Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by DavidHertzberg

  1. henry-in-florida, The last I encountered this issue was in September 2016, when the head of Retrospect Technical Support admitted Wake-on-LAN wasn't working. That was a couple of Retrospect Mac major releases ago. Looking at the cumulative Release Notes since then, I see for Retrospect Mac 15.0 bug fix #6477 "Fixed Wake-on-LAN option for different network topologies". I don't know whether that applies to the Support Case I had filed; maybe they actually fixed my bug, but I'm still running the 14.6.0 "backup server" with the 14.1 Client for production. If they did fix it, maybe it got "un-fixed" in Retrospect Mac 15.6; you don't say what version you upgraded from. 15.6 along with 15.5 seem to be "bad releases"— especially for Retrospect Windows, where things that worked under 15.0 don't anymore. Surely I don't need to tell you why and how to file a Support Case, especially since you posted this in a sub-Forum nobody from RTS looks at anymore.
  2. Motivated by the discovery that Version 15 has removed the disabling of multi-threading for Desktop Edition, I started this thread on the Ars Technica Linux Kung Fu forum to ask about the technical feasibility of: creating a Retrospect Client for Linux x64 Server that will run on what it determines is a server distribution making the Retrospect Client for Linux x64 unable to run on what it determines is a server distribution having the Retrospect Client for Linux x64 Server identify itself to the "backup server" as requiring an additional expensive license code You can look at the linked-to Ars Technica thread for the technical outline of methods other posters suggested for how a Retrospect Client could determine whether it is running on a server distribution of Linux. However one poster replied: My tentative conclusion takes into account that Retrospect Inc.'s problem would be customers who fall into that poster's category b). Is that "small NAS box sitting in somebody's closet - also a server" being used merely by a multi-computer family that just wants to store still pictures and videos etc. in a common accessible location? Or does someone in the family also/instead run a small business administered using more than one computer? In the first case, the family certainly would legitimately argue that it shouldn't pay an extra US$500 for a Server backup license. In the second case, the family might also argue that, because of the size of the business, it shouldn't pay an extra US$500 for a Server backup license. However it also takes into account a response from another poster saying "Debian is frequently used on servers, but I have also used it as a desktop system. So that OS file may not really be of help." I conclude that Retrospect Inc. may have now realized engineers would at the minimum be required to continually update the Retrospect Client for Linux x64 Server code to keep up with changing Linux distributions. Moreover IMHO engineers would want to "fail safe" by treating a distro Retrospect Client for Linux x64 Server couldn't recognize as one for which it needn't charge extra, rather than "fail unsafe" by insisting on charging extra to back up that client. Whether Retrospect Inc. will try to implement charging extra for backing up 'server-level Linux distributions' is IMHO anybody's guess.
  3. As of Retrospect 15—both Mac and Windows variants—even the Desktop Edition starts execution with more than one Activity Thread (R. Mac) or Execution Unit (R. Windows). See the second substantive paragraph of this post. P.S.: This is post #21 in the thread.
  4. DovidBenAvraham has now manged to do two things: First, by adding a second paragraph to this sub-section of the WP "Backup" article, he has managed to describe snapshot-based backup applications as a variant of enterprise client-server backup applications. That has allowed him to put in references to R.V., although the WP rules for that article do not permit him to actually mention the name R. V.. Moreover DBA has actually managed to mention the existence and name of R. V. in this section of the "Retrospect (software)" article, although he was obliged to say "that separate product, with totally different code, is not discussed in this article." Incidentally the non-marketing documentation for R.V., consisting of a handful of YouTube videos, is so sparse as to make it impossible for DBA to discuss it on WP. Somebody in Retrospect Inc. Marketing had better get a third-party author to write a review, but the review can't be on TidBITS because R.V. doesn't backup Macs. Second, based on the discovery by JamesOakley that "under 15.x for Windows, even Desktop edition gets multiple execution units," I was able to verify that the same is true for "activity threads" under Retrospect Mac 15.0—using the test version Retrospect Tech Support had given me for diagnostic logging of -530 bugs. (I still run production backups using the Retrospect Mac 14.6 "backup server" and the 14.1 Client, because later versions disable my -530 workarounds.) DBA has now managed to work an announcement of that feature into this section of the "Retrospect (software)" article. The new feature, of course, is simply a disabling of the Desktop Edition code that previously reset the number of units/threads to 1 every time the Engine was started—thus forcing Desktop Edition to mimic the non-multithreaded Retrospect Windows/Mac 6. Retrospect Inc. is apparently so reluctant to mention this improvement that DBA had to reference it with a roundabout bug fix note in the cumulative Retrospect Windows Release Notes.
  5. DavidHertzberg

    Backups "freeze" part way with no error

    JamesOakley, It sure as heck gets more of their attention and memory than simply posting about a bug on this Forum, which nobody at Retrospect Inc. reads anymore (per CEO J.G.Heithcock). That fact is AFAIK one reason Retrospect Inc. instituted Support Requests; previously the organization had a sad record of often taking 4 years or so to fix bugs. Besides, how much time do you really need to spend on a Support Request? After supplying installation details that they definitely need to isolate the bug, all you need to do—as the post linked-to in the preceding paragraph says—is to copy-paste paragraphs from your post(s) here. You can upload screenshots as part of the Support Request. If you really want to get someone's attention, you can also phone Werner Walter as indicated in this post, or even send an e-mail to Brian Dunagan as indicated in this post. However I'm afraid that Brian truly needs to devote his full attention to organize the engineers in fixing this "bad release". I'm beginning to think that x509 may be right; that, in order to "play catch-up ball" after this situation (third and fourth paragraphs), Retrospect Inc. may have entrusted some enhancements to R. non-V. to developers in China—without ensuring thorough testing. I think I can safely say that the old-timers at Retrospect Inc. will be sufficiently be scared by knowing that they have put out a "bad release". If you read between the lines and follow the references in the second and third paragraphs of this article section, you will realize that Retrospect Mac practically "went down the tubes" as a product in 2009-2011 as a result of the "bad release"—one that was really the fault of EMC management rather than the developers— of Retrospect Mac 8.0. P.S.: In last sentence of first paragraph added link to Engst 2009 TidBITS overview of Retrospect Mac 8, where "Cracks in Retrospect’s architecture started to show ...." reflects delays in fixing bugs.
  6. DavidHertzberg

    Backups "freeze" part way with no error

    JamesOakley, I've pointed out here that, on the basis of other threads, Retrospect Windows 15.6 seems to be a "bad release". The OP of the thread I've linked to in the preceding sentence discusses a rather similar problem. On the basis of what you're saying, it looks like that may extend back to 15.5. Here's why and how to file a Support Request, which IMHO is the only way to get Retrospect Tech Support to notify Engineering that this bug exists.
  7. x509, It sounds to me as if this problem, too, is a result of Retrospect Windows 15.6 being a bad release. (And no, telling it "bad, bad release" won't get it to behave—as it might if 15.6 were a canine instead of a piece of software. ) After you post a Support Request, I'd suggest e-mailing Brian Dunagan again.
  8. x509, I refuse to join LinkedIn on the principle of not wanting to be inundated, so I can't see David Lee's full profile. Remember that Dantz Development—the predecessor of Retrospect Inc.—started around 1984-85, so other development employees may be in their 50s and share my sentiments, or be retired. I have it on good authority that the product named R. V. (which the head of Retrospect Tech Support forbade me to name on these Forums, but you know its full name) was not developed in Walnut Creek, so it wouldn't surprise me if it is being developed in China by contractors. However we're concerned here with R. non-V., and I strongly suspect that that product continues to be developed in Walnut Creek. When you have a development organization that's been functioning for around 35 years, IME experience tends to overshadow formal hierarchy. So I think it's good you e-mailed Brian Dunagan.
  9. x509, If we're lucky, Retrospect Inc. still has as many as 20 employees. I have some doubts about that, because the head of Retrospect Tech Support lost his telephone-inquiry-answering assistant over a year ago and still hasn't gotten a replacement. Thus—with only one product until R.V. was introduced about a year ago, I think the closest equivalent to a Retrospect Product Manager would be Brian Dunagan in this Web page. Brian did answer a tricky Forums technical question I posted about Retrospect 13 Mac two years ago, so I think he qualifies. J.G.Heithcock does happen to be the lead author on this 2006 patent for Retrospect User-Initiated Restore, but IME he now considers himself a bit too exalted to directly answer customer complaints. (The Retrospect Management Console is not being beta'ed as a Retrospect-Windows-only feature, so IMHO any new problem with the Dashboard introduced in Retrospect 15 would be with the common underlying code rather than the GUI; the question Brian answered had to do with terminology relating to the underlying code.) Up until the still-in-beta introduction of Storage Groups, I doubt whether the format of Catalogs has changed since Retrospect Windows 12. If it has, you could simply rebuild your Catalogs under Retrospect Windows 12 using the existing Members—and there's no indication Member format has changed in Retrospect Windows 15.. Be sure to ask this question of both Werner and Brian; it will give your threat to downgrade verisimilitude.
  10. DavidHertzberg

    Retrospect error -1103

    jdb2, I'm a Retrospect Mac administrator, but I understand this is basically a Windows OneDrive problem under Windows 10. Since you went through 18 successful backups before the problem came back, I suggest you take a look at this post.
  11. DavidHertzberg problems

    For reasons explained in the third and fourth paragraphs of this post, IMHO the Retrospect Inc. engineers were doing what American sports fans would refer to as "playing catch-up ball" with Retrospect Windows 15.5 and 15.6. That seems to mean, again IMHO, that they didn't do enough testing to make sure that existing features were still working properly in those releases. Beat Tech Support over the head with Support Cases containing links to other posts reporting the same problems, folks; that's the only way the engineers are going to know the problems exist—and are affecting more than just one Retrospect administrator.
  12. x509, The advice in the second paragraph of the Agent Response is to do what Lennart_T said to do in order to eliminate the Dashboard entirely, as linked-to—and described to the best of my understanding—in this post. AFAICT the advice in the first paragraph of the Agent Response simply repeats the standard advice, and ignores your statement in the Problem Submission that using the Task Manager doesn't kill the Dashboard. If I were you I'd phone Werner Walter and ask him to find out when this problem is going to be fixed. In the meantime you might instead consider following the advice of gjs, which I linked to in the P.S. of the post linked to in the first paragraph of this post. See mbennett's post below Lennart_T's linked-to suggestion; it points out that suggestion doesn't work if you have a Proactive backup setup. One thing you might first consider is whether you had fewer problems with the Dashboard in Retrospect Windows 12. If so, and if there aren't any must-have features or bug fixes that made you upgrade to Retrospect Windows 15, you might seriously think about downgrading to Retrospect Windows 12. If this is a feasible alternative for you, I suggest telling Werner that—if they can't give you a Retrospect Windows 15.7 Dashboard that can be made to behave like the Retrospect Windows 12 Dashboard (last paragraph here) or promise that the Dashboard will be fixed in Retrospect 16—you want to do a downgrade and get your upgrade payment back. This should be a very effective tactic with Sales, but you need to be prepared to follow through on your threat if Werner can't get action from Engineering.
  13. DavidHertzberg problems

    rsleegers, I suggest that you add an Additional Note to your Support Case, giving links to the posts in this thread by johnnymacgo and tgfn and andersbackstrom. All you have to do is to click on each one of the posters' names in the preceding sentence, do a Copy Link Location in your Web browser, and paste that in the appropriate place in your Additional Note. You can make it easier for the Retrospect Technical Support person who reads the Additional Note to follow the pasted URLs to the posts by making sure that there is a space between each URL and any following punctuation, such as a comma or period. The reason I make this suggestion is that these days nobody from RTS routinely looks at the Forums.
  14. x509, Please, please file a Support Case! If "things have gotten worse" for you in Retrospect Windows 15.6, it's likely because of what I speculated on in my preceding post in this thread. That would mean that other administrators are having the same problem. As a Retrospect Mac administrator, I can't file a Support Case for Retrospect Windows—so we need somebody else to do it. Just copy your OP in this thread into the Problem Description, although you'll have to do manual indentation of the listed issues to get around the lack of text formatting in Retrospect Inc.'s Support Case software. You just paid for an upgrade—even if it's only for the Desktop Edition, so Retrospect Inc. should at least consider fixing what is probably a just-introduced bug. If Tech Support doesn't respond with more than the usual automatic return e-mail, phone (888) 376-1078 or (925) 476-1030 (those are U.S. phone numbers, but call the second one even if you're a Brit—from what I've heard the European Retrospect Tech Support is ignorant), choose X814 to speak to Werner Walter—the head of Retrospect Sales, and complain. Werner can "goose" Engineering; I've seen him do it.
  15. x509, One approach—especially if you were having the same problems with the Dashboard when you were running Retrospect Windows 12—is to follow the links from the second paragraph and P.S. of this post, and to do what one or the other of them says depending on whether you are running Proactive scripts (see mbennett's post below Lennart_T's if you are)—I'm only the messenger. The other approach is to contact Retrospect Support; I think you'd be entitled to personalized phone help because you evidently just upgraded to Retrospect Windows 15, but in any case you should file a Support Request because you're not the only administrator having this problem—see the OP of the thread linked to in the first paragraph of this post. See the rest of this post below for what IMHO might well be included in that Support Request: if you've been having the problems with the Dashboard only since you started running Retrospect Windows 15, I will now give you the benefit of a bit of informed speculation—as a Retrospect Mac administrator—on this subject. Back around 2007 EMC Insignia decided that a fully-interactive Administration Console, optionally running on a machine separate from the "backup server", is an essential component of an enterprise client-server backup application's user interface. The (by then) EMC Iomega engineers in Walnut Creek CA were able to successfully introduce an Administration Console in Retrospect Mac 8, but found that—because of mandatory security settings introduced with Windows Vista/Server 2008—they were unable to introduce an Administration Console in Retrospect Windows. The Dashboard was introduced in Retrospect Mac 11 as the first-appearing panel in the Retrospect Mac Console, and at the same time was introduced as a display-only feature of Retrospect Windows 9. The non-GUI code of Retrospect Windows and Retrospect Mac was meanwhile integrated with Retrospect Windows 7.7, and over a year ago administrator Don Lee discovered that he could almost perfectly control a Retrospect Windows "backup server" from a Retrospect Mac Console—because the inter-task communications capabilities had been carefully preserved in the Retrospect Windows code even though they can't be invoked from a Windows task. Meanwhile developers of other enterprise client-server backup applications have introduced Administration Consoles that get around the Windows security restrictions by running under a Web server, and Retrospect Inc. has been IMHO quietly desperate to compete with them. They were intending to introduce a beta version of the Retrospect Management Console in Retrospect 15.1, but were evidently delayed until Retrospect 15.5 by the need to have Retrospect immediately satisfy GDPR "right of erasure" requirements. For a few days last spring I ran a special test release of Retrospect Mac 15.0 to help the engineers diagnose the -530 bugs, and the Dashboard in that release had 3 blue icons on the upper-right—one of which could interactively start and stop a "backup server" Engine. So what I'm speculating—confirmed by this video—is that the Dashboard code in Retrospect Windows 15.6 has been enhanced under-the-hood to function as the Retrospect Management Console, and that this is what's causing your Dashboard problems. IMHO what will solve your problems until Retrospect Windows 16 would be the addition of a C:\ProgramData\Retrospect\retro.ini parameter line that reads something like DashboardNotAConsole=1 . Ask Tech Support if Engineering can give us that in a Retrospect Windows 15.7 release. An alternative would be to have the Dashboard code look at the Enable Management Console box in Preferences, as described in this Knowledge Base article, and act as if that parameter line were present if the box is not checked.
  16. Scillonian and MrPete, Let's start with two simple questions about user-contributed articles: What kind of content will be allowed in these articles, and who is going to be the moderator(s)? What makes you think Retrospect Inc. will pay for this, or support it on this website? Before anyone starts answering these questions, he/she should carefully read this section of the "Retrospect (software)" article—preferably including the referenced articles by DeLong 2012 and Engst 2009 and Friedman 2010 (currently refs 5, 11, and 12) , and should read between the lines applying any experience in an organization he/she may have had. The conclusion he/she will undoubtedly reach is that anyone working on Retrospect for EMC/Roxio/Rovi from 2007 through 2011 suffered through a near-death employment experience (The Register author Ashlee Vance went on to write for the New York Times), which seems to have left those people—many of whom now work for Retrospect Inc.—with what I would call a form of PTSD. (If you think this is too strong a statement, notice that the head of Retrospect Tech Support—an employee since 1994—posted this link to the DeLong 2012 article as the second thread in the newly-established Latest News forum in 2012.) What that means is that IME Retrospect Inc. has absolutely no tolerance for criticism of Retrospect Inc. or its products on this website. An example from October 2017 is a post of mine the head of RTS deleted, referred to in the parenthesized last sentence of the first paragraph of this post. The sarcasm referred to was a clumsy riff on the "flying saucers" reference in this previous post in the same thread, which IMHO should have easily been understood by anyone with a sense of humor as a joke. It wasn't, and that's my one occurrence of "abusive behavior". If the head of RTS doesn't in fact have a sense of humor, how do you explain this previous post in this thread—especially given my reply two posts below it? I think my "abusive behavior" was really an easily-understood too-sharp reference to the "famous Documentation committee". I've been more careful to avoid criticism in my posts ever since, which is why I don't think any user-contributed articles that are at all critical (other than bug-reporting posts that are now ignored unless turned into Support Requests) will be allowed on the Retrospect Inc. website—or paid for by Retrospect Inc. on another website. Why do you think Retrospect Inc.'s Support Request system doesn't allow any customer except the one who submitted a Support Request to see it? I know that the people in Retrospect Sales have such a capability, and so do customers using other software companies' equivalent systems. IMHO the reason is that, stemming from its employees' collective PTSD, Retrospect Inc. doesn't want to take the chance that potential customers—or even existing customers—might see how many existing bugs there are. That might, in Retrospect Inc.'s view, also amount to criticism of its products and/or organization. So what kind of user-contributed content, other than what is already on the Forums or in the Wikipedia articles, does that leave? We could have systematic discussions of information about features that are planned or not fully operational, which DovidBenAvraham is not allowed to put in the WP articles. But we already have such discussions on the Forums; I've contributed to a few of them on the Product Suggestions Forums and elsewhere. In fact the second paragraph of the preceding post in this thread I've linked to two sentences above is an attempt to start such a discussion about the beta Storage Groups feature. But we don't get any participation now in those discussions from anyone working for Retrospect Inc., per a statement e-mailed to me by JG Heithcock which I first quoted in the second paragraph here. That wouldn't change with user-contributed articles, so again I don't see any advantage to be gained.
  17. MrPete, Thank you for trying to help. However the criticisms you raise have been already dealt with extensively in the preceding posts of this thread. DovidBenAvraham, back in the fall of 2016, was indeed "attempting to use WikiPedia as a wiki platform for writing Retrospect ... info of various kinds", but the info was originally mostly from Retrospect Inc. documents and was intended as a concise introduction to Retrospect's features—historically organized. By the fall of 2017 other Wikipedia editors were strenuously objecting to the article's length—originally 9.5 screen pages—and its user-generated "inferences and asides" about inadequacies in the User's Guides. DBA had already eliminated these "inferences and asides" by the time the OP in this thread was written, cutting the article to a 7.5-page version preserved here. This was still too long and too much like a user's guide for other WP editors, so in November 2017 DBA ditched the historical organization and—per this post above—split the article into two articles. The "Retrospect (software)" WP article is less than 2 screen pages. The second article is a a new section at the back of the "Backup" article, and is written so as to describe features common to all enterprise client-server backup applications. That section contains links to descriptions of corresponding features in two other enterprise backup applications, hereinafter referred to as NB and BE, and is 2.2 screen pages long. As for "misuse/abuse of the platform", DBA has conducted painstaking discussions of the contents of these articles—which you are welcome to read on their WP Talk pages. It suffices to say that there have been no objections from other WP editors to any Retrospect-related item DBA has written since March 2018. That's not to say that there hasn't been "misuse/abuse of the platform" in the WP articles about the other two enterprise client-server applications mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The NB article isn't too long; it's only 2.5 screen pages—and was 2 screen pages in 2015. The BE article, however, is 6.5 screen pages long; it was 2 pages long in 2015. The reason I mention 2015 is that it seems to have been the time at which a new spirit took over at Wikipedia, trying to make it a "particularly trusted platform" by demanding more explanatory links and more references in articles in place of what has been called Making Stuff Up from industry-transmitted wisdom. The two articles DBA wrote were obliged to comply with the new spirit, but IMHO the NB and BE articles seem to have been "grandfathered in"—and are rather incomprehensible to anyone not already familiar with the terminology of the applications they describe. Exclusive of immediately after a revision to the "Retrospect (software)" article has been made—when it seems as if the entire working population of Walnut Creek CA wants to read it, that article gets an average of 20 views per day. The BE article gets an average of 100 views per day, as does the NB article. DBA and I would like to believe that the 20 views per day represent potential customers for Retrospect.
  18. henry-in-florida, Thank you for pointing this out, but you ought to know by now that nobody from Retrospect Inc. reads this sub-forum anymore. Here's why and how to file a Support Request for a bug fix. P.S.: Here (3rd through 5th paragraphs) is the reason I think Retrospect 15.6 is likely to have a number of bugs like this.
  19. organisum, I guess it's time to tell you to "RTFM". Pages 158-160 of the Retrospect 15 Mac User's Guide provide complete "Email Preferences" instructions, including an "Outgoing mail server" paragraph that tells you how to specify the TCP/IP port—using an SMTP server as an example. I found this by the extremely secret technique of doing a browser search of the UG for "email"; it showed up as the second such occurrence in the Table of Contents. The same paragraph is in the UG for Retrospect Mac 12, in case you're not running the latest version—which BTW you didn't specify. Doing the same browser search in the Knowledge Base turns up this article, which says "you will need to include a platform-specific port after the SMTP server name" in the first paragraph and has a "Port Configuration" section. That article appears to have been updated for the "... Supports SSL" checkbox—which BTW is not mentioned to this day in the UG but which defaults to checked—in connection with the release of Retrospect Mac 12. However the "Troubleshooting" section has been updated in connection with the release of Retrospect 15, which explains why the current version of the article is dated 15 May 2018. This OP in another thread may explain why the KB article was updated.
  20. DavidHertzberg

    No more instant scan on MacOS?

    insont, I agree with your general conclusion. This post in another thread, especially the P.S., discusses what the probable effect of eliminating Instant Scan would be.
  21. DavidHertzberg

    Full Access Mojave

    There's now a new 15.6 release of Retrospect, and a new version of the Knowledge Base article to go with it.
  22. Actually Monafly isn't misreading what he/she is reading in the Grooming dialog. Retrospect Mac 12 added a Months to Keep entry box to the Grooming dialog, which is described on page 9 of the Retrospect Mac 12 User's Guide. A quick test on my "backup server" shows that (as I expected for compatibility) clicking the Groom to Retrospect Defined Policy button causes Months to Keep to default to 12. Unfortunately that page was part of the "What's New" chapter, and the august Documentation Committee has adopted for the last 4 versions of the UGs a policy of totally overwriting the last version's "What's New" UG chapter with whatever is new in the current version of Retrospect—without copying the last version's "What's New" content to another UG chapter. I have mentioned that policy in other posts; a frank appraisal of it would require me to use the words "heads" and "wedged" and "up" and the third-person plural possessive of the name of the human excretory orifice, which of course I'm too polite to do.
  23. DavidHertzberg

    Full Access Mojave

    So now Retrospect Technical Support is admitting that Instant Scan is going away on Retrospect Mac 15. One problem is that Instant Scan for APFS doesn't work, which is apparently a backup-app-industry-wide problem—not just for Retrospect. Another problem is that getting Instant Scan to work seems to be currently impossible if you're booting macOS 10.14, AKA known as Mojave. But I suspect that what henry-in-florida is quoting RTS as saying is what a Greek named Aesop characterized as "sour grapes". Since I instituted Instant Scan 3 years ago, it's been saving me 8 minutes on each daily incremental backup of one drive, and about 40 minutes on each weekly Recycle backup of 3 drives (I'm actually backing up 6 drives on that weekly run, but 3 of them are on a Mac so old that its Client predates the introduction of Instant Scan). Even if the speed improvements from the introduction of 64-bit API calls double or triple copying rates, I don't believe the Instant Scan savings described in the previous sentence will become negligible. And I don't care if Instant Scan hogs CPU time. P.S.: Come to think of it, the first drive I back up weekly—which only contains about 15GB—on that very old Mac takes about 15 minutes before Retrospect 14 actually starts backing up its files (as shown by the LED on my Media Set drive starting to flash). The CPU speed on that old Digital Audio G4 is 733Mhz, 27% of the CPU speed of the 2.7Ghz MacBook Pro that I back up daily. Yet its Recycle backup-and-compare, adjusted for the 49GB contents of the HFS+ drive on my newer machine, runs at 54% of the speed for my MBP—despite the fact that the MBP's drive is an SSD. And that includes the 15-minute preliminary Scan, which cannot be Instant because OS X 10.3—which the G4 boots—did not yet have FSEvents. Considering that the weekly Recycle backup-and-compare of the G4 takes 2 hours, my guess is that eliminating Instant Scan will add about 10% to the time for each incremental backup of a modern Mac. That won't be negligible for administrators with dozens of Macs to fit into a "backup window".
  24. DavidHertzberg

    Full Access Mojave

    Nigel Smith and anyone else upgrading to Mojave, Since I don't work for Retrospect Inc., I didn't write the KB article or Retrospect Mac 15.5. Since I also don't work for Apple, I didn't write Mojave. And since I'm an old fuddy-duddy, I'm still booting Sierra—so I don't have this problem. My suggestion would be to submit a feature request; here's why and how to do it. Alternatively, if you're lucky the "upcoming (Retrospect Client) release (which) will eliminate the uninstallation step and preserve your client settings" will IMHO be out in Retrospect Mac 15.6 or 15.7 around December. If Retrospect Inc. has to get Apple to fix something in macOS, the fix will IMHO come no earlier than Retrospect 16 next March.
  25. DavidHertzberg

    Cloud Backups to Backblaze fail

    jweisbin, IMHO you should ask Retrospect Tech Support, especially since you are probably entitled to personalized advice because you have licensed Retrospect Mac 15. You could also ask Backblaze Tech Support. Have you considered Wasabi, which is quite a bit cheaper than Amazon and is S3-compatible?