Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by DavidHertzberg

  1. Magnificent investigation, MrPete! :) 

    All machines on my LAN are Macs, and to my knowledge I don't have a network security system—not to mention VMware (for which the -530 problem was discussed starting in a 2017 thread).  I don't have a firewall on my LAN's FiOS "gateway", and the firewall is disabled on my MacBook Pro. 

    As a result of your investigation I'm now wondering if my "gateway", which is a Verizon G1100 which also functions as my router, uses pfSense (or its fork OPNsense) code.  Almost a year ago I ran a test which temporarily connected my MBP "client" to my Mac Pro "backup server" so that it was "upstream" from my "gateway".  However I didn't think of disconnecting the "gateway" until I had disassembled the test setup, and the connection probably wouldn't have worked without it.  However my original -530 problems, which started on 30 January 2017 when I still had DSL instead of FiOS, occurred only when I booted the "backup server" after the scheduled time for the backup script and the script ran immediately—so I thought the bug was caused by uncoordinated startup in the Retrospect Engine.

  2. amkassir,

    See "Version 16.5 Required" in this Knowledge Base article, and the macOS Mojave – Application Data Privacy KB article it links to.  However I don't think those will answer your all questions; you'd better phone Retrospect Tech Support, and please post what you've found out—including when the august Documentation Committee is going to update that first KB article.

  3. 12 hours ago, Xenomorph said:

    So why not add this as an additional post to your last thread, and save other people's time answering the same question?:rolleyes:  My answer, for instance, would be exactly the same.  A new post to an existing  topic makes that topic in the Forums list appear bolded, just like a new topic.

    The cumulative Release Notes for Retrospect Mac do say under Engine for 16.5 "Improved: Client scanning 2x faster".  However that doesn't appear in the cumulative Release Note for Retrospect Windows, and may apply only to the scanning phase—for which there had been an Apple-created problem with Instant Scan for APFS-formatted Mac volumes which the Retrospect engineers said was going to be solved by switching to a 64-bit API to speed up non-Instant scan .  So that probably doesn't improve the actual backing up phase speed for Retrospect Windows. :(

    Lennart_T suggested in a PM that the Engine should be made multi-threaded.  I responded that the Engine has been running each operation in a separate thread since Retrospect Windows 7.5 and Retrospect Mac 8, and I couldn't see how one would usefully multi-thread an individual backup operation.

  4. 15 hours ago, x509 said:


    In the interest of history.

    If I remember correctly, the "Multics" system at MIT when I was a grad student there was a Honeywell 635 system with virtual memory.



    Your attempted correction of MrPete is wrong as to manufacturer name.  Multics was developed for the GE 645, which was a GE 635 with "a configurable hardware protected memory system".  General Electric later sold its computer business to Honeywell, and the Wikipedia articles says a GE 645 follow-on was sold as the Honeywell 6180.   "The bulk of these computers running time-sharing on Multics were installed at the NSA and similar governmental sites. Their usage was limited by the extreme security measures and had limited impact on subsequent systems, other than the protection ring."

    IIRC, Fernando Corbató—lead developer of Multics—delivered the introductory IBM 7090 lecture in a 1963 post-summer week-long programming course at MIT somebody got me into.  I chose to study Fortran II (go-to-only logic  :o ) for the rest of the week; the course, followed by self-study, changed my life.

  5. On 10/7/2019 at 10:27 AM, mbennett said:

    I experience this too, on a regular basis.  Yes, it used to work and stopped being reliable a couple of years ago.  Tried using a static IP address but that's inconvenient for a laptop that frequently travels to other locations and networks.  Nothing else works.  When it breaks I use ipconfig on the laptop and reset it to that address on the client setup in Retrospect.  It's annoying, but nothing else seems to work.


    Alternatively, have you considered setting up a "BackupLand" or "HomeSweetHome" Location in the Windows equivalent of your laptop's System Preferences->Network?  You could copy your addresses from your Automatic location, and put your laptop's fixed IP address (not "static"; that term now refers to an Web-wide IP address permanently assigned to you by your ISP) specified on your home/office LAN's router into that Location.  You could then use the Windows equivalent of the Mac System Preferences->Network dropdown to switch to that Location whenever you bring your laptop back to your home/office where you back it up.That way you could continue to use the Direct Access Method for your laptop "client" in Retrospect.

    I have no personal experience with this, especially since I'm a Mac administrator, but from reading the Mac System Preferences Help I think this would be better than defaulting to the Automatic location—unless Subnet Broadcast instead of Direct works for you.  This Web page looks as if it might offer a clue to Windows 10 Settings for networking. I would welcome comments from Retrospect Windows administrators.

  6. mbennett,

    Have you tried using the Subnet Broadcast access method?  It is initially described under "Subnet Broadcast" on page 294 of the Retrospect Windows 16 User's Guide; how to use it is described under "Subnet Broadcast Access Method" on pages 295-296.

    Subnet Broadcast  was suggested by henry-in-florida in this December 2018 post.  IIRC I used it for my MacBook Pro "client" for about a month, then eventually (when a trial of Multicast didn't work) switched to Add Source Directly—the Retrospect Mac equivalent of Direct Access Method—after having upgraded to Retrospect Mac 15 (because of a Retrospect-Mac-only bug in preceding versions that activated at the start of 2019).  My MBP never travels off my LAN, so Add Source Directly using a fixed IP address works for me.


  7. Lennart_T,

    Point well taken, but the OP's Backup Set is named "Backup Set Drives C  D and V", so the message would have to be "Groomed 290.2 GB from 'Backup Set Drives C D and V'".  I myself use "Backup Set Red" and "Backup Set White" and "Backup Set Blue" when running Retrospect Mac 6.1 on my G4 Digital Audio, and "Media Set Red" etc. when backing up my other machines using Retrospect Mac 16.  The User's Guides and the Retrospect GUI(s) have long encouraged naming Backup/Media Sets that way.

  8. NoelC,

    According to all available documentation, Retrospect's grooming feature only works on Backup Sets—although page 234 of the Retrospect Windows 11 User's Guide under "Scripted Grooming" has the slightly scary sentence "When a Groom script runs, Retrospect deletes older files and folders from the source disk [my emphasis] Backup Set(s) based on its specified grooming policy" which I think is just sloppy tech writing.

    The reason I'm referring to the Retrospect Windows 11 UG is that, starting with Retrospect Windows 10 and Retrospect Mac 12, the august (adjective meant ironically) Documentation Committee decided that new features described in the "What's New" chapter for a particular major version would not have those descriptions moved to follow-on chapters of the next major version of the UG.  Instead those descriptions are simply over-written by the next major version's new features.  Therefore the only accessible written description of Performance-Optimized Grooming for Retrospect Windows is on page 8 of the version 11 UG (there is a description in the last section of GDPR – Deep Dive into Data Retention Policies with Grooming Selectors, but who would know to look there? :huh:).  There is also the Tutorial video Grooming Options Windows (plus a corresponding version for Retrospect Mac), but again who would know to look for a video?  :huh: The charitable explanation is that the august Documentation Committee (of which the head of Retrospect Tech Support—by his own admission—is not permitted to be a member :o) decided that nobody reads the User's Guides anymore; at 615 pages for the Retrospect Windows UG, exclusive of Release Notes, that IMHO is a supportable position.  However I prefer the uncharitable explanation, which is that nobody on the Committee could take time away from his (sexist pronoun intended) regular work in Engineering or Product Management for the one person-week of work (estimate detailed in a Support Case I wrote) to retroactively update the follow-on chapters of both variants of the UG—and pre-StorCentric Retrospect Inc. couldn't afford to hire and familiarize a tech writer (who could have been somebody's spouse).

    P.S.: FYI Retrospect does have an Archive operation, which is the same as a Backup operation except that has a Move Files option.  That option, described under "Archiving Execution Options" on page 376 of the Retrospect Windows 11 User's Guide, "deletes files from the source [my emphasis] volume after they have been copied.  If Thorough or Media verification is turned on and the files do not match exactly, the originals will not be deleted."  DovidBenAvraham reminds me that the competing application BE eliminated that option in 2018, probably because it violates the "3-2-1 rule" for backups.


  9. On 10/5/2019 at 10:40 PM, x509 said:

    There are so many, many frustrations in using Retrospect.  Why do I (or anyone else) stick with it?  This client not found issue seems like a self-inflicted wound.


    I understand your frustration, but IMHO calling the -530 error a "self-inflicted wound" is a bit unfair to the Retrospect engineers.  The Multicast access method used to work beautifully, at least for me using Retrospect Mac from 1995 to early 2017.  However if you read the first expert-quoting section in this post earlier in the same Forums thread I linked to in my preceding post, you'll see that Retrospect's version of Multicast seems to have recently stopped working reliably because of "improvements" in networking hardware (my situation) and/or software (your reported situation).  IMHO the Retrospect engineers should at most be faulted for not having done a really thorough investigation of my -530 problems as reported in Support Case #61302 (in which my March 29, 2019 00:38  Additional Note is a copy of the same post section I linked to in the third sentence of this paragraph), and then not having faced up to the need to revise Retrospect's method of Multicasting (e.g. to use mDNS as the Ars Technica expert suggested).

    Of course in 2018-2019 the Retrospect engineers had many enhancements on their agenda, which Product Management undoubtedly considered to be more urgent than an extensive effort to fix -530 bugs that only some administrators were experiencing.  Still, considering that AFAICT most Retrospect engineers are in their 50s, IMHO they would benefit from being forced to take a Software Engineering course in modern debugging methods—which they probably never had in college or grad school (I was a professional applications programmer from 1964 through 1988 after flunking out as a Political Science major, and then went back to get a quickie Bachelor's in CS followed by a night-school MSCS in early 1996—and I never had such a course).

    IMHO getting Multicast working reliably again will be an absolute must for the planned version (StorCentric management has announced this ) of the Retrospect "backup server" running on Drobo NAS appliances.  Given that reviewers agree the main market for Drobo is for home users and SMEs, how can Drobo expect those customers' backup administrators—having backgrounds as described in the last sentence  of that Wikipedia article's lead—to be expert enough in networking to assign fixed IP addresses to "clients" on their particular brand of routers and then enter those addresses via the Retrospect Drobo equivalent of the Direct Access Method?:rolleyes:  No, IMHO they'll need reliable Multicast.😎  I'd therefore suggest that you invoke superior force by communicating that requirement (as I already have in a snail-mail letter, but you can find an e-mail address on LinkedIn) to:


        Attn.: Mr. Rod Harrison, CTO

    1289 Anvilwood Ave.

    Sunnyvale, CA 94089


    Be sure to mention my name, which I used in the snail-mail letter (put a space between my "handle"'s second 'd' and the 'H'), and Support Case #61302.

    P.S.: A Forums search using "-530" (including the double-quotes) in the Sarch bubble shows some administrators have been getting this error since 2002.  A number of these have turned out to be networking problems, and a number because bugs had not yet been fixed for Retrospect Windows.

  10. x509,

    That is what finally worked for in Retrospect Mac 15 for my -530 problems that started on 30 January 2017, as detailed in this post and its thread predecessors—plus links to preceding threads.  Add Source Directly is the Retrospect Mac equivalent of the Direct Access Method, which is described on pages 296-297 of the Retrospect Windows 16 User's Guide.

    I had to both look up my old Forums post and find the Retrospect Windows UG equivalent of Add Source Directly, while working only during only the TV commercials interrupting the film "Dancing With Wolves".  Sorry for the delay.

  11. 1 hour ago, x509 said:

    I had assumed since all my systems are running Win 64 Pro on Intel CPUs, that one recovery disk would be suitable for all my systems.  Apparently not. 

    Welcome to the wonderful world of different Windows drivers, x509, which is why Retrospect "inc." markets the Dissimilar Hardware Restore Add-On.

    P.S.: As to x509's second-paragraph complaint directly below, IMHO he'd do well to read pages 328-337 of the Retrospect Windows 16 UG.

  12. x509,

    Here's why and how to submit a Support Case for a Retrospect enhancement, in this case to the Retrospect Windows User's Guide—which needs it.  IMHO the enhancement should go beyond the UG; Retrospect should detect any first-time use of a Windows "backup server" or "client" machine and throw up a "Now create a recovery disk" message per Nigel Smith's first sentence immediately above.

    You've been a Forums member since early 2010, and you didn't know you needed to create a Disaster Recovery Disk in advance?:rolleyes:  Even I knew that, and I administrate Retrospect Mac—which doesn't have a Disaster Recovery Disk.  (in the interests of truth, I backed up a work-provided Windows 95 machine at home from 2001-2004; however that was using Retrospect Mac 6—which didn't have a DRD feature AFAICT from reading its User's Guide—at the latest.)

  13. fredturner,

    AFAIK the "Client" sub-section of this Knowledge Base article is the authority on how to enable Full Disk Access for for a Retrospect Client under Mojave. I don't know about defaults commands, but my guess is that Apple wouldn't make automating the settings easy for fear everybody would use that to get around Privacy for "Application Data"—see the "Overview" of that KB article.

    Cheer up; it will be worse for macOS Catalina.:(

    P.S.: Here's an Apple Developer Forums thread discussing this problem for other applications.  Note that one of the thread's posters is S.Reitshamer, who as many of us know is the principal developer of Arq (which he mentions in his post).  However Arq is not a client-server backup application, so I feel I can get away with mentioning its name in this Forum (because it is not listed in the Competitive Analysis — Retrospect for Mac KB White Paper).  The KB article I linked to in the first paragraph of this post was written before the December posts in the Developer Forums thread, but I strongly suspect the Retrospect engineers were reading it.  In any case, AFAICT the developers in that thread didn't come up with an automation solution even for self-contained—much less client-server—applications.

  14. x509,

    As of 1 October 2019, the full-featured two-way Web-based Management Console I predicted in the second paragraph of this up-thread post is released in Retrospect Windows 16.5.  However, according to this brand-new Knowledge Base article, you'll have to pay for the Management Console Add-on to get it.  Yesterday I couldn't get anyone in Retrospect Sales to pick up the phone to tell me how much it will cost, and it's not yet in the Configurator.  Evidently Retrospect "Inc."  Product Management thinks this will only be of interest to larger organizations.

    P.S.: Just before noon I got Werner, head of North American Sales, to pick up the phone.  The Web-based Management Console Add-On is US$49 for The Desktop Edition,  US$149 for the Disk-to-Disk Edition (which is the same as the Single Server Edition except without tape destinations), and US$499 for the Single Server and Multi-Server Editions.  Werner tried it last night to access his own "backup server" over the Web; with the Add-On he can do anything Retrospect Mac non-Desktop Console users have been able to do over their LANs.  The one Web-vs-LAN tradeoff is that two-way updating between the "backup server" and the Console is done only once every 60 seconds; Werner says the engineers tried reducing the delay, but found that Web traffic made that inadvisable.  I hope the $49 you'll save by not buying it, x509, will ease the ongoing minor pain of your "simple and effective" substitute solution.;)

    P.P.S.: Thinking about what Werner said about Web traffic making faster-than-60-second response from the Management Console inadvisable, it occurred to me that the "traffic" Werner was talking about may be the Console's interaction with Salesforce Heroku's Amazon EC2 cloud-computing platform here's a discussion.  Competing client-server applications have a small Web server within their "backup server"—so they don't need to interact with a cloud service, and Retrospect Mac's non-Web-based Console of course relies strictly on interaction between computers on the same LAN/WAN.

  15. I too have a bunch of these files on my MacBook Pro "client", and they're all dated Wednesday 3 July 2019 shortly after noon.  My Mac Pro "backup server" Activities log shows that about a half-hour before that I had done a Rebuild of my Media Set Blue, which I would start using the following Saturday—but whose portable HDD I had already brought home from my bank safe-deposit box (when I deposited the portable HDD for Media Set Red there after cabling the portable HDD for Media Set White) the preceding Friday.

    I can't remember the reason I did the Rebuild, but when I previously ran the initial Recycle backup to Media Set Blue on Saturday 8 June I had gotten a -559 (network connection timeout) error after about an hour of backing up my MBP.  Because before that I had gotten a series of -519 errors on "Sat. Backup" Recycle script runs on preceding Saturdays, I think I took advantage of the 4 July holiday the next day to swap in my replacement Ethernet switches.  Of course I had immediately run a No Media Action backup of my MBP on 8 June, and then run 6 daily No Media Action backups of my MBP to Media Set Blue, but I think I was still stupidly worried that there was something wrong with the Media Set Blue HDD or its cable that had caused the -559 error. 

    I think that's the reason I ran the Rebuild script in the late morning of 3 July.  And I probably started my MBP's Client after that just to check connectivity to the "backup server", which I guess in some way generated the log files.  The Client was Retrospect 16.1.0, running under macOS 10.12 High Sierra.

  16. On 9/26/2019 at 12:18 PM, Nigel Smith said:

    Oh, but he does!

    Being able to tell RS that "this new client is that old client, only reinstalled" would be useful. Not having to re-define Favourite Folders, re-do Tags, etc, would be great. But I get the feeling that there are practical, and probably security, reasons why this can't/shouldn't be done else we would have had the feature ages ago.

    But, in the meantime, Tags are a time-saving feature that anyone who isn't using should take a good look at.

    Nigel Smith,

    Pages 40-42 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide imply that you can assign a Tag to a Favorite Folder.  So on "this new client is that old client, only reinstalled" you would have to redefine any Favorite Folders and assign them the same Tags they had before, but if your scripts used Tags to designate Favorite Folders you wouldn't have to change the scripts.

    If you did this,  in most cases the NHS (I noticed how you spell "Favourite", even though your Profile doesn't specify Location) wouldn't have to treat you for extreme finger fatigue resulting from "client" reinstallation.;)

    P.S.: In Sources I added a Tag for my Favorite Folder on a drive local to my Mac Pro.  Then, for my my normally-unscheduled  "Sat. Backup Incremental" script, I un-checkmarked that Favorite Folder and checkmarked the Tag instead.  Finally I did a Run of the script to the Media Set I'm using this week; it did what it normally does, finishing with backing up that Favorite Folder via the Tag.  So the first paragraph of this post is correct.

    P.P.S.: In Sources I added Mimi'sOldG4, gave it a non-Smart new Tag, and also gave a non-Smart new Tag to David'sMacBookPro.   Then, for my my normally-unscheduled  "Sat. Backup Incremental" script, I un-checkmarked the Smart Tag for All Clients and checkmarked the non-Smart newTags instead—dragging them in the Summary pane into the desired backup sequence.  Finally I did a Run of the script to the Media Set I'm using this week; it did what it normally does, giving a -3203 error message for Mimi'sOldG4 (because Retrospect Mac 16 can no longer actually back up "client" machines booted under OS X 10.3 using the 32-bit Legacy Client—even though Sources can still Add such "clients").    So this up-thread post is correct; the procedure for creating and eliminating non-Smart Tags on pages 40-41 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide  is independent of their use for a specific Source—it's the checkbox in the Tags tab that designates whether a specific non-Smart Tag is used for a specific Source.

  17. On 9/24/2019 at 7:13 AM, Nigel Smith said:


    If you set your scripts to use tags to determine what to back up, you only have to set a new/replaced client's tags once and it will be picked up by all appropriate scripts.

    And as David said, you shouldn't get a full backup unless that's part of the script's definition -- "Match only files in same location/path" may be the culprit here.

    You da man, Nigel Smith, for suggesting Tags.:) 

    Yesterday evening I un-checkmarked David’sMacBook Pro from my normally-unscheduled  "Sat. Backup Incremental" script, and checkmarked All Clients under Smart Tags instead.  I then dragged All Clients to the top of the pane in the script's Summary panel, and did a Run of the script to the Media Set I'm using this week.  The execution did a No Media Action backup of David'sMacBook Pro, followed by a No Media Action backup of the two drives and a Favorite Folder local to my "backup server" that are also checkmarked.  (If Mimi'sOldG4 were still a "client", which it isn't because Retrospect Mac 16 can no longer backup machines booted under OS X 10.3 using the 32-bit Legacy Client, I'm pretty sure my "Sat. Backup Incremental" script run would have backed up Mimi'sOldG4 second—because its Sharing name sorts alphanumerically after David’s MacBook Pro.)

    So hrobinson doesn't need to submit a Support Case for a Retrospect enhancement that turns out to have been made in Retrospect Mac 8.  Administrator-defined Tags are covered on pages 40-42 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide.  Smart Tags—such as All Clients—really aren't covered at all in the UG,  because they're Tags that Retrospect automatically maintains for certain obvious software-determinable categories of administrator-defined Sources.

  18. hrobinson,

    Here's why and how to submit a Support Case for a Retrospect enhancement.

    However I occasionally have to Remove and Add my MacBook Pro "client", and—after re-checkmarking it in my No Media Action "Sun.-Fri. Backup" script—I don't get a Recycle backup of my MBP when the script runs the next morning.  I've been doing this from 2015, when I re-started using Retrospect Mac 12 after 5 years without a "backup server" machine—but I skipped Retrospect Mac 13.  I can go through the Remove-Add-edit process for my 5 active scripts in about 10 minutes, including dragging the MBP to the top of the Summary panel for my two multi-machine Recycle scripts so those back up my MBP first.  I'm currently using the latest release of Retrospect Mac 16.1.

    When you Remove and Add your "client", are you doing something that makes your "backup server" think it's dealing with a new "client"—such as changing the "client" machine's Sharing name or changing its fixed IP address on your LAN if you Add Source Directly? As you edit your scripts after a "client" Remove-Add, are you inadvertently changing them from No Media Action to Recycle?  Or are you doing something to your Media Set Catalog File(s) at the same time as you Remove-Add-edit?

  19. I got tired enough of this question that I just phoned Retrospect Sales.  Ian says the Dissimilar Hardware Restore Add-On is US$99 without ASM for a Desktop Edition license.  Werner (whom I got when I phoned back because I had forgotten to ask Ian the question) says the Add-On functions the same no matter what Edition it is licensed for, so it works for any computer—"client" or "backup server"—backed up with Retrospect.  My distinction between the well-budgeted NoelC and the starveling office denizen Suzy is correct.  Ian personally used the Dissimilar Hardware Restore Add-On when he needed to temporarily replace his Windows laptop, which was in the repair shop, with a different-brand desktop—a one-hour restore.  He licenses Desktop Edition.

    For those who didn't know (including me), the Disk-to-Disk Edition is the same as the Single Server Edition—except it has no tape destination capability and is therefore cheaper.  Those running a single Windows Server machine(or macOS Server machine—if that's still detectable by Retrospect) on their LAN should take note.

  20. 2 hours ago, Nigel Smith said:

    IIRC, Desktop can have it without ASM, Server requires ASM.


    Slightly unfair.

    As a Mac user you've probably forgotten (or maybe never knew) the pain involved moving a Windows install between different hardware. It would only take one or two uses for a business to cover the cost of the add-on and, realistically, business is the target market. And not just for "restores", also for migration from old to new machines.

    I wouldn't bother with it as a home user, but if time was money...

    You're right about Server Editions, Nigel Smith, but the OP says he licensed the Desktop Edition.

    As for the "soak the (presumed) rich installation" policy, which was instituted by Dantz before it was acquired by EMC, IMHO the recent failure of that "value pricing" policy in general is what led to the StorCentric acquisition.  It appears business customers no longer needed to license Server Editions, because they were now using Linux machines as their servers.  Retrospect Inc. put a yellow-colored note into the Windows 15.1 Release Notes saying "Linux Client: In a future update, Linux clients running on server-level Linux distributions will be treated as server clients".  However, as I cautiously mentioned elsewhere on these Forums, the opinion of experts I solicited on the Ars Technica Linux forum was that it would be impracticable to distinguish server-level Linux distributions—which shot down extending the "soak the (presumed) rich installation" policy.

    I have never questioned Windows administrators' need for the Dissimilar Hardware Restore Add-On, just its different "value pricing" levels in the Online Store.

    • Like 1

  21. Some of you may have noticed that on 12 September 2019 the old Retrospect article was greatly cut down, losing all 3 of its features sections and having its History section greatly simplified.  This is AFAICT an outcome of a long-running political dispute among Wikipedia editors, including some who are administrators.

    There is a subset of Wikipedia editors who function as "Spitfire pilots".   I use that term because these editors take it upon themselves to make fast passes at someone else's articles and "machine gun" any references they consider to be improper—as if those articles are possible incoming German bombers.  The "Spitfire pilots" do perform a necessary function for articles left over from Wikipedia's "good old days", when editors wrote some articles whose thin-on-the-ground references were to pure Public Relations sources.  It can be time-consuming work to actually read the references in other editors' articles, and a subset of the "Spitfire pilot" editors (IME predominantly Brits) have long wanted to make their work easier—by a method conceptually similar to insisting (via Swiss intermediaries; no Royal Air Force officer was actually foolish enough to do so) that Hermann Goering have all Luftwaffe bombers trail large banners with the high-visibility form of the Balkenkreuz  (so real Spitfire pilots wouldn't need to study aircraft identification).

    This subset of "Spitfire pilot" editors proposed some years ago that, to enforce Reliable Source requirements, all primary-source references be banned from WP articles.  An article stating that rule was deleted, because among other legitimate careful uses of primary sources are in an article about a business.  Nevertheless editor JzG—who prefers to be known as Guy, along with other editors such as Scope_creep (who caused DovidBenAvraham a fair amount of grief back in 2017-2018), believe that primary-source references should be not allowed for features of company-developed software.  DBA had originally made quite a few citations of several user-instruction documents on the Retrospect.com website, but by 12 September had cut these down to 14 out of 100 total citations in the article.  Remaining citations were to the Retrospect Mac 14 and Retrospect Windows 12 User's Guides, to the cumulative Retrospect Windows Release Notes, and to various Knowledge Base articles (listed in the article master reference as if they were named chapters in a book).  For any WP editor having—like Guy and Scope_creep—IT employment experience who would classify these multi-hundred-page documents as PR material, 5 minutes of thought about the enduring popularity of the phrase "Read The F**king Manual" would IMHO prove enlightening (because user-instruction "manuals" aren't anywhere near as pleasant to read as PR documents).:)

    Guy, on his own Talk page, in answer to DBA's question, wrote "Remove anything that's sourced to their own websites or to press releases", and later "It's really quite simple. Only include reliable independent secondary soruces [sic]. Don't include anything that independent commentators haven't thought significant enotgh [sic] to cover. Don't inlcude [sic]sources that are obviously based on press releases (aka churnalism). Don't include WP:HOWTO or other manual-like content."   He then made the major cut-down of the article, on the basis that—since DBA had not immediately removed the 14 remaining primary-source citations, he would oblige DBA to justify that the sources for the other 86 citations were not to secondary-sources that are PR documents.  Being someone who apparently has only Windows experience, Guy is claiming that the 29-year-old Macintosh-focused TidBITS is a PR website.:o

    DBA is proceeding cautiously but methodically to solve the problem.  He may eventually have to create a WP Administrators' Noticeboard Incident, because for an editor who is a WP administrator to do what Guy has done could well be considered vandalism even in Wikipedia's carefully-restricted definition.  However TidBITS may solve the problem by publishing a review of the soon-to-be-released Retrospect 16.5, which among other things will remove DBA's need for the Retrospect Windows GUI-deficiency primary-source references.

  22. NoelC,

    It turns out that what you really want to look at is the Online Store.  Under Add-Ons are two different lines: "Dissimilar Hardware Restore Disk-to-Disk  BDD16R1WN | BDD16R1WC" at US$239 without ASM (that's the price in the Configurator; it's probably the BDD16R1WN sales code), and "Dissimilar Hardware Restore Desktop  BDH16R1WN | BDH16R1WC" at US$99 without ASM (it's probably the BDH16R1WN sales code).:huh:  The difference between the BDD and BDH sales codes seems to be whether you purchased your basic Retrospect license as Disk-to-Disk or Desktop; from your OP it sounds as if you did the latter.  Again, contact a human being in Retrospect Sales; he/she would like to sell you something, to make StorCentric management happy.

    If I worked for Retrospect Product Marketing, it seems I would have to receive supplementary "soak the (presumed) rich installation" indoctrination.:rolleyes:

    IMHO the Dissimilar Hardware Restore Add-On was designed for offices where Suzy only gets a new machine when her existing machine dies of extreme old age, so there is no way the office's management could have "bought a newer machine of the same lineage".;)

  23. NoelC,

    If you used the Product Configurator  to purchase your license for Retrospect Desktop, it has a checkbox for "Do you plan to restore to different hardware?".  I just now tried the Configurator for a Windows Desktop, and the Add-On for  Dissimilar Hardware Restore Disk-to-Disk Edition adds US$239 to the price.  I call it the "soak the (presumed) rich installation" policy, and Dantz Development Corp. introduced that policy before it was purchased by EMC in 2004.  Nobody on these Forums works for Retrospect Sales, so you should contact that organization to find out how to upgrade.

    "Making your system bootable on different hardware" is discussed on pages 328-337 of the Retrospect Windows 16 User's Guide.

  24. Joriz,

    Veeam won't back up directly to tape; you have to do a tape backup of the output of Veeam disk backup jobs.  Since each of those jobs creates lots of small files in a Veeam repository, when you use Retrospect to back up a repository directly to tape you are writing to the tape inefficiently.  Therefore you should be using disk-to-disk-to-tape, as Lennart_T and Nigel Smith suggested.

    If you ever used BE (you named the product in your OP, but I don't want to upset the head of Retrospect Technical Support by naming it again) to backup to tape, I think you were actually using disk-to-disk-to-tape.  BE makes it extremely easy to set up a D2D2T operation with templates.