hoakley June 5, 2019 Macs, Technology

Compatibility of my apps with macOS 10.15 Catalina beta 1

If you’re one of those who’s brave enough to be testing the first developer beta-release of macOS 10.15 Catalina, you’ll be comforted to learn that most of my more useful apps appear to be fully compatible with it already. Both my app integrity checking code and new update download mechanism also appear to work happily with it.

As with Mojave before it, the one area which you may need to attend to is privacy settings. If you want one of my apps to have access to files or folders within newly protected areas such as ~/Documents, you must add it to Full Disk Access in the Privacy tab of the Security & Privacy pane.

As I get started with building apps using the new beta-release of Xcode 11, I will see what I can do to alleviate this. However, it is normally once only that you have to mess around doing this for an app.

The apps of mine which I have tested (none particularly thoroughly yet) include:

32-bitCheck: appears fully compatible.
alisma: v2 signed, hardened, notarized and fully compatible.
Apfelstrudel: appears fully compatible.
ArchiChect: appears fully compatible.
Bailiff: appears fully compatible.
blowhole: signed, hardened, notarized and fully compatible.
Cirrus: to use this purposefully, you’ll need to add it to Full Disk Access first, following which it appears fully compatible. Its log excerpt feature appears to work well.
cmpxat: v2 signed, hardened, notarized and fully compatible.
Consolation 3: appears fully compatible.
DelightEd: appears fully compatible.
Dystextia: appears fully compatible.
KeychainCheck 2: appears fully compatible, but as with Mojave there are no records to be found in the logs (this is a macOS limitation).
LockRattler: appears compatible, but the KEXT block version is reported as “not found”; results currently as per Mojave otherwise.
PermissionScanner: to use this purposefully, you’ll need to add it to Full Disk Access first, following which it appears fully compatible.
Podofyllin: appears fully compatible, and its thumbnail bug seems to have vanished at last.
Pratique: appears fully compatible.
Precize: appears fully compatible.
Revisionist: appears fully compatible, although you may well want to add it to Full Disk Access.
Sandstrip: appears fully compatible.
SystHist: appears compatible, but doesn’t recognise the beta install fully because of installer issues with that.
Taccy: appears fully compatible.
T2M2: appears fully compatible.
unorml: v3 signed, hardened, notarized and fully compatible.
UTIutility: appears fully compatible.
xattred: appears fully compatible, although you may well want to add it to Full Disk Access.

Updated 13 June 2019.

29Comments

Add yours

1

EcleX on June 5, 2019 at 9:24 am

Thanks for the information. I guess it is macOS BETA 1 version 10.15 (19A471t) Catalina. A bit off topic, but which version of Time Machine has it? Does such application version support APFS or still requires HFS+? Do you know if APFS version has been significantly updated? Thanks again.

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 2
  
  hoakley on June 5, 2019 at 11:35 am
  
  Yes, there’s only been the one beta released so far, on 3 June.
  Apple has made no announcements regarding Time Machine, so I think it is safe to assume for the moment that there will be no significant change in Time Machine in the first full release of Catalina, and that it will still require HFS+ format on the backup volume.
  Details of what is changing internally in things like file systems are still being presented at WWDC. Once that’s complete, we’ll have a better idea of whether there are significant changes in APFS. I’m sure that 10.15 will bring further improvements, but we don’t know what or how much yet. The reference documentation hasn’t been changed since its last update earlier this year.
  Howard.
  
  LikeLike
3

EcleX on June 5, 2019 at 3:57 pm

Thanks for the heads up! If possible, I will appreciate if you could do the following test. What happens if you boot from Catalina (without Time Machine disk connected) and connect an external SSD disk formatted as APFS? Does it prompt to format it as HFS+ to be used as Time Machine disk? That will tell if the new Time Machine in Catalina supports APFS or still requires HFS+.

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 4
  
  hoakley on June 5, 2019 at 4:27 pm
  
  I’ll try to do so in a while when I start my Catalina session for today. But why do you suppose that Time Machine in Catalina is “new”? If it were new, wouldn’t Apple have told us about it, particularly if it supported backing up to APFS – that would require major change, either in APFS or Time Machine?
  Howard.
  PS I do know the answer already, but NDAs. I can only really discuss what Apple makes public, including material at WWDC.
  
  LikeLike
  - 5
    
    EcleX on June 5, 2019 at 9:40 pm
    
    I asked because sometimes Apple does not announce some updates. Just in case. My main interest with all this is not only native support for APFS of Time Machine, with all advantages that it will represent (snapshots, etc), but also because it will mean that further APFS documentation from Apple on how to write to APFS disks may be published soon (as already done with documentation about reading APFS disks), so that DiskWarrior 6 can be released to rebuild directory of APFS disks. Meanwhile stuck in macOS 10.12.6 (16G2016) Sierra. Thanks.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 6
      
      hoakley on June 5, 2019 at 9:56 pm
      
      Time Machine has had the benefit of snapshots during backups made since later versions of High Sierra. There’s no indication (or need) for any change in that in any future version. Every hour, Time Machine makes two snapshots, which it then uses to determine what to back up. The snapshots are stored, and purged after 24 hours.
      Current APFS documentation covers reading and writing. It is very sketchy in parts, and anyone trying to implement disk repair tools has a lot of additional work to do to deal with the new file system. I think the weakest sections now are those covering encryption (which are the most recent) and Fusion Drives (which are barely covered at all).
      The problem in supporting Time Machine backups to APFS is simple: Apple decided not to support directory hard links in APFS, which is a feature of HFS+ on which Time Machine relies. There are only two solutions. Either Apple implements directory hard links in APFS, something it clearly doesn’t intend doing, or Time Machine uses a different structure for its backups which is supported by APFS, which is a non-trivial problem which it doesn’t seem to have completed yet.
      Both could be more than a year away, although other disk repair tools are making progress in supporting APFS.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
  - 7
    
    EcleX on June 6, 2019 at 6:53 am
    
    Thanks. You said that “Current APFS documentation covers reading and writing”, but here is what Micromat says in relation to Techtool Pro
    https://www.micromat.com/products/techtool-pro
    lacking the features of file optimization, volume optimization and rebuilding directory of APFS disks:
    
    ————————————————–
    TOPIC: TTP 11 says “File Optimization is not available for APFS formatted volumes
    The File Optimization and Volume Optimization features cannot at this time be updated to work on APFS volumes because Apple has not provided documentation for developers about writing to APFS volumes.
    https://www.micromat.com/component/kunena/techtool-pro-11/5254-ttp-11-says-file-optimization-is-not-available-for-apfs-formatted-volumes
    ————————————————–
    TOPIC: APFS – AGAIN no support
    Apple has yet to document how to write to APFS volumes at the file system level. They have documented how to read from APFS volumes (152 pages worth). Until Apple provides the documentation, no developer can fully support APFS.
    
    Providing full support for APFS is entirely dependent on Apple releasing the required documentation for developers. So far, only the documentation explaining the APIs for reading APFS volumes has been released. It is about 140 pages long. We need similar documentation for writing to APFS volumes.
    
    Apple File System Reference
    
    Click to access Apple-File-System-Reference.pdf
    
    To give you an idea of what is required, this is the basic document for the earlier HFS+ volume format:
    
    Technical Note TN1150: HFS Plus Volume Format
    https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/technotes/tn/tn1150.html
    
    https://www.micromat.com/component/kunena/techtool-pro-11/5225-apfs-again-no-support
    ————————————————–
    
    It seems that such full documentation to write to APFS disks has not yet been released by Apple because APFS is still a work in progress. But what is still in progress after September 2017 when macOS 10.13 High Sierra was released with APFS (almost two years ago)? I think it is just Time Machine lack of support for APFS disks. Thus my interest to know if Time Machine in Catalina supports APFS disks, as well as to know the latest beta APFS version and if significant work has been carried out in it, because that would be a sign of progress in this matter. As said, I am stuck in macOS 10.12 Sierra until DiskWarrior 6 is released to rebuild directory of APFS disks. Thanks.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 8
      
      hoakley on June 6, 2019 at 9:47 am
      
      Thank you.
      Whether or not Alsoft feels that they have sufficient information about APFS to offer repair features for APFS is clearly their concern. The sad fact is that Apple has left huge swathes of macOS undocumented. There is no guarantee that Apple will ever provide the information that Alsoft needs to be able to provide support for APFS. Apple may never release that information.
      Yet others are now supporting repair features for APFS. It is no longer unsupported by third party tools, and I suspect that major data recovery services are now getting much better at recovery from APFS too, which is probably more important.
      However, I’m puzzled that you feel there’s any need for DiskWarrior for APFS. DiskWarrior has been enormously successful because it has addressed specific failings in HFS+, which is totally different from APFS. How do you know whether APFS has similar flaws which make a tools such DiskWarrior of value?
      After all, HFS+ is an old and creaky old file system which was never designed for modern storage. DiskWarrior stepped in where neither HFS+ and Apple’s tools don’t cope. How can you assume that APFS has other (or even similar) flaws which require a third-party tool for maintenance?
      I see no evidence that the old problems with HFS+ also affect APFS. But APFS in its current version hasn’t even been in widespread for a year yet. There’s no evidence that I can see that a third-party tool like DiskWarrior is needed for it. You could be waiting for a ship when the rest of the Mac world has been flying instead: your ship may never sail, I’m afraid.
      Does Catalina’s APFS improve on that in Mojave? I would really hope that it does, but Apple is in no mind to inform us of that. I know that it is has a different release number, but that doesn’t tell you what it has changed.
      Meanwhile, Sierra is growing old, with a lot of vulnerabilities which will never be fixed, and new features which will never be available. I loved Sierra – apart from its flaw in scheduling of backups – but it’s long past its best, and rapidly becoming archaic. I know which I’d be rather running here.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
  - 9
    
    EcleX on June 6, 2019 at 10:18 am
    
    Thanks. None of the utilities available to optimize and rebuild disk directory work with APFS. They include in order of efficiency DiskWarrior, Techtool Pro and Drive Genius.
    
    Why such utility is a must? I know that, in general, macOS is becoming more and more robust with each release. But there are situations in which you may have Mac freezing with or without kernel panics (due to hardware like I recently reported for iMac GPU or software issues, including third-party applications and macOS itself, even while installing them, which can be catastrophic), power failures due to mains, and even people accidentally disconnecting external disks or Macs from mains or data cables (yes, that is amazing but happens).
    
    In all those situations, macOS may get damaged and those issues increase with time if not repaired. An example is Time Machine disks: if you do not rebuild its directory in a regular basis (once or twice a month), they become corrupt and useless in a few months. It is amazing but true. Shockingly, a single Time Machine backup action generates issues that DiskWarrior identifies and repairs when optimizing and rebuilding its directory. Of course, these issues increase with larger Time Machine disks containing millions of items.
    
    So, independently of how robust macOS is and until it had a built-in repair mechanism (as ZFS has), issues may arise, they will accumulate and increase with time and eventually you mail lose part of all data if not repaired. That is why DiskWarrior is a safe net and a must to work on the safe side. If you do not use it you may not have problems, but you may have them losing even all data. You have horror stories about that searching Google for macOS with APFS disks.
    
    LikeLike
    - 10
      
      hoakley on June 6, 2019 at 12:44 pm
      
      (I’ve removed the duplicate, thanks.)
      Strangely, those situations are supposed to be addressed in the design of APFS, which is why it doesn’t journal: it goes out of its way to preserve the integrity of its metadata, in a way that HFS+ doesn’t and never will do.
      So you’re starting with the assumption that you have to periodically rebuild the metadata, which isn’t even true for HFS+ – the majority of Mac users don’t, and I have never done this with my TM backups, even though I have used them a great deal over the years.
      Having made that unwarranted assumption, you then support it by referring not to APFS, but to HFS+ when it is living at the edge. TM backups push HFS+ to (or past) its limits, in dealing with many millions of entries, most of which aren’t files but hard links.
      Interestingly, there is evidence that APFS has inbuilt error repair, which crops up sometimes when running First Aid, for example.
      As DiskWarrior doesn’t work with APFS, you don’t know whether it will ever be able to repair errors which fsck_apfs can’t.
      Finally, if you make your decisions on the basis of what you can turn up in searches, you wouldn’t do anything. Even the mighty zfs, which oddly hasn’t proved so superior that everyone’s using it, has them. And as for Sierra, it’s riddled with fatal flaws.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
  - 11
    
    EcleX on June 6, 2019 at 3:52 pm
    
    Howard, what I said is based on experience of decades with thousands of Macs at the University. I have saved some of them thanks to DiskWarrior over the years. if I talked about HFS+ instead of APFS on Time Machine is simply because only the former is available.
    
    And yes, TimeMachine degrades very quickly. Again, that is based on experience. But you can also find all it searching the Internet.
    
    Finally, I want to emphasize that the most important thing is not just to repair a damage system (something that now Techtool Pro can do even with APFS disks), but to optimize and mainly to rebuild from scratch its directory, replacing corrupt one, something that no utility can do now due to lack of documentation from Apple. You have it detailed at Techtool page indicated above.
    
    I do not know how much DiskWarrior will be needed with APFS, but I can assure based on extensive experience that it is amut with HFS+. And if you take into account the issues that I reported previously, I expect to be the same at least for such issues with APFS. Thanks.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 12
      
      hoakley on June 6, 2019 at 4:09 pm
      
      I’m not into willy-waving, but I’ve been writing tech Q&As for Mac magazines for thirty years now – for Apple Europe a long time back, and mostly for MacUser, more recently MacFormat and Mac|Life. I regularly get (even now) reports of issues with HFS+, and have experienced them myself, and with customers when I sold and supported my own CAD/CAM software. Every month or two, I’d get a user who had a disk problem and needed help sorting it out.
      I have not had one report of a problem with APFS, even in its version 1.0 in High Sierra. Not one. How many have you dealt with the University?
      That doesn’t mean that they don’t occur, of course they do, but the frequency and severity of disk problems in APFS appears so far to be extremely low by comparison with HFS+. So it should be, given that it was designed from scratch for modern Macs and other devices, and to safeguard its metadata. That’s another thought worth bearing in mind: APFS is far more widely used already than HFS+ ever has been. With all Apple devices running reasonably recent versions of iOS relying completely on APFS, that must be well over a billion users worldwide. It gives Apple’s APFS engineers an excellent way of detecting even the most infrequent of faults.
      If you don’t know whether DiskWarrior will ever ship, whether it’s needed, or whether it will be of any use at all even if it does ship, then that sounds amazingly tenuous as an argument to continue using an old file system which isn’t really fit for purpose any more, and a version of macOS which has known vulnerabilities and flaws which will never be fixed. As a long-term user of DiskWarrior, I’m sure that you’ll remember how long it took to support HFS+ changes a few years ago – wasn’t it two years before it was compatible?
      And I thought that you were keen for TM to run on APFS (as we all are) – what’s the point if APFS needs such maintenance in order to keep it running efficiently? You may as well keep to HFS+, surely?
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
  - 13
    
    EcleX on June 6, 2019 at 7:11 pm
    
    I think that I did not explain properly. Issues can always happen in the examples that I mentioned (related to software and hardware), including Mac freezing, kernel panics and mains failure. That is for sure.
    
    What I do not know yet because nobody knows is if DiskWarrior will be able to fix them as effectively as it does with HFS+. I do not know if Time Machine on APFS will need DiskWarrior rebuilding its directory on a regular basis, or else becomes corrupt and useless in a few months (which is shocking!) as now requires HFS+, but for sure it will need it in the above scenarios of Mac freezing and mains failure.
    
    Anyway, search Internet and you will find horror stories due to lack of a utility to rebuild APFS directory. I may be rare compared to HFS, but it does exist. That is why I would like to have the safety net of DiskWarrior 6 for APFS. Just in case.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 14
      
      hoakley on June 7, 2019 at 5:33 am
      
      As I wrote, you’re starting from an unwarranted assumption that events like kernel panics and power outages will damage file system metadata. APFS is specifically designed to be robust in the face of such challenges – this is even detailed in its Wikipedia entry, and has been one of its original design goals.
      HFS+ made no attempt whatsoever to do that, apart from in its journalling system, which was kludged onto it very late in the day to try to help. It did, but not a great deal, and certainly not with complex and large volumes like the TM backup.
      So how do you now know that APFS doesn’t address this?
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
  - 15
    
    EcleX on June 6, 2019 at 10:15 pm
    
    This is revealing:
    What an exciting week! Once again this year our team was graced with a WWDC “Golden Ticket”. Last year I got to go, but this year Peter from our Development team went and had the opportunity to speak directly with Apple’s File Systems team about the upcoming changes to APFS. Among the new announcements this year is the introduction of a read-only system volume on macOS Catalina.
    …/…
    Catalina, Read-only System Volume, and HFS is getting out of the system business
    Allow me to be the first to say it: stick a fork in it, HFS is done. HFS simply won’t work for making a backup of a Catalina system volume, so in the near future, we’re going to drop support for backing up macOS (Catalina and later) to HFS+ formatted volumes.
    
    https://bombich.com/blog/2019/06/06/catalina-read-only-system-volume-and-hfs-getting-out-system-business
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 16
      
      hoakley on June 6, 2019 at 10:26 pm
      
      Not at all: I’ve got exactly that on my MBP next to me. It’s not magic, and something that TM should be able to cope with perfectly well, even if C3 doesn’t.
      Note that there no mention there of APFS suddenly supporting directory hard links, which it would need to work with existing TM, nor of the complete rewrite of TM which doesn’t rely on directory hard links, which might be in progress but doesn’t appear intended for Catalina release.
      I’m pleased for C3, but puzzled as to what you think this reveals.
      I’d also point out that this new System volume isn’t a completely read-only volume, and that root does have write access to parts of it even with SIP, as it needs to. Speculation is that this is primarily aimed at working around some of the known vulnerabilities in SIP.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
  - 17
    
    EcleX on June 6, 2019 at 11:13 pm
    
    I meant, revealing that APFS is a work in progress that is improving. Hopefully finished soon, including Time Machine support for APFS disks. As Mike says “Allow me to be the first to say it: stick a fork in it, HFS is done. HFS simply won’t work for making a backup of a Catalina system volume”. Therefore, Time Machine should eventually work with APFS. That is revealing. Hopefully, sooner than later. Remember that he said “Last year I got to go, but this year Peter from our Development team went and had the opportunity to speak directly with Apple’s File Systems team about the upcoming changes to APFS”. So, all this comes from the horse’s mouth!
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 18
      
      hoakley on June 7, 2019 at 5:47 am
      
      Every file system is a work in progress. Apple continues to maintain HFS+, which does receive version increments in system updates. What we don’t know is what is improving or changing. And it won’t be ‘finished’ either, at least not until replaced.
      I think that you’re also misinterpreting the statement: it doesn’t say that it’s not possible to back up a Catalina system volume to an HFS+ disk, but that C3 can’t do it. As Apple owns HFS+, APFS and TM it can engineer whatever it wants or needs.
      If Catalina ships without the ability to back itself up, I think most users would take a very dim view of that. Evidence here is that Catalina’s TM already backs up the new system volume to HFS+.
      As I have said several times, there are two ways in which TM could back up to APFS: either APFS is changed to support directory hard links, or TM changes the way in which its backups are made so that they’re not a requirement.
      I can’t believe that Apple hasn’t thought this through in terms of APFS. If it was going to support directory hard links in APFS, they would have been designed in from the start. To re-engineer your brand new file system to change something fundamental like this is very expensive, and the APFS team has already demonstrated how they won’t go back on such decisions in its handling of Unicode normalisation in APFS.
      So this isn’t a matter for APFS to accommodate TM’s weird backup structure, but for TM to address, so that it works with APFS largely as it is. There’s no sign of happening yet, it’s a macOS-only issue, and I think you can be confident from what Apple has said that Catalina won’t launch with TM backing up to APFS. It’s possibly a mid-cycle change, but must be a hot candidate for macOS 10.16 next year, I would think. By which time Sierra will be but a pleasant and very distant memory.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
  - 19
    
    EcleX on June 7, 2019 at 6:14 am
    
    Yes, I agree. Probably with macOS 10.16 next year, but hopefully before. As well as full Apple APFS documentation on how to write to APFS and DiskWarrior 6 to rebuild APFS disk directory. We will wait. Experience has taught us that better safe than sorry.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
  - 20
    
    EcleX on July 12, 2019 at 7:29 am
    
    More (Notes from Dave Nanian @ Shirt Pocket, developer of SuperDuper! backup application for Mac):
    
    Up and down the coast
    It also definitely means you won’t be able to back up APFS to an HFS+ volume in 10.15. It’s APFS turtles all the way down from here on out, folks, so if you haven’t moved your backup volumes to APFS yet, plan to do so once you install Catalina.
    https://www.shirt-pocket.com/blog/index.php/shadedgrey/comments/up_and_down_the_coast
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 21
      
      hoakley on July 12, 2019 at 8:39 am
      
      Thank you.
      Your quotation lacks a crucial piece of context: Dave Narnian is here referring not to Time Machine backups, but to those made by his excellent product SuperDuper!
      The situation with respect to Time Machine remains unchanged: it cannot back up to APFS. Time Machine backups remain completely incompatible with APFS destinations, and there’s no indication that is likely to change this year. How TM backups will cope with the new read-only system volume isn’t yet clear, but that’s an issue for Apple.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
  - 22
    
    EcleX on July 14, 2019 at 7:34 am
    
    Yes, I know. This is interesting (goes from September 2019 to July 2019). For instance, it indicates (among other things):
    
    Is there a limit to the number of snapshots an APFS volume may have? With all this talk about Time Machine and its need to use HFS+ (because of its reliance on hard links), it occurs to me that the entire approach may be completely unnecessary.
    
    What you’re describing is probably their intended approach. One of the things they added to APFS was sending deltas. We’re probably a point release or one major release away from this. The only restriction I’m aware of for snapshots is disk space.
    
    APFS / file systems
    https://www.macintouch.com/community/index.php?threads/apfs-file-systems.1489
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 23
      
      hoakley on July 14, 2019 at 9:28 pm
      
      As I’ve said before, Apple already has snapshot deltas available in Catalina. However, Time Machine backing up to APFS requires a great deal more than that. The current Finder-like interface needs a lot of code if that’s going to be a suitable replacement: the interface to snapshot deltas is low-level only at present. There are also issues about how to store these snapshots. Strictly, the snapshot only consists of the filesystem metadata, not all its associated files. You can imagine that just letting all the associated files slop around in a volume wouldn’t be optimal.
      Yes, it’s coming, and will almost certainly use snapshot deltas, but don’t hold your breath.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
  - 24
    
    EcleX on July 14, 2019 at 7:36 am
    
    Oops! I meant “goes from September 2018”. It would be great if these messages could be edited to fix errors. Thanks.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
25

xz4gb8 on June 5, 2019 at 4:50 pm

I connected a “new” external drive to my Catalina test machine. After selecting this as the only Time Machine drive, TM “prepared” the volume and began backup. The backup volume is still Apple_HFS.

Screen shot of backup in progress at https://www.dropbox.com/s/pdb4ugtgoxp7xdv/Screen%20Shot%202019-06-05%20at%2012.42.51%20PM.png?dl=0

LikeLiked by 1 person
26

xz4gb8 on June 5, 2019 at 5:31 pm

Update – Dropbox seems unwilling to upload the screen shot in which The Time Machine Mechanic showed the new backup in progress.

LikeLiked by 1 person
27

xz4gb8 on June 5, 2019 at 9:34 pm

]Analysis from 2019-06-05 15:29:35 +0000 to 2019-06-05 21:29:35 +0000 for 6 hours:
Backing up to MacJamesTimeHD (/dev/disk3): /Volumes/MacJamesTimeHD
Started 3 auto backups, and 0 manual backups; completed 3 backups successfully,
last backup completed successfully 27.8 minutes ago,
backed up a total of 1972593 files, range 1 to 1338403 in each backup,
total data for each backup was 9.09 GB, 520.3 MB, 331.04 GB, 145 KB, Zero KB, 3.31 GB, 109 KB, Zero KB, 2.58 GB.
Times taken for each auto backup were 195.2, 45.3, 33.3 minutes,
intervals between the start of each auto backup were 215.5, 77.6 minutes.
Created 3 new backups, and deleted 0 old backups,
Created 6 new snapshots, and deleted 0 old snapshots,
cancelled 3 backups.
No error messages found.

The most fascinating result was not the The Time Machine Mechanic worked (I expected it would) but that the multiple boot drive volumes were reflected in the TM target file structure.

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 28
  
  hoakley on June 5, 2019 at 9:45 pm
  
  Thank you so much – that’s very encouraging.
  Howard.
  
  LikeLike
29

Paule on September 1, 2019 at 2:10 am

Hi had a great read above. I do love Diskwarrior (past). Noticeable things, just comments: Alsoft’s website built using Freeway Pro, not being responsive or mobile. 1990’s logo, though logos should not have to change due to pressure from designers. MasterJuggler is still on their site when has not been updated since OSX 10.2. Whilst I purchased an upgrade last year, helped me fix a drive. Diskwarrior was my go to. Question though, do they care and are they house proud, or have they have respectfully retired. Master Juggler should not be there, the site needs a new build. I’d offer my design services for free to them if they wanted. Legends.

LikeLike

·Comments are closed.

Share this:

Like this:

Related