Jump to content

DavidHertzberg

Members
  • Content count

    1,288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    44

Everything posted by DavidHertzberg

  1. denno, The instructions for doing a Rebuild of a Media Set are on pages 192-193 of the Retrospect Mac 17 User's Guide; I hope they're what you're following. Presumably you're talking about step 2 in the instructions, where "Retrospect displays a dialog asking you what type of Media Set you would like to rebuild." Forgive me for saying this, but you seem not to be aware of the development in Retrospect Mac starting with version 8. Page 32 of the UG says The File Media Set was superseded by the Disk Media Set (UG page 262) in Retrospect Mac 8, and is considered obsolete because of its limitations—although last fall it turned out that there was an administrator who was still stuck with using File Media Sets (which Retrospect Mac still supports). If you're still using File Media Sets on your Drobo, may the Lord have mercy upon you.🙄 If so, I'd phone Retrospect Tech Support and get guidance on how to convert your File Media Sets to Disk Media Sets—or on how to rebuild a Catalog File for a File Media Set. If you are already using a Disk Media Set, select "Disk" and continue with the instructions beginning with step 3. BTW, you still haven't supplied a description of what machine(s) and drives you're backing up as Sources. Also, although maybe I shouldn't say this because the manufacturer of Drobo (StorCentric) now owns Retrospect "Inc.", possibly—based on a 2010 thread about "Catalog File out of sync with Backup Set" that eventually found a cure with a Retrospect Driver Update for a tape drive—there's a problem with your Drobo device. Is it new, and did you also just upgrade to Retrospect Mac 17—in which case you're entitled to 30 days of free personalized Tech Support (see my third paragraph in this post) even if you didn't sign up for Annual Support & Maintenance?
  2. denno, Welcome back to the Forums; it's been about 10 years. Presumably you are no longer using Retrospect Mac 8; would it be too much trouble for you to post your version of Retrospect, plus the OS and hardware of the machine(s) you are backing up? You may have a hardware problem; try Disk Utility on the Source drive whose backups results in the error. The very-knowledgeable Lennart_T suggested in this 2017 post doing a Rebuild of a Media Set catalog instead of a Repair of it. The last two paragraphs of this 2017 post by me describe an even-more-time-consuming method of dealing with catalog problems. Both methods require having all the Members of the Media Set available, so you might consider doing a Recycle backup of all your Source disks if those past Members are not available.
  3. Nigel Smith, You've obviously not been "blessed"—as Alanna evidently has—with a directive from management, or a demand from other employees, that nearly everyone in the centralized office Work From Home because of the COVID-19 pandemic. An easy way to handle that, which avoids quickly setting up a VPN and then making all those employees bring their home routers—with router-brand-specific GUIs you've no experience with—into the office so you can (if the VPN permits it) open ports 497 and 22024 for TCP and UDP (requiring thorough hand-washing by you and the other employee before and after), is to use the Remote Backup feature introduced with Retrospect 15.6 in the fall of 2018. The 2018 customer use case for Remote Backup was for—e.g.—a company with its main offices in Britain that has a few salespeople such as Sally in Shanghai and Albert in Adelaide, each of whom has files on his/her laptop that the company's backup administrator wants to be sure are backed up on a "backup server" running 24/7 in Britain. The "backup server" can't "reach out" either if Sally and Albert's machines don't have predictable Internet addresses, either because Sally and Albert don't work from fixed local offices, or because—in the case of Sally—that office cannot be contacted from England via Retrospect multicast because of a Great Firewall. Therefore Remote Backup piggy-backs on Retrospect's public-key cryptography facility. The Retrospect Client installer for each particular Remote machine designates the Internet address of the "backup server" and includes a customized public key. The "backup server" maintains a table of Remote-machine-specific public keys and their calculated corresponding private keys. When a Remote "client" machine contacts the "backup server" using the address stored on its Client with a backup message specifying its own calculation of the private key—and encrypted with the customized public key, the "backup server" uses the calculated customized private key from the table to verify that the message is from the authorized Remote "client" and the corresponding public key to decrypt it. (Please excuse sloppiness in the preceding sentence; I know nothing about cryptography, and I've no inside info.) Unlike Using Multicast and Using Subnet and Add Source Directly, that approach does not reveal to the "backup server" the Name of any Remote Backup machine—which would be meaningless for an administrator since it isn't resolvable to a fixed reachable-by-the-"backup-server" IP address. Thus such a Remote "client" cannot be specified by Name as a Source for any backup script. To solve this problem, in 2018 the Retrospect Inc. engineers devised a kludge. Retrospect has a Tag facility for grouping multiple machines; thus only the Tag for those machines need be specified as a Source in a script. The Remote Backup facility interprets the exact Tag "Remote Backup Clients" as a synonym for all "client" machines that can "reach out" to the "backup server" with a public key that is in the "backup server"'s Remote Clients table. Remote Client backup only applies to Proactive scripts, so unscheduled "reaching out" can occur any time such a script is running—in a sequence depending on when the Remote "client" happens to connect to the Internet. That's the limitation that can make the "Remote Backup Clients" Tag a true kludge for Work From Home. As Alanna discovered in March, any Proactive script that specifies the exact Tag "Remote Backup Clients" as a Source will backup all "clients" appearing in the Remote Clients table that "reach out" to the "backup server" while it is running that Proactive script. Since an individual Retrospect script is not multi-threaded (because it is executed within a particular Activity Thread) if its destination isn't a Storage Group, all those "Remote Backup Clients" would be backed up one-by-one. This wasn't a problem in 2018; if salespeople Sally in Shanghai and Albert in Adelaide are in different time-zones from each other, they're presumed not to have their laptops connected to the Internet at the same time, and—if the company has only a few such remotely-located salespeople—it's OK to back them up via a single Proactive script running 24/7. However that kludge creates problems when a massive number of employees in the same time-zone start working from home because of COVID-19. Let's assume that each such "client" takes 0.5 hours to back up, and you want to back up each such "client" daily. That assumption puts a limit of 48 "clients" that can be backed up with a single Remote Backup script, even if all such "clients" are connected to the Internet 24 hours per day. (That this assumption is not unreasonable is borne out by the fact that my 2016 MacBook Pro takes about 0.5 hours for an incremental Retrospect non-Proactive backup, even though its speedy connection to my Mac Pro "backup server" is over an in-the-apartment MoCA cable connection.) But the kludge is eliminated if the destination is a Storage Group; if so a single Proactive script is multi-threaded—the maximum 16 threads can back up 768 0.5-hour "clients" daily on a fast-processor "backup server" with 16MB available RAM. So if you're forced to use Remote Backup , you can't "do similar by running multiple Proactive/Scheduled scripts, each targeting their own backup set, all stored on the same destination resource." P.S.: Insert second paragraph showing how Remote Backup uses Retrospect public-key cryptography to allow a "client" to "reach out" to a "backup server" P.P.S.: Revise second paragraph, because I think I understand public-key cryptography a little better now—but the last un-parenthesized sentence is still sloppy
  4. DavidHertzberg

    Bitlocker and Retrospect 17

    Hofstede, If the Retrospect Engine and Client "are completely unaware that Bitlocker is enabled", then all files on the Backup Set surely are encrypted. So why use Retrospect's encryption facility to double-encrypt them? I'm a Mac administrator, so maybe there's something I don't understand about BitLocker.
  5. DavidHertzberg

    Bitlocker and Retrospect 17

    kidziti, The OP in the 2013 thread I linked to in my preceding post, sjacobs, made this March 2015 post regarding his/her then-recent installation of Windows 10. I would describe his/her tone as "happy as a clam". He/she says "Both of these are remote clients - I run the the backups from a separate Windows box and use remote clients for all of the computers that I need to back up. So I am never doing any local backup." There is no indication he/she had to disable BitLocker, so I don't think you have to worry about any problems with your soon-to-be Windows 10 Pro laptop. In December 2016 sjacobs reported problems backing up a CentOS Linux machine using the 64-bit Linux Client and a Proactive script. He/she said "This is my only Linux client - all other clients are Win clients - and do not exhibit this same issue. So I am sure it must be something peculiar to the Linux environment on this machine...". He/she hasn't posted to these Forums since then, so I don't know if he/she's still using Retrospect and looking at them. You could try sending him/her a Message; please post here on what he/she says about using Retrospect with BitLocker on Windows 10. The cumulative Release Notes for Retrospect Windows 17.0 don't show any fixes that seem related to Windows 10, much less BitLocker. But I'm a Mac administrator, so I may not know what I'm talking about.😀 FWIW, there's supposed to be a new release of Retrospect 17 coming out within a few days. P.S.: The cumulative Release Notes for Retrospect Windows show Client certifications for various releases of CentOS starting in September 2017, so the chances are sjacobs filed a Support Case and is still a Retrospect user.
  6. DavidHertzberg

    Bitlocker and Retrospect 17

    kidziti, You may not be aware that we have a Search function in these Forums, used via the oval box towards the upper-right corner of the Web page. Just remember to click "use all search terms" if that's what you want. Clicking on the magnifying-glass icon gives a more complete set of search options. Using it, I found that this 2013 post seems to be the most complete answer to a BitLocker problem an administrator encountered with Windows 8. In the OP's post at the end of the thread, I suspect he/she meant to type "now" instead of "not" in "I am not able to access C:." Nobody seems to have posted concerning BitLocker on Windows 10.
  7. x509, IMHO Mihir Shah is well aware of Retrospect's reputation for taking a long time to fix bugs. My evidence is in the Support Case system. From 2017 it hit any administrator filing a Support Case with a strongly-worded pitch for buying Annual Support and Maintenance. In fact I felt it necessary to include a fifth paragraph in my boilerplate post on filing a Support Case for a bug, saying an administrator doesn't need to be signed up for ASM to report a bug. Sometime in the last month or so that ASM pitch has disappeared, which I take as an indication that Mihir Shah realized the pitch—which apparently was added to the Support Case system because Tech Support's departmental budget was largely dependent on ASM—was deterring administrators from reporting bugs and therefore the engineers from fixing them.
  8. x509, As far as the -505 error is concerned, Nigel Smith may have the generalized answer in this post from a late 2019 thread, although a preceding post by me in the same thread discusses my one encounter with it. Unfortunately most of the Forums posts about -505 involve Mac clients. As far as the -530 error is concerned, this October 2019 post by you tells how you solved it. The very next post—by me—says that the Mac equivalent of that is how I solved my own -530 problems. A post by me further down that thread discusses the problem from the wider angle of fixing Multicast in Retrospect; StorCentric should insist. A post by MrPete even further down that thread discusses his approach to debugging these problems on Windows. And no, the cumulative Release Notes for Retrospect Windows 17 don't indicate any fix for the problem.
  9. lstone19, I don't believe it will, but you may be able to negotiate a license code for 16 along with your license for 17. Talk to Sales. If you wait another week or so, I heard on a 3 April Remote Backup Training webinar there will be a new release of 17. P.S.: From other administrators' posts I've read, I don't think version 17.0 is so bad (I'm still on 16.6)—except that it seems to have been a "quickie" release done a week earlier than the normal schedule for x.0 releases. As such the engineers apparently left some debugging code in, and also one apparent error in a new bug fix. I don't expect additional new features (as opposed to bug and kludge fixes) directly for Retrospect Mac 17.x, because IMHO the StorCentric-dictated emphasis will be on a Retrospect-Mac-look-alike GUI for all variants of Retrospect—to accompany a variant of the "backup server" whose Engine will run on Linux-based NASes (initially Drobo and Nexsan) with a Web-served GUI. My expectation is based on the Retrospect Console Preview released in 16.6, statements by StorCentric bigwigs, and a smidgen of insider confirmation about development of the Drobo "backup server".
  10. Nigel Smith and others, I felt the same way as you do, and wrote a couple of posts in the Ars Technica thread on Retrospect saying "the basic motivation for the development of Storage Groups was to provide the administrator with the benefits of having a different destination for each source machine-drive combination—without imposing onerous manual record-keeping requirements." But you and I may have both missed—or not believed—a statement in the first paragraph of the Knowledge Base article that has been copied into the version 17 User's Guides. It says I made a couple of double-check phonecalls to Retrospect "Inc." on the afternoon of 17 April, and a junior Tech Support person set up a Support Case in which he replied "You can backup multiple clients/sources to the same storage group set at the same time with both ProactiveAI and standard scripts." Previously the head of North American Sales made the same statement for Proactive scripts only, but didn't say he'd personally tested a Proactive run with multiple "clients" and a Storage Group destination. So I asked, in an Additional Note to my Support Case, for a definite statement that a Proactive script makes itself multi-threaded if its destination is a Storage Set. In that same Additional Note, I also said Now that Tech Support has confirmed (see P.S.) that a Proactive script can make itself multi-threaded if its destination is a Storage Group, it justifies the kludge Alanna complained about in the OP of her thread about using Remote Backup. It also at least partially eliminates the need for the suggestion I made in the first sentence of the second paragraph of this post in that thread, and invalidates my un-qualified last sentence in the fourth paragraph of that post. But, per the remainder of the that same second paragraph, the kludge may not solve all problems when Remote Backup is applied to Working from Home—unless there is sufficient RAM for the necessary parallel threads (1MB per thread, 16 threads maximum) or there is more than one "backup server". The foregoing doesn't mean that the engineers shouldn't fix the deficiencies in the Retrospect Mac GUI for Storage Groups, described in the OP of this thread and in the third and fourth paragraphs of this post in Alanna's thread. P.S.: I got proof from T. S. late on 19 April of multi-threading on a Proactive script, via a screenshot of a Retrospect Windows Activity Report.
  11. DavidHertzberg

    How to FORCE a file backup on each run?

    MrPete, This 2019 thread says that having hard links to files causes those files to be backed up every time. Unfortunately for your purposes, the next-to-last post in that thread implies Microsoft may have done something to fix that—which was a problem for the OP in that thread but which would be exactly what you want.
  12. DavidHertzberg

    How to FORCE a file backup on each run?

    MrPete, How about putting all such files in a single folder defined as a Subvolume, and backing up that Subvolume separately with a Recycle backup? You might want to exclude those files from your other backups using a custom Selector that Excludes files with that single folder's Path (Windows)—page 365 in the Retrospect Windows 17 User's Guide.
  13. DavidHertzberg

    Retro 8 scheduled scripts stopped running

    oslomike, This Knowledge Base article says Retrospect Mac 16.1 is the last version for which the Engine will run on OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard. I was using version 16.1 until about a week ago, when I upgraded to 16.6 because it had a number of fixes to the new Storage Groups feature—which I wanted to test but not use in production. I'm still using the 16.1 Client on my MacBook Pro, but I don't have "client volumes with names longer than 27 characters" or "files or folders with long non-English names". An old Wikipedia article section shows shifting ownership of Retrospect vs. continuity of the programming staff. I just phoned Retrospect Sales again, and spoke to Ian Denis because Werner Walter's phone seems perpetually busy (he's the head of North American Sales). Ian said they don't sell licenses for non-current versions, but he'll give you permission to buy a Desktop Edition upgrade license for US$139 with Annual Support and Maintenance; the ASM will enable Tech Support to give you a license for version 16 and enable you to download 16.1. Ian's e-mail is ian.denis@retrospect.com; the Retrospect phone number for U. S. Sales is + 1 (925) 476-1030 extension 2, and you can look up Ian's extension by name after dialing the phone number—all during 8 a.m.-6 p.m. California time. If you actually live in Oslo, Norway, European Sales may give you a better deal. A couple of years ago I did an experimental restore, on an older DAT tape drive, of some DAT tapes I backed up to at the end of 2003. Running Retrospect Mac 6.1 directly on my Digital Audio G4 under OS X 10.4, because Retrospect 16 eliminated support for the Legacy Client, I back up 3 drives on the G4 to a newer DAT drive and compare using DAT72 tapes I bought in 2015. Both DAT drives attach to my G4 via SCSI. You can buy DAT72 tapes for US$65 each.
  14. DavidHertzberg

    Retro 8 scheduled scripts stopped running

    oslomike, In writing my preceding post in this thread, I misread this Knowledge Base article. It says "Customers can download the following DMG and use the 14.6.2 Mac console to connect to Retrospect for Mac v12.5, v13.5, and v14.6 [my emphasis]". So you couldn't have upgraded to the Retrospect Mac 14.6.2 Console while continuing to run the Retrospect Mac 8 Engine. Is there any reason—other than cost—why you are continuing to run Retrospect Mac 8? I've already left a phone message for the head of North American Sales, asking if Retrospect "Inc." could give you a cheap price for upgrading to version 12.5—which you could use with the Retrospect Mac 14.6.2 Console and solve the "deferred" issue. Your scripts are running now, even though your Console is saying "deferred", because that issue was indeed cosmetic as Retrospect Inc. said.
  15. 🙂 redleader, I've concluded that ANSWER is actually your demand that somebody on these Forums supply you with an answer to your problem. Your frustration is what is causing you to spray posts in multiple topics about that problem. I think that problem is "supplied by my Reseller Dashboard with linked Retrospect keys", meaning somebody sold you what purports to be a license for Retrospect Mac 17. You may have to break down and buy a legitimate license from Retrospect "Inc."; I don't work for them.
  16. DavidHertzberg

    Retro 8 scheduled scripts stopped running

    oslomike, The Forums last heard from you in this 2019 "Retrospect 9 or higher for Macintosh" thread. Did you update your Retrospect Mac Console, but not the Engine, to Retrospect Mac 14.6.2 per this Knowledge Base article? If so, maybe there's a new bug—and maybe it's not cosmetic.
  17. fredturner, This 2016 post says the way that OP got rid of a -641 error was to do a Recycle backup of a particular "client", even though other tests of the "client" SSD indicated no errors.. The thread is in the "Retrospect 9 or higher for Macintosh" Forum, but "Allowed catalog rebuild to continue after skipping invalid backup data that causes error -641" is a bug fix in the cumulative Release Notes for both Retrospect Windows 15.0 and Retrospect Mac 15.0—so whatever generates a -641 error must be in the underlying code for both variants. I don't know whether doing a Recycle backup would be acceptable for your situation. Sorry I didn't do a Forums search for "-641" before.
  18. DavidHertzberg

    Retrospect 17 Client Connection Popup

    Hofstede and anyone else experiencing this problem, On Friday 3 April I "attended" a webinar on Remote Backup, given by the head of Retrospect Tech Support with an long introduction by the head of North American Sales. The Sales person said there will be a new release of Retrospect 17 "in about two weeks". I assume that will include a fix for bug 8547, since—as implied in the second P.S. paragraph up-thread—it sounds as if an engineer forgot in the "quickie" release of 17.0 to remove all debugging code.
  19. DavidHertzberg

    Add To Favourite Folders - not working

    redleader, All the Forums within "Windows Products-Retrospect" have to do with capabilities that are peculiar to the current or ancient versions of Retrospect Windows, except "Server, SBS and Multi Server". (Because of the recent advances in NASes and consequent simplification of macOS Server, AFAIK there is now no reason to purchase a Server Edition of Retrospect Mac—which IMHO explains why the cumulative Release Notes for Retrospect Mac 15.1 included a yellow-background Note "Linux Client: In a future update, Linux clients running on server-level Linux distributions will be treated as server clients" that Retrospect Inc. intended to charge for.) Of the three Add-On products listed in your post directly above, Open File Backup and Disaster Recovery (meaning the special facility in Retrospect Windows) also are capabilities needed only by Windows installations. Although Proactive Backup is a standard capability—not an Add-On—also of Retrospect Mac, my impression is that most installations using it—at least prior to COVID-19 Work From Home—are businesses (and therefore predominantly Windows-oriented) using Proactive Backup for the "client" machines of salespeople and on-site technicians who come into the business' central office intermittently. Maybe that's why it was decided to steer Proactive Backup topics away from the "Professional" Forum. In any case, you eventually solved—if you did in fact solve—your problem by macOS-required means that have been discussed in a number of threads in "Retrospect 9 or higher for Macintosh". These had nothing to do with what Server Edition of Retrospect Mac you are running.
  20. redleader, I think you're saying—after posting in three threads instead of one—you've found an answer for your "Add To Favourite Folders" problem, if my understanding of the checkmark and the smiley icon following it are correct. You could have found the answer in this Knowledge Base article, since your problem seemingly resulted from upgrading your "backup server" to Mojave. "InstaScan" is your abbreviation for Instant Scan, so that line in your OP doesn't look like an annotated reply from Retrospect Tech Support. If your "client" drive(s) are formatted with APFS instead of HFS+, you shouldn't have Instant Scan turned on. Who told you to turn it on?
  21. DavidHertzberg

    Retrospect 17: A Cautionary Tale

    redleader, First, just because—in your thread in the "Server, SBS and Multi Server" Forum—I gave you a link to this thread, I didn't mean you should post in this thread. Your two posts immediately above have absolutely nothing to do with the problem described in the OP of this thread—other than the fact that both you and the OP are using Retrospect Mac 17.0 (which IMHO may be buggy because it was a "quickie" release). Second, the last two lines in your first post up-thread sound as if you were yelling a plea to Retrospect Tech Support, except that the Support Case system doesn't allow large-sized red text. Everyone reading and posting in this Forum—including me—is a volunteer, and is not an an employee of Retrospect "Inc.". Third, neither of your up-thread posts describes your problem; that description is in the OP of your "Server, SBS and Multi Server" thread. I'm wondering if the resources available in your area of the UK include an adult course in properly using website forums, certainly including linking—but also including practice in reading what is already posted in a thread. Your ability to outline portions of screenshots in red boxes IMHO doesn't substitute for such skills. Fourth, if your drive(s) on the "backup server" and "client" Macs are formatted with APFS, don't use Instant Scan—it doesn't work on APFS.
  22. jhg, AFAICT you haven't done a couple of acid tests: With Retrospect opened by clicking on the Disaster Recovery Catalog File in its new location, run a Backup script whose destination is the Backup Set on your Disaster Recovery disk. Use the No Files Selector if you don't want the script to actually do any backing up. With Retrospect opened the way it normally does—such as a schedule, run the Backup script whose destination is the Backup Set on your Disaster Recovery disk. Use the No Files Selector if you don't want the script to actually do any backing up. If either of these test fails to work, do what I suggested in this up-thread post. (If I've gotten the drive letter for your Disaster Recovery disk wrong by calling it "D:\", please excuse my error.) However, over the long term, IMHO the bug you've described needs to be fixed.
  23. DavidHertzberg

    Add To Favourite Folders - not working

    redleader, See this 5 March thread in the "Retrospect 9 or higher for Macintosh" forum. The post by me offers a possible explanation : a bug fix in the "quickie" 17.0 release. The 25 March post by the OP amkassir says what Retrospect Tech Support told him to do. If you do what it says, IME you'll probably have to redo all your Sources and Scripts. We were told in a webinar on 3 April there's a 17.x bug-fix release due out "in a couple of weeks", no doubt needing the redo. BTW your OP seems to have nothing to do with "Windows Products-Retrospect Server, SBS and Multi Server." You should have created a thread in the "Retrospect 9 or higher for Macintosh" forum, where you probably would have gotten—or found—a quicker answer to your Mac-related problem.
  24. Thank you, x509, but you are talking about relocating a Member of a Backup Set—whereas jhg is talking about relocating the Catalog File for a Backup Set. (Please excuse my using initial-upper-cased names for Retrospect entities, a habit I adopted some years ago from the User's Guides that IMHO encourages clarity at the expense of style.) I believe that what you call "one of the more pleasant surprises" was introduced in Retrospect Windows 11, where it is briefly mentioned as "Portable Backup Sets/Media Sets" on page 14 of the Retrospect Windows 11 User's Guide. (One of my often-expressed peeves about the UGs is that, for the last 5 years, certain features mentioned in the "What's New" chapter for one major version were never copied into a later chapter for the next major version—and thus disappeared from non-Retrospect-Inc. knowledge because they weren't considered important enough to appear in a Knowledge Base article.) It says: That would be after what we benighted Retrospect Mac users call a Finder move; I don't know what the equivalent Windows term is. But anyway, the quote says "move the member folders of disk sets" and not Catalog Files—which is what jhg has done. He wants a feature to make that move be effective. Pages 113 and 433 of that same UG (I'm sure only the page number has changed in later editions) say the default location of the Catalog File is "..My Documents\Retrospect Catalog Files". I don't know what ".." in that context means to Windows users, but—by analogy with Retrospect Mac—I suspect it means the letter for the "backup server" boot drive followed by a colon and backslash. See the first paragraph of this up-thread post for a Mac discussion. I'm still puzzled as to why jhg wants to keep the Catalog File for his Backup Set on the same HDD as its first Member. Maybe it's because his Backup Set is for Disaster Recovery, a situation where the "backup server" boot drive would just have been re-initialized—and not yet Restored. Faced with the same situation, I'd just re-install Retrospect on the boot drive and then Recreate the Backup Set's Catalog File from its Member(s).
  25. jhg, In the Retrospect "Inc." Support Case system, ordinary customers cannot read any Support Cases they have not personally submitted. I followed the link in your post, and it merely led to the sign-in screen, with my personal customer e-mail ID and password already filled in—which is what usually happens. At least post your Support Case number, so other users of the Support Case system can refer to that in their own Support Cases. Under the "Retrospect 9 or higher for Macintosh" Forum, there still exists a "Retrospect bug reports" sub-forum. However J.G. Heithcock e-mailed me a couple of years ago saying Retrospect Inc. personnel are no longer routinely reading any of these Forums, excepting Product Suggestions to assess feature demand. The charitable 🤣 explanation is that posters were not supplying needed supporting information—Retrospect Edition and version and OS version etc.—that the Support Case system forces a submitter to supply. The uncharitable explanation is that the Support Case system used to slam a submitter in the face with pressure to add on Annual Support and Maintenance, which prior to the StorCentric acquisition obviously paid most of the Technical Support departmental budget. (I was assured a couple of years ago in an e-mail from the head of Technical Support that one doesn't have to have ASM to submit a Support Case, which is why my boilerplate posts—which I keep linking to—emphasize that ASM is only required for personalized help in dealing with a bug.) Such foolishness has IMHO been one of the main reasons the Retrospect application has a decades-long reputation for not having its bugs fixed promptly. When I started a thread about Retrospect on the Ars Technica Mac forum in 2016, I was immediately hit with a barrage of posts from Ars sages denouncing the application for past bugginess—so I'm not exaggerating. I'm quite sure Mihir Shah of StorCentric is aware of that reputation; I hope he can change it.
×