Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by DavidHertzberg

  1. Doug_M,

    Upgraded to Retrospect Mac 16 from what version?  As I've said in the third paragraph of this post in another thread, "my impression from several recent Forums threads is that the 'backup server' Engine—which is the same for both variants of Retrospect aside from GUI—lost its ability in version 15 to handle certain old versions of network protocols used by NASes."

    Pleas look again at the fifth paragraph in the boilerplate Support Case post I linked to earlier in this thread.  Retrospect Tech Support may no longer give you personalized support, since your installation upgraded more than 45 days ago, but they've probably got a generalized response they can send you if you file a Support Case about the bug—which as I said in that fifth paragraph you're entitled to do. 

    Besides, they may take pity on you because the updating was done over the New Year break—probably by ignoramuses from IT management.🤣  To enhance that pity I suggest you contact Retrospect Sales by phone, and threaten to procure another backup application to backup your live production server.  In the meantime, and to enhance the credibility of your threat to Sales, I suggest you put another Mac or Windows machine—running the older version of Retrospect that used to work—into service backing up your production NAS.


  2. Doug_M,

    You haven't said whether you have a brand-new installation of Retrospect Mac, or whether you've been using it for years and something's changed—including an upgrade to Retrospect Mac 16.

    If you recently installed/upgraded to Retrospect Mac 16, I believe you're entitled to 30/45 days of free personalized support.  Here's why and how to file a Support Case for a bug, in which you'll have to disclose those trivial details.  In case you don't realize it, everyone on these Forums is a volunteer; no Retrospect "Inc." employees post here.


  3. Nigel Smith,

    I never do anything with movies, so I downloaded and unzipped your .mov attachment and opened it with the default Quick Time Player 10.4.  That has no stepping capability, so I downloaded the latest version of VLC—which also has no stepping capability.  Either app shows a Retrospect icon in its uglified version, then briefly switches to what would guess is a Quick Time icon, then briefly switches to the Retrospect icon in its old non-uglified version, and finally switches back to the Retrospect icon in its uglified version.

  4. Yesterday morning I mistakenly quoted prl's OP as an Additional Note to the Support Case I filed reporting the Forums bug described in my 4 February post in this thread.  I got back the following from the head of Retrospect Tech Support:

    Agent Response: 
    >I've re-installed Retrospect in case the icon was a glitch in Migration Assistant, but it didn't change the 
    Reinstalling would replace the icon files.  If the icon data was corrupted, I would have expected a reinstall 
    to correct that issue.  It is sounding like something within the operation system is not correctly loading 
    this data and preventing it from displaying in a normal way.  It could be a pure cosmetic issue if everything 
    else is functioning as expected. 

    In my Additional Note this afternoon apologizing for not having included the link (which I had reserved space for, but forgot to paste in) to prl's OP, I also quoted the first paragraph of this 2 February post by me—because IMHO it's a worthy guess🤓.  I also quoted the post Nigel Smith made yesterday—this time including a link to it.

    Nigel Smith, I think you should copy your post yesterday as a Support Case.  IMHO your confirmation is the most-thoroughly-documented example  of the problem by an administrator who has actually experienced it—unlike me.

  5. dahotvet,

    The reason there isn't a sticky post in every Forums thread saying that ASM isn't required for bug submission is that Retrospect Tech Support evidently doesn't want administrators to know that fact.  That is because the budget of R.T.S. has long been dependent on ASM, a Retrospect Inc. policy that is IMHO a major contributor to the reputation for slow-to-non-existent bug fixing that has long plagued the product.

    IMHO the reason you were unable to find instances related to your problem is that you were too cagey in your "Forums Search Fu" (analogous to "Google Fu").  You concentrated on the Windows error code, instead of using the search terms "NAS" and "Samba".  Let's cut to the chase; here's the first applicable post in a 1.5-week-old Windows-Professional thread whose problem turned out to be soluble by upgrading from SMB1 to SMB2—even though the OP insists on running his/her "backup server" on Windows 7.  The OP is running a Netgear ReadyNAS server.

    You don't say what variety your "Linux NAS box via Samba" is, but here's another thread in which the OP is running a Synology server.  That thread is about a Mac "backup server", and the OP is using the obsolete Apple Filing Protocol instead of any version of SMB/Samba.  As a Retrospect Macintosh administrator, my impression from several recent Forums threads is that the "backup server" Engine—which is the same for both variants of Retrospect aside from GUI—lost its ability in version 15 to handle certain old versions of network protocols used by NASes.

    Try looking in the Operations Log, as described on pages 344 "Finding Events in the Operations Log" and 345-346 of the Retrospect Windows 15 User's Guide.

    Sorry I got the year wrong on when you updated from 15.1.2 to 

  6. dahotvet,

    Here's why and how to file a Support Case for a bug 

    When you do that, be sure to state the precise Windows 10 versions of your "backup server" and all your "client" machines.  Although I'm a Retrospect Mac administrator, I notice that the cumulative Retrospect Windows Release Notes for versions later than 15.6.1 (which you seem to have installed a month before it was released) list several "New Windows 10 ... Update certification" items.  I presume you have not frozen your installation Windows updates the way you have frozen your Retrospect updates.

    If you upgrade now, I believe you are entitled to a 30-45-day trial period.  If you do that now, you'll be entitled to a free upgrade to Retrospect 17, which is predicted to be released in March 2020.  However, if R.T.S. can give you a version of Retrospect Windows 16 that fixes your problem, you may want to stay with it for a while—because IMHO there are indications that the Retrospect Windows GUI will change substantially in either March or August 2020.


  7. tbr00,

    As to hard links, see for example this 2013 thread (dealing with a Linux Client) and this 2009 thread.  If those aren't relevant enough for you, try using the Forums Search box with "hard links" in quotes.  Linux, Shminux, so long as you've got your health (joke derived from famed 19th-Century Yiddish writer). 🤣

    As to "why this only showed up after switching from Retrospect 12 to 16", my impression from several recent Forums threads is that the "backup server" Engine—which is the same for both variants of Retrospect aside from GUI—lost its ability in version 15 to handle certain old versions of network protocols used by NASes.

  8. Doug_M,

    To increase the size of the Retrospect Mac Console Log, see pages 155-156 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide.  However you may not even need to do that, because the imprecisely-written (doesn't distinguish between the Console Log and the Operations log) paragraph says


    When the log reaches the limit set, the oldest entries are no longer shown, though they remain in the operations_log.utx file stored in/Library/Application Support/Retrospect/, up to the maximum log size specified in General Preferences (see “Log size limit” below).  You can view the operations log by choosing View > Log, or by pressing Cmd-L. Type the length you want for the log in the entry field.

    That Operations log—of which the latest portion is copied into the Console log—size limit can be increased per page 157 of the UG.

    When you say "the only thing between the two units is a network switch", I assume the two units are your Mac Pro and your  Synology.  You might also consider playing around with "Advanced Settings" on pages 161-163 of the UG.  Or maybe (dare I say it?) switch from AFP to SMB.😲

  9. tbr00,

    Congrats on getting it working.😄 

    As far as mis-typing the last-name part of my "handle" is concerned: I'm used—ever since  childhood—to people leaving letters out of the "hertz" part, but this is the first time anybody has ever converted the "berg" part into a Turkish social title.🤣

    Just a definitely-more-significant correction.  MAC as all-upper-case is not an abbreviation for Macintosh.   It is universally used in IT as part of "MAC address", and was invented by Xerox Network Systems when Macintosh computers existed only in the mind of Steve Jobs.  You're not alone; tens of millions of ignorant Windows users make this mistake, and millions of more-knowledgeable Macintosh users try to correct it (guess which OS I use 😉).

    Enjoy your Retrospect backups.  As Nigel Smith says, the Verify step should be turned off for Cloud backups.  Verify is really intended to catch either tape-write errors or LAN-transmission errors; with Cloud backup, nothing can go wrong ... go wrong ... go wrong  (this joke really shows its aged origins in the days of vinyl phonograph records).

  10. Doug_M,

    This is just a stab in the dark, but make sure Instant Scan is Disabled in the Retrospect  Engine Systems Preferences pane per the screenshot at the bottom of page 206 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide.  This setting is Enabled in my copy of Retrospect Mac 16.1 (I haven't gone to 16.6 out of lack of use of Catalina and abject fear of hurried foul-ups by StorCentric-harried engineers).

    FYI Instant Scan is described on page 203 of the UG, but it only has ever worked for local or "client" drives running under Windows or macOS—not any fileservers running under other OSes.  Instant Scan still works for Mac drives formatted with HFS+, so I have it enabled in the Retrospect Engine for three local drives that are mounted on my "backup server" machine.  However Instant Scan's been officially declared by Retrospect "Inc." (see "Known Issues") not to work for Mac drives formatted with the newer and more-glorious APFS, so I've disabled it for my MacBook Pro "client" Source—whose SSD was (despite my best efforts) forcibly converted to APFS when my MBP was upgraded to macOS 10.13 High Sierra.  Maybe 16.6 has a bug enabling server Instant Scan.


  11. On 2/20/2020 at 4:06 PM, SunbeamRapier said:

    Hi Nigel.  Thanks for clarifying the catalog compression issue.  I agree with your view - better to use more space than to slow retrospect down - it already takes an age to do a major backup.  I have a backup which started last night at 8pm and it is still running this morning at 8am with 40 minutes still to run!

    The issues with upgrading are not show-stoppers but you need to know how to get around the bugs and other issues.  This is what I did:

    1. Don't bother with the Mac uninstall option - it doesn't seem to uninstall anything.
    2. I deleted every instance of retrospect manually.  I saved all the existing catalogs for later recovery
    3. When you first install the update it only installs the shell.  You should get an option then to install the retrospect engine.  But I just got a screen with a spinning wheel and a strange IP address.  You have to click somewhere on the display and then the option to install the retrospect engine should appear, but it doesn't always...  I think that is when I deleted all the retrospect directories and then the option appeared.
    4. You will have to fiddle around with granting total disk access to the engine and another app - this is documented in the upgrade/install notes
    5. I run a Promise Sanlink2 fibre channel to connect my Tandberg LTO6 tape drive.  The Sanlink driver is a bit flakey and I think that an interruption somewhere in the tape-write process caused the tap to be marked as bad.
    6. But as there was not a lot of data on that tape it was easy to mark it as lost and then erase it, and then add it as a new tape in the media set and re-run the backup - Retrospect detected the second tape with its data and is copying only the missing files to the erased tape.
    7. I am hoping that this environment will now be stable.  So far so good...

    1.-3.: AFAIK the Retrospect Mac Uninstall program is to a large extent a result of a decision, probably taken with Retrospect Mac 8, to install the split-off Engine—as opposed to the Console—in a "seekrit place" rather than in /Applications.  Thus the Uninstall program for major release N would logically have to uninstall files from two "seekrit places": the one for major release N-1 (for upgrading from major release N-1), and the one for major release N (for upgrading from a previous minor release of major release N).  SunbeamRapier is upgrading from Retrospect Mac 12 to Retrospect Mac 16, a jump of 4 major releases.  What if the "seekrit place" changed in Retrospect Mac 15 (I'm pretty sure it didn't change from Retrospect Mac 12 to Retrospect Mac 14, because I skipped Retrospect Mac 13 without apparent problems); wouldn't that explain why the Retrospect Mac 16 Uninstall program did nothing?  If that's true, SunbeamRapier should first have downloaded and run only the Uninstall program for Retrospect Mac 13; R.T.S. would no doubt have told him to do so.

    4.: As to Full Disk Access for Catalina, also see (most recently) this post in another thread.

    5.: Dantz Development Corp.'s great coup in the 1990s was that it obtained source code for various tape drive manufacturers' drivers, and then rewrote that code to work with Retrospect.  That was ultimately also Dantz's  great undoing, because (a) it hired contractors to do the rewriting and (b) the contractors couldn't always spot the bugs in the manufacturers' drivers.  I started a thread on Retrospect nearly 4 years ago in the Ars Technica Macintoshian Achaia forum, and I immediately had to deal with posts expressing great hatred of Retrospect from other backup administrators who had formerly used it for tape backup (the Retrospect Mac 8.0 debacle also figured prominently).  So what else is new, except for LTO having somewhat improved tape drivers?🤨

  12. Doug_M,

    In regard to Catalina, you need to read this Knowledge Base article and also this one.  Note that the first KB article, in its last multi-sentence paragraph, erroneously links to the Mojave version of the second KB article rather than the Catalina version—which it should have (except that somebody on Retrospect "Inc."'s. august Documentation Committee didn't coordinate what he wrote in the first article with somebody else who was rewriting the second article for Catalina).

    I'd guess your problem is covered under "Technical Details" at the bottom of the second Knowledge Base article I linked to in the first sentence of this post.  That article says Network Volumes are among the "folders" [the article's term—originally less sloppy when the first KB article article was originally written to apply to Mojave] "that require 'Application Data Privacy' ('Full Disk Access') privileges".  A sentence in the first KB article's last section says the same thing.

  13. NigelSmith,

    I know the settings in the P.S. I added are supposed to apply only to "clients".  But an administrator extremely familiar to you posted on 1 November 2019:


    I always thought those options applied to sources with the RS Client installed, rather than non-client shares -- or does it consider the share to be mounted on a client which also happens to be the server? I'd certainly never think of changing options in the "Macintosh" section when backing up a Synology, however it was attached!

    Every day's a learning day 🙂 

    I'm pretty sure this is in fact a metadata or connection issue.  But then so was Lennart_T's problem discussed in the October 2019 thread.  If a solution that shouldn't have worked then did in fact work, maybe it'll work for tbr00.

  14. 8 hours ago, Nigel Smith said:

    Except he did back up his Time Machine disk -- there's no mention of an initial TM restore. And I've done it before, too. It can be horribly slow, but so can a TM restore if you have a lot of time points on the volume.

    Will he be able to restore a TM volume backup to an external disk and have it seamlessly become a TM volume again? I don't know, haven't tried it, but the log warning that "Copying hard-linked directories (such as those created by Time Machine) is not supported" suggests not (which is why I suggested the disk image route if that's what he actually wanted to do). Does that matter anyway? You can still restore files/folders from each TM time point, so the data TM has backed up can be "made safe" with RS.

    Nigel Smith,

    SunbeamRapier wrote in this post Sunday at 12:54 a.m. "I tried - after 14 hours or so Retrospect had identified 40 million files and was still running!  I canned it..."  The well of your pure English may not have been defiled by a presumed Americanism which our troops no doubt transmitted to the Australians, which is "canned" as a euphemism for "s**t-canned"—which in this case I take to mean his emphatically abandoning any attempt to do a Retrospect backup directly from a TimeMachine disk.  I assume he then did a TM restore onto another external disk, because in a post made at the same time to a different thread SunbeamRapier wrote "In my case, I am backing up a large set of files from a portable USB drive for the first time.  After 4 hours, Retrospect is only one third of the way through creating the .rdb files with 8 hours left to go before it even think about writing anything to tape."  I doubt that he returned from Europe with the Einsteinian secret of backwards time travel.🤣

    IMHO it's clear between the two threads that SunbeamRapier wants to switch to tape backups, which are certainly beyond TM's capabilities.

  15. Nigel Smith,

    tbr00 confirmed in this preceding post what I had said in this previous post.  "Retrospect is running on the windows machine, which has partitions mounted (CIFS) from the Netgear Readynas."  I am a NAS innocent, but this WP article says CIFS is another name for SMB1; maybe the problem is tbr00's using that obsolete protocol version.  It appears to my Windows-innocent eyes that Windows 7 can handle SMB2—but not SMB3.  That's a subject for the Support Case that tbr00 has filed.

    I linked to a solution involving Macs, because I didn't then know the corresponding settings for a Windows client—but further investigation led me me to the settings described in the P.S. added to this preceding post.  Maybe my predicted rewrite of the Retrospect Windows GUI will make such settings more visible, even though the use of the setting in the post I linked to was surprising because it worked for a NAS instead of a Retrospect Mac "client" machine.


  16. tbr00 (at least I can spell your "handle" correctly🤣),

    Here's an apparently-relevant Forums post I came across a few minutes ago in searching for a solution for someone else's backup problem described on an Ars Technica forum.  Its thread—which I suggest you read in its entirety—concerns a Synology NAS instead of a Netgear NAS (can I name non-StorCentric brands?).  The thread is on the Mac 9+ Forum instead of the Windows Professional Forum, so YMMV—but the underlying Engine is the same even though the UI is different.

    P.S.: The corresponding-to-link Macintosh Client option to uncheck for Retrospect Windows—even though this applies to a shared volume rather than a "client" machine—is Use attribute modification date when matching on page 371 of the Retrospect Windows 16 User's Guide. The Unix Client option to uncheck—even though this applies to a shared volume rather than a "client" machine—is Use status modified date when matching on UG pages 372-373.


  17. Nigel Smith,

    At this point SunbeamRapier has pretty well solved his problem, as described starting with this post in a Product Suggestions-Windows thread he hijacked.  The solution was a full-fat version of your first suggestion: to first restore the entire TM backup to an external HDD, then to back up that HDD onto a Retrospect Media Set.  That Media Set was intended to be a Tape one, but SunbeamRapier was confused by inexperience and created a Disk one instead.

    IMHO SunbeamRapier is eminently correct; the impossibility of backing up a TimeMachine volume directly with Retrospect should be officially documented.

  18. SunbeamRapier,

    If you used the Backup Assistant on pages 89-92 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide, you would have been prompted to create a Media Set destination and would have created one per pages 86-89—which includes specifying a Media Set Type.  I'm not going to claim the UI is as simple as TimeMachine's, but I didn't have particular trouble learning it for backing up local disk sources in 2015—"client" machine sources were somewhat more complicated for a couple of installation-specific reasons.  However from 1995-2010 I'd used the old UI, a non-multithreaded version of what Retrospect Windows'  UI still is.

    I happen to do a Recycle backup on Saturday mornings that includes a source HDD that is installed inside my 2010 Mac Pro "backup server".  The rate for its backup phase is around 2.3GB/minute for source data ("''B' is for bytes 'b' is for bits"), so for 1TB that would take about 7 hours.  If you used the Backup Assistant it seems that'd automatically turn on the Thorough Verification option described on page 97; since it is a byte-by-byte comparison, that would add about another 7 hours.  So IMHO 17 hours fits into the speed range for Retrospect, considering your source HDD is connected with USB.  The product in column 2 of this Retrospect Knowledge Base article gives faster speed at a much higher price.  See  here for Retrospect backup of TimeMachine backups.

    Now you can proceed to create a tape Media Set, and then create a Copy Media Set script to copy the disk Media Set set you have already created to that tape Media Set.  A Copy Media Set script is described on pages 135-137; it may take a few hours to run, but shouldn't put as much load on your CPU.😁

  19. 15 hours ago, SunbeamRapier said:

    It seems to me that the major issue here is that Retrospect creates all the .rdb files first, instead of creating them as it writes to tape.  In my case, I am backing up a large set of files from a portable USB drive for the first time.  After 4 hours, Retrospect is only one third of the way through creating the .rdb files with 8 hours left to go before it even think about writing anything to tape.

    This approach might be sensible when backing up to a disk drive but writing to tape is quite a slow process and there ought to be plenty of cpu cycles available while this is happening to generate the .rdb files and the write to tape could be happening immediately instead of 12 hours later.

    Retrospect v16.6 is running on a Mac Pro (2015) with 64Gb ram, 3.5Ghz 6 Core Xeon E5.  It is using everything!  Doing anything else on the Mac while the .rdb files are being created is almost impossible.



    Where exactly is Retrospect creating your .rdb files?  According to this post and the previous discussion in that thread , tapes do not have .rdb files—which are instead in the Catalog File on disk for the tape Media Set.  For disk Media Sets, the destination disk files mostly consist of the .rdb files—which are the containers for the backed-up data.  If your 2015 Mac Pro is "using everything" creating a Catalog File for upwards of 40 million files, that's probably because doing so eats up all available CPU cycles.

    If you want to create a Support Case for this feature request, here's why and how to do it.  I suspect Tech Support will reply that, when you took your Mac Pro to Europe 3 years ago, you should have installed a copy of Retrospect Desktop on it for use with your portable 4 TB USB HDD, instead of making do with Time Machine.  They may also reply that, having failed to do so, you should at least be running your Retrospect backup to tape from your restored TimeMachine disk as a series of script runs—each specifying a non-overlapping Date Modified Within as a Rule or non-overlapping Favorite Folder sources.

    BTW, I've used Retrospect Mac terminology in this post because your post is blatantly about that variant.  It doesn't make any difference, because your complaint is about the underlying Engine—which is the same for both variants.  However your complaint has nothing to do with the topic of the preceding posts in this thread; you should have started a new thread in the Product Suggestions-Mac OS X sub-forum—which has a large square green Start New Topic button.  To create a link to a post in another thread: right-click the doohicky on the top right of that post that says "Share Link" when you mouse over it, then choose Copy Link Location form the resulting drop-down, then select the text in your own post that you want the link to be in, then click the Link tool in the editing toolbar and paste the copied Link Location into the URL box in the Link dialog.

  20. 15 hours ago, SunbeamRapier said:

    It appears that it is not possible to back up a Time Machine volume.  I am running Retrospect v16.6.  For 3 years, while I was in Europe, I did not have access to my raid array or tape drive and all backups were handled by Time Machine to a 4TB USB portable volume.  No files were deleted and there is still space on that drive.  Obviously, now I am back and have access to my tape drive I want to transfer all those backups to tape.  I tried - after 14 hours or so Retrospect had identified 40 million files and was still running!  I canned it...

    I guess I will have to restore the backed up files to another volume and then back up that volume with Retrospect...



    This was reported as early as this 2009 post.  If your 4TB USB portable volume was local to your Mac and was running 12 hours per day for 3 years, that would have been about 13,000 backups.  If an average of 3000 files incrementally changed between each of those hourly backups, that would come out close to 40 million TimeMachine files—only the weekly ones would be saved as hard links.  If your 4TB USB portable volume was networked to your Mac—which it probably wasn't—you wouldn't be able to back it up with Retrospect, because in that case the TimeMachine backups would be sparse bundles.

    So buy another 4TB USB portable HDD for around US$100, or borrow one.  And just be prepared to leave your Mac running until the restore is done.

  21. tbr00,

    I also think it would aid us in suggesting s solution to your problem if you clarified your Retrospect-related installation configuration. 

    My understanding from what you've said so far is that all your Retrospect "client" machines are Macs, but your "backup server" is a Windows 7 machine that also has a Netgear ReadyNAS.  It is the files on the ReadyNAS that are giving "file compare errors"—about which you have so far revealed no further information—when you back them up.  You are devoted to whatever data is already backed up to LTO4 tape, but (AFAICT) that generation is so old you can't buy a tape drive that will read it and can be attached to a more-modern machine.  You are as devoted to your ReadyNAS server as to the "bunch of old hardware devices", but that server also cannot be moved to a newer machine.

    Is my understanding essentially correct?

    P.S.: If you upgraded to Retrospect Windows 16 within the last 30-45 days, you are entitled to personalized assistance from Retrospect Tech Support.  If—as I suspect—your "file compare errors" have something to do with your ReadyNAS characteristics, you're going to need that assistance.  Here's why and how to file a bug-report Support Case; note that the Support Case will need to reveal to R.T.S. the information you won't reveal to us.

  22. tbr00,

    So, you're going to do a "strip tease" by gradually revealing more information about your problem.🤣  How about "taking some more off" by actually reproducing the "file compare errors" you are getting—as shown in the logs?  That would help us Forums volunteers to figure out what the problem is.

    It sounds to me as if you are having a problem described in this 2004 thread.  See the last three posts in the thread.  Is there a recent Windows-7-compatible driver update for your ReadyNAS RAID card?

    If you are satisfied that your manual compares show the data is being backed up correctly, how about switching to Media Verification—as described on page 354 of the Retrospect Windows 16 User's Guide?  Page 459 says "In certain circumstances, Retrospect does not have access to MD5 digests generated during backup. This is true for all backups created using versions of Retrospect prior to Retrospect 16.0, as well as backups that took place when Retrospect’s “Generate MD5 digests during backup operations” preference was disabled."  But at worse that means IMHO your data backed up with Retrospect Windows 12 will be backed up again—once.



  23. SunbeamRapier,

    Forgive me for possibly insulting your intelligence, but do you know that you can't upgrade from Retrospect Mac 12 to Retrospect Mac 16 without paying for a new license code?  Here's the Licensing Wizard.

    If you're only backing up one Mac, and your backup destinations are disks rather than tapes or optical drives, you may only need to pay US$49 (or US$39—it looks like there's a discount in effect) for Retrospect Solo.  Here's the Competitive Analysis Knowledge Base article for that edition.

    P.S.: Whenever I add later information—as opposed to a wording clarification—to a post I have already made, SunbeamRapier, I precede that later information with the centuries-old letter-writing abbreviation "P.S." or "P.P.S." etc..  That lets me add a Reason for Edit.  Evidently your generation believes the abbreviation "OK" is equivalent.  To which I can't resist replying "OK, boomer".🤣  Anyway, what you need to do is create a Support Case for the license-key bug; here is why and how to do so.  The fifth paragraph of that post says the head of Retrospect Technical Support "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."  As far as Australian Retrospect Support being "no help at all", the only thing I dare do is to point you to this post—which describes what happened to me earlier this year when I posted about a similar situation.

    P.P.S.: In regard to Catalina, you need to read this Knowledge Base article and also this one.  Note that the first KB article, in its last multi-sentence paragraph, erroneously links to the Mojave version of the second KB article rather than the Catalina version—which it should have (except that somebody on Retrospect "Inc."'s. august Documentation Committee didn't coordinate what he wrote in the first article with somebody else who was rewriting the second article for Catalina).

  24. jhg and everyone else,

    Two days ago I received, probably like all other Retrospect administrators,  a marketing e-mail from Retrospect "Inc.".  It announces a new version in March, and says "Not sure if your backups are running? Simply set up an always-on ProactiveAI script, and schedule email notifications to send you a daily summary [my emphases]."  IMHO that implies the new version will require having Retrospect.exe running when the summary is scheduled to be e-mailed.

    In the third paragraph of this post in another thread I reported the head of Retrospect Tech Support's voice-overs.  Engineering's aimed at "eventually having Retrospect run as a service with an HTML-based interface".  That IMHO implies targeting in 2020 a "browser based" more-recently-introduced client-server backup application analyzed in the second features column of this Retrospect Knowledge Base article.  Itemized features include Windows/Linux support.