Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by DavidHertzberg

  1. DavidHertzberg

    Storage Groups vs. standard script?

    fredturner, I'm not running Retrospect Mac 16 yet. However the second and—especially—third paragraph in this post in another thread is my educated guess as to what this Knowledge Base article really means. I wrote in the post's third paragraph (where "doohickey" is an old American term for a mechanism of unknown identity—which in this case could consist of a list of source-volume names processed by coding in the Retrospect Engine): Considering your Problem 2. based on what is shown for Retrospect Windows in the KB article, if you look at your applicable Storage Group folder—which is likely by default inside Library -> Application Support -> Retrospect -> Catalogs on your "backup server"—you'll find a Media Set Catalog File created by the doohickey for each source-volume combination. My wild-a**ed guess is that you might be able to use the Console GUI to navigate to one of those Catalog Files and open it as if it's an ordinary Media Set. If you can do that, you can likely open the Members tab for that Media Set and click its Edit Pencil at the bottom of the dialog box; this will allow you to mess with the space allocation. What you might want to do is to try reducing the space allocation in "Use at most" for the single Member of the first Media Set within the Storage Group, or at least notice that it's allocated for all the available space. What seems preferable to me is that you click the '+' button to add a second Member—preferably on a second disk, and adjust its space allocation when you do that. Either way Your Mileage May Vary, and I'll be praying for you. However the more I think about your Problem 2., the more I think the correct thing to do is to phone or e-mail Retrospect Tech Support. If you do that right away, you'll still be within your 30 days free personalized support period. This sounds to me as if the engineers didn't actually test "Scheduled scripts support Storage Groups as destinations", especially to the same Storage Group as used for a Proactive script, so you may have uncovered a bug. Here's why and how to file a Support Case for a bug. As for your Problem 1, here's why and how to file a Support Case for an enhancement.
  2. DavidHertzberg

    Restrospect 16 Desktop Advantages?

    mbennett/Mark, But Retrospect Inc. evidently hired a good tech writer a number of years ago to create their pair of User's Guides. The new features added since 2015 are all basically enhancements to features already in Retrospect. In the 5th paragraph of this post in another thread I said: Those Support Case #54077 detailed instructions turn out to be for moving the feature descriptions in the Retrospect Mac 13 "What's New" chapter into follow-on chapters of the Retrospect Mac 14 UG. So let's quadruple my 10-hour estimate to cover moving all the feature descriptions in "What's New" for Retrospect Mac 12 through 15 (Retrospect Windows 10 through 15—with versions 13 and 14 having been skipped) to follow-on chapters in both variants of the UG. That's still only 1 person-week. I've been told by two senior people in Sales that Retrospect Inc. has now hired a new Sales Support engineer. Moving those descriptions should be within his/her capabilities, and will aid in his/her familiarization with the product. And here's an idea so ingenious only I could have thought of it: Create links in the UGs to Knowledge Base articles. That way the section "Proactive Scripts" at the end of the "Automated Operations" chapter of the Retrospect Windows UG could contain a link to the "White Papers" KB article I've linked to in my preceding posts in this thread. Moreover most of the "Cloud Backup" and "Email Backup" KB articles could be shortened, since they differ from one another only in the details of set-up for a particular provider—and all other sections of those articles could be moved to the UG. However maybe that would violate the principle discovered 10 years ago by EMC Iomega (third paragraph here), which is "nobody ever went broke under-estimating the flexibility of some Retrospect administrators—especially if they're running Retrospect Windows." IMHO this whole documentation mess is the result of a fascination on the part of Retrospect Inc. Product Management with marketing their products through consultants, or Partners in their terminology. You can see this especially in the way the Web-based Management Console is being marketed. The Management Console Add-On, which is needed to enable the Shared Scripts feature—a start on the two-way Retrospect Windows Console Don Lee was asking for two years ago, has not yet been added to the Product Configurator as of this moment. And that's despite two senior people in Retrospect Sales telling me over the last week that it would be added. Consultants, you see, will have learned to find their way around all the KB articles—and they're the only people Product Management cares about at the moment. P.S.: Corrected my paraphrase of H.L. Mencken in the last sentence of the next-to-last paragraph.
  3. DavidHertzberg

    Restrospect 16 Desktop Advantages?

    rfajman and others, As to ProactiveAI, you have to read the Knowledge Base article I linked to in my preceding post in conjunction with pages 236-251 in the Retrospect Windows 15 User's Guide. The "AI" was added to the end of "Proactive" to signify the adoption of a new decision-tree algorithm for determining the priorities of "client" backups. IMHO It really doesn't constitute artificial intelligence, unless you count the use of linear regression along with a decision tree as rising to that level. OTOH it's evidently better than the preceding algorithm, on which Dantz/EMC's patent seems to have expired in 2016. The fact that you have to go through this instructional mess is yet another example of the IMHO gross stupidity/laziness of a policy adopted by Retrospect Inc.'s august Documentation Committee in 2015. Prior to that year, Retrospect Inc.'s policy was to describe new features of a major version fairly comprehensively in the "What's New" chapter of the UG for that version. The descriptions in that "What's New" chapter would then, for the next version of the UG, be incorporated in appropriate sections of follow-on chapters in the UG—allowing the"What's New" chapter to be overwritten with fairly comprehensive descriptions of the next set of new features. Starting in 2015 the august Documentation Committee adopted a policy of only overwriting the "What's New" chapter without incorporating its previous contents in follow-on chapters. The Committee relied instead on individual engineers to create KB articles containing the previous feature descriptions. For some new features, such as the one facilitating moving Members of Backup/Media Sets to larger disks, the engineer(s) couldn't be bothered to create a short KB article. So how to use those features, especially for Retrospect Windows, is locked forever in the minds of Retrospect Inc. engineers—and maybe harassed Retrospect Tech Support people. Starting in March 2018 the "What's New" chapter in the UGs became merely marketing blurbs, useless for administrators trying to learn how to use new features. I created Support Case #59820, stating the problem plainly on 20 March 2018. I was told by a senior Tech Support engineer that, sometime this side of the indefinite future, Retrospect Inc. intends to do a comprehensive rewrite of the UGs. I think it's time for us administrator users to each inscribe the letters "TUIT" on a round piece of paper, and snail-mail it to : Retrospect, Inc. Attn.: August Documentation Committee 1547 Palos Verdes Mall, Suite 155 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 United States That will communicate to the August Documentation Committee a notice that now is the time to "get around to it".
  4. DavidHertzberg

    Restrospect 16 Desktop Advantages?

    rfajman, Nobody on these Forums works for Retrospect Inc., so you're not going to get the Sales view—which is probably what you wanted to avoid. Your last post before Thursday stated you were using Retrospect Windows 12, with 2 "clients" and a "backup server" machine in Silver Spring MD, so we can assume you don't need Remote Backup or GDPR compliance. However we don't know whether yours is a family-centered installation or a small business, or whether you backup to a cloud destination. We have no idea whether you ever installed Retrospect Windows 15, so we don't know whether you use the E-Mail Protection feature. We also don't know if you use Proactive backup, which was greatly modernized (as BackupBot or ProactiveAI) in version 15. If you ever installed Retrospect Windows 15, I hope you've upgraded it to—because 15.5 and 15.6.0 were "bad releases" that disabled existing features. Proceeding to Retrospect Windows 16.0, I'll assume you have full access to the "backup server" machine—so you are likely not plagued by the Windows inter-process security restrictions that motivated the development of the Web-based Management Console with its Add-On that allows Shared Scripts. Even if you do use Proactive backup scripts, I doubt you have so many of them that you need Storage Groups. The same is likely to be true for Deployment Tools. My recent experience with the Dashboard in Retrospect Mac (which I only upgraded to in early January 2019) indicates that—unless the Retrospect Inc. engineers fixed several glaring bugs in existing and new panes in time for 16.0 while ignoring my Support Case about them—the Dashboard-derived Management Console is "not ready for prime time". So I second mbennett's diplomatic suggestion that you wait for Retrospect Windows 16.1, which past practices indicate will be released in mid-May 2019. I think your OP question reflects my impression that Retrospect Inc. Product Management has adopted a "go big or go home" strategy for the last two major releases. Your installation may not fit into that strategy; mine certainly doesn't.
  5. Just because I mentioned Storage Groups in the first paragraph of this up-thread post, I want to clarify what Storage Groups can do—now that they are out of beta in version 16. As this post in another thread says, they seem to have been developed primarily to deal with a problem administrators have in record-keeping when they have Proactive script(s) that back up a large number of "clients". jhg could use a Storage Group as the destination for a non-Proactive Backup via a script—but apparently not via an Immediate operation (see the quote in the last sentence of this paragraph) . However I doubt whether he/she would want to, considering that the backup of each source volume would be stored on a different Backup Set within the Storage Group—with no deduplication between the source volumes. And, as the Knowledge Base article says, "Scheduled scripts support Storage Groups as destinations, but the backups run on a single execution and not in parallel."
  6. Further news on this immediately-preceding post, not too good for some of you administrators with Verizon FiOS. Friday night it occurred to me: "What if it's my FiOS router that's inhibiting Multicast?" Sunday I had a countervailing thought: "That would be a funny kind of inhibition; the router doesn't prevent my 'backup server' from Adding a 'client' Using Multicast, but prevents Multicast from Finding the 'client' when executing a Backup script unless I do a Locate before the script starts." So this evening I phoned 1-(800)-VERIZON. The first T.S. person I talked to was so scripted that he sounded like my ancient memories of Roy the Toy Boy from the original Electric Company, but at last I got to talk to a "senior" T.S. person. He put me on hold several times while he communicated with an even-more-"senior" person, but at last I got an answer—relayed from their "FiOS Gateway" support company rather than directly from the manufacturer Actiontec. The short version is that the latest "security" updates to the ROM of my FiOS G1100 "gateway" (a modem coax-cabled to the FiOS ONT box plus an Ethernet router), which was installed on 9 October 2018, inhibit Multicast as used in the PITON Protocol. This is no longer a personal problem for me, because I've switched to using Add Source Directly—as described in the immediately-preceding post. I can do this because I've assigned both my "client" machines—which are Ethernet-cabled to the "gateway"—fixed IP addresses. I don't think that will be possible for those of you who connect "client" machines to your LAN using WiFi, because it's my impression—correct me if I'm wrong—that such connections cannot be constrained to a fixed IP address. However I intend to add a post to my Ars Technica Networking thread, explaining the problem and asking if I'm correct about not being able to assign fixed IP addresses to WiFi-connected "clients". It occurred to me this evening that maybe I could solve the Use Multicast problem by getting a different router. The "senior" Verizon T.S. person said that I could buy one and put the G1100 "gateway" into bridge mode, with all the equipment on my LAN connected to the other router. He warned that this would slow down my LAN's Internet connection speed by 20%—which I don't care about (especially since Verizon is going to raise my FiOS speed to 100mbps in May as compensation for my losing Cinemax), but that it would also prevent me from using Guide (and Info?) on my TV—which I do care about. Since I'm fine with having to use Add Source Directly, I'm not going to buy a second router—but you WiFi-users may have to.
  7. After further thought over the weekend, I have realized that I was a little hasty in complaining about Storage Groups in the last two paragraphs (including the quote) of this up-thread post, but that I had been misled by imprecision in this Knowledge Base article. I came to my realization by thinking about what a Retrospect Inc. Sales person (I don't remember who) had briefly told me late last week about the reason Storage Groups were developed. The Storage Groups feature was developed because organizations with a large number of machines being backed up via Proactive scripts have two interlocking problems. If the script designates a choice of several Backup/Media Sets as destinations, the administrator—when running a Restore—has no precise idea on which Set(s) a particular machine has been backed up to on a particular occasion. If OTOH the administrator designates only a single Backup/Media Set as the destination, he/she has to either worry about inter-machine timing conflict when two or more machines are being backed up to the same Set, or else designate—and keep records of—a separate Set for each machine being backed up. The Storage Groups feature essentially automates the very last option described in the third sentence in the preceding paragraph, and at the same time eliminates any need for designating a multi-Set destination that would create the problem described in the second sentence there. A Storage Group folder has a doohickey within it that keeps track of the names of each Backup/Media Set whose Catalog File is contained within it. The names of the Catalog Files are apparently suffixed (I can't tell, because the names of the individual Catalog Files have been obliterated in the Retrospect Windows screenshots in the KB article) with the name of the individual source machine and drive name. If the administrator runs a Proactive script that backs up a machine and/or drive previously unknown to its Storage Group destination, the doohickey is used to automatically create a new Backup/Media Set Catalog File within the Storage Group folder. If OTOH a Proactive script backs up a machine and drive previously known to its Storage Group destination, the doohickey simply redirects the destination of the backup to the appropriate existing Backup/Media Set Catalog File . So "the GUI for making the Storage Group pseudo-folder generate additional Media Set/Backup Set Catalog Files that are part of an existing Storage Group" appears to be unnecessary, because the doohickey does it automatically when needed. All this confusion could IMHO have been avoided if the writer of the KB article had simply replaced the word "volume" in the KB article, which appears in 4 places, with the words "source volume". DovidBenAvraham has now updated the "Proactive scripts" paragraph in this section of the Wikipedia article with a brief mention of Storage Groups.
  8. seanbreilly, Take a look at this post, if you haven't already tried what it suggests..
  9. Dovid Ben Avraham has now updated the Wikipedia articles with mentions of the Management Console, but he had to go out on a limb to do it. The problem is that the Shared Script feature (AKA Distributed Management) requires the Management Console Add-On, but that Add-On is not yet available for online purchase via the Product Configurator as of this evening. So any administrator basing his/her actions on this section of the Retrospect article is likely to have a rude awakening if he/she does an online upgrade to version 16.0 and then tries to create one or more Shared Scripts. Oh well, more work for Retrospect Inc. Tech Support and Sales—to manually supply new license codes that include the Management Console Add-On. I spoke by phone late last week with the head of North American Sales, and he said someone is working on updating the Configurator. AFAIK the only modifications to Add-On items in the Configurator over the last couple of years have been the deletion of the one for VMware server (which has been replaced by the R. V. product I am forbidden by the head of Retrospect Tech Support from naming in these Forums). I can understand that no engineer retains a recent memory of how to add Add-On items to the Configurator, but I hope they haven't lost the source code. FYI this problem will mostly affect Retrospect Windows administrators, who have been pleading for years for the equivalent of Shared Scripts. Ordinary Retrospect Mac administrators—as opposed to consultants—will probably not attempt to use Shared Scripts, since the good old non-Web Console application available since Retrospect Mac 8 in 2009 can create more-varied scripts on one or more Engines than Shared Scripts can as of 16.0. P.S.: In this post in another thread, here's a quoted further comment by DBA about the possible reason why the Management Console Add-On —required for Shared Scripts—is not yet in the Configurator. I don't want to commit the sin of double-posting, and that comment seems most applicable to the subject of the other thread.
  10. DavidHertzberg

    Copy with Move not working

    I've never used that combination of Options. Here's why and how to file a Support Case.
  11. DavidHertzberg

    No more instant scan on MacOS?

    insont/Martin, Those of us with long memories do know what Retrospect Inc.'s priorities were for Retrospect 16.0 as of March 2018. I could make you work by telling you to read the blue-tagged "New" items for the various Retrospect 15 releases in the cumulative Release Notes, but I'll try to make it easy for you—even though Product Management has done a pretty good job of hiding the 2018 historical record. The Retrospect Inc. developers announced that they intended to release these new features—some in beta form—in May 2018 for Retrospect 15.1. However their priorities were changed by the urgent need to provide "Data Retention Policies: file selector support for grooming for GDPR compliance", so those non-e-mail new features were not released until early September 2018 for Retrospect 15.5—as you can see. The apparent rush in which the engineers did that seems to have led to their inadvertently disabling several Retrospect capabilities that had previously worked. That led to two more bug-fix releases, and it wasn't until 29 November 2018 in the 15.6.1 release that the engineers fixed "Backup: Fixed issue where scripts hung due to Management Console integration (#7753)"—a havoc-causing bug that appears to have originated in the 15.6.0 release on 16 October 2018. Now we reach the 16.0 release on 5 March 2019. Look at the "Feature Set" section of this Knowledge Base article, and tell me with a straight face that the Shared Scripts feature isn't still in beta. As the last sentence of the "History" section of the Wikipedia article—as well as several threads in the Windows Forums on this website—will tell you, a fully-functioning two-way Management Console is a feature that Retrospect Windows administrators have been pleading for for many years—a plea to which Retrospect Inc. planned to respond. Nevertheless the Management Console Add-On (referred to in the right-most listed item) which is a requirement for Shared Scripts, hasn't as of tonight made it into the Product Configurator so that administrators can purchase it online (here's my one piece of "inside information": the head of North American Retrospect Sales told me on the phone the day before yesterday that someone is working to add that Add-On to the Configurator). BTW, insont, have you noticed that my predictions up-thread, made without any "inside information", turned out to be pretty accurate? P.S.: You failed to consider the possibility of explanation [2a] per this up-thread post. You may not have them, but other users have external drives cabled to Macs of your vintages. macOS 10.14 Mojave does not force conversion of an HFS+ drive to APFS unless that drive is an SSD. Also, you had not previously said that your "razr" iMac had been upgraded to Mojave. Lastly, you failed to consider the difficulty (which I think the Retrospect Inc. engineers also failed to consider) of the API conversion documented in this KB article—a conversion that was partly forced on them by Apple's development of APFS. P.P.S.: Retrospect Inc. Product Management's "hiding the 2018 historical record", mentioned in my first paragraph, was done by overwriting Web pages written in 2018 with 2019 announcements.
  12. DavidHertzberg

    No more instant scan on MacOS?

    insont/Martin, Thank you for taking the time to investigate and write your immediately-above post, which is very informative. I will assume for the purposes of this post that both your "aftr8" and "razr" client Macs have their disks formatted with APFS. It seems that you are now leaning toward my explanation [2] in the second paragraph of this up-thread post. I propose to sub-divide that into two further possible explanations: [2a] Instant Scan can still be effective in version 16.0 for Mac disks formatted with HFS+, so the Retrospect Inc. engineers had to leave the "Instant Scan" option and the daemon in the Client—especially since a particular Mac "client" machine could have one disk formatted with HFS+ and another disk formatted with APFS. [2b] Instant Scan has been determined to no longer be useful for any Mac "client" disks, so it has been disabled in the Client code—but the engineers didn't have time to eliminate the daemon and/or the option. If you look at the succession of public announcements since the release of Retrospect 15.0 and "read between the lines", it seems that getting out version 16.0—with whatever deficiencies it still has—required a tremendous effort on the part of all employees of Retrospect Inc.. I suspect that a lot of those employees are catching up on their sleep this weekend; I hope the engineers are not waking up screaming. Niceties such as eliminating un-needed options and/or daemons will have to wait for a later "point release", especially since explanation [2a] would require that the daemon would have to be launched whenever the Mac Client finds itself backing up a disk formatted with HFS+.
  13. Version 16 has been released, and once again DovidBenAvraham has the same kind of problems with adding the new features to the Wikipedia articles that he had for Retrospect 15—as described in this up-thread post. The august Retrospect Inc. Documentation Committee has wiped out the previous contents of the User's Guide "What's New" chapter (as has been its practice since Retrospect Mac 13/Windows 11) and replaced it with new marketing fluff (as has been its practice since Retrospect 15), which DBA cannot use as a reference for the WP articles. Pending another TidBITS review, DBA can at least use this Knowledge Base article and this one as references for the Management Console—including the Shared Scripts Add-On feature. It's debatable whether the Deployment Tools are too nuts-and-bolts to deserve much of a mention in the WP articles, even though there are "White Paper" KB articles. But the real problem is the Storage Groups feature. The new KB article on Storage Groups leaves out a key detail, which may be because that part of the feature has not yet been developed. To quote part of my own post here: As the "Under the Hood" section of the KB article says "You can treat the Storage Group like a Backup Set that allows simultaneous writes to it." The "Data Deduplication" section of the KB article says "The architecture for Storage Groups allows simultaneous operations to the same destination because each volume is a different backup set under the hood. However, this workflow also prevents data deduplication across volumes." But what is the GUI for making the Storage Group pseudo-folder generate additional Media Set/Backup Set Catalog Files that are part of an existing Storage Group? Have the Retrospect Inc. engineers even developed such a GUI? And if they haven't, shouldn't DBA treat Storage Sets as he treated the 15.5 Management Console beta—as a Retrospect feature still under development that didn't yet belong in the Wikipedia articles?
  14. The short answer to your question appears to be: No, they won't have to be converted or rebuilt. (Please be aware that I have never done a paid minute of work for Retrospect Inc. or its predecessor companies.) However you raise an interesting point, which I should have noticed had I not been writing the P.S. you quote above in the early hours of the morning. Like a mathematical set, a Media Set is a concept—one that was (under the name of Backup Set, which is still used in Retrospect Windows) thought up by someone at Dantz Development Corp. more than 30 years ago—which exists only in the GUI. The physical embodiment of a Media Set is a Catalog File plus Member folders. A Storage Group, a concept new with Retrospect 16, is a set of Media Sets that the GUI treats for most purposes as if it were a single Media Set. The physical embodiment of a Storage Group is a pseudo-folder—by default within the Library -> Application Support -> Retrospect -> Catalogs folder—that encloses several Catalog Files and can somehow be made to generate more Catalog Files. The format of an individual Catalog File, as well as the format of a Media Set's Member folders and their contained backup files, has apparently not changed with Retrospect 16. The Retrospect Inc. engineer who wrote this Knowledge Base article was evidently trying to get this idea across when he/she wrote the "Under the Hood" and "Data Deduplication" sections at the bottom of the article. However IMHO he/she didn't do a good-enough job. One reason is that the engineer was trying to explain the Retrospect Windows GUI embodiment of Storage Groups, which (because the Roxio engineers chickened out on switching to the Retrospect Mac GUI and terminology when Retrospect Windows 8 was developed around 2010) is necessarily less transparent than the Retrospect Mac 16 embodiment. The other reason is that he/she was probably sleep-deprived when writing the article just before the release of the new version.
  15. like2backup, You can't have both versions installed on the same boot drive, but you can have them installed on different boot drives on the same Mac. You just have to use System Preferences -> Startup Disk to pre-designate which drive you are going to boot from after a Restart. If your "backup server" is a "cheesegrater" Mac Pro that is already booting under macOS 10.14 Mojave, that's the only way you'll be able to switch between boot disks—because Nvidia video cards won't work under Mojave and the hold-down-the Option-key-at-startup facility doesn't work for AMD video cards under Mojave. In my inherited Mac Pro (5,1) I currently have an SSD that runs Retrospect Mac, and a HDD that runs Retrospect Mac 14.6. I keep my only set of catalog files in Library -> Application Support -> Retrospect -> Catalogs on the HDD, and back them up with a separate Favorite Folder covering only that Catalogs folder—because I no longer back up the rest of that HDD. P.S.: The key fact here is that the format of Media Sets didn't change from Retrospect 14 to Retrospect 15, and—according to the cumulative Release Notes—didn't change from Retrospect 15 to Retrospect 16. The exception is the new Storage Groups feature, but if you're going to use one Storage Group for more than one backup script simultaneously it can only be for Proactive scripts—and those backups won't do data deduplication between the multiple disk or cloud Media Sets for which a Storage Group is merely a somewhat-transparent container.
  16. DavidHertzberg

    No more instant scan on MacOS?

    insont/martin, My guess is still what I said in this up-thread post, including the P.S.. From what I remember when I was using Retrospect Mac 14.6, the log used to say "Using Instant Scan" on the second or third line for each drive backed up—except for the 3 drives on my Digital Audio G4 which boots under OS X 10.3.9 (the Legacy Client doesn't do Instant Scan because FSEvents hadn't yet been implemented in OS X). When I upgraded to Retrospect Mac in January 2019, the log stopped showing that line. Maybe the Retrospect Inc. engineers accidentally disabled the code that generates that log line, or maybe they intentionally disabled it so administrators backing up drives formatted with APFS wouldn't feel so disadvantaged. Because this Knowledge Base article says [the bolding is Retrospect Inc.'s] "Mac Customers: Please note that Instant Scan is not supported with APFS", and that article hasn't been updated since 15 May 2018. Are your Macintosh HD drives on both "after8" and "razr" both formatted with APFS? If they are, I see two possible explanations for the good news about the scan phase running so much faster: [1] The Retrospect Inc. engineers—likely with some help from Apple—got Instant Scan to work in Retrospect 16 for APFS-formatted drives, but the engineers have thus far not gotten around to updating the KB article. [2] What I quoted in my up-thread post has come to pass, and the ordinary scan phase as implemented with 64-bit APIs has turned out to be so much faster that the engineers have simply abolished Instant Scan for Macs—while keeping the "Retrospectinstantscan" process for sentimental reasons . Maybe Instant Scan on Mac HFS+ drives had to continually update its own indexes using FSEvents to access the filesystem logs, which would explain why your "Retrospectinstantscan" process is no longer using as much of the CPU; that would argue for explanation [1]. I still prefer explanation [2], including keeping "Retrospectinstantscan" for sentimental reasons. Please let us know about the scan phase timing of your subsequent Backup runs, and the CPU use of "Retrospectinstantscan" on your APFS-drive-formatted Macs. Meanwhile I'll try booting my "backup server" from the drive that still has Retrospect Mac 14.6 on it, so I can check my old logs for the "Using Instant Scan" line. P.S.: The reason I still favor explanation [2] in the second paragraph is that, since I upgraded to Retrospect Mac in January 2019, my scan times have gone up from less than 5 minutes to nearly 10 minutes. I know this because I have for over two years been scheduling a "sacrificial" Backup script to run 5 minutes before each "real" Backup script, as a workaround for -530 Bug 1 occurrences for my MacBook Pro "client". Because the "sacrificial" scripts use the No Files Rule, they are basically just doing a scan and then building a Snapshot. The "sacrificial" scripts used to take around 5 minutes to run; they now take around 10 minutes. IMHO the time increase means that Instant Scan is no longer being used, even though it is specified for the MBP "client" and the MBP's boot drive—the only one backed up—is still formatted with HFS+ and booting macOS 10.13 High Sierra.
  17. mbennett and anybody else, "I dipped into the future, far as human eye could see". That's because Retrospect Inc. engineers put some of their new or revised Knowledge Base articles onto the website on 4 March, even though those KB articles are "last updated March 5, 2019". Anyway this KB article describes Shared Scripts, which appears to be the Retrospect Windows 16.0 approach to two-way communication between the Management Console and a Retrospect Engine—with one-way communication having already been revealed in the15.5 Preview version of the Console. The "Under The Hood" section of the KB article says "Retrospect Backup engines contact the Retrospect Management Console every 60 seconds to provide real-time status updates and fetch any management instructions. The Retrospect Management Console does not initiate or maintain an active connection to the engines." My somewhat-optimistic interpretation is that you could use the Shared Scripts facility to update an existing script on an Retrospect.exe engine, as well as add a new one, assuming the engine has the capability of recognizing that a Shared Script that has just been Saved in the Console should replace an existing script with the same name. However the "Feature Set" section of the KB article says "Note that as of March 5, 2019, deployment options are limited to ProactiveAI scripts with standard source containers ('All sources', 'All local', 'All clients', 'All network', 'All email') to cloud destinations with simple scheduling options. Support for local sources, local destinations including disk, scheduled scripts, and more extensive scheduling options will be available soon." Therefore many of you will have to wait until at least Retrospect Windows 16.1 to get the Management Console facility you need. IMHO the delay is partly a result of the fact that the Retrospect Inc. engineers cannot simply copy the code that is in the Retrospect Mac Console, because the GUIs in the two variants are so different. Nevertheless the general approach is along the lines of what I predicted in this post up-thread. The mandatory Windows security settings starting with Windows Vista/Server 2008 subsequently forbade UI interaction with an application auto-launched by a task, meaning that having the Engine contact the Retrospect Management Console every 60 seconds is the necessary Web-client workaround for Retrospect Windows. FYI the Retrospect Mac Console does not AFAIK have to have the same workaround, because macOS does not have the same mandatory security settings as Windows. P.S.: I neglected to mention last night that Shared Scripts requires the Management Console Add-On, a fact alluded to in marketing material but not mentioned in the KB article. I phoned Ian of Retrospect Sales this morning, and he says that Add-On is US$49 for Desktop Edition and other less-lowly Editions—but goes up to around US$450 for really-exalted Editions. (As one would expect in the rush to get version 16.0 out the door, the Product Configurator for either variant has not been updated to include that Add-On as of 2:15 p.m. New York time—which is well after Retrospect Inc. opening time in Walnut Creek CA—on 5 March. ) So two-way interaction between the Management Console and Retrospect.exe will have a price in Retrospect Windows (the non-Web Console supplied as part of Retrospect Mac has two-way interaction built-in), which you can blame on Messrs. Gates and/or Ballmer having had a religious conversion about Windows security. The e-mail I received a few minutes ago says "Retrospect Management Console is free for basic monitoring with a paid version for complete monitoring and management", which confirms what I've said in this P.S..
  18. mbennett and anybody else, "I dipped into the future, far as human eye could see". That's because Retrospect Inc. engineers put some of their new or revised Knowledge Base articles onto the website on 4 March, even though those KB articles are "last updated March 5, 2019". Anyway the last sentence in the first paragraph of my immediately-preceding post now has to be significantly qualified. This KB article now says "With Storage Groups, you can run parallel backups to the same disk destination with a single ProactiveAI script. Scheduled scripts support Storage Groups as destinations, but the backups run on a single execution and not in parallel." However the basic concept is that "Under the hood, a Storage Group is a container for per-volume backup sets. This architecture is why Retrospect allows you to keep the same workflows that you are accustomed to for backup, restore, transfer, grooming, and catalog rebuild, while providing far better performance and simplicity. You can treat the Storage Group like a Backup Set that allows simultaneous writes to it." The remainder of the KB article explains that the containerization is less transparent for the Retrospect Windows 16 GUI than it is for the Retrospect Mac 16 GUI. Eat your hearts out, Retrospect Windows administrators. For all of us, nevertheless, "The architecture for Storage Groups allows simultaneous operations to the same destination because each volume is a different backup set under the hood. However, this workflow also prevents data deduplication across volumes." BTW, those different backup sets must be either on disks or in the cloud; sorry, no Storage Groups for you tape enthusiasts.
  19. DavidHertzberg

    Can I safely downgrade from V15.61 to V12?

    x509, If you were in fact getting -530 errors on "a backup script that involved several volumes was backing up only one of the subvolumes, but if I did an immediate backup, everything worked fine", you may instead want to look at this post in the Mac 9+ Forum. I discovered two weeks ago that the real fix was to Remove and re-Add the "client" using Add Source Directly (using a fixed IP address). (Back in early January I thought that the fix resulted when I moved the corresponding Retrospect Mac configuration file to the desktop—causing it to be regenerated, but several weeks of systematic testing convinced me that the seeming fix in early January really resulted because when I re-Added my "clients"—which regenerating the config file forced me to do—I re-Added them using Add Source Directly.) The third bulleted list item in the post I linked to in the first paragraph of this post explains what Use Multicast means. The "Piton protocol" it refers to is explained on pages 290-291 of the Retrospect Windows 15 User's Guide, so it's not peculiar to Retrospect Mac. As I asked in the last paragraph of the linked-to post, for you—or for other administrators who have "clients" either connecting for Proactive backups or connecting to the "backup server" over WiFi: does the LAN IP address of those "clients" change?
  20. Executive Summary of this post ( on "backup server" and MacBook Pro Client; MBP now booting under macOS 10.13 High Sierra, Mac Pro "backup server" still booting under macOS 10.12 Sierra): For MBP "client", I get a -530 Bug 1 (first script fails if "backup server" booted after script's scheduled time) and -530 Bug 2 (second script also fails if "backup server" booted after script's scheduled time, even if first "sacrificial" script failed) when MBP "client" was Added with Use Multicast. For MBP "client", I get no -530 Bugs under same circumstances when MBP "client" was Added with Add Source Directly (using fixed IP address). This persisted for 3 weeks, so -530 Bug 3 (-530 Bugs 1 and/or 2 reappear a week or two after MBP "client" Removed and re-Added after Client reinstalled on MBP) may have been fixed—or apparent config corruption doesn't occur when Client re-Added with Add Source Directly. Use Multicast refers to Retrospect's use of its proprietary "Piton protocol" over assigned multicast address This enables an enterprise's "backup administrator" to Add new "client" machines to be backed up over the enterprise LAN, even though the "backup administrator" doesn't have the training required of a member of the IT staff (explained in the last sentence in the first paragraph here). The "backup administrator" doesn't have to know anything about a "client" machine's IP address, only to be able to recognize its unique name as known on the LAN. Once a "client" is Added, communication between its Client software and the "backup server" takes place over well-known port 497; if this communication fails for a "client"—possibly because of a LAN IP address change, the "backup server" sends out another "Piton protocol" request in order to update its "client" database. The "Piton protocol", which was developed shortly after 2000, is one of the features that makes Retrospect easy for an enterprise to keep using—without the aid of a trained member of the IT staff or a consultant. Those of you administrators who have "clients" either connecting for Proactive backups or connecting to the "backup server" over WiFi: does the LAN IP address of those "clients" change?
  21. BTW, what may either be a Retrospect feature (designed to prevent inadvertent double-submission of the same script scheduled twice in succession) or another Retrospect bug exists. I discovered it when testing by scheduling two Repeat Never runs of the same "sacrificial" script scheduled 5 minutes apart, then shutting down my "backup server" and re-booting the "backup server" at least 15 minutes after the scheduled time for the first run. The second scheduled run had disappeared from the Activities list. I was scheduling the "sacrificial" script twice in succession because the "real" script—which does not use the No Files Rule—would have run 15 minutes longer.
  22. DavidHertzberg

    Selector doesn't work for only 1 Backup Script

    x509, Think about what changed about a week ago. Did you update Windows to a new version? Some other change?
  23. DavidHertzberg

    Selector doesn't work for only 1 Backup Script

    x509, I am a Retrospect Mac administrator, as you know, so the suggestion in the next paragraph may not be worth anything. This 2009 thread has something to say about System Volume Information, and this 2018 thread has something to say about the Program Files directory—which seems to be somewhat analogous. What IMHO makes the directories analogous is that they both sound like what Retrospect may define as Special Folders (Windows). That is among the Windows Selector Conditions defined on page 437 of the Retrospect Windows 15 User's Guide. I don't know how to use such conditions in a Selector, so someone more familiar with Retrospect Windows is going to have to advise.
  24. My bug-fix celebration in this post up-thread turns out to have been at least partially premature. When—as promised after 3 weeks in the second paragraph—I switched to Use Multicast instead of Add Source Directly (using a fixed IP address), I got a -530 error when I scheduled a run of my daily "sacrificial" script for 5 minutes in the future and then shut down my "backup server" for 20 minutes. This means that my -530 Bug 1 still exists when my "client" MacBook Pro has been Removed and then Added with Use Multicast. My -530 Bug 2 may have actually been fixed, because the "sacrificial" script run failed almost immediately instead of continuing to try to find the MBP. To test whether -530 Bug 2 had been fixed I would have to schedule two "sacrificial" script runs in a row; if the first run failed immediately but the second one ran, it would mean that -530 Bug 2 has been fixed. I hadn't done that because I was over-optimistic, and I didn't have time for a do-over without interfering with my end-of-workweek backup script runs. Instead I Removed my "client" machines and re-Added them with Add Source Directly. I'll try that two-run test tomorrow or Monday. If anyone else installs Retrospect Mac 15.6.1 (105) and wants to try the -530 bug fix that belatedly turned out to work for me, they'll need to modify step [3] in the fourth paragraph of the up-thread post to say "re-Add any 'client' machines to Sources with Add Source Directly (using a fixed IP address defined to the router) ....".
  25. Sorry, henry-in-florida, I guess I was a bit crabby because I had forgotten that Refresh is supposed to update the list of Source volumes for a "client". Here's a 2016 OP by jelockwood saying it didn't work. Thanks for filing a Support Case, assuming you did so. As I have said several times on these Forums, I am not now doing nor have I ever done any paid work for Retrospect Inc. or its predecessors. I don't even play a Retrospect Inc. employee on TV. So I didn't have anything to do with what is apparently a new version of the Forums software. In fact, I preferred the old version—which automatically numbered posts in a thread and had more-accessible Search options. Here are the "obscure mnemonics" I remember having used, all of which are pretty-standard Internet forums slang: IMHO : In My Humble Opinion IME: In My Experience HDD: Hard Disk Drive AFAICT: As Far As I Can Tell AFAIK: As Far As I Know IANAL: I Am Not A Lawyer OP: Original Post in a thread or Original Poster in a thread RTFM: Read The F**king Manual OTOH: On The Other Hand BTW: By The Way