vahonen
Level 1 (0 points)

Q: Copying library instead of using vaults?

Background:

I'm using references files so my library is rather small (60GB). When I create Vault it takes always 1-2 days; first about 1 hour it copies files, and then it doesn't do anything for 10-40 hours (not kidding, just did it and this time it was 19 hours and 20 minutes) on any drive (HDD or SDD) but it uses 2 cores each 50%, and then it does something 5 minutes (low disk activity 20-30MB/s write activity) and Vault is ready. If I update Vault it's same except the 1 hour period in beginning gets shorter.

 

If I just copy (either with 1. finder 2. Carbon Copy Cloner 3. SuperDuber - I have library on hard drive dedicated only for Aperture library, so I can do even block copy with CCC) it will take 15-25 minutes depending of the method. If I want to use the copy then I just doubleclick it on Finder and Aperture to uses that database in future.

 

So naturally I would prefer just copy the library to external eSATA disk (I have 12pcs of 1-3TB disks on constant rotation and I can easily make partition for each backup disk for the tiny 60GB library so I would have 12 iterations saved with this method.

 

 

Question

Is there any drawback copying the library and not using the Vault functionality? This far I can't see any benefit of using Vaults and I have used actively Aperture since version 1.

 

 

Technical details

OS and software versions: I'm still using 10.6.8 and Aperture is newest version update gives me.

Machine: "early 2008" 8 core with enough memory and eSATA PCIe card

Storage: large and fast (150-200MB/s when copying files to SDD for example) HDD-RAID for referenced files and fast SDD disks (newest 500MB/s versions) for library and vault. DVD-drive removed.

 

 

 

Best Regards,

Samuli

Posted on Jul 10, 2012 7:01 AM

by KevinePaloAlto,Solvedanswer
KevinePaloAlto KevinePaloAlto
Level 1 (55 points)
A:

I just tested this.

 

It appears as if the article is out of date.  In Aperture 3.3, Vault does not restore anything in ~/Library/Application Support/Aperture. So while there are reasons for using Vault, backing up up files external to the library is not one of them.

Posted on Jul 13, 2012 11:42 AM

Close
vahonen

Q: Copying library instead of using vaults?

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

  • by léonie,Helpful

    léonie léonie Jul 10, 2012 7:31 AM in response to vahonen
    Level 10 (109,032 points)
    iCloud
    Jul 10, 2012 7:31 AM in response to vahonen

    A copy of your library certainly would be a good backup, but wasteful. The vault backup - updating an existing vault- is supposed to be quicker than copying the library over and over again. There must be something wrong with your library, if it takes that ling. Have you done any trouble shooting?

     

    If not, try to run the Aperture Library First Aid Tools on your library: Start with with repairing permissions, then repairing the library. Hold down the command and options key together while launching Aperture: this will show the "First Aid" panel.

     

    Good Luck

     

    Léonie

  • by vahonen,

    vahonen vahonen Jul 10, 2012 8:09 AM in response to léonie
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jul 10, 2012 8:09 AM in response to léonie

    Hi Léonie,

     

    Thanks for response. Why it's wasteful? It takes 15 minutes (and can be automated to happen when I'm not using computer, unlike Vault which is manual and needs me to initiate it and then I can't use aperture while it does it's thing) and don't take more space than Vault.

     

    If anybody figures "why one should not copy library" please respond to thread.

     

     

    And yes I have done all troubleshooting steps (most of then already years ago) and past 10 hours I had plenty of time to read this forum and other places where people complained about the same issue, and nobody really provided solution. I have done most of the things proposed on those threads, and they didn't help.

     

    General performance is excellent, it was great before but now Aperture is lightning fast. I used to have library on special stripped raid of most fastest part of 4 1TB disks providing 200-300MB/s constant transfer speeds, but putting library to newest generation SSD was improvement.

     

    Vault was fast ages ago when I had small number of photos and projects in Library. Only hope I have is that upgrading to Mountain Lion and Aperture 3.3 helps on the issue. However after all the issues with Aperture version 3.0 I'm not going to upgrade in few first months.

     

    Best Regards,

    Samuli

  • by mwizard,Helpful

    mwizard mwizard Jul 10, 2012 9:02 AM in response to vahonen
    Level 1 (30 points)
    Jul 10, 2012 9:02 AM in response to vahonen

    I use SuperDuper to back up my library.  It checks for changes and copies them.  This will allow me to just choose a "different" Library if I need to use the backup.  I gave up on the Vault as it messed up most of the time.  The Vault backup does not copy all of the library, only enough info to reproduce it(try a restore from Vault sometime when you can leave your computer on for days) so saves a bit of drive space.

    Mark

  • by peter_watt,

    peter_watt peter_watt Jul 10, 2012 9:51 AM in response to léonie
    Level 3 (910 points)
    Jul 10, 2012 9:51 AM in response to léonie

    leonieDF wrote:

     

    ...The vault backup - updating an existing vault- is supposed to be quicker than copying the library over and over again. ....

     

    Léonie

     

     

     

    Yes Leonie I agree. Even with the apparently strange behaviour I recently reported with Vault and Previews, the update having added some images took under a minute compared to the original hour or so t create it

    (A3.3.1, 12000 images, 20GB library, USB2)

  • by S.L.O.,

    S.L.O. S.L.O. Jul 12, 2012 10:18 PM in response to vahonen
    Level 1 (10 points)
    Jul 12, 2012 10:18 PM in response to vahonen

    According to MacZelots Magazine (http://archive.bagelturf.com/aparticles/vaults/backingup/index.php) there is a downside to just backing up the Library.

     

    "In the user's Library folder is the Application Support folder. That contains a folder called "Aperture", and inside that are several files that store all the centralized settings that Aperture needs. These include the keywords list, keyword sets, watermarks, plug-ins, custom folder naming presets, adjustment presets, and metadata presets. When a vault is written, all of that is written into a folder on the vault called Settings. Copying a library does not preserve this information because none of it is stored inside a library. The effect of this is that a vault will contain all the keywords in the keyword HUD, not just those stored alongside the images in this library."

     

    This refers to Aperture 1.5, but it appears to still apply. You can navigate to that folder and seeing there are preset files there and such.

     

    So just be aware that there are other files scattered about that you may need besides the library.

  • by KevinePaloAlto,

    KevinePaloAlto KevinePaloAlto Jul 13, 2012 1:27 AM in response to S.L.O.
    Level 1 (55 points)
    Jul 13, 2012 1:27 AM in response to S.L.O.

    I just checked in Aperture 3.3.1 and these .plist files are present:

    ~/Library/Application Support/Aperture/Adjustment Chain Presets.plist

    ~/Library/Application Support/Aperture/FileFolderPresets.plist

    ~/Library/Application Support/Aperture/FileNamingPresets.plist

    ~/Library/Application Support/Aperture/Import Presets.plist

    ~/Library/Application Support/Aperture/MetadataSets.plist

     

    If Vault backs these up, it's interesting because what this means is that if you restore a vaulted library, you're apparently also restoring the preferences used when that library was last vaulted.

     

    This could be good or bad depending on whether or not you wanted those preferences restored.  It seems odd that Aperture doesn't just do the conventional method of saving/loading preferences.  I'd be pretty ****** if someone used my Mac to restore a Library and it wiped out all my preferences, although that's what User accounts are for.

     

    Still it seems a little odd that they're mixing preferences (part of application backup) with the library (content backup).

     

    With that in mind, it seems like using Vault is fine, but be aware that preferences will be replaced during a restore with those of the vaulted library.

     

    Likewise, copying, rsyncing the library is fine as long as one also either backed up their ~/Library/Application Support/Aperture folder or didn't care about any of the preferences.  It's worth noting that this is backed up already in Time Machine.

     

    Curiously though, I just looked at a test Vault, and there's no "Settings" folder that the article mentions is in Vaults made in Aperture 1.5., nor do I see the .plist files or anything that appears to represent them.  I'll have to wait until tomorrow or this weekend to test on a test machine whether Vault does indeed restore the all the preferences.

     

    One more thing interesting about the vault process which may be related to the original post...

     

    My test library was only 7.45GB.  The Vault is 9.77GB.  The difference comes from the Previews folder.  Apparently the Vault is generating previews for all photos...and they're full sized previews (5184x3456) despite Aperture being set to limit to within 1280x1280.

     

    So maybe backing up via Vault is taking so much longer because it's regenerating full sized previews and copying all that data as well?

  • by KevinePaloAlto,Solvedanswer

    KevinePaloAlto KevinePaloAlto Jul 13, 2012 11:42 AM in response to KevinePaloAlto
    Level 1 (55 points)
    Jul 13, 2012 11:42 AM in response to KevinePaloAlto

    I just tested this.

     

    It appears as if the article is out of date.  In Aperture 3.3, Vault does not restore anything in ~/Library/Application Support/Aperture. So while there are reasons for using Vault, backing up up files external to the library is not one of them.

  • by S.L.O.,

    S.L.O. S.L.O. Jul 13, 2012 1:03 PM in response to KevinePaloAlto
    Level 1 (10 points)
    Jul 13, 2012 1:03 PM in response to KevinePaloAlto

    So can we conclude that the only advantage of Vaults is incremental backups (and a color-coded vault status button)? Since Samuli cannot get Vaults to properly work this is a moot point for him. Maybe he should copy the library until he gets Vaults to work properly.

  • by KevinePaloAlto,

    KevinePaloAlto KevinePaloAlto Jul 13, 2012 5:10 PM in response to S.L.O.
    Level 1 (55 points)
    Jul 13, 2012 5:10 PM in response to S.L.O.

    @S.L.O.,

     

    Yes.  Also it's worth noting that Carbon Copy Cloner could be used for the same incremental backup functionality (but also doesn't give the cool colored status icons)

     

    CCC is a really cool program and can be used for many other purposes:

    http://www.bombich.com/

     

    One other cool thing about it is that it can be scheduled so it can run every night for example.  It can also do version archiving.

     

    One thing I'd caution about in terms of either Finder copying of the library using CCC is that I'd make sure Aperture was closed first.

  • by peter_watt,

    peter_watt peter_watt Jul 14, 2012 4:44 AM in response to S.L.O.
    Level 3 (910 points)
    Jul 14, 2012 4:44 AM in response to S.L.O.

    S.L.O. wrote:

     

    So can we conclude that the only advantage of Vaults is incremental backups (and a color-coded vault status button)? Since Samuli cannot get Vaults to properly work this is a moot point for him. Maybe he should copy the library until he gets Vaults to work properly.

    The main advantage should be full integration with Aperture for photographers who are not interested in third party options or messing around with them, keeping multiple Vaults synchronized, ensuring you can restore the library without too much tech knowledge etc.

    What concerns me is that the OP has an outrageous timescale for a small library and there is something wrong with his library (though he has done a rebuild) or his external drive, like not formatted Mac or something.

    Now currently there seems to be a problem with Vault creating full size previews but even then 3 hours tops should create a vault for 60GB and ten minutes tops to update.

  • by vahonen,

    vahonen vahonen Jul 20, 2012 8:36 AM in response to peter_watt
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jul 20, 2012 8:36 AM in response to peter_watt

    Hi, I was shooting one week in Scotland and could not access internet while travelling. Apologies for not being able to respond sooner.

     

    Thanks for discussion KevinePaloAlto, S.L.O. and peter_watt. Based on what you write it seems it's OK just to backup the actual library.

     

    Here is my "final" setup for backing up, will have to check again new OS X and Aperture upgrade in fall/winter.

    • Boot disk (=system/application settings, user directories etc.)
      Backed up with Time Machine. In addition CCC backup (block copy) to external eSata SSD disk (identical to internal boot drive, machine can be booted from this backup disk at any time) weekly, additional copy in other physical location.
    • Aperture library
      Backed up with CCC block copy daily and weekly to 4 rotating disks, some internal and some external (rotated between home and other location)
    • RAW images (referenced)
      Backed up with SuperDuber and rsync (may use CCC as well in future) to 12 external 1-3TB eSata disk daily/weekly/monthly (rotation of disks between home and backup location etc. - all disks don't contain all images since 1TB disks can't hold all RAWs, instead they contain just single/few years (RAWs in yearly directories)). In addition newest images backed up to internal backup disk, as well newest "import"-directories (to which I have copied from card reader) remain in one disk until full backup disk rotation is performed.

     

    Peter, regards "full integration with Aperture for photographers who are not interested in third party options or messing around with them" I'm in category of "people who are not interested messing with Aperture integrated backup tool, which requires separate MANUAL backing up, while all other backups run automatically with proven, reliable and fast 3rd party tools" I have been working with various *nix systems half of my life so my opinions about useability etc. most likely differ from standard Apple user, and I most likely always prefer automating everything possible even it requires little extra effort to setup.

     

    "What concerns me is that the OP has an outrageous timescale for a small library and there is something wrong with his library (though he has done a rebuild) or "

    Yes, but I don't know what more I could try to do. So I gave up and just copy the library disk. Like I wrote above all threads search found about Vault slowness really didn't offer any solution.

     

    "his external drive, like not formatted Mac or something."

    First of all I can do Vault from internal SSD (SATA) to internal HDD (SATA). Or internal SSD (SATA) to external HDD (eSATA). Or internal SSD (SATA) to external SSD (eSATA). Or external HDD (eSata) to external SSD (eSATA). Or whatever configuration you can figure between these parties and making Vault is always as slow. If I would have to guess there is something wrong in the programming of Apple Aperture internal homegrown database and it's programming. Something in my library seems to trigger this slowness bug. This is not recent problem, Vault creation has been ultra slow after I really started using Aperture (=put all my old film pictures etc. there ==> went from hundred of pictures to tens of thousands pictures), this was in 1.x or 2.0 version, can't remember but the point is very very long time ago.


    1. all disks are OS X formatted, I don't have any FAT 32 etc. plugged to my computer

    2. like said, while it doesn't do anything THERE IS NO DISK ACTIVITY just 2 cores running 50% for looooooooong period of time and then small disk activity for some minutes (20-30MB/s which is easy task for SATA/eSATA drives, but would be almost impossible for USB/Firewire). If this is about disk I/O then why backing up whole Aperture disk takes <15 minutes?

    3. External or internal drives doesn't matter, I don't use USB1/2/3 or firewire drives, I use ONLY SATA and eSATA drives (and hopefully soon I get my own PCI-express SSD 480GB as well).

    4. Like said earlier I have done all Apple "Troubleshooting basics" and various other tricks proposed in threads discussing about Aperture library and slowness. And to repeat what I said earlier I don't have any issues with generic Aperture speed; it's lightning fast to use, no beachballs or waiting. It was fast also earlier when library was in stripped raid HDD system, and even improved by moving library to SSD disk. The slowness issue is isolated ONLY to Vault functionality.

     

    PS. Vault is 60GB with ALL files referenced. If all RAWs would be in library then it would be 2.3TB. However library isn't large, just under 70000 images in the library, thank god I stopped shooting sports before I even started... Backing up whole volume takes 14-19 minutes according to logs, depending what else I'm doing while CCC block copies the library.

     

    PPS. Backing up the library is no "burden" to me. I see it much easier than using Vault. I can shedule CCC block copy (will unmount the volume in which the library is ==> 100% sure no changes done to it while it backs it up) and even starting manually I don't see the 15 minutes to be any issue. Original question was asked to find out is there something I don't take into account just backing up the library.

     

    Samuli