Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. You will need to run Retrospect 16.5 for Catalina support.
  3. Last week
  4. Thanks for your reply MrPete! The Microsoft OneDrive behavior sounds scary. I don't really use OneDrive a lot so I've been staying away from saving anything there. I decided that I would turn off "online-only" mode for the Dropbox folder on one of my machines and would backup that machine's copy of the Dropbox files. On all the other backed up machines, I switched Dropbox into "online-only" mode and then removed the Dropbox folder from that machine's backup. That way I get the ability to have a backup of Dropbox and still have some hard drive space savings on the machines that don't have a lot of hard drive space. I don't use box at home, but my workplace uses box a lot, so I'm gonna leave it up to them to figure out their backup plan for box. I've used Dropbox for a long time (I think since it first came out), so I'm pretty comfortable with my decisions for backing up Dropbox.
  5. DavidHertzberg

    Yet another -530 client not found error

    Magnificent investigation, MrPete! All machines on my LAN are Macs, and to my knowledge I don't have a network security system—not to mention VMware (for which the -530 problem was discussed starting in a 2017 thread). I don't have a firewall on my LAN's FiOS "gateway", and the firewall is disabled on my MacBook Pro. As a result of your investigation I'm now wondering if my "gateway", which is a Verizon G1100 which also functions as my router, uses pfSense (or its fork OPNsense) code. Almost a year ago I ran a test which temporarily connected my MBP "client" to my Mac Pro "backup server" so that it was "upstream" from my "gateway". However I didn't think of disconnecting the "gateway" until I had disassembled the test setup, and the connection probably wouldn't have worked without it. However my original -530 problems, which started on 30 January 2017 when I still had DSL instead of FiOS, occurred only when I booted the "backup server" after the scheduled time for the backup script and the script ran immediately—so I thought the bug was caused by uncoordinated startup in the Retrospect Engine.
  6. What did I end up doing? Funny you should ask. After a few go-arounds with restoring files and folders, I gave up and did a new Windows install, which means lots of Windows configuration, and then installing a boatload of programs, which of course also need configuration. Fortunately, I keep my data files in different partitions than Windows and programs, so all that was OK. I also wrote a strong letter to a Retrospect C-level manager, at the encouragement of people in this forum. I got back a response which said, paraphrasing: You did that restore wrong. You should have used a Recovery Media restore. Too late. Right now, as we speak, I'm trying to restore a laptop, and this time I am using Recovery Media. I dutifully followed the directions in the manual, and got a USB Recovery drive. But, but, but (and with Retrospect, there is often a but.) On thjs laptop, the Recovery Media windows are too tall to be displayed completely on the laptop's screen. ( On two different desktops, and a different laptop, there is no such issue.) This thread describes the issue: And this thread on a different forum explores a solution. I haven't finished the process of isolating the driver in question, listed in message #6. I will possibly get to that work today. https://www.tenforums.com/drivers-hardware/142045-need-nvidia-driver-laptop-needs-recovery-media-restore-how.html I'll keep everyone posted.
  7. No argument on "more reliable" ... I'm "old school" as well. However, something is seriously wrong if your new system, with several times the "disk" throughput (m.2 NVMe does multiple GB/sec) is not seriously quicker. If your SW builds didn't radically improve, something is simply wrong. The most common performance killer I've seen, by far, is to have a crazy number of temp files. Or a crazy number of files in ANY important folder. Get more than 1-2,000 files in the temp folder and you will seriously feel it. (Free version of CCleaner handles this and more quite nicely. Yes, there's a built in tool that kinda-sorta gets there but not as comprehensively...) Next thing: check Windows Disk Write Caching (assuming you have a UPS attached)... that makes a huge difference, particularly for SSD (seek time is zero, but you want directory info updates cached...) I would suggest SysInternals Process Explorer to examine what's eating up your performance... possibly combined with SMARTmonTools / smartctl (or HDD Sentinel Pro) if a drive isn't giving you what it should. I'm sitting at two computers right now: My 2012 "mainframe", (i7-3930k, 32GB, gobs of SSD including a RAID0 pair used for high speed video capture) 2019 Surface Pro 6 (i5-8350U, 8GB RAM, PCIe SSD 0.9-1.4GB/sec) Except for certain functions (video processing), the newer computer is noticably quicker. Just for example: My Surface Pro can cold boot to login prompt in about ten seconds. Not even close on the older computer. In general, nothing takes a long time. All software starts more or less immediately unless it has a TON of preprocessing to do. YES, lots of processes. But a few things about modern architecture make the overhead pretty much negligible these days. Multicore+incredibly fast context switching means those extra processes use VERY little CPU. As in: I have 193 processes "running" on my Surface right now. CPU usage: 2-3 percent. And I've done literally zip to make it more efficient... in fact, I've got several security and convenience apps running.
  8. True, but the Retrospect 16 manual includes these paragraph, which I think was inspired by my support issue from earlier this year. These paragraphs appear at the very start of the Disaster Recovery Chapter:
  9. I don't have exactly the same experience... however, I do have a caution to share: Microsoft OneDrive has a similar feature. Last I checked, it's not exactly compatible with ANY backup software, in the following sense: Backups work fine However, when you go to restore, it restores the EMPTY local folder(s) Which causes the cloud copies to get cleared out Which means you lose all of your cloud files Unfortunately, I can't place the details on this with a quick google search ...
  10. A very late response What did you end up doing? Assuming you have everything properly defined for your bare metal DRD restores, then yes it "ought" to be ok. If you followed my Admin Guide for DRD, you would have saved a copy of the BCD Store separately... but then what's the fun in that? 😄
  11. Windows 10 doesn't reliably pay attention to the startup folder anymore. Instead: use task scheduler to open apps when you log in. Works like a charm.
  12. AFAIK, R16 is essentially the same with respect to disaster recovery... although I admit I have not dug in as intensely yet...
  13. MrPete

    Yet another -530 client not found error

    Interesting. I just finished discovering a specific set of bugs in Retrospect, and challenges in our router(s) and local network apps, that directly lead to the above anomalies in finding and/or connecting to clients. (Yes, all of the following has been submitted as a bug report.) I'm running a more Windows-centric network, with a little OSx tossed in, so my tools are a bit different. Tools: WireShark: shows packets actually traveling. Most useful is a filter of udp.port==497 || tcp.port==497 tcpdump (command line in linux and/or osx) - monitoring port 497 TCPview (from SysInternals, now owned by Microsoft) - sort on port. Look at what is listening to 497 and on what IP address(es) (command line) ipconfig and also "route print" In Retrospect: go into Clients -> choose a client-> access tab -> Interface -> Configure Interfaces ... and see what default interface IP address is. Things to watch for: Are UDP broadcast packets being received by clients? (eg 192.168.x.255, port 497) For multicast, are packets getting to clients? (eg 224.0.0.0/4 -- Retrospect uses 224.1.0.38 UDP port 497) Are clients responding to those packets (UDP broadcast or multicast) (initially to UDP port 497 on the backup system) If crossing subnets, is TTL set high enough to reach the client? What could possibly go wrong? Heh. Here are anomalies I've seen: Often, some app will create virtual interfaces. This includes npcap (for Wireshark etc), VMware, TAP-Windows (comes with Windows?), etc... This has led to: On some of my clients, some virtual interfaces have APIPA addresses (169.254.*) -- which makes it obvious when retrospect chooses the wrong interface to listen on! (Workaround: I uninstalled the TAP-Windows adapter as I don't need it. And I temporarily disabled npcap on the one workstation where that got in the way.) On my retrospect backup desktop, retrospect chose one of the VMware virtual adapters as the default adapter! This even though the real gig adapter has higher priority etc etc. (Workaround: create another adapter in Retrospect) The result in either case: I can't see the clients, even though ping works. I have a network security system. It regularly scans all ports on all subnets. Some (but not all) clients get confused by this, with the retroclient app hung up on an IP connection in CLOSE_WAIT status. The result: the client is never available for backups. Yet it is visible to subnet or multicast. We switched to a pfSense firewall/router. I just discovered that multicast forwarding is badly broken.(Workaround: manually installed pimd.) Similarly, UDP broadcast is often blocked by firewalls. Make sure the packets are getting through! Having fixed and/or worked around ALL of the above, and rebooted everything... I can now reliably use either multicast or subnet broadcast to connect with clients.
  14. Thanks for the links. I submitted a support ticket with my question and I'll post what I find out from Tech Support.
  15. DavidHertzberg

    Yet another -530 client not found error

    mbennett, As an alternative to my alternative, when using "static IP address", try implementing retroclient.exe /ipsave xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx per what's under "Windows usage" in this Knowledge Base article. This 2014 enhancement was never put into the User's Guides; it should have been.
  16. amkassir, See "Version 16.5 Required" in this Knowledge Base article, and the macOS Mojave – Application Data Privacy KB article it links to. However I don't think those will answer your all questions; you'd better phone Retrospect Tech Support, and please post what you've found out—including when the august Documentation Committee is going to update that first KB article.
  17. Now that Catalina is out, I understand the installation creates separate volumes for system files and other data. If I am correct, these volumes are connected as members of a Group, within an APFS Container. The System volume is read-only. I have questions about how Retrospect 16.5 will function with this new scheme. Backing up Since these are 2 volumes (appearing as one to the user), will selecting Macintosh HD as the backup source include all System and Data files? Restoring Secondly, I wonder if and how Retrospect can completely restore a Catalina installation. More specifically: 1. If the restore is being made to a completely empty drive, will Retrospect create the necessary "read-only" System and "read/write" Data volumes and restore the appropriate data to each volume? Will it also create a Recovery partition? 2. If the restore is being made over an existing Catalina installation, is Retrospect able to restore system files to the "read-only" System volume? Thanks for any information you can offer!
  18. DavidHertzberg

    Does anyone else backup over 10 Gbps?

    So why not add this as an additional post to your last thread, and save other people's time answering the same question? My answer, for instance, would be exactly the same. A new post to an existing topic makes that topic in the Forums list appear bolded, just like a new topic. The cumulative Release Notes for Retrospect Mac do say under Engine for 16.5 "Improved: Client scanning 2x faster". However that doesn't appear in the cumulative Release Note for Retrospect Windows, and may apply only to the scanning phase—for which there had been an Apple-created problem with Instant Scan for APFS-formatted Mac volumes which the Retrospect engineers said was going to be solved by switching to a 64-bit API to speed up non-Instant scan . So that probably doesn't improve the actual backing up phase speed for Retrospect Windows. Lennart_T suggested in a PM that the Engine should be made multi-threaded. I responded that the Engine has been running each operation in a separate thread since Retrospect Windows 7.5 and Retrospect Mac 8, and I couldn't see how one would usefully multi-thread an individual backup operation.
  19. DavidHertzberg

    How to restore files on top of what's there?

    x509, Your attempted correction of MrPete is wrong as to manufacturer name. Multics was developed for the GE 645, which was a GE 635 with "a configurable hardware protected memory system". General Electric later sold its computer business to Honeywell, and the Wikipedia articles says a GE 645 follow-on was sold as the Honeywell 6180. "The bulk of these computers running time-sharing on Multics were installed at the NSA and similar governmental sites. Their usage was limited by the extreme security measures and had limited impact on subsequent systems, other than the protection ring." IIRC, Fernando Corbató—lead developer of Multics—delivered the introductory IBM 7090 lecture in a 1963 post-summer week-long programming course at MIT somebody got me into. I chose to study Fortran II (go-to-only logic ) for the rest of the week; the course, followed by self-study, changed my life.
  20. MrPete, In the interest of history. If I remember correctly, the "Multics" system at MIT when I was a grad student there was a Honeywell 635 system with virtual memory. I worked at Shugart Associates during the time that they started to build low-cost "Winchester" drives, all modeled after some IBM drive that had sealed head-disk assemblies. Thanks to a very friendly salesperson, I "got" a customer sample SA 1004, which was an 8" HDD with all of 10 MB. I hooked it up to my CP/M system, and it was like a whole new world, compared with the typical dual-floppy system. Shugart Associates was late to the 5 1/4" HDD market, and they went out of business a few years later; fortunately I had left by then. But while it lasted, it was a great time.
  21. This is similar to my last thread: http://forums.retrospect.com/topic/154613-optimizations-for-10-gbps-networking-or-is-this-just-the-limit-of-lto-5/ Some things have changed. Some haven't. I have even more systems connected at 10 Gbps, and I've moved to faster & more dense LTO-6 tapes and tape drives. I'm also now backing up close to 500TB of data. I find myself falling behind more and more because Retrospect itself seems to drag its feet. Server: Windows Server 2008 R2 w/ 32 GB RAM, running Retrospect Multi Server, version 16.5.0.218. Client: Windows Server 2008 R2 w/ 32 GB RAM, running Retrospect Client, version 16.5.0.218 The Server and all Clients are connected with 10 Gbps Ethernet. Doing direct client to server file copies over SMB easily hits 600-900 MB/sec. When doing a backup of the exact same files, Retrospect only copies at 60-90MB/sec (3704 to 5241 MB/min). I can have Retrospect back up to Tape, local Disk, or even a RAM drive. It never gets above 60-90MB/sec. I can see in Task Manager that the Retrospect.exe process uses minimal CPU or RAM. For the latest test copy & backup, I selected four Windows ISOs, around 3.5GB each, 14GB total. I configured a 16GB RAM Disk on both Client and Server. This ensures that I'm NOT dealing with Disk I/O or Tape Drive performance issues. This is direct RAM to RAM file copies over a 10 Gbps network. * Windows Explorer showed "0.99 GB/sec" when doing a "drag & drop" copy from Client to Server over the network. This is about what I'd expect. * Retrospect Backup (compression off) got just ~90 MB/sec backing up from the same source (a RAM disk on the Client) to the same destination (a RAM disk on the Server) over the network. This is no better than when I back up to Tape or Disk or when backing up over a 1 Gbps network connection. * Retrospect Backup (compression off) did get 176-226 MB/sec backing up on from one RAM Disk to another RAM Disk on the same system. Doing it like this eliminates the network completely. Does anyone else do backups over 10 Gbps networks? What is the bottleneck with the backup? Does the Retrospect client application hold things back? Does the Retrospect server application hold things back? Are there any tweaks or modifications that I could make to the Retrospect server or client application?
  22. MrPete

    How to restore files on top of what's there?

    Such fun I basically ended up accomplishing the purpose manually: 1) Restore all data to a separate drive 2) Overwrite all files on the drive of interest The files with mangled data can't be detected except by comparing actual content. The metadata is unchanged, because the changes were made lower than OS level. As for computer history... I'm a bit younger than y'all 😄 * I played with IBM 026 card punches while in elementary school at Stanford (my dad was a grad student.) (Amazing class! One friend's dad had the first desktop calculator, HP9100a. Another brought her dad for Show & Tell: Arthur Schawlow, coinventor of the LASER. His hour long demo changed my life...) https://news.stanford.edu/news/1999/photos/schawlow200.jpg * Dad then became a research scientist for GE. I had access at home to the GE 635 mainframe (same computer used for Dartmouth Time Sharing System)... MD-20 drum storage and all. We had a teletype, then a TI Silent 700. In our house! Whoo! I was probably one of the first kid-hackers ... all for the good. I even got a letter of commendation from the R&D Center head, and a gift of a week-long professional simulation course -- a whole week out of high school (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Silent-700.jpg) * In college I helped build our student computing center, based on DECSystem20 (never forget the JFFO instruction... and the almost-apocryphal HCF ) * Ultimately, I spent years as a SiValley consultant, including early HDD test equipment etc. Nope, never worked on IBM drives. My first professional HDD work was on the Shugart ST-506. My home computer in 1981 had somebody's 14" hard drive. Sounded like a jet engine... I wasn't allowed to turn it on if our baby daughter needed a nap!
  23. DavidHertzberg

    Yet another -530 client not found error

    mbennett, Alternatively, have you considered setting up a "BackupLand" or "HomeSweetHome" Location in the Windows equivalent of your laptop's System Preferences->Network? You could copy your addresses from your Automatic location, and put your laptop's fixed IP address (not "static"; that term now refers to an Web-wide IP address permanently assigned to you by your ISP) specified on your home/office LAN's router into that Location. You could then use the Windows equivalent of the Mac System Preferences->Network dropdown to switch to that Location whenever you bring your laptop back to your home/office where you back it up.That way you could continue to use the Direct Access Method for your laptop "client" in Retrospect. I have no personal experience with this, especially since I'm a Mac administrator, but from reading the Mac System Preferences Help I think this would be better than defaulting to the Automatic location—unless Subnet Broadcast instead of Direct works for you. This Web page looks as if it might offer a clue to Windows 10 Settings for networking. I would welcome comments from Retrospect Windows administrators.
  24. Earlier
  25. DavidHertzberg

    Yet another -530 client not found error

    mbennett, Have you tried using the Subnet Broadcast access method? It is initially described under "Subnet Broadcast" on page 294 of the Retrospect Windows 16 User's Guide; how to use it is described under "Subnet Broadcast Access Method" on pages 295-296. Subnet Broadcast was suggested by henry-in-florida in this December 2018 post. IIRC I used it for my MacBook Pro "client" for about a month, then eventually (when a trial of Multicast didn't work) switched to Add Source Directly—the Retrospect Mac equivalent of Direct Access Method—after having upgraded to Retrospect Mac 15 (because of a Retrospect-Mac-only bug in preceding versions that activated at the start of 2019). My MBP never travels off my LAN, so Add Source Directly using a fixed IP address works for me.
  26. mbennett

    Yet another -530 client not found error

    I experience this too, on a regular basis. Yes, it used to work and stopped being reliable a couple of years ago. Tried using a static IP address but that's inconvenient for a laptop that frequently travels to other locations and networks. Nothing else works. When it breaks I use ipconfig on the laptop and reset it to that address on the client setup in Retrospect. It's annoying, but nothing else seems to work.
  1. Load more activity
×