Jump to content

DavidHertzberg

Members
  • Content count

    1,037
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

Posts posted by DavidHertzberg


  1. On 9/26/2019 at 12:18 PM, Nigel Smith said:

    Oh, but he does!

    Being able to tell RS that "this new client is that old client, only reinstalled" would be useful. Not having to re-define Favourite Folders, re-do Tags, etc, would be great. But I get the feeling that there are practical, and probably security, reasons why this can't/shouldn't be done else we would have had the feature ages ago.

    But, in the meantime, Tags are a time-saving feature that anyone who isn't using should take a good look at.

    Nigel Smith,

    Pages 40-42 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide imply that you can assign a Tag to a Favorite Folder.  So on "this new client is that old client, only reinstalled" you would have to redefine any Favorite Folders and assign them the same Tags they had before, but if your scripts used Tags to designate Favorite Folders you wouldn't have to change the scripts.

    If you did this,  in most cases the NHS (I noticed how you spell "Favourite", even though your Profile doesn't specify Location) wouldn't have to treat you for extreme finger fatigue resulting from "client" reinstallation.;)

    P.S.: In Sources I added a Tag for my Favorite Folder on a drive local to my Mac Pro.  Then, for my my normally-unscheduled  "Sat. Backup Incremental" script, I un-checkmarked that Favorite Folder and checkmarked the Tag instead.  Finally I did a Run of the script to the Media Set I'm using this week; it did what it normally does, finishing with backing up that Favorite Folder via the Tag.  So the first paragraph of this post is correct.

    P.P.S.: In Sources I added Mimi'sOldG4, gave it a non-Smart new Tag, and also gave a non-Smart new Tag to David'sMacBookPro.   Then, for my my normally-unscheduled  "Sat. Backup Incremental" script, I un-checkmarked the Smart Tag for All Clients and checkmarked the non-Smart newTags instead—dragging them in the Summary pane into the desired backup sequence.  Finally I did a Run of the script to the Media Set I'm using this week; it did what it normally does, giving a -3203 error message for Mimi'sOldG4 (because Retrospect Mac 16 can no longer actually back up "client" machines booted under OS X 10.3 using the 32-bit Legacy Client—even though Sources can still Add such "clients").    So this up-thread post is correct; the procedure for creating and eliminating non-Smart Tags on pages 40-41 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide  is independent of their use for a specific Source—it's the checkbox in the Tags tab that designates whether a specific non-Smart Tag is used for a specific Source.


  2. On 9/24/2019 at 7:13 AM, Nigel Smith said:

    Tags.

    If you set your scripts to use tags to determine what to back up, you only have to set a new/replaced client's tags once and it will be picked up by all appropriate scripts.

    And as David said, you shouldn't get a full backup unless that's part of the script's definition -- "Match only files in same location/path" may be the culprit here.

    You da man, Nigel Smith, for suggesting Tags.:) 

    Yesterday evening I un-checkmarked David’sMacBook Pro from my normally-unscheduled  "Sat. Backup Incremental" script, and checkmarked All Clients under Smart Tags instead.  I then dragged All Clients to the top of the pane in the script's Summary panel, and did a Run of the script to the Media Set I'm using this week.  The execution did a No Media Action backup of David'sMacBook Pro, followed by a No Media Action backup of the two drives and a Favorite Folder local to my "backup server" that are also checkmarked.  (If Mimi'sOldG4 were still a "client", which it isn't because Retrospect Mac 16 can no longer backup machines booted under OS X 10.3 using the 32-bit Legacy Client, I'm pretty sure my "Sat. Backup Incremental" script run would have backed up Mimi'sOldG4 second—because its Sharing name sorts alphanumerically after David’s MacBook Pro.)

    So hrobinson doesn't need to submit a Support Case for a Retrospect enhancement that turns out to have been made in Retrospect Mac 8.  Administrator-defined Tags are covered on pages 40-42 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide.  Smart Tags—such as All Clients—really aren't covered at all in the UG,  because they're Tags that Retrospect automatically maintains for certain obvious software-determinable categories of administrator-defined Sources.


  3. hrobinson,

    Here's why and how to submit a Support Case for a Retrospect enhancement.

    However I occasionally have to Remove and Add my MacBook Pro "client", and—after re-checkmarking it in my No Media Action "Sun.-Fri. Backup" script—I don't get a Recycle backup of my MBP when the script runs the next morning.  I've been doing this from 2015, when I re-started using Retrospect Mac 12 after 5 years without a "backup server" machine—but I skipped Retrospect Mac 13.  I can go through the Remove-Add-edit process for my 5 active scripts in about 10 minutes, including dragging the MBP to the top of the Summary panel for my two multi-machine Recycle scripts so those back up my MBP first.  I'm currently using the latest release of Retrospect Mac 16.1.

    When you Remove and Add your "client", are you doing something that makes your "backup server" think it's dealing with a new "client"—such as changing the "client" machine's Sharing name or changing its fixed IP address on your LAN if you Add Source Directly? As you edit your scripts after a "client" Remove-Add, are you inadvertently changing them from No Media Action to Recycle?  Or are you doing something to your Media Set Catalog File(s) at the same time as you Remove-Add-edit?


  4. I got tired enough of this question that I just phoned Retrospect Sales.  Ian says the Dissimilar Hardware Restore Add-On is US$99 without ASM for a Desktop Edition license.  Werner (whom I got when I phoned back because I had forgotten to ask Ian the question) says the Add-On functions the same no matter what Edition it is licensed for, so it works for any computer—"client" or "backup server"—backed up with Retrospect.  My distinction between the well-budgeted NoelC and the starveling office denizen Suzy is correct.  Ian personally used the Dissimilar Hardware Restore Add-On when he needed to temporarily replace his Windows laptop, which was in the repair shop, with a different-brand desktop—a one-hour restore.  He licenses Desktop Edition.

    For those who didn't know (including me), the Disk-to-Disk Edition is the same as the Single Server Edition—except it has no tape destination capability and is therefore cheaper.  Those running a single Windows Server machine(or macOS Server machine—if that's still detectable by Retrospect) on their LAN should take note.


  5. 2 hours ago, Nigel Smith said:

    IIRC, Desktop can have it without ASM, Server requires ASM.

     

    Slightly unfair.

    As a Mac user you've probably forgotten (or maybe never knew) the pain involved moving a Windows install between different hardware. It would only take one or two uses for a business to cover the cost of the add-on and, realistically, business is the target market. And not just for "restores", also for migration from old to new machines.

    I wouldn't bother with it as a home user, but if time was money...

    You're right about Server Editions, Nigel Smith, but the OP says he licensed the Desktop Edition.

    As for the "soak the (presumed) rich installation" policy, which was instituted by Dantz before it was acquired by EMC, IMHO the recent failure of that "value pricing" policy in general is what led to the StorCentric acquisition.  It appears business customers no longer needed to license Server Editions, because they were now using Linux machines as their servers.  Retrospect Inc. put a yellow-colored note into the Windows 15.1 Release Notes saying "Linux Client: In a future update, Linux clients running on server-level Linux distributions will be treated as server clients".  However, as I cautiously mentioned elsewhere on these Forums, the opinion of experts I solicited on the Ars Technica Linux forum was that it would be impracticable to distinguish server-level Linux distributions—which shot down extending the "soak the (presumed) rich installation" policy.

    I have never questioned Windows administrators' need for the Dissimilar Hardware Restore Add-On, just its different "value pricing" levels in the Online Store.

    • Like 1

  6. Some of you may have noticed that on 12 September 2019 the old Retrospect article was greatly cut down, losing all 3 of its features sections and having its History section greatly simplified.  This is AFAICT an outcome of a long-running political dispute among Wikipedia editors, including some who are administrators.

    There is a subset of Wikipedia editors who function as "Spitfire pilots".   I use that term because these editors take it upon themselves to make fast passes at someone else's articles and "machine gun" any references they consider to be improper—as if those articles are possible incoming German bombers.  The "Spitfire pilots" do perform a necessary function for articles left over from Wikipedia's "good old days", when editors wrote some articles whose thin-on-the-ground references were to pure Public Relations sources.  It can be time-consuming work to actually read the references in other editors' articles, and a subset of the "Spitfire pilot" editors (IME predominantly Brits) have long wanted to make their work easier—by a method conceptually similar to insisting (via Swiss intermediaries; no Royal Air Force officer was actually foolish enough to do so) that Hermann Goering have all Luftwaffe bombers trail large banners with the high-visibility form of the Balkenkreuz  (so real Spitfire pilots wouldn't need to study aircraft identification).

    This subset of "Spitfire pilot" editors proposed some years ago that, to enforce Reliable Source requirements, all primary-source references be banned from WP articles.  An article stating that rule was deleted, because among other legitimate careful uses of primary sources are in an article about a business.  Nevertheless editor JzG—who prefers to be known as Guy, along with other editors such as Scope_creep (who caused DovidBenAvraham a fair amount of grief back in 2017-2018), believe that primary-source references should be not allowed for features of company-developed software.  DBA had originally made quite a few citations of several user-instruction documents on the Retrospect.com website, but by 12 September had cut these down to 14 out of 100 total citations in the article.  Remaining citations were to the Retrospect Mac 14 and Retrospect Windows 12 User's Guides, to the cumulative Retrospect Windows Release Notes, and to various Knowledge Base articles (listed in the article master reference as if they were named chapters in a book).  For any WP editor having—like Guy and Scope_creep—IT employment experience who would classify these multi-hundred-page documents as PR material, 5 minutes of thought about the enduring popularity of the phrase "Read The F**king Manual" would IMHO prove enlightening (because user-instruction "manuals" aren't anywhere near as pleasant to read as PR documents).:)

    Guy, on his own Talk page, in answer to DBA's question, wrote "Remove anything that's sourced to their own websites or to press releases", and later "It's really quite simple. Only include reliable independent secondary soruces [sic]. Don't include anything that independent commentators haven't thought significant enotgh [sic] to cover. Don't inlcude [sic]sources that are obviously based on press releases (aka churnalism). Don't include WP:HOWTO or other manual-like content."   He then made the major cut-down of the article, on the basis that—since DBA had not immediately removed the 14 remaining primary-source citations, he would oblige DBA to justify that the sources for the other 86 citations were not to secondary-sources that are PR documents.  Being someone who apparently has only Windows experience, Guy is claiming that the 29-year-old Macintosh-focused TidBITS is a PR website.:o

    DBA is proceeding cautiously but methodically to solve the problem.  He may eventually have to create a WP Administrators' Noticeboard Incident, because for an editor who is a WP administrator to do what Guy has done could well be considered vandalism even in Wikipedia's carefully-restricted definition.  However TidBITS may solve the problem by publishing a review of the soon-to-be-released Retrospect 16.5, which among other things will remove DBA's need for the Retrospect Windows GUI-deficiency primary-source references.


  7. NoelC,

    It turns out that what you really want to look at is the Online Store.  Under Add-Ons are two different lines: "Dissimilar Hardware Restore Disk-to-Disk  BDD16R1WN | BDD16R1WC" at US$239 without ASM (that's the price in the Configurator; it's probably the BDD16R1WN sales code), and "Dissimilar Hardware Restore Desktop  BDH16R1WN | BDH16R1WC" at US$99 without ASM (it's probably the BDH16R1WN sales code).:huh:  The difference between the BDD and BDH sales codes seems to be whether you purchased your basic Retrospect license as Disk-to-Disk or Desktop; from your OP it sounds as if you did the latter.  Again, contact a human being in Retrospect Sales; he/she would like to sell you something, to make StorCentric management happy.

    If I worked for Retrospect Product Marketing, it seems I would have to receive supplementary "soak the (presumed) rich installation" indoctrination.:rolleyes:

    IMHO the Dissimilar Hardware Restore Add-On was designed for offices where Suzy only gets a new machine when her existing machine dies of extreme old age, so there is no way the office's management could have "bought a newer machine of the same lineage".;)


  8. NoelC,

    If you used the Product Configurator  to purchase your license for Retrospect Desktop, it has a checkbox for "Do you plan to restore to different hardware?".  I just now tried the Configurator for a Windows Desktop, and the Add-On for  Dissimilar Hardware Restore Disk-to-Disk Edition adds US$239 to the price.  I call it the "soak the (presumed) rich installation" policy, and Dantz Development Corp. introduced that policy before it was purchased by EMC in 2004.  Nobody on these Forums works for Retrospect Sales, so you should contact that organization to find out how to upgrade.

    "Making your system bootable on different hardware" is discussed on pages 328-337 of the Retrospect Windows 16 User's Guide.


  9. Joriz,

    Veeam won't back up directly to tape; you have to do a tape backup of the output of Veeam disk backup jobs.  Since each of those jobs creates lots of small files in a Veeam repository, when you use Retrospect to back up a repository directly to tape you are writing to the tape inefficiently.  Therefore you should be using disk-to-disk-to-tape, as Lennart_T and Nigel Smith suggested.

    If you ever used BE (you named the product in your OP, but I don't want to upset the head of Retrospect Technical Support by naming it again) to backup to tape, I think you were actually using disk-to-disk-to-tape.  BE makes it extremely easy to set up a D2D2T operation with templates.


  10. Joriz,

    Nigel Smith is correct about self-cleaning of LTO drives.  (I recently re-started backing up my old G4 Digital Audio Mac to a DAT drive after 4 years, because Retrospect Mac 16 eliminated the ability to back up PowerPC "clients" over the LAN, but DAT isn't self-cleaning—so I let Retrospect Mac 6 remind me to use a cleaning cartridge.)

    Every Saturday morning I do a Recycle backup of two sources, one an HDD and one an SSD, that are internal to my 2010 "cheesegrater" Mac Pro "backup server"—a somewhat-faster version of your 2008 Mac Pro.  They both back up (copying phase) at around 2.2MB/minute.  That's the almost the same disk-to-disk speed as with AFP shares as sources, per the fourth paragraph of this 2010 post.

    Because I started using Retrospect in 1995 to back up to a rather-unreliable tape drive, and because the Saturday script also does a LAN backup of a MacBook Pro "client", out of excessive (because my destinations are now portable USB HDDs) caution I continue to let my Recycle script's Options->Backup default to Thorough Verification.  For internally-attached drives that means byte-by-byte  comparison, which takes just about as long as the copying phase. Although pages 97-98 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide don't say so, I believe that drives that are connected to the "backup server" via SMB are treated as if they were internal (this section of an ancient Knowledge Base article seems to imply that by saying "If you back up a mounted AFP volume using the method listed above, privileges are not preserved and can not be restored. The only way to back up and restore privileges from a volume over a network is to back up the computer using Retrospect Client Software.") .  You may want to live a bit dangerously :rolleyes: and change your Options->Backup to Media Verification, or even—because your tape drive is LTO with built-in verify-after-write—to No Verification.:o  Either of those changes—if you haven't made them already— should speed up your Backup script's total execution time by shortening/eliminating the verification phase.

     


  11. Joriz.

    First I suggest you read this April 2019 thread—the whole thread all the way through the final post.  The OP in that thread discovered that he was backing up a lot more data than he thought he was.  He also found the data was mostly pre-compressed, so that what really mattered was the native capacity and speed.

    Second, the OP in that thread also found that the tape library was never cleaning its heads—so he was getting un-recoverable errors after only a fraction of a particular tape was used.  Your "backup server" machine is quite old; are you sure whoever was responsible for it before didn't just cable-up a new tape library without finding out how to set up head cleaning?  That's one reason why Nigel Smith asked the make/model question.  See pages 50-52 of the Retrospect Mac 16 User's Guide for instructions on how to set up  cleaning for libraries and drives.

    Third, you write "a manual file transfer of the same source is utilizing the 1Gbit network card".  That sounds as if there might be more than one network card on either your "backup server" and/or your SMB-attached source machine—which brings up another set of questions.

    After you've looked into those questions, I would suggest you phone U. S. Retrospect Technical Support at (925) 476-1030; the people on these Forums are just volunteers like me‬.  If your organization installed Retrospect Mac 16 within the past 30-45 days, you are entitled to free personalized support.  Because it sounds as if your native language is not English, and because you posted so early in the morning even compared to New York time, it seems that you may be located in Europe.  I've heard that European Retrospect Tech Support is handled by a contractor, whose personnel don't know that much about Retrospect (probably especially about Retrospect Mac).  May I suggest you put your Location in your Forums profile?

    • Like 1

  12. On 9/7/2019 at 11:47 AM, NoelC said:

    Got it working.

    Success was as simple as realizing that Retrospect.exe with a run document (xxxxxx.rrr, as saved during script setup) as a parameter will just do the backup specified by the run document then do what's configured when done (e.g., exit in my case).  No scheduling at all needs to be done in Retrospect, Enable Management console is unchecked, Enable Retrospect Launcher service is unchecked, and Instant Scan needs is disabled.

    Voila, one scheduled job in the Windows Task Scheduler done at a particular time that invokes my nightly backup.  There are no ongoing running processes from the intergalactic backup program that I just need to do one very simple backup at the same time each night.

    While it would have been nice for it to work like this right out of the box (e.g., easy integration with Windows Task Scheduler just by setting the right options in the Restrospect UI), I can live with rolling my own.  Might be a case where developers, very close to the product and constantly focused on adding valuable features, have forgotten that it can/should be a basic low-impact backup solution too.

    The only other downside I've seen so far (and will work on next) is that Retrospect emits my system "Asterisk" (ding in my case) sound - presumably to announce that the backup has succeeded - which has awakened me at about 3:30am twice so far.  Next step will be to configure it to not interact with the console at all if possible.  I suspect that will just be a small change in the Task Scheduler to "Run whether user is logged on or not", which is what I want anyway because I don't want to have to leave it logged on to get backups done.

    Still on the trial period but I suspect I'll succeed and Retrospect will get my business.

    -Noel

    NoelC,

    Although I am a Mac user, I think you fail to recognize how much more Windows knowledge you have than the average backup administrator, as DovidBenAvraham describes her/him in the last sentence of the lead of the appropriate Wikipedia articleThis Digital Citizen article says "Unfortunately, not many people know about this tool, as Windows does not advertise it as much as it deserves."  The article starts out describing how to open Windows Task Scheduler, but that description only applies to Windows 7 and later.

    Windows 7 wasn't made generally available until late October 2009 and was adopted by users over the next 3 years.  By March 2014 Retrospect Inc. had introduced the Dashboard, which the engineers evidently believed would be an easier-to-use generalized within-the-application-UI solution for Retrospect Windows (but they didn't attempt to fix its glaring bugs until 2017).  In 2013, the engineers must have felt that building a UI solution into Retrospect Windows would be easier than trying to teach backup administrators to use a separate facility in a version of Windows that was just then achieving critical mass—and a scan of these Forums will show you that many Retrospect Windows administrators are forced by their organizations to work with obsolete versions of Windows.

    P.S.: On 16 October 2019 I attended a 45-minute webinar "Manage Backups from Anywhere with Retrospect Backup 16.5".  The demonstration of Granular Remote Management, conducted by the head of Retrospect Tech Support, showed a response time for the Web-based Management Console that seemed to be a lot faster than the once-every-60-seconds described in the post I linked to in the 3 October P.S. of my preceding post in this thread. It's still not in the Configurator (I think Retrospect "Inc." Product Management is still thinking of it as a tool for Partners), but Sales told me it only costs an additional US$49 for the Desktop Edition.  If I were administrating Retrospect Windows, I'd pay that—for a Web-based Management Console that seems to be about as good as the non-Web-based Retrospect Mac Console I now use—instead of learning a Windows Task Scheduler without Retrospect facilities.

    P.P.S.: On 25 October 2019 I phoned the head of North American Retrospect Sales, who did part of the narration at the webinar.  He confirmed that Granular Remote Management really has a response time for the Web-based Management Console as fast as shown.


  13. On 9/9/2019 at 1:16 PM, Lennart_T said:

    Neither can I, when I look in my own folder. It seems as Retrospect needs to update its user guide.

    Lennart_T,

    I am shocked that you of all people would say such a thing (see the second and third paragraphs) about the UG.;)

    Since I'm sure you're just as tired as I am of dealing with the lack of UG updating, I suggest you write (which I've done) to Rod Harrison—the Chief Technology Officer of Drobo who probably now has some influence at Retrospect "Inc".  If you want to impress him with a Swedish-stamped "snail-mail":

    Drobo

        Attn.: Mr. Rod Harrison, CTO

    1289 Anvilwood Ave.

    Sunnyvale, CA 94089

    USA

    However, if you are willing to enroll in LinkedIn—which I am not because of delete-finger tiredness—you should be able to get an e-mail address for Harrison there.

    P.S.: What Lennart_T and I said about the User's Guide not being updated is still valid; Nigel Smith's post below goes beyond what the UG says.

    • Thanks 1

  14. NoelC,

    With Retrospect Mac, the Retrospect Mac Engine task normally starts when the Mac is booted as a particular user, and is not stopped except by going to System Preferences.  The Retrospect Mac Console (non-Web) is a separate GUI task that can be started and stopped and re-started from the Mac Dock.  The Retrospect developers were trying to implement this same Engine/Console split for Retrospect Windows, but—as the first paragraph here says—Gates and Ballmer made that impossible (unless the Engine was given a built-in Web server—which the Retrospect developers either couldn't or didn't want to do).

    The Retrospect "Inc." developers are, as I write this, preparing to release an enhanced version of the Web-based Management Console that should—based on hosting the Console on Heroku—finally allow Retrospect Windows to have the same Engine/Console split as Retrospect Mac.  Then you'll be able to let the Retrospect Windows Engine run 24/7, while using nothing except paged-out memory when no operation is running.

    P.S.: And here's my brief discussion of the Web-based Management Console, which was released on 1 October 2019.


  15. NoelC,

    I'm a Retrospect Mac administrator, so I don't have the possibility of any retrorun service—since Retrospect Mac 8.0 in 2009 eliminated it.  However this 2017 post seems to tell how to use Windows Task Scheduler.

    OTOH the 2018 thread starting with this post seems to tell how to use the Retrospect Launcher Service.  There's also this 2019 Knowledge Base article, which may not be applicable to your setup. 

    Finally  Retrospect Windows does not quit after an operation—backup or otherwise—is complete if there is another operation scheduled within the "look ahead time", which defaults to 12 hours.  This is discussed under "Schedule Preferences" on pages 397-398 of the Retrospect Windows 16 User's Guide.  I think the feature applies whether or not you're using retrorun, but again as a Retrospect Mac administrator I'm  not an expert on it..


  16. karma,

    I do indeed have a Digital Audio G4 booting OS X 10.3.9 (I couldn't afford a 10.4-compatible ATTO SCSI card) on a SCSI drive I added, and Mac OS 9.1 on its two ATA drives.  When I upgraded to Retrospect Mac 16 I decided the easiest thing to so was to backup the G4 weekly using Retrospect Mac 6.1—which I installed on the SCSI drive—onto my still-working HP DAT 72 tape drive.

    If that hadn't worked I would have used Retrospect Mac 15 on my "cheesegrater" Mac Pro's spare third HDD to be the "backup server" for the G4's drives using the Legacy Client.  However I would have either had to buy 3 more portable USB3 HDDs to be used in rotation as destination Media Sets, or to take the chance that Media Set format hasn't changed between Retrospect Mac 15 and 16. 

    That would have been a chance worth taking, since I don't use the Retrospect 16 Storage Group feature.  However re-booting my Mac Pro to run Retrospect Mac 15 would have been a nuisance, and I can run Retrospect Mac 6.1 on my G4 in parallel with the Retrospect Mac 16 LAN backup of my MacBook Pro.  Doing so actually speeds up the elapsed time for my Saturday Recycle backup routine, although the 3-hour LAN backup of my G4 drives has been replaced by a 5-hour tape backup (the tape drive is slower than my LAN, and my Compare phases—an absolute necessity when backing up to tape—are byte-by-byte instead of MD5-digest)

    You'll have to read that old thread more thoroughly than I'm prepared to, but I don't think either of the European administrators participating in it tried disabling Instant Scan in Retrospect Mac 15 for their APFS drives.  If that works it might slow down your backup of the APFS drive by about 10%, but I'm not prepared to test it out—especially to find out if it works.


  17. x509,

    DovidBenAvraham was editing the Wikipedia NetBackup article early this afternoon, to correct links he had put there because of the split-off of the Enterprise client-server backup article (which of course is based mostly on Retrospect features but made application-neutral).  In doing so he was reminded of NB's Web-based Management Reporting feature, to support which—based on our quick look—it is documented that a NB "backup server" has a small embedded Web server.

    My guess is that in 2008 EMC's Retrospect developers, who were under tremendous management pressure, didn't have the ability to make or buy such an embedded Web server—and may have loathed that adding one would "embiggen" Retrospect Windows.  In fact what they eventually did in Retrospect 16 was to implement the Web-based Management Console as a hosted service (second paragraph); I have now been able to locate the name of the service provider—it's Salesforce Heroku.

    I am in thorough sympathy with your views.  However I would strongly recommend against expressing them in these Forums; I've had posts deleted in the past by the head of Tech Support for the real reason that they were critical of management.  If you read between the lines of this WP article section, and also read its references,  you will understand why long-time employees of Retrospect Inc. have what used to be known among baseball players/fans as "rabbit ears".


  18. x509,

    My "better memory about old posts" is embodied in the Search box in the upper-right corner of the Web page for the Forums.  The Search box used to have more facilities before the Forums software was "upgraded", but—if you check-mark "Find results that contain... All of my search term words"—it's still usable.

    AFAICT, a Web-based console is the best Retrospect Windows administrators are going to get; see the first paragraph of this section of the Wikipedia article.  AFAIK all the other backup applications whose "backup servers" run on Windows have such Web-based consoles, because Gates and Ballmer made a Retrospect-Mac-style non-Web console impossible starting with Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008.  My hope is that, since the StorCentric acquisition probably signals the failure of Retrospect Product Management's "go big or go home" strategy, StorCentric management will convince Product Management that EMC's venerable "soak the rich" strategy also isn't going to work any longer.  If my hope is realized, Retrospect Windows administrators will be able to set up a two-way Web console without paying for an additional license.  The alternative will be your "small price to pay" at every "backup server" reboot..


  19. karma, you bet your bippy there there have been APFS-related improvements and fixes in Retrospect Mac 16!

    First, it's Searching the Retrospect Website is Fundamental time. :rolleyes:  You should start with the Retrospect Mac Cumulative Release Notes here, beginning going down from the top with "Engine: Scanning faster on APFS volumes" for Mac 16.0.0.189.  In practice that refers to the problem—described in the thread ending in this post—other administrators had with Instant Scan for APFS in Retrospect Mac 15.6.1. 

    I recommend that—after upgrading your license code per the next paragraph—you install the latest version of Retrospect Mac 16 on your "backup server" machine (mine is still running Sierra) and your Mojave-running "client" machine, and then Remove and re-Add on your Console's Source panel the Client for that "client" machine.  After you re-Add, make sure in Options that Instant Scan for that machine is un-checked.  In each of your applicable Scripts, you will then have to re-checkmark that "client" in the Source pane and—after clicking the Save button—drag that "client" into its desired backup sequence in the Summary pane.

    Since a view of your posts shows you upgraded to Retrospect Mac 15 in February 2019, you are AFAIK entitled to a free upgrade to Retrospect Mac 16.  I recommend that you phone Retrospect Sales, although you may be able to request the upgraded license code in an e-mail.  :)


  20. Oh my, x509, it appears you're back to the same situation I responded to here in a post last fall.:(

    My first suggestion would be to follow whichever of the alternatives is appropriate from the first paragraph of that post.

    My second suggestion would be to update your Support Case on the problem, but this time tell Support to tell Engineering that you'll go to Rod Harrison—CTO of Drobo and probably by virtue of that position now de-facto StorCentric "enforcer" at Retrospect formerly-Inc. Engineering—if you don't get some work-around in Retrospect Windows 16.5 (which I hear is due out around 20 September).   A snail-mail address for Harrison is :

    Drobo

    Attn.: Mr. Rod Harrison, CTO

    1289 Anvilwood Ave.

    Sunnyvale, CA 94089

    However, if you are willing to enroll in LinkedIn—which I am not because of delete-finger tiredness—you should be able to get an e-mail address for Harrison there.

    My third suggestion would be to "go with the flow", and setup the Web-based Management Console per this Knowledge Base article.  Of course I haven't had to do that because, as a Retrospect Mac administrator, I've had a perfectly-adequate non-Web-based Console since I upgraded to Retrospect Mac 12 (from Retrospect Mac 6.1 on a "backup server" machine that died in 2010) in 2015.

    P.S.: In response to x509's post below, I'd think "royally pissed" would be expressed by the following emoji: :angry:

    • Thanks 1

  21. On 8/23/2019 at 4:09 PM, x509 said:

    IBM 2311 or was it 2314?  :)  I go back to the days of 026 card punches myself.

    HDDs have improved since the days I worked for Shugart Associates.

    It could have been either model; the IBM 2314 was basically a larger-capacity version of the 2311, with 11 platters instead of 6.

    My first job as a programmer (initially a trainee after two weeks of reading)—starting in June 1964—was with C-E-I-R Inc., the pioneer of non-manufacturer service bureaus.  We had professional operators in the air-conditioned computer room, who would have broken my fingers if I dared to touch hardware—with a pencil eraser tip or even pushing a switch.

    IBM 026 card keypunches were used for input to 2nd-generation computers such as the IBM 1401, beloved because it was so easy to program in assembly language (as in this example whose statement labels and field names are in programmer-chosen abbreviated German but the operation codes are IBM-standardized abbreviated English).  IBM 029 keypunches were a later model used for input to IBM System/360 computers, to which 2311s and 2314s were attached.


  22. Briefly returning to motivation for the merger, this very-interesting article based on a phone interview with Mihir Shah has actually been linked to on the "Latest News" PR section of this website—which you can view by signing on to your Portal.  A quote says  "The big vendors focus on $30m-per-year customers and 'forget about everyone else', according to Shah."  That sounds to me like a criticism of the "go big or go home" strategy that, in a previous post in this thread, I suggested Retrospect Product Management was trying to follow—evidently without great sales success.  The next quote says "StorCentric will focus on selling affordable products to the everyone elses, said Shah. Things that just work."

    But IMHO here's the really interesting indirect quote from the interview: "What next? Surya Varanasi, co-founder and CTO of Vexata, is developing a technology roadmap for StorCentric. Shah didn’t expand on that, apart from saying two new Drobo products are due in the next six months and a Drobo+Retrospect backup appliance is being considered [my emphasis]."  Since I corrected a previous post in this thread because I found out that Retrospect can already use a Drobo as either a source or destination for a backup, I can only assume what is being considered is using a Drobo as a "backup server".:o

    Drobo appliances apparently already use a version of Linux as their OS, so it doesn't seem impossible for the Retrospect engineers to convert the source code for the Retrospect Mac "backup server"—which is already running on a macOS that is mostly enhanced BSD Unix underneath the GUI.  Starting in the early 2000s with a "backup server" that ran only under Linux/Unix, the TOLIS engineers developed a version of BRU that runs on macOS.  If the Retrospect engineers make the converted "backup server" code run on other versions of Linux besides the Drobo, that would be a "go wide or go home" marketing solution.

    And I'll bet a cheap add-to-your-LAN-then-install-user-Clients Drobo+Retrospect backup appliance would sell like hotcakes to under-funded local government organizations, which must be worried about this all-too-real menace. IMHO forced client-server backup of users' computers is much easier to implement than a 100%-effective "don't click on any links in e-mails" training program.

    Obviously DovidBenAvraham can't yet discuss this in the "Retrospect" article, because discussing software under development is taboo for a Wikipedia article.  However he can probably get away with using the interview article as a reference, since it has a section that recapitulates the past history of StorCentric.:)


  23. In applicable Wikipedia news,  an kindly Australian woman editor with the "handle" Melcous did extensive edits to the "Backup" article on 10 August and 18 August 2019.  She somewhat over-simplified the "Near-CDP" sub-subsection, but DovidBenAvraham later rectified that to clarify that personal (non-client-server) backup applications at most have a near-CDP capability.  Retrospect non-V. doesn't have even that—since scripts can only be scheduled to run as frequently as once an hour; that's probably because Apple's venerable HFS+ filesystem doesn't have a "snapshotting" capability—which Apple's new APFS filesystem finally adds.  R. V. does near-CDP, not true CDP—a feature of only a handful of very-expensive and tricky enterprise applications.

    DBA has now made each of the feature descriptions in the "Enterprise client-server backup" article a separate Wikipedia subsection.  This has enabled him to make direct links to these features from the "Backup" article, eliminating the wordiness of previous links that had text allowing a reader to find the proper feature description within a link to its section—a pet Melcous peeve.  DBA has also changed such links in the "Retrospect" article, and in internal links in the 3 articles.

    DBA's posting of an Administrative Noticeboard Incident seems to have scared Pi314m out of trying to merge the "Enterprise client-server backup" article back into the "Backup" article.  The ANI was not successful in getting any kind of banning imposed on Pi314m, IMHO primarily because—having never posted an ANI before—DBA made his first paragraphs too wordy for the WP administrators.  However DBA later added a couple of concise paragraphs detailing Pi314m's merging of 10 related articles into the "Outsourcing" article in early 2019, deleting most of the text of those articles without prior discussion.  That kind of merging appears to be a violation of Wikipedia rules, and we're sure Pi314m realizes that DBA will bring it up again if some kind of post-holiday letdown leads Pi314m to try merging again in early 2020.

     


  24. jhg,

    If you want to submit an enhancement request, here's why and how to do it.

    However I suspect that Retrospect Tech Support's answer will be along the lines of "it's already the way we'd like it to be".  Their explanation would be that anyone who submits two Immediate operations whose destination is the same Backup Set is more likely than not to have made an error.  Starting with version 8.0 in 2009, Retrospect Mac did away with Immediate operations; clicking the Backup button in Retrospect Mac generates a script scheduled for the current date-time with whatever source-destination-etc. you specify.  A few weeks ago, doing an experiment for other purposes, IIRC I clicked the Run button in the Scripts panel to schedule the same script twice with exactly the same source-destination-etc..  Retrospect Mac 16 wouldn't submit the results of my second Run click, but would do so if I added  a Repeat Never schedule of the same script 2 minutes later.  That smells to me as if the engineers took the trouble to convert the Retrospect Windows behavior you don't like so that it works the same way in a dramatically-revised GUI.  If I paraphrased H. L. Mencken to say "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the competence of backup administrators", I suspect the engineers would say they already have the equivalent statement on a wall plaque in Walnut Creek CA.;)


  25. 16 hours ago, MrPete said:

    ....

    ....

    ....


    ....
    Bit Rot and Drive Replacement: In reality, bit rot can happen on ANY drive. In no way does bit rot imply a drive that needs to be replaced!

    Just for example: Consumer SSD drives retain data "perfectly" for approximately one year (if you've not overwritten a sector) before bit rot begins to show. It's worse for enterprise SSD's (because they are focused on performance over data retention.) This is not exactly advertised by the industry. Dig into the latest research and you'll discover the reality..) NOTE: some mfg's MAY be compensating for this and taking care of it in firmware... but I have yet to see such workarounds documented. And YES I have been harmed by this. Consider: what is the one sector on a drive or partition that NEVER is overwritten?... :)

    (How to avoid this: regularly rewrite every sector of an SSD. I do it about 3-4 times a year.


    I could point you at the (very!) technical research work that underlies what I wrote above. I agree that it's more than a little surprising.

    Thanks for the info, MrPete,

    For hysterical reasons I have been alternating between the use of two drives for Retrospect versions on my "cheesegrater" Mac Pro "backup server", one HDD and one SSD.  ATM I have Retrospect Mac 16 on my SSD, with Retrospect Mac 15 on my HDD.  However I've elected to keep my Catalog Files on the HDD, just in case I have to switch back or upgrade forward.  Retrospect Inc. (should I still call them that?) is kind enough to provide new point-releases of Retrospect Mac 16 about every 3 months, which I'm sure they do just so I can refresh my SSD. ;)

    I was vaguely aware that SSDs had a shorter lifetime than HDDs, but I thought progress had been made on that problem.   Now you're saying it hasn't, so what was good enough in the 1970s is still better over the long term than its replacement.  Spinning rust forever! :)

     

×