Jump to content

DavidHertzberg

Members
  • Content count

    1,243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

Everything posted by DavidHertzberg

  1. DavidHertzberg

    Scary Message: Groomed 290.2 GB from Backup Set Drives

    Lennart_T, Point well taken, but the OP's Backup Set is named "Backup Set Drives C D and V", so the message would have to be "Groomed 290.2 GB from 'Backup Set Drives C D and V'". I myself use "Backup Set Red" and "Backup Set White" and "Backup Set Blue" when running Retrospect Mac 6.1 on my G4 Digital Audio, and "Media Set Red" etc. when backing up my other machines using Retrospect Mac 16. The User's Guides and the Retrospect GUI(s) have long encouraged naming Backup/Media Sets that way.
  2. DavidHertzberg

    Scary Message: Groomed 290.2 GB from Backup Set Drives

    NoelC, According to all available documentation, Retrospect's grooming feature only works on Backup Sets—although page 234 of the Retrospect Windows 11 User's Guide under "Scripted Grooming" has the slightly scary sentence "When a Groom script runs, Retrospect deletes older files and folders from the source disk [my emphasis] Backup Set(s) based on its specified grooming policy" which I think is just sloppy tech writing. The reason I'm referring to the Retrospect Windows 11 UG is that, starting with Retrospect Windows 10 and Retrospect Mac 12, the august (adjective meant ironically) Documentation Committee decided that new features described in the "What's New" chapter for a particular major version would not have those descriptions moved to follow-on chapters of the next major version of the UG. Instead those descriptions are simply over-written by the next major version's new features. Therefore the only accessible written description of Performance-Optimized Grooming for Retrospect Windows is on page 8 of the version 11 UG (there is a description in the last section of GDPR – Deep Dive into Data Retention Policies with Grooming Selectors, but who would know to look there? ). There is also the Tutorial video Grooming Options Windows (plus a corresponding version for Retrospect Mac), but again who would know to look for a video? The charitable explanation is that the august Documentation Committee (of which the head of Retrospect Tech Support—by his own admission—is not permitted to be a member ) decided that nobody reads the User's Guides anymore; at 615 pages for the Retrospect Windows UG, exclusive of Release Notes, that IMHO is a supportable position. However I prefer the uncharitable explanation, which is that nobody on the Committee could take time away from his (sexist pronoun intended) regular work in Engineering or Product Management for the one person-week of work (estimate detailed in a Support Case I wrote) to retroactively update the follow-on chapters of both variants of the UG—and pre-StorCentric Retrospect Inc. couldn't afford to hire and familiarize a tech writer (who could have been somebody's spouse). P.S.: FYI Retrospect does have an Archive operation, which is the same as a Backup operation except that has a Move Files option. That option, described under "Archiving Execution Options" on page 376 of the Retrospect Windows 11 User's Guide, "deletes files from the source [my emphasis] volume after they have been copied. If Thorough or Media verification is turned on and the files do not match exactly, the originals will not be deleted." DovidBenAvraham reminds me that the competing application BE eliminated that option in 2018, probably because it violates the "3-2-1 rule" for backups.
  3. DavidHertzberg

    Yet another -530 client not found error

    x509, I understand your frustration, but IMHO calling the -530 error a "self-inflicted wound" is a bit unfair to the Retrospect engineers. The Multicast access method used to work beautifully, at least for me using Retrospect Mac from 1995 to early 2017. However if you read the first expert-quoting section in this post earlier in the same Forums thread I linked to in my preceding post, you'll see that Retrospect's version of Multicast seems to have recently stopped working reliably because of "improvements" in networking hardware (my situation) and/or software (your reported situation). IMHO the Retrospect engineers should at most be faulted for not having done a really thorough investigation of my -530 problems as reported in Support Case #61302 (in which my March 29, 2019 00:38 Additional Note is a copy of the same post section I linked to in the third sentence of this paragraph), and then not having faced up to the need to revise Retrospect's method of Multicasting (e.g. to use mDNS as the Ars Technica expert suggested). Of course in 2018-2019 the Retrospect engineers had many enhancements on their agenda, which Product Management undoubtedly considered to be more urgent than an extensive effort to fix -530 bugs that only some administrators were experiencing. Still, considering that AFAICT most Retrospect engineers are in their 50s, IMHO they would benefit from being forced to take a Software Engineering course in modern debugging methods—which they probably never had in college or grad school (I was a professional applications programmer from 1964 through 1988 after flunking out as a Political Science major, and then went back to get a quickie Bachelor's in CS followed by a night-school MSCS in early 1996—and I never had such a course). IMHO getting Multicast working reliably again will be an absolute must for the planned version (StorCentric management has announced this ) of the Retrospect "backup server" running on Drobo NAS appliances. Given that reviewers agree the main market for Drobo is for home users and SMEs, how can Drobo expect those customers' backup administrators—having backgrounds as described in the last sentence of that Wikipedia article's lead—to be expert enough in networking to assign fixed IP addresses to "clients" on their particular brand of routers and then enter those addresses via the Retrospect Drobo equivalent of the Direct Access Method? No, IMHO they'll need reliable Multicast.😎 I'd therefore suggest that you invoke superior force by communicating that requirement (as I already have in a snail-mail letter, but you can find an e-mail address on LinkedIn) to: Drobo Attn.: Mr. Rod Harrison, CTO 1289 Anvilwood Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA Be sure to mention my name, which I used in the snail-mail letter (put a space between my "handle"'s second 'd' and the 'H'), and Support Case #61302. P.S.: A Forums search using "-530" (including the double-quotes) in the Sarch bubble shows some administrators have been getting this error since 2002. A number of these have turned out to be networking problems, and a number because bugs had not yet been fixed for Retrospect Windows.
  4. DavidHertzberg

    Yet another -530 client not found error

    x509, That is what finally worked for in Retrospect Mac 15 for my -530 problems that started on 30 January 2017, as detailed in this post and its thread predecessors—plus links to preceding threads. Add Source Directly is the Retrospect Mac equivalent of the Direct Access Method, which is described on pages 296-297 of the Retrospect Windows 16 User's Guide. I had to both look up my old Forums post and find the Retrospect Windows UG equivalent of Add Source Directly, while working only during only the TV commercials interrupting the film "Dancing With Wolves". Sorry for the delay.
  5. DavidHertzberg

    Recovery USB program never shows main recovery menu.

    Welcome to the wonderful world of different Windows drivers, x509, which is why Retrospect "inc." markets the Dissimilar Hardware Restore Add-On. P.S.: As to x509's second-paragraph complaint directly below, IMHO he'd do well to read pages 328-337 of the Retrospect Windows 16 UG.
  6. DavidHertzberg

    Recovery USB program never shows main recovery menu.

    x509, Here's why and how to submit a Support Case for a Retrospect enhancement, in this case to the Retrospect Windows User's Guide—which needs it. IMHO the enhancement should go beyond the UG; Retrospect should detect any first-time use of a Windows "backup server" or "client" machine and throw up a "Now create a recovery disk" message per Nigel Smith's first sentence immediately above. You've been a Forums member since early 2010, and you didn't know you needed to create a Disaster Recovery Disk in advance? Even I knew that, and I administrate Retrospect Mac—which doesn't have a Disaster Recovery Disk. (in the interests of truth, I backed up a work-provided Windows 95 machine at home from 2001-2004; however that was using Retrospect Mac 6—which didn't have a DRD feature AFAICT from reading its User's Guide—at the latest.)
  7. fredturner, AFAIK the "Client" sub-section of this Knowledge Base article is the authority on how to enable Full Disk Access for for a Retrospect Client under Mojave. I don't know about defaults commands, but my guess is that Apple wouldn't make automating the settings easy for fear everybody would use that to get around Privacy for "Application Data"—see the "Overview" of that KB article. Cheer up; it will be worse for macOS Catalina. P.S.: Here's an Apple Developer Forums thread discussing this problem for other applications. Note that one of the thread's posters is S.Reitshamer, who as many of us know is the principal developer of Arq (which he mentions in his post). However Arq is not a client-server backup application, so I feel I can get away with mentioning its name in this Forum (because it is not listed in the Competitive Analysis — Retrospect for Mac KB White Paper). The KB article I linked to in the first paragraph of this post was written before the December posts in the Developer Forums thread, but I strongly suspect the Retrospect engineers were reading that thread. In any case, AFAICT the developers in that thread didn't come up with an automation solution even for self-contained—much less client-server—applications.
  8. x509, As of 1 October 2019, the full-featured two-way Web-based Management Console I predicted in the second paragraph of this up-thread post is released in Retrospect Windows 16.5. However, according to this brand-new Knowledge Base article, you'll have to pay for the Management Console Add-on to get it. Yesterday I couldn't get anyone in Retrospect Sales to pick up the phone to tell me how much it will cost, and it's not yet in the Configurator. Evidently Retrospect "Inc." Product Management thinks this will only be of interest to larger organizations. P.S.: Just before noon I got Werner, head of North American Sales, to pick up the phone. The Web-based Management Console Add-On is US$49 for The Desktop Edition, US$149 for the Disk-to-Disk Edition (which is the same as the Single Server Edition except without tape destinations), and US$499 for the Single Server and Multi-Server Editions. Werner tried it last night to access his own "backup server" over the Web; with the Add-On he can do anything Retrospect Mac non-Desktop Console users have been able to do over their LANs. The one Web-vs-LAN tradeoff is that two-way updating between the "backup server" and the Console is done only once every 60 seconds; Werner says the engineers tried reducing the delay, but found that Web traffic made that inadvisable. I hope the $49 you'll save by not buying it, x509, will ease the ongoing minor pain of your "simple and effective" substitute solution. P.P.S.: Thinking about what Werner said about Web traffic making faster-than-60-second response from the Management Console inadvisable, it occurred to me that the "traffic" Werner was talking about may be the Console's interaction with Salesforce Heroku's Amazon EC2 cloud-computing platform —here's a discussion. Competing client-server applications have a small Web server within their "backup server"—so they don't need to interact with a cloud service, and Retrospect Mac's non-Web-based Console of course relies strictly on interaction between computers on the same LAN/WAN. P.P.P.S.: On 16 October 2019 I attended a 45-minute webinar "Manage Backups from Anywhere with Retrospect Backup 16.5". The demonstration of Granular Remote Management, conducted by the head of Retrospect Tech Support, showed a response time for the Web-based Management Console that seemed to be a lot faster than once-every-60-seconds. It's still not in the Configurator (I think Retrospect "Inc." Product Management is still thinking of it as a tool for Partners), but Sales told me it only costs an additional US$49 for the Desktop Edition. If I were administrating Retrospect Windows, I'd pay that—for a Web-based Management Console that seems to be about as good as the non-Web-based Retrospect Mac Console I now use—instead of learning a Windows Task Scheduler without Retrospect facilities. P.P.P.P.S.: On 25 October 2019 I phoned the head of North American Retrospect Sales, who did part of the narration at the webinar. He confirmed that Granular Remote Management really has a response time for the Web-based Management Console as fast as shown.
  9. I too have a bunch of these files on my MacBook Pro "client", and they're all dated Wednesday 3 July 2019 shortly after noon. My Mac Pro "backup server" Activities log shows that about a half-hour before that I had done a Rebuild of my Media Set Blue, which I would start using the following Saturday—but whose portable HDD I had already brought home from my bank safe-deposit box (when I deposited the portable HDD for Media Set Red there after cabling the portable HDD for Media Set White) the preceding Friday. I can't remember the reason I did the Rebuild, but when I previously ran the initial Recycle backup to Media Set Blue on Saturday 8 June I had gotten a -559 (network connection timeout) error after about an hour of backing up my MBP. Because before that I had gotten a series of -519 errors on "Sat. Backup" Recycle script runs on preceding Saturdays, I think I took advantage of the 4 July holiday the next day to swap in my replacement Ethernet switches. Of course I had immediately run a No Media Action backup of my MBP on 8 June, and then run 6 daily No Media Action backups of my MBP to Media Set Blue, but I think I was still stupidly worried that there was something wrong with the Media Set Blue HDD or its cable that had caused the -559 error. I think that's the reason I ran the Rebuild script in the late morning of 3 July. And I probably started my MBP's Client after that just to check connectivity to the "backup server", which I guess in some way generated the log files. The Client was Retrospect 16.1.0, running under macOS 10.12 High Sierra.
  10. Nigel Smith, Pages 40-42 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide imply that you can assign a Tag to a Favorite Folder. So on "this new client is that old client, only reinstalled" you would have to redefine any Favorite Folders and assign them the same Tags they had before, but if your scripts used Tags to designate Favorite Folders you wouldn't have to change the scripts. If you did this, in most cases the NHS (I noticed how you spell "Favourite", even though your Profile doesn't specify Location) wouldn't have to treat you for extreme finger fatigue resulting from "client" reinstallation. P.S.: In Sources I added a Tag for my Favorite Folder on a drive local to my Mac Pro. Then, for my my normally-unscheduled "Sat. Backup Incremental" script, I un-checkmarked that Favorite Folder and checkmarked the Tag instead. Finally I did a Run of the script to the Media Set I'm using this week; it did what it normally does, finishing with backing up that Favorite Folder via the Tag. So the first paragraph of this post is correct. P.P.S.: In Sources I added Mimi'sOldG4, gave it a non-Smart new Tag, and also gave a non-Smart new Tag to David'sMacBookPro. Then, for my my normally-unscheduled "Sat. Backup Incremental" script, I un-checkmarked the Smart Tag for All Clients and checkmarked the non-Smart newTags instead—dragging them in the Summary pane into the desired backup sequence. Finally I did a Run of the script to the Media Set I'm using this week; it did what it normally does, giving a -3203 error message for Mimi'sOldG4 (because Retrospect Mac 16 can no longer actually back up "client" machines booted under OS X 10.3 using the 32-bit Legacy Client—even though Sources can still Add such "clients"). So this up-thread post is correct; the procedure for creating and eliminating non-Smart Tags on pages 40-41 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide is independent of their use for a specific Source—it's the checkbox in the Tags tab that designates whether a specific non-Smart Tag is used for a specific Source.
  11. You da man, Nigel Smith, for suggesting Tags. Yesterday evening I un-checkmarked David’sMacBook Pro from my normally-unscheduled "Sat. Backup Incremental" script, and checkmarked All Clients under Smart Tags instead. I then dragged All Clients to the top of the pane in the script's Summary panel, and did a Run of the script to the Media Set I'm using this week. The execution did a No Media Action backup of David'sMacBook Pro, followed by a No Media Action backup of the two drives and a Favorite Folder local to my "backup server" that are also checkmarked. (If Mimi'sOldG4 were still a "client", which it isn't because Retrospect Mac 16 can no longer backup machines booted under OS X 10.3 using the 32-bit Legacy Client, I'm pretty sure my "Sat. Backup Incremental" script run would have backed up Mimi'sOldG4 second—because its Sharing name sorts alphanumerically after David’s MacBook Pro.) So hrobinson doesn't need to submit a Support Case for a Retrospect enhancement that turns out to have been made in Retrospect Mac 8. Administrator-defined Tags are covered on pages 40-42 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide. Smart Tags—such as All Clients—really aren't covered at all in the UG, because they're Tags that Retrospect automatically maintains for certain obvious software-determinable categories of administrator-defined Sources.
  12. hrobinson, Here's why and how to submit a Support Case for a Retrospect enhancement. However I occasionally have to Remove and Add my MacBook Pro "client", and—after re-checkmarking it in my No Media Action "Sun.-Fri. Backup" script—I don't get a Recycle backup of my MBP when the script runs the next morning. I've been doing this from 2015, when I re-started using Retrospect Mac 12 after 5 years without a "backup server" machine—but I skipped Retrospect Mac 13. I can go through the Remove-Add-edit process for my 5 active scripts in about 10 minutes, including dragging the MBP to the top of the Summary panel for my two multi-machine Recycle scripts so those back up my MBP first. I'm currently using the latest release of Retrospect Mac 16.1. When you Remove and Add your "client", are you doing something that makes your "backup server" think it's dealing with a new "client"—such as changing the "client" machine's Sharing name or changing its fixed IP address on your LAN if you Add Source Directly? As you edit your scripts after a "client" Remove-Add, are you inadvertently changing them from No Media Action to Recycle? Or are you doing something to your Media Set Catalog File(s) at the same time as you Remove-Add-edit?
  13. DavidHertzberg

    Dissimilar Hardware Restore

    I got tired enough of this question that I just phoned Retrospect Sales. Ian says the Dissimilar Hardware Restore Add-On is US$99 without ASM for a Desktop Edition license. Werner (whom I got when I phoned back because I had forgotten to ask Ian the question) says the Add-On functions the same no matter what Edition it is licensed for, so it works for any computer—"client" or "backup server"—backed up with Retrospect. My distinction between the well-budgeted NoelC and the starveling office denizen Suzy is correct. Ian personally used the Dissimilar Hardware Restore Add-On when he needed to temporarily replace his Windows laptop, which was in the repair shop, with a different-brand desktop—a one-hour restore. He licenses Desktop Edition. For those who didn't know (including me), the Disk-to-Disk Edition is the same as the Single Server Edition—except it has no tape destination capability and is therefore cheaper. Those running a single Windows Server machine (or macOS Server machine—if that's still detectable by Retrospect) on their LAN should take note.
  14. DavidHertzberg

    Dissimilar Hardware Restore

    You're right about Server Editions, Nigel Smith, but the OP says he licensed the Desktop Edition. As for the "soak the (presumed) rich installation" policy, which was instituted by Dantz before it was acquired by EMC, IMHO the recent failure of that "value pricing" policy in general is what led to the StorCentric acquisition. It appears business customers no longer needed to license Server Editions, because they were now using Linux machines as their servers. Retrospect Inc. put a yellow-colored note into the Windows 15.1 Release Notes saying "Linux Client: In a future update, Linux clients running on server-level Linux distributions will be treated as server clients". However, as I cautiously mentioned elsewhere on these Forums, the opinion of experts I solicited on the Ars Technica Linux forum was that it would be impracticable to distinguish server-level Linux distributions—which shot down extending the "soak the (presumed) rich installation" policy. I have never questioned Windows administrators' need for the Dissimilar Hardware Restore Add-On, just its different "value pricing" levels in the Online Store.
  15. Some of you may have noticed that on 12 September 2019 the old Retrospect article was greatly cut down, losing all 3 of its features sections and having its History section greatly simplified. This is AFAICT an outcome of a long-running political dispute among Wikipedia editors, including some who are administrators. There is a subset of Wikipedia editors who function as "Spitfire pilots". I use that term because these editors take it upon themselves to make fast passes at someone else's articles and "machine gun" any references they consider to be improper—as if those articles are possible incoming German bombers. The "Spitfire pilots" do perform a necessary function for articles left over from Wikipedia's "good old days", when editors wrote some articles whose thin-on-the-ground references were to pure Public Relations sources. It can be time-consuming work to actually read the references in other editors' articles, and a subset of the "Spitfire pilot" editors (IME predominantly Brits) have long wanted to make their work easier—by a method conceptually similar to insisting (via Swiss intermediaries; no Royal Air Force officer was actually foolish enough to do so) that Hermann Goering have all Luftwaffe bombers trail large banners with the high-visibility form of the Balkenkreuz (so real Spitfire pilots wouldn't need to study aircraft identification). This subset of "Spitfire pilot" editors proposed some years ago that, to enforce Reliable Source requirements, all primary-source references be banned from WP articles. An article stating that rule was deleted, because among other legitimate careful uses of primary sources are in an article about a business. Nevertheless editor JzG—who prefers to be known as Guy, along with other editors such as Scope_creep (who caused DovidBenAvraham a fair amount of grief back in 2017-2018), believe that primary-source references should be not allowed for features of company-developed software. DBA had originally made quite a few citations of several user-instruction documents on the Retrospect.com website, but by 12 September had cut these down to 14 out of 100 total citations in the article. Remaining citations were to the Retrospect Mac 14 and Retrospect Windows 12 User's Guides, to the cumulative Retrospect Windows Release Notes, and to various Knowledge Base articles (listed in the article master reference as if they were named chapters in a book). For any WP editor having—like Guy and Scope_creep—IT employment experience who would classify these multi-hundred-page documents as PR material, 5 minutes of thought about the enduring popularity of the phrase "Read The F**king Manual" would IMHO prove enlightening (because user-instruction "manuals" aren't anywhere near as pleasant to read as PR documents). Guy, on his own Talk page, in answer to DBA's question, wrote "Remove anything that's sourced to their own websites or to press releases", and later "It's really quite simple. Only include reliable independent secondary soruces [sic]. Don't include anything that independent commentators haven't thought significant enotgh [sic] to cover. Don't inlcude [sic]sources that are obviously based on press releases (aka churnalism). Don't include WP:HOWTO or other manual-like content." He then made the major cut-down of the article, on the basis that—since DBA had not immediately removed the 14 remaining primary-source citations, he would oblige DBA to justify that the sources for the other 86 citations were not to secondary-sources that are PR documents. Being someone who apparently has only Windows experience, Guy is claiming that the 29-year-old Macintosh-focused TidBITS is a PR website. DBA is proceeding cautiously but methodically to solve the problem. He may eventually have to create a WP Administrators' Noticeboard Incident, because for an editor who is a WP administrator to do what Guy has done could well be considered vandalism even in Wikipedia's carefully-restricted definition. However TidBITS may solve the problem by publishing a review of the soon-to-be-released Retrospect 16.5, which among other things will remove DBA's need for the Retrospect Windows GUI-deficiency primary-source references.
  16. DavidHertzberg

    Dissimilar Hardware Restore

    NoelC, It turns out that what you really want to look at is the Online Store. Under Add-Ons are two different lines: "Dissimilar Hardware Restore Disk-to-Disk BDD16R1WN | BDD16R1WC" at US$239 without ASM (that's the price in the Configurator; it's probably the BDD16R1WN sales code), and "Dissimilar Hardware Restore Desktop BDH16R1WN | BDH16R1WC" at US$99 without ASM (it's probably the BDH16R1WN sales code). The difference between the BDD and BDH sales codes seems to be whether you purchased your basic Retrospect license as Disk-to-Disk or Desktop; from your OP it sounds as if you did the latter. Again, contact a human being in Retrospect Sales; he/she would like to sell you something, to make StorCentric management happy. If I worked for Retrospect Product Marketing, it seems I would have to receive supplementary "soak the (presumed) rich installation" indoctrination. IMHO the Dissimilar Hardware Restore Add-On was designed for offices where Suzy only gets a new machine when her existing machine dies of extreme old age, so there is no way the office's management could have "bought a newer machine of the same lineage".
  17. DavidHertzberg

    Dissimilar Hardware Restore

    NoelC, If you used the Product Configurator to purchase your license for Retrospect Desktop, it has a checkbox for "Do you plan to restore to different hardware?". I just now tried the Configurator for a Windows Desktop, and the Add-On for Dissimilar Hardware Restore Disk-to-Disk Edition adds US$239 to the price. I call it the "soak the (presumed) rich installation" policy, and Dantz Development Corp. introduced that policy before it was purchased by EMC in 2004. Nobody on these Forums works for Retrospect Sales, so you should contact that organization to find out how to upgrade. "Making your system bootable on different hardware" is discussed on pages 328-337 of the Retrospect Windows 16 User's Guide.
  18. Joriz, Veeam won't back up directly to tape; you have to do a tape backup of the output of Veeam disk backup jobs. Since each of those jobs creates lots of small files in a Veeam repository, when you use Retrospect to back up a repository directly to tape you are writing to the tape inefficiently. Therefore you should be using disk-to-disk-to-tape, as Lennart_T and Nigel Smith suggested. If you ever used BE (you named the product in your OP, but I don't want to upset the head of Retrospect Technical Support by naming it again) to backup to tape, I think you were actually using disk-to-disk-to-tape. BE makes it extremely easy to set up a D2D2T operation with templates.
  19. Joriz, Nigel Smith is correct about self-cleaning of LTO drives. (I recently re-started backing up my old G4 Digital Audio Mac to a DAT drive after 4 years, because Retrospect Mac 16 eliminated the ability to back up PowerPC "clients" over the LAN, but DAT isn't self-cleaning—so I let Retrospect Mac 6 remind me to use a cleaning cartridge.) Every Saturday morning I do a Recycle backup of two sources, one an HDD and one an SSD, that are internal to my 2010 "cheesegrater" Mac Pro "backup server"—a somewhat-faster version of your 2008 Mac Pro. They both back up (copying phase) at around 2.2MB/minute. That's the almost the same disk-to-disk speed as with AFP shares as sources, per the fourth paragraph of this 2010 post. Because I started using Retrospect in 1995 to back up to a rather-unreliable tape drive, and because the Saturday script also does a LAN backup of a MacBook Pro "client", out of excessive (because my destinations are now portable USB HDDs) caution I continue to let my Recycle script's Options->Backup default to Thorough Verification. For internally-attached drives that means byte-by-byte comparison, which takes just about as long as the copying phase. Although pages 97-98 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide don't say so, I believe that drives that are connected to the "backup server" via SMB are treated as if they were internal (this section of an ancient Knowledge Base article seems to imply that by saying "If you back up a mounted AFP volume using the method listed above, privileges are not preserved and can not be restored. The only way to back up and restore privileges from a volume over a network is to back up the computer using Retrospect Client Software.") . You may want to live a bit dangerously and change your Options->Backup to Media Verification, or even—because your tape drive is LTO with built-in verify-after-write—to No Verification. Either of those changes—if you haven't made them already— should speed up your Backup script's total execution time by shortening/eliminating the verification phase.
  20. Joriz. First I suggest you read this April 2019 thread—the whole thread all the way through the final post. The OP in that thread discovered that he was backing up a lot more data than he thought he was. He also found the data was mostly pre-compressed, so that what really mattered was the native capacity and speed. Second, the OP in that thread also found that the tape library was never cleaning its heads—so he was getting un-recoverable errors after only a fraction of a particular tape was used. Your "backup server" machine is quite old; are you sure whoever was responsible for it before didn't just cable-up a new tape library without finding out how to set up head cleaning? That's one reason why Nigel Smith asked the make/model question. See pages 50-52 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide for instructions on how to set up cleaning for libraries and drives. Third, you write "a manual file transfer of the same source is utilizing the 1Gbit network card". That sounds as if there might be more than one network card on either your "backup server" and/or your SMB-attached source machine—which brings up another set of questions. After you've looked into those questions, I would suggest you phone U. S. Retrospect Technical Support at (925) 476-1030; the people on these Forums are just volunteers like me‬. If your organization installed Retrospect Mac 16 within the past 30-45 days, you are entitled to free personalized support. Because it sounds as if your native language is not English, and because you posted so early in the morning even compared to New York time, it seems that you may be located in Europe. I've heard that European Retrospect Tech Support is handled by a contractor, whose personnel don't know that much about Retrospect (probably especially about Retrospect Mac). May I suggest you put your Location in your Forums profile?
  21. DavidHertzberg

    Can scheduled operations be done without retrorun

    NoelC, Although I am a Mac user, I think you fail to recognize how much more Windows knowledge you have than the average backup administrator, as DovidBenAvraham describes her/him in the last sentence of the lead of the appropriate Wikipedia article. This Digital Citizen article says "Unfortunately, not many people know about this tool, as Windows does not advertise it as much as it deserves." The article starts out describing how to open Windows Task Scheduler, but that description only applies to Windows 7 and later. Windows 7 wasn't made generally available until late October 2009 and was adopted by users over the next 3 years. By March 2014 Retrospect Inc. had introduced the Dashboard, which the engineers evidently believed would be an easier-to-use generalized within-the-application-UI solution for Retrospect Windows (but they didn't attempt to fix its glaring bugs until 2017). In 2013, the engineers must have felt that building a UI solution into Retrospect Windows would be easier than trying to teach backup administrators to use a separate facility in a version of Windows that was just then achieving critical mass—and a scan of these Forums will show you that many Retrospect Windows administrators are forced by their organizations to work with obsolete versions of Windows. P.S.: On 16 October 2019 I attended a 45-minute webinar "Manage Backups from Anywhere with Retrospect Backup 16.5". The demonstration of Granular Remote Management, conducted by the head of Retrospect Tech Support, showed a response time for the Web-based Management Console that seemed to be a lot faster than the once-every-60-seconds described in the post I linked to in the 3 October P.S. of my preceding post in this thread. It's still not in the Configurator (I think Retrospect "Inc." Product Management is still thinking of it as a tool for Partners), but Sales told me it only costs an additional US$49 for the Desktop Edition. If I were administrating Retrospect Windows, I'd pay that—for a Web-based Management Console that seems to be about as good as the non-Web-based Retrospect Mac Console I now use—instead of learning a Windows Task Scheduler without Retrospect facilities. P.P.S.: On 25 October 2019 I phoned the head of North American Retrospect Sales, who did part of the narration at the webinar. He confirmed that Granular Remote Management really has a response time for the Web-based Management Console as fast as shown.
  22. DavidHertzberg

    unistall engine

    Lennart_T, I am shocked that you of all people would say such a thing (see the second and third paragraphs) about the UG. Since I'm sure you're just as tired as I am of dealing with the lack of UG updating, I suggest you write (which I've done) to Rod Harrison—the Chief Technology Officer of Drobo who probably now has some influence at Retrospect "Inc". If you want to impress him with a Swedish-stamped "snail-mail": Drobo Attn.: Mr. Rod Harrison, CTO 1289 Anvilwood Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA However, if you are willing to enroll in LinkedIn—which I am not because of delete-finger tiredness—you should be able to get an e-mail address for Harrison there. P.S.: What Lennart_T and I said about the User's Guide not being updated is still valid; Nigel Smith's post below goes beyond what the UG says.
  23. DavidHertzberg

    Can scheduled operations be done without retrorun

    NoelC, With Retrospect Mac, the Retrospect Mac Engine task normally starts when the Mac is booted as a particular user, and is not stopped except by going to System Preferences. The Retrospect Mac Console (non-Web) is a separate GUI task that can be started and stopped and re-started from the Mac Dock. The Retrospect developers were trying to implement this same Engine/Console split for Retrospect Windows, but—as the first paragraph here says—Gates and Ballmer made that impossible (unless the Engine was given a built-in Web server—which the Retrospect developers either couldn't or didn't want to do). The Retrospect "Inc." developers are, as I write this, preparing to release an enhanced version of the Web-based Management Console that should—based on hosting the Console on Heroku—finally allow Retrospect Windows to have the same Engine/Console split as Retrospect Mac. Then you'll be able to let the Retrospect Windows Engine run 24/7, while using nothing except paged-out memory when no operation is running. P.S.: And here's my brief discussion of the Web-based Management Console, which was released on 1 October 2019.
  24. DavidHertzberg

    Can scheduled operations be done without retrorun

    NoelC, I'm a Retrospect Mac administrator, so I don't have the possibility of any retrorun service—since Retrospect Mac 8.0 in 2009 eliminated it. However this 2017 post seems to tell how to use Windows Task Scheduler. OTOH the 2018 thread starting with this post seems to tell how to use the Retrospect Launcher Service. There's also this 2019 Knowledge Base article, which may not be applicable to your setup. Finally Retrospect Windows does not quit after an operation—backup or otherwise—is complete if there is another operation scheduled within the "look ahead time", which defaults to 12 hours. This is discussed under "Schedule Preferences" on pages 397-398 of the Retrospect Windows 16 User's Guide. I think the feature applies whether or not you're using retrorun, but again as a Retrospect Mac administrator I'm not an expert on it..
  25. karma, I do indeed have a Digital Audio G4 booting OS X 10.3.9 (I couldn't afford a 10.4-compatible ATTO SCSI card) on a SCSI drive I added, and Mac OS 9.1 on its two ATA drives. When I upgraded to Retrospect Mac 16 I decided the easiest thing to so was to backup the G4 weekly using Retrospect Mac 6.1—which I installed on the SCSI drive—onto my still-working HP DAT 72 tape drive. If that hadn't worked I would have used Retrospect Mac 15 on my "cheesegrater" Mac Pro's spare third HDD to be the "backup server" for the G4's drives using the Legacy Client. However I would have either had to buy 3 more portable USB3 HDDs to be used in rotation as destination Media Sets, or to take the chance that Media Set format hasn't changed between Retrospect Mac 15 and 16. That would have been a chance worth taking, since I don't use the Retrospect 16 Storage Group feature. However re-booting my Mac Pro to run Retrospect Mac 15 would have been a nuisance, and I can run Retrospect Mac 6.1 on my G4 in parallel with the Retrospect Mac 16 LAN backup of my MacBook Pro. Doing so actually speeds up the elapsed time for my Saturday Recycle backup routine, although the 3-hour LAN backup of my G4 drives has been replaced by a 5-hour tape backup (the tape drive is slower than my LAN, and my Compare phases—an absolute necessity when backing up to tape—are byte-by-byte instead of MD5-digest) You'll have to read that old thread more thoroughly than I'm prepared to, but I don't think either of the European administrators participating in it tried disabling Instant Scan in Retrospect Mac 15 for their APFS drives. If that works it might slow down your backup of the APFS drive by about 10%, but I'm not prepared to test it out—especially to find out if it works.
×