Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


DavidHertzberg last won the day on February 15

DavidHertzberg had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

56 Excellent

About DavidHertzberg

  • Rank
    Occasional Forum Poster

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

1,341 profile views
  1. DavidHertzberg

    No more instant scan on MacOS?

    CherylB, I think you misunderstand what I've been saying in this thread. Instant Scan was not supported for APFS volumes as of May 2018, and I don't think that's going to change with Retrospect 16—because the macOS facility it depends on (called fsEvents) wasn't implemented in the same way for APFS as it was for HFS+. But, according to what Retrospect Tech Support told insont per this October 2018 post, "In our next full release of Retrospect the client scan APIs will be completely overhauled .... For local backups you can help speed things up by changing your current api settings .... Client API changes are being worked on and preliminary testing shows them being upwards of 10 times faster than they are currently." IMHO that means non-Instant Scan will be speeded up so much you won't miss Instant Scan. I'll update this post with links to other posts when I have time.
  2. DavidHertzberg

    No more instant scan on MacOS?

    insont and cgtyoder and CherylB, I just discovered, while writing a post discussing this problem (among others) in my authorized Retrospect thread on the Ars Technica Mac forum, that this Knowledge Base article has been temporarily hidden from view (I found it again through my link in a prior post in this thread) while having been updated to refer to Retrospect 16 as of 5 March 2019. I take this as confirmation that the engineers have now completed what must have been a substantial effort in changing a lot of 30-year-old code, which the developer(s) of younger backup applications such as the one insont mentioned have not had to go through. OK, IMHO you've now got a definite date (probably 6 March) when the non-Instant lengthy APFS scan problem will be—at least preliminarily—fixed. If you still want to vent, feel free to do so. If you want instead to file Support Cases, those would provide retroactive justification for Retrospect engineers having made the effort. But IMHO it's time to make good on "I promise to stop complaining once Retrospect shows any sign of at least trying to do something about this."
  3. DavidHertzberg

    Automating cleaning tapes

    CherylB, Assuming you are using Retrospect Mac 15, try reading "Storage Devices" on pages 38-41 of the Retrospect Mac 15 User's Guide, and doing what it says for Clean Drive After ... in the "Options" paragraph on pages 40-41. What documentation did you read in which "The documentation says you control click on the drive and set it there"? BTW, if you haven't upgraded to Retrospect Mac for both your "backup server" and your Mac Retrospect Client(s), you should do so. Prior point releases of this software don't have all the features, and in particular 15.5 and 15.6.0 are "bad releases" in which previously-working facilities stopped working properly. As I've said in another thread, this doesn't mean you won't get slow scans of APFS drives until at least Retrospect Mac 16 is released—and you should disable Instant Scan for APFS drives (see newly-added second paragraph).
  4. DavidHertzberg

    No more instant scan on MacOS?

    insont and cgtyoder and CherylB, I haven't been denying that long scans are a real problem for Retrospect administrators backing up Mac drives formatted with APFS. I'm really sorry you folks have this problem. It's not a problem for me, because my two modern Macs are running macOS 10.13 High Sierra (just upgraded last week at the urging of Apple Support—keeping the machine's only drive still formatted with HFS+) and macOS 10.12 Sierra. One reason for my OS backwardness is that I had a deep-seated mistrust of APFS; I felt—and still feel—that a brand-new filesystem was a big challenge for Apple. That feeling was later confirmed by my reading here (along with other places) that Apple didn't publish full documentation on APFS until sometime in 2018. As I said 8 months ago in this thread, the developers of another backup application turned out to be also having problems with their equivalent of Instant Scan not working for APFS. But, as I tried to make clear in my latest previous post, the reason Retrospect has slowness of non-Instant scanning is probably because it has been using 32-bit Mac APIs for the last 30 years. Now here's something "positive" I can contribute. A couple of hours ago I phoned Retrospect Inc. Sales. A senior salesperson there told me the engineers are working on this problem, and that it's likely to be fixed in version 16. If you feel it's necessary to put additional pressure on Retrospect Inc., my advice is for each of you to submit a separate Support Case. Here's why and how to do that. Just copy your individual post(s) in this thread into the Description of Your Issue, which IMHO should be categorized as a Problem rather than as a Backup Error.
  5. DavidHertzberg

    No more instant scan on MacOS?

    insont, You are evidently not a programmer, at least not one who has worked on complicated applications that keep several programmers busy. Although I have never worked for Retrospect Inc. or its predecessor organizations, I'm reasonably sure that changing every single Mac-related API structure and call in both the Engine and Client programs is a big job. That's why this Knowledge Base article is dated 23 May 2018. Therefore it's not surprising that the changes will be introduced with the release of Retrospect 16, which—if past years are a guide for major releases—will be in early March 2019. Your complaining about the amount of time the change is taking won't make it happen any faster. I'm curious; do you practice this technique with your fellow workers and friends? Does it produce results, or does it just give you the reputation of being a pain in the a**e? As I've pointed out in my "boilerplate" posts on filing a Support Case, Retrospect Inc. people don't normally read these Forums. I seriously suggest that you consider switching to the "push" backup application you have mentioned in this thread, so you can try this method of interaction on Stefan Reitshamer. And, since its a "personal" backup application, good luck in on getting your "backup server" device to not overload when 7 different "client" machines try to backup to one destination at the same time.
  6. DavidHertzberg

    No more instant scan on MacOS?

    insont, Allright, allready, Retrospect doesn't implement Instant Scan for APFS volumes—as I pointed out in this post in the thread. The "push" backup application you mention no longer implements Instant Scan using Mac fsevents at all, as someone who is pretty obviously Stefan Reitshamer said on Twitter in 2016 (which is before Apple introduced APFS). I've already pointed out Retrospect Inc.'s expressed intention to speed up overall backup—probably in Retrospect 16—in this post just above your latest two posts in the thread. IIRC the "push" backup application you mention by default doesn't back up all the files that Retrospect does. But I'm too busy to Google for that now. I have now confirmed that Retrospect used to be able to backup to an SFTP/FTP destination, but abandoned that in Retrospect Mac 8 in favor of a WebDAV destination and an AFP/SMB destination—announced in the UG for Retrospect Mac 10. In a 2012 blog post Retrospect Inc.'s then-Director of Marketing said "SFTP/FTP is just not a good protocol for backups .... doesn't support mid-point file access—so Retrospect would need to download the entire container file just to restore a single file from the backup .... As a result, Retrospect 6 needs to write much smaller container files, which generates additional overhead and complexity, and reduces performance." Remember that Retrospect is an enterprise client-server backup application, which gives it different requirements from a "personal push" backup application. However this Knowledge Base article says, as of 2017, that FTP/SFTP can be a R.V. backup destination—so maybe you should switch to that product if your "backup server" runs Windows and you're willing to do without "client" backup. P.S.: Corrected first sentence of 3rd paragraph to say that FTP destinations were dropped in Retrospect Mac 8 and AFP/SMB destinations were added in Retrospect Mac 10, with WebDAV destinations added in Retrospect Mac 9 (for which there is no UG—only an Addendum). P.P.S.: Replaced second sentence of 3rd paragraph, because I found Kristin Goedert's 2012 Retrospect Blog post.
  7. DavidHertzberg

    No more instant scan on MacOS?

    insont, What you are saying about a competing "push" backup application is actually good news, because IMHO it means that Stefan Reitshamer has been able to speed up APFS backup. The reason for the speed difference is that, since Reitshamer's application was developed much more recently than Retrospect, it undoubtedly uses 64-bit structures rather than the 32-bit ones that Retrospect still uses as of Mac version 15. Retrospect is apparently going to switch to 64-bit structures as of Mac version 16, which is why the engineers created this KB article. As I've pointed out here, especially in the P.S., the consequent tradeoff loss of Instant Scan will probably—by itself—add 10% to the duration of backing up a modern Mac. However that 10% may well be more than overcome by the increased speed of backing up made possible by the switch to 64-bit data structures. I'd wait until the release of 16.0, probably in March, to see what the results are. Even better, I'd wait until the release of 16.1 later this spring—to give the engineers time to fix the inevitable early-discovery bugs. P.S.: A reason for Retrospect Inc. to have stuck with the 32-bit structures is that it enables Retrospect Mac to do backups and restores of PowerPC Macs that can't boot from anything past OS X 10.5. This has been a critical requirement for administrators (including me) who have old files that can only be read by programs that can't be run on an Intel Mac. That explains why the KB article linked-to in the last sentence of the first paragraph of this post says "If you would like to protect those versions of Mac OS X with Retrospect 15, please contact our Support team for a production build that continues to include support for those."
  8. DavidHertzberg

    Dashboard empty

    Lennart_T and myhrik, Here's a further quick thought on why the Dashboard works on my "backup server" and not on yours: My "backup server" Mac Pro is still running macOS 10.12 Sierra. That's because I read that macOS 10.13 High Sierra is a bit flaky even in 10.13.6, and I'm not ready to upgrade to macOS 10.14 Mojave—because I've read that it will unavoidably convert my boot drive from HFS+ to APFS. It's inconceivable to me that the Retrospect Inc. engineers are not testing with Mojave, unless they're afraid to add Mojave problems on top of Management Console problems. I'm also not suggesting that you downgrade.
  9. DavidHertzberg

    Dashboard empty

    Lennart_T and myhrik, Here's another thought I just had, inspired by the fact that both of you are Scandinavians: Your English is excellent, but do you actually use Retrospect Mac in a different language version—such as German? My impression is that the Retrospect engineers are really rushing to get the Management Console out of beta, especially after the delay caused by their having had to concentrate on GDPR for 15.1. Considering the foul-ups in 15.5 and 15.6.0—where the engineers evidently didn't test existing features to see if those still worked, I imagine it's possible that they didn't test the non-Management-Console Dashboard in languages other than English. Come to think of it, here and here are threads whose OP goes by the Forums "handle" johanvos; the first thread is specifically about a Dashboard problem, and the second thread may be. Given his "handle" and his less-than-perfect English, I'll bet johanvos actually uses the German version of Retrospect Mac.
  10. DavidHertzberg

    Dashboard empty

    Lennart_T, Thanks for trying, sorry it didn't work for you. If you haven't already filed a Support Case, please do so; if you have filed one, please add an Additional Note about this attempt. The original e-mail from Retrospect Tech Support (which was actually about another bug, rather than the -530 bugs it ended up fixing for me) said to also move the config80.bak file—if I had one—to the desktop. I didn't have one and still don't, so I didn't mention the .bak file in this thread because I thought it must exist only for previous versions or for Retrospect Windows. I wonder if the fact that I don't have one indicates some difference in my installation. You can mention the fact that I don't have a config80.bak file in your Support Case; maybe that will provide a clue for the Retrospect Inc. engineers.
  11. DavidHertzberg

    Dashboard empty

    So how about updating the Gender in your Forums Profile, myhrik, from "Not saying" to "Male"—as I did years ago? In general I don't try to guess people's genders from their "handles", although I make an exception for those "handles" that are obviously male or female. OTOH I can't help but be aware that many backup administrators are women, and that a lot of those try to conceal that fact for fear that they won't be taken seriously on the Forums. Unfortunately myhrik's ancestors, when they invaded Britain, contributed a number of words to the English language—but not gender-neutral third-person pronouns. So I write "him/her" and "he/she" when the Forums Profile doesn't specify Gender and I can't guess. My other tactic is to address a poster with the second-person pronoun, which is gender-neutral in English (and has no difference between singular and plural, unless you're either from the American South—where they use "y'all" for the plural—or an old-time Quaker—who might use "thou" in talking to someone besides the Almighty). That's why so many of my posts begin with my naming the poster(s) I am responding to, myhrik.
  12. mbennett and anybody else, You currently can't run multiple scripts executing at the same time to the same destination Backup Set (Media Set in Retrospect Mac terminology). I submit pairs of such scripts to Retrospect Mac 15.6.1 (105) occasionally, and the second script submitted always goes into the "Waiting" queue. You will be able to do that some time this side of the indefinite future, once Storage Groups come out of beta. You can't run multiple scripts executing at the same time from the same-named Source. However since Retrospect Windows 12.6 (and Retrospect Mac 14.6) you can run multiple scripts executing at the same time from the same source volume if all of the scripts except one name different Subvolumes on the same source volume. As I said in the second suggestion in my preceding post, there doesn't seem to be any prohibition on defining multiple Subvolumes (Favorite Folders in Retrospect Mac terminology) to overlap the same real folder—including the root folder of a real volume. You can indeed schedule two scripts to run with the same source, one minute apart. I routinely run two such scripts scheduled 5 minutes apart every day, because until less than a month ago I needed to run a "sacrificial script" before the "real script" to try to eliminate -530 errors for the "real script". I schedule the "sacrificial script" 5 minutes before the "real script", because the "sacrificial script" uses No Files as the Selector (Rule in Retrospect Mac terminology)—and therefore normally completes in 4 minutes. However if the "sacrificial script" starts to run more than 1 minute after its scheduled time, the "real script"—which has the same source and destination—always waits to start.
  13. jhg, I am a Retrospect Mac administrator, but I've got a couple of suggestions: First, if running 3 scripts as separate Immediate operations, explicitly designate the same Execution Unit for all 3 scripts. Look on page 93 of the Retrospect Windows 15 User's Guide (you don't specify your version of Retrospect) about switching into Advanced Mode to designate the Execution Unit, then proceed from there. I think that will put the operations into the "Waiting" queue; the equivalent does so on Retrospect Mac. OTOH Retrospect Windows may have special limitations for Immediate operations; Retrospect Mac eliminated Immediate operations in 2009, treating Toolbar-button submissions as scheduled-immediately script creations. Second, if trying to run 3 backup scripts as if they were one script, I assume that you would simply put all the Sources into a single script if they were disjoint volumes or Subvolumes. Since therefore they must overlap, consider defining the overlapping Sources as Subvolumes. Subvolumes are discussed beginning on page 420 of the UG, and —since they are only defined to Retrospect—I don't see any prohibition on defining them so that they overlap—provided that (at least on the same volume, and preferably globally) you use different names for each Subvolume. Page 175 of the UG says "Click and drag to rearrange the list order" of Backup Sources. Third, a script cannot execute other scripts. Administrators have occasionally asked for this facility, but Retrospect Inc. has evidently decided that its programming complications would outweigh its usefulness.
  14. DavidHertzberg

    Config faulty - start from scratch

    johanvos, Based on my recent experience, you won't have to go through all the steps that you think you will. I think if you follow the steps I recommended for myhrik and Lennart_T in the second paragraph of this linked-to post by me, you will be able to get back a working version of Retrospect fairly easily. You'll be able to keep using your existing Scripts and Media Sets and local Sources; you'll only need to re-Add your "client" Sources and put them back into your Scripts as the paragraph says. For you the only additional requirement is that you first be sure you have upgraded to Retrospect Mac 15.6.1 (105), which I think you may still need to do because your 29 November post says you were using 15.6.0 (125). Just don't do anything to your configs.xml file; I originally did, and it caused me to spend several hours of extra effort for only 5 Scripts and 3 Media Sets. The "smart" Report folders in my Console Dashboard sidebar are just fine, with the exception of Active Scripts and Inactive Scripts. The sidebar says I have 4 active scripts, which is true, but the Active Scripts report folder shows 5 scripts—including one that is inactive. The sidebar says I have 1 inactive script, which is true, but the Inactive Scripts report folder is empty. After I looked inside the Inactive Scripts folder I couldn't select a script in either my Active Scripts folder or my Scripts sidebar category until I quit and restarted the Retrospect.app Console, so I suggest you don't look inside Inactive Scripts. The second paragraph of this earlier post by me explains what IMHO is going on with the engineers at Retrospect Inc.. Because I moved config80.dat to the Mac desktop and let my copy of regenerate it, I don't have a problem with an empty Dashboard. However, even though the pair of 15.6.1 releases fixed a number of "bad release" bugs that the engineers created in 15.5 and 15.6.0—especially for Retrospect Windows, it looks like there are several still-existing bugs for those users of Retrospect Mac 15.6.1 (105) who didn't regenerate their config80.dat files as I happened to. I'll file a formal Support Case for my problems with looking inside the Inactive Scripts and Active Scripts report folders; here's why and how you should file one for your missing Sidebar reports folders. Good luck! P.S.: A word of warning: If you worked through your problem with Retrospect's European Support, don't take that as the most authoritative word. From the comments of one administrator a year ago, it seems that the European Support person is a contractor who is not that familiar with Retrospect. The same administrator said that the contractor's first language seems not to be English (maybe it's German; lucky you! ).
  15. lhlo, I eventually tried to do a Forums search again, this time using "use at most"—including enclosing double-quotes—as the search term. I didn't find the post I had found before, but I found one that seems to be helpful because it deals with Retrospect 10.5. If you want to repeat the search, I suggest you ignore any posts found that are in a Macintosh forum or for Retrospect Express or are from 2007 or earlier. Here's the thread with the post that seems to be helpful. The post is the first one in the thread by Scillonian, who is generally quite knowledgeable about Retrospect Windows. However here's an earlier (and thus probably applicable, even though the OP doesn't state his Retrospect Windows version) Scillonian post in a different thread, which indicates that there may be a problem because it is the Use At Most percentage that is stored.