Jump to content

DavidHertzberg

Members
  • Content count

    1,281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

Everything posted by DavidHertzberg

  1. DavidHertzberg

    Retrospect Management Console

    Malcolm McLeary, (The disclaimer at the top of this up-thread post applies here.) Regarding your justified desire for 2 Factor Authentication in the Management Console, let us first consider the RMC as it currently is—an application developed by Retrospect engineers running on Heroku. Heroku currently has 2FA at the account level, but AFAICT this applies only to the developer of the application—not to a user of the application. What you want is for each authorized user of the RMC to have his/her own 2FA, and I doubt Heroku gives the capability to a developer of requiring that for a user signing in to the RMC. Maybe you could get Retrospect "Inc." to give you your own copy of the RMC application set up on Heroku's APAC server, but I doubt it. Moreover obtaining that would only enable someone with access to your "magic cellphone" containing the authenticator app to access the McLeary RMC, meaning in practice you personally. What if you want to allow a manager at your customer site to monitor his/her own site via the McLeary RMC? That argues for Retrospect "Inc." giving you authorization to install a modified version of the McLeary RMC code on a machine at each customer's site, but then you'd be responsible for making the modified version work on that particular machine. You'd also be responsible for making sure—as described under "Setting up recovery options" in the Heroku page lined to in the preceding paragraph—that either the customer knows what to do with the SMS recovery message sent to another of his/her phones that still works or that you receive that message on one your own phones. That's why the author of this recent Ars Technica front-page article thinks hardware keys are a better choice for 2FA than authenticator apps running on a smartphone. But, as the rest of that article implies, you'd be responsible for enhancing Retrospect's code for RMC to make hardware keys work on your version—depending on what particular OS it's running under. Maybe you could sell those enhancements back to Retrospect "Inc.", if they're still interested—which as I have implied in the next-to-last paragraph of this up-thread post they're probably not. Nigel Smith's suggestion to use Script Hooks to extract info from Retrospect script runs for FileMaker use would, of course, work only for scripts that have been written to use those Script Hooks. That wouldn't apply to any unauthorized scripts written by a hacker (but without RMC these couldn't exist). P.S.: My implied point in the preceding paragraph—whose last sentence I've clarified with a parenthesized clause—was that for security reasons you'd still have to eliminate any use of Heroku-hosted RMC as it exists now. A simpler monitoring solution would be to use Retrospect for iOS, if the engineers got that working again in Retrospect Windows 17.
  2. DavidHertzberg

    Tag selection whack-a-mole

    eeolson, Welcome back to the Forums after 5 years! 🙄 You last complained of your first problem in 2013, when you were using Retrospect Mac 10.1. Would it be too intrusive to ask you what version of Retrospect Mac you are using now? 🤣 The checkmarks for the two tags I have defined for sources and/or Favorite Folders are sticking fine in Retrospect Mac 16.6. Here's why and how to file a Support Case for a bug. Proactive backup was rewritten in March 2018 with Retrospect Mac 15.0. It's been renamed ProactiveAI (IMHO a bit of a stretch), and is now "based on a decision tree algorithm and linear regression to ensure every source is protected as often as possible". 17.0 sped "client" discovery, fixed speedup bugs.
  3. DavidHertzberg

    Backup set located on site to site VPN

    prophoto, Do you see how much better help you get when you calm down long enough to explain what you're trying to do? 😀 First of all, I'd recommend against filing a Support Case for a Retrospect bug. Ideally what you'd want is an enhancement to the Automatic Login dialog described at video minute 2:04 that would allow you to specify automatic login credentials for your Catalog File NAS that are different from your backup set destination NAS. (See the next paragraph for the reason I think you'd need those.) However, given what Lennart_T has posted directly above, IMHO what the engineers would be likely to respond with would be a prohibition on using a UNC path in the Catalog File dialog shown at video minute 1:50. The reason why I think you'd need separate login credentials for your Catalog NAS and your destination NAS is that, based on your 8 February 2018 OP, I think your destination NAS belongs to an associate on the same VPN rather than to you. So I'm now going to presumptuously guess what has been going through your mind—or your boss's mind—lately. I think you've been worrying about how you would recover if your Win10x64 machine died, and reading the "Disaster Recovery" chapter on pages 316–337 of the Retrospect Windows 16 User's Guide. Don't worry about your Catalog File. 🤣 When you get your replacement Windows machine, after you install Retrospect you can simply recreate your Catalog File from the destination NAS media per the Note at the top of page 320. Yes, it will take an hour or so longer, but the alternative is to put your Catalog File on a local DAS device—if you can afford one large enough and needn't worry about your entire local office flooding. P.S.: I'd thought of Nigel Smith's last suggestion below, which would be to create a Subvolume for ...\Documents\Retrospect\Catalog Files\ (I think that's the correct folder) and back up that Subvolume to the NAS as the last/only source in a script. But IMHO it wouldn't save enough time to be worth doing.
  4. DavidHertzberg

    Backup set located on site to site VPN

    prophoto, Your OP is one of the least "pro" of any lately posted. 🙄 You don't say what version of Retrospect Windows you are using, or what version of Windows your "backup server" is running, or what version of what OS your "remote machine" is running. You probably should get someone who knows more about IT to help you with future posts to these Forums. Nevertheless, although I'm a Retrospect Mac administrator, I'll try to give you an answer based on no provided information. When you say "create a new backup set on a remote machine connected via a site to site VPN", you must mean the destination is a NAS share on your VPN. Watch this video 3 times before you go any further. Don't create a Storage Group unless you really want to. As the video implies, you shouldn't put the Catalog for the backup set on the NAS; instead the Catalog should be in the default location on your "backup server"'s C:\ drive. Be especially sure you are following the procedure from video minute 0:36 to 0:48, and also from minute 2:04 to the end; maybe your problem is that you didn't configure automatic login per minute 2:04. If that doesn't solve your problem, and you are using a Retrospect version earlier than 17, consider doing at least a trial upgrade—AFAIK free for 45 days. The cumulative Release Notes for Retrospect Windows lists a fix, under 17.0.0.180, that may also apply to creating a backup set on a NAS share:
  5. DavidHertzberg

    Odd problem creating Disaster Recovery Disk

    rfajman, Quoting myself in the fifth paragraph (which I've just revised for clarity) of this 3-year-old post : The Support Case system leaves the impression that Tech Support will figuratively stick its fingers in its ears if the requester doesn't pay for Annual Support and Maintenance. That's because ASM has been an important source of revenue for Retrospect Inc., and probably paid the Tech Support departmental budget. IMHO that impression—applied to bug reports—is why it took Malcolm McLeary's persistence to make Retrospect "Inc." aware that Retrospect for iOS no longer works. Malcolm McLeary, Then pages 276–285 of the Retrospect Windows 17 User's Guide should prominently announce that DRD doesn't work for recent versions of Windows. But it apparently works for older versions—which many administrators have to restore, and besides it probably sells a number of copies of the Dissimilar Hardware Restore add-on.
  6. DavidHertzberg

    Windows 10 Feature Release 2004

    rfajman, The Forums search is your friend. The phrase "with all latest updates installed" in the OP of this 2 July 2020 thread would imply that 16.6 works with Windows 10 May Update, although gnoelken seems to have his problems with 'Restore --> Find Files'. Why don't you Private Message him and ask?
  7. DavidHertzberg

    media group bug

    jweisbin, If by "media groups" you mean Storage Groups, I strongly recommend that you not use them unless you absolutely have to. The basic reason why is stated in the first sentence of the second large paragraph of this post in another thread. My guess as to what happened is that one of the component Media Sets of your Storage Groups exceeded its individual assigned space on the single "volume" (in quotes because you're also using a cloud Storage Group) assigned to the Storage Group as a whole. You could try adding a second "volume" member for the Storage Group as a whole, but I don't know if that'll work even for a disk Storage Group—not to mention a cloud Storage Group. Alternatively you could Copy Backup from each component Media Set in the Storage Group to a free-standing Media Set, by using a component-designating Rule, and then Recycle the Storage Group; however IMHO that's just as much effort as backing up to free-standing Media Sets in the first place—unless you need the simultaneous backup provided by a Storage Group that you could instead get using multiple scripts with individual destinations running in different Activity Threads. As the remainder of that second large paragraph linked to in this post's second sentence says, AFAIK the Retrospect engineers have been diverted by StorCentric from enhancing the half-baked Retrospect Mac Storage Group GUI—so I don't think they'll be able to give you the capability to change the storage used by a Storage Group component Media Set this year. However here's why and how to submit a Support Case for an enhancement. BTW, as the second paragraph in the post linked to in my preceding sentence implies, Retrospect "Inc." personnel are no longer looking at the "Retrospect bug reports" sub-forum—so submitting a Support Case is the only way you can encourage the engineers to fix that Retrospect Mac Storage Group limitation.
  8. DavidHertzberg

    Retrospect Management Console

    Malcolm McLeary, First, the "stagnation" between Retrospect Windows 7.7 and 17 was only in the UI. Starting here is a version-by-version listing of the enhancements in the "backup server" between Retrospect Windows 8—which included user-initiated backups and restores introduced with Retrospect Mac 9—and Retrospect Windows 12. Retrospect Windows 15 (which directly followed 12, in order to restore version number parity with Retrospect Mac) enhancements included e-mail protection, what is now called ProactiveAI, Remote Backup, data hooks, and the beta of the Management Console. Retrospect Windows 16 enhancements included Storage Groups, deployment tools, and the features of the Management Console Add-On. Retrospect Windows 17 enhancements—as I'm sure you know—included Automated Onboarding for the Management Console, speeded-up ProactiveAI, and Restore Preflight. The latest thought you have elicited from me (definitely not illicit—a different word 🤣 ) on Management Console security is that—your basic idea— your Support Case should suggest adding a "Backup Sets Must Be Encrypted With AES-256" preference to the Security Preferences listed on page 327 of the Retrospect Windows 17 User's Guide. You can already specify encryption for a particular Backup Set per pages 98-99 of the UG, but this enhancement would be a simple way—pending a 2FA enhancement that might be hardware-dependent—of plugging the security hole you have pointed out up-thread. As for the Management Console having issues with time zones, I think you may have missed the point of this link in my preceding up-thread post. Heroku may have a presence in APAC, but AFAICT console.retrospect.com defaults to a Retrospect Console app either in Heroku's "virginia" region or in its "us" region. Replicating the Retrospect Console app in Heroku's APAC region would probably solve both the time zone and responsiveness problems. Lastly, in December 2003 I spent two weeks in Australia—including a total of three nights at the house of one of my ex-bosses in Ferntree Gully in the state of Victoria. That house was (I hope it hasn't burned down) hard up against the western border of the Ferntree Gully National Park, whose eucalyptus trees seem like they'd be a prime habitat for drop bears. However the only nighttime "assault" I experienced was some kind of opossum relieving itself on the back porch railing, and I was not bothered overnight by any frightening cries. I also took a walk in a fragment of bush forest to the south (?) of the coastal road between Melbourne and Adelaide, although that was during the afternoon. If you insist that drop bears are real, you should start by editing the Wikipedia article on the subject—which states that they are a hoax (as both my Aussie ex-bosses also told me at the time). I must warn you, from personal experience, that other Wikipedia editors will immediately revert your changes unless you include very reliable references. 🤣
  9. DavidHertzberg

    Retrospect Management Console

    Malcolm McLeary, (The disclaimer at the top of this up-thread post applies here.) Let me reference from another thread my thanks to you for shooting down my hypothesis that the Retrospect Engine doesn't initially listen on port 22024. That leaves me with only a purely marketing explanation—discussed in the last paragraph of the linked-to post—for the puzzling fact that Retrospect Inc. has never implemented a Retrospect Windows LAN Console equivalent to the Retrospect Mac LAN Console. But the engineers are now developing a simplified Retrospect Windows Console. AFAICT you're spot-on about the security flaw in the Management Console you discuss in the preceding post. Unless the forthcoming Retrospect Windows Console can be limited to use from the LAN the Engine is on, as the existing Retrospect Mac LAN Console is, it would have the same security flaw. I urge you to file a Support Case for a 2FA enhancement to the Management Console. In the same Support Case, or in one you have already filed, you could add an Additional Note requesting that the Management Console be replicated in Heroku's Australian region—which should make it more responsive for you I've pointed out in this up-thread post that the Management Console was developed as part of Retrospect Inc. Product Management's evidently-unsuccessful "go big or go home" strategy. I'l bet they never thought about the possibility of an Australian consultant using it. Do you drop from trees onto clients? 🤣
  10. DavidHertzberg

    iOS App Compatibility with Retrospect v17

    Malcolm McLeary,  (The disclaimer at the top of this up-thread post applies here.) It wasn't clear to me from your up-thread post that "Does a Drobo NAS include S3 as a service ... ?" meant "Does a Drobo NAS have an S3 interface?" I don't know anything about Drobo-provided software, but my Google search indicates it doesn't—at least for interfacing with MiniO and Basho. That's surely another reason why StorCentric acquired Retrospect Inc., though S.Reitshamer's non-client-server backup app (I'll call it A) has an S3 interface. Thanks for doing a port scan, which shoots down my hypothesis that the Retrospect Engine doesn't initially listen on port 22024. That leaves me with only a purely marketing explanation for the puzzling fact that Retrospect Inc. has never implemented a Retrospect Windows LAN Console equivalent to the Retrospect Mac LAN Console, resulting in what you refer to as the "Desktop Experience". That explanation revolves around the maxim that, paraphrasing H.L. Mencken, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the flexibility of some backup administrators." The first implication of that maxim is that many Retrospect Windows administrators are still wedded to Auto Launching, despite the suffering described in this Knowledge Base article; a basic element of that suffering is that Windows UAC would prohibit a LAN Console interfacing with the Engine when the Engine is Auto Launched. The engineers eventually came up with the built-in Dashboard as a partial work-around, but this and its linked-to threads say how unsatisfactory it is. The second implication is the consternation experienced by many Retrospect Mac administrators over the drastic simplifying UI change in Retrospect Mac 8. Not only did the terminology change, but the separate Immediate mode was eliminated—meaning an administrator had to define a (schedule-less?) script before hitting the Run button. 🙄 I guess Retrospect Inc. Product Management feared a backlash of Auto-Launch insistence and UI-change consternation from inflexible Retrospect Windows administrators, and therefore never introduced a LAN Console.
  11. DavidHertzberg

    iOS App Compatibility with Retrospect v17

    Everyone except Malcolm McLeary, First read this post in the ongoing Retrospect Management Console thread; I'm sure Malcolm McLeary already has. It is necessary background for this post, and I'm not going to repeat that background. Malcolm McLeary, (The disclaimer at the top of this up-thread post applies here.) According to this reseller article, "The simple addition of a VM into the existing infrastructure is all that is needed to connect [Drobo iSCSI SAN storage] to Amazon S3." Another blogger says she uses a non-client-server backup application—which I'll here call A because it's a competitor to Retrospect Solo Edition—to backup her Drobo 5N NAS to Amazon Glacier. In regard to the second part of your immediately-above post, how do you actually know that the Retrospect Windows Engine initially listens on port 22024? As the next-to-last paragraph of the post I linked to at the top of this post says, the Retrospect Mac Engine listens to the Retrospect Mac LAN Console, but AFAIK Windows UAC made this impossible for the Retrospect Windows Engine. If it weren't impossible, the Retrospect engineers would have implemented an instantly-updating-the-Engine Retrospect Windows LAN Console years ago. Another reason I have for doubting initial listening on port 22024 is in this section of the Knowledge Base article on Retrospect's Remote Backup feature. As I explained in the first three paragraphs of this post in a Retrospect Mac 9+ thread, the Engine initially listens on port 497 when doing Remote Backup—because it can't poll a Remote "client"—as it can for a "client" defined with Using Multicast or Using Subnet or Add Source Directly (Direct Access on Retrospect Windows)—whose IP address it cannot know. But the KB article says "With this networking change [fowarding ports 497 and 22024 to the machine running the Engine], a remote computer running Retrospect will be able to make a connection to the Retrospect engine, even though the computer running the Retrospect engine is running on the internal network." The same KB article says port 22024 is used for Remote Backup on-demand backup/restore requests. Maybe that's also true for non-Remote Backup on-demand backup/restore requests, in which case my hypothesis in the Management Console post is wrong and your hypothesis in the immediately-above post in this thread is correct. Why don't you settle this by asking the question about Engine initial listening on port 22024 as an Additional Note in one of your Support Cases? In regard to the last three paragraphs of your immediately-above post, first note that applications running on Heroku are likely written in Node.js or Ruby. What makes you think that the Retrospect Management Console could be easily converted—as opposed to being totally rewritten—to a faceless service running on something other than Heroku? And how about Retrospect for iOS, which unquestionably uses iOS facilities? Second, I simply don't understand how doing such conversions would help the experience of a typical Retrospect administrator. As proven by the fact that you are the first to report problems with the Management Console, and by the fact that that there have been so far 432 views but no replies to my OP question in this Retrospect for iOS thread, typical Retrospect administrators simply aren't using those two apps. IMHO the Retrospect "Inc." engineers are making much better use of their time by developing Console replacement(s)—which will reportedly be Web-based—for the Retrospect Windows GUI.
  12. DavidHertzberg

    Retrospect Management Console

    Malcolm McLeary, (The disclaimer at the top of this up-thread post applies here.) Late Tuesday afternoon Silicon Valley time I reached the head of North America Sales by phone; he's been selling Retrospect since the EMC days. He checked the Support Case system using his magical Salesperson privileges, and says you have several current Cases. He's vaguely heard of Costinel, whom he thinks is new, and says the European Tech Support organization has recently physically moved. I told the head of North America Sales you're a potential Partner (he Googled the nature of your business), and he's agreed to bring your current problems to the the attention of the head of Retrospect Technical Support in Silicon Valley. Despite my limited understanding of communications technology, I've used what you wrote in the post directly above to come up with a new hypothesis as to the cause of your two problems. One of the glories of Retrospect has been its Proactive backup capability, but this was substantially improved in March 2018 and renamed ProactiveAI (the improvement is really a decision tree, using linear-regression backup speed predictions, rather than true AI). Steps 3 and 4 in that Knowledge Base article describe the "backup server" Engine "reaching out" to every "client" machine in a running Proactive script, and my guess is that that improved "reaching out"—which was made more frequent in Retrospect 17.0.0—interferes with the existing "reaching out" the Engine's been doing to make Management Console and Retrospect for iOS possible. The latest version of Retrospect for iOS was released in September 2017, and it's consistent with the engineers' habitually-limited alpha-testing (a characterization that the Sales guy said was very charitable 🤣 ) that they wouldn't have retested Retrospect for iOS since then. The Management Console released in March 2019 was originally described as being updated once a minute, although I was surprised to see in a Retrospect webinar I was invited to attend on 3 April 2020 that the updating seemed to be more frequent than that—so maybe an engineer had hobbled the ProactiveAI "reaching out" for that demo. I told the Sales guy my hypothesis; we'll see if it's correct. The key point about the existing Retrospect Mac LAN Console is that the Mac LAN Console "reaches out" to a "listening" Engine, not the other way around. That enables the Mac LAN Console to update the Engine's stored scripts/sources/destinations/etc. instantly, which is surely a capability that the Retrospect engineers wanted for a Retrospect Windows LAN Console back in 2008. Windows UAC made that impossible, and IMHO it makes sense that the engineers wouldn't settle for a less-than-instantly-updating Windows LAN Console—so they've never developed one. The Sales guy says the engineers intend to try to create a simplified Windows LAN Console—not requiring a Drobo "backup server"—as part of the effort I described in the fifth-from-last and third-from last paragraphs of this up-thread post, but IMHO it'll have to be less-than-instantly-updating. BTW the Sales guy says that engineering effort has slipped for COVID-19-related reasons, so it's not going to get done by August or September 2020.
  13. DavidHertzberg

    Scanning incomplete, error -1101 (file/directory not found)

    Malcolm McLeary, When Nigel Smith says "define the ones you want as volumes", he probably means Retrospect-specified Subvolumes. Described on pages 349–351 of the Retrospect Windows 17 User's Guide, they were renamed Favorite Folders in Retrospect Mac 8. I use a Favorite Folder in a Backup script; it works. However Retrospect Windows also has defined-only-in-Retrospect Folders, which are described on pages 348–349 of the UG as a facility for grouping source volumes. The description doesn't say so, but you can possibly move defined Subvolumes—even on different volumes—into a Folder. Since the Folders facility was removed in Retrospect Mac 8, I didn't know it even existed until I read about it 5 minutes ago. That's to say Your Mileage May Vary (YMMV), as we say in the States (in a phrase originally used in auto ads). If they work as groups of Subvolumes, they may simplify your backup scripts.
  14. DavidHertzberg

    iOS App Compatibility with Retrospect v17

    Malcolm McLeary, 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 cent 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. My guess is that you do have two Support Cases on Retrospect "Inc."'s system; it's just that you're confused by that somewhat-perverted system. IMHO the perversion is a result of Retrospect Inc.'s long-ago marketing decisions, which include not allowing an ordinary customer to view any Cases except his/her own. The e-mail they send you for each submitted Case contain a link to the Portal and a case number. You have to click the link and then click the itty-bitty "Log in" item on the right. Since the system knows from the link who you are, you then merely have to click a larger Sign In button to be presented with the main Portal Dashboard. That Dashboard was designed to also offer you several other sales-oriented options, so you have to click its Support button to be taken to a page having a single-line listing of each Support Ticket you've ever submitted—in inverse sequence by date-submitted. Unless you want to click the Number for your very-latest Case, you may then have to use the Ticket Number on the e-mail to aid you in finding the one you want to look at. Each Case is organized in latest-note-first sequence, so your original Problem Description is at the bottom. That Description and each Additional Note is limited to about 2000 characters, with automatic creation of Additional Notes if you exceed the limit. The Retrospect for iOS app is read-only, except for a Pause/Unpause/Stop button added a few years later for use if the iOS app reveals an imminent backup problem. The Retrospect Management Console is read-only if you don't buy the Management Console Add-On, but AFAICT (only Partners get to see whatever documentation exists for that Console) you can't restrict a particular user of the Management Console to read-only. I'm sorry my Windows 10 release "2004" hypothesis isn't correct; maybe there's now a bug in some underlying code for Retrospect Windows 17—other administrators already spotted an annoying debugging display inadvertently left in the Proactive "AI" code for the evidently-hurried 17.0.0 initial release. Thank you for bringing Synology's ABfB application to my attention; it explains the competitive reason for StorCentric's buying Retrospect Inc.. For (well-founded) fear of triggering deletion of my post(s) by the head of Retrospect Tech Support, I don't want to discuss Synology's backup products any further on these Forums. However solely in this post I will use them to "read the tea leaves" about what StorCentric must be trying to develop—a competitor for both ABfB and Hyper Backup: ABfB has the built-in capability of backing up virtual machines; Retrospect used to have that capability as an Add-On, but moved it to the separate R. V. product a couple of years ago (I'm not permitted to mention the full name of R. V. on these Forums; IMHO that prohibition is part of the Partner-oriented "go big or go home " strategy). Another administrator suggested that R. V. was developed under the management of someone other than a Walnut Creek CA-based engineer; if so, it would be difficult to merge that product into the ordinary Retrospect product. However the Retrospect Management Console can monitor and control both products. AFAICT ABfB doesn't have a non-Management Console, and Hyper Backup has a simplified Web-based Synology Drive Client. The Retrospect non-Management Console Preview may only be for exhibiting the proposed GUI for a simplified Web-based Retrospect Web Console, but it's not clear how that could be used for an installation using solely Windows-based "backup servers" without using Heroku as the webserver. That may be satisfactory if the problem you experienced with the Management Console is due solely to a bug in version 17, except that Retrospect "Inc." has a U.S. military customer that Sales says is using Retrospect Mac because its LAN-only Console avoids security problems by not using the Web. Neither ABfB nor Hyper Backup can back up Macintosh computers; that IMHO is what the second 'B' in ABfB emphasizes—"Business". It is worth noting that the competing client-server backup applications NB and BE used to have Mac "agent" or "client" programs, but dropped those at least two years ago.
  15. DavidHertzberg

    iOS App Compatibility with Retrospect v17

    Malcolm McLeary, Is it possible this is the result of a Windows 10 "improvement" in an updater to its "2004" version? A lot of Ars Technica Windows forum posters have been plagued with such things. Can you—or another administrator—access a Retrospect 17 "backup server" installed on a Windows Vista/7/8 machine? BTW you said in a post in another thread: If you're talking about Synology Hyper Backup, AFAICT that only backs up individual files from Synology NASes—not from "endpoint" computers. Also, in another post in that other thread you praised the quality of a Linux Developer Preview of FileMaker Server 19. As I'm sure you're aware, FileMaker Inc. happens to be a subsidiary of Apple, so it surely doesn't lack for money to pay alpha-testers—which is probably still tight at Retrospect "Inc.".
  16. DavidHertzberg

    iOS App Compatibility with Retrospect v17

    Malcolm McLeary, File a Support Case; I'll see that it gets to the attention of Tech Support in California (end of first paragraph in that post in another thread). FYI Retrospect for iOS was originally developed as a "hack" (in the original good sense) by Retrospect engineer Brian Dunagan (now V.P. Product Management) in his spare time. After it was made official around 2014, it wasn't updated until 2017. If it originally used "script hooks"—as opposed to "data hooks", those were officially available in 2016 for Retrospect Windows—which is probably what Retrospect for iOS was developed for.
  17. DavidHertzberg

    Retrospect Management Console

    Malcolm McLeary, (The disclaimer at the top of this up-thread post applies here.) I see you have now discovered that Retrospect for iOS can't access a Retrospect Windows 17 or 16.6 "backup server". I guess that explains part of this problem as well. IME Retrospect "Inc." and its predecessors have a decades-old deficiency in alpha-testing, dating back well before the EMC acquisition but no doubt exacerbated by the temporary end-of-lifing in 2007. What they need is an alpha-tester employee with the intelligence of a good applications programmer, but the controlled malice needed to forgo creation in favor of finding bugs in other employees' creations. Such alpha-testers are hard to find—and probably highly paid; I was employed as one in 1996–1998, and was laid off because I lacked the malice—so I concentrated on a programming task. When I next manage to speak with the head of North America Sales—tomorrow or later, I'll ask him to re-direct your Support Case for this bug—as well as the Support Case you should file for the other bug—to Tech Support in California; I don't know whether Costinel has the power/desire to do that. Getting back to the Retrospect Management Management Console vs. the Retrospect non-Management Console Preview, I've now realized that I'm out of my technical depth. I've said up-thread that what's needed is a webserver in both Heroku and the forthcoming Linux variant of the Retrospect Engine. Heroku undoubtedly has a webserver, but I've recalled the following facts: Don Lee discovered in 2017 that he could access a Retrospect Windows "backup server" from the Console running on a Mac laptop. Presumably neither of these machines had a webserver running, but presumably they were on the same LAN. AFAIK Retrospect for iOS doesn't have need to have access to a webserver, yet from 2014 through 2019 it has been able to communicate with a Retrospect Windows "backup server" over TCP port 22024.. The Retrospect Mac Console in any Edition higher than Desktop (that's what my home installation has) can communicate with a Retrospect Mac "backup server" on another machine, so long as both machines are on the same LAN—but regardless of whether either machine has a webserver. So what I'll call "UAC-acceptable port 22024 LAN communication" seems to exist—however it works . If the forthcoming simple Retrospect Windows Console has "UAC-acceptable port 22024 LAN communication", then it won't need a webserver to communicate with a Retrospect Windows Engine.
  18. DavidHertzberg

    Retrospect Management Console

    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 cent 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.  Malcolm McLeary, I have only two questions about your use of the Retrospect Management Console: Is the way it works now satisfactory for your purposes? If it's not satisfactory, is Retrospect "Inc." likely to fix it? Based on your preceding posts in this thread, I'd say the answer to my first question is "No". Here's why I think the answer to my second question is also "No": Let's look at the history of the Management Console shown in the Retrospect Windows cumulative Release Notes. The Management Console came out of beta with 16.0 in March 2019. There were bug fixes and added Pause/Unpause/Stop support through 16.1 in May 2019. Then there were major enhancements added in 16.5 on 1 October 2019, followed by one minor enhancement and Automatic Onboarding added in 17.0 on 3 March 2020. IMHO it's significant that16.5 had so many bugs in it that there was a very-unusual 16.6 release on 2 December 2019—which also added Retrospect non-Management Console Preview, and that 17.0 came out a week earlier than usual and had a "clear the decks of bug fixes and ongoing enhancements" feel to it. Over 40 years I developed the opinion that a major aspect of applications development is applied political science, which can be studied by "reading the tea leaves". In the case of Retrospect, IMHO the "tea leaves" say that StorCentric took over product management during the period of June 2019 through February 2020, and that the efforts of the Retrospect engineers have now been redirected to supporting the development of a variant of the "backup server" Engine that runs on Drobo—and I hope other Linux—NASes. That support is above all developing a simplified Console that runs on a Mac or Windows machine to control and monitor the Engine running on a NAS, and the purpose of the Retrospect non-Management Console Preview is clearly to "run the proposed GUI up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes" (apologies for paraphrasing a 1950s Madison Avenue catchphrase). If Retrospect Engine on a NAS is going to succeed in a "go wide or go home" competition against Synology Hyper Backup and similar non-client-server backup applications, its Console GUI is going to have to be much easier to learn than the GUI of the current Retrospect Mac Console. In 2016 other posters on the Ars Technica Mac forum belittled Retrospect Mac 12 because it took me 6 hours to learn how to set it up—even though I had used Retrospect Mac from 1995 to 2010, and independent software reviewers over the years have always noted that Retrospect is difficult to learn. OTOH developers of that simplified Console won't be faced with the problem that has been a stumbling block for Retrospect Windows; DroboAccess provides a built-in Web server, and other Linux-based NASes no doubt have similar facilities. I'm sure that the Retrospect engineers will try to get the simplified Console to work better using Heroku to interface with Retrospect Windows Engines, but from what you've said in your first two up-thread posts that's going to be difficult. IMHO Mihir Shah of StorCentric won't let them spend a lot of time on Heroku; the bugs you found show minimal 2019 testing. So that's why I think the answer to my second question is "No"—and that goes double for the enhancements the second and third paragraphs of your immediately-up-thread post suggest. Costinel's probably not that knowledgeable. Knowing that I tried phoning the head of North America Sales on 3 July to ask him that second question, but he was unavailable—possibly because Saturday 4 July is a major U. S. holiday. I'll try again next week. BTW you're wrong about Retrospect "Inc." being a "Mac first, Windows second company". That may have been true in the 1980s and 1990s, but hasn't been true at least since EMC took over Dantz Development Corp. in 2004. The Windows market is just so much bigger.
  19. DavidHertzberg

    Retrospect Management Console

    Malcolm McLeary, According to JG Heithcock (down the page in the article), EMC did end-of-life Retrospect and then months later revive it. The article doesn't say that the resultant Retrospect Mac 8.0 was such a mess (new design and terminology plus temporary loss of PowerPC compatibility plus rushed testing) that in 2016, 7 years after its release, former users denounced the product when I started a thread about Retrospect Mac 12 on the Ars Technica Mac forum. IMHO that's also a contributing—but not controlling—reason why Retrospect Inc. stayed with the 7.5 GUI and terminology for Retrospect Windows. But the Retrospect Console Preview—which can run on a Windows "backup server"—looks to me like a simplified version of the Retrospect Mac Console. I've never gotten a Tech Support reply from Costinel. He/she is likely either new and/or European. The attitude Costinel is expressing is thoroughly in keeping with what I described in the third substantive paragraph of this up-thread post; the Management Console was intended to be used by off-site Partners as part of the "go big or go home" strategy. The Retrospect Support Case system is a perverted version of some vendor's case-management software. One perversion is to automatically mark most submitted cases as being Closed. IME that doesn't mean you can't add Additional Notes. I just used the link in the latest e-mail Tech Support automatically sent me to access my cases, so the system is working for me.
  20. DavidHertzberg

    Proactive Backups and Background Running

    Malcolm McLeary, With all due respect, I think you're wrong about why Retrospect Windows still requires auto login to the "Desktop Experience". User Account Control was introduced with Windows Vista, which meant it became pervasive just about the time Retrospect Mac 8 was released. If you read the rest of that History section of the Wikipedia article, you'll see that UAC hasn't fundamentally been relaxed since then. Over the years I've gotten indications from Retrospect Tech Support that the engineers really wanted to provide a separate Retrospect Windows Console, but I've never gotten an explanation why they couldn't put a Web server into the "backup server"—which is the method competing client-server backup applications have had to adopt to provide a Console. As far as taking away legacy support is concerned, I can personally testify that the Retrospect engineers recently have not hesitated to do that for the Retrospect Mac Engine. In March 2019 they announced that Retrospect Mac 16 wouldn't support the 32-bit Legacy Client, which I'd been using for LAN backup of my Digital Audio G4. In October 2019 they announced Retrospect Mac 16.1 would be the last version whose Engine would run on and whose Client would support Mac OS X 10.6 or 10.7; this didn't affect me because I only do a backup of one 10.6.8 drive local to my Mac Pro "backup server". But the situation is different for legacy support on Windows machines. You should know that Retrospect administrators are frequently actual administrative employees—not members of an enterprise's IT staff, because backup administrators need an quasi-legal knowledge of what needs to be backed up but not advanced technical skills. If you'd been reading these Forums as long as I have, you would know that—to save money—Retrospect administrators are frequently forced by their management to use outmoded "backup server" machines and to back up ancient "client" machines. IMHO Retrospect "Inc." Product Management has been acutely aware that, if they told customer administrators that their offices' computers would not have further Retrospect support unless they were upgraded to a modern version of Windows, the administrators' bosses' response would be to order the replacement of Retrospect with NB or BE rather than order the minefield-laden upgrading or replacement of multiple office computers. See the third subgstantive paragraph of this up-thread post for the direction StorCentric management is making the engineers take.
  21. DavidHertzberg

    Retrospect Management Console

    Malcolm McLeary, (Still being written while you posted immediately above it.) First, you hadn't said in any of your recent posts which version of Retrospect Windows you are using. I'm still on Retrospect Mac 16.6, because I don't use the new or bug-fixed features in 17.0.x and I'm now waiting for 17.5 to see any new features announced in August–September 2020. I do, however, have a 45-day trial license for 17 for reasons it's hardly worth discussing (a week ago Monday I thought my 2010 Mac Pro "backup server" had an unfixable hardware or software problem, and therefore installed a 16.6 "backup server" on my MacBook Pro—only to deduce a couple of days later that the "unfixable" Mac Pro problem was fixable simply by installing a new PRAM battery; meanwhile, in the process of installing 16.6 on my MBP, I hit the wrong Registration button and was e-mailed a trial license for 17.) The point of the foregoing is that the august (my ironic adjective) Documentation Committee has now wiped out the former Knowledge Base articles about the Management Console, by replacing them with links to newly-updated-for-17 sections added to the User's Guides. Tomorrow I'm going to phone the head of North America Sales, and ask him if I can install the Management Console on my MBP and have it report on the 16.6 "backup server" on my Mac Pro. I'll also ask him about whether and how often the Management Console updates via Heroku—he told me three months ago it's more frequently than once a minute, and how it handles time zones; by looking at Wikipedia I deduce you're in eastern Australia and on AET, which is now 14 hours ahead of New York City EDT (15 years ago I worked in New Jersey for a couple of guys in Melbourne, so I used to know that stuff). I did a Forums search, and essentially all of the posts mentioning the Management Console are by me—which strongly implies that no Forums poster has actually tried it. IMHO the reason for that is the "go big or go home" strategy I outlined in the second substantive paragraph of this post in another thread. At the start of that strategy Retrospect Inc. developed a special relationship with "Partners", by which they mean consultants who can resell Retrospect to multiple clients. A consequence of that is their never having shown the Management Console Add-On on their Configurator; I had to grill the head of North America Sales for the Editions prices for it. To me this means Retrospect "Inc." still doesn't expect anyone who isn't a Partner to use the Management Console Add-On features, and probably doesn't expect a non-Partner to use the basic Management Console. And they probably haven't had a Partner who is in a substantially different time zone from his/her clients, which might explain why Past Activities doesn't show any dates. Despite this you may be able to get help from Tech Support. Another administrator from Oz recently posted that the Tech Support whose phone number is listed for Australia turned out to be quite helpful, once the administrator found out that the phone number is only answered during Western European business hours. Also, here's why and how to file a Support Case for a bug, which will go to Tech Support in California.
  22. DavidHertzberg

    'Restore --> Find Files' yields 0 files found

    gnoelken, I'm a Retrospect Mac administrator, and remember very little about Windows (mostly Windows 95) from my last job 15 years ago. However, shouldn't your path start with "D:\Data\Greg"? Or is "Data" some kind of a synonym for "D:\" on your system? The line under the first screenshot in your OP says:
  23. DavidHertzberg

    Proactive Backups and Background Running

    Malcolm McLeary, (The disclaimer at the start of this up-thread post applies.) The Engine has been common code for both Retrospect Windows and Retrospect Mac since late 2009. The only core feature that has not progressed substantially since then has been the GUI for Retrospect Windows. AFAICT it was actually EMC upper management who dictated the development of a separate Console; then the Retrospect engineers discovered that they couldn't do it for Retrospect Windows without adding a Web server to the Engine. The guiding principle of Retrospect Product Management has always been to keep pace with the large-installation features of competing client-server backup applications such as NB and BE and P5 (the head of Retrospect Tech Support actively discourages the naming of competing application in the Forums), while at the same time keeping the product available at a price suitable for SMEs. The way they successfully did this until 2018 is what I call the "soak the rich installation" strategy (others have called this "value pricing"), which charges much higher prices for Editions that can backup macOS Server and Windows Server machines. That strategy fell apart when many large installations switched from Server OS machines to NASes, whereupon a yellow 15.0 Release Note announced "Linux Client: In a future update, Linux clients running on server-level Linux distributions will be treated as server clients". 🙁 Posters in the Ars Technica Linux forum told me that there was no non-manual way of identifying "server-level Linux distributions", and in fact Retrospect engineering never implemented this threat. So starting with 15.5 Retrospect Inc. Product Management implemented what I call the "go big or go home" strategy—to attract large worldwide installations and multi-installation consultants; this included the introduction of the Management Console, Remote Backup, and Storage Groups. When that strategy was apparently not financially successful either, Retrospect Inc. sold itself to StorCentric. StorCentric top management evidently want to implement what I call a "go wide or go home" strategy, with Retrospect competing with such NAS backup applications as Synology Hyper Backup while boosting the sales of StorCentric Drobo and Nexsan hardware. That IMHO is the reason for releasing the Retrospect Console Preview; the GUI of a Console suitable for use by the typical unsophisticated NAS owner must appear less complex than the existing Retrospect Mac Console—not to mention the Windows-95-influenced klunkiness of the GUI embedded in the existing Retrospect Windows "backup server". (I'm observing the klunkiness first-hand; for the past few months, in order to back up a 2001 Digital Audio G4 "client" that Retrospect Mac 15.5 stopped being able to back up because its Client is 32-bit, I've been running Retrospect Mac 6.1—which has an embedded non-multi-tasking version of the Retrospect Windows 7.5 GUI—directly on the G4. BTW my installation is in my apartment, so IMHO two locks on the door is sufficient security. )
  24. DavidHertzberg

    Proactive Backups and Background Running

    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 cent 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, outlined here. Malcolm McLeary, Since the last post you made in these Forums was in 2005, I'm going to possibly insult your general knowledge of forums software by assuming you don't know how to follow the links in my preceding post in this thread. If you see words that are underlined, and if you see the white icon of a pointing finger when you pass your cursor over those words, then clicking anywhere in the underlined words will make your same browser tab "follow the link" to another post or article—or create a new browser tab if the link is outside the Forums. When you've finished reading the material there that the author of the link-containing post thought you should see, clicking the back button—if the link was to a Forums post— in your browser will make that tab return to the post that contained the link (otherwise just close the new tab). If you haven't already done so, I suggest you follow the links in my preceding post. The second paragraph of your immediately-above post implies that you're not familiar with the content of my posts in this Forum over the past year. Apparently you don't realize that the Retrospect programmers at Dantz were working on "a new UI that was separate from the Engine" for Retrospect Windows, but they couldn't implement it for a reason explained in the first paragraph of this Knowledge Base article. They therefore left the Retrospect Windows GUI as it was in 7.5, IMHO because a design-and-terminology change without a Console capability would have simply confused the dickens out of Retrospect Windows administrators; the GUI+terminology change with the Console in Retrospect Mac 8 puzzled many administrators (me belatedly). There seems to be an exception in Microsoft's User Account Control (I know very little about Windows) for a GUI-containing task interacting with another task when the interaction is done over the Internet, which would explain why Retrospect for iOS works with Retrospect Windows and why Don Lee was able to control a Retrospect Windows "backup server" Engine from a Retrospect Mac Console. Competing client-server backup applications have taken advantage of this exception by incorporating a Web server in their "backup server" Engines, but the Retrospect Inc. engineers didn't want to—or couldn't—do that. In 2019 those engineers introduced what is now called the Retrospect Management Console, which uses Salesforce Heroku as its intermediary Web server. You can use its Granular Remote Management to get two-way interaction with a Retrospect Windows Engine if you pay US$49 for the Management Console Add-On (price is for the Desktop Edition), but I'm not sure whether that two-way interaction is currently complete enough for you. In June 2019 Retrospect Inc. became a subsidiary of StorCentric, which also owns Drobo. StorCentric top management, as well as the now-"General Manager" (formerly CEO) of Retrospect "Inc.", have said they intend to implement a variant of the Retrospect "backup server" Engine running on (probably beefed-up) Drobo hardware. I have indications that the engineers are busily working on that, and that it may also run on other manufacturers' Linux-based NASes—which you've asked for. NASes don't have their own keyboards and video and pointing devices, so obviously such a variant would have to be accompanied by a Console running on Windows and macOS hardware—using either a Web server built into the NAS's OS or Heroku. Lo and behold, in December 2019 the Retrospect Console Preview (not to be confused with the Retrospect Management Console) was released—which IMHO is actually intended to preview the Windows/Mac Console for the Linux and other variants of the Retrospect Engine. The Preview currently only runs on the same Windows or Mac "backup server" the Engine is running on, and its KB article says it is an extension of the existing Dashboard. I doubt that its current control capabilities are adequate for your needs, but Retrospect Sales would probably be happy to give you at least a 45-day trial version of the Preview.
  25. francisbrand, Here's why and how to file a Support Case for a bug. If you upgraded to Retrospect Mac 17 within the last 30 days, you are entitled to free personalized Tech Support.
×