Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
update to 10.15.5?
- Thread starter Marci
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
what OS are you on now? what mac? so many variables (and you've told us nothing).
there's no one answer for everyone; probably safer than a beta, and theoretically a step forward from 10.15.4. and all you will get here is anecdotal evidence. plus we need more info, about where you are, and what you need...
there's no one answer for everyone; probably safer than a beta, and theoretically a step forward from 10.15.4. and all you will get here is anecdotal evidence. plus we need more info, about where you are, and what you need...
Please see this thread for help on the Activity Monitor:
Activity Monitor not listing other columns
Thanks to both of you! That definitely was it. I would not have thought to have done that
forums.macrumors.com
Last edited:
The only (?!) problem with Activity Monitor is that it assigns too much space to the app name.Activity Monitor not listing other columns
Thanks to both of you! That definitely was it. I would not have thought to have done that
You can shift the columns to the left.
;JOOP!
Every new update comes with ever more bugs. Now the console is spammed with the following message:
Jun 1 12:40:01 com.apple.xpc.launchd[1] (com.apple.mdworker.shared.0A000000-0600-0000-0000-000000000000[4777]): Service exited due to SIGKILL | sent by mds[3158]
Jun 1 12:40:01 com.apple.xpc.launchd[1] (com.apple.mdworker.shared.0A000000-0600-0000-0000-000000000000[4777]): Service exited due to SIGKILL | sent by mds[3158]
I do not agree, this message is very specific, I'm certain that none of us ever saw it.
Then again, too many users or MacOS are doing very specific things,
giving rise to unexpected situations, even for APPLE engineers.
;JOOP!
If I search in the Console system.log for "mds" I do see repeated instances of what @macdos as reported in post #7:
I am running 10.15.5. I don't know if that happened in 10.15.4 as I never looked for it.
mdworker is part of spotlight. If I look in Activity Monitor, the mdworker_shared processes are taking up very little resources when they do run.
I am running 10.15.5. I don't know if that happened in 10.15.4 as I never looked for it.
mdworker is part of spotlight. If I look in Activity Monitor, the mdworker_shared processes are taking up very little resources when they do run.
Last edited:
If you search deep enough you will always find 'funny' messages; for instance when switching keyboard source
while running a JAVA application the error output surprised me with:
2020-05-26 15:47:36.112 java[4992:241742] ERROR: setApplicationProperty: called with invalid property
I never saw that ever before Catalina, but it seems harmless.
;JOOP!
Good for you, but I went from OSX to 10.15.5 performing every small step and I'm still alive.
Just make a bootable total backup before you upgrade.
;JOOP!
After reading your post, I opened the Console and found the same message repeated multiple times. As I have SIP disabled, I unloaded /System/Library/LaunchAgents/com.apple.mdworker.shared.plist, moved the plist in a backup folder and rebooted. The message is gone now. I have no idea what mdworker.shared is supposed to do, but Spotlight seems to be working just fine.
it's 2 updates later, and there are bug fixes, tweaks... there are always challenges, but if it were me, i'd want to be on the latest official incremental release...
Thanks for that. I've had it on two machines since installing Catalina. This fixes it.
Can I ask you for a suggestion to fix the following message, which I only see on one machine. There's no impact, as far as I can tell, but the stream of messages appear every minute, which renders system.log a complete mess:
Code:
Jun 1 19:48:05 MBP AMPDeviceDiscoveryAgent[52489]: Entered:_AMMuxedDeviceDisconnected, mux-device:5102
Jun 1 19:48:05 MBP AMPDeviceDiscoveryAgent[52489]: Entered:__thr_AMMuxedDeviceDisconnected, mux-device:5102
Jun 1 19:48:05 MBP AMPDeviceDiscoveryAgent[52489]: tid:9d0b - Mux ID not found in mapping dictionary
Jun 1 19:48:05 MBP AMPDeviceDiscoveryAgent[52489]: tid:9d0b - Can't handle disconnect with invalid ecidI am curious about this. After you unloaded the plist file you moved it to a backup location which means you deleted and let the system regenerate the file when you rebooted. Have you compared the one in backup to the new one regenerated. Since that message stopped for you I am thinking there might be something different between the two files.
I don't have that one, but another message
com.apple.xpc.launchd[1] (com.apple.xpc.launchd.domain.pid.AMPDeviceDiscoveryAgent.368): Failed to bootstrap path: path = /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/AMPDevices.framework/Versions/A/Support/AMPDeviceDiscoveryAgent, error = 2: No such file or directory
although AMPDeviceDiscoveryAgent is running in Activity Monitor
It doesn't "regenerate". Unloaded and moved Launch Agents and Launch Daemons are only restored by system updates.
I use this script to disable many of them https://gist.github.com/b0gdanw/b6fe449407465ddd6f2a657d71e1345c
Unloading a LaunchDaemon and then deleting it will not cause the LaunchDaemon to be regenerated on reboot. (Edit: didn't see the reply above come in while I was typing.)
I'm on 10.15.3 also. I've only read bad things about the last two releases. My computer is running pretty smoothly (for Catalina) and I don't want to break anything.
Apple is really blowing it with these Catalina updates. There have been issues since day 1 with Catalina that have not been addressed.
Catalina is by far the WORST Mac OS build I've ever had the displeasure of using. Wishing I was on something other than the 16" so I could go back to Mojave. (I've read some bad things about Lion - I have no experience with it, I started with Snow Leopard back then and then went straight to Mavericks when it came out)
Apple is really blowing it with these Catalina updates. There have been issues since day 1 with Catalina that have not been addressed.
Catalina is by far the WORST Mac OS build I've ever had the displeasure of using. Wishing I was on something other than the 16" so I could go back to Mojave. (I've read some bad things about Lion - I have no experience with it, I started with Snow Leopard back then and then went straight to Mavericks when it came out)
you've only read bad things about the last 2 releases? maybe you should be reading the good things too...
10.15.4 was fine here, 10.15.5 seems similar. catalina has had growing pains, like all OSes... the 64bit move certainly complicated things.
otherwise, it's just this year's OS, and works for most people (most people just use their macs, they don't hang on on forums like this).
apple isn't 'blowing it with these Catalina updates', it's providing bug fixes, enhancements... that's how tech works.
What good things? Nothing broke for some people?you've only read bad things about the last 2 releases? maybe you should be reading the good things too...
10.15.4 was fine here, 10.15.5 seems similar. catalina has had growing pains, like all OSes... the 64bit move certainly complicated things.
otherwise, it's just this year's OS, and works for most people (most people just use their macs, they don't hang on on forums like this).
apple isn't 'blowing it with these Catalina updates', it's providing bug fixes, enhancements... that's how tech works.
What bug fixes? None of the major bugs have been fixed and we’re 5 updates in, and probably coming up on the next OS release. You sound like an Apple shill.
Last edited:
For those using Carbon Copy Cloner or generally interested in backups, cloning volumes etc - according to Bomich there is a new APFS file system bug introduced in 10.15.5:
Early last week we discovered an APFS filesystem bug in a beta of macOS 10.15.5 ... the short version is that we're no longer able to use our own file copier to establish an initial bootable backup of a macOS Catalina System volume.
The chflags() system call can no longer set the SF_FIRMLINK flag on a folder on an APFS volume. Rather than fail with an error code that we would have detected, it fails silently – it exits with a success exit status, but silently fails to set the special flag. That's a bug in the APFS filesystem implementation of chflags – if a system call doesn't do what you ask it to do, it's supposed to return an error code, not success. That's a fairly nasty bug too. Apple preaches that you should always check your error codes, and we do – religiously. This bug slipped past us for who knows how long because the system call exits with a success error code.
We don't need to set many of these flags, nor set them frequently – just on the first backup of the macOS system volume. It happens to be essential to the functionality of an APFS volume group, though, so the failure to set these flags means that new full-system backups created on 10.15.5 and later won't be bootable, and it will appear as if none of your data is on the destination (to be clear, though, all of the data is backed up). Kind of the opposite of what we're trying to do here. It's hard to find kind words to express my feelings towards Apple right now. Suffice it to say, though, I'm extremely disappointed that Apple would introduce this kind of bug in a dot-release OS update. We've seen 5 major updates to Catalina now, we should expect to see higher quality than this from an operating system
Early last week we discovered an APFS filesystem bug in a beta of macOS 10.15.5 ... the short version is that we're no longer able to use our own file copier to establish an initial bootable backup of a macOS Catalina System volume.
The chflags() system call can no longer set the SF_FIRMLINK flag on a folder on an APFS volume. Rather than fail with an error code that we would have detected, it fails silently – it exits with a success exit status, but silently fails to set the special flag. That's a bug in the APFS filesystem implementation of chflags – if a system call doesn't do what you ask it to do, it's supposed to return an error code, not success. That's a fairly nasty bug too. Apple preaches that you should always check your error codes, and we do – religiously. This bug slipped past us for who knows how long because the system call exits with a success error code.
We don't need to set many of these flags, nor set them frequently – just on the first backup of the macOS system volume. It happens to be essential to the functionality of an APFS volume group, though, so the failure to set these flags means that new full-system backups created on 10.15.5 and later won't be bootable, and it will appear as if none of your data is on the destination (to be clear, though, all of the data is backed up). Kind of the opposite of what we're trying to do here. It's hard to find kind words to express my feelings towards Apple right now. Suffice it to say, though, I'm extremely disappointed that Apple would introduce this kind of bug in a dot-release OS update. We've seen 5 major updates to Catalina now, we should expect to see higher quality than this from an operating system