Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by DavidHertzberg

  1. IanWorthington, It's a Windows 10 thing too. Read the second and third paragraphs—the ones above and below the screenshot—in this article. That will tell you how to see the partition. If you really don't have one, you may have to re-install Windows 10. Read the rest of the article. Then repeat the Google search in my preceding post, use the result to find a suitable video, and watch that.
  2. IanWorthington, Prompted by that same KB article, I Googled "Windows 10 'system reserved'" without the outer double-quotes, and with the single-quotes around "system reserved" changed to double-quotes. That directed me, among other things, to this AOMEI page. I'm a Macintosh user, so good luck.😄
  3. redleader and Nigel Smith, There surely can't be any Catalog updating in the run of a Copy script, because that script doesn't designate a Media Set as a destination—no Media Set means no designation of a Catalog. That's why I thought my test might run faster than the equivalent Recycle run of my Backup script. In fact its copying phase ran slower. Maybe cramming copies of multiple source files into a single .rdb file is faster than adding each file to the macOS HFS+ filesystem, but I'm not inclined to investigate it. There weren't any files in the destination folder. I had deleted all those that were copied there by a test run I killed after 5 minutes, because at that time the script specified all Copy all files instead of Copy only missing files—which is what redleader specifies. In any case, my test proves that redleader could get his backing up done faster with Backup scripts. He could also use the resultant Catalogs to do grooming as Nigel Smith suggested. I don't bother with grooming, since I must—because of past occurrences of water leaks from an upstairs apartment—swap a portable HDD containing complete backups of all my drives off-site once a week. P.S.: On pages 120–121 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide, under item 6. there are paragraphs following this single-sentence paragraph: that describe not only the pop-up that redleader shows he chose in this screenshot in this up-thread post, but each of the other pop-up options. Those paragraphs have been deleted from page 110 of the Retrospect Mac 17 UG—evidently by the StorCentric Slasher (my name for him 🤣 ).
  4. redleader and Nigel Smith, I' just finished running a test, in which I did a Copy of the entire contents of my MacBook Pro's SSD to a folder—defined to Retrospect as a Favorite Folder so it can be used as a Destination—placed to use the spare space on the portable HDD I'm going to use as a Destination for my weekly Recycle Backup tomorrow. The Copy script was defined as yours is—specifying Copy only missing files; however—since the destination folder is empty—it was in fact copying all files from my MBP's SSD. I predicted the Copy script's copying phase would take almost exactly the 3 hours 21 minutes that the copying phase of my Recycle Backup of the same data took last Saturday morning. The copying phase took 3 hours 40 minutes, followed by a Closing phase that went on for 6 minutes before I killed the run (so the MBP's Friday a.m. incremental Backup would run). That may have been the "duplicating state information" phase that redleader has been getting, but I'm running Retrospect Mac 16.6 instead of 17.0. There were 165 "Map error: unknown Mac error 22" messages shown or summarized in the script's log. I had expected that the speed of the Copy script's copying phase would be be approximately the same as the 371MB/min. of the equivalent Backup copying phase last Saturday. In fact it was lower—325MB/min.. Why, you may well ask, is the speed of that copying phase so much lower than the speed of what Nigel Smith has described as my "high-speed LAN"? After all, the net throughput of the MoCA 1.1 adapters at either end of my in-the-wall inter-room coax link is 175Mbit/sec—with all intra-room hardware rated at 1Gbit/sec.; assuming 10 bits per byte to allow for overhead, that should allow 1.05GB/min.. Why is my speed 35% or less of what it should be? My hypothesis is described in this post in a 2017 thread. It was validated by this later post in that thread, and by the next 2 posts that followed it.
  5. Was it the thread in which this post is the OP? The only post in that thread that isn't by the OP or me is this one by mbennett, but he's from Fair Grove MO—not Helsingborg in Sweden—so he's not Lennart_T. What the OP was reporting doing in that thread was indeed weird, though—and obsolete.
  6. redleader, I was going to ask the same question that Nigel Smith did in the second paragraph of his second post, but he beat me to it while I was out buying apples in my local farmers' market (the apple-growing farmers' employees, who are mostly Tibetan immigrants, bring the apples from upstate New York—rather than growing them in Manhattan). And now you've provided the answer in your latest reply. A few hours ago I started to create a test Copy script; Back up System State—described on page 101 of the Retrospect Mac 17 User's Guide—is automatically checked under Source->Windows on the Options tab. As Nigel Smith suggests in his first post, you might try unchecking that option. I've done some Forums searches, but I can't find any post by Lennart_T that "found some unexpected 'leakage' between client settings a while back". If—after swearing on the head of Her Majesty QE II (which I'm sure your fellow Brit would insist on 🤣) that Users on Michael's MacBook Pro doesn't contain any Windows files—you want to create a Support Case for a bug, here's why and how to do it. Since MB MICHAEL 2018 seems to be a dedicated "backup" folder on your "backup server" FS SERVER DATA 02, you might instead consider replacing the copied files and folders with a Media Set on that "backup" folder to be the daily Destination using the Recycle media action on a Backup script. I actually do that every Saturday morning for my MacBook Pro "client", except that my Destination is inside the "Retrospect" folder on a portable HDD (which, after 6 subsequent incremental daily backups using No Media Action, I carry off to a week's holiday in my bank safe deposit box before bringing it back to sit for a week in my apartment before being used again). Nigel Smith has now suggested in his third post, which he just sneaked in while I was taking a long phone call, what I do. The Saturday morning Recycle Backup of my MBP backs up 71.1GB over 3.3 hours, not including a 0.7 hour compare phase (which I do because I'm a worrywart who used to back up to tape). That's 739K individual files, not your piddling 37K. I don't mess with grooming, because having 2 complete backups of my MBP—one (offsite) less than a week old and one less than 2 weeks old—to supplement the portable drive cabled to my "backup server" is adequate for my needs.
  7. DavidHertzberg

    Backup set located on site to site VPN

    The paragraph above, in my first post in this thread, is the only thing I wrote that could be considered "rude and disrespectful". But it had the effect I intended, which was to get you to supply the missing information in a post directly following it. Once you'd done that, Lennart_T and I and Nigel Smith were able to diagnose your problem—which is why I wrote "Do you see how much better help you get when you calm down long enough to explain what you're trying to do? 😀" at the top of my next post in the thread. Nobody can give you "an idea whats going on here" if you don't supply the necessary information, and I will always consider it "rude and disrespectful" for you—or anyone else—to expect people on these Forums to do so. You were probably very frustrated when you wrote that OP, but I don't consider that a sufficient excuse. You should try volunteering to answer other administrators' questions on these Forums; you'll soon understand my attitude toward administrators who don't supply the necessary information. You will also develop a "psychic" ability to read an administrator's "tone, demeanor and thoughts just by reading a few words on a screen", and by reading his/her past posts as well—as I did in this thread to guess what you were doing. I'm sorry to inform you that employees of Retrospect "Inc." haven't been reading these Forums for the past couple of years, and—unlike some other websites—there aren't any volunteer Forums administrators. So if you want to make—after 3 months 😲—a complaint about me, you'll need to create a Support Case for the head of Retrospect Tech Support to read. Here's how to create a Support Case for a bug—the closest equivalent; select "Forums" in the appropriate drop-down.
  8. DavidHertzberg

    granular restore options

    (Disclaimer: Anything I may say about the intentions of Retrospect "Inc." in this or any other post is merely the result of "reading the tea leaves", the "tea leaves" being documentation and public announcements supplemented by an occasional morsel from Retrospect Sales. I have never been paid a penny by Retrospect "Inc." or its predecessors, and I pay for my upgrades. Any judgements expressed are—obviously—mine alone. The same is true of Retrospect's history, especially here.) redleader, There used to be an explanation of those granular Restore options on pages 129–130 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide, following the phrase "Choose one of these:" (that phrase still remains 🙄 )in step 6. However the explanatory indented paragraphs below the phrase were deleted on page 115 of the Retrospect Mac 17 UG by the StorCentric Slasher (who is in reality probably a direct employee of Retrospect "Inc."). The Slasher evidently had to make room in the UG for 30 pages of new Appendixes that were copied from Knowledge Base articles explaining "go big or go home" features—pages that IMHO should have been added to the UG when the features were introduced in 2018—without unduly expanding the size of the UG. However a version of that options explanation—including 'Replace if Backup Set is newer'—still remains on page 117 of the Retrospect Windows 17 User's Guide, which was previously more than doubled in size in 2012 for reasons explained in the 3rd paragraph of this later-deleted section of a Wikipedia article. But that explanation depends on the term "Snapshot", which is explained in the fifth paragraph of this also-later-deleted section of the Wikipedia article. As that paragraph also says, "Snapshot" was—as used from 1990 onward: That elimination of "Snapshot" was done in 2008 by the Tyrannical Terminologist 🤣 (my name for a developer whom an old-timer in Retrospect Sales says played a key role in the re-design of Retrospect Mac 8). That developer was prescient; Apple APFS's "snapshots" mean something different than Retrospect's, and something similar to Microsoft Windows' "snapshots". As a Glossary entry on pages 229–230 of the Retrospect Mac 17 UG says: IIRC I've never used the 'Only overwrite older files' option, so I've no idea whether it works. However nobody's posted a Forums complaint about it not working. If Mac 16 UG pages 99–100 Use Attribute Modification Date When Matching doesn't work, here's why and how to submit a Support Case for a bug. Regardless, of whether the option works, you may also want to submit a Support Case for a Retrospect Mac documentation deficiency; here's why and how to do that. In doing that, you'll have to deal head-on with the term "Snapshot" having been banned in Retrospect Mac since 2009. The last two paragraphs of this post in another thread discuss my proposal—made in response to my earlier post in that thread about the meaning in the Retrospect Windows UG of the undefined term "active Snapshot"—that Retrospect "Inc." replace the term "Snapshot" with "Manifest". That replacement would have to be in the "backup server" Engine as well as in the GUI for both variants of Retrospect, because the Engine is basically common code for the two variants. If you doubt Engine code is common, look at a running Retrospect Mac Backup script—where you'll see "Updating Snapshot" and "Copying Snapshot" displayed on the Console as phases of the backup. That's why I suggested "Manifest", which has the same 8-letter-length as "Snapshot".
  9. DavidHertzberg

    Console 16.1 erases client options

    Don Lee, Upgrade immediately to Retrospect Mac 16.6. Don't pass "Go", don't collect $119 🤣 —which I assume you already paid for a Desktop Edition upgrade. Retrospect Console 16.1 has "joined the choir invisible". Why are you using it? 🙄 I've been totally on Retrospect Mac 16.6 since December 2019. A fast eyeball search of the Retrospect Mac cumulative Release Notes doesn't disclose a fix for your 16.1 Console bug. However a number of existing features ended up broken in the 15.0–16.5 "go big or go home" era of Retrospect development; most of them seem to have been fixed by 16.6. As the first long paragraph of this post in another thread mentions, Retrospect "Inc." apparently isn't above obfuscating who discovered a Retrospect bug that backup administrators reported before it was fixed. 😎 So if an engineer discovered the bug noted in your OP and fixed it by 16.6, he wouldn't necessarily have put a mention of it into the Release Notes—because IMHO the engineers are ashamed of 30 years of inadequate alpha-testing.
  10. DavidHertzberg

    Proactive job scheduling

    Jan Löwe, The head of Retrospect Tech Support did indeed reach out today, at what would be 5:24 a.m. California time. The second paragraph of his reply is: That sounds as if your bug was the one fixed in Retrospect Mac and Windows 17.5.1. As to who at Retrospect "inc." changed the bug title to be less informative, I'd better not speculate. I'd also be better off not speculating as to why QA testing supposedly (but see Jordan Shattuck's first e-mailed reply in my post directly above) discovered this bug after the 23 September release 17.5.0. However there is an Engine preference that specifies the maximum number (up to 16) of activity threads that can be running in parallel. So all an engineer had to do as an alpha-test is to set this preference to 3—leaving 2 for source "client" machine-drive combinations along with the thread for the Proactive "controller"—and then submit a script with 3 source "client" machine-drive combinations. Proper alpha-testing, including of the 17.0.0 "AI" speedup, should have caught this bug earlier. Everybody, The first paragraph of his reply is: As stated in the post directly above, I originally contacted Retrospect "inc." about bug #8893 by using the messaging facility newly made available to readers of the cumulative Release Notes—not via this Forum. All subsequent communications were via e-mail. So I guess the head of R. T. S. is annoyed that I mentioned my communications on this Forum. Be warned. Also be warned that my sending a message from the cumulative Release Notes web page resulted in "Jordan Shattuck" creating a separate Support Case containing my original message and the subsequent e-mails. Maybe that's the only way he/she has of communicating them to R. T. S.. OTOH hitting option 7 on the Retrospect phone line and typing in "Shatt" elicited a statement that no one whose last name starts with those letters is listed, so I guess Inside Sales Manager Jordan Shattuck is considered too junior—maybe because he still has hair 🤣—to have a separate phone extension.
  11. DavidHertzberg

    Yet another -530 client not found error

    Nigel Smith, Permit me to recount a personal story that will shed some light on I bought my first home computer in the Fall of 1988, preparatory to belatedly returning to college for 1.5 years to get a quickie BA in Computer Science. I bought a Mac because that's what my college recommended, and I followed that up with buying a Maynard QIC tape drive in February 1989. The backup software was not Retrospect but Maynstream—the ancestor of BE. My wife and I returned to NYC after I received my BA degree in the Spring of 1991; my wife had been using my original Mac for writing and drawing once I had bought a second Mac for myself in December 1989. In January 1992 I upgraded my Mac to System 7, following the Boston Computer Society Active Window recommendation to do so by wiping my backed-up HDD and installing System 7 from scratch. That worked fine, and my wife asked me to do the same for her Mac in February 1992. Maynstream couldn't read the Maynard backup I had made for her. I ended up shipping the backup tapes to Drive Savers, who managed to recover most of my wife's backed-up data for a charge of around $700 in 1992 U.S. currency. I bought a DAT tape drive in 1995, after a later disaster—whose details I can't remember—that resulted in my wife's permanently losing some of her Mac artwork, and have been running Retrospect with a Compare step every morning ever since—except 2010–2015 when I had no "backup server". (My now-ex-wife has continued to buy Macintoshes, and is using Time Machine for backup.) The applicable point of this story is that one has to be very careful about preserving the data—and applications—stored on a spouse's computer. It's possible that x509's wife has been using applications or Windows add-ons that came as part of the Lenovo "bloatware", which is why he would write "... but too much time has passed now." That's why I'd like to help him get a "self-healing" Retrospect Windows Client. A exact opposite of such carefulness is the attitude of the Ars Technica Other Hardware forum poster to whom I wrote the Private Message from which the story in the above lengthy paragraph is adapted (you didn't think I wrote it especially for this post, did you? 🤣 ). He is personally a Windows and Linux user, and wrote—of his wife and daughter's Macs—"computers that I don't want to support when a free alternative they can use to self-support exists. I'm not planning on throwing money away on a repeated basis buying upgrades to any potential software, I'm not planning on constantly making sure their backups are working, I'm not interested in walking them through periodic upgrades. If I can provide a service that they can use to self-support (the entire beauty of Time Machine) then I'm done. If Time Machine is unreliable, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it." I had cautiously suggested a client-server application (I'm not allowed to name Retrospect on the Ars forums except in one authorized Mac thread) for backing up to the NAS he wanted to buy, but ended up suggesting A**—a "push" backup application that would be enough for all his home computers.
  12. DavidHertzberg

    Proactive job scheduling

    Jan Löwe, Retrospect Windows was released today. Its very-informative 🤣 entire entry in the cumulative Release Notes is: Is #8893 the bug number assigned to the Support Case that you submitted about Proactive job scheduling? P.S.: When I looked again at the cumulative Release Notes, they gave me an option to send a message. The first e-mailed reply, from "Jordan Shattuck", said After I replied to that e-mail, pointing out that I had initially read the Release Notes and describing your prominent position, I got back another e-mail saying I strongly suspect that "Jordan Shattuck" is actually a bot. Just what I needed, StorCentric! 🙄 Real people may reach out Monday.
  13. DavidHertzberg

    Yet another -530 client not found error

    I understand that, but x509 has been suffering with -530 errors on his wife's Lenovo Yoga 730 machine for at least a year—and I'd like to automate the relief process for him as well. I'd like nothing better than for him to do a clean install using a retail copy of Windows, but he says "I probably should have done the same [clean install] with my wife's system when it was new, but too much time has passed now." Restart Service is no doubt overkill (a choice of word not originally intended to be humorous 🤣 ) for all the other administrators having a -530 problem with Windows "clients" that aren't "blessed" with Lenovo "bloatware", but it would be effective. Maybe there could be a single "command line" script that would first determine if the Client was On. If it wasn't, the script would do a Restart Service. Either way, the script would then do a "ping" of the "ipsave address"; if the "ping" didn't work, it would turn the Client off and on again. The problem is that, if the Client were Off, it couldn't run the "command line" script—so the "command line" script would have to be run at the end of the machine boot process. I'd like to avoid having the Retrospect Client Installer put in a machine-boot-process "command line" script for all other administrators; maybe the Installer could determine if the "client" machine is a Lenovo. Alternatively, we—or R.T.S.—would have to give x509 a separate script to install on his wife's machine.
  14. DavidHertzberg

    Yet another -530 client not found error

    Great experiment, Nigel Smith! 😀 It sounds as if x509 can make things easier on himself if he just checks the Client on "Lenovo730" before its nightly backup starts (he could already be backing up "client D"), and does a "Close program" followed by a "restart service" for the "Lenovo730" Client if its Status is "Off". Maybe that can later be done in one Windows "command line" script—or optionally two; see the next paragraph. MrPete, mbennett, rfajman, and Nigel Smith, Be aware I don't know anything about Windows "command line" scripting, but it occurred to me that the entire process in this post's lead paragraph could be automated for the case where the Client's Status is still On—which it isn't in x509's case. The approach would be the same as in the last substantive paragraph of this up-thread post, except that the Client would launch a Windows "command line" script to do the work instead of doing the work itself. That would shift the multi-threading upwards to Windows, which would eliminate the engineering difficulty of multi-threading the Client that I mentioned in the second paragraph of this further up-thread post. Either the "command line" script would retrieve the Client's "ipsave address" itself or the Client would pass the "ipsave address" to the script as a parameter; either way the script would simply "ping" the address, and do the "Close program" followed by a "restart service" for the Client if the "ping" was unsuccessful (based on the "if I can't see you, then you probably can't see me" principle we all learned as children playing hide-and-seek.). A optional extra—for x509's situation—"command line" script without the "ping" would be run after "client" machine boot to start the Client. MrPete, because of his evident prowess in Windows shown in this even-further-upthread post, should probably investigate the feasibility of writing such a script. If it's feasible, he should include it as an Additional Note in his Support Case #8512. Given that Retrospect Windows didn't fix the -530 bug, I suspect the Retrospect engineers would now be open to a simpler approach. Maybe I should investigate the feasibility of writing the equivalent of such a script for macOS, although I have no experience with macOS "command line scripting. x509, IMHO you need to further investigate eliminating the "Lenovo bloatware" on your wife's "Lenovo730" machine. I did a search of the Forums, but nobody else has reported the same problem. However you're totally correct about that "bloatware"; through early 2015 it included bundling Superfish software identified as malware, and in August 2018—which post-dates the release of the Yoga 730—Lenovo "was criticized for automatically downloading Lenovo Service Engine software – labeled as unwanted bloatware by many. Worse, when users removed the software Lenovo systems were configured to download and reinstall the program without the PC owner’s consent [my emphasis]". Before investigating that, you need to figure out precisely when the "bloatware" shuts down the Client around the time of "client" boot—so that the optional "ping"-less script can be run afterward as part of the machine boot process rather than by the Client.
  15. DavidHertzberg

    Yet another -530 client not found error

    x509, I'm now going to get myself into trouble by venturing into the sociological aspects of client-server backup. 😃 Assuming "client" machine "Lenovo730"'s C:\ drive is OK, then—based on what Nigel Smith has said and what you've said above—it sounds as if your wife is occasionally doing something to her machine while Retrospect is backing it up. My guess is that she's either rebooting it or shutting it down or removing it from an Ethernet connection while the backup is running, and that's what's generating the Client lock file. I wouldn't recommend holding your breath while the Retrospect engineers develop a facility for having a robotic arm reach out of the "client" to slap her hand when she tries to do that. 🤣 Therefore let's consider doing what I did for the last 10 years I was married. I wrote Backup scripts—not Proactive scripts—scheduled to run at 3 a.m. or later to back up both our machines, and I booted both "clients" followed by the "backup server" whenever we had breakfast. So both of our "client" machines got backed up once a day; No Media Action (Normal) on weekdays and Recycle (to a newly-swapped-in destination with the swapped-out destination going off-site)—with a script that also backed up the "backup server"—on Saturdays. (IIRC I originally scheduled these backups to be done while we were getting ready for bed, but the noise of a tape drive executing the Recycle script in the bedroom turned out to interfere with our sleep Saturday night to Sunday morning.) We both learned to do Save As for any document changes that wouldn't be backed up until the following morning, and we treated Saturday mornings in accordance with the no-work Jewish Sabbath (despite her being Catholic). Although now alone, I still do this. If my guess is incorrect or my solution is unacceptable, let's return to the question of "constant maintenance". Contrary to what Nigel Smith speculated above, this 2016 Knowledge Base document—though for a different error—implies that there is no Retrospect Windows equivalent for Retrospect Mac's retroclient.state file. This post in a 2014 thread by the head of Retrospect Tech Support—again for a different error—implies the same thing. So it appears there's no alternative to what you reported doing in December 2019—which is Client delete and reinstall. A Client, even multi-threaded (2nd paragraph here), couldn't delete and reinstall itself. You can at least eliminate the monitoring part of the "constant maintenance" by—in addition to supplying your e-mail address—specifying Send e-mail for failure and media requests per page 407 of the Retrospect Windows 16 User's Guide. That would, by showing any problem with "Lenovo730" backups, IMHO eliminate the need for the script hooks that Nigel Smith suggested. P.S.: Nigel Smith made an error below because he didn't pay attention to the second through fourth sentences of my third paragraph; a Windows Client has no equivalent to a retroclient.state file. I've deduced this from a KB article and an R.T.S. post, but you can check that deduction with R.T. S..
  16. DavidHertzberg

    Yet another -530 client not found error

    x509, Nigel Smith's suggestion in the next-to-last paragraph directly above is excellent. However if the lock file hypothesis is correct, it sound as if the "client" you now refer to as "L" is never backed up. I will use my immense psychic powers 🤣 to guess that your client "L" is actually the same "Lenovo730" you were talking about in the OP a year ago today (Happy thread Anniversary!). And two months later you solved a problem with what is probably the same "client" computer by doing this. So why not do it again, which should get rid of any lock file that is related to "L"'s Client? But I also notice that the Lenova Yoga 730 came out about 2.5 years ago. With two similar problems in one year, is it possible that your C:\ drive is failing in a way that affects the Client? Nigel Smith or Lennart_T can advise you better than I can on how to test that.
  17. DavidHertzberg

    Yet another -530 client not found error

    x509, How soon we forget! 🤣 Here's a December 2019 post by you yourself in this Forum, telling how you solved what seems to be this very problem on one of your "client" machines by thoroughly un-installing and re-installing the Retrospect Windows Client. My preceding post in the same thread pointed out that there's supposed to be a Protected by Retrospect Server checkbox line, described on page 304 of the Retrospect Windows 16 User's Guide, in the Retrospect Client Control Panel. However on page 305 of the same UG there's an Allow Clients to Turn off the Retrospect Client Software preference in Configure > Clients in the "backup server" console sidebar. Maybe you've un-checked that preference for this particular "client", which would explain why "there is no way for the client to turn itself back on." The preference was added years ago; users with slow "client" machines were turning off their Client to disable backup. P.S.: Retrospect Windows, released on 23 September, doesn't contain a fix for bug #8512. MrPete says the bug is only in the Windows variant, but I don't see why at least the cause—if not the must-reboot-the-"client"-machine fix—isn't the same in the Mac variant as well.
  18. DavidHertzberg

    -1104 errors

    rfajman, I think you must only be having this problem when backing up to a disk destination, so it shares that with the problem described in your other thread. However it's for server as well as client backups, so the commonality may only be in having various funny things—per Nigel Smith—going on with the destination disk. As to that, take a look at this 2019 Forum post, which I found by clicking the magnifying-glass icon in the Search box on the upper right and typing in "1104" (this time with the double-quotes). The very-expert-in-Retrospect-Windows Lennart_T diagnosed that OP's problem as being with the source Windows (C:) drive, although the OP produced evidence that the problem went away with a different method of connecting his destination drive to the "backup server"—whose (C:) drive was evidently the source.
  19. DavidHertzberg

    -643 errors with client backups

    rfajman, It's time you learned how to use the Retrospect Knowledge Base. Navigate your web browser to www.retrospect.com/support, click the "Knowledge Base" icon, and do a search on "-643" (without the double quotes). You'll find this 2017 article, which says "If the Retrospect process ends unexpectedly, it could result in problems saving some of temporary data files that are used when negotiating security with your servers". It looks as if its solution may solve your problem. OTOH that doesn't explain why you get no error with cloud backups; Nigel Smith's suggestion might help to provide that explanation—which may have to do with temporary files that aren't used for your cloud backups because they're scanning fewer source directories (how's that for a SWAG? 🤣 ). As for the CHKDSK flags asked about by Nigel Smith, here's a Lifewire article explaining them. I found that by Googling "chkdsk windows 10 commands"(without the double quotes). However the KB article linked-to in the preceding paragraph says the problem is likely to be with Retrospect temporary files on the "backup server", not with the disks being backed up.
  20. DavidHertzberg

    Proactive job scheduling

    Nigel Smith, Sorry, per further reading the second paragraph in my preceding post proposes a wrong solution. Circumstances of my making the post are personally embarrassing; I did so early on the morning of Yom Kippur, when in other years I would have been on my way to a synagogue. However this year—due to the COVID-19 pandemic—I had to participate in services by watching YouTube live feeds at home, and—having made my preceding post just before the start of the Sunday evening service—I couldn't resist the temptation to take a quick look at this Forum before the start of the Monday morning service—and to post a quick reply while you and Jan Löwe would see it. Now I've got another sin to repent of, which is hastily-written reply posts. Step 2 of The Algorithm's decision tree says: It looks to me as if the looping in the algorithm is not going back to Step 2 after each successful backup, maybe as an unintended (or trade-off?) result of the "10x Faster ProactiveAI" enhancement in Here's The Algorithm's last step; "moves on" should mean looping back to Step 2: If so, this is some kind of loop-back bug, possibly fixed in Retrospect Mac—the following bug fix sounds like it's to the same piece of code: Jan Löwe, Please upgrade your "backup server" to Retrospect Mac, rerun your previous test, and then—assuming you get the same erroneous results—submit a bug-fix Support Case. All you need to do for the Problem Statement is to copy the longest paragraph in your second post in this thread, and then append the result of that further test as an Additional Note.
  21. DavidHertzberg

    Proactive job scheduling

    Nigel Smith, You're right on both counts; I didn't read Jan Löwe's second post in this thread anywhere nearly thoroughly enough 😢 , probably because he posted it while I was writing a post myself. Please accept my apologies. However it appears that the analysis in the second point of my most-recent post isn't a total waste; the paragraph below the quote pinpoints what the bug is. When the destination of a Proactive script is a Storage Group, the "backup server" should immediately generate all "child" Proactive scripts—placing them into the "Waiting" queue in defiance of the second quoted Note. That way each "child" script for which there is initially no available activity thread would start to execute as a preceding "child" script finished executing—making an activity thread available. Jan Löwe, Please ASAP do the test Nigel Smith suggests in his last paragraph of the post immediately above this one, and submit a Support Case. It's now clear that it's really for a bug in an existing feature, so here's how to do that. I'd submit it myself, except that my past experience has shown that Retrospect Tech Support will ask the person who submitted the Support Case to test at least possible bug fix—and I no longer have enough "client" machines in my installation to do that. All you need to do for the Problem Statement is to copy the longest paragraph in your second post in this thread, and then append the result of that further test as an Additional Note.
  22. DavidHertzberg

    Proactive job scheduling

    Nigel Smith, First, I don't know what you mean by "Mac script" and "PC script" in Jan Löwe's situation. He says all his scripts are running on a macOS Catalina "backup server", and there's nothing that says a single Retrospect script can't backup "clients" of both OS varieties. In fact from 2001–2004 I used to include as a "client" the drive on my Windows 95 "grey box" PC, which my bosses' boss had forced on me for work-from-home use so I wouldn't infect the rest of the office with a recurrence of shingles (his mother was Native American, and although he was a graduate of New York University he had certain non-modern health concepts), in a weekly Recycle Backup script—running on my Mac "backup server"—that also included my wife's and my Mac "clients". Although I don't use Proactive scripts, I'd expect that to apply to them as well. Second, I don't think anything in the Engine's handling of multiple activity threads—execution units in Retrospect Windows parlance—has changed with the introduction of Storage Groups. Because Engine multi-threading was introduced in Retrospect Windows 7, here's a quote from page 161 of the Retrospect Windows 7.5 User's Guide (belatedly copyrighted in 2011)—whose explanation is simpler than in later editions: IMHO the Notes would apply to a Proactive script whose destination is a Storage Group. Such a script simply attempts to launch a "child" Proactive script for each client-volume in the script's Sources; if there isn't an available activity thread, the corresponding "child" single-source Proactive script's launch goes into the "Waiting" queue—but only if the second Note doesn't apply). When such a "child" script has backed up its single Source, what's left for it to loop on? One solution would be if a multi-Source "parent" Proactive script were also running—looping while monitoring completion of the single-Source "child" Proactive scripts, but I can see nothing in pages 37–45 of the Retrospect Mac 17 User's Guide that says that feature exists yet. Don't expect it to be added soon. It won't be needed if the second Note quoted doesn't apply to a "child" Proactive script; Jan Löwe should test this. The feature does exist already, but has a bug; see this down-thread post. Third, I agree with you about the aptness of the Retrospect term "grooming"—which appears in the Retrospect Windows 7.5 UG and thus can have originated no later than 2007. However I think Jan Löwe's objection is similar to the reason the bossy Retrospect developer had for banning the use of the term "snapshot" in the Retrospect Mac 8 UI. Both terms have acquired other more-popular connotations, in criminology for "grooming" and in Computer Science for "snapshot". Welcome to the wacky world of English language development. 🤣
  23. DavidHertzberg

    Proactive job scheduling

    Think nothing of it, Nigel Smith. 😄 My preceding post started out as a correction of your preceding post, but then I realized that Jan Löwe's fundamental problem seemed to be (he's just made a second post) that he didn't understand the use case for Proactive scripts—whether following the pre-2018 algorithm or the "AI" (I agree with him that "AI" is a bit of a naming stretch for what is really an "expert system") algorithm. I'm running 16.6. Jan Löwe, Don't worry about posting in the wrong Forum; over the years many Retrospect Mac administrators have been confused by the "Professional" title for this Forum. 🤣 I'll change the User's Guide links in my previous posts to also reference the Retrospect Mac 17 UG page numbers. If your two Proactive scripts are each spawning multiple Activity Threads, then their destinations must be Storage Groups. What you don't yet realize is that Storage Groups, with their current limitations, are basically a kludge intended to save administrators from the bookkeeping that would be required for creating multiple Proactive scripts with explicitly-separate (to avoid conflict) Media Set destinations. AFAICT the use of a Storage Group currently doesn't create any "parent" Proactive thread that is looping while keeping tabs on the progress of the "child" Proactive activity threads; the looping is in each "child" thread—but that has AFAIK only one Source machine-volume so the looping is only theoretical. It would be wonderful if there were such a "parent" thread, but that new feature—which your Support Case should suggest—would require inter-process communication that would AFAIK be different for Retrospect Mac vs. Retrospect Windows (challenging the common-code-since-2009 foundation of the Engine). I've been told that the Retrospect "Inc." staff is now busy with meetings centered on StorCentric management's requirements, so don't expect that feature to be added soon. The third sentence in this paragraph is wrong; the Proactive script itself is supposed to be the "parent" thread—with no looping in the "child" thread, but there's an apparent bug in the "parent" looping—see this down-thread post. Therefore IMHO what you should do is to go through the bookkeeping of creating multiple scripts. Some Proactive scripts can be for "client" machines that you know have been backed up before—possibly for "departmental" or "arrival-spread" subsets, and may use a Storage Group destination to enable parallel execution—which the Engine will keep track of but without looping. OTOH each "new client" machine should have its own separate script with its own separate destination Media Set, and IMHO that should be a one-time-scheduled Backup script—with a Recycle media action—that can keep running over a daily boundary until it finishes. After it finishes, you can run a Copy Media Set operation to copy the Media Set into the Storage Group; that run can overlap with other script runs using the same Storage Group for other "client" machines, and can then re-use the same Media Set with a Recycle media action for your next "new client" Backup. My warnings in my third post in this thread about Storage Group limitations continue to apply, especially for Retrospect Mac—where the GUI for accessing Storage Group component Media Sets doesn't exist yet. BTW, are you in real life the director of a laboratory in Cambridge UK? (Or did you just pick his name as a Forums "handle"?) Just asking because it's helpful to know something about an administrator's installation; I've been quite open about my own. Nigel Smith's installation may resemble yours.
  24. DavidHertzberg

    Proactive job scheduling

    Jan Löwe, This post will be the last of my thoughts on your problem, unless and until we get further information from you. That information must include how many Proactive scripts you currently have scheduled, and what those schedules are. What you are asking in your OP is whether we agree that "that's poor behaviour of the scheduler that should make jobs active whenever required AND possible, and should prioritise those clients that have never been backup up to the current set." I don't agree, because I think the use case for Proactive scripts described in the first paragraph of my second post in this thread has satisfied the needs of many administrators for over 20 years. You OTOH have a different use case that prioritizes clients that have never been backed up to the current Backup Set. I've explained in the remaining paragraphs of my second post how you can achieve that prioritization using separate scheduled Backup and Transfer scripts, and I've explained in my third post in this thread how you might be able to achieve that same prioritization using Storage Groups—despite their limitations. What you may not fully appreciate, because the explanation on pages 197-198 of the Retrospect Windows 17 User's Guide is unclear (unlike page 108 of the Retrospect Mac 17 UG), is that the longest you can schedule a Proactive script is from midnight to midnight on a particular day. A daily Proactive script starts again with a new "backup window" on its next scheduled day, where—per "Algorithm" step 7 on page 191—"Sources with faster previous backups will be backed up sooner than sources with slower previous backups." The "Algorithm" sub-section (which is a duplicate of the Knowledge Base article I have linked to in up-thread posts) doesn't explain what priority is given to a brand-new source on its first Proactive backup. However the section lead on page 190 says "With ProactiveAI, backup scripts will optimize the backup window for the entire environment based on a decision tree algorithm and linear regression to ensure every source is protected as often as possible", which clearly means per step 7 that a new source that has been backed up at least once for several hours will get lower priority than an old source whose previous Normal incremental backup took a shorter time. That's why per your OP "it takes many days for all clients to be backed up for the first time (while others get incrementally backed up in the meantime)". As I said in the third paragraph of my second post in this thread, you could file a Support Case asking for an option that would implement "Sources with faster previous backups will be backed up later than sources with slower previous backups." But I doubt the feature request will be accepted, for the reason I've given in the second paragraph of this post.
  25. DavidHertzberg

    Proactive job scheduling

    Jan Löwe, When I finished writing the first of my two up-thread posts, I still thought your problem was in not having enough "execution units" to provide sufficient parallelization of Proactive "client" backups. That accounts for my next-to-last paragraph in the post. However. as I started writing the second of my up-thread posts, I decided your fundamental problem is doing from-scratch backups of "client" machines via Proactive scripts that also do Normal backups of other "clients". Let's consider this in terms of what Nigel Smith said up-thread: The maximum—not just the default per mbennett—number of "execution units" that can run simultaneously on one Retrospect "backup server"—with 20GB RAM—is 16 , whether the "execution units" are from explicitly-separate scripts or in-parallel "execution units" implicitly generated by using a Storage Group as the destination for a Proactive script—as Nigel Smith suggests. (Page 325 of the Retrospect Windows 17 User's Guide and page 166 of the Retrospect Mac 17 UG still say 8, but the fix for bug #1366 shown in the cumulative Retrospect Windows Release Notes shows that had been increased to 16—which I've confirmed in my Preferences ->General for Retrospect Mac 16.6—by November 2012.) Your OP says you have to back up about 30 "clients", and when I attended primary school 30 was greater than 16—so there's no way you can back up all your "clients" at once. As I said in the third paragraph of my second up-thread post, a fundamental part of the ProactiveAI decision tree algorithm is that "Sources with faster previous backups will be backed up sooner than sources with slower previous backups." I don't know whether a Proactive script that has completed one of its incremental "client" backups will release the "execution unit" for that backup while a from-scratch backup using the same Storage Group destination continues. I suspect it will, but you're going to have to test that out with a couple of Proactive script runs that cover all 30 "clients" using the same Storage Group destination. It turns out it should but it won't; see this down-thread post. If it works, you can have one Storage Group for all 30-odd "clients", and not run—as I suggested in my second up-thread post—separate scripted Backup runs followed by Transfer Backup Sets operations for the from-scratch backups. However be aware that, to avoid a confusing GUI mess, the Retrospect engineers required in 2018 that a Storage Group be defined with its first Member for all component Backup Sets on a single HDD or cloud equivalent. At least one administrator posting on these Forums has reported a problem with the first Member for one component Backup Set apparently prematurely running out of space. It's not yet clear whether one can define a second Member for an entire Storage Group, or whether one can do this for an individual component Backup Set (which isn't yet an option for a Retrospect Mac "backup server", because the engineers—before their new StorCentric masters diverted them to other tasks in Fall 2019—evidently didn't have time to enhance its GUI to enable accessing an individual Media Set—the Retrospect Mac term for Backup Set—component of a Storage Group). If one can't, you may have to Transfer Backup Sets off Storage Group component Backup Sets and re-initialize the components; that would be messier than what I suggested in my second post up-thread. Nigel Smith's quote also says that a Storage Group creates a separate component Backup Set for each volume attached to each "client" machine—I've verified that. So if some "clients" have more than one volume attached, you'll have more than 30-odd component Backup Sets in your Storage Group.