Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. DavidHertzberg

    Windows clients no longer accessible

    Nigel Smith and twickland, According to the Retrospect Windows 16 User's Guide pages 491-492 (the same information was in the Retrospect Mac 6 UG, but was deleted in the glorious Retrospect Mac 8 upgrade), -515 and -530 errors have to do with connecting via the Piton Protocol (pages 293-294)—while -519 errors have to do with loss of an established connection during backup (such as when I forget my Add-Source-Directly MacBook Pro is being backed up and shut it down). The Piton Protocol is Retrospect's 18-year-old method of allowing administrators to add "clients" via Multicast, which means backup administrators—who are often non-IT key office functionaries with knowledge of what data has to be backed from what machines— don't have to know anything about IP addressing. It definitely requires use of the 224.1.0.38 multicast address as well as TCP and UDP on port 497; "clients" added with Add Source Directly may not even need port 497—but from what twickland says I might be wrong about this. It still sounds to me as if your installations' PIGs or Microsoft Windows Defender have now installed an anti-intrusion "improvement" that disables either 224.1.0.38 multicast and/or port 497 by default. I consider this to be a menace to Retrospect's continued viability, and I urge both of you to file Support Cases as soon as you can pin this down for your installations. Be sure to make the point that all the StorCentric-prioritized development (for which I have both official and informal sources) of a version of the "backup server" running on Drobo isn't going to sell many Drobos, if administrators can't back up their Windows "client" machines. Maybe all that is needed is a prominent mention in the supposedly-forthcoming UG rewrites, plus a Knowledge Base article.
  3. Yesterday
  4. Hi Thanks for the reply, I do have more than one connection thought the ethernet is top prioriy and has a fixed IP address Turning the client on and off seems to work occasionaly but not every time. I was unaware of the "ipsave" command so i'll give that a try If i still have issues I think i'll try replacing the hub because that seemed to work in the other thread I found Thanks Steve
  5. Hi Thanks for the answer and sorry about the -503 typo ! My client and server are on the same subnet, i can ping and traceroute no problems I thought about removing and re adding the source but the fact it works sometimes has led me to believe that this is not the issue When I upgraded to Mojave i did all the stuff on that KB article and retrospect is still allowed full access Are stated both server and clients are v 16.5.1.(104) Also I did not start another thread I found it while continuing to research the problem and noticed the multicast message, not changes have been made to the networking setup Plugging and unplugging the ethernet cable and rebooting the hub and the client mac allowed me to do a backup last night Steve
  6. Yes, clicking on "Add source directly..." and entering the client's IP address. We need to do this because our IT people block multicast and the clients are found in multiple subnets. Incidentally, for clients added by the direct method, Retrospect typically displays the -519 error message (rather than -530) when the client is simply not visible on the network. It even shows -519 in the add client dropdown if one enters an unassigned IP address. As for the Windows client that briefly went incognito, it's now back and being backed up successfully. We have a total of 20 Windows clients, only four of which are currently able to be backed up. Three of those are on Windows 10 and one is on Windows 7. Knowing the users, I have a suspicion that those three Windows 10 machines may not have had the latest security patches applied. Our networking people say there have been no changes to our wired network (we don't use WiFi for any backups). I haven't yet heard from our desktop support folks to get their take on this issue. Something is definitely amiss, as the client machines that are not visible on the network in Retrospect are also unresponsive when port 497 is pinged.
  7. Do you have more than one network connection on the client, eg you're using ethernet and wireless is also turned on? You mentioned a "multicast port unavailable" message in another thread, which is usually seen after the RS client sees a network change -- either a different IP on the same interface, or a different interface becoming primary. Make sure ethernet is above wireless in your service order (System Preferences->Network, click the cog-wheel under the connection list, "Set Service Order...", drag into the order you want) and/or turn off your wireless. You can often get multicast working again (assuming your IP is stable!) by turning the client off and on. If going direct as David suggests above you may still have to sort this out -- if the client binds to the wireless when you entered the ethernet IP you'll have the same problem -- or make use of static IPs and Retroclient's "ipsave" command, documented here.
  8. DavidHertzberg

    Remote client issue with Catalina

    bookcent/Steve, First of all, "backup client not found" is error -530, not -503. I presume you have taken steps 1-5 in this ancient Knowledge Base article. Second, I solved a 2-year-long problem with -530 errors by Removing my MacBook Pro client from Sources and re-adding it using Add Source Directly—after having assigned the MBP a fixed IP on my router using its MAC address (stands for Media Access Control and has nothing to do with Macintosh, obtained from System Preferences -> Network -> Advanced for active Ethernet connection -> Hardware tab), per pages 66 and 79-80 in the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide. You speak of "remote Macs"; are these "clients" possibly on a different subnet from your "backup server"? If so, Subnet Broadcast, per page 79 in the UG, may work for you instead of Add Source Directly; it worked for me when I briefly tried it in late 2018 per henry-in-florida's suggestion. Third, once you have eliminated the -530 error, upgrading your remote Mac to Catalina means you'll have to comply with this KB article to fully access it with Retrospect. This KB article is also applicable, but you have complied with its current contents by upgrading your "backup server" to Retrospect Mac 16.5.1.(104); Retrospect "inc." promised new contents several weeks ago, but so far there's been no update of the article. P.S.: As Nigel Smith has pointed out below, while I was writing this you started another thread. In that one you mentioned a "multicast port unavailable" message; have you simultaneously made changes to either your "remote Mac" hardware or how you operate it (i.e. use of wireless)?
  9. Hi I just posted about this exact problem, but up until now I had not seen the " Multicast port unavailable" message on the client. I'll try changing the cable and/or hub Thanks Steve
  10. Simple enough -- we we've been using the Mac version for years, currently on 13.5. With Apple dropping server and enterprise I was looking at moving to Windows (now at 15.6.1), if only for 10GbE, so we've been running both in parallel But the "evaluation" has gone on rather longer than expected -- partly because the goalposts keep moving (eg Apple introducing 10GbE on the Mac Mini) but mainly because I really, really, really don't want to permanently move to Windows 🙂 I'll have to make a decision soon, at which time version numbers will jump to current. But, at the moment, all clients are being backed up at least once -- and if it ain't broke... The clients are "Direct IP" (the terminology RS uses in the Console's Sources summary when you've used an IP address to "Add source directly...") on both servers (since they're statics on a private subnet), so it isn't that. No changes to the Mac server, so it isn't that. Which leaves either network hardware (unlikely, since both servers are on the same switch), the router/IPS security settings (possible, but unlikely since both servers are on the same subnet so are subject to the same policies etc), or Windows. All I need to do is test with another Windows 10 client on the same subnet as the server to start narrowing things down. But, as above -- meh, Windows 😉 In my experience, there's a commonality between -515 and -519 errors, a brief "ceased to communicate" usually being reported as a -519 but sometimes as a -515 -- especially when, as in my case, the software isn't as up-to-date as it should be. Since the troubleshooting is similar for both we may as well consider them the same.
  11. Hi I have updated one of my remote macs to Catatlina and upgraded both the server and the remote to v 16.5.1.(104) However I am getting error -503 (backup client not found) almost every time If I reboot the remote mac it sometimes works and does a backup I know that the network is fine (i can load shares from both machines on the other) and I don't have a firewall running I'm stuck at this point ! Thanks Steve
  12. DavidHertzberg

    Windows clients no longer accessible

    Nigel Smith, Is it possible that your "client" machines are defined to your Retrospect Windows "backup server" by the Direct Access Method (see pages 296-297 of the Retrospect Windows 16 User's Guide), but defined to your Retrospect Mac "backup server" with Use Multicast? If so, IMHO that would mean that the latest version of Microsoft Windows Defender has added something that blocks multicast on 224.1.0.38, and that your "rather old Mac RS software" still defines "clients" by a method that used to work. Alternatively your "clients" are also defined to Retrospect Windows by the default Multicast, but the latest version has some code for working around Windows Defender that isn't in your "rather old" version of Retrospect Mac. FYI, the -515 error is defined on page 491 of the Retrospect Windows 16 UG. BTW, could you tell us why you are backing up the same "clients" with two "backup servers—and what version of Retrospect Mac you are using? twickland, I ask again: When you say "They are all connected via direct IP", do you mean "clients" are all defined with Direct Access Method?
  13. Last week
  14. FWIW, my Mac RS server has been showing "error -515 (Piton protocol violation)" errors from our Win10 PCs since the beginning of this month -- no successful backups at all. I don't think it's a network hardware issue, since they *are* being successfully backed up by the Windows RS server! I was keeping quiet, assuming it was my rather old Mac RS software playing badly with a Windows update, but I'll have a closer look tomorrow.
  15. Nigel Smith

    Grooming Policy Too Simplistic

    True enough 😉, but is one really necessary? "Transient data", in amounts that matter to disk sizing/grooming policies, is usually pretty obvious and a result of your workflow (rather than some background OS thing). Think video capture which you then upload to a server -- no need to back that up on the client too. Or data that you download, process, then throw away -- back up the result of the processing, not the data itself. Home-wise, RS already has a "caches" filter amongst others, and why back up your downloads folder when you can just re-download, etc, etc. OP ran out of space on an 8TB drive with only a 1 month retention policy. That's either a woefully under-specced drive or a huge amount of churn -- and it's probably the latter: ...rather than "given the amount of data on my machine". Like David, I'd be reluctant to let RS do this choosing for me -- "transient" is very much in the eye of the beholder and, ultimately, requires a value to be placed on that data on that machine before a reasoned decision can be made.
  16. Nigel Smith

    Automating a removable disk backup

    The obvious question is -- why would they bother? Building in application scripting ability to work with an OS is a lot of work, especially with both Windows and OS X constantly moving the goalposts! Better, IMO, for RS to concentrate on their core functionality -- difficult enough because of the aforementioned moving goalposts -- while providing ways to interact with RS from "outside" with whatever scripting language a user is comfortable with. There's currently a bunch of events revealed by RS via Script Hooks and you can start a script by using a Run Document (in Windows -- I think us Mac users may have slipped behind here, but haven't checked). Most other things -- adding clients, creating sets, and so on -- are pretty much edge cases which few users would ever need, so not worth the development time. OS scripting can be remarkably easy. There's enough info in the two pages I linked above that you could do what you want without any other knowledge of Windows scripting. You could then think of other features (maybe take the scheduling outside of RS? Initiate the whole process based on some other event? Voice controlled via Alexa/Siri/whatever!) and learn as you add them. I think that's how most scripters find their feet, one small "utility" at a time, learning what they need as they go -- so jump in and give it a try! (And if anyone from Storcentric is reading -- ignore me! RS would be *so* much better with a fully-revealed Applescript dictionary and the ability to both send and receive Apple Events. Go on, you know you want to... And think of the sales demo -- "Hey Siri, activate script Important Machines, add client MD's Mac to it, then run it" and the Managing Director's computer is being backed up!)
  17. DavidHertzberg

    Grooming Policy Too Simplistic

    x509, Actually you may be smoking more-powerful stuff than you think you are.😄 How about having a one-bit flag in the Catalog for a Backup Set that marks a file as "transient" if it has been backed up N times in the last N days/weeks—which it would have been because its file size or contents kept changing while its name and directory stayed the same? It would be safe (but see the next-to-last paragraph for when it wouldn't be) to keep only the latest backup of such "transient" files—regardless of legal requirements—so long as they aren't in certain directories known to possibly contain business-critical files. It would probably be safest to have the Windows/Mac variant of Retrospect automatically avoid doing "transient" flagging in such directories. There would no doubt have to be an additional checkbox for each Backup Set's Grooming Options , with a subsidiary checkbox specifying whether "transient" flagging is to be done on a daily or weekly basis. There could then be a Built-In Selector (see page 437 of the Retrospect Windows 16 User's Guide; the Retrospect Mac term is Rule), usable only in a Groom script—as opposed to a Backup or Proactive script, that would be used to Exclude all files marked as "transient" unless they have the date of the latest backup per the Backup Set Catalog. Such a Groom script could be run after the last of the daily/weekly backups to a Backup Set. On second thought, for Backup Sets whose Grooming Options have the additional box for "transient" flagging and which has been Groomed for "transients", a Restore would have to use the Catalog File—rather than a Snapshot—for any files flagged as "transient" regardless of whether a previous Snapshot was chosen, in order to restore an entire source volume. This would not be good for situations in which the source volume has been backed up and "transient"-Groomed since undetected ransomware encrypted it, or in which the latest versions of some applications files turn out to have been erroneously updated by the user—a situation which has happened to me. That makes this enhancement sound considerably less attractive. Here is why and how to submit a Support Case for an enhancement.
  18. x509

    Grooming Policy Too Simplistic

    True enough, but there is no report that identifies those files that have been backed up N times in the last N days/weeks, as in a list that includes file name, directory, file size and dates of recent backups. And it would be even nicer if I could just check a box and Retrospect would automagically groom out these file and even add an exclude item to my backup script. Yeah, I'm smoking the good stuff now. I know that when I back up my PROGRAMS drive, which is Windows and installed programs, I'm backing up some daily or weekly updates for my security software and probably other utilities, and also a HUGE number of Windows files with really cryptic names. But it's too much work to track down these files to determine which are transient. It's "easier" to spend a few bucks on a larger backup drive.
  19. x509

    Unable to bypass frozen Dashboard

    What he said. I had problems with the Console in Retrospect 15, and apparently those issues weren't fixed (properly) even as recently as 16.50. The only practical solution was to do what mbennett wrote. The downside is that I need to start Retrospect manually so sometimes backups go later at night that I would prefer. But at least I get my backups (and occasional restores) done without incident.
  20. x509

    Automating a removable disk backup

    I can't add anything to the immediate discussion in this thread, but I just want to say that kitziti said what I might have said, and he said it better. I haven't had the awful experience with losing a friend that he has.
  21. MrPete, The mists of time have hidden the names of most of the people I worked with at Shugart. I knew mostly sales and marketing people, with a few in engineering. Also, something else we have in common, which I wish we didn't. I am about to have the same surgery as you. Getting older stinks!
  22. DavidHertzberg

    Windows clients no longer accessible

    twickland, Here's the Knowledge Base article on the -519 error. "Error 519 means Retrospect had established a network connection with another computer and was communicating through that connection when something caused the connection to be severed." "This error is one of Retrospect’s most challenging errors to troubleshoot because networks involve a large number of variables. Causes of error 519 range from a simple software conflict on an individual workstation to a faulty network component that does not cause trouble during normal (non-backup, less intensive) use. Weak links can exist in the software or hardware level, on the backup computer or the client computer, or in the infrastructure of your network. This document aims to help you narrow down what might at first seem like an unwieldy problem to solve." When you say "They are all connected via direct IP", do you mean "clients" are all defined with Direct Access Method—known in Retrospect Mac as Add Source Directly? I've had to do that to avoid -530 errors that seem to be somewhat related to changes in networking hardware. Yes, Retrospect still uses TCP and UDP port 497; it multicasts 224.1.0.38. Here's MrPete's post on comprehensive Windows trouble-shooting procedures. Here are some very cynical WildA**edGuesses: Your Professional IT Guys (sexist term, and naughty acronym when 't' is lower-cased, entirely intentional) installed an anti-virus product that interferes with Retrospect Windows Clients, one not yet fixed in this 2013 post. I'd add Windows Defender Firewall to the list of anti-virus products, except that "a newly-added Windows 10 client was able to be backed up once before going incognito"—which sounds like somebody did something to that machine's software after it arrived in the organization with a presumably-latest version of Windows 10 ( ask PIGs: What was arrival version?) . Your Professional IT Guys did something to the networking hardware/software with which your organization's Windows "client" machines are connected. Your organization's Mac "client" machines are unaffected because Mac users are isolated in one or more "leper colony" departments .🤣 The Retrospect "Inc." engineers messed up something in the Retrospect Windows 16.5.1 Engine. They've been doing that in the last two X.5.Y releases, IMHO because management is trying desperately to fully implement major features that were previewed in the corresponding X.0.0 releases. A known example (which unfortunately probably has nothing to do with your problem) from a recent thread in this Forum is connected with "Improved NAS support with auto-adding existing NAS share mounts" in 16.5.0. I happened to mention it in a short phone conversation with the head of North American Sales last week, and he said that is a known problem that will be fixed with a new release "within about a week". My candidate for the Engine "improvement" that caused your problem is "Networking: Retrospect now honors service priority when choosing a default interface (#7058)"—whatever "service priority " means—in the cumulative Retrospect Windows Release Notes (assuming carryover to Mac Engine). P.S.: The head of Retrospect Tech Support replied in my Support Case 3 weeks ago "You can try going to Network in the Retrospect Preferences and click Advanced. Change the network timeout from 300 seconds to 9,000 seconds and see if Retrospect is able to complete the backup". That Support Case was about my getting -559 errors after precisely two hours when running a Recycle backup of my MacBook Pro. He had also suggested "Inside your energy saver control panel, you may need to set the screen to never sleep (and use a screen saver) and check 'prevent computer from sleeping automatically when display is off'. Or try a combination of those options. In some cases Uncheck Put hard disk to sleep when possible can also help." Those latter suggestions are obviously for a Mac "client", but possibly Windows 10 has—as Nigel Smith said of macOS in my thread about the -559 problem—"tied computer-sleep and display-sleep together -- the default is that, when your display sleeps your computer does too." The combination of suggestions fixed my -559 problem.
  23. DavidHertzberg

    Automating a removable disk backup

    kidziti, I'm concerned about the speed of large-scale recovery, not "seeding". Amazon started offering Snowball for "seeding" in October 2015, which was almost 6 months after I formulated my modern Retrospect off-site strategy and 5 months before Retrospect Windows 11—with cloud Backup Sets and a nifty facility for changing paths for a Backup Set between cloud and shipped disk (unfortunately only shown in this Retrospect Mac video Tutorial)—was introduced. Microsoft offers Azure Data Box and Backblaze B2 offers Fireball, but renting these devices or Snowball run US$200-300 minimum. All 3 of these services include encryption of your data. As far as affordability is concerned, the reason Retrospect Inc. offered Backblaze B2 as a cloud backup service in Retrospect Windows 12 is because it "is a business-class cloud storage provider with extremely low costs, at $0.005/GB a month." Overnight FedExing of a recovery physical device back to your installation would add more to the cost. That's why "Some applications offer seeding and large-scale recovery via third-party services, which may use a high-speed Internet channel to/from cloud storage rather than a shippable physical device."
  24. We have run into a peculiar issue where most of our Windows 10 client machines can no longer be backed up. They are all connected via direct IP (due to our network's security settings), and have a variety of different client versions from 15.6 to 16.5.1. On each machine, the Retrospect Client app appears to be normal, the IP address has not changed, the Windows firewall is set to enable communication, and the computer is awake, but when access is attempted from the backup server, we get a -519 error. Mac client machines are unaffected. Even more oddly, a newly-added Windows 10 client was able to be backed up once before going incognito. I assume this is most likely an issue with our local network, since I would think if the problem were more widespread, there would have been other posts to this forum. Any ideas as to what might be the issue here, so I can intelligently discuss the problem with our network techs, who have no knowledge of any particular requirements that Retrospect might impose? Does Retrospect still use TCP and UDP port 497? We're running Retrospect 16.5.1 server on MacOS 10.14.6. Thanks.
  25. kidziti

    Automating a removable disk backup

    I am pretty sure that most cloud services offer the option of sending a drive with your data so that it doesn't all have to transfer via internet, but admit that I'd feel uneasy sending all my data on an external drive via UPS/FedEx or whatever else. While that would not address the concern in your last question, I cannot imagine a cloud service not having or at least offering an offline (protected) copy of what you can access online. One service that stands out in terms of affordability, security and upload options is Amazon S3 and they discuss the issue of large initial uploads here ("Send Us That Data") and in fact have an interesting option called Snowball where they have a quick and informative video that explains how it works.
  26. DavidHertzberg

    Automating a removable disk backup

    Nigel Smith, Thank, you've certainly proved my statement that you are "at the top of the pack here in terms of technical expertise on Retrospect". Two days ago I didn't remember that script hooks exist in Retrospect, even though I wrote the mentions of them in this Wikipedia article. I've never used them, but I'm wondering whether spawned scripts can kill the application that spawned them—which would satisfy kidziti's desire to have a Retrospect script that can't find its source or destination drive die without leaving disturbing messages in the Log. kidziti and Nigel Smith, I now understand that ransomware protection for a destination drive can be achieved by simply unmounting it. I had still been thinking about protection from installation fire or flood, which also requires taking a copy of the source data offsite. In 1995 I disciplined myself to taking a Backup Set's media (originally tape) offsite once a week, but I didn't have fast-enough Internet upload speed until 9 October 2018. It would still require several days to download a complete copy of my source data from the cloud at the realistic speed available from cloud vendors, whereas retrieving a backup drive from my bank safe deposit box takes at most overnight—except for Sundays when the bank branch is closed. Besides, I think I've read that ransomware perpetrators have developed methods of encrypting a victim's cloud backup data before he/she realizes it has happened. As for "increasing scripting power within Retrospect", the first two paragraphs of this post in another thread are my current speculation on the subject. I have further speculated that EMC Iomega employees realized that part of the adverse administrator reaction to Retrospect Mac 8 was that—besides being buggy— it changed the UI from what it still is in Retrospect Windows. IMHO the same developers—now Retrospect "Inc." employees—have the equivalent of a plaque on the wall that says (paraphrasing H. L. Mencken) "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the flexibility of some Retrospect administrators."
  27. kidziti

    Automating a removable disk backup

    David - Thank you for your apologies and I do accept them with the same grace with which you wrote them. I read carefully your last post and wanted to clarify that I am very much like you - a LAN "administrator" in my own home. I am not a professional in IT administration - my professional degree is an entirely different field. But with another user in the house who deals with a plethora of emails, I know that we are one click away from the kind of thing most home users probably never think about. A ransomware attack happened to a business I deal with, so suddenly it became "real" instead of simply a theoretical possibility. I once bought an item on eBay and immediately got an email confirming it - but a detail was incorrect. Without thinking - and it was an expected email anyways - I clicked the link and signed in. Suddenly my account was shut down because I was illegally selling BMWs. I think about that now - and about how lucky I was it was not a malicious extortion attack. Probable? Perhaps not. Possible? Certainly. Data security is one of those fields that is likely well-served by embracing a bit of paranoia as a strategic component in the algorithm. Skip these next light-gray paragraphs if you wish - they are a little backstory of why I am here at the Retrospect forum. When I mentioned that I prefer forums over tech support, it's because I generally find a higher level of expertise and experience on the forums. I have found that 80 - maybe 90 - percent of my calls to tech support lines reveal I know more about solving my problems then they do. And so I come to places like this - with people like David, Nigel, and Lennart. I am far from God's gift to human intelligence (sometimes I swear I'm just here on earth to provide comic relief for the rest of you), but I have two synergistic qualities that make up for the brain power I lack: First, I'm a techno-geek and love learning the patterns of digital logic just "because" (but I don't wear flood pants, bowties, or thick-framed glasses held together at the hinges by white tape.) The second quality is that I'm amazingly stubborn. That was a shortcoming I had hoped to outgrow, then to unlearn. Unable to shake the curse, I've relented and learned to embrace it as a means to a better end. I'll figure out anything given enough time (often a significant variable, unfortunately) - not by virtue of my intelligence so much as simple relentless drive. I suppose it doesn't take more than a single mistake to bring someone to the learning curve of a program like Retrospect that - configured correctly - is a powerful security tool. Maybe it's losing the emails of your oldest and best friend who was like a brother to you - who committed suicide just three months before. That's a hell - sort of like losing him all over again - that I would wish on nobody. Or almost losing the last priceless videos of your mom laughing with the family because you trusted NAS redundancy too much and let your outdated backup program slide. Fortunately, SMB access saved 99.9% of my data. And it only took a year off of my life in stress and anguish. So as technical as this is - and especially for us home LAN administrators tending to digital kingdoms surrounded by a white picket fences far from glass buildings and cubicles and project management teams - it can get surprisingly personal very suddenly. And that's why I'm here. It reminds me of the new president of a foundering drill company who closed the factory for an afternoon, took his employees out to lunch and asked them, "So we're having a tough time selling our product. Do you even know what that product is? What do we sell here, folks?" The answer was resounding. "Drills!" the employees shouted. The new leader shook his head with a smile and said, "No. We sell holes." I think about that with Retrospect. It's a fun program to learn and discover. But at the end of the day, back-ups are only the means. The real product is simple peace of mind - knowing one's digital treasures are safe. Getting back to the nitty gritty - I have been thinking about the bank deposit box approach myself, David. I suppose there are so many levels that can be employed. Knowing me, I'll likely fail at some point to do that as my enthusiasm wanes and other things get in the way as they tend to do. I am thinking the cloud is probably a better solution but with hacks and data breaches happening to robust enterprises that should have been secure, I wonder if we put far more stock in cloud security than we should. You brought up an interesting point of making the removable backup a bit more historic by a day to add more ransomware security from more recent and perhaps yet unrealized attacks. I agree that would be a good strategy. And again, I think of the cloud. If you don't mind me asking, is there a reason you prefer walking your data physically every weekend to safe deposit storage vs just putting it in the cloud? Nigel - Windows scripting does sound intriguing. I also wonder if increasing scripting power within Retrospect is something that Storcentric is considering. That's a high hope, of course. I could probably figure Windows scripting out, but my obstacle at the moment is finding the time to do so.
  28. Nigel Smith

    Automating a removable disk backup

    As you've since realised, that wasn't the problem. The ultimate aim is to limit a drive's exposure to ransomware attacks by minimising the amount of time it is connected to the system -- in an ideal world you'd have a scripted "mount disk, run backup, unmount disk on completion" which would run without human intervention. That would have been easy on the Mac in the "old days", when RS had OK Applescript support, now you should probably use Script Hooks which is something I've not really played with. Run files as described above would also work, if you prefer to do your scheduling from outside RS. kidziti -- you'll find more about Script Hooks here. You'll see there's both StartScript and EndScript events, and a quick google gets me this page with Windows batch scripts for mounting and unmounting a volume. So I'm thinking you'd set up the script, plug in the drive, unmount it via Windows Explorer, walk away. Then, every time the backup script runs, it would be script start -> StartScript hook -> mountBatchScript -> backup -> script ends -> EndScript hook -> unmountBatchScript. I'm not a Windows scripter, so there's some questions you'll have to answer for yourself but should be easy enough to test. I don't don't know if RS waits for the hooked scripts to finish, though that shouldn't be a problem in this case as the BU script will re-try until the media is available (within timeout limits, obv). I also don't know what privileges RS would run the script with -- Windows privileges as a whole are a mystery to me! -- but would optimistically assume that you could get round any problems by creating the correct local user and using RS's "Run as user" setting (as discussed in your "Privileges" thread). But this is all theoretical for me -- and I, for one, would love to hear how you get on!
  1. Load more activity
×