-
All replies
-
Helpful answers
-
Jul 19, 2014 1:27 PM in response to Michael Yakovlevby Allan Eckert,That is not recommended.
Aperture uses functionality that is only available with Mac OS Extended.
Why do you want to do that anyway?
-
Jul 19, 2014 4:32 PM in response to Michael Yakovlevby léonie,No, as Allan Eckert said. Storing your library on and external drive is no problem, but it requires MacOS Extended (Journaled):
You may want to have a look a these support documents:
Use locally mounted Mac OS X Extended volumes for your Aperture library
and
Format external drives to Mac OS Extended before using with Aperture http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3509?
The same goes for iPhoto Libraries:
-
Jul 19, 2014 7:55 PM in response to Michael Yakovlevby William Lloyd,Absolutely not. You can store the the photos themselves (though I wouldn't recommend it), but the library itself, NO WAY. You will corrupt the library in this case, as the file system cannot handle the file names that Aperture uses internally in its library.
-
Jul 29, 2014 4:38 AM in response to William Lloydby Tomas Gursky,There is a possibility to create a sparse bundle image on external HDD to be able to store Aperture library or Vault. I've done in on my Synology NAS and have been able to create Vault and restore from it with no problems at all.
-
Jul 29, 2014 4:49 AM in response to Tomas Gurskyby léonie,That will solve the problem with the filesystem,but not the problem with the remote storage. Apple strongly advises against it:
Aperture: Use locally mounted Mac OS X Extended volumes for your Aperture library http://support.apple.com/kb/TS3252
Also, it is strongly recommended that the Aperture library be stored on a locally mounted hard drive. Storing the Aperture library on a network share can also lead to poor performance, data corruption, or data loss.
You have been lucky with your vaults. A Vault is for all purposes an Aperture library.
I would never risk to use an unsupported disk for my backups. They require a safe setup.
-
Jul 29, 2014 5:13 AM in response to léonieby Tomas Gursky,That's right, but also Synology official support Time Machine back up which is basically the same way of storing mac data as Aperture. It uses sparse bundle. I wouldn't store my Aperture library on NAS but I see no problem to store Vaults if they are backed up in the same way via Time Machine on Synology.
And what if Apple hasn't updated there documents allowing to do that due to discontinuing Aperture as a product? Why would they allow such a function as sparse bundle image disk is? Just a thought.
-
Jul 30, 2014 12:04 AM in response to Tomas Gurskyby léonie,That's right, but also Synology official support Time Machine back up which is basically the same way of storing mac data as Aperture. It uses sparse bundle. I wouldn't store my Aperture library on NAS but I see no problem to store Vaults if they are backed up in the same way via Time Machine on Synology.
Time Machine has been designed to backup over a network by Apple. But Aperture not. When you update a vault, Aperture is the application doing the update. It opens the vault like an Aperture library and writes changes to it. Aperture has to update the internal databases inside the vault, and that is the risky part, because network access to these databases is not supported. It is exactly the same reason, why you cannot use an Aperture library on a remote volume.