Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by DavidHertzberg

  1. tbrauer01, My mighty brain continued to work on your problem as I was going to bed. 🤣 The first thing that occurred to me is that both your LAN-connected "clients" are running at 25% of their normal speed, so the problem is more likely to be with your destination drive's speed. Then I remembered your saying something about RAID-0 as well as Thunderbolt 3 in connection with the destination, so I booted my MBP up again and took a look. The first thing I looked at was the Wikipedia article covering RAID-0, to make sure it didn't require a NAS. Then I did a series of Google searches, which eventually led me to this SoftRaid Forum thread. There's an 11 November 2020 post there that summarizes the problem with SoftRaid and Big Sur nicely, and it's written by Henry-in-Florida—which happens to be a knowledgeable occasional poster's "handle" on this Retrospect Forum. It's just a thought; you might be using different RAID-0 software, such as Disk Utility—which could also be having a problem in Big Sur. P.S.: As Nigel Smith implicitly suggests below, local backup of your iMacPro should also have slowed if my RAID-0 problem hypothesis is correct.
  2. tbrauer01, Thanks for now providing complete information on precisely what changed in your installation, which was in fact just the upgrade to macOS 11.0.1 on your iMac Pro "backup server". 😃 Based on that post, I'd now agree you have grounds for a Support Case; again, here's why and how to file a Support Case for a bug. Getting a fix may IMHO be tricky, because it's not clear whether the slowdown in Client backups is due to macOS 11.0.1 having a unexpected deficiency affecting Retrospect Mac 17.5.1 or macOS 11.0.1 having an announced-to-developers change for which Retrospect Mac 17.5.1 hasn't been updated. Always assuming that Retrospect Tech Support can reproduce the slowdown you found, the Retrospect and/or Apple engineers are going to have a "fun time" ☹️ with this. I'm still trying to understand why, prior to the macOS upgrade of your iMac Pro, your Client backups were running four times as fast as mine—which explains my initial skepticism.. Two times as fast might well be explained by your hard-disk-array destination being connected via Thunderbolt 3. My backup destinations are 5-year-old portable HDDs connected via USB3, and I had to add a card to my 2010 Mac Pro to enable that connection. The other two-times-as-fast might be explained for your Mac Pro by the 10Gbps Ethernet connection, except that the feasibility test recounted in the P.S. of this 2017 post indicated a slower-than-1Gbps Ethernet connection—I'm pretty sure I was still using a 100Mbps Ethernet hub (!) to connect the "client" with the "backup server" in early 2015—didn't result in a backup that was much slower. In any case, you're also saying that the backup of your 1Mbps-connected MacBook Pro also ran at four times the speed of the backup of my 15-inch 2016 MBP, which (because of Intel's well-known recent inability to introduce significantly faster processor chips, which has led to the introduction of Apple Silicon processor chips) isn't very much slower. As promised, yesterday evening I replaced my MoCA 1.1 adapters with my MoCA 2.0 adapters. I then ran an extra No Media Action backup of my MBP; for the same amount of incrementally-changed data, it ran in almost exactly the same amount of time as my usual Tuesday morning backup.
  3. tbrauer01, Now that I can read your re-formatted OP, I can offer some volunteer help. In case you weren't aware of it, Retrospect "Inc." personnel haven't been following these Forums for a couple of years. Here's why and how to file a Support Case for a bug. In creating that Support Case, you'll have to provide complete information on precisely what changed in your installation. If I believed your OP was accurate, the only thing that changed was that your Retrospect Mac 17.5.1 "clients" already upgraded to macOS 11.0.1—that continue to be connected via Ethernet to your Retrospect Mac 17.5.1 "backup server"—are now connected to the same "backup server" upgraded to macOS 11.0.1. But I don't believe your OP told the whole story, because of several years of experience summarized in this post in a 2017 thread—and my later posts in that same thread. Supplementing that is the Recycle backup of all my drives that I do every Saturday morning. Yesterday morning it backed up my 2016 MacBook Pro "client" SSD drive over a LAN that includes a room-to-room MoCA 1.1 segment at just under 370MB per minute, but backed up two more drives—one HDD and one SSD—directly mounted inside my 2010 Mac Pro "backup server at about 2300MB per minute and 2400MB per minute respectively. That experience corresponds with that of kevinpoole in the OP of this 2010 thread, which I linked to in a later post in the 2017 thread. It also corresponds with what you reported in this thread's OP—"client" vs. local-mount (my "normal" term) backup speeds resembling mine. That's why I suspect your OP in this thread concealed the fact that, prior to the macOS upgrades, your "client" drives were backed up to your "backup server" as local shares—rather than via "client" machines—or copied (non-Retrospect cloning app?). In my delayed last post in that later thread I said: I should note that MoCA 1.1 is half-duplex, which might slow down the exchange of messages over the MoCA portion of my LAN. If I had a spare 40-foot Ethernet cable, I'd bypass my inter-room MoCA LAN segment (drat!) to do a test. However kevinpoole gives no indication that he was using MoCA—rather than straight LAN Ethernet—in 2010. I should also note that my "client" machine is booting macOS 10.13 High Sierra, my "backup server" machine is booting macOS 10.12 Sierra, and I'm still running Retrospect Mac 16.6. However the Retrospect Mac cumulative Release Notes don't announce a dramatic speedup☹️ (vs. pgf.3 here) in Retrospect Mac 17 "client" backup, which maybe later decreased in macOS 11.0.1 Big Sur. P.S.: Regardless of whether your OP in this thread was complete, consider using Retrospect's block level incremental backup feature—described on pages 233–237 of the Retrospect Mac 17 User's Guide—in your No Media Action incremental backups. I had not used it from 2015 until June 2020, because I have only one set of small FileMaker Pro databases. However I then realized that the reason my Sunday–Friday morning incremental Backup script runs had recently crept up from from 8 minutes to 35 minutes is because Apple Mail stores all saved e-mails in a single file, and I've saved a lot of e-mails. I found that I also need to enable block level incremental backup on my Saturday morning Recycle script, even though Recycle runs are not incremental. Although page 237 says "After you enable block level incremental backup for a backup script, the next backup will be a full backup of new or modified files", it appears that the feature actually applies to a Media Set—even though it is specified for a script. Therefore, until I specified block level incremental backup for my Saturday morning Recycle script in early September, my Sunday morning incremental script runs were still taking 35 minutes—even though my Monday–Friday incremental script runs were now taking only 8 minutes. P.P.S: The OP in that 2017 thread said my posted speed figures agreed with his for 1Gbps Ethernet. However his installation was considering upgrading to 10Gbps Ethernet, and already had shared drives connected to the "backup server" with 10Gbps Fiber Channel that backed up at FCoE speeds. So if you're using 10Gbps Ethernet to connect your "clients" to your "backup server", your "normal" speed may be correct even if you are using the Retrospect Client. My installation is in my apartment, and for architectural reasons I couldn't upgrade to 10Gbps even if I wanted to—which I don't. I did at one point buy a pair of relatively-cheap MoCA 2.0 adapters, but downgraded to MoCA 1.1 because they seemed to have reliability problems. However I intend to upgrade the adapters again for test purposes before my next Saturday morning Recycle backup.
  4. DavidHertzberg

    Upgrade source hard drive

    AWL, You asked what is essentially the same question on 25 August 2016 in your only previous post in these Forums, and got a slightly-less-brief version of the same answer from Lennart_T. I'll assume that your memory is not failing you,😁 but that you are instead a victim of long-time inadequate documentation of the deduplication feature in the Retrospect Mac 17 User's Guide (but it's also a fault in older/Windows versions). Page 31 says: The problem with that paragraph is that it doesn't explain what a "unique file" is. Although this 2012 Lennart_T post defines a "unique file" better for Windows (despite being in a Mac Forum thread), the general baseline definition turns out to be buried in this Knowledge Base article—which says: Checkmarking options described on pages 99–102 of the UG can expand that KB baseline definition—no doubt an excuse for page 31's omitting it. Match only file in same location/path would do what you make it clear in your OP you don't want done, resulting in the cloned files being copied over again to the Media Set. Use attribution modification date when matching a Macintosh source, Use status modifiied date when matching a Linux source, and Back up file security from ... a Windows source expand the definition of "unique file" in ways most administrators probably don't want.
  5. tbrauer01, Whatever Web browser you used to post the OP in this thread put the entire post on a single line, which has to be scrolled sidewise to be read. Please fix it and re-post. Also please include what version of Retrospect you are using in that re-post, as well as your previous macOS version.
  6. DavidHertzberg

    Windows Disaster Recovery failed - "incomplete"

    x509, In Nigel Smith's admirable analytical phrasing, "Has this ever worked? If it had but has stopped, what changed?" Specifically, I understand why you monkied around with your "Backup 2020" and "Data" partitions, but what led you to do Disaster Recovery afterwards? Have you done this before using MiniTool Partition Wizard, and then run Retrospect Disaster Recovery on the partitions afterward? Why did you run Disaster Recovery in this case? IMHO you need to mention your use of MiniTool PW in your Support Case, because—from your screenshots above—WinPE seems to be getting confused. Maybe that's because Microsoft has changed something in the new version of WinPE, or maybe it's because MiniTool PW does something to disk addresses of partitions that doesn't faze ordinary Windows but that does faze WinPE—and that Microsoft didn't test for. Again, it's all about R.T.S. being able to reproduce your problem so that Engineering can fix it. And what I'm getting from "reading the tea leaves" is that these days it's very difficult to get Engineering to do anything to fix bugs in the existing variants of Retrospect. When I've recently attempted to phone the Worldwide Director of Sales, I'm always hearing about meetings going on. IMHO those meetings are probably about developing a simplified Retrospect Console that will run on Windows or Mac machines to interface with a "backup server" running on a beefed-up Drobo (or possibly other varieties of Linux-based NAS). And I think that the efforts of the StorCentric Slasher, which I've covered in several topics in the Retrospect Mac 9+ Forum, are directed towards turning the Retrospect Mac User's Guide into a UG for that Console. In order for you or me to goose the Director of Worldwide Sales about getting Engineering to fix bugs in the existing variants of Retrospect, he needs the Case Numbers of relevant Support Cases. What you listed in the second paragraph of your immediately-above post is not such a number; it is merely a link to the Support Case system. When I followed that link, it merely gave me the sign-on page for that system—where I needed to enter an e-mail address and password. I don't know your e-mail and password for that system—and I'm not asking for it; using my own e-mail and password simply allowed me to go to a "Support" page listing my own Support Cases. Authorized Retrospect "Inc." personnel have the ability to view all Support Cases regardless of who submitted them, so in e-mails to the Director of Worldwide Sales I list the Support Case number for whatever problem I'm asking for action on. Please post yours in this thread, and I'll urge that it be fixed.
  7. DavidHertzberg

    Windows Disaster Recovery failed - "incomplete"

    x509, Assuming you have actually submitted a Support Case as you said you would up-thread, I admire your determination. However IME you are in for a lot of pain while pushing it through to a fix. The problem is that Retrospect Engineering requires that Tech Support reproduce any reported bug on its own equipment. I experienced that as a problem in May 2018, when I submitted a Support Case on the -530 problems I was still experiencing on Retrospect Mac 15. As this post in another thread shows, I actually offered to lend some outdated networking hardware to Retrospect Inc.—since the -530 problems started on 30 January 2017 when I upgraded an Ethernet switch without changing my Retrospect 13 software. The post shows R. T. S. refused to accept the hardware, although they had previously said they couldn't reproduce the -530 bug without it. AFAICT your problem involves a combination of multi-partitioned SSD hardware and third-party software, the third parties being MiniTool—the maker of Partition Wizard—and some obscure company in Redmond WA (🤣 )—the maker of Win PE. Good luck with getting that problem reproduced by R. T. S.. OTOH I don't think the august Documentation Committee is likely to publish a revision of the Retrospect Windows UG or the relevant Knowledge Base article that says "Forget about our previously-touted Disaster Recovery feature; do a partition restore with the free version of Macrium Reflect instead."
  8. x509, I'm a Mac user as you know, so my ability to help is limited. However it sounds as if your problem is really a Windows problem, since your original G: partition is greyed-out. A recent poster had a somewhat similar problem, but it concerned Open File Backup and a Windows 10 System Reserved Partition. That poster's desired partition was missing in Windows Explorer, but the original "2020 Backup" partition you want to access is greyed-out in the Retrospect Volumes display (???) screenshot in your OP. Assuming it would also be greyed-out in the Windows Explorer display, you might want to try this free AOMEI utility or this $11 PartedMagic one to temporarily get rid of your new "2020 BACKUP" partition—and temporarily shrink your DATA partition again. I believe either of those utilities can get rid of the new partition on your G: drive and expand the old one. It sounds to me as if you should have used one of these utilities to shrink your original "2020 Backup" partition to make room for your DATA partition, but that's Monday morning quarterbacking. It also sounds to me as if you were counting on the NTFS filesystem's case-sensitivity to also be a feature of Retrospect, but Retrospect may be case-insensitive since the old Apple HFS+ filesystem is case-insensitive (the new Apple APFS filesystem is case-sensitive). Assuming you can thus get Retrospect to recognize your original partition as a Volume and find the specific Member of the Backup Set, you should be able to execute your Disaster Recovery process once more. As far as your Backup scripts are concerned, that depends on whether you end up keeping the original "2020 Backup" partition or replacing it with a new partition having a different name—and I don't mean just replacing lower-case letters with upper-case letters. If it's replacing it with a new partition, you can copy the Members from the old partition to the new partition and then do the operation in the third paragraph of this 2012 post to change the new Catalog File. In that case you'll have to change the destination names in all your Backup Scripts; as we used to say back in the 1950s, "that's the way the cookie crumbles".
  9. I don't have a NAS, but—after 15 years experience over the last 20 years—I've been running Retrospect Mac 16.6 for nearly a year. It's my observation that earlier 16.x releases were a mess, and that 16.6 was a late-in-the-cycle release to clean up earlier mistakes. My destinations rotate on a weekly basis between 3 portable HDDs, one of which is always in my bank safe deposit box. Another HDD is always cabled to my "backup server", and the third—having been brought back from the bank—normally sits right inside my apartment door in case I have a flood when the bank isn't open. From time to time I use the spare space on the inside-the-door HDD as a destination for tests of Retrospect features, and I've had some "interesting occurrences".🤣 The squeaky-clean approach is to have a "Retrospect" folder at the top level of each destination "drive", and to have a zero-byte "marker" Unix executable file named "Backup Media" directly inside "Retrospect". Also directly inside "Retrospect" should be a folder for each Media Set whose destination can be that "drive"; the folder has the name of the Media Set, e. g. "Whatever". Inside that folder should be at least one Member folder whose name is that of the Media Set preceded by a number and a dash, e. g. "1-Whatever" or "2-Whatever"; these leading-numbered folders are where the corresponding .rdb and .session files for the Member are stored. Adding a Member to Media Set "Whatever" creates folder "Whatever". This approach was the multi-HDD-volume-destination Disk Media Set upgrade from Retrospect's multi-tape-per-Backup-Set destinations, where the tapes are labeled e. g. "1-Whatever" and "2-Whatever". Over the years since Retrospect Mac 8, Retrospect Inc. engineers seem to have gotten creative for the benefit of administrators wishing to use the spare space on their destination HDDs for other purposes. IME everything works beautifully so long as there is one—and only one—folder on a destination drive with a zero-byte Unix executable file named "Backup Media" directly inside it. It seems you can get away with naming the folder enclosing that "marker" file something other than "Retrospect", and even with having more than one folder named "Retrospect" on the HDD so long as only one folder contains the "marker" file. However you get into trouble by having multiple folders each containing the "marker" file, especially if they are one inside another. I suspect all you complaining administrators have some variant of that problem, encouraged by the possibility of having more than one destination "drive" on the same NAS. Now that I've told you this secret, I believe I'm obligated to kill everyone who reads it. Please aid that by PM'ing me your names and addresses.🤣 If you can't see your way clear to doing it, please put at least your home country—and home state for U.S. residents—in the Location field of your Profile. It's very helpful to those of us who answer questions on these Forums, because it gives us some idea of your English proficiency and at which hours you'll be posting. Gender too. And no pseudo-Latinate cutesy-poo; leave that to the weird posters on the Ars Technica forums.TIA. 😃
  10. DavidHertzberg

    Amazon S3 maximum member size

    erostratus, IMHO you've encountered a deficiency in the Retrospect interface "Adding Cloud Storage in Retrospect" Add dialog. The dialogs shown on page 149 of the Retrospect Mac 17 User's Guide are identical to those shown under "Adding Cloud Storage in Retrospect" in the Retrospect Knowledge Base articles "... How to Set Up Amazon S3 for Cloud Backup", "... How to Set Up Minio for Cloud Backup , and "... How to Set Up Backblaze B2 for Cloud Backup". These Add dialogs start with a Member Type pop-up; the pop-up value shown for the Mac dialog in all 4 documents is "Cloud Storage"—and the pop-up value shown for the Windows dialog in all 4 documents is either "Amazon S3 compatible" or "Backblaze B2". Jeff Bezos' Amazon S3 has a stated space limit of 8TB, whereas Minio S3 has no stated space limit, but the Member Type pop-up value "Amazon S3 compatible" does not permit the code associated with the dialog to determine which space limit should be enforced for an "Amazon S3 compatible" Media Set. That would not be true if code had the—unlikely—capability of analyzing credentials as separately defined per "Setup" of a storage "bucket" in those documents. Thus IMHO, to allow the code associated with the Add dialog to determine which space limit should be enforced, there would have to be separate Member Type pop-up values for "Amazon S3" and "Minio S3". Here's why and how to create a Support Case for such an enhancement. Note: When I today tested (I don't actually use cloud storage) adding a Media Set "TestCloudStorage" on my Retrospect Mac 16.6 Console, the Member Type pop-up choices in the Add dialog were "Amazon S3 Compatible" and "Dropbox" and "Backblaze B2" and "Local Storage". The outdated Mac screenshot Member Type pop-up choice "Cloud Storage" in the 4 documents linked in the preceding paragraph in this post is from Mac version 13 UG page 9. BTW, this 17 October 2019 OP said you were actually considering using Retrospect to back up via Minio to a Synology NAS. Did you actually implement that local backup strategy, via Minio or directly to the Synology—as Nigel Smith suggested in that thread?
  11. x509, Congrats on discovering what you've written just above! 😄 Immediately, for the benefit of other Retrospect Windows administrators, please post in this thread how you reached the dialog shown in your screenshot. I'll take a WildA*sedGuess that you reached it while executing steps described on page 276 of the Retrospect Windows 17 User's Guide, probably as a sub-dialog that's now been added to step 2 or step 3 at the bottom of the page. Following up, I've now discovered how to find out where to get the WADK supplementary downloads. Informed by you and surmising the workings of the august Documentation Committee, I decided—because of that committee's 2015–2019 prohibition on updating any part of the UGs except the "What's New" chapters—that some engineer must instead have written a Knowledge Base article. Here's the article—last updated 17 December 2019, created by adding a "Retrospect 15 and Higher" section to an already-existing KB article rearranged latest-to-earliest. (The Wayback Machine shows that KB article had been last updated 22 April 2014—with non-sectioned earliest-to-latest paragraphs culminating with Retrospect Windows 9.) Remember that Retrospect Windows skipped versions 13 and 14 in order to regain version number parity with Retrospect Mac as of version 15. If you'd guessed that KB article existed—which you undoubtedly couldn't have done, it would have told you the Microsoft document about downloads associated with the Windows Assessment and Deployment Toolkit (WADK)—and about adding a file before creating your Disaster Recovery image. After adding the post to this thread, you should immediately create a documentation Support Case; here's how to do that. In the Problem Statement, please feel free to copy any parts of my posts as well as your own posts from this thread. If you've already created a Support Case per my second paragraph below the disclaimer in this preceding post in the current thread, just add those copied parts as one or more Additional Notes overriding the request to document the use of Rufus. In either case, the Support Case should suggest that the easiest way to update the Windows UG would be to insert instructions on activating the dialog—including a link to the KB article—appropriately on page 276 of the Retrospect Windows 17 UG. Once you have created that Support Case, I again suggest you follow it up with an e-mail—citing the Support Case number—to the Director of Worldwide Sales; Werner Walter's e-mail address is Werner.Walter@retrospect.com . I again recommend having this e-mail emphasize how bad it's going to look to a potential Retrospect Windows customer to see that the UG has a Disaster Recovery procedure which uses only a semi-obsolete piece of hardware—especially when we now know a modern Disaster Recovery procedure is already almost completely documented in a "Windows Disaster Recovery Driver Guide" KB article on the Retrospect "Inc." website that no administrator is likely to find—because of its title. 🙄 Retrospect "Inc." already has an employee authorized to mess around with the UGs for version 17, who I've nicknamed the StorCentric Slasher in the first long paragraph after the disclaimer in this post in another thread. But I've just figured out his/her probable formal job description; IMHO it's the support engineer hired by Sales a few months ago. He/she was—I'd guess because of being comparatively useless due to lack of prior knowledge of Retrospect—given the job of copying a number of KB articles as Appendixes into version 17 of the UGs. In two separate Retrospect 9 or higher for Macintosh Forum threads, I've denounced the StorCentric slasher for ignorantly deleting (to save space?) multiple paragraphs explaining pop-up options. However his/her inserting ability seems to be OK, so I suggest that he/she be given responsibility for the Disaster Recovery updating.
  12. x509 and Lennart_T and Nigel Smith, Did I hear my name mentioned? 😃 (Disclaimer: Anything I may say about the intentions of Retrospect "Inc." in this or any other post is merely the result of "reading the tea leaves", the "tea leaves" being documentation and public announcements supplemented by an occasional morsel from Retrospect Sales. I have never been paid a penny by Retrospect "Inc." or its predecessors, and I pay for my upgrades. Any judgements expressed are—obviously—mine alone.) I Am Not A Lawyer—much less a software licensing expert, but I don't think Retrospect could natively support the code from Rufus without putting all of its own code—including its source code—under the GPL3 License . StorCentric isn't going to want to do that, nor IMHO would they want to devote engineers' time to developing their own equivalent code; Retrospect Engineering's now focused on a Drobo "backup server" (2nd long prgf.). So IMHO the best you can hope for is an update to the Retrospect Windows User's Guide describing how to use Rufus; here's how to request that. x509 should be the one to create the Support Case, since he seems to be the only one of you three who regularly uses Retrospect Windows; I've not had a Windows (95) machine since 2004. I suggest x509 follow it up with an e-mail—citing the Support Case number—to the Director of Worldwide Sales; Werner Walter's e-mail address is Werner.Walter@retrospect.com . I recommend having the e-mail emphasize how bad it's going to look to a potential Retrospect Windows customer to see that the UG has a Disaster Recovery procedure which uses a semi-obsolete piece of hardware. 🙄 As for forming a club with T-shirts, I've never had one printed. If we get printing done before 31 December 2020, maybe we can get it done cheaply in Lombardy by guest workers from Wuhan (sick Brexit/COVID-19 joke; apologies 😢 ). That would facilitate presenting a T-shirt to StorCentric's Rod Harrison, whom I believe lives most of the time in Britain. The T-shirt might make him, and Retrospect "Inc.", turn aside from Drobo-centrism. 🤣
  13. All backup administrators, What I've described in the P. S. of the post directly above is the second case I've found of option-description paragraphs that were in the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide being deleted from the Mac 17 UG. Therefore I've now submitted Support Case #76445, and I've sent an e-mail to the Worldwide Director of Sales expanding on and analyzing the Support Case. I don't want to commit the sin of double-posting, so you can see my analysis in the P.S. of this post in another thread. That analysis isn't charitable to the corporate motivation behind the StorCentric Slasher's acts.
  14. IanWorthington, The HelpDeskGeek article you link to and quote is dated 21 September 2012. That's over 8 years ago, and is just under 3 years before the July 2015 first release of Windows 10. I've noticed that, with all the screenshots you supplied in this thread, you have left one key question unanswered: what version of Retrospect Windows are you running? Your last Forums post before you started this thread was in 2014, and to that post Scillonian's response—the last post in that thread—started with exactly the same question. I'd suggest you contact Retrospect Technical Support, or Retrospect Sales if your version is earlier than Retrospect Windows 11.0—which added _full_ Windows 10 support (there was partial support in 10.5) in March 2016. P.S. (since you haven't read this post yet): Further down this TheWindowsClub article, which I linked to in this preceding post, is the "What is System Reserved Partition" section. That section starts out with Almost directly following that is a paragraph that starts out "If you wish to view the contents of this partition ....". The article goes on to recommend using the diskpart command-line disk partitioning utility to delete the partition or to create a new one, but that's during Windows installation. You may instead want to use the free utility I linked to in that same post, or this US$11 utility recommended by a poster on the Ars Technica Forums. Here's a Forums post that deals with a -1102 error (page 421 in the Retrospect Windows 17 User's Guide) created by configuring BitLocker. It concerns a Windows 8 "client", and may not apply to you.
  15. IanWorthington, It's a Windows 10 thing too. Read the second and third paragraphs—the ones above and below the screenshot—in this article. That will tell you how to see the partition. If you really don't have one, you may have to re-install Windows 10. Read the rest of the article. Then repeat the Google search in my preceding post, use the result to find a suitable video, and watch that. P.S.: Here's a free download of some software that may enable you to create a System Reserved Partition without reinstalling Windows; Your Mileage May Vary, as we say in the States (your "handle" sounds British; you might consider adding to your Profile a Location containing at least your country). Also, here's an old version of the Wikipedia article I found for System Reserved Partition; I've linked to the old version because its "Usage" section—later deleted because it is un-referenced and may contain speculation or Original Research (WP no-nos)—may be informative.
  16. IanWorthington, Prompted by that same KB article, I Googled "Windows 10 'system reserved'" without the outer double-quotes, and with the single-quotes around "system reserved" changed to double-quotes. That directed me, among other things, to this AOMEI page. I'm a Macintosh user, so good luck.😄
  17. redleader and Nigel Smith, There surely can't be any Catalog updating in the run of a Copy script, because that script doesn't designate a Media Set as a destination—no Media Set means no designation of a Catalog. That's why I thought my test might run faster than the equivalent Recycle run of my Backup script. In fact its copying phase ran slower. Maybe cramming copies of multiple source files into a single .rdb file is faster than adding each copied file to the macOS HFS+ filesystem, but I'm not inclined to investigate it. There weren't any files in the destination folder. I had deleted all those that were copied there by a test run I killed after 5 minutes, when I noticed the script mistakenly specified Copy all files (which wouldn't require name comparison) instead of Copy only missing files—which redleader specifies. In any case, my test proves that redleader could get his backing up done faster with Backup scripts. He could also use the resultant Catalogs to do grooming as Nigel Smith suggested. I don't bother with grooming, since I must—because I've experienced multiple cases of water leaks from an apartment two floors above mine—swap a portable HDD containing complete-as-of-Friday-morning backups of all my drives off-site once a week. P.S.: On pages 120–121 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide, under item 6. there are 5 paragraphs following this single-sentence paragraph: that describe not only the pop-up that redleader shows he chose in the screenshot in this up-thread post, but each of the other pop-up options. Those 5 paragraphs have been deleted from page 110 of the Retrospect Mac 17 UG—evidently by the StorCentric Slasher (my name for him 🤣 ).
  18. redleader and Nigel Smith, I just finished running a test, in which I did a Copy of the entire contents of my MacBook Pro's SSD to a folder—defined to Retrospect as a Favorite Folder so it can be used as a Destination—placed to use the spare space on the portable HDD I'm going to use as a Destination for my weekly Recycle Backup tomorrow. The Copy script was defined as redleader's is—specifying Copy only missing files; however—since the destination folder is empty—it was in fact copying all files from my MBP's SSD. I predicted the Copy script's copying phase would take almost exactly the 3 hours 21 minutes that the copying phase of my Recycle Backup of the same data took last Saturday morning. The copying phase took 3 hours 40 minutes, followed by a Closing phase that went on for 6 minutes before I killed the run (so the MBP's Friday a.m. incremental Backup would run). That may have been the "duplicating state information" phase that redleader has been getting, but I'm running Retrospect Mac 16.6 instead of 17.0. There were 165 "Map error: unknown Mac error 22" messages shown or summarized in the script's log. I had expected that the speed of the Copy script's copying phase would be be approximately the same as the 371MB/min. of the equivalent Backup copying phase last Saturday. In fact it was lower—325MB/min.. Why, you may well ask, is the speed of that copying phase so much lower than the speed of what Nigel Smith has described as my "high-speed LAN"? After all, the net throughput of the MoCA 1.1 adapters at either end of my in-the-wall inter-room coax link is 175Mbit/sec—with all intra-room hardware rated at 1Gbit/sec.; assuming 10 bits per byte to allow for overhead, that should allow 1.05GB/min.. Why is my speed 35% or less of what it should be? My hypothesis is described in this post in a 2017 thread. It was validated by this later post in that thread, and by the next 2 posts that followed it.
  19. Was it the thread in which this post is the OP? The only post in that thread that isn't by the OP or me is this one by mbennett, but he's from Fair Grove MO—not Helsingborg in Sweden—so he's not Lennart_T. What the OP was reporting doing in that thread was indeed weird, though—and obsolete.
  20. redleader, I was going to ask the same question that Nigel Smith did in the second paragraph of his second post, but he beat me to it while I was out buying apples in my local farmers' market (the apple-growing farmers' employees, who are mostly Tibetan immigrants, bring the apples from upstate New York—rather than growing them in Manhattan). And now you've provided the answer in your latest reply. A few hours ago I started to create a test Copy script; Back up System State—described on page 101 of the Retrospect Mac 17 User's Guide—is automatically checked under Source->Windows on the Options tab. As Nigel Smith suggests in his first post, you might try unchecking that option. I've done some Forums searches, but I can't find any post by Lennart_T that "found some unexpected 'leakage' between client settings a while back". If—after swearing on the head of Her Majesty QE II (which I'm sure your fellow Brit would insist on 🤣) that Users on Michael's MacBook Pro doesn't contain any Windows files—you want to create a Support Case for a bug, here's why and how to do it. Since MB MICHAEL 2018 seems to be a dedicated "backup" folder on your "backup server" FS SERVER DATA 02, you might instead consider replacing the copied files and folders with a Media Set on that "backup" folder to be the daily Destination using the Recycle media action on a Backup script. I actually do that every Saturday morning for my MacBook Pro "client", except that my Destination is inside the "Retrospect" folder on a portable HDD (which, after 6 subsequent incremental daily backups using No Media Action, I carry off to a week's holiday in my bank safe deposit box before bringing it back to sit for a week in my apartment before being used again). Nigel Smith has now suggested in his third post, which he just sneaked in while I was taking a long phone call, what I do. The Saturday morning Recycle Backup of my MBP backs up 71.1GB over 3.3 hours, not including a 0.7 hour compare phase (which I do because I'm a worrywart who used to back up to tape). That's 739K individual files, not your piddling 37K. I don't mess with grooming, because having 2 complete backups of my MBP—one (offsite) less than a week old and one less than 2 weeks old—to supplement the portable drive cabled to my "backup server" is adequate for my needs.
  21. DavidHertzberg

    Backup set located on site to site VPN

    The paragraph above, in my first post in this thread, is the only thing I wrote that could be considered "rude and disrespectful". But it had the effect I intended, which was to get you to supply the missing information in a post directly following it. Once you'd done that, Lennart_T and I and Nigel Smith were able to diagnose your problem—which is why I wrote "Do you see how much better help you get when you calm down long enough to explain what you're trying to do? 😀" at the top of my next post in the thread. Nobody can give you "an idea whats going on here" if you don't supply the necessary information, and I will always consider it "rude and disrespectful" for you—or anyone else—to expect people on these Forums to do so. You were probably very frustrated when you wrote that OP, but I don't consider that a sufficient excuse. You should try volunteering to answer other administrators' questions on these Forums; you'll soon understand my attitude toward administrators who don't supply the necessary information. You will also develop a "psychic" ability to read an administrator's "tone, demeanor and thoughts just by reading a few words on a screen", and by reading his/her past posts as well—as I did in this thread to guess what you were doing. I'm sorry to inform you that employees of Retrospect "Inc." haven't been reading these Forums for the past couple of years, and—unlike some other websites—there aren't any volunteer Forums administrators. So if you want to make—after 3 months 😲—a complaint about me, you'll need to create a Support Case for the head of Retrospect Tech Support to read. Here's how to create a Support Case for a bug—the closest equivalent; select "Forums" in the appropriate drop-down.
  22. DavidHertzberg

    granular restore options

    (Disclaimer: Anything I may say about the intentions of Retrospect "Inc." in this or any other post is merely the result of "reading the tea leaves", the "tea leaves" being documentation and public announcements supplemented by an occasional morsel from Retrospect Sales. I have never been paid a penny by Retrospect "Inc." or its predecessors, and I pay for my upgrades. Any judgements expressed are—obviously—mine alone. The same is true of Retrospect's history, especially here.) redleader, There used to be an explanation of those granular Restore options on pages 129–130 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide, following the phrase "Choose one of these:" (that phrase still remains 🙄 )in step 6. However the 5 explanatory indented paragraphs below the phrase were deleted on page 115 of the Retrospect Mac 17 UG by the StorCentric Slasher (who is in reality probably a direct employee of Retrospect "Inc."). The Slasher evidently had to make room in the UG for 30 pages of new Appendixes that were copied from Knowledge Base articles explaining "go big or go home" features—pages that IMHO should have been added to the UG when the features were introduced in 2018—without unduly expanding the size of the UG. However a version of that options explanation—including 'Replace if Backup Set is newer'—still remains on page 117 of the Retrospect Windows 17 User's Guide, which was previously more than doubled in size in 2012 for reasons explained in the 3rd paragraph of this later-deleted section of a Wikipedia article. But that explanation—and the table on page 118 that summarizes it—depends on the term "Snapshot", which is explained in the fifth paragraph of this also-later-deleted section of the Wikipedia article. As that paragraph also says, "Snapshot" was—as used from 1990 onward: That elimination of "Snapshot" was done in 2008 by the Tyrannical Terminologist 🤣 (my name for a developer whom an old-timer in Retrospect Sales says played a key role in the re-design of Retrospect Mac 8). That developer was prescient; Apple APFS's "snapshots" mean something different than Retrospect's, and something similar to Microsoft Windows' "snapshots". As a Glossary entry on pages 229–230 of the Retrospect Mac 17 UG says: IIRC I've never used the 'Only overwrite older files' option, so I've no idea whether it works. However nobody's posted a Forums complaint about it not working. If Mac 16 UG pages 99–100 Use Attribute Modification Date When Matching doesn't work, here's why and how to submit a Support Case for a bug. Regardless, of whether the option works, you may also want to submit a Support Case for a Retrospect Mac documentation deficiency; here's why and how to do that. In doing that, you'll have to deal head-on with the term "Snapshot" having been banned in Retrospect Mac since 2009. The last two paragraphs of this post in another thread discuss my proposal—made in response to my earlier post in that thread about the meaning in the Retrospect Windows UG of the undefined term "active Snapshot"—that Retrospect "Inc." replace the term "Snapshot" with "Manifest". That replacement would have to be in the "backup server" Engine as well as in the GUI for both variants of Retrospect, because the Engine is basically common code for the two variants. If you doubt Engine code is common, look at a running Retrospect Mac Backup script—where you'll see "Updating Snapshot" and "Copying Snapshot" displayed on the Console as phases of the backup. That's why I suggested "Manifest", which has the same 8-letter-length as "Snapshot". P.S.: I've now submitted my own Support Case #76445, in which this Retrospect Mac documentation deficiency is discussed in an Additional Note. The Problem Statement discusses a similar Retrospect Mac documentation deficiency that I noted in the P.S. of this post in another thread. In addition I've written an e-mail to the Worldwide Director of Sales, referencing Support Case #76445 and saying I’m tired of my role on the Forums of repeatedly supplying a substitute for an impossible “RTFM”. The StorCentic Slasher (as I've named him, even though Sales has confirmed he’s a Retrospect “Inc.” employee) seems to have compensated for the increased length of the Mac 17 UG by cutting needed explanatory paragraphs for existing features—such as the ones I’ve mentioned in Support Case #76445. That increased length, for the Retrospect Mac 17 UG (I don’t know about the already-much-longer Retrospect Windows 17 UG), seems to have resulted from the addition of a “Quick Start Guide” chapter and the copying back as Appendixes of new-features Knowledge Base articles that should have been in the UGs all along. IMHO the “Quick Start Guide” chapter seems to have been intended to show users of the forthcoming Retrospect for Drobo as a "backup server" that it can be as easy-to-use as Synology Hyper Backup—while protecting a Windows or Mac “client” instead of just a NAS. That's worth harming advanced use of Retrospect?🙄
  23. DavidHertzberg

    Console 16.1 erases client options

    Don Lee, Upgrade immediately to Retrospect Mac 16.6. Don't pass "Go", don't collect $119 🤣 —which I assume you already paid for a Desktop Edition upgrade. Retrospect Console 16.1 has "joined the choir invisible". Why are you using it? 🙄 I've been totally on Retrospect Mac 16.6 since December 2019. A fast eyeball search of the Retrospect Mac cumulative Release Notes doesn't disclose a fix for your 16.1 Console bug. However a number of existing features ended up broken in the 15.0–16.5 "go big or go home" era of Retrospect development; most of them seem to have been fixed by 16.6. As the first long paragraph of this post in another thread mentions, Retrospect "Inc." apparently isn't above obfuscating who discovered a Retrospect bug that backup administrators reported before it was fixed. 😎 So if an engineer discovered the bug noted in your OP and fixed it by 16.6, he wouldn't necessarily have put a mention of it into the Release Notes—because IMHO the engineers are ashamed of 30 years of inadequate alpha-testing.
  24. DavidHertzberg

    Proactive job scheduling

    Jan Löwe, The head of Retrospect Tech Support did indeed reach out today, at what would be 5:24 a.m. California time. The second paragraph of his reply is: That sounds as if your bug was the one fixed in Retrospect Mac and Windows 17.5.1. As to who at Retrospect "inc." changed the bug title to be less informative, I'd better not speculate. I'd also be better off not speculating as to why QA testing supposedly (but see Jordan Shattuck's first e-mailed reply in my post directly above) discovered this bug after the 23 September release 17.5.0. However there is an Engine preference that specifies the maximum number (up to 16) of activity threads that can be running in parallel. So all an engineer had to do as an alpha-test is to set this preference to 3—leaving 2 for source "client" machine-drive combinations along with the thread for the Proactive "controller"—and then submit a script with 3 source "client" machine-drive combinations. Proper alpha-testing, including of the 17.0.0 "AI" speedup, should have caught this bug earlier. Everybody, The first paragraph of his reply is: As stated in the post directly above, I originally contacted Retrospect "inc." about bug #8893 by using the messaging facility newly made available to readers of the cumulative Release Notes—not via this Forum. All subsequent communications were via e-mail. So I guess the head of R. T. S. is annoyed that I mentioned my communications on this Forum. Be warned. Also be warned that my sending a message from the cumulative Release Notes web page resulted in "Jordan Shattuck" creating a separate Support Case containing my original message and the subsequent e-mails. Maybe that's the only way he/she has of communicating them to R. T. S.. OTOH hitting option 7 on the Retrospect phone line and typing in "Shatt" elicited a statement that no one whose last name starts with those letters is listed, so I guess Inside Sales Manager Jordan Shattuck is considered too junior—maybe because he still has hair 🤣—to have a separate phone extension.
  25. DavidHertzberg

    Yet another -530 client not found error

    Nigel Smith, Permit me to recount a personal story that will shed some light on I bought my first home computer in the Fall of 1988, preparatory to belatedly returning to college for 1.5 years to get a quickie BA in Computer Science. I bought a Mac because that's what my college recommended, and I followed that up with buying a Maynard QIC tape drive in February 1989. The backup software was not Retrospect but Maynstream—the ancestor of BE. My wife and I returned to NYC after I received my BA degree in the Spring of 1991; my wife had been using my original Mac for writing and drawing once I had bought a second Mac for myself in December 1989. In January 1992 I upgraded my Mac to System 7, following the Boston Computer Society Active Window recommendation to do so by wiping my backed-up HDD and installing System 7 from scratch. That worked fine, and my wife asked me to do the same for her Mac in February 1992. Maynstream couldn't read the Maynard backup I had made for her. I ended up shipping the backup tapes to Drive Savers, who managed to recover most of my wife's backed-up data for a charge of around $700 in 1992 U.S. currency. I bought a DAT tape drive in 1995, after a later disaster—whose details I can't remember—that resulted in my wife's permanently losing some of her Mac artwork, and have been running Retrospect with a Compare step every morning ever since—except 2010–2015 when I had no "backup server". (My now-ex-wife has continued to buy Macintoshes, and is using Time Machine for backup.) The applicable point of this story is that one has to be very careful about preserving the data—and applications—stored on a spouse's computer. It's possible that x509's wife has been using applications or Windows add-ons that came as part of the Lenovo "bloatware", which is why he would write "... but too much time has passed now." That's why I'd like to help him get a "self-healing" Retrospect Windows Client. A exact opposite of such carefulness is the attitude of the Ars Technica Other Hardware forum poster to whom I wrote the Private Message from which the story in the above lengthy paragraph is adapted (you didn't think I wrote it especially for this post, did you? 🤣 ). He is personally a Windows and Linux user, and wrote—of his wife and daughter's Macs—"computers that I don't want to support when a free alternative they can use to self-support exists. I'm not planning on throwing money away on a repeated basis buying upgrades to any potential software, I'm not planning on constantly making sure their backups are working, I'm not interested in walking them through periodic upgrades. If I can provide a service that they can use to self-support (the entire beauty of Time Machine) then I'm done. If Time Machine is unreliable, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it." I had cautiously suggested a client-server application (I'm not allowed to name Retrospect on the Ars forums except in one authorized Mac thread) for backing up to the NAS he wanted to buy, but ended up suggesting A**—a "push" backup application that would be enough for all his home computers.