Verify error does not cause failed file to be backed up at next run? in Professional Posted August 10, 2017 · Report reply Yesterday jhg started a new thread in this forum, in which he/she described error messages for several (newer?) files similar to those he/she reported for one file in post #1 of this thread. I chided jhg for not having posted them in this thread, whereupon he/she reported his/her own post—requesting that it be deleted. As is usual in such cases, Retrospect Support deleted the entire thread. But that belatedly spurred me to think of a new partial solution to jhg's "Backup Set format inconsistency" problem, derived from my further thinking (while taking a post-gym shower ) about what I wrote in the second sentence of the second paragraph of my post in the new thread. It first occurred to me that, although he/she didn't mention his/her Retrospect version in post #1 in the new thread, he/she might have mentioned it in this thread. jhg did, and—unless he/she has upgraded since 29 May—it's Retrospect Windows 11.5. I know that that's not the latest version, and it next occurred to me to do a browser search for "Backup Set format inconsistency" in the cumulative Release Notes for Retrospect Windows 12.1. Lo and behold, Retrospect Windows 12.0 has a Fixed line for "Clarified error for backup set format inconsistency (#5627)". I don't know exactly what that Fix is, but it's likely that it at least will tell jhg the names of the files that have the inconsistency. If it does, he/she can then do the trivial name change I suggested in post #2 in this thread—to cause each file (assuming jhg still has them on a disk somewhere) to be backed up again. jhg can contact Retrospect Sales to get a 45-day trial license for Retrospect Windows 12.1. I expect him/her to give us other administrators the courtesy of posting the results of his/her trial, at least as to whether Retrospect 12.1 clarifies the message for "Backup Set format inconsistency" by giving the names of the files involved. I apologize to everyone for not having thought of looking in the Release Notes back on 29 May. There's a reason why Retrospect Inc.'s Support Case form asks for the version of Retrospect the case filer is running; we should all remember—as jhg did in post #1 of this thread—to supply that information when starting a thread in these Forums. P.S.: To use the "new partial solution", jhg would have to (as I said in post #7 in this thread) "manually Run a Normal Backup for the Source onto the same Backup Set. That, although it might backup some extra files if the Backup Set were not still in use, would result in a new backup of the [name-changed] file that produced the error."