Backup with Assets

User avatar
kewms
Posts: 5919
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:22 pm
Platform: Mac

Sat May 23, 2020 12:31 am Post

Aricsdaddy wrote:I know someone creating a book about the universe, and they are sifting through 12 Terabytes of data for a book which is a little more than 1GB with images. So you are telling me you do not see why backing up 12 TB of data is an issue.? Scrivener needs a way to discriminate against reference material and assets that are uses or will be used. This can be done in numerous different ways. It is not difficult.


I completely agree that backing up 12 TB of data is an issue. That's exactly my point.

Scrivener already has a way to do this: import the assets that should be backed up as part of the project into the project.

Katherine
Scrivener Support Team

Ar
Aricsdaddy
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed May 20, 2020 4:59 am
Platform: Mac

Sat May 23, 2020 5:16 am Post

kewms wrote:
Aricsdaddy wrote:I know someone creating a book about the universe, and they are sifting through 12 Terabytes of data for a book which is a little more than 1GB with images. So you are telling me you do not see why backing up 12 TB of data is an issue.? Scrivener needs a way to discriminate against reference material and assets that are uses or will be used. This can be done in numerous different ways. It is not difficult.


I completely agree that backing up 12 TB of data is an issue. That's exactly my point.

Scrivener already has a way to do this: import the assets that should be backed up as part of the project into the project.

Katherine



So then you are saying don't use the reference function which takes away the point of that, and one is still having to back up large amounts of data, around 1GB to the cloud, which takes away the point of that. Which then overall you are implying just don't use this program. Thats how it sounds to me and others as coming across as.

Online
User avatar
lunk
Posts: 3913
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 4:24 pm
Platform: Mac + iOS
Location: Sweden 64° N

Sat May 23, 2020 6:14 am Post

Aricsdaddy wrote:Scrivener needs a way to discriminate against reference material and assets that are uses or will be used. This can be done in numerous different ways. It is not difficult.

Oh, but then you could easily fix this yourself with some quick coding. :)
I am a user, writing non-fiction and science, using:
* Mac Scrivener 3 on a Macbook 12”, MacBook Pro 13”, and iMac 27”, all running Mojave.
* iOS Scrivener 1 on an iPhone 11 Pro, iPad Air 9.7”, and iPad Pro 12.9”, all running the latest iOS

User avatar
kewms
Posts: 5919
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:22 pm
Platform: Mac

Sat May 23, 2020 6:35 am Post

Aricsdaddy wrote:So then you are saying don't use the reference function which takes away the point of that, and one is still having to back up large amounts of data, around 1GB to the cloud, which takes away the point of that. Which then overall you are implying just don't use this program. Thats how it sounds to me and others as coming across as.


This is a willful misinterpretation of what I actually said, which is that one of the main purposes of the external reference functions is to allow the user to link to materials which are too large to incorporate into the project.

kewms wrote:So I'm visualizing a user who has a linked folder of external images, but also an enormous database off on a server somewhere, and maybe somewhere else an archive of video recordings from field interviews. All linked to the project. What would an "asset backup" for this user entail?


As Scrivener currently works, none of these external materials are backed up as part of the project. It is assumed that the user will design appropriate backup strategies of their own.

You are proposing that instead some portion of these external materials be backed up as part of the project. But not all of them. (No one wants a 12 TB backup! So there needs to be a mechanism to designate *which* external files to back up.) And not every time. (Only files that have changed, you said, and only when the user specifically requests an "asset backup.")

To which my response is that creating a backup of some, but not all, external materials sounds like a recipe for confusion and frustration, especially given the inherent stress that's always involved in recovering a backup. Abundant tools for backing up arbitrary folders already exist. If the user finds those tools to be inadequate, and wants the files to be part of a Scrivener project, they can certainly do that. But I don't see the advantage of adding confusing and duplicative external folder backup functions to Scrivener.

Katherine
Scrivener Support Team

mb
mbbntu
Posts: 1153
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 9:44 am
Platform: Mac + iOS
Location: Cambridge, UK.

Sat May 23, 2020 6:57 am Post

kewms wrote:Abundant tools for backing up arbitrary folders already exist.

Quite. Backblaze costs around a dollar a month and backs up your entire hard drive to the cloud, while CarbonCopyCloner (or SuperDuper) will create a bootable clone of your hard drive on a local external drive. I use both along with Time Machine. I would have to try very hard to lose something. In my view, it is better to have a suite of programs, each of which does one thing well, rather than one program that tries to do everything and does all of them less well.

The breaking of links when a file is moved or renamed has always been a problem. People are trying to solve it, for example with Hook https://hookproductivity.com, and DEVONthink provides a more robust way of linking to files when dealing with large amounts of research material (by using item links that seem to be basically UUIDs). In my view, Scrivener is for writing, and if you are having to cope with a very large amount of reference material, it is worth using another program to manage it. See the comment above about having programs that do one thing well. When I spent five years on a PhD, I kept all my research material in DEVONthink. It amounted to several million words in thousands of files of all kinds. I used Scrivener to write the text of my thesis. The system worked very well for me.

Edit: there is a detailed discussion of using Scrivener and Hook here: https://discourse.hookproductivity.com/t/scrivener-3-and-hook/95
You should judge people not by how close they get to the top, but by how far they have come from the bottom. Some people have a mountain to climb just to get to the place where others start out. (Me, 2010)

Ar
Aricsdaddy
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed May 20, 2020 4:59 am
Platform: Mac

Sat May 23, 2020 10:29 am Post

Everyone seems to be forgetting that my post was in the 'Wish List' section.

I have worked with computers all my life, it is not difficult to create a full backup solution within the program. I know other solutions exist, but I do not want that, I want a professional program to be professional.

User avatar
AmberV
Posts: 24121
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:30 am
Platform: Mac + Linux
Location: Ourense, Galiza
Contact:

Sat May 23, 2020 5:54 pm Post

Everyone seems to be forgetting that my post was in the ‘Wish List’ section.


This comes up now and then, and I’m always a bit bemused by the sentiment to be honest. Perhaps you come from forums where there is an expectation that posts to the wish list area are off-limits to peers (though in this case you have two L&L staff discussing it with you), and that one should never have to defend their assertions if others spot problems within it. Around here though, we discuss feature ideas, particularly if they have complex ramifications, or if they can be suitably addressed by an existing feature set.

It’s not an aggressive stance against you, nor that of ideas in general, nor people not respecting (or being confused on) the fact that you are posting an idea—it’s meant to improve your idea if there is some degree of applicability to the software, and the developer approves.

I know other solutions exist, but I do not want that, I want a professional program to be professional.


On this point we may have to agree to disagree, as in my opinion the mark of a professional program is characterised by its elegance and depth within the boundaries of its scope, and to a large degree its adherence to that scope. To my opinion, handling incremental system-wide backups and restorations, to a degree that must potentially scale into the terabytes, across multiple volumes, file shares and other mechanisms—is not within the scope of a tool designed for assembling large form texts.

So to come back to the original point, as you seem to be the sort that prefers a simple straight-forward answer to discussion, we can handle this very simply right now. As the next to lass person that vets feature requests, here is your answer:

No, this is out of scope for Scrivener. Thanks for your suggestion. We recommend coupling Scrivener and all other professional tools with a strong, unified backup workflow that is comprised of multiple layers and geographical storage locations.
.:.
Ioa Petra'ka
“Whole sight, or all the rest is desolation.” —John Fowles