Jump to content

DavidHertzberg

Members
  • Content count

    1,038
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

Posts posted by DavidHertzberg


  1. 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! :)

     


  2. About 6 weeks ago I started getting -559 network connection timeout errors after about 2 hours while running my weekly "Sat. Backup" full backup of my MacBook Pro (the first of 3 drives plus a Favorite Folder backed up in that script).  There had not been any change in any of my software or hardware, so I guessed that at least one of my two Netgear Gbps Ethernet switches was  starting to feel its age.  I replaced both switches with non-Netgear 100Mbps switches I had lying around, and the problem went away—without slowing anything down except (moderately) the MBP's Compare phase of "Sat. Backup". 

    Since NewEgg was having a US$15 sale on TP-Link 8-port Gbps switches (Heavens to Betsy, my home LAN is becoming obsolete because I'm not upgrading it to 10Gbps :o), I ordered a pair of them.  Even though replacing both 100Mbps switches with the Netgear Gbps switches one at a time didn't cause the -559 problem to recur, a week ago Sunday I replaced both switches with the newly-arrived TP-Link Gbps switches.  The -559 problem still didn't recur last Saturday, so Sunday night I went into experimental mode and Deleted-Added my MBP with Use Multicast.  Both a pre-scheduled "sacrificial" "NoOp Sun.-Fri Backup" script and "real" "Sun.-Fri Backup" script failed with -530 errors when I booted my Mac Pro "backup server" machine after the time when they were scheduled to run.  I therefore Deleted-Added my MBP with Add Source Directly, and have had no further problems.

    IMHO this experience proves that my -530 Bugs 1 and 2 are not caused by a "security improvement" that was made solely in Netgear's Gbps Ethernet switches.  Because I started getting -530 Bug 1 immediately after I replaced the failed D-Link 100Mbps switch in my study with a Netgear Gbps switch on 30 January 2017, without any change in my then-current Verizon DSL "gateway" router, my guess is that the "security improvement" was made to several manufacturers' Gbps Ethernet switches.  And no doubt there is a contributing factor of Retrospect's implementation of its Multicast feature failing to keep up with the "security improvement".


  3. CherylB,

    Here's a Retrospect 8 Forum thread from early  2011 that discusses this problem.  IIRC Retrospect Mac 9 wasn't released until late in 2011.

    A key question is whether your user's .mkv files have the .mkv extension on the name of the file.  If not you've got a problem, unless you restrict what is scanned via Favorite Folders etc. as later posts in that thread suggest.

    BTW, this "Retrospect Mac bug reports" forum is no longer routinely looked at by anyone from Tech Support, so you might as well have posted your problem in the parent "Retrospect 9 or higher for Macintosh" forum.  Besides, it seems the problem isn't a Retrospect bug so much as a Retrospect limitation—it can't tell the type of a file that doesn't have an extension on its name.


  4. blm14,

    What Nigel Smith said.  Let me add two pieces of information.  First, it is a not-evident fact (see page 225 of the Retrospect Windows 11 User's Guide; last I heard you were still using that version) that Transfer Backup Sets operations can use Selectors.  You could use Selectors in running Transfer Backup Sets operations whose source is a regular Amazon S3 bucket and whose destination is a Glacier bucket, specifying a date to separate the "archival" backups from the "recent" backups.

    But that would still leave you with the "archival" backups also in regular S3.  It is a fact that, if you upgraded to at least Retrospect Windows 15, you could use Selectors in Grooming scripts to groom out the "archival" backups from regular S3 after you have migrated them to Glacier.   This Knowledge Base article talks about using Selectors in Grooming scripts specifically for satisfying GDPR requirements, which is why the Selector capability was added to Grooming scripts in Retrospect 15.  My guess is that you could specify the faster and cheaper (no Amazon download fees) Performance-Optimized Grooming in those scripts, since your grooming Selector would specify a date—not the name of an individual customer having a "right to be forgotten".

    In any case, my impression from this article is that you would have to have an on-premises appliance in order to use an AWS VTL.  because that would require some kind of "intermediary" local storage.  Since you seem to have an aversion to taking local tapes or disks off-site, how would that differ from Nigel's proposal?

    P.S.: Here's rforgaard's 2016 post on how to setup AWS S3 cloud backup for Retrospect Windows 11.  Here's the only-slightly-later KB article; here and here are other applicable KB articles.

    P.P.S.: Just to make it crystal-clear, blm14, I don't think you need an Amazon VTL.  Transfer Backup Sets in Retrospect Windows 11 gives you the capability to transfer "archival" backups from a local tape Backup Set directly to Amazon Glacier (after a 1-day stay in regular AWS).  Retrospect Windows 15's enhanced Grooming scripts would give you the capability to keep the "recent" backups in regular AWS, without duplicating what you have in Retrospect Glacier.  If you need multiple  "conceptual tape" Backup Sets to keep the "recent" vs. "archival" dates straight, you'll probably have to pay for extra hardware even if Retrospect can interface with an Amazon VTL—and I don't know if it can (or needs to).

    P.P.P.S.: Here and here are articles discussing VTLs.  The bottom of the second page of the first article discusses a solution that  "is available either as a fully-built appliance or as a software component of ***'s Virtual SAN SDS solution that can run on a customer's existing hardware."  The STK L700 is a physical tape library originally from StorageTek; my impression is that its instruction set is widely emulated.  Again, I don't see why you can't simply run Transfer Backup Sets scripts to copy  your "recent" backups to either local HDDs or regular AWS,  and then run Transfer Backup Sets scripts to move the "archival" data to Glacier—followed by Grooming it from the "recent" backups.


  5. I'll end my comments on the merger with a bit of pure speculation on what the synergy might be for Drobo.  I found this 7-year-old blog post, briefly updated over two years ago.  Its "Why I'm done with drobo" section basically says that if your Drobo box dies, you have no choice other than to replace it with another Drobo box because its BeyondRaid formatting is proprietary.  In the meantime the data on the HDDs that were contained in that Drobo box are inaccessible; one commenter on that blog said 4 years ago that she couldn't get files off her crashed Drobo, a model that is out of production with no parts available, so her only option was purchasing a new Drobo model.  The Wikipedia article on Drobo has the same criticism.

    There is one backup application whose maker partners with Drobo, but it only backs up to the cloud—which may be rather expensive for an administrator with many large files on their Drobo.  So why not give Retrospect Inc., now a subsidiary of Drobo's parent company, the proprietary format for BeyondRaid—enabling backup of a Drobo to tapes or a big-but-non-RAID HDD?  I'm not saying the Retrospect engineers could add this capability in a week, but they've already done the equivalent for Avid Media Composer.

    "And now that you've paid US$49 [ or maybe nothing—my marketing genius tendencies are telling me to double-cross the maker of the cloud-only backup application  :)  ] for your license to Retrospect Solo with Drobo Capability, how about upgrading to Retrospect Desktop Edition with Drobo Capability for another US$35?"

    P.S.: A Forums search indicates Retrospect has long been able to use a shared Drobo as a source, although some Retrospect Mac administrators have reported problems here and here.  By a not-so-strange coincidence, a new Knowledge Base article has just been posted—whose "Retrospect Setup: Add Drobo as a Source" section consists of two YouTube videos narrated in the dulcet voice of the head of Technical Support.  So my speculation about Retrospect needing Drobo's proprietary format information seems wide of the mark.


  6. henry-in-florida,

    Read all of my OP in that same thread.  I believe it answers all your bulleted-point questions except the third one.  Nigel Smith's final post in that thread recaps my experience doing a suggested upgrade from Sierra to High Sierra, but we're not sure how the Apple Support person found an installer that enabled me to do that—and we're pretty sure we couldn't find one ourselves.


  7. henry-in-florida,

    The bottom of this April post contains my method for fully restoring a machine after a bare-metal Erase and Install of the High Sierra OS on a MacBook Pro with an SSD.  As discussed in the OP of that thread, it has been combat-tested :rolleyes: ; I'm pretty sure it will also work for Mojave and Retrospect Mac 16.  In the last post of that thread, the worthy Nigel Smith gives the method his blessing.:)


  8. 3 hours ago, haggis999 said:

    Hi David,
    The last time I paid for an upgrade purely in the hope that it would fix a long-standing bug, it proved to be a waste of money. I'd be happy to pay for v15.5 if I felt more confident that it was going to fix my current problem, but a bug fix for cloud backup does not immediately appear relevant to my situation. That KB article is all about issues with troubleshooting email notifications and that's something that has never ever been a problem for me.

    You can get a free 45-day trial of Retrospect Windows 16.1.2.102 here.  If you talk to Sales at (888) 376-1078 or (925) 476-1030, they can probably check with Tech Support to see if that release fixes your problem—and if so tell you how much it will cost you to permanently upgrade.  If it does, you can presumably find some disk drive on which to install it.


  9. haggis999,

    These are simply a couple of WildA**edGuesses from a Retrospect Mac administrator:  First, the cumulative Retrospect Windows Release Notes say for version 15.5.0 (which is later than you're running, but it may only cost you US$75 to upgrade the Desktop Edition)

    Quote

    Cloud Backup: Fixed "error -1017, expired_auth_token: expired authorization token"

    Second, look in the "Security Settings" section of this KB article, which was updated 15 May 2018 for Windows 10.


  10. Getting back to the latest problems with the Wikipedia articles, DovidBenAvraham has done further work—which Pi314m has left alone so far.  It looks as if the fact that other WP editors, who may be administrators, took DBA's side in the latest Request for Comments has at least temporarily persuaded Pi314m to go mess with some other articles instead.

    Actually it now appears that Pi314m's heart was in the right place when he merged the "Continuous Data Protection" article into the "Backup" article.  The difficulty is that there are two types of backup applications that are called "CDP".   One is "true CDP", which was invented in 1989 but is only implemented in a handful of applications.  "True CDP" applications must get their "fingers" into an OS filesystem at the level where actual disk writes take place; they do so either by requiring that the OS be run inside a virtual machine so that they can get their "fingers" into the VM, or by requiring that special disk driver software with built-in "fingers" be installed.  "True CDP" backup can restore interactive applications to precisely the point where the system failed, but they're too expensive in money and complications for ordinary home/SME installations.   R. V. (whose spelled-out name I am forbidden to mention on these Forums) may be a "true CDP" backup application, but I can't tell.

    Much more common and less expensive are "near-CDP" backup applications, which were introduced after the front 7 screen pages of the "Backup" article were written.  AFAIK the first of these was Apple's Time Machine, which automatically does an incremental backup once an hour without a script.  They are made possible by intent-logging features that are now in all commercial OSs' filesystems, and are made non-burdensome by "snapshotting" facilities that are also in such filesystems (at long last for Apple's APFS, which was introduced at least partly because Apple couldn't bolt "snapshotting" onto its older HFS+).  "Near-CDP" backup applications can with proper add-ons restore interactive applications to the last point at which an incremental backup was done, possibly as little as 10 minutes ago, which is close enough for Microsoft Exchange and some database applications.  Retrospect non-V. can backup hourly, if you schedule a script accordingly, but it doesn't (so far) do so from "snapshots"  (not to be confused with Retrospect Snapshots, which are a different feature named a decade before the industry-wide OS feature appeared—at which point EMC dropped the use of the term Snapshot with Retrospect Mac 8 but not with Retrospect Windows).

    So DBA had to write three different versions of the above exposition.  The first version revises the re-established "Continuous Data Protection" article, with added quotes from the references because Pi314m evidently can't read technical English at a senior-high-school level (possibly as a result of his apparent sub-culture, in which boys past the age of 13 are educated—without any math or science classes—almost entirely in a non-modern European language).  The second version is the "Near-CDP" sub-subsection of the "Backup" article, which omits everything but a mention of "real CDP" because ordinary readers will never encounter it.  The third version is the "Backing up interactive applications via true Continuous Data Protection" paragraphs of the "Enterprise client-server backup" article, which can omit any mention of "near CDP" because it refers readers to the "Continuous Data Protection" article.

     


  11. bookcent,

    Make sure you are running the latest version of Retrospect Mac.  The Retrospect Mac cumulative Release Notes for version 16.0.1.105 say

    Quote

    Backup Sets: Fixed issue where rebuild did not work for certain sets (#8011)

    It's been impossible to turn off "fast catalog rebuild" for a Disk Media Set for several releases; I just tried it.  The engineers  haven't eliminated the GUI option yet for Tape Media Sets, but it may not work.  All my current Media Sets are Disk. 

    If you upgraded to Retrospect Mac 16 in the last 45 days, I suggest you contact Retrospect Tech Support at (888) 376-1078.  Otherwise you might consider Removing the Catalog for your Tape Media Set, doing a Finder Delete of the catalog in the folder where it's stored, and creating a new Media Set with the same name and same Members.   Before doing that, are you sure your AIT tape drive still works, considering that Sony discontinued AIT tape drives in 2010?  Try creating a new Tape Media Set whose sole Member is on a blank AIT tape (assuming you have one—if not you can buy one here), and doing a Backup to it.


  12. bookcent,

    Since your thread title says you are running "v16 Max OS X", you should repost in the "Retrospect 9 or higher for Macintosh" forum.  This is the "Windows Products - Retrospect Server, SBS and Multi Server" forum.

    But anyway, make sure you are running the latest version of Retrospect Mac.  The Retrospect Mac cumulative Release Notes for version 16.0.1.105 say

    Quote

    Backup Sets: Fixed issue where rebuild did not work for certain sets (#8011)

    It's been impossible to turn off "fast catalog rebuild" for a Disk Media Set for several releases; I just tried it.  The engineers  haven't eliminated the GUI option yet for Tape Media Sets, but it may not work.  All my current Media Sets are Disk.  If you upgraded to Retrospect Mac 16 in the last 45 days, I suggest you contact Retrospect Tech Support at (888) 376-1078.  Otherwise you might consider Removing the Catalog for your Tape Media Set, doing a Finder Delete of the catalog in the folder where it's stored, and creating a new Media Set with the same name and same Members.   Before doing that, are you sure your AIT tape drive still works, considering that Sony discontinued AIT tape drives in 2010?  Try creating a new Tape Media Set whose sole Member is on a blank AIT tape (assuming you have one), and doing a Backup to it.


  13. pbartoli,

    Have you tried stopping and restarting the Retrospect Engine, as I suggested in the first paragraph in this up-thread post?

    When you look in Preferences -> General under the Retrospect menu in your console, is the Server Address field filled in—and is it the correct address for your "backup server" machine?  If not, I would suggest following the "Installing the Retrospect Console" instructions on pages 12-13 of the Retrospect Mac 15 User's Guide.


  14. pbartoli,

    This post from nearly 10 years ago is the only one I can find with an answer to your problem.  To stop and start the Retrospect Engine, go to System Preferences -> Retrospect on your "backup server" Mac.  Make sure you have downloaded version 15.6.1; 15.6.0 was a "bad release", especially for Retrospect Windows.

    So what changed in your installation's Mac setup just before you started having this problem?


  15. pbartoli,

    You don't say what version of Retrospect Mac you are running.  The last time you made a post that mentioned it, you were running Retrospect Mac 12.

    Page 19 of the Retrospect Mac 12 User's Guide says

    Quote

    If a local Retrospect engine is not present, you may add one or more remote Retrospect engines by clicking the plus (+) button in the bottom bar of the console. Tip:In the Server Address of the resulting dialog, you may enter the IP address of the machine with the running Retrospect engine, or, if the machine is on your local subnet, you may enter its Computer Name, for example, Server.local. You can find a machine’s Computer Name in the Sharing category of its System Preferences.

    Have you recently changed the IP address or System Preferences -> Sharing -> Computer Name of your "backup server" machine?


  16. pbartoli,

    Unless I'm very much mistaken, you are running Retrospect Mac on both your Retrospect Console machine and your "backup server" machine.  This Forum is for "Windows Products-Retrospect -> Server, SBS and Multi Server".  Please re-post this problem in the "Retrospect 9 or higher for Macintosh" Forum, so people knowledgeable about such problems can help you.

     


  17. My first reaction to this merger announcement was that it means the "go big or go home" strategy instituted by Retrospect Inc.'s Product Management team last year is failing.  My guess is that R. V. is not selling well, and that the new features have failed to get consultants (whom they term "Partners") interested in selling Retrospect non-V. to larger enterprises.  IMHO Retrospect Inc. might have been able to convince more "Partners" if the two-way features of the Web-based Retrospect Management Console had been fully working by Spring 2019, but the engineers lost 3 months or more of development time on those in Spring 2018—because they were diverted to enhancing the "automated data grooming" facility to permit exclusion compliance with the GDPR "right of erasure".  Oh yeah, and some engineers were diverted in January 2019 for a month or so, because Retrospect Mac's good old non-Web-based Console turned out to have a "year 2019" bug. :rolleyes:


  18. Now that I think more about the StorCentric acquisition, the best news about it for us Retrospect administrators may be from the channelbuzz.ca article—which quotes the StorCentric CEO Mihir Shah.  “We will sell Drobo and Retrospect products individually until we have identified an integration point,” he said. “Then we will combine Retrospect within Drobo software to create an easy to use backup appliance that is robust. We will focus on what customers want. But they will still be able to purchase both products separately if they want to do that.”

    This means that Rod Harrison, CTO of StorCentric, will be looking at the actual usability of a version of Retrospect on Drobo hardware.  I don't think he'll be happy to hear from a subordinate who doesn't report to J.G. Heithcock that the User's Guides are out of date because of the "overwrite the feature description instead of moving it" syndrome.  I also don't think he'll be happy to learn from the same subordinate about the recent  lack of robust alpha testing of new versions, which stems from a now-evident attitude on the part of the engineers "The new version works between our home workstations and the Walnut Creek backup server, so it must be ready for release." :rolleyes:   The overall result is that Retrospect will finally have software-and-documentation beta testing, with the beta testers reporting their results to Heithcock's boss.  The 2009-2010 Retrospect Mac debacle (which IME caused drastic damage to Retrospect's reputation) wasn't enough to persuade the Retrospect engineers to institute software-and-documentation beta testing (they no doubt said to each other "EMC management didn't give us time in 2009"), but it appears the acquisition will do that.


  19. Since the head of Retrospect Tech Support is apparently too busy (or too uninformed) to post about the e-mail we all received this afternoon, that task initially falls to me.  It is a fit subject for this thread, since obviously the news of Retrospect Inc. joining with Drobo and Nexsan as subsidiaries of StorCentric needs to be added to the "Retrospect" Wikipedia article.  Here and here are articles on the merger; IMHO the TechTarget article looks more promising as a WP ref, but the channelbuzz.ca article will be interesting to Retrospect administrators for the merger rationales expressed by J.G. Heithcock (who will be "General Manager") and Mihir Shah (who will continue to be StorCentric CEO).

    The TechTarget article says Retrospect Inc. has 20 full-time employees, which is about what I had guessed and IIRC is about the same number it had when it was spun off from Rovi in late 2011.  The channelbuzz.ca article quotes Heithcock saying Retrospect Inc. is "a virtual business, with fewer engineers than at EMC, who use Google Chat for meetings."  No wonder it takes the engineers so long to fix bugs, since it sounds as if there may not be an extensive centralized test facility!:o  OTOH the last paragraph of the TechTarget article quotes Shah as saying "the StorCentric roadmap involves making select transactions to build value during the next several years, potentially leading to an initial [my emphasis] public offering", so if StorCentric paid a lot of money for Retrospect Inc. it's not clear where that money came from.

    My impression from a quick Advanced Search of the Ars Technica Mac Forum is that Drobo storage devices were more popular some years ago than they are now, because of the criticism recounted here in the Wikipedia article on those devices.  This would explain Shah's expressed intention to "combine Retrospect within Drobo software to create an easy to use backup appliance that is robust ... But they will still be able to purchase both products separately if they want to do that."  This series of comments on the WP article's Talk page indicates access to the Drobo support forums was closed to non-customers even in 2010, and my tests of the links listed in those comments show that they are—if anything—more restricted now.  So no matter how Tech-Support-policed the Retrospect Inc. forums are now, it's likely to get worse under Shah.


  20. On 6/25/2019 at 7:16 AM, Nigel Smith said:

    Why not publish your own? "Hertzberg's Guide to Retrospect for Busy Backup Admins".

    I'd buy that for a dollar!

    I'm actually semi-serious here. You know your stuff and write well. It might be worth a pitch to the Take Control guys (who you may know of from the TidBITS mailing list/magazine). Retrospect got a mention in "Take Control of Backing Up Your Mac", but there's nothing else in any depth.

    Thank you, Nigel, but DovidBenAvraham already wrote a "Guide to Retrospect for Busy Backup Admins"—as linked to at the bottom of the first substantial paragraph in this up-thread post.  The second substantial paragraph explains what happened to that "Guide"; you can still follow the link to the permalinked old version of the article, but the "Guide" only runs through Retrospect Mac 14 and Windows 12.

    As for Kissell's "Take Control of Backing Up Your Mac", both the existing "Backup" article (now split to create the new "Enterprise client-server backup" article) and the "Retrospect" article use an old freely-available 2007 edition (title slightly changed) of that book as a reference.  The description of the UI in that edition, because it is based on Retrospect Mac 6, has recently served me as an introduction to the Retrospect Windows UI.


  21. 5 hours ago, Mayoff said:

    I have moved this thread from the Professional area to "General use", which seems like a more appropriate area since this topic does not involve any troubleshooting. 

    Oh goody!  Now that we have the attention of the head of Retrospect Tech Support, maybe he can take some time out of his very-busy schedule to tell us when the august Documentation Committee (to which, as he has told us, he is not permitted to belong) is going to straighten out the mess the User's Guides have been in for the past 3 years.:rolleyes:

    In this thread alone, in chronological order, I've discussed that mess here and here and here and here; a notable discussion in another thread is here.  Frankly I'm getting tired of answering administrators' troubleshooting questions stemming from that mess. :angry:  And I'd assume the head of Retrospect Tech Support is also tired of (and made very busy) answering such questions, either personally or via his subordinates.  After all, you can't gently suggest that an administrator RTFM when the answer to the administrator's question has been over-written in TFM—or from Retrospect 15 on has never appeared in TFM (because the "What's New" chapters now consist of marketing blurbs that are over-written in every major release).


  22. It sounds as if two other editors participating in the RfC discussion are also Wikipedia administrators, and they’ve promised to support DovidBenAvraham in an Administrators’ Noticeboard request for partially or totally banning Pi314m if he does anything destructive to the articles.  So DBA finished doing the split-off yesterday evening, after re-creating the two “related" articles which Pi314m had destructively merged-in.

    DBA has updated the "Retrospect" article links that go to the former "Enterprise client-server backup" section of  the "Backup" article or its sub-sections to go to the split-off Enterprise client-server backup article.  I'll have to go through my posts on these Forums and do the same, but not today.  Meanwhile, if you want to read what the split-off article says about enterprise client-server backup features, go directly to it (there's now a link to it in the third sentence of the third paragraph in the lead of the "Backup" article) or go via the "Retrospect" article.

    P.S.: Link to the "Enterprise client-server backup" article is now in the third sentence of the third paragraph in the lead of the "Backup" article.


  23. AntonRang,

    You don't say what version of Retrospect you are running, and under what version of macOS you're running it.

    The latest version of Retrospect Mac, released on 28 May, has the following fix in the cumulative Release Notes:

    Quote

    Engine Fixed NAS: Fixed issue where certain NAS devices could no longer be found (#8121)

    If that doesn't help, here's why and how to file a Support Case for this bug.

×