Catalina wont burn CDs

[perquesta]

According to the new music app, to burn music to CDs, the music must first be arranged into playlists, which are then burnt to CDs. When you right-click on a playlist in Music, it offers the option: "Burn Playlist to Disc..." However, when you click on that option nothing happens. The CD burner does not come to life.

The Burn app loads ok, but there seems no way to load music tracks into it.

Any thoughts please?

 

[mrmister]

File a bug!

 

[spheris]

Noticed that one this morning. should go straight to feedback.

 

[Fishrrman]

Catalina -- in the words of Steve Jobs, it's "a bag of hurt" !!

 

[Theo1606]

have you found a solution?

 

[perquesta]

have you found a solution?

No. I reported the issue to Apple.

 

[spheris]

No. I reported the issue to Apple.

Looks like it will get fixed in PB2, along with apfs raid support (finally)

 

[JimmyjamesEU]

Looks like it will get fixed in PB2, along with apfs raid support (finally)

Interesting. Is this just fixing compatibility between apfs and the traditional apple raid, or are they integrating some raid functionality into apfs? I hope it's the latter but would be surprised!

 

[perquesta]

It is working well in Beta 3.

 

[spheris]

Interesting. Is this just fixing compatibility between apfs and the traditional apple raid, or are they integrating some raid functionality into apfs? I hope it's the latter but would be surprised!

APFS RAID support is non functional in Mojave as of 10.14.6 PB2. It's been a known reported bug reported from the premaster PB4 and I've been told from engineering it won't be addressed until some where in the Catalina PB's You can set it up, it will read and write but disk utility is completely unreliable in managing it or carrying out other functions in the presence of an APFS RAID volume. Crashes and lockups will occur in creating dmgs, often (but not always in formatting other volumes and disk checks become a 50/50 bet on a hard reboot. I won't even get into what happens with Time Machine. At WWDC I was told it will be addressed in time for the Mac Pro but was not a bullet item previously because they considered the hardware raid options more suited for apfs raid volumes and it imposed an undue overhead in supporting it in third party configurations as software but partner demands have shifted that priority ( I suspect the undertone is that promise pushed for it so they could market both hard and soft options) Either way, it will be a welcome fix and open the path for SoftRAID to possibly produce their much delayed 6.0 update.

 

[JimmyjamesEU]

APFS RAID support is non functional in Mojave as of 10.14.6 PB2. It's been a known reported bug reported from the premaster PB4 and I've been told from engineering it won't be addressed until some where in the Catalina PB's You can set it up, it will read and write but disk utility is completely unreliable in managing it or carrying out other functions in the presence of an APFS RAID volume. Crashes and lockups will occur in creating dmgs, often (but not always in formatting other volumes and disk checks become a 50/50 bet on a hard reboot. I won't even get into what happens with Time Machine. At WWDC I was told it will be addressed in time for the Mac Pro but was not a bullet item previously because they considered the hardware raid options more suited for apfs raid volumes and it imposed an undue overhead in supporting it in third party configurations as software but partner demands have shifted that priority ( I suspect the undertone is that promise pushed for it so they could market both hard and soft options) Either way, it will be a welcome fix and open the path for SoftRAID to possibly produce their much delayed 6.0 update.

Thanks for the further detail.

I guess I'm curious/worried in terms of how they plan to implement raid going forwards. If they just plan on updating the current raid code, to get it working for Catalina, that would be a shame. The modern filesystem world is moving towards integrating raid into the file system itself. Zfs, btrfs and other copy on write filesystems have realised that bringing that code into the fs allows some very cool things in terms of data integrity. I know APFS doesn't currently support data checksums, but I am hoping they get around to it eventually!

If they are planning to depend on hardware raid, that is worrying. The idea that a raid calculations would be undue overhead for a mac pro is bizarre. The overhead for striping or mirroring is minimal. There seems to be some confusion in the file system team. Its not like people are asking for parity raid, even though every other os has that stuff built in. Oh well, time will tell!

 

[spheris]

They've extended the skill set of apfs drastically in the Catalina codebase. I think it's not so much about the Mac Pro as necessity now and implementing the strategy - you have to remember they removed raid altogether from disk utility at one point. The fs team has a lot of hoops to jump through still, apfs support for time machine raid, etc. not simple changes and with the proliferation of multi disk devices for thunderbolt 3 I'm sure they were taking a wait and see attitude with it. With the Mac Pro, I think there will be a step off the bench if the engineer at WWDC was accurate.

Don't be surprised if a checksum shows up (and it has in a form in the firmlinks) so I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes functional somewhere around DP6 or DP7. The bug reports I put in in July/Sept/November were closed in June, so it's on someones to do list because it didn't get the usual works as intended/not addressable when it was closed - it was marked as moved to engineering.

 

[JimmyjamesEU]

They've extended the skill set of apfs drastically in the Catalina codebase. I think it's not so much about the Mac Pro as necessity now and implementing the strategy - you have to remember they removed raid altogether from disk utility at one point. The fs team has a lot of hoops to jump through still, apfs support for time machine raid, etc. not simple changes and with the proliferation of multi disk devices for thunderbolt 3 I'm sure they were taking a wait and see attitude with it. With the Mac Pro, I think there will be a step off the bench if the engineer at WWDC was accurate.

Don't be surprised if a checksum shows up (and it has in a form in the firmlinks) so I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes functional somewhere around DP6 or DP7. The bug reports I put in in July/Sept/November were closed in June, so it's on someones to do list because it didn't get the usual works as intended/not addressable when it was closed - it was marked as moved to engineering.

Those are all good points, and it's interesting to hear that you're getting positive messages from the fs team.

Our of interest, did your radars and conversations about raid just cover mirror/stripe type raid, or raid 5, parity raid too?

 

[spheris]

We only had about 20 minutes to talk. So the focus was on 0/1/5 scenarios and that the bug reports were so long standing. we also touched really briefly on the time machine support for apfs and what was holding it up

 

[JimmyjamesEU]

We only had about 20 minutes to talk. So the focus was on 0/1/5 scenarios and that the bug reports were so long standing.

Ok cool. I can imagine that time with them would be limited. Interesting to hear that raid 5 might be supported. Thanks again for your replies.

 

[spheris]

It's always been supported through terminal > 0/1/10. Takes an arcane amount of command line to make 10 work but doable. I was interested in 5 because with the failover features in apfs, it would and should harden such an implementation even more if they were interested in pushing it.

 

[JimmyjamesEU]

It's always been supported through terminal > 0/1/10. Takes an arcane amount of command line to make 10 work but doable. I was interested in 5 because with the failover features in apfs, it would and should harden such an implementation even more if they were interested in pushing it.

I wasn't aware that raid 5 was possible, I can see many people liking the option due to its space efficiency. I would probably go for raid 10. It would be great if they did end up adding checksums, then auto-correcting bad blocks by taking a good copy from a mirror! That's the kind of stuff they should be pushing I feel.

 

[spheris]

Nothing stops it from being implemented. Frankly I'm shocked at all the noise about the system and data volumes being segmented. Everyone has already seen this with the fusion drives being converted with 10.14. They exposed a preview of the firm links and volume merge capability in implementing that. I'm sure it wouldn't be trivial but they could add a parity check in the raid code and go on. We'll have to see if they do at some point or at least a mechanism that SoftRAID and the like could implement on their own.

 

[JimmyjamesEU]

Nothing stops it from being implemented. Frankly I'm shocked at all the noise about the system and data volumes being segmented. Everyone has already seen this with the fusion drives being converted with 10.14. They exposed a preview of the firm links and volume merge capability in implementing that. I'm sure it wouldn't be trivial but they could add a parity check in the raid code and go on. We'll have to see if they do at some point or at least a mechanism that SoftRAID and the like could implement on their own.

It'll be interesting to see what they end up implementing. I'm cautiously optimistic now!

 

[JimmyjamesEU]

We only had about 20 minutes to talk. So the focus was on 0/1/5 scenarios and that the bug reports were so long standing. we also touched really briefly on the time machine support for apfs and what was holding it up

Did they give you any indication of what the hold up with apfs time machine was? And if so, when it might come?

 

[spheris]

Did they give you any indication of what the hold up with apfs time machine was? And if so, when it might come?

The only thing said about time machine was that it was being integrated to apfs but didn't give me a timeline about it. He did say the problem to now has been it's use of hard linking structures and advanced permissions/asset properties and that the firm links are a step towards making it fully compatible.

 

[JimmyjamesEU]

Just wondering if anything has happened with Catalina and apfs/raid? Haven't seen any news or it.