe it doesn't
support a journaled FS at all? Whatever the reason, this has _nothing_
to do with OS X.

--
Ah we're lonely, we're romantic / and the cider's laced with acid / and
the Holy Spirit's crying, Where's the beef? / And the moon is swimming
naked / and the summer night is fragrant / with a mighty expectation of
relief
Mark F. Murphy
2003-11-15 07:33:03 UTC
Permalink
At 1:53 AM -0700 11/15/03, Lukreme wrote:
>You enabled journaling (a HFS+ feature) on a ipod, running ipod
>software (not running OS X). You said that caused a loss of data.
>Perhaps the ipod OS does not handle journaling well? maybe it
>doesn't support a journaled FS at all? Whatever the reason, this
>has _nothing_ to do with OS X.

I may not understand the low level code of journaling, but I somehow
doubt it needs an OS on the target device.

Journaling relies on code in OS X... and it is performed on block
based devices like drives... with the interface on the drive probably
not mattering too much.

What does matter is that the target device is formatted HFS+... and
that the format support journaling.

What might be an issue us that when the iPod OS regains control over
the device and needs to access the drive via it's known format, that
the journaling entries are not understood by the iPod OS.

Seeing that Apple makes both products, one would think that Apple
would have covered the issue in Mac OS X when the iPod is set as a
hard drive such that something as simple as a setting for a
legitimate target drive didn't have a conflict with the target
device's routines to the same disk.

mark

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development <mailto:***@tyrell.com>
Tyrell Software Corp <http://www.tyrell.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lukreme
2003-11-15 08:29:02 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Nov 2003, at 08:32, Mark F. Murphy wrote:
> At 1:53 AM -0700 11/15/03, Lukreme wrote:
>> You enabled journaling (a HFS+ feature) on a ipod, running ipod
>> software (not running OS X). You said that caused a loss of data.
>> Perhaps the ipod OS does not handle journaling well? maybe it
>> doesn't support a journaled FS at all? Whatever the reason, this has
>> _nothing_ to do with OS X.
>
> I may not understand the low level code of journaling, but I somehow
> doubt it needs an OS on the target device.

It doesn't.

> Journaling relies on code in OS X

No, no really. It is a FS level feature that needs support in the OS.
It is not an OS feature.

> What might be an issue us that when the iPod OS regains control over
> the device and needs to access the drive via it's known format, that
> the journaling entries are not understood by the iPod OS.

That's certainly a possibility. Also possible is that the iPod OS
mungs the journaling portion of the FS< munging the entire thing. It's
also possible that the journaling interferes with the ipod loading it's
OS.

> Seeing that Apple makes both products, one would think that Apple
> would have covered the issue in Mac OS X when the iPod is set as a
> hard drive such that something as simple as a setting for a legitimate
> target drive didn't have a conflict with the target device's routines
> to the same disk.

If you can find anything where Apple sets the iPod to be journaled then
yes, that is a concern. However, the iPod drive is NOT journaled by
default and it would take user action to journal it.

--
"I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with
sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forego their use."
-Galileo
Mark F. Murphy
2003-11-15 08:54:01 UTC
Permalink
At 9:28 AM -0700 11/15/03, Lukreme wrote:
>>Journaling relies on code in OS X
>
>No, no really. It is a FS level feature that needs support in the
>OS. It is not an OS feature.

I'm not sure we're talking about anything different.

I see the FS code as part of the OS.

The main point is that the target drive is unaware of how it is being utilized.

>If you can find anything where Apple sets the iPod to be journaled
>then yes, that is a concern. However, the iPod drive is NOT
>journaled by default and it would take user action to journal it.

A user action which should not be allowed *if* the iPod cannot handle
the format. I'd also suggest users should be protected from
formatting the iPod drive to something other than a format the device
itself can manipulate.

mark

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development <mailto:***@tyrell.com>
Tyrell Software Corp <http://www.tyrell.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt
2003-11-15 09:30:07 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Nov 2003, at 16:53, Mark F. Murphy wrote:

>> If you can find anything where Apple sets the iPod to be journaled
>> then yes, that is a concern. However, the iPod drive is NOT journaled
>> by default and it would take user action to journal it.
>
> A user action which should not be allowed *if* the iPod cannot handle
> the format. I'd also suggest users should be protected from
> formatting the iPod drive to something other than a format the device
> itself can manipulate.

Well, shouldn't this be in all hard drive mechanisms? After all,
pre-8.1 clients can't read HFS+....

Evidently that would be an OSX problem as well.

M
Mark F. Murphy
2003-11-15 10:29:02 UTC
Permalink
At 5:27 PM +0000 11/15/03, Matt wrote:
>On 15 Nov 2003, at 16:53, Mark F. Murphy wrote:
>
>>>If you can find anything where Apple sets the iPod to be journaled
>>>then yes, that is a concern. However, the iPod drive is NOT
>>>journaled by default and it would take user action to journal it.
>>
>>A user action which should not be allowed *if* the iPod cannot
>>handle the format. I'd also suggest users should be protected from
>>formatting the iPod drive to something other than a format the
>>device itself can manipulate.
>
>Well, shouldn't this be in all hard drive mechanisms? After all,
>pre-8.1 clients can't read HFS+....
>
>Evidently that would be an OSX problem as well.

Apple makes the iPod as a consumer device.

It would be in their best interest to make it as idiot proof as
possible on the things it has control over... like Mac OS X.

Or perhaps some people thing its a good thing that users could easily
blow away the iPod drive?

I'm not sure why there's a defense to be made here however.

mark

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development <mailto:***@tyrell.com>
Tyrell Software Corp <http://www.tyrell.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt
2003-11-15 10:35:06 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Nov 2003, at 18:25, Mark F. Murphy wrote:

> At 5:27 PM +0000 11/15/03, Matt wrote:
>> Well, shouldn't this be in all hard drive mechanisms? After all,
>> pre-8.1 clients can't read HFS+....
>>
>> Evidently that would be an OSX problem as well.
>
> Apple makes the iPod as a consumer device.
> It would be in their best interest to make it as idiot proof as
> possible on the things it has control over... like Mac OS X.

It's an action that has to be chosen deliberately.

Anything idiot-proof fails when shown to an actual idiot. And they do
exist.

> Or perhaps some people thing its a good thing that users could easily
> blow away the iPod drive?
> I'm not sure why there's a defense to be made here however.

Then shut up.

M
Mark F. Murphy
2003-11-15 11:35:03 UTC
Permalink
At 6:34 PM +0000 11/15/03, Matt wrote:
>>Apple makes the iPod as a consumer device.
>>It would be in their best interest to make it as idiot proof as
>>possible on the things it has control over... like Mac OS X.
>
>It's an action that has to be chosen deliberately.

Of course it is.

So is:

rm -rf /

>Anything idiot-proof fails when shown to an actual idiot. And they do exist.

That's why the Mac OS has protections... so people don't do something
that could be very harmful.

>>Or perhaps some people thing its a good thing that users could
>>easily blow away the iPod drive?
>>I'm not sure why there's a defense to be made here however.
>
>Then shut up.

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed or something?

mark

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development <mailto:***@tyrell.com>
Tyrell Software Corp <http://www.tyrell.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt
2003-11-15 13:54:01 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Nov 2003, at 19:34, Mark F. Murphy wrote:

> At 6:34 PM +0000 11/15/03, Matt wrote:
>>> Apple makes the iPod as a consumer device.
>>> It would be in their best interest to make it as idiot proof as
>>> possible on the things it has control over... like Mac OS X.
>>
>> It's an action that has to be chosen deliberately.
>
> Of course it is.
>
> So is:
>
> rm -rf /

Yes, but we're not talking about that.

We're talking about someone reformatting their iPod as HFS+ (Journaled)
and losing data. I mean...didn't they think for a second to...um...back
up the data on the iPod?

>> Anything idiot-proof fails when shown to an actual idiot. And they do
>> exist.
> That's why the Mac OS has protections... so people don't do something
> that could be very harmful.

It's a matter of degrees. People do things all the time in Mac OS that
are utterly stupid, causing data loss and requireing a lot of
forethought and ignoring of alert boxes.

>>> Or perhaps some people thing its a good thing that users could
>>> easily blow away the iPod drive?
>>> I'm not sure why there's a defense to be made here however.
>>
>> Then shut up.
>
> Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed or something?

It's a helpful suggestion if you don't want to see any more of this.

M
Mark F. Murphy
2003-11-15 14:53:00 UTC
Permalink
At 9:53 PM +0000 11/15/03, Matt wrote:
>On 15 Nov 2003, at 19:34, Mark F. Murphy wrote:
>>So is:
>>
>>rm -rf /
>
>Yes, but we're not talking about that.
>
>We're talking about someone reformatting their iPod as HFS+
>(Journaled) and losing data. I mean...didn't they think for a second
>to...um...back up the data on the iPod?

And we are also talking about whether or not Mac OS X should allow
the user to damage their iPod in such a way.

The concept of the Mac OS shielding users from bad decisions is a long one.

I see no reason why that concept shouldn't be applied to the iPod on Mac OS X.

>It's a matter of degrees. People do things all the time in Mac OS
>that are utterly stupid, causing data loss and requireing a lot of
>forethought and ignoring of alert boxes.

That's very true.

At least the OS tried to warn them.

There's no guarantee the user won't ignore the warning or not
understand the warning. However, the warning is at least better than
simply going off and doing the function which could be harmful.

mark

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development <mailto:***@tyrell.com>
Tyrell Software Corp <http://www.tyrell.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt
2003-11-15 15:29:00 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Nov 2003, at 22:52, Mark F. Murphy wrote:
> And we are also talking about whether or not Mac OS X should allow the
> user to damage their iPod in such a way.

It's not damaged is it? Surely a reformat in the correct format?

> The concept of the Mac OS shielding users from bad decisions is a long
> one.
> I see no reason why that concept shouldn't be applied to the iPod on
> Mac OS X.

Well, no data loss. What's the problem?

>> It's a matter of degrees. People do things all the time in Mac OS
>> that are utterly stupid, causing data loss and requireing a lot of
>> forethought and ignoring of alert boxes.
> That's very true.
> At least the OS tried to warn them.

That's not true at all. In many cases the OS just sits and lets them do
whatever idiotic thing they decide.

> There's no guarantee the user won't ignore the warning or not
> understand the warning. However, the warning is at least better than
> simply going off and doing the function which could be harmful.

As I say, warnings are not ubiquitous. You can render a system
non-bootable in a couple of easy steps with a complete absence of
warnings.

M
Fabien Roy
2003-11-15 17:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Could you tell me what is the advantage of a journaling file system?
I was (maybe mistakenly) told that a journaling FS will be immune to
accidental removal (without un-mounting it first). Removing without
unmounting the volume is most likely to happen on the iPod. Also you
don't have to reformat a volume to turn on journaling.

Thanks for your patience.

Fabien
On Nov 15, 2003, at 1:53 PM, Matt wrote:

> Yes, but we're not talking about that.
>
> We're talking about someone reformatting their iPod as HFS+
> (Journaled) and losing data. I mean...didn't they think for a second
> to...um...back up the data on the iPod?
Shawn Erickson
2003-11-15 17:46:24 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 15, 2003, at 5:24 PM, Fabien Roy wrote:

> Could you tell me what is the advantage of a journaling file system?
> I was (maybe mistakenly) told that a journaling FS will be immune to
> accidental removal (without un-mounting it first). Removing without
> unmounting the volume is most likely to happen on the iPod. Also you
> don't have to reformat a volume to turn on journaling.

The purpose of journaling files systems is to allow for quick file
system recovery in the event of a crash, power failure, etc.
Traditionally after such an event you would have to run a file system
repair tool to scan for possible inconsistencies in the file system
because of unsaved changes that got lost. This can take a lot of time
and isn't guaranteed to identify correctly what is wrong with the file
system or how it should be fixed.

Roughly speaking... Journaling adds, well a journal, to the file
system. This journal is updated with the set of changes that need to be
made to the file system (Panther only journals file system data not
file data) and the journal is written out to disk before any changes
are made to the file system meta data. Then the system proceeds to
update the file system. Now if something happens, like a power-loss,
while the file system is being updated (the data is spread across
countless disk blocks) your file system is now in an inconsistent
state. However the journal, which was written to disk before anything
was updated, has a record of what was being done.

So the file system recovery tool only needs to evaluate what the
journal says and compare that to the file system to understand, rather
quickly and correctly, what needs to be fixed.

If nothing bad happens while the file system is being updated the
journal is cleared of entries because the entries are know to correctly
reflected in the file system on disk.

-Shawn
Matt
2003-11-16 01:39:07 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Nov 2003, at 01:24, Fabien Roy wrote:

> Could you tell me what is the advantage of a journaling file system?
> I was (maybe mistakenly) told that a journaling FS will be immune to
> accidental removal (without un-mounting it first). Removing without
> unmounting the volume is most likely to happen on the iPod.

That's true. and it sucks that the Pod doesn't support HFS+ (Journaled)
yet but them's the breaks.

> Also you don't have to reformat a volume to turn on journaling.

No, but you'd be an ass if you made a change like that to a disk an
didn't back up first.

I mean...

It's called common sense.
Fabien Roy
2003-11-16 04:19:02 UTC
Permalink
I really did have a backup. So it was not a big deal. Just annoying to
know that if you do not journaling on your iPod, accidently removing
the iPod from the dock could destroy your data -and- if you try to do
the journaling option you have endless verification loop by the iPod
software :-)
I may have forgot to say that the journaling iPod was working for weeks
until I inadvertently removed it without unmounting...

Now I wonder if DiskWarrior would also mess the ipod.

Fabien
On Nov 16, 2003, at 1:37 AM, Matt wrote:

> No, but you'd be an ass if you made a change like that to a disk an
> didn't back up first.
>
> I mean...
>
> It's called common sense.
Lawrence Sica
2003-11-16 13:03:38 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 16, 2003, at 4:37 AM, Matt wrote:

>
> On 16 Nov 2003, at 01:24, Fabien Roy wrote:
>
>> Could you tell me what is the advantage of a journaling file system?
>> I was (maybe mistakenly) told that a journaling FS will be immune to
>> accidental removal (without un-mounting it first). Removing without
>> unmounting the volume is most likely to happen on the iPod.
>
> That's true. and it sucks that the Pod doesn't support HFS+
> (Journaled) yet but them's the breaks.
>

All journalling does is make it so you do not need to fsck the
filesystem before mounting. A FS journal does not guarantee that the
data is safe, it only guarantees that the filesystem will be in a
stable state always. And even then a corrupted journal can happen.

The old axiom is true, if you value your data make sure it is always
backed up.


>> Also you don't have to reformat a volume to turn on journaling.
>
> No, but you'd be an ass if you made a change like that to a disk an
> didn't back up first.
>
>

Turning on journalling is actually pretty safe. The way it works is it
creates a space on disk to store the metadata. The main thing about
journalling is it can cause a performance hit on systems with busy i/o
since what happens is you fill the memory cache it uses all the time
and force it to constantly write, on a system with already heavy i/o
this makes it worse...

--Larry
Matt
2003-11-16 14:47:03 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Nov 2003, at 20:56, Lawrence Sica wrote:
>> No, but you'd be an ass if you made a change like that to a disk an
>> didn't back up first.
> Turning on journalling is actually pretty safe.

Yeah, sure it is.
Lawrence Sica
2003-11-16 15:16:09 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 16, 2003, at 5:39 PM, Matt wrote:

>
> On 16 Nov 2003, at 20:56, Lawrence Sica wrote:
>>> No, but you'd be an ass if you made a change like that to a disk an
>>> didn't back up first.
>> Turning on journalling is actually pretty safe.
>
> Yeah, sure it is.
>

I've done it across multiple oses on hundreds of machines, I have never
lost data due to the journalling turning on. Have you had an
experience otherwise?

--Larry
Shawn Erickson
2003-11-16 15:27:58 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 16, 2003, at 12:56 PM, Lawrence Sica wrote:

>
> On Nov 16, 2003, at 4:37 AM, Matt wrote:
>
>>
>> On 16 Nov 2003, at 01:24, Fabien Roy wrote:
>>
>>> Could you tell me what is the advantage of a journaling file system?
>>> I was (maybe mistakenly) told that a journaling FS will be immune to
>>> accidental removal (without un-mounting it first). Removing without
>>> unmounting the volume is most likely to happen on the iPod.
>>
>> That's true. and it sucks that the Pod doesn't support HFS+
>> (Journaled) yet but them's the breaks.
>>
>
> All journalling does is make it so you do not need to fsck the
> filesystem before mounting.

To be clear... It doesn't prevent the need to run a file system repair
after an "event", it makes running it very very fast compared to having
to scan the whole file system if you didn't have a journal to guide the
way. It also improves the ability of file system recovery because the
recovery tool doesn't have to read the tea leaves of an inconsistent
file system but simply can read the journal.

Now having an atomic (not as in atoms) file system could avoid the need
for fsck and journalling but only a few of those exist in the world at
this time (historically suffered from performance and capability
issues).

> And even then a corrupted journal can happen.

Sort of... as designed you cannot have both the journal and file system
corrupt at the same time (baring bugs, IO pathway, and drive problems).

-Shawn
Matt
2003-11-17 02:00:06 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Nov 2003, at 23:01, Lawrence Sica wrote:

> On Nov 16, 2003, at 5:39 PM, Matt wrote:
>> On 16 Nov 2003, at 20:56, Lawrence Sica wrote:
>>>> No, but you'd be an ass if you made a change like that to a disk an
>>>> didn't back up first.
>>> Turning on journalling is actually pretty safe.
>> Yeah, sure it is.
>
> I've done it across multiple oses on hundreds of machines, I have
> never lost data due to the journalling turning on. Have you had an
> experience otherwise?

I find performing a change like that without a restorable backup to be
irresponsible.

But then I work with other people's data too.

M
Mark F. Murphy
2003-11-18 07:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Can anyone recommend a good Telnet client for Mac OS X?

Need something with good (or standard?) keyboard mapping.

Also need something that will respond to the printer on/off sequences
in order to have stuff sent to the printer... hopefully with options
of font selection, column width, fit to page, etc.

I have a client that uses Reflections (a classic only app) and needs
a replacement for Mac OS X.

GLTerm doesn't handle the printing requirements but handles the
keyboard mapping.

MacWise does one page of the printing but seems to not do the rest of
the pages... it's kind of clunky... and doesn't seem to handle the
keyboard mapping nicely.

Terminal doesn't handle the printing at all.

Anyone have experience with MacTelnet's reincarnation on Mac OS X?

Or anything else out there?

Commercial app is acceptable.

mark

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development <mailto:***@tyrell.com>
Tyrell Software Corp <http://www.tyrell.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabien Roy
2003-11-18 11:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Try iTerm <http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=67789>

Fabien
On Nov 18, 2003, at 7:56 AM, Mark F. Murphy wrote:

>
> Can anyone recommend a good Telnet client for Mac OS X?
>
> Need something with good (or standard?) keyboard mapping.
>
> Also need something that will respond to the printer on/off sequences
> in order to have stuff sent to the printer... hopefully with options
> of font selection, column width, fit to page, etc.
>
> I have a client that uses Reflections (a classic only app) and needs a
> replacement for Mac OS X.
>
> GLTerm doesn't handle the printing requirements but handles the
> keyboard mapping.
>
> MacWise does one page of the printing but seems to not do the rest of
> the pages... it's kind of clunky... and doesn't seem to handle the
> keyboard mapping nicely.
>
> Terminal doesn't handle the printing at all.
>
> Anyone have experience with MacTelnet's reincarnation on Mac OS X?
>
> Or anything else out there?
>
> Commercial app is acceptable.
>
> mark
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development
> <mailto:***@tyrell.com>
> Tyrell Software Corp
> <http://www.tyrell.com>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> _______________________________________________
> MacOSX-talk mailing list
> MacOSX-***@omnigroup.com
> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
>
Lukreme
2003-11-15 16:02:31 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Nov 2003, at 11:25, Mark F. Murphy wrote:
> At 5:27 PM +0000 11/15/03, Matt wrote:
>> On 15 Nov 2003, at 16:53, Mark F. Murphy wrote:
>>
>>>> If you can find anything where Apple sets the iPod to be journaled
>>>> then yes, that is a concern. However, the iPod drive is NOT
>>>> journaled by default and it would take user action to journal it.
>>>
>>> A user action which should not be allowed *if* the iPod cannot
>>> handle the format. I'd also suggest users should be protected from
>>> formatting the iPod drive to something other than a format the
>>> device itself can manipulate.
>>
>> Well, shouldn't this be in all hard drive mechanisms? After all,
>> pre-8.1 clients can't read HFS+....
>>
>> Evidently that would be an OSX problem as well.
>
> Apple makes the iPod as a consumer device.
>
> It would be in their best interest to make it as idiot proof as
> possible on the things it has control over... like Mac OS X.

If you make something idiot proof nature generates a better idiot.

using a disk utility to manipulate the filesystem setting on the iPod
is ceratnly not something I've ever seen recommended, suggested, or
even hinted at.

> Or perhaps some people thing its a good thing that users could easily
> blow away the iPod drive?

The Disk Utility sees the ipod as a simple Firewire device. I'm sure
if you reformatted the ipod, removing all the "ipodness" and made it
simply a firewire drive with no embedded OS that journaling would work
just fine, as it does on my firewire HD.

--
I said pretend you've got no money, she just laughed and said, 'Eh,
you're so funny.' I said, 'Yeah? Well I can't see anyone else smiling
in here.'
Jesus Diaz Blanco
2003-11-15 12:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Oh geezus. This is probably the most annoying and boring thread EVER in
bitch.

Can we move on?

Summary:

- Some people say Apple should have made the OS so it won't allow you
to enable journaling on iPod, knowing that it won't work with iPod.
- Some other people say the user should be aware of that and not enable
journaling.

Is that it? Just that? Can we move on more important matters? Like, for
example, you know, I liked Revolutions and everything.

j.

>>> If you can find anything where Apple sets the iPod to be journaled
>>> then yes, that is a concern. However, the iPod drive is NOT
>>> journaled by default and it would take user action to journal it.
>>
>> A user action which should not be allowed *if* the iPod cannot handle
>> the format. I'd also suggest users should be protected from
>> formatting the iPod drive to something other than a format the device
>> itself can manipulate.
>
> Well, shouldn't this be in all hard drive mechanisms? After all,
> pre-8.1 clients can't read HFS+....
>
> Evidently that would be an OSX problem as well.
>
> M
Lukreme
2003-11-15 16:10:23 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Nov 2003, at 12:59, Jesus Diaz Blanco wrote:
> Oh geezus. This is probably the most annoying and boring thread EVER
> in bitch.

Oh sure, you say that NOW.

> - Some people say Apple should have made the OS so it won't allow you
> to enable journaling on iPod, knowing that it won't work with iPod.
> - Some other people say the user should be aware of that and not
> enable journaling.

Actually it's:

- Some people think that journaling not working on the iPod is a Mac OS
X bug
- Some people think that journaling not working on the iPod is a iPod
limitation that has nothing to do with OS X.

> Is that it? Just that? Can we move on more important matters? Like,
> for example, you know, I liked Revolutions and everything.

Still haven't seen it :(

--
I can't die, I haven't seen The Jolson Story
- Jetboy
Chad Leigh -- ObjectWerks Inc.
2003-11-15 18:31:01 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 15, 2003, at 5:01 PM, Lukreme wrote:

> On 15 Nov 2003, at 12:59, Jesus Diaz Blanco wrote:
>
>> - Some people say Apple should have made the OS so it won't allow you
>> to enable journaling on iPod, knowing that it won't work with iPod.
>> - Some other people say the user should be aware of that and not
>> enable journaling.
>
> Actually it's:
>
> - Some people think that journaling not working on the iPod is a Mac
> OS X bug
> - Some people think that journaling not working on the iPod is a iPod
> limitation that has nothing to do with OS X.

I think you do not understand what some of us have said. I don't
really remember how this thread started, but a few of us have said:

When used in target disk mode, if the iPod does not work with
journaling, it is either a bug in OS X or the iPod. Target disk mode
should make it look just like any firewire disk. If enabling
journaling makes the iPod internal OS not like the disk later when you
try and use it as an iPod again, that is a different question and
matter.

Chad
Lukreme
2003-11-15 18:51:06 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Nov 2003, at 19:30, Chad Leigh -- ObjectWerks Inc. wrote:
> I think you do not understand what some of us have said. I don't
> really remember how this thread started, but a few of us have said:


> On 13 Nov 2003, at 21:51, Fabien Roy wrote:
>> On Nov 13, 2003, at 8:19 PM, Cyril Niklaus wrote:
>>> On 14 nov. 03, at 12:08, Lukreme wrote:
>>>> On 11 Nov 2003, at 10:57, Laubenthal, Neil, CTR, OSD-NII wrote:
>>>>> journaling has caused some problems . . . best for now to
>>>>> turn it off until it gets fixed.
>>>> Bull. Have had it on since 10.2 was released. It has never caused
>>>> a problem.
>>> Yeah, I've also been using since it was available on several HDs
>>> without a problem at all. Where do you get those ideas from? Can you
>>> substantiate those claims?
>> Used journaling on my new iPod, lost everything. I had to put the
>> iPod on direct firewire mode. The iPod would endlessly cycle on data
>> verification after an abrupt disconnect.


> When used in target disk mode, if the iPod does not work with
> journaling, it is either a bug in OS X or the iPod. Target disk mode
> should make it look just like any firewire disk. If enabling
> journaling makes the iPod internal OS not like the disk later when you
> try and use it as an iPod again, that is a different question and
> matter.

Except there is no target disk mode on the ipod.

--
I listen to the wind, to the wind of my soul
Fabien Roy
2003-11-15 19:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Wrong. You can force the iPod in FireWire mode only.

> With the iPod not connected, do a reset. Press the Menu and Pause/Play
> buttons until the Apple log comes up. At the Apple logo, press the FF
> and Rew buttons.
or:
> <http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=61584>
On Nov 15, 2003, at 6:50 PM, Lukreme wrote:

> Except there is no target disk mode on the ipod.
Matt
2003-11-15 02:25:01 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Nov 2003, at 08:20, Fabien Roy wrote:

> Wow! So loss of data under OS X on an iPod is not an OS X problem.
> Thanks for the enlightenment. I really feel educated now...

Mac OS X supports UFS too.

Reformat the iPod as UFS.

Now, is it Mac OS X's fault that the iPod doesn't work as an MP£ player?

Or is it the dumbass who reformatted as UFS - a file system that the
iPod doesn't support....
Jared ''Danger'' Earle
2003-11-15 03:12:11 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Nov 2003, at 07:54, Fabien Roy wrote:
> _Apple_ Mac OS X HFS Journaling system _MAY_ not be compatible with
> _Apple_ iPod, period.
> Note the above emphasis, unless the iPod _IS_ a third party add-on.

The _APPLE_ USB Mouse doesn't work in my GF's _APPLE_ PowerBook 3400.
In fact, I doubt HFS+ Journaled/CaseSensitive _APPLE_ OSX works on her
_APPLE_ Powerbook 3400.

--
Jared Earle, Nightfall Games, ***@23x.net - http://www.23x.net
"It was like ... a bummer. My name is Ellen Feiss and I'm a SPORK"
Fabien Roy
2003-11-15 09:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Yeah! You are talking about shipping product from Apple (the 3400) and
the iPod is a third party product. Again thanks for the enlightenment
and I will shut my mouth for now...

Fabien
On Nov 15, 2003, at 3:11 AM, Jared ''Danger'' Earle wrote:

> On 15 Nov 2003, at 07:54, Fabien Roy wrote:
>> _Apple_ Mac OS X HFS Journaling system _MAY_ not be compatible with
>> _Apple_ iPod, period.
>> Note the above emphasis, unless the iPod _IS_ a third party add-on.
>
> The _APPLE_ USB Mouse doesn't work in my GF's _APPLE_ PowerBook 3400.
> In fact, I doubt HFS+ Journaled/CaseSensitive _APPLE_ OSX works on her
> _APPLE_ Powerbook 3400.
>
> --
> Jared Earle, Nightfall Games, ***@23x.net - http://www.23x.net
> "It was like ... a bummer. My name is Ellen Feiss and I'm a SPORK"
>
Michael Maibaum
2003-11-14 23:30:01 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 15, 2003, at 05:09, Chad Leigh -- ObjectWerks Inc. wrote:

>
> On Nov 14, 2003, at 9:50 PM, Lukreme wrote:
>
>> On 14 Nov 2003, at 11:35, Fabien Roy wrote:
>>> Considering that the iPod _IS_ also a Mac OS X HFS FireWire
>>> storage...
>>
>> No. The ipod is a Hard Drive with a completely different non-OS X
>> operating system on it.
>>
>> Blaming OS X for problems that are only related to the ipod is a bit
>> lie blaming OS X because a windows machine on the same LAN keeps
>> crashing.
>>
>
> Uhh, this is not a fair assessment. When an Oxford based firewire
> drive might have problems with journaling, for example, we might well
> blame OS X *or* the firewire drive for the problem. This is not much
> different than an iPod used in Firewire disk mode (and not in iPod
> mode).

Can the oxford chipset run the HD without OS X (or some other
OS).....THe iPod has it's own OS, which may very well not understand
journaling...


--
Michael Maibaum
internet: ***@maibaum.org | http://mike.maibaum.org
voice: [m] 07958 604025 |
Glenn Carnagey
2003-11-14 18:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Speaking of the iPod, I have a question. I have the old 5GB iPod, my
son has the newer dockable 10GB. He's using an older iBook which
doesn't have firewire, so he logs into my iBook and keeps his library
there. The question I have is on the two branches of the updater, 1.x
and 2.x. I'm still running 1.x because the release notes for the 2.x
updater say it's only compatible with the newer dockable guys, which
mine ain't.

Does anyone have any experience here, know of any problem with
downloading the 2.x updater, and just updating his iPod, and then
nuking it? i.e., is there any reason to believe I'll have trouble
syncing my older one after installing it.

g./

On Nov 13, 2003, at 10:51 PM, Fabien Roy wrote:

> Used journaling on my new iPod, lost everything. I had to put the
> iPod on direct firewire mode. The iPod would endlessly cycle on data
> verification after an abrupt disconnect.
>
> Fabien.
>
> On Nov 13, 2003, at 8:19 PM, Cyril Niklaus wrote:
>
>>
>> On 14 nov. 03, at 12:08, Lukreme wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 Nov 2003, at 10:57, Laubenthal, Neil, CTR, OSD-NII wrote:
>>> '
>>>> journaling has caused some problems . . . best for now to
>>>> turn it off until it gets fixed.
>>>
>>> Bull. Have had it on since 10.2 was released. It has never caused
>>> a problem.
>> Yeah, I've also been using since it was available on several HDs
>> without a problem at all. Where do you get those ideas from? Can you
>> substantiate those claims?
>>
>> Cyril
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MacOSX-talk mailing list
>> MacOSX-***@omnigroup.com
>> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MacOSX-talk mailing list
> MacOSX-***@omnigroup.com
> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
Nick Zitzmann
2003-11-14 19:15:06 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 14, 2003, at 6:05 PM, Glenn Carnagey wrote:

> Does anyone have any experience here, know of any problem with
> downloading the 2.x updater, and just updating his iPod, and then
> nuking it? i.e., is there any reason to believe I'll have trouble
> syncing my older one after installing it.

I would be very surprised if there was a problem... The updater
application is just for flashing the firmware on the iPod, and
resetting the iPod to its factory default settings, and nothing else.
Once it's been used once, you can archive it somewhere else (in case
you ever need to reset your iPod), and then throw it away.

Nick Zitzmann
AIM/iChat: dragonsdontsleep
Check out my software page: http://seiryu.home.comcast.net/
S/MIME signature available upon request

"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my
telephone." - Bjarne Stroustrup
Lukreme
2003-11-14 23:59:03 UTC
Permalink
On 14 Nov 2003, at 19:05, Glenn Carnagey wrote:
> Does anyone have any experience here, know of any problem with
> downloading the 2.x updater, and just updating his iPod, and then
> nuking it? i.e., is there any reason to believe I'll have trouble
> syncing my older one after installing it.

Install them both. They are smart enough to work on the right ipod.
Connect the dock ipod and the 2.x updater will launch. Simple as that.

--
This above all, to thine own self be true
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
steve harley
2003-11-13 21:03:02 UTC
Permalink
at 20031113, 20:08 -0700, they whom i call Lukreme wrote:
>>journaling has caused some problems . . . best for now to
>>turn it off until it gets fixed.
>
>Bull. Have had it on since 10.2 was released. It has never caused a problem.

turns out a lot of those who for some reason were still
running Norton SystemWorks were seeing KPs when enabling
journaling in 10.3.. we'll probably see a new wave of Norton
conflict experiences as the publishing crowd makes the
switch to X

--
steve harley
Lukreme
2003-11-14 02:54:01 UTC
Permalink
On 13 Nov 2003, at 21:45, steve harley wrote:
> at 20031113, 20:08 -0700, they whom i call Lukreme wrote:
>>> journaling has caused some problems . . . best for now to
>>> turn it off until it gets fixed.
>>
>> Bull. Have had it on since 10.2 was released. It has never caused a
>> problem.
>
> turns out a lot of those who for some reason were still
> running Norton SystemWorks were seeing KPs when enabling
> journaling in 10.3.. we'll probably see a new wave of Norton
> conflict experiences as the publishing crowd makes the
> switch to X

Anyone trusting Norton on the mac is a fool.

--
It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all
and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought...should be literally
unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.
steve harley
2003-11-14 08:29:08 UTC
Permalink
at 20031114, 03:53 -0700, they whom i call Lukreme wrote:
>Anyone trusting Norton on the mac is a fool.

that was essentially my point -- many of the now-migrating
publishing users are, not coincidentally, followers of
primitive religions.. as a result, we'll see an influx to
the Mac OS X user community of Norton faithful and voodoo
practitioners.. i think its useful to be prepared for them

--
steve harley
Jack (Shekhar) Stoller
2003-11-15 21:15:11 UTC
Permalink
I think where Apple is remiss is not having Disk Utility recognize that
it's an iPod (assuming that is possible) and refuse to activate
journaling. Given that the OS that runs the iPod is not MacOS in any
form, it may make certain assumptions about the structure of HFS+ that
is broken by activating journaling. Of course, Apple could update the
iPod's OS, and probably should, to account for that but getting that
update on the million+ iPods out there to avoid this problem is not
very practical.

Jack


On Nov 15, 2003, at 3:09 PM, macosx-talk-***@omnigroup.com wrote:

> Cc: macosx-***@omnigroup.com
> From: Fabien Roy <***@mac.com>
> Subject: Re: Mac OS X 10.3.1 is released via SU (U)
> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 00:20:59 -0800
> To: Lukreme <***@kreme.com>
>
> Wow! So loss of data under OS X on an iPod is not an OS X problem.
> Thanks for the enlightenment. I really feel educated now...
>
> Fabien
>
> On Nov 14, 2003, at 11:58 PM, Lukreme wrote:
>
>> 4) iPod problems with HFS+ Journaling are not "OS X" problems.
>
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...