Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. I am running the very latest Retrospect 15.6 (see, I did upgrade) on a Windows 10 Pro system with 32 GB of RAM. The CPU is a "Sandy Bridge" Intel 3930K model, six-core 3.2 GHz with 3.8 GHz Turbo Max. Not the latest generation, but a very respectful performer. This system has no problem with normal workloads for Photoshop or Lightroom. Yet, the Retrospect Dashboard is a terrible, simply awful performer on this system. It cripples my ability to run Retrospect to manage my backups. I have these issues: If I so much as click on the scroll bar on the right side of the Dashboard window, the entire Windows desktop dims for about 30-60 seconds. I can't seem to bring up the main Retrospect window using the Dashboard. Dashboard says that Retrospect is active, even at 9 am. All my scripted backups are scheduled to start after 9.30 pm. I don't see any way to simply stop the Dashboard. Every time I launch Retrospect the Dashboard starts. If the Dashboard has really hung up my system, say for 2 minutes, and I use Task Manager to kill that process, when I restart Retrospect, I get the ..... Dashboard. I once heard the term, "Error loop for life," and I think that applies to this behavior. The only reliable way to start Retrospect is to reboot my system, and start Retrospect right away. But once a backup runs, I'm stuck again with the Dashboard. I would like to go back to the simple Retrospect main window that I had with earlier versions of Retrospect. I'm just an advanced user running Professional with single-unit execution disk backup only. Depending on the day of the week, I run 3-5 backup scripts each evening. I don't need the kind of management that an IT professional requires when running Multi-Server with multiple execution units, with both disk and tape, dataset rotation, etc. So what can I do, aside from reverting back to something like Retrospect 6? x509
  3. Yesterday
  4. Thanks for that information. I have exactly the same errors in my retroISA_log.utx file. I will just live with this problem for the time being, as I can't yet justify the expense of upgrading. It's been quite some time since a new version included features of any interest to me.
  5. If you look in the retroISA_log.utx file you will see entries similar to: [*] walkUSNjournal: err 0xc0000022 adding path for $TxfLog.blf fileFRN 0x100000000039e with parentFRN 0x100000000039b [!] walkUSNjournal: err 0xc0000022 for V:\ [*] ISAVol::Exit: error -1073741790 (unknown), deleting scan file for "V:\" [*] ! ISAVolCon::IsaVolStopOne: stopped processing "V:\" on 2018-09-14 22:26:39 and [*] walkUSNjournal: err 0xc0000043 adding path for datastores.xml.tmp fileFRN 0x250000000005db with parentFRN 0x2a0000000015ed [!] walkUSNjournal: err 0xc0000043 for C:\ [*] ISAVol::Exit: error -1073741757 (unknown), deleting scan file for "C:\" [*] ! ISAVolCon::IsaVolStopOne: stopped processing "C:\" on 2018-09-16 10:13:18 and [*] walkUSNjournal: err 0xc0000043 adding path for amd64_microsoft-windows-directui_31bf3856ad364e35_10.0.16299.492_none_c449a34c59896544 fileFRN 0xce000000000f4e with parentFRN 0xc480000000000f5 [!] walkUSNjournal: err 0xc0000043 for C:\ [*] ISAVol::Exit: error -1073741757 (unknown), deleting scan file for "C:\" [*] ! ISAVolCon::IsaVolStopOne: stopped processing "C:\" on 2018-10-16 21:46:11 The file $TxfLog.blf is one of the NTFS special files. The [Windows] error codes translate to: 0xC0000022 STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED -- A process has requested access to an object but has not been granted those access rights 0xC0000043 STATUS_SHARING_VIOLATION -- A file cannot be opened because the share access flags are incompatible.
  6. I noticed the same problem when Instant Scan first became available. There are certain special NTFS management files (Journal, MFT, etc) that cause the Instant Scan process to fail, delete the scan database, and abort any further scanning until the system is restarted. I opened a support case on this and basically the problem is these special files don't like Instant Scan 'looking' at them and generate a sharing violation which aborts the scan. With each new release of Retrospect the Instant Scan scanning process has become more reliable and/or more tolerant of these special files. What I have noticed is some systems are more prone to this than others. The catch is you need to upgrade to the current version of Retrospect to get a more reliable Instant Scan.
  7. oslomike

    Can't access volume Error -1102

    Hello again, I'd like to figure out how to make the disk be seen normally by Retrospect. Is there a way to redefine the disk? It's confusing because it just shows automatically and there is no removing it other than unmounting the disk. I'd sleep better if I could find a workaround to getting things to backup without errors. (Reinstall the program? Rebuild the catalog? Reformat the disk itself?) Any last thoughts? Lennart, you're always a big help. Thank you! It had to be said. 🙂
  8. I spoke too soon. Today's scheduled backup job for My Documents has once again generated a log containing the warning "Unable to use Instant Scan for My Documents on MyData1 (G:)". The RetroISAScans folder contains three .DAT files, two of which were overwritten by today's new scan. The smallest one (23kb) still carries yesterday's date. What might be causing this behaviour?
  9. DavidHertzberg

    PSA: Wikipedia article on Retrospect going away in current form

    Scillonian and MrPete, Let's start with two simple questions about user-contributed articles: What kind of content will be allowed in these articles, and who is going to be the moderator(s)? What makes you think Retrospect Inc. will pay for this, or support it on this website? Before anyone starts answering these questions, he/she should carefully read this section of the "Retrospect (software)" article—preferably including the referenced articles by DeLong 2012 and Engst 2009 and Friedman 2010 (currently refs 5, 11, and 12) , and should read between the lines applying any experience in an organization he/she may have had. The conclusion he/she will undoubtedly reach is that anyone working on Retrospect for EMC/Roxio/Rovi from 2007 through 2011 suffered through a near-death employment experience (Ashlee Vance went on from The Register to write for the New York Times) ,which seems to have left those people—many of who now work for Retrospect Inc.—with what I would call a form of PTSD. (If you think this is too strong a statement, notice that the head of Retrospect Tech Support—an employee since 1994—posted this link to the DeLong 2012 article as the second thread in the newly-established Latest News forum in 2012.) What that means is that IME Retrospect Inc. has absolutely no tolerance for criticism of Retrospect Inc. or its products on this website. An example from October 2017 is a post of mine the head of RTS deleted, referred to in the parenthesized last sentence of the first paragraph of this post. The sarcasm referred to was a clumsy riff on the "flying saucers" reference in this previous post in the same thread, which IMHO should have easily been understood by anyone with a sense of humor as a joke. It wasn't, and that's my one occurrence of "abusive behavior". If the head of RTS doesn't in fact have a sense of humor, how do you explain this previous post in this thread—especially given my reply two posts below it? I think my "abusive behavior" was really an easily-understood too-sharp reference to the "famous Documentation committee". I've been more careful to avoid criticism in my posts ever since, which is why I don't think any user-contributed articles that are at all critical (other than bug-reporting posts that are now ignored unless turned into Support Requests) will be allowed on the Retrospect Inc. website—or paid for by Retrospect Inc. on another website. Why do you think Retrospect Inc.'s Support Request system doesn't allow any customer except the one who submitted a Support Request to see it? I know that the people in Retrospect Sales have such a capability, and so do customers using other software companies' equivalent systems. IMHO the reason is that, stemming from its employees' collective PTSD, Retrospect Inc. doesn't want to take the chance that potential customers—or even existing customers—might see how many existing bugs there are. That might, in Retrospect Inc.'s view, also amount to criticism of its products and/or organization. So what kind of user-contributed content, other than what is already on the Forums or in the Wikipedia articles, does that leave? We could have systematic discussions of information about features that are planned or not fully operational, which DovidBenAvraham is not allowed to put in the WP articles. But we already have such discussions on the Forums; I've contributed to a few of them on the Product Suggestions Forums and elsewhere. In fact the second paragraph of the preceding post in this thread I've linked to two sentences above is an attempt to start such a discussion about the beta Storage Groups feature. But we don't get any participation now in those discussions from anyone working for Retrospect Inc., per a statement e-mailed to me by JG Heithcock which I first quoted in the second paragraph here. That wouldn't change with user-contributed articles, so again I don't see any advantage to be gained.
  10. Last week
  11. DavidHertzberg

    PSA: Wikipedia article on Retrospect going away in current form

    MrPete, Thank you for trying to help. However the criticisms you raise have been already dealt with extensively in the preceding posts of this thread. DovidBenAvraham, back in the fall of 2016, was indeed "attempting to use WikiPedia as a wiki platform for writing Retrospect ... info of various kinds", but the info was originally mostly from Retrospect Inc. documents and was intended as a concise introduction to Retrospect's features—historically organized. By the fall of 2017 other Wikipedia editors were strenuously objecting to the article's length—originally 9.5 screen pages—and its user-generated "inferences and asides" about inadequacies in the User's Guides. DBA had already eliminated these "inferences and asides" by the time the OP in this thread was written, cutting the article to a 7.5-page version preserved here. This was still too long and too much like a user's guide for other WP editors, so in November 2017 DBA ditched the historical organization and—per this post above—split the article into two articles. The "Retrospect (software)" WP article is less than 2 screen pages. The second article is a a new section at the back of the "Backup" article, and is written so as to describe features common to all enterprise client-server backup applications. That section contains links to descriptions of corresponding features in two other enterprise backup applications, hereinafter referred to as NB and BE, and is 2.2 screen pages long. As for "misuse/abuse of the platform", DBA has conducted painstaking discussions of the contents of these articles—which you are welcome to read on their WP Talk pages. It suffices to say that there have been no objections from other WP editors to any Retrospect-related item DBA has written since March 2018. That's not to say that there hasn't been "misuse/abuse of the platform" in the WP articles about the other two enterprise client-server applications mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The NB article isn't too long; it's only 2.5 screen pages—and was 2 screen pages in 2015. The BE article, however, is 6.5 screen pages long; it was 2 pages long in 2015. The reason I mention 2015 is that it seems to have been the time at which a new spirit took over at Wikipedia, trying to make it a "particularly trusted platform" by demanding more explanatory links and more references in articles in place of what has been called Making Things Up from industry-transmitted wisdom. The two articles DBA wrote were obliged to comply with the new spirit, but IMHO the NB and BE articles seem to have been "grandfathered in"—and are rather incomprehensible to anyone not already familiar with the terminology of the applications they describe. Exclusive of immediately after a revision to the "Retrospect (software)" article has been made—when it seems as if the entire working population of Walnut Creek CA wants to read it, that article gets an average of 20 views per day. The BE article gets an average of 100 views per day, as does the NB article. DBA and I would like to believe that the 20 views per day represent potential customers for Retrospect.
  12. JamesOakley

    Backups "freeze" part way with no error

    Go on, I'm intrigued: when you click "View the message", what is it?
  13. zz-pdb

    Backups "freeze" part way with no error

    whoops, added Windows 7 Pro x64 Multi Server Premium Version 15.5.0.179 This hasn't been a problem in the past, even with network issues it would error with "network communication error" or something along those lines. As far as invisible dialogs go, usually Interactive Services Detection from windows pops up with something (image attached)
  14. wiki.retrospect.com sounds like a good idea. User contributed articles can be aggregated in a single place instead of scattered across the forums. Combine it with the forums and the same login could be used for both. The problem I see with Google Drive is for the users who have no prior investment in that ecosystem.
  15. Scillonian

    Retrospect 15.6 status?

    An update will show in Automatic Update and a manual check for updates from within Retrospect a few weeks after initial release. This presumably to allow the early adopters who go looking for the update to find any problems before the rollout to the masses via Automatic Update. As for safe to download and use, well I downloaded and installed it and so far the update has run without problems for me. (YMMV.)
  16. MrPete

    Retrospect 15.6 status?

    According to the Blog, 15.6 was announced on Tuesday. https://www.retrospect.com/en/blog/2018/10/16/retrospect_15_6 It's available for download now. https://www.retrospect.com/en/support/downloads However: My 15.5 Desktop/Pro does not see an update available Mayoff hasn't announced it here QUESTION: Is the new version safe to download and use?
  17. What I see here is: - Someone is attempting to use WikiPedia as a wiki platform for writing Retrospect user-generated info of various kinds I would suggest backing off from that. As others have noted, Wikipedia isn't a particularly trusted platform anyway, and they dislike misuse/abuse of the platform. Alternatives include: - Perhaps Retrospect could implement wiki.retrospect.com - Or, just make a shared Google Drive folder. Easy peasy.
  18. (At long last, I have filed a support case with extensive info on how/why I recommend this change...) Here's what I wrote: Hi! In 2014 KB article https://www.retrospect.com/en/support/kb/file_vs_block_deduplication your team discusses why you've chosen File-based dedupe, based on name/size/attributes. I strongly recommend revisiting this decision, due to changes in technology, typical usage, and data volume. AND, there's at least one good implementation in a competitor that demonstrates the advantages of a move to block-based dedupe. Tech change: hash calcs are *extremely* fast in modern CPU's. Both traditional and new ones (cf CityHash). Multiple GB/sec! Storage technology now easily exceeds 100MB/sec, often to 500MB/sec. Data volume: with multi-TB drives, large SSD's, 4k video and large photo sensors, it's quite common to toss around many many GB of *noncompressible* files. Many TB in fact. Compression has little value as we move toward photo/video media. Typical usage: File-metadata dedupe is woefully inadequate today. The 2014 article doesn't cover many common scenarios: the exact same 20MB photo is often renamed as it gets copied to dropbox, shared with others, etc. Multi-MB audio files can have header info significantly changed, while the modify timestamp is retained. (eg every play causes the play count to update in the file! Yes, the access timestamp is updated. Photo and video collections are typically duplicated, renamed, and minor metadata header info is updated, while the bulk of the data blocks are not touched at all. A simple partition copy can cause Retrospect to make a new backup of every file in the partition. Many modern apps use the same DLL. Unfortunately, filenames and timestamps *often* vary (for identical content.) (A great, paid, tool I use for content-dupe-finding is SpaceMan99. Run it against a 😄 drive on a well-used computer!) C:\Windows\Installer contains duplicates of installed executables, with different names. Many hundred MB. Right now, all of the above scenarios cause anything from waste to havoc in Retrospect. One commercial example that handles all of this quite well: CrashPlan. (They left the home and SMB market last year, so not really competing anymore...) The client maintains a local database of file metadata and block hashes. Across the board, a "file" is a [metadata packet] plus N [content blocks]. Metadata can be quickly scanned for grooming, storage, recovery purposes Content block references can be efficiently rebuilt as needed via a scan Deterioration of both source and backed-up blocks is easily detected via a scan, and re-backup solves it - Up to N copies of any given content block can be retained for redundancy.
  19. henry-in-florida, Thank you for pointing this out, but you ought to know by now that nobody from Retrospect Inc. reads this sub-forum anymore. Here's why and how to file a Support Request for a bug fix.
  20. organisum, I guess it's time to tell you to "RTFM". Pages 158-160 of the Retrospect 15 Mac User's Guide provide complete "Email Preferences" instructions, including an "Outgoing mail server" paragraph that tells you how to specify the TCP/IP port—using an SMTP server as an example. I found this by the extremely secret technique of doing a browser search of the UG for "email"; it showed up as the second such occurrence in the Table of Contents. The same paragraph is in the UG for Retrospect Mac 12, in case you're not running the latest version—which BTW you didn't specify. Doing the same browser search in the Knowledge Base turns up this article, which says "you will need to include a platform-specific port after the SMTP server name" in the first paragraph and has a "Port Configuration" section. That article appears to have been updated for the "... Supports SSL" checkbox—which BTW is not mentioned to this day in the UG but which defaults to checked—in connection with the release of Retrospect Mac 12. However the "Troubleshooting" section has been updated in connection with the release of Retrospect 15, which explains why the current version of the article is dated 15 May 2018. This OP in another thread may explain why the KB article was updated.
  21. That link prompted me to check my C:\ProgramData\RetroISA\RetroISAScans folder. It was empty, which suggested that Instant Scan has never previously worked for me, even though the RetroInstantScanService was running. However, stopping and restarting that service did the trick. Running one of my scripted backup tasks caused the first scan to take place of the My Documents folder and running it again used this scan info to shorten the backup process. Many thanks for pointing me in the right direction 🙂
  22. Hello, My email provider requires port 2525 be used for SMTP SSL. Unfortunately Retrospect provides no email control other than a username and password. SoftRAID; another Mac product from the 1990s that is making a comeback, provides all of the modern day email support one needs. Why not Retrospect?
  23. Perhaps this Technote may help
  24. JamesOakley

    Backups "freeze" part way with no error

    Yes, and in fact it can't be an invisible dialog in my case, because the front-end doesn't stop responding, just the engine. So I cannot "stop" the running job - it just sits there trying to connect to the client. I also cannot close the Retrospect main window, and I cannot relaunch it from the dashboard - if I try, nothing happens. But I can browse around the application, read logs, look at selectors, clients, volumes, etc. - none of which would be possible if the program were paused waiting for me to click "OK" somewhere.
  25. Instant Scan is enabled in the Preferences for my installation of Retrospect 12.6.1.101, but I have only just noticed that the logs for my scheduled backup jobs have contained the warning "Unable to use Instant Scan for My Documents on MyData1 (G:)" for well over a year (I really must need new glasses). G: is a local NTFS drive on the same Windows 10 PC as Retrospect. How do I fix this?
  26. Scillonian

    Backups "freeze" part way with no error

    Yes, 'Z' order will be irrelevant when running in the background via Launcher Service.
  27. Nigel Smith

    printing the content of a media set

    There's a way... but you won't want to use it. Start a Restore job and select the "Search for files..." option, "Continue" Leave the search as the default "Any" and a blank filename field, select the set your want to print, "Continue" Select a restore destination (don't worry about disk space, you won't be restoring), "Continue" After Retrospect has finished searching the sessions, click the little "Preview" button alongside the set details Go through the preview list and click on every disclosure triangle which might have contents you want to print out Select "Print..." from the File menu <recommended>Cancel the job once you grok the number of pages... Even for a subset of files (I've done it for someone who thought "the name might include 'December' or something") it's a horrible job. What are you trying to achieve, and why? There may be another way. For example, if you want a hard copy of the files backed up from a client you can: Go to "Past Backups" Find the client's most recent backup and click the "Browse" button associated with that Make sure the "Only show files..." box is not checked Click "Save..." ...and you'll get a CSV file that you can further process and/or print. You could do that for each client in the backup set, which may be both quicker than the above and closer to what you actually require. Nige
  28. JamesOakley

    Backups "freeze" part way with no error

    The dialog issue may be behind this. It's hard to find out, by definition. If that were the case, fixing the z-order wouldn't solve the problem, since Retrospect usually runs without the UI open. If Retrospect is running in the background, the only way to get the UI up to interact with it is to restart it, which cancels any running jobs.
  1. Load more activity
×