Jump to content

DavidHertzberg

Members
  • Content count

    957
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

Everything posted by DavidHertzberg

  1. C'mon, henry-in-florida, you ought to know by now that you need to give your version of Retrospect and the version of macOS you're running it under when you start a Forums thread. I had to look at your attached log file to see that you are running Retrospect Mac 15.6.1.105, and I still don't know whether you are running it under macOS 10.13 High Sierra or 10.14 Mojave. You shouldn't make us work that hard. On pages 62-63 of the Retrospect Mac 15 User's Guide, paragraph 3 for Refresh says: So there's a bug in the latest version; you know why and how to create a Support Case. Did Refresh ever actually work this way? Until Retrospect Inc. engineers fix the bug, IMHO you'd be better off Removing and then Adding your "client" Source, checkmarking the volumes you want backed up per this post, and then re-checkmarking the "client" in the Sources tab of each appropriate Script and—after Saving—dragging the "client" into the appropriate sequence in the Summary tab of that Script and Saving again. Your workaround in item 5 of the OP may have done the job, but it probably took more time than what I've said in the preceding sentence.
  2. DavidHertzberg

    No more instant scan on MacOS?

    CherylB, I think you misunderstand what I've been saying in this thread. Instant Scan was not supported for APFS volumes as of May 2018, and I don't think that's going to change with Retrospect 16—because the macOS facility it depends on (called FSEvents) wasn't implemented in the same way for APFS as it was for HFS+. But, according to what Retrospect Tech Support told insont per this October 2018 post, "In our next full release of Retrospect the client scan APIs will be completely overhauled .... For local backups you can help speed things up by changing your current api settings .... Client API changes are being worked on and preliminary testing shows them being upwards of 10 times faster than they are currently." IMHO that means non-Instant Scan will be speeded up so much we won't miss Instant Scan. P.S.: I even have hopes that the speed of actual Mac Client data backup will increase with Retrospect 16, because of the changeover to 64-bit APIs. This February 2018 post by dittberner@dbr3.de says he got much faster backup of his Windows server files when he switched from Retrospect Mac to another application; he says further down the thread "The other product is not comparable (much more expensive and other functions)." dittberner@dbr3.de later PM'd me (signing it with his male first name) the name of the other client-server backup application; its developer was founded 18 years after Dantz Development Corp., and its 64-bit application—meaning it won't back up sources booted with anything earlier than OS X 10.8—"is ideal for businesses in the Media and Entertainment industry". IOW, my hypothesis in this February 2018 post in the dittberner@dbr3.de thread seems to be true only if you assume that the client-server application stays with the same set of APIs—rather than change its APIs from 32-bit to 64-bit. P.P.S.: What I predicted seems to have come to pass with the release of Retrospect Mac 16.0 on 5 March 2019. First, the cumulative Release Notes say for Engine "Improved: Scanning faster on APFS volumes" and for Client "Improved Mac: Client scanning faster on APFS volumes". Second, the cumulative Release Notes also say for Client "Alert Mac: EOL notice for Apple Mac OS X 10.3. 10.4, and 10.5 - See details"—where the details are the temporarily-hidden updated version of the Knowledge base article I linked to up-thread which says "Now that the transition to 64-bit macOS file system data structures is complete, Retrospect can no longer support 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5 with the Retrospect 6.3 Client and Retrospect 9.0 Client."
  3. DavidHertzberg

    No more instant scan on MacOS?

    insont and cgtyoder and CherylB, I just discovered, while writing a post discussing this problem (among others) in my authorized Retrospect thread on the Ars Technica Mac forum, that this Knowledge Base article has been temporarily hidden from view (I found it again through my link in a prior post in this thread) while having been updated to refer to Retrospect 16 as of 5 March 2019. I take this as confirmation that the engineers have now completed what must have been a substantial effort in changing a lot of 30-year-old code, which the developer(s) of younger backup applications such as the one insont mentioned have not had to go through. OK, IMHO you've now got a definite date (probably 6 March) when the non-Instant lengthy APFS scan problem will be—at least preliminarily—fixed. If you still want to vent, feel free to do so. If you want instead to file Support Cases, those would provide retroactive justification for Retrospect engineers having made the effort. But IMHO it's time to make good on "I promise to stop complaining once Retrospect shows any sign of at least trying to do something about this."
  4. DavidHertzberg

    Automating cleaning tapes

    CherylB, Assuming you are using Retrospect Mac 15, try reading "Storage Devices" on pages 38-41 of the Retrospect Mac 15 User's Guide, and doing what it says for Clean Drive After ... in the "Options" paragraph on pages 40-41. What documentation did you read in which "The documentation says you control click on the drive and set it there"? BTW, if you haven't upgraded to Retrospect Mac 15.6.1.105 for both your "backup server" and your Mac Retrospect Client(s), you should do so. Prior point releases of this software don't have all the features, and in particular 15.5 and 15.6.0 are "bad releases" in which previously-working facilities stopped working properly. As I've said in another thread, this doesn't mean you won't get slow scans of APFS drives until at least Retrospect Mac 16 is released—and you should disable Instant Scan for APFS drives (see newly-added second paragraph).
  5. DavidHertzberg

    No more instant scan on MacOS?

    insont and cgtyoder and CherylB, I haven't been denying that long scans are a real problem for Retrospect administrators backing up Mac drives formatted with APFS. I'm really sorry you folks have this problem. It's not a problem for me, because my two modern Macs are running macOS 10.13 High Sierra (just upgraded last week at the urging of Apple Support—keeping the machine's only drive still formatted with HFS+) and macOS 10.12 Sierra. One reason for my OS backwardness is that I had a deep-seated mistrust of APFS; I felt—and still feel—that a brand-new filesystem was a big challenge for Apple. That feeling was later confirmed by my reading here (along with other places) that Apple didn't publish full documentation on APFS until sometime in 2018. As I said 8 months ago in this thread, the developers of another backup application turned out to be also having problems with their equivalent of Instant Scan not working for APFS. But, as I tried to make clear in my latest previous post, the reason Retrospect has slowness of non-Instant scanning is probably because it has been using 32-bit Mac APIs for the last 30 years. Now here's something "positive" I can contribute. A couple of hours ago I phoned Retrospect Inc. Sales. A senior salesperson there told me the engineers are working on this problem, and that it's likely to be fixed in version 16. If you feel it's necessary to put additional pressure on Retrospect Inc., my advice is for each of you to submit a separate Support Case. Here's why and how to do that. Just copy your individual post(s) in this thread into the Description of Your Issue, which IMHO should be categorized as a Problem rather than as a Backup Error.
  6. DavidHertzberg

    No more instant scan on MacOS?

    insont, You are evidently not a programmer, at least not one who has worked on complicated applications that keep several programmers busy. Although I have never worked for Retrospect Inc. or its predecessor organizations, I'm reasonably sure that changing every single Mac-related API structure and call in both the Engine and Client programs is a big job. That's why this Knowledge Base article is dated 23 May 2018. Therefore it's not surprising that the changes will be introduced with the release of Retrospect 16, which—if past years are a guide for major releases—will be in early March 2019. Your complaining about the amount of time the change is taking won't make it happen any faster. I'm curious; do you practice this technique with your fellow workers and friends? Does it produce results, or does it just give you the reputation of being a pain in the a**e? As I've pointed out in my "boilerplate" posts on filing a Support Case, Retrospect Inc. people don't normally read these Forums. I seriously suggest that you consider switching to the "push" backup application you have mentioned in this thread, so you can try this method of interaction on Stefan Reitshamer. And, since its a "personal" backup application, good luck in on getting your "backup server" device to not overload when 7 different "client" machines try to backup to one destination at the same time.
  7. DavidHertzberg

    No more instant scan on MacOS?

    insont, Allright, allready, Retrospect doesn't implement Instant Scan for APFS volumes—as I pointed out in this post in the thread. The "push" backup application you mention no longer implements Instant Scan using Mac fsevents at all, as someone who is pretty obviously Stefan Reitshamer said on Twitter in 2016 (which is before Apple introduced APFS). I've already pointed out Retrospect Inc.'s expressed intention to speed up overall backup—probably in Retrospect 16—in this post just above your latest two posts in the thread. IIRC the "push" backup application you mention by default doesn't back up all the files that Retrospect does. But I'm too busy to Google for that now. I have now confirmed that Retrospect used to be able to backup to an SFTP/FTP destination, but abandoned that in Retrospect Mac 8 in favor of a WebDAV destination and an AFP/SMB destination—announced in the UG for Retrospect Mac 10. In a 2012 blog post Retrospect Inc.'s then-Director of Marketing said "SFTP/FTP is just not a good protocol for backups .... doesn't support mid-point file access—so Retrospect would need to download the entire container file just to restore a single file from the backup .... As a result, Retrospect 6 needs to write much smaller container files, which generates additional overhead and complexity, and reduces performance." Remember that Retrospect is an enterprise client-server backup application, which gives it different requirements from a "personal push" backup application. However this Knowledge Base article says, as of 2017, that FTP/SFTP can be a R.V. backup destination—so maybe you should switch to that product if your "backup server" runs Windows and you're willing to do without "client" backup. P.S.: Corrected first sentence of 3rd paragraph to say that FTP destinations were dropped in Retrospect Mac 8 and AFP/SMB destinations were added in Retrospect Mac 10, with WebDAV destinations added in Retrospect Mac 9 (for which there is no UG—only an Addendum). P.P.S.: Replaced second sentence of 3rd paragraph, because I found Kristin Goedert's 2012 Retrospect Blog post.
  8. DavidHertzberg

    No more instant scan on MacOS?

    insont, What you are saying about a competing "push" backup application is actually good news, because IMHO it means that Stefan Reitshamer has been able to speed up APFS backup. The reason for the speed difference is that, since Reitshamer's application was developed much more recently than Retrospect, it undoubtedly uses 64-bit structures rather than the 32-bit ones that Retrospect still uses as of Mac version 15. Retrospect is apparently going to switch to 64-bit structures as of Mac version 16, which is why the engineers created this KB article. As I've pointed out here, especially in the P.S., the consequent tradeoff loss of Instant Scan will probably—by itself—add 10% to the duration of backing up a modern Mac. However that 10% may well be more than overcome by the increased speed of backing up made possible by the switch to 64-bit data structures. I'd wait until the release of 16.0, probably in March, to see what the results are. Even better, I'd wait until the release of 16.1 later this spring—to give the engineers time to fix the inevitable early-discovery bugs. P.S.: A reason for Retrospect Inc. to have stuck with the 32-bit structures is that it enables Retrospect Mac to do backups and restores of PowerPC Macs that can't boot from anything past OS X 10.5. This has been a critical requirement for administrators (including me) who have old files that can only be read by programs that can't be run on an Intel Mac. That explains why the KB article linked-to in the last sentence of the first paragraph of this post says "If you would like to protect those versions of Mac OS X with Retrospect 15, please contact our Support team for a production build that continues to include support for those."
  9. DavidHertzberg

    Dashboard empty

    Lennart_T and myhrik, Here's a further quick thought on why the Dashboard works on my "backup server" and not on yours: My "backup server" Mac Pro is still running macOS 10.12 Sierra. That's because I read that macOS 10.13 High Sierra is a bit flaky even in 10.13.6, and I'm not ready to upgrade to macOS 10.14 Mojave—because I've read that it will unavoidably convert my boot drive from HFS+ to APFS. It's inconceivable to me that the Retrospect Inc. engineers are not testing with Mojave, unless they're afraid to add Mojave problems on top of Management Console problems. I'm also not suggesting that you downgrade.
  10. DavidHertzberg

    Dashboard empty

    Lennart_T and myhrik, Here's another thought I just had, inspired by the fact that both of you are Scandinavians: Your English is excellent, but do you actually use Retrospect Mac in a different language version—such as German? My impression is that the Retrospect engineers are really rushing to get the Management Console out of beta, especially after the delay caused by their having had to concentrate on GDPR for 15.1. Considering the foul-ups in 15.5 and 15.6.0—where the engineers evidently didn't test existing features to see if those still worked, I imagine it's possible that they didn't test the non-Management-Console Dashboard in languages other than English. Come to think of it, here and here are threads whose OP goes by the Forums "handle" johanvos; the first thread is specifically about a Dashboard problem, and the second thread may be. Given his "handle" and his less-than-perfect English, I'll bet johanvos actually uses the German version of Retrospect Mac.
  11. DavidHertzberg

    Dashboard empty

    Lennart_T, Thanks for trying, sorry it didn't work for you. If you haven't already filed a Support Case, please do so; if you have filed one, please add an Additional Note about this attempt. The original e-mail from Retrospect Tech Support (which was actually about another bug, rather than the -530 bugs it ended up fixing for me) said to also move the config80.bak file—if I had one—to the desktop. I didn't have one and still don't, so I didn't mention the .bak file in this thread because I thought it must exist only for previous versions or for Retrospect Windows. I wonder if the fact that I don't have one indicates some difference in my installation. You can mention the fact that I don't have a config80.bak file in your Support Case; maybe that will provide a clue for the Retrospect Inc. engineers.
  12. DavidHertzberg

    Dashboard empty

    So how about updating the Gender in your Forums Profile, myhrik, from "Not saying" to "Male"—as I did years ago? In general I don't try to guess people's genders from their "handles", although I make an exception for those "handles" that are obviously male or female. OTOH I can't help but be aware that many backup administrators are women, and that a lot of those try to conceal that fact for fear that they won't be taken seriously on the Forums. Unfortunately myhrik's ancestors, when they invaded Britain, contributed a number of words to the English language—but not gender-neutral third-person pronouns. So I write "him/her" and "he/she" when the Forums Profile doesn't specify Gender and I can't guess. My other tactic is to address a poster with the second-person pronoun, which is gender-neutral in English (and has no difference between singular and plural, unless you're either from the American South—where they use "y'all" for the plural—or an old-time Quaker—who might use "thou" in talking to someone besides the Almighty). That's why so many of my posts begin with my naming the poster(s) I am responding to, myhrik.
  13. mbennett and anybody else, You currently can't run multiple scripts executing at the same time to the same destination Backup Set (Media Set in Retrospect Mac terminology). I submit pairs of such scripts to Retrospect Mac 15.6.1 (105) occasionally, and the second script submitted always goes into the "Waiting" queue. You will be able to do that some time this side of the indefinite future, once Storage Groups come out of beta. You can't run multiple scripts executing at the same time from the same-named Source. However since Retrospect Windows 12.6 (and Retrospect Mac 14.6) you can run multiple scripts executing at the same time from the same source volume if all of the scripts except one name different Subvolumes on the same source volume (ignore what it still says on page 421 of the Retrospect Windows 15 User's Guide; a "new" 7 November 2017 entry in the cumulative Release Notes overrides that). As I said in the second suggestion in my preceding post, there doesn't seem to be any prohibition on defining multiple Subvolumes (Favorite Folders in Retrospect Mac terminology) as the same real folder—including the root folder of a real volume. You can indeed schedule two scripts to run with the same source, one minute apart. I routinely run two such scripts scheduled 5 minutes apart every day, because until less than a month ago I needed to run a "sacrificial script" before the "real script" to try to eliminate -530 errors for the "real script". I schedule the "sacrificial script" 5 minutes before the "real script", because the "sacrificial script" uses No Files as the Selector (Rule in Retrospect Mac terminology)—and therefore normally completes in 4 minutes. However if the "sacrificial script" starts to run more than 1 minute after its scheduled time, the "real script"—which has the same source and destination—always waits to start. P.S.: As DovidBenAvraham clarified recently in Note 4 in the Wikipedia article, "a Subvolume must be specifically defined to the Retrospect application as a name for a filesystem folder" ; changed last 2 sentences in second substantive paragraph accordingly.
  14. jhg, I am a Retrospect Mac administrator, but I've got a couple of suggestions: First, if running 3 scripts as separate Immediate operations, explicitly designate the same Execution Unit for all 3 scripts. Look on page 93 of the Retrospect Windows 15 User's Guide (you don't specify your version of Retrospect) about switching into Advanced Mode to designate the Execution Unit, then proceed from there. I think that will put the operations into the "Waiting" queue; the equivalent does so on Retrospect Mac. OTOH Retrospect Windows may have special limitations for Immediate operations; Retrospect Mac eliminated Immediate operations in 2009, treating Toolbar-button submissions as scheduled-immediately script creations. Second, if trying to run 3 backup scripts as if they were one script, I assume that you would simply put all the Sources into a single script if they were disjoint volumes or Subvolumes. Since therefore they must overlap, consider defining the overlapping Sources as Subvolumes. Subvolumes are discussed beginning on page 420 of the UG, and —since they are only defined to Retrospect—I don't see any prohibition on defining them so that they name the same folder—provided that (at least on the same volume, and preferably globally) you use different names for each Subvolume. Page 175 of the UG says "Click and drag to rearrange the list order" of Backup Sources. Third, a script cannot execute other scripts. Administrators have occasionally asked for this facility, but Retrospect Inc. has evidently decided that its programming complications would outweigh its usefulness. P.S.: As DovidBenAvraham clarified recently in Note 4 in the Wikipedia article, "a Subvolume must be specifically defined to the Retrospect application as a name for a filesystem folder" ; changed 3rd sentence in second substantive paragraph accordingly.
  15. DavidHertzberg

    Config faulty - start from scratch

    johanvos, Based on my recent experience, you won't have to go through all the steps that you think you will. I think if you follow the steps I recommended for myhrik and Lennart_T in the second paragraph of this linked-to post by me, you will be able to get back a working version of Retrospect fairly easily. You'll be able to keep using your existing Scripts and Media Sets and local Sources; you'll only need to re-Add your "client" Sources and put them back into your Scripts as the paragraph says. For you the only additional requirement is that you first be sure you have upgraded to Retrospect Mac 15.6.1 (105), which I think you may still need to do because your 29 November post says you were using 15.6.0 (125). Just don't do anything to your configs.xml file; I originally did, and it caused me to spend several hours of extra effort for only 5 Scripts and 3 Media Sets. The "smart" Report folders in my Console Dashboard sidebar are just fine, with the exception of Active Scripts and Inactive Scripts. The sidebar says I have 4 active scripts, which is true, but the Active Scripts report folder shows 5 scripts—including one that is inactive. The sidebar says I have 1 inactive script, which is true, but the Inactive Scripts report folder is empty. After I looked inside the Inactive Scripts folder I couldn't select a script in either my Active Scripts folder or my Scripts sidebar category until I quit and restarted the Retrospect.app Console, so I suggest you don't look inside Inactive Scripts. The second paragraph of this earlier post by me explains what IMHO is going on with the engineers at Retrospect Inc.. Because I moved config80.dat to the Mac desktop and let my copy of 15.6.1.105 regenerate it, I don't have a problem with an empty Dashboard. However, even though the pair of 15.6.1 releases fixed a number of "bad release" bugs that the engineers created in 15.5 and 15.6.0—especially for Retrospect Windows, it looks like there are several still-existing bugs for those users of Retrospect Mac 15.6.1 (105) who didn't regenerate their config80.dat files as I happened to. I'll file a formal Support Case for my problems with looking inside the Inactive Scripts and Active Scripts report folders; here's why and how you should file one for your missing Sidebar reports folders. Good luck! P.S.: A word of warning: If you worked through your problem with Retrospect's European Support, don't take that as the most authoritative word. From the comments of one administrator a year ago, it seems that the European Support person is a contractor who is not that familiar with Retrospect. The same administrator said that the contractor's first language seems not to be English (maybe it's German; lucky you! ).
  16. lhlo, I eventually tried to do a Forums search again, this time using "use at most"—including enclosing double-quotes—as the search term. I didn't find the post I had found before, but I found one that seems to be helpful because it deals with Retrospect 10.5. If you want to repeat the search, I suggest you ignore any posts found that are in a Macintosh forum or for Retrospect Express or are from 2007 or earlier. Here's the thread with the post that seems to be helpful. The post is the first one in the thread by Scillonian, who is generally quite knowledgeable about Retrospect Windows. However here's an earlier (and thus probably applicable, even though the OP doesn't state his Retrospect Windows version) Scillonian post in a different thread, which indicates that there may be a problem because it is the Use At Most percentage that is stored.
  17. Over three weeks after my immediately-preceding post in this thread, my -530 Bug 1 and -530 Bug 2 remain fixed. Thursday I upgraded the Client on my MacBook Pro from 14.1 to 15.6.1 (105); first I Removed the MBP "client" from my Sources on my 15.6.1 (105) "backup server", then I upgraded the MBP Client, and last I Added the MBP "client" back to the "backup server"—afterwards changing my Scripts so that the MBP is again backed up in the proper sequence. A "NoOp Sun-Fri. Backup" script and "Sun-Fri. Backup" script for my MBP both ran OK Friday morning, even though my "backup server" was booted well after their 3:00 a.m. and 3:05 a.m. scheduled start times. A "NoOp Sat. Backup" script for my MBP and "Sat. Backup" script for all my 6-drives-plus-Favorite-Folder both ran OK yesterday morning, even though my "backup server" was booted well after their 3:00 a.m. and 3:05 a.m. scheduled start times. I intend to run backup scripts with this configuration for another 2+ weeks, to make sure my -530 Bug 3 (eventual re-emergence of -530 Bugs 1 and/or 2 because of apparent corruption of a configuration file) doesn't emerge. If it doesn't, I'll repeat the Remove and re-Add of my MBP "client" on the "backup server", only this time I'll re-Add the MBP "client" with Use Multicast instead of Add Source Directly (using IP address). If that in turn works for 3 weeks we can declare my -530 Bugs fixed; if not, we can declare all of them fixed except when using Multicast to identify "clients". The fix was apparently made with the release of Retrospect Mac 15.1. The reason I thought it wasn't fixed is because, in the Retrospect.Tech Support e-mail sent with the offer of a test version of 15.0 per this 18 May 2018 post, nobody told me to move the config80.dat file to the desktop to allow it to be regenerated. Thus -530 bugs showed up when I ran that test version, and I reported to R.T.S. that the fix in the test version didn't work. 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, the "backup server" procedure is as follows: [1] In System Preferences->Retrospect , stop the Retrospect Engine. [2] Move the config80.dat file from Library -> Application Support -> Retrospect to the desktop. [3] re-Add any "client" machines to Sources, re-checkmark those "client" Sources in Scripts that use them, and (after hitting Save) drag them in the Summary of those Scripts into the sequence they should be backed up (and hit Save again). [4]  In System Preferences->Retrospect , start the Retrospect Engine again—or simply re-boot your "backup server". [5] To be on the safe side if you didn't re-boot your "backup server", Quit the Console and then re-launch it (Applications->Retrospect.app) again.
  18. lhlo (the Forums software says the first letter of your "handle" is a lower-case 'L'), I'd like to be helpful, but —especially being a Retrospect Mac administrator—I couldn't find much that would help. Two nights ago I used the Search facility of the Forums to find a really old (2009 IIRC) post that might shed some light on your problem, but I stupidly decided not to bookmark it and the next morning couldn't reconstruct the search terms I had used. The best I can suggest is that you Rebuild your Backup Set, per pages 533-535 of the Retrospect Windows 9.5 User's Guide. Click All Disks in the dialog shown on page 533, because you don't want to use the Fast Catalog Rebuild info that may be stored in your Backup Set's Catalog File. If you're lucky, that will eventually bring up a dialog that will allow you to change the "Use At Most" number of GB for your Member on the 4TB drive. If it doesn't allow you to do that, IMHO you'll just have to be satisfied with adding a second member on the same drive—as I suggested in the second paragraph of my preceding post in this thread. If any other "actually helpful" administrator has a better answer for Retrospect Windows 9.5, I urge him/her to post it. Retrospect Inc. eventually noticed this is a problem, and added a feature in Retrospect Windows 11 to solve it. Here is the entire description of this feature, taken from page 14 in the "What's New" chapter of the Retrospect Windows 11 User's Guide: Informative, isn't it? (You see, I can do sarcasm as well as condescension. ) And you won't find any further explanation in any UG up through version 15, because Retrospect Inc. adopted a new policy with Windows 11/Mac 13. Previously a new feature was announced in the "What's New" chapter of the UGs for the major version that introduced it, and then explained in more detail in the appropriate other chapter(s) in the UGs for later major versions. Starting with major version 11/13, that policy was changed so that the explanation of the new feature would be done in a separate Knowledge Base article—if a Retrospect Inc. engineer felt like writing one (which didn't happen for the "move the member folders" feature—and that's not the only feature for which no KB article was written). Meanwhile the "What's New" chapter of the preceding version's UGs would be completely overwritten with the announcement of newer features. Now you understand why my life outlook as a volunteer Forums contributor could stand some improvement.
  19. DavidHertzberg

    Dashboard empty

    Lennart_T and myhrik, Early this morning I thought of another possible reason why you have this problem and I don't. As recounted in this post (which you shouldn't read), on 9 January I stopped the Retrospect Engine on my "backup server" in System Preferences -> Retrospect and then moved the config80.dat file from Library -> Application Support > Retrospect to the desktop. When I rebooted my "backup server", thus restarting the newly-installed 15.6.1 (105) Retrospect Engine and starting the Retrospect.app Console, it regenerated the evidently-corrupted config80.dat file—which turned out to fix a set of -530 bugs I had had for 2 years. The reason you shouldn't read the post I linked to in the second sentence of the preceding paragraph is that it says I also moved another configuration file to the desktop. Having done so made me spend several hours recreating the "client" machines and scripts and Media Sets, but later repeating the operation on another "backup server" boot drive containing Retrospect Mac 14.6 showed me I wouldn't have had to do that if I had merely moved config80.dat to the desktop. Lennart_T—if he moves the config80.dat file from Library -> Application Support -> Retrospect to the desktop—will have to re-Add any "client" machines to Sources, re-checkmark those "client" Sources in Scripts that use them, and (after hitting Save) drag them in the Summary of those Scripts into the sequence they should be backed up (and hit Save again). myhrik, because he/she evidently doesn't have any "client" machines, shouldn't have to do anything further. To be on the safe side, Quit the Console and then re-launch it (Applications->Retrospect.app) again. If you're brave enough to try this, I hope it helps.
  20. DavidHertzberg

    Dashboard empty

    Sorry, Lennart_T, something you had written in a previous post made me think you actually have a Server Edition license for Retrospect Mac. But how about the "Enable Management Console" checkbox in the pane displayed by clicking the Management icon at the top of the Retrospect->Preferences panel? Is that checked? If it is, does un-checking it and quitting-restarting the Console bring back what should be the contents of your Console Dashboard? If the answer to both those questions is 'no", then I suggest you file a Support Case—which I'm sure you know why and how to do. I'm out of ideas that would explain why you and myhrik have this problem and I don't.
  21. DavidHertzberg

    Dashboard empty

    Lennart_T and myhrik, The more I thought about it today, the more the hypothesis in my preceding post made sense in terms of what I have deduced (from publicly-available information) about "Product Management Think" at Retrospect Inc.. J.G. Heithcock and his merry men evidently think Retrospect Inc. needs to "go big or go home"; to them that means [1] becoming appealing to consultants and [2] getting into the virtual-server backup sub-market. [2] has motivated the development of R.V. (the head of Retrospect Tech Support has forbidden me to mention the name of this Retrospect product on the Forums), and [1] has motivated the development of the Web-based Management Console—which Retrospect Inc. is advertising as enabling a consultant to monitor up to 100 "backup servers" at multiple locations—which will be those of the consultant's customers (I'm here avoiding the use of the term "clients" to avoid confusion with the Retrospect term). It would make marketing sense to limit the routine use of the Management Console to Server Edition licensees, since Desktop Edition and Solo Edition licensees would not normally hire consultants. So I wanted to ask myhrik if he/she has a Server Edition license, and fired up my Console to find out what to tell him/her to look for in Preferences under the Retrospect menu. I found—as I remembered—a Licenses icon on the top of the panel; the first license line in the pane displayed by clicking that icon says "Desktop" on my Console, and I'll bet the first license line of myhrik's pane (as well as Lennart_T's pane) says something else with the word "Server" in it. Then I noticed that immediately to the right of the Licenses icon is a Management icon, and the first item in the pane displayed by clicking that icon is an "Enable Management Console" checkbox. If that checkbox is checked, as it may be by default if you have a Server license, uncheck it and see if your non-Management Console Dashboard becomes populated—which may require your quitting and re-starting Retrospect.app (which is perfectly OK; I've done it myself on occasion). If this solves your problem, then it is still consistent with what years ago I perceived to be the other purpose of the Web-based Management Console. If you read between the lines of the History section of the Retrospect Wikipedia article, you'll see that Retrospect Windows has been seriously crippled for 10 years because Windows security restrictions made it impossible to separate a GUI Console from the Engine as was done for Retrospect Mac. The workaround, which all other enterprise client-server backup applications have implemented for their Windows "backup servers", is to make the Administrative Console a Web-served application and the Engine-equivalent a Web-served client. I've gotten unofficial confirmation that Retrospect Inc.'s intent is to give the Windows version of the Management Console two-way interactive communication with the Retrospect Windows Engine. Over a year ago, a Retrospect Mac administrator setting up a Retrospect Windows installation discovered he could almost perfectly control a Retrospect Windows "backup server" from a Retrospect Mac Console—because the Retrospect Inc. engineers have carefully preserved the inter-process communications capabilities of the Retrospect Windows Engine that were developed before 2009.
  22. DavidHertzberg

    Dashboard empty

    Lennart_T, I've never signed up for the Management Console and, as I've said two posts above, I'm seeing a fully-populated Dashboard on my Desktop Edition 15.6.1 (105) Console. The only explanation I can imagine is that there's some new feature (I'd call it a bug in Retrospect 15 and a kludge in Retrospect 16) ensuring that, since you (and possibly myhrik) are licensed for a Server Edition, you can't see a non-blank Dashboard even on your "backup server" unless you are signed up for the Management Console. Maybe that's what "We plan to launch it officially in Spring 2019 with a free tier [my emphasis] and a paid tier" on this About page means?
  23. DavidHertzberg

    Dashboard empty

    Sorry, myhrik, I don't agree with my President on almost everything, including his views on NATO. That was just my bad late-afternoon attempt at humor, inspired by Werner Walter's revelation that it is the U. S. Air Force that is insisting Retrospect Inc. keep the non-Web Console for Retrospect Mac. Seriously, I'm truly mystified by your blank-Dashboard problem—because I don't have it on what should be a very similar installation of Retrospect Mac. Here's a brief explanation of "backup server", so you don't have to read the Wikipedia article on Retrospect: Back in 2009, what was then the Iomega division of EMC (largely the same developers as now, AFAICT) split Retrospect Mac into two separate programs, the Engine and the Console. The Engine runs on a "backup server" Mac that has the backup drives (which can actually be in the cloud) attached, and does all the work involved with actually executing scripts. The Console runs the Graphic User Interface used by the backup administrator for communicating with the Engine. The reason EMC Iomega separated the programs is that, in many enterprises running Retrospect, the "backup server" machine sits in a locked and fire-resistant "server room" to which the backup administrator doesn't have a key. Therefore in any Server Edition of Retrospect Mac, the Console can be run on any Mac that is on the same Local Area Network as the "backup server" Mac. In a cheaper Desktop Edition (which I have licensed) or Solo Edition of Retrospect, the Console must run on the "backup server" Mac—but it is still a separate program (Retrospect.app) from the Engine that can be stopped and started while the Engine is running. After its split-off from EMC, Retrospect Inc. added the Dashboard as a high-level summary panel on the Console interface. As I said in the first sentence of the preceding paragraph, the Console on my Desktop Edition of Retrospect Mac 15.6.1 (105) has had a fully-functioning Dashboard up through early this morning—which is when I last looked. I ask you the same question I asked Lennart_T two posts above: If you click on the Past Backups category in the leftmost column of the Dashboard, do you see the usual information? In any case, I think you should file a Support Case about your problem. Here's why and how to do it. If you upgraded to Retrospect Mac 15 in the last 30 days, you are entitled to personalized help with your problem—which may have something to do with your setup of Retrospect—as opposed to mere processing of the bug report.
  24. DavidHertzberg

    Dashboard empty

    Then, Lennart_T, you have a different problem from Lindsay Robertson's. He/she reported back in May that the blank Dashboard only occurred on a non-"backup server" machine. However that same post also said "All the other sections perform exactly as on the backup server console." Is it true for you that, if you click on the Past Backups category in the leftmost column, you see the usual information? Another question for both you and myhrik is: are you running Retrospect Mac 15.6.1.105? If you are running 15.5 or 15.6.0, you should be aware that those were "bad releases" in which Retrospect features that had worked before no longer worked—especially for Retrospect Windows. That is why Retrospect Inc. released 15.6.1.104 for Retrospect Windows and 15.6.1.105 for Retrospect Mac, and why they chose not to publicize those releases—because they fixed bugs that were newly-created by harried Retrospect Inc. engineers.
  25. lhlo (demerits for picking a cutesy-poo "handle" for which I can't figure out whether the first letter is upper-case 'I' or lower-case 'l'), First, read the boxed-in paragraph below the screenshot at the top of page 448 in the Retrospect Windows 9.5 User's Guide. If that paragraph describes what happens when your Member is full, un-check the checkbox and increase the "Use At Most" number of GB appropriately. Second, if that doesn't work, do what it says on pages 449-451 of the UG under "Adding a Disk to a Backup Set". Add the new Member on the same disk as existing Member, and give it the appropriate "Use At Most" number of GB. This post describes that as the workaround for an earlier version of Retrospect Windows. So this is your "poor second choice", but next time you'll remember to set the "Use At Most" percentage appropriately when adding all new Members.
×