Jump to content

DavidHertzberg

Members
  • Content count

    1,105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

DavidHertzberg last won the day on January 9

DavidHertzberg had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

63 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

1,867 profile views
  1. DavidHertzberg

    File compare problem

    tbr00 (at least I can spell your "handle" correctlyđŸ€Ł), Here's an apparently-relevant Forums post I came across a few minutes ago in searching for a solution for someone else's backup problem described on an Ars Technica forum. Its thread—which I suggest you read in its entirety—concerns a Synology NAS instead of a Netgear NAS (can I name non-Drobo brands?). The thread is on the Mac 9+ Forum instead of the Windows Professional Forum, so YMMV—but the underlying Engine is the same even though the UI is different.
  2. DavidHertzberg

    Time machine data not supported?

    Nigel Smith, At this point SunbeamRapier has pretty well solved his/her problem, as described starting with this post in a Product Suggestions-Windows thread he/she hijacked. The solution was a full-fat version of your first suggestion: to first restore the entire TM backup to an external HDD, then to back up that HDD onto a Retrospect Media Set. That Media Set was intended to be a Tape one, but SunbeamRapier was confused by inexperience and created a Disk one instead. IMHO SunbeamRapier is eminently correct; the impossibility of backing up a TimeMachine volume directly with Retrospect should be officially documented.
  3. SunbeamRapier, If you used the Backup Assistant on pages 89-92 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide, you would have been prompted to create a Media Set destination and would have created one per pages 86-89—which includes specifying a Media Set Type. I'm not going to claim the UI is as simple as TimeMachine's, but I didn't have particular trouble learning it for backing up local disk sources in 2015—"client" machine sources were somewhat more complicated for a couple of installation-specific reasons. However from 1995-2010 I'd used the old UI, a non-multithreaded version of what Retrospect Windows' UI still is. I happen to do a Recycle backup on Saturday mornings that includes a source HDD that is installed inside my 2010 Mac Pro "backup server". The rate for its backup phase is around 2.3GB/minute for source data ("''B' is for bytes 'b' is for bits"), so for 1TB that would take about 7 hours. If you used the Backup Assistant it seems that'd automatically turn on the Thorough Verification option described on page 97; since it is a byte-by-byte comparison, that would add about another 7 hours. So IMHO 17 hours fits into the speed range for Retrospect, considering your source HDD is connected with USB. The product in column 2 of this Retrospect Knowledge Base article gives faster speed at a much higher price. See here for Retrospect backup of TimeMachine backups. Now you can proceed to create a tape Media Set, and then create a Copy Media Set script to copy the disk Media Set set you have already created to that tape Media Set. A Copy Media Set script is described on pages 135-137; it may take a few hours to run, but shouldn't put as much load on your CPU.😁
  4. SunbeamRapier, Where exactly is Retrospect creating your .rdb files? According to this post and the previous discussion in that thread , tapes do not have .rdb files—which are instead in the Catalog File on disk for the tape Media Set. For disk Media Sets, the destination disk files mostly consist of the .rdb files—which are the containers for the backed-up data. If your 2015 Mac Pro is "using everything" creating a Catalog File for upwards of 40 million files, that's probably because doing so eats up all available CPU cycles. If you want to create a Support Case for this feature request, here's why and how to do it. I suspect Tech Support will reply that, when you took your Mac Pro to Europe 3 years ago, you should have installed a copy of Retrospect Desktop on it for use with your portable 4 TB USB HDD, instead of making do with Time Machine. They may also reply that, having failed to do so, you should at least be running your Retrospect backup to tape from your restored TimeMachine disk as a series of script runs—each specifying a non-overlapping Date Modified Within as a Rule or non-overlapping Favorite Folder sources. BTW, I've used Retrospect Mac terminology in this post because your post is blatantly about that variant. It doesn't make any difference, because your complaint is about the underlying Engine—which is the same for both variants. However your complaint has nothing to do with the topic of the preceding posts in this thread; you should have started a new thread in the Product Suggestions-Mac OS X sub-forum—which has a large square green Start New Topic button. To create a link to a post in another thread: right-click the doohicky on the top right of that post that says "Share Link" when you mouse over it, then choose Copy Link Location form the resulting drop-down, then select the text in your own post that you want the link to be in, then click the Link tool in the editing toolbar and paste the copied Link Location into the URL box in the Link dialog.
  5. DavidHertzberg

    Time machine data not supported?

    SunbeamRapier, This was reported as early as this 2009 post. If your 4TB USB portable volume was local to your Mac and was running 12 hours per day for 3 years, that would have been about 13,000 backups. If an average of 3000 files incrementally changed between each of those hourly backups, that would come out close to 40 million TimeMachine files—only the weekly ones would be saved as hard links. If your 4TB USB portable volume was networked to your Mac—which it probably wasn't—you wouldn't be able to back it up with Retrospect, because in that case the TimeMachine backups would be sparse bundles. So buy another 4TB USB portable HDD for around US$100, or borrow one. And just be prepared to leave your Mac running until the restore is done.
  6. DavidHertzberg

    File compare problem

    tbr00, I also think it would aid us in suggesting s solution to your problem if you clarified your Retrospect-related installation configuration. My understanding from what you've said so far is that all your Retrospect "client" machines are Macs, but your "backup server" is a Windows 7 machine that also has a Netgear ReadyNAS. It is the files on the ReadyNAS that are giving "file compare errors"—about which you have so far revealed no further information—when you back them up. You are devoted to whatever data is already backed up to LTO4 tape, but (AFAICT) that generation is so old you can't buy a tape drive that will read it and can be attached to a more-modern machine. You are as devoted to your ReadyNAS server as to the "bunch of olï»żd hardware deviceï»żs", but that server also cannot be moved to a newer machine. Is my understanding essentially correct? P.S.: If you upgraded to Retrospect Windows 16 within the last 30-45 days, you are entitled to personalized assistance from Retrospect Tech Support. If—as I suspect—your "file compare errors" have something to do with your ReadyNAS characteristics, you're going to need that assistance. Here's why and how to file a bug-report Support Case; note that the Support Case will need to reveal to R.T.S. the information you won't reveal to us.
  7. DavidHertzberg

    File compare problem

    tbr00, So, you're going to do a "strip tease" by gradually revealing more information about your problem.đŸ€Ł How about "taking some more off" by actually reproducing the "file compare errors" you are getting—as shown in the logs? That would help us Forums volunteers to figure out what the problem is. It sounds to me as if you are having a problem described in this 2004 thread. See the last three posts in the thread. Is there a recent Windows-7-compatible driver update for your ReadyNAS RAID card? If you are satisfied that your manual compares show the data is being backed up correctly, how about switching to Media Verification—as described on page 354 of the Retrospect Windows 16 User's Guide? Page 459 says "In certain circumstances, Retrospect does not have access to MD5 digests generated during backup. This is true for all backups created using versions of Retrospect prior to Retrospect 16.0, as well as backups that took place when Retrospect’s “Generate MD5 digests during backup operations” preference was disabled." But at worse that means IMHO your data backed up with Retrospect Windows 12 will be backed up again—once.
  8. SunbeamRapier, Forgive me for possibly insulting your intelligence, but do you know that you can't upgrade from Retrospect Mac 12 to Retrospect Mac 16 without paying for a new license code? Here's the Licensing Wizard. If you're only backing up one Mac, and your backup destinations are disks rather than tapes or optical drives, you may only need to pay US$49 (or US$39—it looks like there's a discount in effect) for Retrospect Solo. Here's the Competitive Analysis Knowledge Base article for that edition. P.S.: Whenever I add later information—as opposed to a wording clarification—to a post I have already made, SunbeamRapier, I precede that later information with the centuries-old letter-writing abbreviation "P.S." or "P.P.S." etc.. That lets me add a Reason for Edit. Evidently your generation believes the abbreviation "OK" is equivalent. To which I can't resist replying "OK, boomer".đŸ€Ł Anyway, what you need to do is create a Support Case for the license-key bug; here is why and how to do so. The fifth paragraph of that post says the head of Retrospect Technical Support "has verbally assured me that you don't need to be signed up for ASM to report a bug—only to get personal assistance with coping with it." As far as Australian Retrospect Support being "no help at all", the only thing I dare do is to point you to this post—which describes what happened to me earlier this year when I posted about a similar situation. P.P.S.: In regard to Catalina, you need to read this Knowledge Base article and also this one. Note that the first KB article, in its last multi-sentence paragraph, erroneously links to the Mojave version of the second KB article rather than the Catalina version—which it should have (except that somebody on Retrospect "Inc."'s. august Documentation Committee didn't coordinate what he wrote in the first article with somebody else who was rewriting the second article for Catalina).
  9. DavidHertzberg

    File compare problem

    tbr00, See this post and the ones after it in that thread. Are you using OneDrive? Why are you still on Windows 7, since extended support ended on January 14, 2020?
  10. jhg and everyone else, Two days ago I received, probably like all other Retrospect administrators, a marketing e-mail from Retrospect "Inc.". It announces a new version in March, and says "Not sure if your backups are running? Simply set up an always-on ProactiveAI script, and schedule email notifications to send you a daily summary [my emphases]." IMHO that implies the new version will require having Retrospect.exe running when the summary is scheduled to be e-mailed. In the third paragraph of this post in another thread I reported the head of Retrospect Tech Support's voice-overs. Engineering's aimed at "eventually having Retrospect run as a service with an HTML-based interface". That IMHO implies targeting in 2020 a "browser based" more-recently-introduced client-server backup application analyzed in the second features column of this Retrospect Knowledge Base article. Itemized features include Windows/Linux support.
  11. prl and any other non-ancient Forums members, There appears to be some kind of bug in the Forums software regarding the display of Profiles. Members who did not disable the Recent Visitors "block" display, such as me and Don Lee and kolohe280 (who didn't put anything in his/her Profile but didn't disable its display) and Lindsay Robertson, have their Profile information displayed. Members who did disable the Recent Visitors "block" display, such as prl, don't have their Profile information displayed. Thus I can't see prl's Gender. I'll file a Support Case for the bug.
  12. prl, Your OP observation is that "the correct icon seems to be there initially, but then get overwritten", and the overlaying icon in your OP screenshot looks to my eyes like a distorted version of the correct icon. Therefore I'm speculating that code connected to the icon generates some reaction by Catalina, and that the reaction is what's distorting it. The fact that the changing-facet code isn't executing in System Preferences wouldn't necessarily deter Catalina's reaction, but my speculation implies that the same distortion would occur when the icon is displayed in the Menu Bar of a "client" machine running under Catalina. That's why I asked someone to check this; evidently that someone can't be either you or me. If your preferred personal pronoun is "he", set the Gender item in your Forums Profile to Male—as I did years ago. I know a lot of administrators haven't done that, which is why I always begin my posts with the "handle" of the administrator I'm responding to—whom I then can usually refer to as second-person "you" without my junior-high-school English teachers rolling over in their graves. If I have to use third-person, I check the administrator's Profile.
  13. prl and anybody else, I'm going to hazard a guess that Catalina has some difficulty displaying the Retrospect icon, possibly because—as the icon is used in the Menu Bar of a Mac running the Retrospect Client—it has the capability of changing the way the facets are displayed at an interval of about one second to show the Retrospect Client is doing work. Maybe the Dantz-written facet-changing code is 32-bit, and therefore doesn't work under Catalina—but messes up the way the icon is displayed in the System Preferences main panel. My impression from looking backward at a few of prl's posts is that he/she is only backing up a single Mac, and therefore is running the Retrospect Engine (and probably Console) directly on it—without using the Retrospect Client. Would someone who uses the Retrospect Mac Client on a machine running under Catalina please check if it still has the capability of changing the way the facets are displayed at an interval of about one second to show the Retrospect Client is doing work? Please do so and post the answer back in this thread. (None of my Macs are running under Catalina.) Once we get that post—and maybe if we don't, prl, here is why and how to submit a Support Case for a bug.
  14. DavidHertzberg

    Several Issues with mac Clients

    Pesetus, Please, as soon as you know whether the 16.6.0.307 update given to you by R.T.S. works or not, notify Retrospect Tech Support. That will be important for other administrators, so the engineers can decide (assuming the update works) whether to release it for Retrospect 16 and/or Retrospect 17. I'm sorry I didn't think to tell you this yesterday. The deadline for a Retrospect 16 bug-fix release is probably 28 February. Please do your follow-up quickly.
  15. DavidHertzberg

    Several Issues with mac Clients

    Pesetus, Thank you for reporting back to us on the Forums. I'm assuming the 16.6.0.307 update given to you by R.T.S. is for the Retrospect Windows "backup server", rather than for the Retrospect Client program on your Mac Catalina "client" machines. That sounds to me as if the engineers had not sufficiently tested the Retrospect Windows 16.6.0.133 "backup server" software with Retrospect Mac 16.5.1.104 Client software on machines running running under Catalina. Running that combination of Retrospect software is a bit unusual—but many mostly-Windows installations also have Macs; obviously the engineers should have tested. The question for the rest of us administrators is whether the engineers will release the 16.6.0.307 update as a new distribution for Retrospect 16, or whether it is merely a test version of the Retrospect Windows 17.0 distribution—which according to past practices ought to come in the second week of March 2020.
×