Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > macOS > MacOS Mojave.

MacOS Mojave. (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Ham Sandwich
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2018, 06:20 PM
 
[...deleted...]
( Last edited by Ham Sandwich; Apr 23, 2020 at 09:58 AM. )
     
Ham Sandwich
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2018, 01:44 PM
 
[...deleted...]
( Last edited by Ham Sandwich; Apr 23, 2020 at 09:58 AM. )
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2018, 02:02 PM
 
Apple made it more difficult to follow TM log activity, since about Yosemite. The data is still present, but you have to hunt around.

I use a Terminal script (built by someone else) to follow TM when I'm troubleshooting.
Code:
#! /bin/sh filter='processImagePath contains "backupd" and subsystem beginswith "com.apple.TimeMachine"' # show the last 12 hours start="$(date -j -v-12H +'%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S')" echo "" echo "[History (from $start)]" echo "" log show --style syslog --info --start "$start" --predicate "$filter" echo "" echo "[Following]" echo "" log stream --style syslog --info --predicate "$filter"
Save this script as a file called "tmlog" in your home folder, without an extension. When you need to troubleshoot, open Terminal and type:

./tmlog

You might have to make it executable the first time. If so,

chmod +x tmlog

Since it fetches the last 12 hours of TM log entries, you can launch the script even after TM has started. Or after it's aborted. And still catch the error messages.
     
Ham Sandwich
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2018, 03:33 PM
 
[...deleted...]
( Last edited by Ham Sandwich; Apr 23, 2020 at 09:58 AM. )
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2018, 03:59 PM
 
Errors on a random file are non-fatal. TM goes on. The key part is "Backup failed with error 11".

The problem appears to be old inProgress folders. So TM thinks another instance of TM is already running. Deleting the inProgress folders can take a really long time via the Finder because of all the hardlinks.

Someone else suggested renaming the inProgress items in place, by adding "x-" at the beginning of each file. (they're actually folders, with permissions set to not allow opening). If need be, set the external drive to Ignore Permissions to make the name change. Then turn permissions back on after. The tip author suggested a more complicated ACL terminal command.

TM will ignore the mis-named items during the run, then delete them after a run completes. TM can delete them *much* faster than Finder can.

Source reference - but directed at network backups. Most of the steps don't apply to a local drive.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2018, 04:31 PM
 
I'm concerned about the security and legal implications of having the phone automatically open when it sees your face. Someone could hold your phone up in front of you, wait for you to open your eyes, and then have full access to what's on your phone.

While the lower false positive rate sounds great, the false positive rate for TouchID is (according to Apple) 1 in 50,000. That's a theoretical rate, obviously. It means that TouchID's rejection rate is pretty high.

Apple says that FaceID has a 1 in 1,000,000 false positive rate, which sounds like "twenty times more secure!!!!!" It's not. FaceID builds a recognition matrix based on a much more complex. much larger structure than simple fingerprints, but it's not likely to be based on 20 times more data. And as I recall, TouchID had some rocky going when first introduced. I'm sure that more time out "in the wild" will both identify normal use issues and reveal exploits (child bypasses mom's FaceID?).

FaceID wins on gee whiz points, but I still feel that I'd be more comfortable with TouchID for the foreseeable future.

By the way, my MBP opens when it detects my Apple Watch. Why could Apple not add something like "if the face is recognized AND the correct Apple Watch is unlocked AND within the correct range of this phone, unlock the phone - else lock the phone and require a complex passcode to open." I would also feel a lot more comfortable about the security of a phone that offered to hard lock if that sort of attempt to open failed.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Ham Sandwich
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2018, 06:35 PM
 
[...deleted...]
( Last edited by Ham Sandwich; Apr 23, 2020 at 09:58 AM. )
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2018, 12:00 AM
 
I'd expect Time Machine to get a clean rewrite at some point to take advantage of APFS's features, many of which seem almost tailor-made for TM. It seems this isn't happening in Mojave, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see it in the next release after it.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Ham Sandwich
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2018, 07:42 PM
 
[...deleted...]
( Last edited by Ham Sandwich; Apr 23, 2020 at 09:58 AM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2018, 12:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
I'd expect Time Machine to get a clean rewrite at some point to take advantage of APFS's features, many of which seem almost tailor-made for TM. It seems this isn't happening in Mojave, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see it in the next release after it.
Agreed. I wonder whether they will take a half-step measure by just modifying the client side or whether they will go for a full hog re-implementation. I can picture them initially using snapshots on the client side and transmit that to an HFS+-based client drive. A re-implementation may require something along the lines of ZFS send.

One of the big questions here is migration of backup drives: will they offer a HFS+-to-APFS conversion? Although Apple could just punt here and require you to start afresh.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chongo  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2018, 12:11 PM
 
Questions from someone that does not currently have a TM backup drive. Since the multi TB external dives I have seen are HDDs, does Mohave still format them as HFS+ or APFS? I see there are issues backing up APFS drives to existing HFS+ TM drives. I need to get an external backup for my 3TB Fusion drive iMac. It’s that or sign up for Carbonite. Anyone using a cloud service with an APFS drive?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2018, 06:25 PM
 
You should do cloud anyway. Without it, everything is still vulnerable to fire, burglary, etc.

I prefer Crashplan to Carbonite, but it’s more expensive ($120/year).
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2018, 10:27 PM
 
Backblaze >> Crashplan (unless you want to backup a NAS)

But in my book this is all in addition to my Time Machine backup.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2018, 01:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
(unless you want to backup a NAS)
[Raises hand]
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2018, 02:38 AM
 
BackBlaze does back up NAS on their business plan. $50 per year, per computer. I suspect the NAS counts as one computer. If so, you could TM backup all your computers to the NAS. Then back it up to BackBlaze for $50 per year.
     
Ham Sandwich
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2018, 11:10 AM
 
[...deleted...]
( Last edited by Ham Sandwich; Apr 23, 2020 at 09:58 AM. )
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2018, 02:56 PM
 
we need a separate backup thread.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2018, 08:41 PM
 
Just learned something awesome.

Use https://automounter.app/ to mount your NAS somewhere other than /Volume/, and Backblaze will back it up.

H/t to Accidental Tech Podcast.

-t
     
Ham Sandwich
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2018, 07:15 PM
 
[...deleted...]
( Last edited by Ham Sandwich; Apr 23, 2020 at 09:58 AM. )
     
Ham Sandwich
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2018, 06:50 PM
 
[...deleted...]
( Last edited by Ham Sandwich; Apr 23, 2020 at 09:58 AM. )
     
Ham Sandwich
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2018, 07:07 PM
 
[...deleted...]
( Last edited by Ham Sandwich; Apr 23, 2020 at 09:58 AM. )
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2018, 07:32 PM
 
As with the past couple of major MacOS updates, it's probably best to ignore x.0 and x.1, and wait for x.2 or x.3 with your upgrade.

I just upgraded to High Sierra 3 weeks ago

-t
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2018, 07:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by And.reg View Post
How do I delete the user "System Administrator" from the login screen?
I'm not using Mojave yet, so these instructions are from High Sierra. Disable the root user using Directory Utility.

/System/Library/CoreServices/Applications/Directory Utility

Click the padlock to authenticate. Then go to Edit -> Disable Root User

Sounds like a bug. When the root account is enabled (or other accounts outside the Users folder) the login icon for "Other..." will appear. Which gives user / pass fields to fill in. Up through High Sierra, I've never seen login offer the root account by name.
     
Ham Sandwich
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2018, 12:57 PM
 
[...deleted...]
( Last edited by Ham Sandwich; Apr 23, 2020 at 09:58 AM. )
     
Chongo  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2018, 03:08 PM
 
I installed Mohave this morning. So far so good. It took about four minutes to download and about 40 minutes to install.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2018, 03:34 PM
 
I'm going to wait a little bit. I want to hear more reports on how APFS does on hard drives. Performance and/or bug reports.

Reports say you can still run Mojave from HFS+, but you have to install to a disposable volume using APFS. Then clone to an HFS+ volume. Followed by any user migrations. The report also claimed that Apple is not allowing OS updates if you manually run under HFS+. If true, you could still download and run the updates manually.

Now if Mojave APFS finally implements file checksums, that could get me to upgrade immediately. But I haven't heard any update on that. Without the checksums, I get the HDD performance hit (whatever it is now), with no desired feature additions.
     
Ham Sandwich
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2018, 08:10 PM
 
[...deleted...]
( Last edited by Ham Sandwich; Apr 23, 2020 at 09:58 AM. )
     
Ham Sandwich
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2018, 08:23 PM
 
[...deleted...]
( Last edited by Ham Sandwich; Apr 23, 2020 at 09:58 AM. )
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2018, 09:10 PM
 
Apple has posted the low-level APFS documentation!

Go to their APFS dev page here. The actual specs are in a linked PDF, currently located here. Creation date for the PDF is just 10 days ago.

Could it be that no one has posted this news until now? I've already emailed Coriolis Systems pointing it out (iPartition, iDefrag). Also CharlesS (CharlesSoft). Probably should contact Alsoft too (DiskWarrior). Edit: done.
( Last edited by reader50; Sep 24, 2018 at 09:31 PM. )
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2018, 10:44 PM
 
Ooooooh.... shiny.

Thanks for posting this, reader50!

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2018, 11:38 PM
 
Skimming the PDF for possible future file checksums: checksums are mentioned when mounting volumes. That would be the metadata integrity checks we already know about. And hashes are mentioned for filename fields, which is kinda odd. I don't think filename corruption is all that common.

Object entries (files, folders) have no fields set aside for checksums/hashes, but there are multiple reserved Extended Fields. You're supposed to preserve their values if you encounter one. However, they don't mention wiping any of the reserved fields if an object is modified, which would be the proper way to handle a not-yet-implemented hash field.

note: APFS favors saving a modified version of a file, before wiping the old one. In that case, the advice on creating reserved fields (populate them with "0") is compatible with a future checksum field. Same result as wiping the hash if a file is overwritten in place.

The reserved field "INO_EXT_TYPE_RESERVED_12" has a unique note:
Donʼt create extended fields of this type. If you find an object of this type in production, file a bug against the Apple File System implementation.
Interesting, an illegal field. I wonder if there's a reward.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2018, 03:12 AM
 
AFAIK APFS uses checksums to ensure the integrity of file metadata, and due to its flexible design, file data checksums could technically be implemented.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2018, 12:23 AM
 
Correct. I was looking at definitions for reserved fields, to see how practical that would be. Or for hints that Apple is thinking about it. File checksums could always be added in extended attributes, but the directory entry is the more logical location.

Adding anything to the extended attributes counts as a file modification. Certainly Time Machine thinks so - I had to work around this very issue. But a field in the directory entry can be modified without that concern. And you'd get the checksum for "free" when reading in the directory tree. No need to load another file, or worse, check a resource on each and every file.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2018, 12:21 AM
 
I am sure you've been following the discussion on file systems and my strong opinion on it: I would have preferred if data checksumming were a first class citizen in APFS that was baked more into the design. Right now, I am happy that it is at least possible to add it later, because apparently, Apple still isn't convinced that data checksumming is actually necessary.

Do you know how ZFS and btrfs implement data block checksumming?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2018, 12:39 AM
 
Sadly, I do not. The last time I dug deep into low-level filesystems (and started coding a defragger) was with ProDOS on my Apple //GS. Also, my APFS reference skimming was directed at file checksums. I didn't look for evidence of block checksumming.

We'll find out more about file checksums when Apple switches Time Machine stores to APFS. As TM already stores file checksums, we'll see what APFS field Apple uses for that purpose.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2018, 01:22 AM
 
Time Machine already uses checksums? I thought Time Machine monitors file access in the background and copies files that have been touched since the last backup. Or am I wrong?

Honestly, I was expecting that Apple had finished a rewrite of Time Machine from the ground up in time for Mojave. But I guess we have to wait until next year.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2018, 03:34 AM
 
According to the tmutil man page:
verifychecksums path ...
Compute a checksum of data contained within a backup and verify the result(s) against checksum information computed at the time of backup.

No output is generated for matching checksums. Issues are reported using the following legend:

! The file's current checksum does not match the expected recorded checksum.
? The file's recorded checksum is invalid.

Beginning in OS X 10.11, Time Machine records checksums of files copied into snapshots. Checksums are not retroactively computed for files that were copied by earlier releases of OS X.
As of High Sierra, the man page makes no other mention of checksums. No command to return the actual value, for example. Or manually compute & store for older files & folders. I do not have Mojave installed yet to check for updates.

The quote above suggests it's only used for integrity checks within TM, probably performed when restoring a file.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2018, 03:43 AM
 
Question to anyone who has installed Mojave on a multi-partition drive. When Mojave converts things to APFS on the target partition, does it leave other partitions alone? Or does it try to absorb all the partitions on the drive, into APFS stores?

My main drive is partitioned heavily, with every OS version my MacPro can boot from. 10.5 Leopard through 10.13 High Sierra, with a few spare partitions. If the installer or APFS converter tries to take over the drive, all the older OSes will become unbootable. Everything before High Sierra.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2018, 07:49 PM
 
I don't know. But I did notice that APFS seems reluctant to convert spinning platter drives (e. g. external hard drives). I am not sure why.

Also, thanks for digging up the info on TimeMachine. Seems like I didn't really understand how it worked under the wraps.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Ham Sandwich
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2018, 08:18 AM
 
[...deleted...]
( Last edited by Ham Sandwich; Apr 23, 2020 at 09:58 AM. )
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2018, 07:23 AM
 
On 10.12, it will ask for the password once a week or if you have been away from the MBP too long. Never bothered with 10.13, don't know if it changed there.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2018, 08:19 AM
 
Installed Mojave. MacPro 4,1 flashed to a 5,1. The App Store was happy to offer Mojave.

It needs some install kinks worked out. Install to a fresh alt partition hung with a "cannot install on this Mac" error, just before the actual install would have started. The logs suggest a missing script file. Creating and booting from an external install drive did the trick, installing to the very same spare partition. Suddenly there were no errors.

The installer played nice with other partitions, only installing to the target partition. I tried with both APFS and HFS+. The installer does not seem to require APFS on an HDD partition. Using the external flash drive version, I did an install to the partition while it was formatted HFS+, and it remained HFS+.

Software Update worked after the HFS+ install (offering an updated print driver), so the rumor that running under HFS+ would disable updates appears to be just a rumor.

However, while I can install and run Mojave (under APFS or HFS+), every time I rebooted, it would hang. Apple logo, but the progress bar does not appear. This usually indicates a bad kextcache, but the usual trick (touch an Extensions folder) did not work for Mojave. I can boot into it exactly once, at the end of an install. Then run as long as I like. But next boot - hang. Until a reinstall.

Later versions of High Sierra gave me this kind of boot hang on some reboots. But touching an Extensions folder works reliably on HS, allowing boot to proceed normally. I haven't narrowed down the Mojave problem yet. Will probably wait for 10.14.1 before trying again. For now I've gone back to my HS partition.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 03:41 AM
 
Found a solution, was able to boot back into Mojave. Still needs durability testing though.

I replaced the kextcache (preclinked kernel) with the one installed by the installer. Then locked it so it would not get updated. As the Extensions folders will always be newer than the copy from the installer, macOS will hopefully always do a full boot. This needs further testing though, to make sure the file lock is honored. That I don't have to set the file immutable too.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2018, 10:09 PM
 
I haven’t gotten around to moving my 2013 MBP up to Mojave. I’m not sure I’m in a hurry to do it. So far, I haven’t seen anything “new and compelling,” while I certainly don’t have any problems with the current OS.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Ham Sandwich
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2018, 08:34 AM
 
[...deleted...]
( Last edited by Ham Sandwich; Apr 23, 2020 at 09:59 AM. )
     
Ham Sandwich
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2018, 06:20 PM
 
[...deleted...]
( Last edited by Ham Sandwich; Apr 23, 2020 at 09:59 AM. )
     
Chongo  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2018, 07:03 PM
 
Why is system using 338 GB of storage? When I open about this mac and click storage, it says the system is using 338 GB!!
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2018, 07:20 PM
 
Time Machine snapshots?
     
Chongo  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2018, 07:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Time Machine snapshots?
I don't have time machine turned on. When I info the system folder itself, The pop up window shows 10.42GB, and below that it shows 7.16GB. Is that why I'm get tinting the spinning beach ball of death?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2018, 09:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Why is system using 338 GB of storage? When I open about this mac and click storage, it says the system is using 338 GB!!
I'm still on 10.14.1, and get something similar. Apparently "System" is a composite category. Everything outside of /Applications and /Users/*/Documents or Music or Movies or Pictures.

My "System" shows 214 GB. When I check with OmniDiskSweeper, the bulk of what it's counting is in my user folder. Just not in the predefined document and media subfolders.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:22 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,