Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by DavidHertzberg

  1. tbr00,

    Congrats on getting it working.ūüėĄ¬†

    As far as mistyping the last-name part of my "handle": I'm used 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.ūü§£

    Just a slightly-less-nitpicking 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 Windows users make this mistake, and millions of Macintosh users try to correct it.

    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 origins in the days of 78-rpm phonograph records).


  2. 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‚ÄĒnot 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‚ÄĒwhose 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 an Instant Scan shares foul-up.


  3. 19 hours ago, 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‚ÄĒas opposed to the Console‚ÄĒin 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 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?ūü§®

  4. 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‚ÄĒwhich 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‚ÄĒoriginally 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.

  5. 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 ūüôā¬†

    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.

  6. 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"‚ÄĒwhich 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.ūü§£

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

  7. 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‚ÄĒbut 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‚ÄĒbut 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.


  8. tbr00 (at least I can spell your "handle" correctlyūü§£),

    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‚ÄĒwhich I suggest you read in its entirety‚ÄĒconcerns 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‚ÄĒbut 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‚ÄĒeven though this applies to a shared volume rather than a "client" machine‚ÄĒis Use attribute modification date when matching on page 371 of the Retrospect Windows 16 User's Guide. The Unix Client option to uncheck‚ÄĒeven though this applies to a shared volume rather than a "client" machine‚ÄĒis Use status modified date when matching on UG pages 372-373.


  9. 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.

  10. 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‚ÄĒwhich 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‚ÄĒ"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.ūüėĀ

  11. 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‚ÄĒwhich 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‚ÄĒwhich 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‚ÄĒeach 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‚ÄĒwhich 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‚ÄĒwhich 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.

  12. 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‚ÄĒonly the weekly ones would be saved as hard links.¬† If your 4TB USB portable volume was networked to your Mac‚ÄĒwhich it probably wasn't‚ÄĒyou 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.

  13. 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"‚ÄĒabout which you have so far revealed no further information‚ÄĒwhen 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 olÔĽŅd hardware deviceÔĽŅs", 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‚ÄĒas I suspect‚ÄĒyour "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.

  14. tbr00,

    So, you're going to do a "strip tease" by gradually revealing more information about your problem.ūü§£¬† How about "taking some more off" by actually reproducing the "file compare errors" you are getting‚ÄĒas 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‚ÄĒas 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‚Äôs ‚ÄúGenerate MD5 digests during backup operations‚ÄĚ preference was disabled."¬† But at worse that means IMHO your data backed up with Retrospect Windows 12 will be backed up again‚ÄĒonce.



  15. 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‚ÄĒit 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‚ÄĒas opposed to a wording clarification‚ÄĒto 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".ūü§£¬† 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‚ÄĒonly 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‚ÄĒwhich 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‚ÄĒwhich 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).

  16. 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.

  17. On 2/2/2020 at 9:22 PM, prl said:

    David, thanks for the clarification. I've set my gender in my profile.

    prl and any other non-ancient Forums members,

    There appears to be some kind of bug in the Forums software regarding the display of Profiles.  Members who did not disable the Recent Visitors "block" display, such as me and Don Lee and kolohe280 (who didn't put anything in his/her Profile but didn't disable its display) and Lindsay Robertson, have their Profile information displayed.  Members who did disable the Recent Visitors "block" display, such as prl, don't have their Profile information displayed.  Thus I can't see prl's Gender.

    I'll file a Support Case for the bug.

  18. prl,

    Your OP observation is that "the correct icon seems to be there initially, but then get overwritten", and the overlaying icon in your OP screenshot looks to my eyes like a distorted version of the correct icon.  Therefore I'm speculating that code connected to the icon generates some reaction by Catalina, and that the reaction is what's distorting it.  The fact that the changing-facet code isn't executing in System Preferences wouldn't necessarily deter Catalina's reaction, but my speculation implies that the same distortion would occur when the icon is displayed in the Menu Bar of a "client" machine running under Catalina.  That's why I asked someone to check this; evidently that someone can't be either you or me.

    If your preferred personal pronoun is "he", set the Gender item in your Forums Profile to Male‚ÄĒas I did years ago.¬† I know a lot of administrators haven't done that, which is why I always begin my posts with the "handle" of the administrator I'm responding to‚ÄĒwhom I then can usually refer to as second-person "you" without my junior-high-school English teachers rolling over in their graves.¬† If I have to use third-person, I check the administrator's Profile.

  19. prl and anybody else,

    I'm going to hazard a guess that Catalina has some difficulty displaying the Retrospect icon, possibly because‚ÄĒas the icon is used in the Menu Bar of a Mac running the Retrospect Client‚ÄĒit has the capability of changing the way the facets are displayed at an interval of about one second to show the Retrospect Client is doing work.¬† Maybe the Dantz-written facet-changing code is 32-bit, and therefore doesn't work under Catalina‚ÄĒbut messes up the way the icon is displayed in the System Preferences main panel.

    My impression from looking backward at a few of prl's posts is that he/she is only backing up a single Mac, and therefore is running the Retrospect Engine (and probably Console) directly on it‚ÄĒwithout using the Retrospect Client.¬† Would someone who uses the Retrospect Mac Client on a machine running under Catalina please check if it still has the capability of changing the way the facets are displayed at an interval of about one second to show the Retrospect Client is doing work?¬† Please do so and post the answer back in this thread.¬† (None of my Macs are running under Catalina.)

    Once we get that post‚ÄĒand maybe if we don't, prl, here is why and how to submit a Support Case for a bug.

  20. Pesetus,

    Please, as soon as you know whether the update given to you by R.T.S. works or not, notify Retrospect Tech Support.  That will be important for other administrators, so the engineers can decide (assuming the update works) whether to release it for Retrospect 16 and/or Retrospect 17.

    I'm sorry I didn't think to tell you this yesterday.  The deadline for a Retrospect 16 bug-fix release is probably 28 February.  Please do your follow-up quickly.

  21. 11 hours ago, Pesetus said:

    Yesterday afternoon  they gave me instructions on how to proceed.
    i still need to follow it up to be sure but it seems the backups are back to normal. The solution was an update to (file given by the support team), probably the next available update...

    i can understand they being with loads of work to do, i did have a payed backup solution that did not work for more than a month, even after the release of the "catalina supported" version (obviously without much testing), and 14 days after they recognize the bug in my case and said "We have a fix and we should be able to provide it to you in the next day or two"....



    Thank you for reporting back to us on the Forums.

    I'm assuming the update given to you by R.T.S. is for the Retrospect Windows "backup server", rather than for the Retrospect Client program on your Mac Catalina "client" machines.¬† That sounds to me as if the engineers had not sufficiently tested the Retrospect Windows¬† "backup server" software with Retrospect Mac¬† Client software on machines running running under Catalina.¬† Running that combination of Retrospect software is a bit unusual‚ÄĒbut many mostly-Windows installations also have Macs; obviously the engineers should have tested.

    The question for the rest of us administrators is whether the engineers will release the update as a new distribution for Retrospect 16, or whether it is merely a test version of the Retrospect Windows 17.0 distribution‚ÄĒwhich according to past practices ought to come in the second week of March 2020.

  22. On 1/28/2020 at 7:36 AM, Pesetus said:

    for example answering my ticket... last update 4 days ago and still waiting.... (ticket opened 14 days ago)....  Thank you very much for your comments David.


    To be fair to Retrospect Technical Support:¬† Once an administrator customer's problem has been determined to be a bug, R.T.S. has to turn it over to the Retrospect "engineer" programmers to be fixed.¬† Getting to that determination can take time, because R.T.S. has to first reproduce the problem‚ÄĒwhich may require asking the customer further questions beyond what is in the Support Case.¬† R.T.S. must then decide if use of existing Retrospect features can solve the problem; if not, the problem is either a bug or a feature enhancement request.

    Right now the engineers seem to be very busy changing the Graphic User Interface of Retrospect, IMHO so that it will be suitable for running the "backup server" Engine on a Drobo NAS device as well as either a Windows or Macintosh computer.¬† This is a task imposed on them by StorCentric‚ÄĒthe new owners of Retrospect "Inc.".¬† Remembering and¬† "reading the tea leaves", in the 1.5 years before the June 2019 merger the engineers were busy adding a couple of major new features to Retrospect‚ÄĒIMHO ones conceived by Retrospect Product Management in order to attract the attention of IT consultants and large-scale enterprises.¬† in their rush to to do that, the engineers seem to have been a bit careless in adding some less-exalted features to x.5 and x.6.0 releases‚ÄĒespecially when it came to testing.¬† On top of that, the engineers had to cope with Operating System "improvements"‚ÄĒboth by Apple and by Microsoft.

    And that's why I'm still running Retrospect Mac 16.1, with my major "client" machine and my "backup server" machine under macOS releases two and three generations behind Catalina.¬† Because I'm the not-very-ambitious sole user of a home installation, I can do that‚ÄĒbut you evidently can't.

  23. On 1/14/2020 at 9:18 AM, Pesetus said:

    Done!, thanks, i do have paid support i just hoped for more experienced users to have a tip i did not know about.

    Thanks again. With some luck, i will have a response here or at support and i will post the results .


    For those who were wondering what post Pesetus was responding to, it was one of mine that it turns out Big Brother has deleted.

    The horrifying content¬†ūüôĄ of that post which B.B., otherwise known as the head of Retrospect Tech Support, evidently objected to was my merely having repeated what another administrator said about European Retrospect Tech Support in the first paragraph of this post in another thread nearly two years ago.¬† IIRC I advised Pesetus to contact U.S. Tech Support, which evidently he/she has done.

    So Big Brother is indeed watching you on these Forums, or at least is watching me.  I could suggest better uses of his time.

  24. jhg,

    Here's a SuperUser.com thread on how to kill a task at a scheduled time.¬† Disclaimer: My only experience administrating Retrospect Windows was a Windows 95 Client on a Mac 6.1 Engine from 2001-2004. ūü§£¬† Here's another SuperUser.com thread on how to kill a task in general from a command script..

    P.S.: As I said ending the second paragraph of this post in another thread, if my prediction is correct you'll be able to leave a GUI-less Retrospect.exe running constantly‚ÄĒmostly using virtual memory when not executing backup or restore tasks‚ÄĒso your daily e-mail report will be created at 7 a.m. with no effort.

    P.P.S.: BTW e-mailing of the daily backup report was added to Retrospect Windows 12.5¬† (so you're not still running 7.5 ūüėÄ)and to Retrospect Mac 14.5, but with absolutely no documentation.¬† Even this Knowledge Base article, updated in December 2019, uses screenshots from before the Preference was added.