Jump to content

DavidHertzberg

Members
  • Content count

    595
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

DavidHertzberg last won the day on April 12

DavidHertzberg had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

36 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

866 profile views
  1. CherylB, It used to be possible to contact the head of Retrospect Tech Support via a Forums post, but he's stopped reading the Forums routinely for the last year or so because he's too busy (he lost his assistant). You'll either have to phone him at (888) 376-1078 or (925) 476-1030 and press 3, or submit a Support Case. If you're still on your free temporary ASM from having purchased Retrospect Mac 15, IMHO phoning might be easier. OTOH it sounds as if a Support Case will have to be established, because IMHO there needs to be beta testing done on the fix. In case you don't realize it, I'm just a Retrospect user having no financial connection with Retrospect Inc..
  2. On pages 31-35 of the Retrospect Mac 6 User's Guide, there are instructions for "RECORDABLE AND REWRITABLE DISC DRIVES". The Storage Device Compatibility lookup says there are no Pioneer Blu Ray devices that are currently compatible. I don't know whether there were any in the past. cbum made this post in October 2012. The rest of that thread is worth reading.
  3. CherylB, meet the head of Retrospect Tech Support. He'd obviously like you to upgrade to Retrospect Mac 15 for everything, evidently including the "backup server"—which will cost money if you haven't done it already. If you haven't, you can talk to him using Retrospect Sales as an intermediary. If you have, then you're probably still entitled to free tech support on this matter—by insisting that Retrospect Inc. owes you the version with the bug fix.
  4. Time to upgrade.

    ShadeTek, The automated answer to your first question seems to be "What's in your wallet?" First I went to the Device Configurator, selected "Quantum" and "SAS" and "Tape Library" in the columns, and clicked the Search button. That told me the Quantum SuperLoader 3 was qualified for Windows on 8 September 2014. Clicking the line for that specific product told me Minimum Product Required for Windows is Retrospect Single Server 7.0 with the 7.0.11.102 driver update. It also told me "For certification purposes, Tape Drives and Tape Libraries are considered separate entities. Any Retrospect certified tape drive installed by the library manufacturer can be considered certified with the tape library." So far apparently so good, so I went to the Product Configurator. You didn't state any details about your installation, so I left the first popup at Windows Desktop and the other popups and checkboxes at their default. When I set the last popup to "Yes, to a single tape library (autoloader)" and clicked Show Recommended Solution, it showed Retrospect Single Server Unlimited Workstation Clients at a price of US$1369 including ASM. When I instead set the last popup to "Yes, to a dual tape library (autoloader)" and clicked Show Recommended Solution, it added Advanced Tape Support with ASM for a new total of US$2468. So the question you need to answer is whether it is worth an extra US$1099 to finish off the LT05 tape stock. At roughly US$20 per LTO5 tape, you'd need to have 55 tapes in stock to break even considering sunk cost. At roughly US$70 per LTO7 tape, you'd need to buy 16 additional tapes to break even considering additional investment. IMHO you should speak with Retrospect Sales to find out whether having two single-tape autoloaders attached simultaneously is programmatically considered the equivalent of a dual-tape autoloader, because that is the key "money question". As to your second question, I haven't the foggiest notion. I used to use DDS with DAT72 tapes when I was running Retrospect Mac 6, but switched over to USB3 portable HDDs when I upgraded to Retrospect Mac 12 on a different "backup server" that didn't come with a SCSI card.
  5. Search Sources function

    I just tried it on Retrospect Mac 14.6; in that version too it can only access the top level of the Sources list. I agree that's pathetically limited.
  6. sjmills, As you probably know, -1011 is generated as a result of an OS problem in accessing a file. You can look at the macOS error messages (you don't say what OS version you are running, but presumably it's macOS because of the Forum you posted in), and possibly also look for -519 Retrospect error messages. This is the only thread I can find using Advanced Search that deals with -1011 errors on Retrospect Mac. It may give you ideas. Since you have upgraded to Retrospect Mac 15, you may still be within your 30 days of free phonecalls toTech Support. If not, here is why and how to file a Support Request.
  7. fredturner, Please verify that you have Instant Scan check-marked as Enabled in 3 places (these are explained on pages 211-215 of the Retrospect Mac 14 User's Guide, although rather confusingly): The first place is in the Console. Click on Sources—>your MBP—>Options. The second place s on your MBP. Click Apple Menu—>System Preferences, then hold down the Command key while you click Retrospect Client, and finally click on the Advanced tab. If Instant Scan is not Enabled, you'll have to click on the lock icon and enter the MBP's password before you can Enable it. The third place is in your Retrospect Engine, although it may only apply to using Instant Scan on locally-attached disks (which is a time-saving idea when you back those up—which I hope you occasionally do). Click Apple Menu—>System Preferences, then click Retrospect. If Instant Scan is not Enabled, you'll have to click on the lock icon and enter the "backup server" password before you can Enable it. If Instant Scan is Enabled in all 3 places and it doesn't solve your problem, here's why and how to file a Support Request. This Knowledge Base article about APFS, which was written right after the release of Retrospect Mac 14.5, doesn't say anything about Instant Scan—either whether it works or it doesn't. Neither do the latest entries in the cumulative Release Notes for Retrospect Mac 15.0 say anything about Instant Scan.
  8. On the other hand, for choice [1] in the OP maybe a more robust answer would be to have different Media Sets for the G4, but have their Members on the same drives as the Members for my existing Media Sets. Thus on G-DRIVE White, within the Retrospect folder I would have two folders, one named Media Set White (the existing one) and another named Media Set G4White (the new one). Folder Media Set White would have the file 1-Media Set White within it, and folder Media Set G4White would have the file 1-Media Set G4White within it. The sentence in parentheses in the first paragraph here shows that, as I thought I remembered, I can do this with Retrospect Mac 14. Any thoughts?
  9. For choice [1] above, maybe I wouldn't have to buy separate portable USB drives for new Media Sets to backup the G4's drives. Maybe, so long as I ensured that I didn't run the current and the old version of Retrospect on my "backup server" at the same time, I could have the old version run scripts that would backup to the same Media Sets as the new version. That would be easy to ensure for no additional cost, because—when I replaced the HDD from which I was booting Retrospect with an SSD a few months ago—I kept the old HDD mounted as a third drive in my Mac Pro "cheesegrater" tower. I could merely reboot from the old HDD whenever I wanted to backup the G4's drives. This assumes that the format of Retrospect Catalog Files and Media Sets doesn't change from version to version, at least for a few years. I'm pretty sure the format of Media Sets doesn't change, because Retrospect has its own proprietary format (which is why you can't use LTFS for Backup and Archive scripts). I also don't think the format of Catalog Files changed after Retrospect Mac 8. Any thoughts?
  10. I am the Backup, If you used your "old trusted LTO4 system" with a trial copy of the Desktop Edition of Retrospect Mac 14, and you weren't trialing the Advanced Tape Support add-on, everything may be fine using that drive with Retrospect Mac 15's Desktop Edition so long as you don't use any autoloader capability. Good luck, and backup regularly with some product or other. P.S.: Back when I was using tape for Retrospect backups, from 1995-2010, it was considered a good idea to restore with the same drive that wrote the backups. However maybe LTO has changed that.
  11. Sure, I am the Backup, I don't see why not. The only possible glitch I can see is that what you can now purchase is Retrospect Mac 15; Retrospect Mac 14 is obsolete. The cumulative Release Notes for Retrospect Mac 15.0 say "New: Support for LTO-8 tape devices", so the chances are the support for LTO4 devices is still there. In case it isn't, I imagine you can go through Retrospect Sales to get a license code for Retrospect Mac 14.6, which can still be downloaded. The one thing I would caution you about is that the Desktop Edition only supports a single non-autoloader tape drive. If your LTO4 tape drive is fancy-shmancy, you may have to purchase the Single Workstation 20 Client Edition—which is substantially more expensive. You can probably negotiate this with Retrospect Sales, with whom I have no connection other than as a customer.
  12. As to how long bug #5994 has been open, a browser search for #59 in the Release Notes reveals that bug #5956 was fixed in the September 2016 release of Retrospect Windows 11.5—and they were already fixing bugs in the #60xx series by then. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.
  13. Encrypting Disk Media Sets

    No problem, Andrew Kinnear; dealing with unreliable Retrospect information is what we Forums volunteers are here for. Setting up my Copy Media Set test only took me about 15 minutes, and it ran while I was either asleep or out to dinner. The "remaining" log message interested me; it now appears from a 2014 Forums thread to be a legitimate warning that sometimes appears when what it is warning about is obscure. I've added an Additional Note to my Support Case both briefly explaining your experience and linking to the 2014 thread. The root of the European T.S. person's problem is a situation with the Retrospect User's Guides that is alluded to (it used to be explained more fully, before other Wikipedia editors made DovidBenAvraham pare down the article) in this section of the Wikipedia article. The circumstances following the introduction of Retrospect Mac 8 in early 2009, including both the impossibility of duplicating the Console in Retrospect Windows and the evident confusion over the change in terminology in Retrospect Mac, left Roxio/Retrospect Inc. selling "two variants of backup server software that, while having nearly identical non-GUI code, operate differently". Retrospect Inc. decided to leave the old terminology in Retrospect Windows and, when Retrospect Windows 8 (with underlying code corresponding to Retrospect Mac 10) was released in late 2012, to more than double the size of the Retrospect Windows User's Guide—which IMHO was a response to their discovery that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of some Retrospect administrators (apologies to H. L. Mencken for adapting his phrase that originally referred to the American public). Retrospect Inc. has since dealt with the problem of being saddled with a 250-page plus a 650-page User's Guide by not properly updating either UG variant, plus making the UGs worse in later versions. I pity any T.S. person who has to deal with this situation. According to the head of Retrospect T. S., the management of Retrospect Inc. has further dealt with the situation by omitting any representative of his department from the august Documentation Committee!
  14. Encrypting Disk Media Sets

    Andrew Kinnear, I got worried about whether the head of Retrospect Tech Support might have been correct in what he told you, as reported in your post above. I therefore ran a Copy Media Set of my this week's "Media Set Blue" to a recycled "Media Set Pink" late this afternoon while I took a post-gym nap and then went to dinner. "Media Set Blue" had Recycle backups of 6 drives from Saturday, plus No Media Action backups of one drive on each day from Sunday through this (Thursday) morning. That made a total of 11 backups, which is what a subsequently-initiated (and canceled) Console Restore of selected files and folders said were available on "Media Set Pink". The Past Backups category on the Console also showed that each drive backup from Saturday onward was on "Media Set Pink" as well as "Media Set Blue". So I think that I've adequately proved that Copy Media Set in fact "copies the point-in-time file and folder listings and information about those files along with any metadata required to provide point-in-time restores from the destination Media Set", so long as the Copy Backups option is checked. One slightly-worrisome fact stems from my having left the Media Verification option checked for the Copy Media Set script, which I would not have done if I had realized it would cause a byte-by-byte compare (I didn't intend to actually Restore any files or folders, so I would rather have kept the test run as short as possible). The log from the Verifying step said 19 files totaling 20.4GB out of the 262.5GB copied were "remaining". I don't know what "remaining" means, but one possibility is that these files are the ones (eliminating duplicates) that failed verification during the original Backup runs during the week. An Advanced Search of the Forums shows that administrators—especially Don Lee—have been struggling with the "remaining" problem for many years, prompting one series of response posts by the head of Retrospect T. S. in 2009. I'm not going to worry too much about "remaining" files. Note, however, that the copying phase of Copy Media Set took 3.0 hours, and the Verifying step 2.3 hours—which results from the verification being byte-by-byte because both "Media Set Blue" and "Media Set Pink" are on drives (USB3 for the first, USB2 for the second) locally attached to my "backup server". P.S.: I've submitted a Support Case for the "remaining" question raised in the second substantive paragraph. I said that for Copy Media Set either this is a long-standing bug, or a long-standing documentation deficiency.
  15. Encrypting Disk Media Sets

    Andrew Kinnear, Hold on a minute; [2] in my post above starts out with "AFAIK". First listen to the audio in this 3-minute Tutorial. If the voice sounds like the "he" you were talking to at Retrospect Tech Support, then you were talking to the head of R. T. S. (whom I am no longer naming on these Forums, because—although he no longer has time to post on them—it appears that he scans them for his name and appears like a bolt from the blue if he feels he has been misquoted or belittled). If indeed you were talking to him, then his 24 years of Retrospect experience means he knows what he is talking about. If you were talking to him, then I suggest you phone him again and ask about the Copy Backups option for Copy Media Set. Page 139 of the Retrospect Mac 14 User's Guide says "This copies the point-in-time file and folder listings and information about those files along with any metadata required to provide point-in-time restores from the destination Media Set. Deselecting this option will only copy the files contained in the source Media Set, and the destination Media Set will lack the necessary file/folder listings and metadata to perform complete point-in-time restores." If he says this doesn't work as described, ask if using instead a Copy Backup script with the Copy Backups option would preserve the information you want; however I don't think it will because the bottom of page 139 in the UG says "Copy Backup scripts are different from Copy Media Sets scripts in a number of ways: They copy only active backups; Copy Media Sets scripts copy all backups." I'll try to run a test of Copy Media Set followed by an attempted Restore over the weekend. I did an Advanced Search of the Forums a few minutes ago and found this thread listed on the second page returned. On the surface it seems to bear out what "he" was saying, but a careful reading indicates that Don Lee probably was using a Copy Backup script with the Copy Backups option instead of using a Copy Media Set script.
×