XYMer's Home away from Home

When http://bbs.xlr8yourmac.com is down (i.e. always)
It is currently Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:56 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 3:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 9081
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
If the new RAM is ECC and the old RAM isn't, you've got an upgrade. ECC RAM is fault tolerant of most memory errors, in that it can detect and correct minor errors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 8:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 687
Moving on to another question on the MP and the OSX master plan . . . as I have two partitions right now with OSX installed one with 10.9 and the other with 10.11 . . . it appears that there is only one Recovery disk installed. I was under the impression that each install of OSX carries its own version of the RD. I just booted the RD and it showed "OSX Utilities - version 1.0 (117). I believe that there was an RD with the original install of the 10.9 system . . . but on booting to it from cold start it just showed one, the one it booted to . . . .

Would the RD be "updated" by the second install of 10.11? Or, if I have 10.9 as the "start-up disk" it will automatically go to that one? Or, I would have to be in 10.11 and then restarting from there will bring the potentially "second" RD, the "10.11 RD"??? From VB linux I believe GParted also only shows one specific "RD" disk??? Is that a "universal" RD???

e..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 9081
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
There is only one recovery partition per disk. If you have an old recovery partition and install a new OS, it is supposed to update the recovery partition to the newer version. They are backwards compatible (at least up to 10.11) so there's little to gain from using an older version (and much to gain from using the newer version, as the original recovery partition can't restore a time machine backup from anything newer than 10.8).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 687
MonkeyBoy wrote:
There is only one recovery partition per disk. (and much to gain from using the newer version, as the original recovery partition can't restore a time machine backup from anything newer than 10.8).


OK, appreciate that . . . and now for something completely different--is the Time Machine backup a bootable clone which could be dumped into another partition to run another computer? Or, it just fills in documents and/or apps to an installed version of OSX? I'd like to know if it would offer a viable replacement to my aging version of CCC, which, in spite of errors and warning, continues to give service to cloning, at least up to 10.9 . . . ???

e..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:07 pm
Posts: 2367
Location: Inside Flatus Maximus
este.el.paz wrote:
MonkeyBoy wrote:
There is only one recovery partition per disk. (and much to gain from using the newer version, as the original recovery partition can't restore a time machine backup from anything newer than 10.8).


OK, appreciate that . . . and now for something completely different--is the Time Machine backup a bootable clone which could be dumped into another partition to run another computer? Or, it just fills in documents and/or apps to an installed version of OSX? I'd like to know if it would offer a viable replacement to my aging version of CCC, which, in spite of errors and warning, continues to give service to cloning, at least up to 10.9 . . . ???

e..


Time machine backups are not bootable. For bootable backups you need something like Super Duper, Carbon Copy Cloner, or insane expertise with the dd command and its arguments.

_________________
Official Mac Tech Support Forum Cookie™ (Mint Chocolate Chip)
Guaranteed tasty; Potentially volatile when dipped in WWIII Forum Syrup®
Caution: This cookie bites back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 687
@ST:

Thanks, that's what I understood to be the case with the older version of Time Machine, but wasn't sure if the capacity had changed . . . . CCC has been very handy over the years . . . .

e..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 9081
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
The recovery partition and time machine work hand in hand. Recovery partition is bootable and can be used to restore a time machine backup onto the boot disk.

That's assuming Time Machine hasn't fallen off the rails.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 687
MonkeyBoy wrote:
The recovery partition and time machine work hand in hand. Recovery partition is bootable and can be used to restore a time machine backup onto the boot disk.

That's assuming Time Machine hasn't fallen off the rails.


So conceivably I could "back up" my system to an ext HD using TM . . . but, then I would need the RD to be on the machine that I wanted to "restore" to??

I'm using the example of my PM when I installed the used cpu and it mangled the system, two of them actually, on the int HD making it non-bootable (see other thread for details) . . . but, because I had a CCC clone I was able to clone a system back in to the computer, where I had to wipe the drive . . . ???

I get where in the ideal world the RD would somehow be untouched by disaster, and could then be used as the "slave" to carry the TM back-up over to where it needed to be . . . but, if the disk is damaged does the RD survive, or lets say it doesn't for some reason. I'm basically looking to see if I can find a way to do "free clones" . . . perhaps into a new SSD . . . let's say . . . . : - )

e...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 9081
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
You can create a recovery partition on any USB disk, or you can create usb bootable install media from any install app post-mavericks. The install media is essentially just a recovery partition w/included media for installation, if you do an OS install from the recovery partition you have to download the installation files over the internet from the slowest servers in the known universe.

In other words, with a USB installation media, or a recovery partition on a USB disk, you can recover from a time machine backup the same as you could from the internal (better, in fact, since it can restore the recovery partition to the internal disk as part of the time machine restore, which it can't do if it's booted off the recovery partition on the internal disk - the recovery partition you're booted from is "in use" and can't be overwritten).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 687
MonkeyBoy wrote:
In other words, with a USB installation media, or a recovery partition on a USB disk, you can recover from a time machine backup the same as you could from the internal (better, in fact, since it can restore the recovery partition to the internal disk as part of the time machine restore, which it can't do if it's booted off the recovery partition on the internal disk - the recovery partition you're booted from is "in use" and can't be overwritten).


Ah, OK, well I have USB installers now for 10.8, 10.9, and now 10.11 . . . so, I'm perhaps "covered" in that sense. Now, maybe I'll play around with TM and see how that goes . . . just trying to see if I can skip the paid upgrade to CCC, as I've been using the educational option on 3.4.7 for quite awhile--which is/was very kind of the developer . . . .

e...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 7:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 687
et al:

It's been about a month since my last post . . . everything seems to be going fine with my 8GB RAM . . . mostly running on 10.9 as the default system--visually more interesting than the "flat icons" of 10.11. In the interim I went for the full install of LM 18 . . . in its own partition on the end of the 1 TB drive. As there was some "complication" with SIP interfering with install of rEFInd . . . and then some new instructions for installing it, I decided to try for the LM install w/o it. The only aspect that I carried over from my MBPro install was setting up a 10 MB partition labeled as "bios_grub"--if I didn't do that on the 09 MBPro the install would say it was "successful" but GRUB wouldn't install and the system wouldn't boot.

So, I did the install, and using the "option" key OSX boot manager shows "windows" and selecting that it goes to the GRUB window and LM boots and it seems to run just fine. The first time I restarted back into 10.9 I just let the start-up manager pick the default and there seemed to be some problem with the mouse not working??? Can't remember exactly--but I rebooted, and then using the option key and selected 10.9 or the first partition--and all was well.

Recently I did the 10.11.x system upgrade, and then I did a security update on 10.9; in the past on the MBPro that would have broken the rEFInd "blessing" and thereby the LM system wouldn't boot?? but in the MPro there seemed to be "no effect" . . . I was able to boot LM and doctor some photos in GIMP w/o issue.

So, on the ubuntu forums I have seen some claims by users that "They don't need no stinkin' rEFInd" . . . but, on my MBPro I needed both rEFInd && GRUB labeled partition to get LM to boot. Am I doing something which is potentially "harmful" to the system or the HD by having two OSX partitions and linux formatted partitions--on the same HD . . . without rEFInd to keep it "organized"??? Also, so far I haven't added any "fan control" apps as I did on the MBPro, as on the MP the fans don't seem to be spinning too badly and the machine doesn't seem to be running hot.

The only thing I notice is that on cold boot the fan seems to "spin up" . . . as it seems to be "deciding" on which OS it is supposed to be picking?? Would the LM OS be causing some kind of "decision-making" systemic problem for the cpu? Or, "no beeg deal" that machine could handle all kinds of OSs and GRUBs and such and what I'm doing is "light duty" for the machine??? Just wondering if I should spend the time to install rEFInd, either from OSX side or LM side as some preventative measure for healthy life span of the HD, etc????

e..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 8:42 am 
Offline
Benevolent Dictator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 14253
I don't think there'll be any harm from the fans spinning too fast until some OS can handle them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 9:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 687
BDAqua wrote:
I don't think there'll be any harm from the fans spinning too fast until some OS can handle them.


BD:

Thanks for the reply. That is an historical "Mactel" issue and linux, that for Intel Macs the fan control capacity of linux is not as precise as OSX, and so over-heating has been a problem for some dual-boot users. In the Apple user forum sticky it mentions it might be necessary to install extra fan control apps and then they have to be manually adjusted . . . sort of like setting up dnetc preferences via console apps. It is a tad time consuming to get all the apps installed and tweaked . . . so not having to do it or not needing to, is a time saver . . . .

Main question is whether there is some potential "interaction" or conflict with running OSX and linux on the same HD, based upon the "EFI" based nature of OSX . . . and possibly the "BIOS" based nature of linux . . . but I don't know the details of that distinction, just that that is why rEFInd apparently is around to handle . . . ???

e...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 11:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 9081
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
I'd say if the system boots into both OSes there's no need to add anything extra into the mix.

System Picker (hold down option at boot) shows every non-OS X operating system as "Windows" - gotta love Apple's philosophy of making it "simple" by making it completely confusing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 4:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 687
MonkeyBoy wrote:
I'd say if the system boots into both OSes there's no need to add anything extra into the mix.

System Picker (hold down option at boot) shows every non-OS X operating system as "Windows" - gotta love Apple's philosophy of making it "simple" by making it completely confusing.


@MB:

Cool; yep, seems to working "OK" . . . I don't know if linux has "modified" their system so that it can handle "EFI" w/o rEFInd . . . or it's something different on the apple machine side, like my MBPro is an '09 and back then Apple didn't let other systems be "compatible" . . . but, in '12 they did???

But, yeah, the "windows" thing isn't too complicated for me, as I just have 2 OSX and 1 linux system . . . it was the same way in the MBPro . . . moving through a few frames to get to GRUB, etc.

e..


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group