Jump to content

DavidHertzberg

Members
  • Content count

    476
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by DavidHertzberg

  1. Does anyone know what this means?

    My preceding two posts in this thread have been based on the assumption that JohnW actually has Members of multiple Backup Sets stored inside the "Retrospect" folder on his drive. That is because, on the USB3 portable drives that I attach to my Mac Pro backup server, there is a folder inside the "Retrospect" folder for the single Media Set (Retrospect Mac term for Backup Set) whose Members I store on that drive. That folder is named e.g. "Media Set White", and inside it is a file named "1-Media Set White" which is a Member. I assumed that, in the "CS101" dialog window shown in the OP's screenshot that says "select the next disk member to recatalog", the items shown are other folders within the "Retrospect" folder, and that they therefore enclose folders for different Backup Sets. That's why I couldn't understand JohnW's saying, in the OP for the other thread, "Well it can't be from another set so that messages is just wrong." Am I just making an unwarranted assumption that Members for Retrospect Windows are stored the same way they are in Retrospect Mac? Or does JohnW have an extra level of folders on his disk that is confusing Retrospect Windows, making it think that Members for more than one Backup Set are stored on his disk—which would make the message correct from Retrospect Windows' point of view? If the latter is correct, then JohnW could solve his problem merely by getting rid of the extra level of folders—which would enable Retrospect Windows to change the Use At Most property for an individual Member as he wants to do.
  2. Cannot recatalog backups

    Since the head of Retrospect Tech Support evidently deleted the post I made in this thread on why and how to submit a Support Case for a bug, JohnW should look at this post in a prior thread for the same information. The worthy protector of the Forums has called that post "spam", but IMHO he really objects to the very relevant fifth paragraph for a reason you can all undoubtedly figure out for yourselves. I agree with Lennart_T that JohnW should open a Support Case, but IMHO it should be two Support Cases for the two separate bugs. I have not posted about opening a Support Case in the other thread he opened, but have instead devoted that thread to proposing a couple of workarounds for the second bug. IMHO the second bug is a manifestation of JohnW's trying to do something no Retrospect administrator has done before, because only the recent advent of Big New Disks has made it possible for administrators to copy old Members and try to expand their size. Therefore he needs a workaround for the second bug, because he shouldn't expect a quick fix. As far as the crashing encountered in the first bug is concerned, it is worth considering Retrospect bug #6535—which the Release Notes say was fixed for Retrospect Windows 12.0.
  3. Does anyone know what this means?

    The key question is : Why is JohnW trying to trying to update the space information for each Member in a Backup Set? I have thought of two scenarios, both of which assume that he has acquired a Big New Disk. Scenario 1: JohnW is simply trying to accommodate his existing Backup Set on the Big New Disk, but is going about it with the wrong approach. His approach is wrong because he is trying to preserve each existing Member. He should instead create a new Backup Set on the Big New Disk, add what he considers to be the appropriate number of Members on it (per pages 404-406 of the Retrospect Window 12 User's Guide), and run a Transfer Backup Sets script (pages 214-219 in the UG) to copy all the backups from the existing Backup Set to the new Backup Set. JohnW would then have to change all his scripts that refer to the old Backup Set to instead refer to the new Backup Set. If this is too onerous, he could also temporarily obtain what I will refer to as the Borrowed Big New Disk. He would then create the new Backup Set on the Borrowed Big New Disk instead of the Big New Disk, and—after running the Transfer Backup Sets script—delete the old Backup Set and recreate it with the same name and the newly-appropriate number of Members on the Big New Disk. He would then run another Transfer Backup Sets script to copy all the backups from the new Backup Set back to the old Backup Set, but any Members of the old Backup Set would now reside on the Big New Disk. JohnW would then delete the new Backup Set from the Borrowed Big New Disk, and return the Borrowed Big New Disk to its rightful owner. Scenario 2: JohnW is simply trying to accommodate his existing Backup Set on the Big New Disk, and is going about it with the right approach. His approach is right because—for some reason involved with either locating particular backups within Members or making each specific Member the only one in a separate Backup Set used for user-initiated backups and restores—he must preserve each existing Member. On the Big New Disk, he should first create a separate new Backup Set for each old Member, distinguishing them with names that correspond to the old Member Names. He should then run a separate Transfer Backup Set script for each new Backup Set, with the old Backup Set as the Source and the particular new Backup Set as the Destination. Each one of these scripts would have to have its own set of Custom Selectors (pages 460-466 of the UG) that would effectively restrict the files copied to those contained in the desired Member of the old Backup; since there doesn't appear to be any Selector specifying Member name, IMHO JohnW's best bet would be Selectors specifying some combination of date and client that reflect the contents of the old Member as appropriate. Once all these scripts have been run, he would create the desired comprehensive new Backup Set on the Big New Disk, and specify the Members of all the particular new Backup Sets as Members. As you may imagine, it's much more fun for me to think up this approach than it would be for JohnW to execute it (insert appropriate smiley here)—but see the P.S. below for a way to simplify that. P.S.: Further thinking about "making each specific Member the only one in a separate Backup Set used for user-initiated backups and restores" has led me to an insight about making my Scenario 2 solution much easier. It's based on the idea that the same Member can simultaneously belong to more than one Backup Set, an idea that had never occurred to me before—and which I'm not absolutely sure is valid. If it is valid, then JohnW can simply set up—if he hasn't done so already—a separate Backup Set for each old Member "owning" only that old Member. He would then proceed with running the first round of multiple Transfer Backup Set scripts as described in the Scenario 2 paragraph above, but the Source for each script would be the Backup Set "owning" only one old Member and the Destination would be the Backup Set "owning" only the corresponding new Member. Each of these Transfer Backup Set scripts would not have to have any Selectors, since the role of the Selectors would be accomplished by having the Source be the Backup Set "owning" only the Member to be copied. JohnW would then proceed to run the second round of multiple Transfer Backup Set scripts as per the Scenario 2 paragraph above. Could someone else please say whether the same Member can simultaneously belong to two different Backup Sets?
  4. Does anyone know what this means?

    On further reading in this forum, I see that JohnW has actually provided most of the missing information I complained about in my preceding post in this thread, but he has provided it in the OP in another thread. In the editing bar at the top of a post, directly to the right of the first vertical divider, is an icon that looks like a link in a chain; if you let the mouse pointer hover over it, the word "Link" appears. JohnW should have used that facility in his OP in this thread; if he had, I wouldn't have had to criticize it so severely. We see in the third paragraph of that other OP that JohnW is trying to "open the member properties and browse the disk to update the space information". From the screen shot in the OP in this post, it looks as if he has folders for multiple Backup Sets ("CSI01", "CSI03-BU", etc.) inside the "Retrospect" folder on the volume "Retrospect_Backup". If that is correct, then the message is accurate in saying "another set". If there is in fact more space available on the volume, then the fact that the message can't be bypassed to expand the Use At Most space for the Member is a bug. I'll try to post back later on how to get around this presumed bug, but I suspect it will involve copying one member at a time to another volume, and expanding its size—and then Recataloging the Backup Set to use the copied Members. P.S.: mbennett has in the meantime replied in the other thread that JohnW should discuss his problems with Retrospect Tech Support. I had posted instructions in that other thread on how to file a Support Case, but Mayoff has evidently deleted that generally-harmless boilerplate post because he considers it to be spam. Discussion with T.S. may not be necessary—see the post two posts below this one.
  5. Does anyone know what this means?

    IMHO JohnW's post could serve as a textbook example of how not to write a request for assistance. He doesn't tell us what operation he is trying to perform that leads him to be "trying to save a Member's properties". The windows in his screenshot are piled on top of one another, so we can't figure it out. I'm a Mac administrator with no recent Windows experience, but surely it's possible to drag those windows that have blue title bars around by those bars to separate them. It might even be possible to temporarily collapse some of those windows into the taskbar, and un-collapse them for a second screenshot. JohnW also doesn't say what version of Retrospect he is using, or what version of Windows. IMHO JohnW should totally rewrite his OP per the above paragraph. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't participate in the Forums to be a quiz show contestant (don't insert appropriate smiley here).
  6. How fast are your network backups?

    On 9 December I ran an unplanned test that verified my hypothesis in this post in the thread. On the night of 5 December my main computer, an Early 2011 15-inch MacBook Pro, wouldn't boot. I brought it in the next day to Mike's Tech Shop; they said the logic board was dead, and that they couldn't replace it because that model was declared "obsolete" by Apple on 1 January. I decided to buy a 2016 15-inch MacBook Pro as an "open box" special, doing so because I could take immediate delivery and because it came with macOS 10.12.6 installed (my rule is never to install an Apple OS whose last digit is not .3 or greater, and macOS 10.13.2 has just been released). The 4-core processors in the new machine are 2.7GHz vs. 2.0 in the old machine, and RAM on the new machine is 16GB vs. 8GB in the old machine. Both the new and old machines have 500GB SSDs; the SSD in the old machine was installed in early May, so—within the limitations of the old machine's drive interface—its drive speed ought to be about the same. Before bringing the old machine in to Mike's I had run a Restore of the old machine's 5 December Retrospect incremental backup onto a spare portable HDD. Overnight starting 6 December I used Migration Assistant to copy the files from that HDD onto the new machine. Despite a couple of missteps and an adapter problem (the Apple Thunderbolt-3-to-Thunderbolt-2 adapter Mike's sold me turns out not to work with DisplayPort monitors, meaning I can't connect the new machine to my 27-inch Apple LED Cinema Display until I receive a StarTech adapter that will work from NewEgg), I had the new machine more or less operational with its built-in 15-inch monitor on 7 December. Every Saturday I run Recycle backups of all my 6 drives onto a portable 500GB USB HDD. The run on 9 December did a LAN backup of my new MacBook Pro in 2.5 hours, vs. the 3.5 hours the backup of essentially the same files from my old MacBook Pro had taken on 2 December. The MD5 validation of the backup of the new machine was also correspondingly shorter than that of the old machine. IMHO that proves "the main factor limiting speed of [backups over] networks is the traversal of multiple files in the file system by the client computer."
  7. I think mdgarnett should do a Copy Media Set, with the destination Media Set a new one whose first Member is on the larger drive. Instructions for doing this are on pages 137-139 of the Retrospect Mac 14 User's Guide. Instructions for creating a new Media Set are on pages 87-90. Obviously mdgarnett will have to change the Destination Media Set in scripts that reference the one on the smaller drive.
  8. -519 -530 again and again and again

    If redleader is getting -530 and -519 errors only on laptops logging on to the WiFi, but not on computers permanently cabled to the LAN, I suggest reading this post. All of my client computers are connected to the LAN by Ethernet cable. However 3 years ago, when I started using Retrospect again, I was getting errors—and I now believe they were -530 errors—until Alan of Retrospect Tech Support told me to give the clients static IP addresses. The post linked to in the preceding paragraph tells how to do it for my particular router. Since it is done by associating a particular LAN address with the computer's MAC address (which as you can read here has nothing to do with whether the computer is an Apple Macintosh as some people think) that should work for all redleader's computers—including those connected over WiFi because that connection must also be through the router. He/she should talk to his ISP or router provider.
  9. Sorry, Stu, I meant "come clean" in the sense of fully describing what your (as it turns out) own situation is, not to imply any cloak and dagger. I assume you are still using the G3 because of some combination of "they don't make graphics programs like that anymore" and "I can't find/afford/attach a tape drive that can read those old Retrospect backup tapes on my modern system". Otherwise I would suggest buying a copy of Retrospect Mac 14 Desktop Edition for your modern system, and building/Rebuilding a Media Set containing the old tapes you actually have for it. David H.
  10. Can't stop scheduled grooming

    How about doing a Rebuild of the affected media set, giving the Rebuild only Disk 1 and Disk 3 in Carillon's case? Surely Retrospect won't try to groom a disk Member it doesn't know about any more.
  11. I'm afraid I'm going to have to get more personal with you, Chunky Gilmore. First, I see from the screenshots that you appear to be running Retrospect Mac 5.1 under some version of OS X. It would be a good idea if you told us what version, just because that information is always useful. Second, I see from your screenshots that you have a bunch of Catalog Files, as well as your Retrospect 5.1.1 folder, on your desktop. Did you try double-clicking on the Catalog File you're interested in, as Twickland suggested in this post? Third, if that doesn't do what you want, then we have to consider what "I can't locate a complete backup of all the tapes" means. My guess is that it means that you can't find all of the tapes in the Backup Set you are interested in. So why are you interested in in seeing a list of tape Members you don't have anymore, unless knowing the Date Modified of the tapes you don't have is somehow important? I think you simply need to Repair or Rebuild the Catalog File with whatever tapes you still have, as described starting at the bottom of page 187 in the Retrospect Mac 6 UG. Either way you are going to have to let Retrospect look at the tapes, and that means the tapes you still have. IMHO it would be best if you "come clean" about what you are trying to accomplish. Finally, have you considered donating your entire client installation (I hope it's your client installation, and not your employer's or your home installation) to the British Museum? Why is the installation running on a G3 in 2017? Again, IMHO it would be best if you "come clean" about this. David H.
  12. only scan specific folders

    If you think this is a enhancement that should be made by Retrospect Inc., you will have to submit it as a Support Case. For English speakers, that is done by going here http://www.retrospect.com/en/support/contact, and filling out the form (sorry, I don't know what the equivalent addresses are for non-English speakers, but they can figure it out from their appropriate Retrospect website address). IMHO this is quite reasonable; obliging you to fill out the form provides Retrospect Inc. with useful details about your Retrospect installation that they would otherwise have to query you for. As a result, Retrospect Inc. will pay no attention to your post in this forum. On 12 December 2016, in response to a letter I snail-mailed to Mayoff, I received an e-mail through a Mayoff account that was signed by JG Heithcock, CEO, Retrospect, Inc. http://www.retrospect.com/en/about#exec. In it he says "From reading your letter, I think the main issue is that you view the forums as a good place to talk to us, Retrospect, Inc. But we view the audience of the forums as restricted to our customers [my emphasis]. The one caveat we have made on that is for feature requests, largely as we would like to see if other customers also agree on the desirability and feature set for these requests." That means that the only audience for "Product suggestions" in this forum will be other administrators of Retrospect. Nevertheless, by posting in this forum you are providing a useful service to us fellow administrator peasants. Thank you. Please be aware that the "description of your issue" in the Support Case form is IME limited to about 2000 characters by the Support Case software. If you go over that limit your "description" will be broken up into a "description" plus one or more "additional notes". The same is true for any additional notes you may later post yourself. I suggest that, to avoid the appearance of choppiness in your Support Case, you create your case in a post in this forum and then copy it paragraph-by-paragraph to your Support Case. Note that, despite the new dialogs in the Retrospect Inc. Support Case system urging you to sign up for Annual Support and Maintenance, Mayoff has verbally assured me that you don't need to be signed up for ASM to report a bug—only to get personal assistance with coping with it. If this post sounds formulaic, that's because I intend it to be. I intend to post it in every new thread that appears in this forum, unless the OP indicates that he/she has or will open a Support Case for the enhancement that the thread requests. Of course, Mayoff could take 5 minutes of his time to post a slightly-more-polite version of this post as a "sticky thread" that will always appear at the top of the forum. I don't intend to hold my breath until that happens (insert appropriate smiley here).
  13. Chunky Gilmore hasn't said whether he is running Retrospect Mac 5 under an early version of OS X on his G3, or whether he is running it under classic Mac OS 9 or earlier. If it is OS X, page 163 of the Retrospect Mac 6 UG says "The default location that catalog files are saved is Users/username/Documents". I have just booted my donated Digital Audio G4 (ex-wife in 2005: "Take it back to your apartment, please; I don't have room in my closet") under OS X 10.3 (the OS X boot drive is SCSI, but my Adaptec SCSI card won't work past OS X 10.3). Back in 2015, I ran a LAN backup feasibility test using the G4 as the backup server in order to decide whether it was worth buying a modern version of Retrospect to run on an inherited Mac Pro. To do this I installed Retrospect Mac 6.1 on the G4, and in Users/davidhertzberg/Documents there's a file—with the Retrospect icon—named StorageSet Blue (ah, Storage Set, now there's a term I've not heard in many years). Chunky Gilmore should look for a file with the name of his Storage Set and the Retrospect icon; that will be his Catalog File. If it is classic Mac OS 9 or earlier, I also have the drive from my dear departed Blue-and-White G3 (which IIRC I recycled because it couldn't take enough RAM to run OS X) installed in one of the G4's two ATA slots. That happens to have Retrospect Mac 5.1 installed on it, and there's a copy of the User's Guide. I probably could e-mail it to Chunky Gilmore, if he doesn't have a copy already. Alternatively, he could obtain a grant for me from the British Museum (anybody who spells "catalog" as "catalogue" must be a Brit) to research where the catalog is. But maybe the research grant won't be necessary; there are files with the Retrospect icon named Backup Set Blue and Backup Set Orange and Backup Set Yellow in the Applications (Mac OS 9)/Retrospect 5.1 folder. BTW, Twickland probably avoided mentioning it so that Chunky Gilmore wouldn't spill his tea, but if he actually has to Rebuild his Catalog File he'll have to do it from the physical tapes; I hope they're still readable.
  14. Chunky Gilmore doesn't say, but in posts back in 2016 he was using Retrospect Mac 5. There is no User's Guide for Retrospect Mac 5 on the Retrospect.com website, but here is the UG for Retrospect Mac 6. Starting on page 188 there are instructions for rebuilding a Catalog, which it sounds as if Chunky Gilmore should do.
  15. only scan specific folders

    Just to make it clear, I am talking about jpolasektamu.edu's accessing his NAS using SMB as a Shared Volume from his backup server, not as a client. This Knowledge Base article, as I stated above, says Instant Scan "does not work with NAS devices or Linux clients"; I see that the example of my two HDDs is not applicable because they are locally mounted on the desktop of my Mac Pro. My point was that, if SMB now contains a journaling facility that can emulate the Windows USN Journal, it would be nice if Retrospect Inc. enabled Instant Scan to work with that emulated facility. They would not have to test on all the native filesystems; if the SMB USN Journal emulation didn't work with a particular NAS's filesystem, that would be a problem for that NAS manufacturer to straighten out with its filesystem provider. I get the impression that a lot of Retrospect installations are now using NASes. P.S.: If any administrator using a NAS wants Instant Scan on it, I suggest that he/she submit a Support Case requesting the enhancement. The worst thing that could happen is Retrospect T.S. replying that SMB can't emulate the Windows USN Journal. My next post will be the boilerplate one telling how to submit a Support Case. I won't submit one because I don't have a NAS.
  16. only scan specific folders

    As of Samba 4.3.0, it has a "new FileChangeNotify subsystem" that sounds to me (I was never a system programmer) as though it might implement the equivalent of the USN Journal. Could Retrospect Inc. use that to implement Instant Scan for Linux/BSD-based NASes?
  17. only scan specific folders

    No, you can also activate Instant Scan on your backup server. I have Instant Scan activated on my Mac Pro backup server, and it scans each of the two locally-mounted HDDs (which I backup only once a week; their contents seldom changes) in around a minute. However, as jotrago stated here and I stated after that, your NAS volume's presumably-NTFS-compatible file system would have to support the USN Journal feature. I would suggest checking with your NAS vendor, and maybe also with Retrospect Tech Support to see if the Knowledge Base article I linked to is still valid. If the NAS doesn't support USN Journal, I agree that your best approach is Lennart_T's. Tell the powers-that-be that the alternative is not having their temporary projects backed up. You all work in a College of Engineering; it shouldn't be too difficult to get them to understand why you need to implement this.
  18. only scan specific folders

    So enlighten me, please. In order for a NAS to be both readable and writable from a Windows computer, wouldn't it have to have an implementation of NTFS? I see that there is NTFS-3G, "an open source cross-platform implementation of the Microsoft Windows NTFS file system with read-write support." Given that "NTFS-3G supports partial NTFS journaling", does that mean that it supports the USN Journal well enough to for Instant Scan to work? In any case, it seems to me that jotrago's approach—using Selectors—would recreate the same problem of long entire-volume scans that j-polasektamu.edu now has. So IMHO he should use Lennart_T's approach—using Subvolumes—instead. P.S.: According to this Knowledge Base article, Instant Scan "does not work with NAS devices or Linux clients." However that article was written in 2012, so I wonder if those limitations still exist.
  19. only scan specific folders

    First, when you say "On an existing share point", are you referring to Microsoft Sharepoint? If so, the top of page 431 in the Retrospect Windows 12 User's Guide says "Retrospect does not support clusters or SharePoints." Second, assuming that your NAS is instead mounted as a shared volume on your Retrospect Windows backup server, I would think that you could enable Instant Scan for the backup server. This is discussed on pages 571-576 in the UG, with the setting for the installation in general—which I think applies to the backup server—discussed on page 573. I have Instant Scan enabled for my Mac backup server, as well as my one Mac client computer that is modern enough that its Client software can do Instant Scan. The Instant Scan time is measured in minutes, not hours. Third, Instant Scan is enabled for a backup server or client computer as a whole, not to individual volumes connected to that computer. However it operates volume-by-volume, but not AFAIK Subvolume-by-Subvolume. When you refer to Folder1 etc. I hope you are referring to Subvolumes, which are described on pages 444-446 of the UG. I fear that you may not be, because you say "It appears that Retrospect scans the complete volume before processing the exclusions." Page 444 of the UG says "If you only want to back up files in a single folder, specifying a Subvolume (instead of specifying a volume and using a custom selector [my emphasis]) reduces the file scanning time, minimizes the number of files displayed in a browser, and reduces the amount of memory needed." When you mention "the exclusions", that sounds as if you are using Selectors instead of Subvolumes, which would explain why your scan is taking over 18 hours. Maybe if you use Subvolumes, Instant Scan wouldn't be so important—but enabling it can't hurt. Fourth, I hope you noticed my latest post to your previous thread, in which I pointed out that Retrospect Windows 12.6 has "New: Support for concurrent [my emphasis] backups from different subvolumes of the same source".
  20. PSA: Wikipedia article on Retrospect going away in current form

    Getting back to the Wikipedia article rewrite, DovidBenAvraham has pulled the chestnuts out of the fire. As he was being forced to cut the description of the Retrospect features down to 14 screen lines, he realized that the features divided themselves into two classes: those needed by small groups, and those needed by enterprises. The first class consists of features developed before 2005, with the exception of basic cloud backup. The second class consists of features developed after 2005, and were—DBA guessed—likely to have been adopted by all client-server backup applications suited for enterprise use. DBA put the small-group features into the "Retrospect" article, and added the enterprise features as a new section at the back of the "Backup" article—to which he created a one-sentence link in a new section of the "Retrospect" article. In order to get the new section in the "Backup" article past the eagle eye of WP editor JohnInDC, DBA used the skeleton WP article on another enterprise backup application—one that shall be referred to here as NB—to find out how that application named the equivalent features. He then Googled these feature names combined with the name of the NB application, and found Web pages describing them. Putting references to these pages into feature descriptions copied from the old "Retrospect" article, and removing the name "Retrospect" from those feature descriptions, gave DBA a new "Backup" article section that is ostensibly application-independent. This has now passed muster with JohnInDC, although he and DBA are still wrangling over the lead paragraph of the new section. If you want to read the gory details, go to the Talk page discussion about that section here.
  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 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. On 7 November I posted this, whose third paragraph reports a reply I got from Retrospect T.S. to a Support Case I filed. The full implications of two sentences in that reply for this thread have now occurred to me, so I'll quote them: "Retrospect Virtual is a totally different product from Retrospect. it doesn't use any of the same code [my emphasis] and doesn't use any of the same backup methods or technology." The underlined part of the reply casts doubt on mbennett's speculation, in the second post in this thread, that "I expect this [Retrospect Virtual] interface to be the only admin tool in coming versions, replacing everything we have now."
  23. This suggestion is an offshoot of this thread in "Windows Products—Retrospect->Professional", which I shall henceforth refer to as the "New Windows user" thread. It is motivated by iCompute's astounding revelation in post #21 (posts beginning with #21 are on page 2 of the "New Windows user" thread) : "I have a Mac laptop, with a copy of the Mac Retro 'console' on it. Just 'cuz, I fired up the console, and lo and behold, it *works* on the WINDOWS Retro server. As far as I can tell, I get the full function of the Mac engine/console via the Mac console when operating/controlling the Windows Retro server." In the fourth paragraph of post #22 in the "New Windows user" thread, I belatedly realized that we shouldn't consider iCompute's revelation quite so astounding, because what is now known as the Retrospect for iOS app has been working—connected to a Retrospect Windows "backup server" as well as a Retrospect Mac "backup server"—since 2010. This means that the "engine side" of Retrospect.exe retains the capability of exchanging messages with another app—even if that app is not the Retrospect Launcher. In post #23, after doing some inferences based on an 18 January 2007 article in The Register by Ashlee Vance, I concluded "My guess is that the Retrospect engineers simply left the code for interprocess communication in Retrospect Windows 7.5 and following, where it has remained ever since—ready for iCompute to activate its inter-machine capability with a Retrospect Mac Console." So creating a separate Windows user-space GUI app similar to the Console app in Retrospect Mac seems feasible, so long as the GUI app is run on a different Windows machine from the "backup server" Engine—as is allowed for Server editions of Retrospect Mac. What makes this suggested app desirable is the discussion on page 1 of the "New Windows user" thread. iCompute, an experienced Retrospect Mac administrator faced with his first Retrospect Windows installation, was especially flummoxed by the fact that the Retrospect.exe app stops any running scripts cold if he logs off—unlike the Retrospect Mac Engine app if you quit the Console app. Guided by ProFromGrover, he discovered that the Retrospect Dashboard.exe app is a way to work around this problem, which I had explained in post #2 is a consequence—along with the need for the Retrospect Launcher Windows service—of security features added to Windows Vista and beyond. What makes this suggested app seem practicable with a reasonable amount of Retrospect Inc. engineering effort is a further inference from the Ashlee Vance article, stemming from the fourth paragraph of post #23 in the "New Windows user" thread. It is that by December 2006 the EMC Insignia engineers had made significant progress in developing a Windows, as well as a Mac, version of the separate Console app. If this inference is correct, and the source code for that Windows Console was saved, it should be possible to update that source code with the fixes that were made to the Retrospect Mac Console in later point releases of Retrospect Mac 8 and later versions of Retrospect Mac. There is a caveat: the resulting Retrospect Windows Console app would, barring extensive modifications, use the Retrospect Mac Console GUI—although it would be fairly easy to change the terminology within the GUI back to the terminology of Retrospect Windows. What makes this suggested app seem more desirable is that, based on what other administrators have posted on page 1 of the "New Windows user" thread, the combination of the old Retrospect GUI and the limitations imposed with Windows Vista makes using Retrospect Windows a kludge-filled mess compared to using Retrospect Mac. That's clearly why iCompute wrote at the end of post #21 "Way back when I posted this thread, I had no idea this would work. Turns out that it does. I hope it's supported. ;->" I think that, after reading 1.3 screen pages in the third bulleted item in this section of the old Wikipedia article, administrators running a Server edition of Retrospect Windows will use the proposed Retrospect Windows Console app—and bless Retrospect Inc. engineers for developing it.
  24. Cloud S3 broken in 14.6.1.101

    If you think this is a bug that should be fixed by Retrospect Inc., you will have to submit it as a Support Case. For English speakers, that is done by going here http://www.retrospect.com/en/support/contact, and filling out the form (sorry, I don't know what the equivalent addresses are for non-English speakers, but they can figure it out from their appropriate Retrospect website address). IMHO this is quite reasonable; obliging you to fill out the form provides Retrospect Inc. with useful details about your Retrospect installation that they would otherwise have to query you for. As a result, Retrospect Inc. will pay no attention to your post in this forum. On 12 December 2016, in response to a letter I snail-mailed to Mayoff, I received an e-mail through a Mayoff account that was signed by JG Heithcock, CEO, Retrospect, Inc. http://www.retrospect.com/en/about#exec. In it he says "From reading your letter, I think the main issue is that you view the forums as a good place to talk to us, Retrospect, Inc. But we view the audience of the forums as restricted to our customers [my emphasis]. The one caveat we have made on that is for feature requests, largely as we would like to see if other customers also agree on the desirability and feature set for these requests." That means that the only audience for "Retrospect bug reports" in this forum will be other administrators of Retrospect. Nevertheless, by posting in this forum you are providing a useful service to us fellow administrator peasants. Thank you. Please be aware that the "description of your issue" in the Support Case form is IME limited to about 2000 characters by the Support Case software. If you go over that limit your "description" will be broken up into a "description" plus one or more "additional notes". The same is true for any additional notes you may later post yourself. I suggest that, to avoid the appearance of choppiness in your Support Case, you create your case in a post in this forum and then copy it paragraph-by-paragraph to your Support Case. Note that, despite the new dialogs in the Retrospect Inc. Support Case system urging you to sign up for Annual Support and Maintenance, Mayoff has verbally assured me that you don't need to be signed up for ASM to report a bug—only to get personal assistance with coping with it. If this post sounds formulaic, that's because I intend it to be. I intend to post it in every new thread that appears in this forum, unless the OP either is merely asking for help or indicates that he/she has or will open a Support Case for the bug that the thread reports. Of course, Mayoff could take 5 minutes of his time to post a slightly-more-polite version of this post as a "sticky thread" that will always appear at the top of the forum. I don't intend to hold my breath until that happens (insert appropriate smiley here).
  25. 1TB Backup File Limit?

    First, this post by the very knowledgeable Lennart_T (formerly known as Lennart Thelander) says there is a 1TB limit on File Backup Sets. They do exist, but they are a pre-Retrospect-Windows-8 facility you should not use; you should be using Disk Backup Sets instead. Second, the "Scalable data protection" feature announcement for Retrospect Windows 12 says"Retrospect is now certified to back up 1 billion files per backup set, 100 TB of data per backup set, and 50 million files per device."
×