Jump to content

DavidHertzberg

Members
  • Content count

    721
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

DavidHertzberg last won the day on October 22

DavidHertzberg had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

42 Excellent

About DavidHertzberg

  • Rank
    Occasional Forum Poster

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New York, NY
  • Interests
    Retired applications programmer, with a few Macs at home.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,175 profile views
  1. x509, Please, please file a Support Case! If "things have gotten worse" for you in Retrospect Windows 15.6, it's likely because of what I speculated on in my preceding post in this thread. That would mean that other administrators are having the same problem. As a Retrospect Mac administrator, I can't file a Support Case for Retrospect Windows—so we need somebody else to do it. Just copy your OP in this thread into the Problem Description, although you'll have to do manual indentation of the listed issues to get around the lack of text formatting in Retrospect Inc.'s Support Case software. You just paid for an upgrade—even if it's only for the Desktop Edition, so Retrospect Inc. should at least consider fixing what is probably a just-introduced bug. If Tech Support doesn't respond with more than the usual automatic return e-mail, phone (888) 376-1078 or (925) 476-1030 (those are U.S. phone numbers, but call the second one even if you're a Brit—from what I've heard the European Retrospect Tech Support is ignorant), choose X814 to speak to Werner Walter—the head of Retrospect Sales, and complain. Werner can "goose" Engineering; I've seen him do it.
  2. x509, One approach—especially if you were having the same problems with the Dashboard when you were running Retrospect Windows 12—is to follow the links from the second paragraph and P.S. of this post, and to do what one or the other of them says depending on whether you are running Proactive scripts—I'm only the messenger. The other approach is to contact Retrospect Support; I think you'd be entitled to personalized phone help because you evidently just upgraded to Retrospect Windows 15, but in any case you should file a Support Request because you're not the only administrator having this problem—see the OP of the thread linked to in the first paragraph of this post. See the rest of this post below for what IMHO might well be included in that Support Request: if you've been having the problems with the Dashboard only since you started running Retrospect Windows 15, I will now give you the benefit of a bit of informed speculation—as a Retrospect Mac administrator—on this subject. Back around 2007 EMC Insignia decided that a fully-interactive Administration Console, running on a machine separate from the "backup server", is an essential component of an enterprise client-server backup application's user interface. The (by then) EMC Iomega engineers in Walnut Creek CA were able to successfully introduce an Administration Console in Retrospect Mac 8, but found that—because of mandatory security settings introduced with Windows Vista/Server 2008—they were unable to introduce an Administration Console in Retrospect Windows. The Dashboard was introduced in Retrospect Mac 11 as the first-appearing panel in the Retrospect Mac Console, and at the same time was introduced as a display-only feature of Retrospect Windows 9. The non-GUI code of Retrospect Windows and Retrospect Mac was meanwhile integrated with Retrospect Windows 7.7, and over a year ago administrator Don Lee discovered that he could almost perfectly control a Retrospect Windows "backup server" from a Retrospect Mac Console—because the inter-task communications capabilities had been carefully preserved in the Retrospect Windows code even though they can't be invoked from a Windows task. Meanwhile developers of other enterprise client-server backup applications have introduced Administration Consoles that get around the Windows security restrictions by running under a Web server, and Retrospect Inc. has been IMHO quietly desperate to compete with them. They were intending to introduce a beta version of the Retrospect Management Console in Retrospect 15.1, but were evidently delayed until Retrospect 15.5 by the need to have Retrospect immediately satisfy GDPR "right of erasure" requirements. For a few days last spring I ran a special test release of Retrospect Mac 15.0 to help the engineers diagnose the -530 bugs, and the Dashboard in that release had 3 blue icons on the upper-right—one of which could interactively start and stop a "backup server" Engine. So what I'm speculating—confirmed by this video—is that the Dashboard code in Retrospect Windows 15.6 has been enhanced under-the-hood to function as the Retrospect Management Console, and that this is what's causing your Dashboard problems. IMHO what will solve your problems until Retrospect Windows 16 would be the addition of a C:\ProgramData\Retrospect\retro.ini parameter line that reads something like DashboardNotAConsole=1 . Ask Tech Support if Engineering can give us that in a Retrospect Windows 15.7 release. An alternative would be to have the Dashboard code look at the Enable Management Console box in Preferences, as described in this Knowledge Base article, and act as if that parameter line were present if the box is not checked.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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. P.S.: Here (3rd through 5th paragraphs) is the reason I think Retrospect 15.6 is likely to have a number of bugs like this.
  6. 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.
  7. DavidHertzberg

    No more instant scan on MacOS?

    insont, I agree with your general conclusion. This post in another thread, especially the P.S., discusses what the probable effect of eliminating Instant Scan would be.
  8. DavidHertzberg

    Full Access Mojave

    There's now a new 15.6 release of Retrospect, and a new version of the Knowledge Base article to go with it.
  9. Actually Monafly isn't misreading what he/she is reading in the Grooming dialog. Retrospect Mac 12 added a Months to Keep entry box to the Grooming dialog, which is described on page 9 of the Retrospect Mac 12 User's Guide. A quick test on my "backup server" shows that (as I expected for compatibility) clicking the Groom to Retrospect Defined Policy button causes Months to Keep to default to 12. Unfortunately that page was part of the "What's New" chapter, and the august Documentation Committee has adopted for the last 4 versions of the UGs a policy of totally overwriting the last version's "What's New" UG chapter with whatever is new in the current version of Retrospect—without copying the last version's "What's New" content to another UG chapter. I have mentioned that policy in other posts; a frank appraisal of it would require me to use the words "heads" and "wedged" and "up" and the third-person plural possessive of the name of the human excretory orifice, which of course I'm too polite to do.
  10. DavidHertzberg

    Full Access Mojave

    So now Retrospect Technical Support is admitting that Instant Scan is going away on Retrospect Mac 15. One problem is that Instant Scan for APFS doesn't work, which is apparently a backup-app-industry-wide problem—not just for Retrospect. Another problem is that getting Instant Scan to work seems to be currently impossible if you're booting macOS 10.14, AKA known as Mojave. But I suspect that what henry-in-florida is quoting RTS as saying is what a Greek named Aesop characterized as "sour grapes". Since I instituted Instant Scan 3 years ago, it's been saving me 8 minutes on each daily incremental backup of one drive, and about 40 minutes on each weekly Recycle backup of 3 drives (I'm actually backing up 6 drives on that weekly run, but 3 of them are on a Mac so old that its Client predates the introduction of Instant Scan). Even if the speed improvements from the introduction of 64-bit API calls double or triple copying rates, I don't believe the Instant Scan savings described in the previous sentence will become negligible. And I don't care if Instant Scan hogs CPU time. P.S.: Come to think of it, the first drive I back up weekly—which only contains about 15GB—on that very old Mac takes about 15 minutes before Retrospect 14 actually starts backing up its files (as shown by the LED on my Media Set drive starting to flash). The CPU speed on that old Digital Audio G4 is 733Mhz, 27% of the CPU speed of the 2.7Ghz MacBook Pro that I back up daily. Yet its Recycle backup-and-compare, adjusted for the 49GB contents of the HFS+ drive on my newer machine, runs at 54% of the speed for my MBP—despite the fact that the MBP's drive is an SSD. And that includes the 15-minute preliminary Scan, which cannot be Instant because OS X 10.3—which the G4 boots—did not yet have FSEvents. Considering that the weekly Recycle backup-and-compare of the G4 takes 2 hours, my guess is that eliminating Instant Scan will add about 10% to the time for each incremental backup of a modern Mac. That won't be negligible for administrators with dozens of Macs to fit into a "backup window".
  11. DavidHertzberg

    Full Access Mojave

    Nigel Smith and anyone else upgrading to Mojave, Since I don't work for Retrospect Inc., I didn't write the KB article or Retrospect Mac 15.5. Since I also don't work for Apple, I didn't write Mojave. And since I'm an old fuddy-duddy, I'm still booting Sierra—so I don't have this problem. My suggestion would be to submit a feature request; here's why and how to do it. Alternatively, if you're lucky the "upcoming (Retrospect Client) release (which) will eliminate the uninstallation step and preserve your client settings" will IMHO be out in Retrospect Mac 15.6 or 15.7 around December. If Retrospect Inc. has to get Apple to fix something in macOS, the fix will IMHO come no earlier than Retrospect 16 next March.
  12. DavidHertzberg

    Cloud Backups to Backblaze fail

    jweisbin, IMHO you should ask Retrospect Tech Support, especially since you are probably entitled to personalized advice because you have licensed Retrospect Mac 15. You could also ask Backblaze Tech Support. Have you considered Wasabi, which is quite a bit cheaper than Amazon and is S3-compatible?
  13. DavidHertzberg

    Subnet Broadcasting

    Nigel Smith, There may be a faster way of doing what you are slowly accomplishing. Look at this Tutorial for Retrospect Windows, and also at this Tutorial for Retrospect Mac. You would probably have to buy an additional network adapter for your "backup server" machine, but I think your installation can handle that from a financial and security point of view. This approach may be covered already in the User's Guides. However over the last few years the august Documentation Committee has left it to the head of Retrospect Support to document in Tutorial videos things that they were reluctant to document in the UGs or even in Knowledge Base articles. A consequent problem is that the head of Retrospect Tech Support seems compelled to keep his videos under 3 minutes, and preferably not much more than 2 minutes, because he fears losing those viewers with a short attention span.
  14. DavidHertzberg

    Full Access Mojave

    henry-in-florida, On second thought, you may have a problem if you are upgrading either your "backup server" or your "client" machine to Mojave without later upgrading your version of Retrospect to 15.5 Mac. That would be because you have a situation analogous to what I've quoted below for Backblaze: [beginning of quote] Backblaze required an update to the app as well as a manual update of permissions. To download the update, I went to the menu bar, clicked the Backblaze icon (it looks like a flame), and selected “Check for updates”. An update to the latest version of the Backblaze app was quickly downloaded and installed. A short while later, a warning message appeared on my Mac (see screenshot below): (A warning dialog from Backblaze stating that permissions are required.) Clicking Learn More directed me to this web page providing directions on how to add a specific component of Backblaze to the list of apps that get full access. This allows Backblaze to back up the Photos Library properly. Backblaze and Carbon Copy Cloner are just two of the many third-party backup apps that require attention to work properly with macOS Mojave. If you use other backup apps on your Mac, be sure to make sure they’re working properly after the Mojave update. If they’re not, visit the website of the application developer for details on how to either update to a new version or change permissions for the app in System Preferences. [end of quote] The underlying problem IMHO, henry-in-florida, is that Retrospect Inc. (and possibly predecessor developers) have long made a practice of installing the real Retrospect app in a "seekrit location" that is not in the Applications folder. Thus on my MacBook Pro "client" there is no Retrospect app in Applications, and on my Mac Pro "backup server" what's named "Retrospect.app" in Applications is the Console app—not the Engine app. If you run the Retrospect installer the way they tell you, it updates the app in the "seekrit location" as well—which if you've already installed Mojave undoubtedly says to itself "Oh, he's got Mojave, I have to give Full Disk Access to the Engine/Client". IMHO you're going to get Retrospect Tech Support to help you straighten this out on behalf of others as well as yourself. Here's why and how to do that. P.S.: You don't need Retrospect Tech Support to straighten this out, unless you're trying to install Mojave on "backup server" and/or "client" machines that have a version of Retrospect prior to Retrospect Mac 15.5. If you're already running Retrospect Mac 15.5 on all your Mojave-upgraded machines, all you need to do is follow the instructions in this September 21st Knowledge Base article—which I just discovered. Note that the article validates my "seekrit location" hypothesis.
  15. DavidHertzberg

    Full Access Mojave

    henry-in-florida, I'm just a laggard who is still running Sierra. However: On my MacBook Pro client, under Preference Panes, there is a file named Retrospect Client.prefPane. As far as Instant Scan for APFS on Mojave, read this post—as well as previous ones in that thread—and weep. P.S.: As far as Full Access is concerned, see if you can read this Web page for Backblaze installation in Mojave—which may be password-protected (I had to sign up, even though I don't intend to use Backblaze). If you can't read the page, the following is a paste—which may enable you to do the equivalent for the Retrospect application: [begin paste] Giving Backblaze Full Disk Access After Updating To Mojave 1. After updating to the latest client, open the Applications Folder. 2. Open the System Preferences on your Mac by clicking the apple icon in the upper-left corner and select System preferences. 3. Click Security & Privacy settings. 4. Select "Full Disk Access" in the left-hand column. 5. If necessary, click the lock and enter your Mac's username and password to allow you to make changes. 6. Drag the Backblaze app into the Full Disk Access location and release the Backblaze icon into it as show in the images below. 7. Restart your Mac. After reboot, once Backblaze does a hard drive scan it should back up everything that the Mojave upgrade excluded and your backup should remain safe! **Note: If you are still having issues with the Mac Menu Bar Backblaze icon please click here for instructions. Was this article helpful? 43 out of 56 found this helpful Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Have more questions? Submit a request 0 Comments Article is closed for comments. Related articles Backblaze Icon doesn't work after upgrading to Mojave Inherit Backup State Safety Freeze (Your Backup is Safety Frozen) Removing a Backup From an Account and Reassigning a License Backing up External Hard Drives [end paste]
×