Recommended Posts

What's the advantage of enabling journaling? Is that a factor in the new super fast searchs? I knew it was available before in one of the 10.2.x releases via a terminal command but that's it :blush:

Yeah i'd like to know that too, is it worth turning on?

What's the advantage of enabling journaling? Is that a factor in the new super fast searchs? I knew it was available before in one of the 10.2.x releases via a terminal command but that's it :blush:

i think its just the difference between it being on a pc like a ntfs partition vs fat32. it makes it easier to search for things and makes it easier to recover things if the OS coughs on you

Yeah i'd like to know that too, is it worth turning on?

I've found a few links regaurding it. Nothing from Panther, but it's been implimented (as Dazzla said) in Jag, you just have to turn it on from the Terminal.

You can look here for it's intro, here to learn how to turn it on, here to see what the register has to say about it, and the Official Apple PDF is here.

n/p

I always like to try and attempt to outdo Wickedkitten.  :laugh:

*Runs away before the ###### reads teh post*

LMAO :laugh:

The Kitten has spy's everywhere....... he WILL find you :doctor:

Oh dear, you should probably edit that post to read "she" before she comes back online :whistle: :D

Journaling moves harddisk disk writes to a transaction based method.

On a normal file system (fat32, hfs) when you say "write this to the disk" the harddrive will start writting the data to the platter - overwritting files as it goes (i am intentionally ignoring caching etc). Imagine you were writting an update to a critical part of the system and your system went down: you could lose everything on a disk or damage much data so you have to go and check the entire disk to make sure everything is okay.

On a trasaction based system (ntfs, reiserfs, hfs+) every write is first written as a transaction to a journal and then to the disk. The advantage is that if a disk goes down down while writting the system can reboot and not have to worry about losing everything:it can playback the journal and bring the system to a known state.

It won't stop you from loosing data but it will make the recovery from a disk write failure faster.

It's basicly a way of making your disk more reliable in the event of power outage. The performance hit is typically less than 10% for writting though no penalty for reads should be detectable (some say it makes it faster because the data is stored better on the disk - I don't believe them, but what do I know?)

I have journaling turned on for systems that spend most of their time unplugged because you never know what could go wrong. For systems that don't move I leave it turned off.

Fortunatly, she's having some issues with MSN again and I don't think she's been paying attention. ;)

Back on topic, have you noticed any performance gain after turning on Journaling?

Not as yet no, but I'm not doing anything intense yet... I'll give it a whirl in a min to see if anything has improved,

Although according to the links you gave me, it's more of a safety procedure than a performance enhancement.

Journaling moves harddisk disk writes to a transaction based method.

On a normal file system (fat32, hfs) when you say "write this to the disk" the harddrive will start writting the data to the platter - overwritting files as it goes (i am intentionally ignoring caching etc). Imagine you were writting an update to a critical part of the system and your system went down: you could lose everything on a disk or damage much data so you have to go and check the entire disk to make sure everything is okay.

On a trasaction based system (ntfs, reiserfs, hfs+) every write is first written as a transaction to a journal and then to the disk. The advantage is that if a disk goes down down while writting the system can reboot and not have to worry about losing everything:it can playback the journal and bring the system to a known state.

It won't stop you from loosing data but it will make the recovery from a disk write failure faster.

It's basicly a way of making your disk more reliable in the event of power outage. The performance hit is typically less than 10% for writting though no penalty for reads should be detectable (some say it makes it faster because the data is stored better on the disk - I don't believe them, but what do I know?)

I have journaling turned on for systems that spend most of their time unplugged because you never know what could go wrong. For systems that don't move I leave it turned off.

have i mentioned lately I absolutely love your posts. I like the way you are always concise and articulate in your giving of information and leave little room for argument :D

Journaling moves harddisk disk writes to a transaction based method.

On a normal file system (fat32, hfs) when you say "write this to the disk" the harddrive will start writting the data to the platter - overwritting files as it goes (i am intentionally ignoring caching etc).  Imagine you were writting an update to a critical part of the system and your system went down: you could lose everything on a disk or damage much data so you have to go and check the entire disk to make sure everything is okay.

On a trasaction based system (ntfs, reiserfs, hfs+) every write is first written as a transaction to a journal and then to the disk.  The advantage is that if a disk goes down down while writting the system can reboot and not have to worry about losing everything:it can playback the journal and bring the system to a known state.

It won't stop you from loosing data but it will make the recovery from a disk write failure faster.

It's basicly a way of making your disk more reliable in the event of power outage.  The performance hit is typically less than 10% for writting though no penalty for reads should be detectable (some say it makes it faster because the data is stored better on the disk - I don't believe them, but what do I know?)

I have journaling turned on for systems that spend most of their time unplugged because you never know what could go wrong.  For systems that don't move  I leave it turned off.

have i mentioned lately I absolutely love your posts. I like the way you are always concise and articulate in your giving of information and leave little room for argument :D

Wicked just hates the fact that most of her posts inspire arguments. Actually, she probably likes that because she would argue with a wall if it would have it.

That's very informative tho. Nice and easy to understand. thumbs_up.gif

Wicked just hates the fact that most of her posts inspire arguments.  Actually, she probably likes that because she would argue with a wall if it would have it.

That's very informative tho.  Nice and easy to understand.

You've so just started using SHE a lot since I messed up :cool:

Journaling moves harddisk disk writes to a transaction based method.

On a normal file system (fat32, hfs) when you say "write this to the disk" the harddrive will start writting the data to the platter - overwritting files as it goes (i am intentionally ignoring caching etc).  Imagine you were writting an update to a critical part of the system and your system went down: you could lose everything on a disk or damage much data so you have to go and check the entire disk to make sure everything is okay.

On a trasaction based system (ntfs, reiserfs, hfs+) every write is first written as a transaction to a journal and then to the disk.  The advantage is that if a disk goes down down while writting the system can reboot and not have to worry about losing everything:it can playback the journal and bring the system to a known state.

It won't stop you from loosing data but it will make the recovery from a disk write failure faster.

It's basicly a way of making your disk more reliable in the event of power outage.  The performance hit is typically less than 10% for writting though no penalty for reads should be detectable (some say it makes it faster because the data is stored better on the disk - I don't believe them, but what do I know?)

I have journaling turned on for systems that spend most of their time unplugged because you never know what could go wrong.  For systems that don't move  I leave it turned off.

have i mentioned lately I absolutely love your posts. I like the way you are always concise and articulate in your giving of information and leave little room for argument :D

Wicked just hates the fact that most of her posts inspire arguments. Actually, she probably likes that because she would argue with a wall if it would have it.

That's very informative tho. Nice and easy to understand. https://www.neowin.net/forum/html/emoticons...s/thumbs_up.gif

oi, get back on topic you. Post a screenshot of something.

Is it true that IE doesn't come installed in it at all?

Journaling moves harddisk disk writes to a transaction based method.

On a normal file system (fat32, hfs) when you say "write this to the disk" the harddrive will start writting the data to the platter - overwritting files as it goes (i am intentionally ignoring caching etc).? Imagine you were writting an update to a critical part of the system and your system went down: you could lose everything on a disk or damage much data so you have to go and check the entire disk to make sure everything is okay.

On a trasaction based system (ntfs, reiserfs, hfs+) every write is first written as a transaction to a journal and then to the disk.? The advantage is that if a disk goes down down while writting the system can reboot and not have to worry about losing everything:it can playback the journal and bring the system to a known state.

It won't stop you from loosing data but it will make the recovery from a disk write failure faster.

It's basicly a way of making your disk more reliable in the event of power outage.? The performance hit is typically less than 10% for writting though no penalty for reads should be detectable (some say it makes it faster because the data is stored better on the disk - I don't believe them, but what do I know?)

I have journaling turned on for systems that spend most of their time unplugged because you never know what could go wrong.? For systems that don't move? I leave it turned off.

have i mentioned lately I absolutely love your posts. I like the way you are always concise and articulate in your giving of information and leave little room for argum:Dt :D

Wicked just hates the fact that most of her posts inspire arguments. Actually, she probably likes that because she would argue with a wall if it would have it.

That's very informative tho. Nice and easy to understand. https://www.neowin.net/forum/html/emoticons...s/thumbs_up.gif

oi, get back on topic you. Post a screenshot of something.

Is it true that IE doesn't come installed in it at all?

No, because I didn't have that craptastic program on my system, I installed Panther, and there the bloody thing was. So, in the Dev Preview at least, it has I.E. installed.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Windows ME was worse.
    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      453
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!