Jump to content

DavidHertzberg

Members
  • Content count

    896
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

Everything posted by DavidHertzberg

  1. Saturday night 30 March I hastily decided that I needed to do a full-SSD restore of my Late 2016 MacBook Pro. Because I didn't have a USB-C to-Firewire adapter, I started to do the restore from Saturday morning's Recycle backup over my LAN. This was stupid, because the restore would have wiped out my Retrospect 15.6.1.105 Client, but it didn't get that far. After "Finished deleting 2,385 unnecessary files and 198 unnecessary folders on destination", it bombed with "!Trouble writing folder "Macintosh HD/Library/", error -1,017 (insufficient permissions)". How does one avoid that with Retrospect, since I'm told Time Machine avoids it? Meanwhile I was left with a MBP SSD with no usable macOS on it. I next attempted to download and install Sierra on the SSD, expecting to then be able to solve the permissions problem and rerun the backup application's Restore of my complete High Sierra disk. However I couldn't find how to do that download of the installer, and it was by then after Apple Support's 11 p.m. EDT closing time. I should explain here that, for reasons explained in this KB article and this Forums post, I'd prefer for now to keep all 6 drives on my 3 Macs using HFS+ rather than APFS. So I phoned Apple Support around noon Sunday. I spent a couple of hours talking to the senior Support technician Jenna. I first downloaded a High Sierra installer, which left me with a single APFS partition. Disk Utility wouldn't let me erase that partition, or delete it because it was the first one created. I worked on the problem for another hour while Jenna took a four-hour break; I ended up with an SSD which sat forever with 7 minutes to go when I booted into the Recovery Partition, and stopped booting after a couple of minutes—showing a big white circle crossed by a right-slanting diagonal line—when I did a conventional boot without Command-R—etc.. Here's what happened after I took my MacBook Pro in to Mike's Tech Shop on Monday 1 April: Despite my (open-box 15-inch Late 2016) MBP having come with macOS 10.12 Sierra installed, Apple has some database that says it can't run under anything earlier than macOS 10.13 High Sierra. So that's what Mike's had to install on Tuesday, and it formatted the MBP's 500GB SSD as a single APFS partition—which High Sierra and above inescapably do with any SSD. Tuesday morning I connected an external Firewire HDD to my 2010 Mac Pro backup server running Retrospect Mac 15.6.1.105 under macOS 10.12.6 Sierra, changed the permissions on all existing top-level folders to Read-Write for all users, and ran the same restore to the HDD. It ran, but got over 90 cases of "[*] MapError: unknown Mac error 22" and ended with "!Trouble writing folder "/Volumes/Macintosh HD OS X+/.HFS+ Private Directory Data", error -1,101 (file/directory not found) 3/31/19 2:11:03 AM: Execution incomplete". The HDD remains formatted with HFS+. Tuesday afternoon I took my MBP home, booted it, and—using the pair of adapters I had bought to go USB-C-to-Firewire—ran Migration Assistant to copy my backed-up files from the external HDD onto the MBP's SSD. I chose the iCloud option, because I want to be able to access those files from my MacPro in case my MBP gets messed up again. It wouldn't install SUIDGuardNG.kext, but that turns out to be incompatible with High Sierra. My MBP then would boot under High Sierra, but only using the MBP's built-in display. I normally use an inherited Apple 27-inch LED Cinema Display, connected to my MBP via a KVM switch and a StarTech USB32DPPro adapter. That adapter requires software from DisplayLink.com; at first it wouldn't install. I eventually found this and this Web page, and got the Cinema Display working Tuesday night. So what do you suggest as a substitute for this complicated process? I should note that, having also bought from Mike's a pair of adapters to go USB-C to-Firewire, I have since tried to boot my MBP from my external Firewire HDD.—it doesn't work.
  2. The second Agent Reply to my Support Case #67374 was: My first Additional Note response to that was [as edited to replace Support Case date-time-stamps with links to posts in this thread]:
  3. The first Agent Reply to my Support Case #67374, whose Problem Statement was a slightly-edited version of my OP in this thread, was: My Additional Note response to that was [as edited to replace Support Case date-time-stamps with links to posts in this thread]:
  4. Nigel Smith, Command-Option-Shift-R directly following powering-on my MacBook Pro boots into the same macOS 10.13 High Sierra environment it normally boots into, including all my Documents and such non-Apple applications as Firefox and Retrospect Client. That contrasts with doing the same thing on my "backup server" Mac Pro, where Command-Option-Shift-R directly following powering it on immediately brings up a dialog box offering me Disk Utility etc.. So it's not that I'm "holding it wrong"; it appears to be the fact that my MBP's SSD was formatted with a single APFS partition by Mike's Tech Shop, while the SSD my Mac Pro normally boots from was formatted with HFS+ and populated with macOS 10.12 Sierra after the SSD was inserted into one of the Mac Pro's drive trays by little old me. IM very HO Mike's Tech Shop would have had to use the Terminal options of Disk Utility and possibly csrutil on my MBP to have "managed to get that back to HFS+ first". That probably goes beyond what they're willing to do for US$75, and the employee who did it may not know how to do that at all. I received a third Agent Response from the head of Retrospect Tech Support this morning. The news in that is IMHO so explosive that I need to put it into context when posting it here, and I don't have time to do that before my physical therapy appointment. My macOS version was 10.13 High Sierra under HFS+ as of Saturday night 30 March, but IMHO the real problem was with the incompleteness of the Retrospect 15 Restore onto my external HFS+-formatted HDD. So have a good night's sleep, and the appropriate info will all be here for you tomorrow. P.S.: SIP does indeed protect Apple-provided applications in /Library; read far enough down this section of the Ars Technica article describing it to look at the list generated by cat /System/Library/Sandbox/rootless.conf
  5. You're right, Nigel Smith, what I described in my first paragraph in this thread's OP looks like System Integrity Protection kicking in for an Apple-installed application in Macintosh HD/Library. According to this section of the Ars Technica article, if I had known to do so (a different error message number and text in Retrospect would have been informative ) I could have temporarily disabled SIP by booting into the Recovery partition and invoking csrutil from Terminal. As described in my second and third paragraphs, after messing around with Jenna's help on Sunday 31 March I couldn't boot my MacBook Pro into the Recovery partition. Moreover, in trying to do so I think I would have run into the same "Apple database" problem Mike's Tech Shop ran into if I wanted to revert to macOS 10.12 Sierra—which wouldn't have forcibly formatted the MBP's SSD in APFS as High Sierra did. I thank you for your offer to set up a test, but I don't think that will be advisable or necessary. The "advisable" comes from my awareness that the text in the Retrospect Mac User's Guide—other than the "What's New" chapter—hasn't been updated in around 5 years (the same is true for the Retrospect Windows UG), so I rather doubt that the "Live Restore" instructions still work for recent versions of macOS. The "necessary" comes from my MBP having been restored to satisfactory functioning per the last bulleted item in this thread's OP. I've converted this thread's OP into Support Case #67374, and have already received two responses from the head of Retrospect Tech Support. I'm inclined to let him deal with the "bare metal" Restore problems or turn them over to the engineers.
  6. DavidHertzberg

    Restrospect 16 Desktop Advantages?

    Here's DovidBenAvraham's 13 April 2019 comment about the Web-based Management Console with its missing-from-the-Configurator Add-On that allows Shared Scripts, as excerpted—with a few square-bracketed clarifications—from the Talk page of the Wikipedia article:
  7. Adam Ainsworth and Nigel Smith, I've never used block-level incremental backups, which are discussed on pages 206-210 of the Retrospect Mac 14 User's Guide. "Options" on page 208 says "With block level incremental backup enabled, files 100 MB or larger will be backed up incrementally by default. Smaller files will automatically be backed up in full because restore overhead outweighs the benefits of incremental backup. " My only database (I'm a home user with a tiny business) is less than 6MB. R.V., which I have been forbidden by the head of Retrospect Tech Support from discussing on these Forums, only runs on Windows machines—check the System Requirements. That worthy (or one of his subordinates) also told me R.V. doesn't even have the concept of a Client. Think of it as a cheaper competitor to Veeam. Then instead buy 4 more blank tapes, Adam, as Nigel suggested—IMHO it'd be cheaper and less work to set up .
  8. DavidHertzberg

    No more instant scan on MacOS?

    For reasons, described in this Ars Technica Mac Forum thread, last week I was forced to convert my MacBook Pro's SSD to APFS. I therefore, for reasons stated above in this thread, had to upgrade to Retrospect Mac 16.0.1.105. Obviously I Removed and re-Added my MBP with Use Instant Scan un-checked. I now find my SSD scans taking 4 minutes, whereas using Retrospect Mac 15.6.1.105—with the SSD formatted with HFS+ and using Instant Scan—they took 7 minutes. I also find the total time for an incremental backup of 5GB, including scan, is 14 minutes; using Retrospect Mac 15.6.1.105—with the SSD formatted with HFS+ and using Instant Scan—it took 17 minutes.
  9. twickland, You should file a Support Case for that bug, in case the head of Retrospect Tech Support forgot to feed it into their evidently-sketchy bug list. You'd basically just need to copy the contents of your 2015 Retrospect Bug Reports post into the Case; I'm not posting this suggestion in that thread because I don't know if anybody reads that sub-Forum anymore.
  10. Adam Ainsworth, DLT is not "all the same" as LTO. As the only sentence in the second paragraph of the Wikipedia article says, "In 2007 Quantum stopped developing DLT drives, shifting its strategy to LTO ." Make sure that you are really running the Retrospect 14 Engine, not just the Retrospect 14.6.2 Console—which can be run with Engines as far back as Retrospect 12.5. Page 240 of the Retrospect Mac 14 User's Guide says Retrospect 14.0 "Fixed issue where auto-cleaning request for tape devices was ignored (#6171)". Pages 49-51 of the UG covers "Cleaning Your Tape Drive". Also see this post regarding automating use of a cleaning tape on your tape drive. For the Retrospect Mac 14 User's Guide, the relevant page numbers are 49-51and 44. P.S.: Added 2nd paragraph. P.P.S.: Added 3rd paragraph.
  11. DavidHertzberg

    R16 really slow backups

    tman1991, As a Retrospect Mac administrator who casually follows this Retrospect Windows—Professional Forum, I'd guess that this is something Satya Nadella's people have inflicted upon Retrospect Inc. developers. You hint in this post that this Retrospect problem coincided with your upgrading to Windows 10. However it may be of interest that a number of administrators complained in this thread on the Retrospect Mac 9+ Forum about a slowdown in Retrospect Mac 15 backups of Macs whose drives were formatted using Apple's new APFS filesystem. It turned out that the slowdown was in the scanning phase, for which they had been choosing the Instant Scan option. It turned out that APFS messed up the FSEvents facility that Retrospect uses for Instant Scan on Macs, so Retrospect Inc. engineers eliminated Instant Scan—at least for all APFS Macs—in Retrospect 16. The engineers were able to do this because a conversion to 64-bit APIs speeded up scanning without the Instant Scan option. I'm wondering if Retrospect 16 included a similar API conversion for Retrospect's scanning (which uses the USN Journal if Instant Scan is chosen as an option) and backup of Windows drives, and if the engineers left some sort of bug in there. OTOH your problem may be unrelated to this. Are you using the Instant Scan feature for backing up your Windows drives? If so, is the slowdown in the scanning phase? Did you just upgrade to a new version of Windows 10 when the slowdown started? Here's why and how to file a Support Request for a bug. If you upgraded to Retrospect 16 within the past 30 days, you may be entitled to personalized help from Retrospect Tech Support.
  12. In the Ars Technica Networking forum thread concerned with my -530 bugs, one of the experts wrote on 25 March 2019: To which I replied on 27 March 2019 (square-bracketed clarifications added particularly because I'm not permitted to name Retrospect in that Ars thread): I updated my long-running Support Case #61302 accordingly. I also in a further Additional Note quoted the Ars Technica expert mentioning the possibility of some connection between the bug and IGMP-inhibiting firmware in both my current and old Verizon "gateways", even though the old "gateway" was strictly for DSL and didn't involve video.
  13. DavidHertzberg

    Storage Groups vs. standard script?

    fredturner and anybody else, I just noticed that there's a new bug-fix version of the Retrospect application as of 28 March, which I think may be later than what fredturner reported using in his OP. Here are the cumulative Release Notes for Retrospect Mac 16.0.1.105; observe that for the Mac (and also for the Windows) variant most of the new fixes are for Storage Groups. P.S.: Now there's a a further new bug-fix release for both the Windows and Mac version of the Retrospect application as of 11 April. The cumulative Release Notes for Retrospect Windows 16.0.2.101 has the following entry: That certainly sounds like a fix for fredturner's Problem 2, but I don't know whether the fix is also applicable to Retrospect Mac—and the engineers simply forgot to document it.
  14. DavidHertzberg

    Storage Groups vs. standard script?

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

    Restrospect 16 Desktop Advantages?

    mbennett/Mark, But Retrospect Inc. evidently hired a good tech writer a number of years ago to create their pair of User's Guides. The new features added since 2015 are all basically enhancements to features already in Retrospect. In the 5th paragraph of this post in another thread I said: Those Support Case #54077 detailed instructions turn out to be for moving the feature descriptions in the Retrospect Mac 13 "What's New" chapter into follow-on chapters of the Retrospect Mac 14 UG. So let's quadruple my 10-hour estimate to cover moving all the feature descriptions in "What's New" for Retrospect Mac 12 through 15 (Retrospect Windows 10 through 15—with versions 13 and 14 having been skipped) to follow-on chapters in both variants of the UG. That's still only 1 person-week. I've been told by two senior people in Sales that Retrospect Inc. has now hired a new Sales Support engineer. Moving those descriptions should be within his/her capabilities, and will aid in his/her familiarization with the product. And here's an idea so ingenious only I could have thought of it: Create links in the UGs to Knowledge Base articles. That way the section "Proactive Scripts" at the end of the "Automated Operations" chapter of the Retrospect Windows UG could contain a link to the "White Papers" KB article I've linked to in my preceding posts in this thread. Moreover most of the "Cloud Backup" and "Email Backup" KB articles could be shortened, since they differ from one another only in the details of set-up for a particular provider—and all other sections of those articles could be moved to the UG. However maybe that would violate the principle discovered 10 years ago by EMC Iomega (third paragraph here), which is "never under-estimate the lack of flexibility of some Retrospect administrators—especially if they're running Retrospect Windows." IMHO this whole documentation mess is the result of a fascination on the part of Retrospect Inc. Product Management with marketing their products through consultants, or Partners in their terminology. You can see this especially in the way the Web-based Management Console is being marketed. The Management Console Add-On, which is needed to enable the Shared Scripts feature—a start on the two-way Retrospect Windows Console Don Lee was asking for two years ago, has not yet been added to the Product Configurator as of this moment. And that's despite two senior people in Retrospect Sales telling me over the last week that it would be added. Consultants, you see, will have learned to find their way around all the KB articles—and they're the only people Product Management cares about at the moment.
  16. DavidHertzberg

    Restrospect 16 Desktop Advantages?

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

    Restrospect 16 Desktop Advantages?

    rfajman, Nobody on these Forums works for Retrospect Inc., so you're not going to get the Sales view—which is probably what you wanted to avoid. Your last post before Thursday stated you were using Retrospect Windows 12, with 2 "clients" and a "backup server" machine in Silver Spring MD, so we can assume you don't need Remote Backup or GDPR compliance. However we don't know whether yours is a family-centered installation or a small business, or whether you backup to a cloud destination. We have no idea whether you ever installed Retrospect Windows 15, so we don't know whether you use the E-Mail Protection feature. We also don't know if you use Proactive backup, which was greatly modernized (as BackupBot or ProactiveAI) in version 15. If you ever installed Retrospect Windows 15, I hope you've upgraded it to 15.6.1.104—because 15.5 and 15.6.0 were "bad releases" that disabled existing features. Proceeding to Retrospect Windows 16.0, I'll assume you have full access to the "backup server" machine—so you are likely not plagued by the Windows inter-process security restrictions that motivated the development of the Web-based Management Console with its Add-On that allows Shared Scripts. Even if you do use Proactive backup scripts, I doubt you have so many of them that you need Storage Groups. The same is likely to be true for Deployment Tools. My recent experience with the Dashboard in Retrospect Mac 15.6.1.105 (which I only upgraded to in early January 2019) indicates that—unless the Retrospect Inc. engineers fixed several glaring bugs in existing and new panes in time for 16.0 while ignoring my Support Case about them—the Dashboard-derived Management Console is "not ready for prime time". So I second mbennett's diplomatic suggestion that you wait for Retrospect Windows 16.1, which past practices indicate will be released in mid-May 2019. I think your OP question reflects my impression that Retrospect Inc. Product Management has adopted a "go big or go home" strategy for the last two major releases. Your installation may not fit into that strategy; mine certainly doesn't.
  18. Just because I mentioned Storage Groups in the first paragraph of this up-thread post, I want to clarify what Storage Groups can do—now that they are out of beta in version 16. As this post in another thread says, they seem to have been developed primarily to deal with a problem administrators have in record-keeping when they have Proactive script(s) that back up a large number of "clients". jhg could use a Storage Group as the destination for a non-Proactive Backup via a script—but apparently not via an Immediate operation (see the quote in the last sentence of this paragraph) . However I doubt whether he/she would want to, considering that the backup of each source volume would be stored on a different Backup Set within the Storage Group—with no deduplication between the source volumes. And, as the Knowledge Base article says, "Scheduled scripts support Storage Groups as destinations, but the backups run on a single execution and not in parallel."
  19. Further news on this immediately-preceding post, not too good for some of you administrators with Verizon FiOS. Friday night it occurred to me: "What if it's my FiOS router that's inhibiting Multicast?" Sunday I had a countervailing thought: "That would be a funny kind of inhibition; the router doesn't prevent my 'backup server' from Adding a 'client' Using Multicast, but prevents Multicast from Finding the 'client' when executing a Backup script unless I do a Locate before the script starts." So this evening I phoned 1-(800)-VERIZON. The first T.S. person I talked to was so scripted that he sounded like my ancient memories of Roy the Toy Boy from the original Electric Company, but at last I got to talk to a "senior" T.S. person. He put me on hold several times while he communicated with an even-more-"senior" person, but at last I got an answer—relayed from their "FiOS Gateway" support company rather than directly from the manufacturer Actiontec. The short version is that the latest "security" updates to the ROM of my FiOS G1100 "gateway" (a modem coax-cabled to the FiOS ONT box plus an Ethernet router), which was installed on 9 October 2018, inhibit Multicast as used in the PITON Protocol. This is no longer a personal problem for me, because I've switched to using Add Source Directly—as described in the immediately-preceding post. I can do this because I've assigned both my "client" machines—which are Ethernet-cabled to the "gateway"—fixed IP addresses. I don't think that will be possible for those of you who connect "client" machines to your LAN using WiFi, because it's my impression—correct me if I'm wrong—that such connections cannot be constrained to a fixed IP address. However I intend to add a post to my Ars Technica Networking thread, explaining the problem and asking if I'm correct about not being able to assign fixed IP addresses to WiFi-connected "clients". It occurred to me this evening that maybe I could solve the Use Multicast problem by getting a different router. The "senior" Verizon T.S. person said that I could buy one and put the G1100 "gateway" into bridge mode, with all the equipment on my LAN connected to the other router. He warned that this would slow down my LAN's Internet connection speed by 20%—which I don't care about (especially since Verizon is going to raise my FiOS speed to 100mbps in May as compensation for my losing Cinemax), but that it would also prevent me from using Guide (and Info?) on my TV—which I do care about. Since I'm fine with having to use Add Source Directly, I'm not going to buy a second router—but you WiFi-users may have to.
  20. DavidHertzberg

    PSA: Wikipedia article on Retrospect going away in current form

    After further thought over the weekend, I have realized that I was a little hasty in complaining about Storage Groups in the last two paragraphs (including the quote) of this up-thread post, but that I had been misled by imprecision in this Knowledge Base article. I came to my realization by thinking about what a Retrospect Inc. Sales person (I don't remember who) had briefly told me late last week about the reason Storage Groups were developed. The Storage Groups feature was developed because organizations with a large number of machines being backed up via Proactive scripts have two interlocking problems. If the script designates a choice of several Backup/Media Sets as destinations, the administrator—when running a Restore—has no precise idea on which Set(s) a particular machine has been backed up to on a particular occasion. If OTOH the administrator designates only a single Backup/Media Set as the destination, he/she has to either worry about inter-machine timing conflict when two or more machines are being backed up to the same Set, or else designate—and keep records of—a separate Set for each machine being backed up. The Storage Groups feature essentially automates the very last option described in the third sentence in the preceding paragraph, and at the same time eliminates any need for designating a multi-Set destination that would create the problem described in the second sentence there. A Storage Group folder has a doohickey within it that keeps track of the names of each Backup/Media Set whose Catalog File is contained within it. The names of the Catalog Files are apparently suffixed (I can't tell, because the names of the individual Catalog Files have been obliterated in the Retrospect Windows screenshots in the KB article) with the name of the individual source machine and drive name. If the administrator runs a Proactive script that backs up a machine and/or drive previously unknown to its Storage Group destination, the doohickey is used to automatically create a new Backup/Media Set Catalog File within the Storage Group folder. If OTOH a Proactive script backs up a machine and drive previously known to its Storage Group destination, the doohickey simply redirects the destination of the backup to the appropriate existing Backup/Media Set Catalog File . So "the GUI for making the Storage Group pseudo-folder generate additional Media Set/Backup Set Catalog Files that are part of an existing Storage Group" appears to be unnecessary, because the doohickey does it automatically when needed. All this confusion could IMHO have been avoided if the writer of the KB article had simply replaced the word "volume" in the KB article, which appears in 4 places, with the words "source volume". DovidBenAvraham has now updated the "Proactive scripts" paragraph in this section of the Wikipedia article with a brief mention of Storage Groups.
  21. Some other Wikipedia editors complained that "the article contains excessive detail, it's written more like an essay or exposition than an cut-and-dried encyclopedia article, and the sourcing doesn't really support a lot of the inferences and asides". DovidBenAvraham took care of the inferences and asides by essentially eliminating the "Documentation" section; it made inferences (most of which are now preserved in this Mac Forum post) mostly by comparing current versions of Retrospect Mac User's Guides to past versions of the same UGs, to the same versions of the Retrospect Windows UGs, to buttons in the Retrospect Mac GUI, or to the Tutorials or Knowledge Base articles. Those comparisons by editors are considered un-sourced "original research" in the Wikipedia world, but it's OK for an editor to report on such comparisons if they were made by a third-party reviewer. However these other editors are now strong-arming DovidBenAvraham to rewrite the rest of the article, under the threat of doing it themselves if he doesn't. That rewriting will be done over the next few days. When it's complete and has passed muster with the complaining editors, I'll go through the posts on these forums and revise them so that they link to the new appropriate sections in the article. Here's a permanent link to the article in its old form.
  22. seanbreilly, Take a look at this post, if you haven't already tried what it suggests..
  23. DavidHertzberg

    PSA: Wikipedia article on Retrospect going away in current form

    Dovid Ben Avraham has now updated the Wikipedia articles with mentions of the Management Console, but he had to go out on a limb to do it. The problem is that the Shared Script feature (AKA Distributed Management) requires the Management Console Add-On, but that Add-On is not yet available for online purchase via the Product Configurator as of this evening. So any administrator basing his/her actions on this section of the Retrospect article is likely to have a rude awakening if he/she does an online upgrade to version 16.0 and then tries to create one or more Shared Scripts. Oh well, more work for Retrospect Inc. Tech Support and Sales—to manually supply new license codes that include the Management Console Add-On. I spoke by phone late last week with the head of North American Sales, and he said someone is working on updating the Configurator. AFAIK the only modifications to Add-On items in the Configurator over the last couple of years have been the deletion of the one for VMware server (which has been replaced by the R. V. product I am forbidden by the head of Retrospect Tech Support from naming in these Forums). I can understand that no engineer retains a recent memory of how to add Add-On items to the Configurator, but I hope they haven't lost the source code. FYI this problem will mostly affect Retrospect Windows administrators, who have been pleading for years for the equivalent of Shared Scripts. Ordinary Retrospect Mac administrators—as opposed to consultants—will probably not attempt to use Shared Scripts, since the good old non-Web Console application available since Retrospect Mac 8 in 2009 can create more-varied scripts on one or more Engines than Shared Scripts can as of 16.0. P.S.: In this post in another thread, here's a quoted further comment by DBA about the possible reason why the Management Console Add-On —required for Shared Scripts—is not yet in the Configurator. I don't want to commit the sin of double-posting, and that comment seems most applicable to the subject of the other thread.
  24. DavidHertzberg

    Copy with Move not working

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