Jump to content

DavidHertzberg

Members
  • Content count

    1,243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

Posts posted by DavidHertzberg


  1. I posted about this problem in an Ars Technica Macintoshian Achaia forum, and it turns out I guessed wrong in the first paragraph of post #4.  Core Storage is not part of the code that Apple has released as part of Darwin.  So if you haven't yet submitted your second problem as a Retrospect bug, Monafly, I would say don't bother—Retrospect Inc. probably won't be able to fix it.  Sorry.


  2. The tl;dr summary is that I have been able to use  the No Files selector (now known as a Rule) to provide a rather-kludgey solution to my new -530 problem.  I have now tested the solution for a couple of nights, so I consider it ready for posting it on the “Retrospect 9 or higher for Macintosh” forum (I let Mayoff know in an e-mail yesterday, since he had belatedly offered No Files advice) :

     
    Monday night 30 January I had to make an emergency replacement of the 8-port Ethernet switch in my study with another model of a different brand.  If you’re interested, https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=32757787#p32757787 describes my setup in the second paragraph.  As the third paragraph says, I immediately started getting -530 errors on my nightly “Sun.-Fri. Backup” No Media Action script when I booted my “backup server” after the 3 a.m. scheduled time for  the script—a problem that had mysteriously vanished last June (see the thread http://forums.retrospect.com/index.php?/topic/152169-client-530-error-workaround-from-retrospect-inc-tech-support/?hl=%22-530%22 for my past -530 history).
     
    A poster on the Ars Technica thread commented “Sounds like retrospect is dumb and trying to run before the network is 100% functional. See if you can just put a pause in the beginning of the script or tell it to do a ping to the target computer before starting the backup attempt. I've seen similar problems. The switch just switches but from one bit of hardware to the next, the time for the link to become active and start passing traffic might be a few seconds different and that might be enough for poorly made software to error out.”
     
    The comment reinforced suspicions I had had last spring, but I replied that I don’t know to put a pause or a ping in the beginning of a Retrospect script.  I then remembered selectors (now known as Rules), and wondered if there is one that would enable me to run a sacrificial script before the real “Sun.-Fri. Backup”.  My idea was that, even if the sacrificial script didn’t make the Retrospect Engine “straighten up and fly right”, I would  have time while it ran to click the Locate button in Sources—an action which has always eliminated any further -530 error during that Engine execution.
     
    It turns out that a “NoOp Sun.-Fri. Backup” script, using the No Files selector (now known as a Rule) and scheduled for 3 a.m., makes my “Sun.-Fri. Backup” script run without error when scheduled at 3:10 a.m.  When I boot my “backup server” before or just after 3 a.m., both scripts run fine.  When I boot my “backup server” well after 3 a.m., the sacrificial script bombs with a -530 error but my “Sun.-Fri. Backup” script immediately runs fine.
     
    At some point I used the Forum's search capabilities to find hgv's post http://forums.retrospect.com/index.php?/topic/152290-retrospect-13-error-530-backup-client-not-found/&do=findComment&comment=262378.  It suggests creating a launchd script to do a 60 seconds delayed stop/restart of the retroengine and retroisa daemons at startup.  However I don't know how to create a launchd script.
     
    I’ve also posted a version of this as a Support Case, since this solution shows an obvious bug in the Retrospect Engine.
     
    BTW, the reason all links in this post up to this paragraph are not concealed in Link constructs is that I wanted to include them in the Support Case, where Link constructs are not allowed.
     
    The "Skull Island tradition" in the thread title refers to the plot of the 1933 version of the movie "King Kong".  In it the Skull Islanders have developed over the generations an effective way of keeping the giant ape on the other side of the ancient wall; they occasionally give the giant ape a young woman as a sacrifice (it is the white outsider Carl Denham who interferes with this tradition and causes a catastrophe for the islanders).  Hence the idea for my "sacrificial script" B).
     
    P. S.: The Support Case is now posted as of early this morning.  The Retrospect Support Team has already asked for a copy of my operations log, which I've given them.
     
    P.P.S.: Note that for both the just-after-3-a.m. and the well-after-3-a.m. runs the Search Timeout in the Advanced dialog in the Console's Network Preference pane had been increased from 10 seconds to 75 seconds. It didn't make any difference in whether the "sacrificial" script ran or not.
     
    P.P.P.S.: Fixed last sentence of fourth paragraph; the Locate button is of course in the Sources category of the Console.
     
    P.P.P.P.S.: A "selector" is now a Rule in Retrospect Mac.

  3. On further thought, I retract the statement in the fifth sentence of my third paragraph in post #3.  Retrospect would probably not have to get Apple to give them the Core Storage access code, because Apple has almost certainly released it as part of Darwin.  So go ahead and submit your second problem as a bug, Monafly; the Retrospect Inc. engineers may in fact be able to fix it.

     

    P.S.: What I recommended in the sixth sentence of my third paragraph in post #3 will still probably solve Monafly's second problem faster than submitting it as a bug, but if he/she has the patience then more power to him/her (insert appropriate smiley here).

     

    P.P.S.: Oops.  In the second sentence I intended to write "Retrospect [my emphasis] would probably not have to get Apple to give them the Core Storage access code ..."


  4. Monafly's more-fully-described solution to the first problem (in his second paragraph) in his OP is here.  He has also, in the same linked-to post, provided convincing evidence that he/she indeed can't easily solve the second problem (in his third paragraph) in his OP.

     

    IMHO, there is no likelihood that Retrospect Inc. would try to prevent the first problem from occurring—so Monafly shouldn't bother reporting it as a bug.  The engineers would undoubtedly take the position that Monafly should have created the unique machine name for his macOS 10.12.x partition before installing the Retrospect Client the first time.  They would ignore the fact that this requirement is not documented in the Retrospect Mac 13 User's Guide.

     

    However there is the barest chance that Retrospect Inc. might try to fix the second problem.  Monafly almost certainly isn't the only Retrospect Mac user with a laptop that has partitions for both OS X 10.6.8 and a more recent version of OS X/macOS.  I assume that most such users have to keep the 10.6.8 partition because they are using apps that only run with Rosetta's PowerPC emulation (that's why I have never updated from OS X 10.6.8 on Ronny Lee's separate drive—or what is now a partition on that separate drive—on the Mac Pro I inherited from him).  If Monafly wants to submit the second problem as a bug, he/she should follow the procedure described in the second paragraph of post #3 in the thread linked to in the first sentence of this post.  However realistically the chances of Retrospect Inc.'s engineers being able to fix it are slim, because they would have to add code to the Retrospect Mac client that essentially duplicates Core Storage access code in more recent versions of macOS (and how are they going to get Apple to give it to them?).  IMHO Monafly would do better to first back up his/her 10.12.x partition, and then to try to revert that partition back to HFS+ using the procedure in the second link in his/her post linked-to in the first sentence of this post.


  5. Thanks for your comprehensive reply, Monafly.  It will indeed help other Retrospect users.

     

    First, as to your having renamed the machine in System Preferences->Sharing for your macOS 10.12 partition after having installed a Retrospect Client on that partition, the limitations of the way Retrospect handles Clients mean that simply won't have any appreciable Retrospect effect.   Another consequence of those limitations is discussed in the first paragraph of this post.  This is why Retrospect Support keeps telling people "Remove the Client in the Console, uninstall and re-install the Retrospect Client on the client machine, Add back the Client in the Console, re-checkmark the Client in all the appropriate Scripts, and change the sequence of Source backup in each such script by dragging in the Details panel of its Summary tab [iME they don't tell you this last step]".

     

    Second, as to newer versions of OS X/macOS converting partitions from HFS+ to "Core Storage", I didn't know anything about that—since I normally use separate disk drives instead of partitions and OS X 10.10.5 Disk Utility didn't create the new partition using "Core Storage".  I could quibble about "Core Storage" being some kind of VM, and that the company which provides that VM is Apple.  But I won't, because the truth is that both my Early 2011 MacBook Pro and my inherited 2010 Mac Pro are too old to have come with SSDs; I'm still mentally stuck in the 20th Century in some respects.  Obviously some first-line Support people at Apple are, too; that explains why the guy I spoke to didn't ask me about "Core Storage"—to which I undoubtedly would have replied "hoo hah?".

     

    Glad you got both clients to work.  Hope you can—if you want to—make your 10.12.x partition visible from your 10.6.8 partition.


  6. The 10.12.x partition is NOT visible to the Finder under 10.6.8. This is a known Apple issue in how a partition is formatted under more recent OS's Nothing that I nor RS can do about this (as near as I can tell).

    ....

    ....

     

     

    Sorry Monafly, it's not a known Apple issue—because I've just run a test in which I have booted one partition of a disk on my Mac Pro under OS X 10.6.8 and am able to use the Finder to view and open documents on another partition of the same disk which is formatted under macOS 10.12.3 (details of the test at the bottom of this post) .  Therefore I stand behind what I said in the first paragraph of post #3  and the first paragraph of post #5 in this thread.

     

    If your user is running a VM—including Parallels—of some kind on either the 10.6.8 partition or the 10.12.x partition of your MacBook Pro, you need to talk to two advisors: one from the company that provides your VM, and the second at Retrospect Inc. support.  If—on the other hand—your user is not running a VM of any kind, then you need to talk to an expert Mac advisor—because IMHO your 10.6.8 and/or 10.12.x installations are messed up in some way.  I would suggest taking your MacBook Pro to the Genius Bar at your nearest Apple Store (although a good independent Mac store may be a worthy substitute if they have the time).  If that is impossible you can phone (800) MY APPLE, although IME a first-level advisor may not know enough to help you.

     

    I hope that one of these advisors can help you to make changes to your MacBook Pro, so that you can then implement some version of what I suggested in post #2 of this thread.  I'm now going to venture a bit into informed speculation, based on what I have learned in contributing to threads on the Retrospect Forums over the past few months: It has been pointed out to me by Mayoff—although I had learned it already—that "most of the Retrospect users are full time IT professionals and they have very limited time to spend reading forum posts".  What I've further learned is that many of the  Retrospect administrator users who post in the Forums are not even full-time employees of the organizations in which Retrospect is installed, but are instead consultants called in to solve problems with a Retrospect installation they did not originally create.  Full-time employees or consultants, the administrator users who post in the Forums frequently do not have the power to make changes to the computers of users who are causing a problem with Retrospect backup—or they do not have the power to get their management to spend the money needed to fix such a problem in the Retrospect installation.

     

    If that is the case, Monafly, I hope you will have the simple politeness to make a final post in this thread explaining—in non-specific terms—why you cannot implement a solution to your problem.  Remember that you (unlike me) are not posting under your real name, so that no one (except Retrospect Inc. employees—of whom I am not one) can attribute your explanation to you or your installing organization.  If—on the other hand—you are able to solve your problem, again please have the simple politeness to make a final post explaining your solution.  Either way, your final post will help other Retrospect Mac users.

     

    Details of my test today: As discussed in the first paragraph of my post #2 in this thread, my Mac Pro has a separate disk containing Ronny Lee's installation of OS X 10.6.8.  Since this is a 1TB disk installed by the New York State Commission for the Blind because Ronny was still working despite his macular degeneration, it had almost 900GB of extra capacity.  Therefore I partitioned it into "Macintosh HD" and "Macintosh HD Sierra", recovered last Saturday's backup (which is current for that disk) onto "Macintosh HD", and installed macOS 10.12.3 from the App Store onto "Macintosh HD Sierra".  I was then able to boot from "Macintosh HD" as Ronny Lee, and open files from the corresponding Documents folder on "Macintosh HD Sierra".


  7. If you look at this post,  ckmcdonald, you'll find that Retrospect 7.7 does not support Windows 10.  Mayoff has spoken on this subject, and he's the Worldwide Mgr. of Support for Retrospect Inc..  If he were not so busy (I think A. no longer works there), Mayoff would have already have told you that himself.  The post linked to in the first sentence of this paragraph says a -1001 error was fixed in Retrospect Windows 9.5.

     

    You'll find that the Advanced Search facility in these forums is your friend, ckmcdonald.  You can get to it by clicking the little gear icon at the upper-right of forum pages, level with "IPS Community" on the upper-left.  I found the post I have linked to in the first sentence of this post by enclosing "-1001" in quotes (so it will treat the minus sign as part of the error code) in the Find Words box.  I then specified Windows Products—Retrospect in the Find In Forum list box.

     

    HTH.


  8. I mentioned Monafly's problem to my most-intelligent doorman, who owns a 17-inch MacBook Pro.  He said he remembered that there was a problem viewing partitions in the Finder when the partitions were using Parallels.  Are you using Parallels in either your OS X 10.6.8 partition or your macOS 10.12.x partition, Monafly?  How about a VM?

     

    My only experience with Parallels was installing it for my lately-separated-but-not-yet-divorced wife around 2004, after IBM stopped supporting the ViaVoice voice dictation program and the available Mac alternative was not yet up to snuff.  (She didn't like using Dragon Naturally Speaking under Windows, so shortly afterwards she went back to using the Mac voice dictation program.)  I'm not sure whether she was using Retrospect at the time; I thought not, because there was a problem getting Retrospect to use her tape drive—which I tried to connect to her new PowerBook using a Ratoc FR1SX FireWire-to-SCSI adapter, but an old e-mail about her possibly switching to BRU shows she was using Retrospect to backup to DVDs .

     

    In other news, I have not yet (Tuesday night January 31st) heard back from the Apple 2nd-level support person who was supposed to e-mail me back regarding the visibility of a MacOS 10.12 partition when booted under OS X 10.6.8.


  9. If the 10.12.x partition is not visible in the Finder when booted in 10.6.8, which is your more common way to boot, then you should talk to Apple Support.  If OTOH it is just not visible in the Console Source item, then you should try what I suggest in the second paragraph of post #2 in this thread.  If that doesn't work, then you should talk to Retrospect Inc. Support at a phone number here.  If they can't help you, then you have a Retrospect bug.

     

    If you think this is a bug that should be fixed by Retrospect Inc., you will have to submit it as a Support Case.  For English speakers, that is done by going here, and filling out the form (sorry, I don't know what the equivalent addresses are for non-English speakers, but they can figure it out from their appropriate Retrospect website address).  IMHO this is quite reasonable; obliging you to fill out the form provides Retrospect Inc. with useful details about your Retrospect installation that they would otherwise have to query you for.

     

    Retrospect Inc. will pay no attention to your post in the "Bug reports" sub-forum.  On 12 December 2016, in response to a letter I snail-mailed to Mayoff,  I received an e-mail through a Mayoff account that was signed by JG Heithcock, CEO, Retrospect, Inc..  In it he says "From reading your letter, I think the main issue is that you view the forums as a good place to talk to us, Retrospect, Inc. But we view the audience of the forums as restricted to our customers [my emphasis]. The one caveat we have made on that is for feature requests, largely as we would like to see if other customers also agree on the desirability and feature set for these requests."

     

    That means that the only audience for "Retrospect bug reports" in that sub-forum will be other administrators of Retrospect Mac.  Nevertheless, by posting in that sub-forum you are providing a useful service to us fellow Mac administrator peasants—one that is denied to administrators of Retrospect Windows who are evidently considered too peasanty (insert appropriate smiley here) to benefit from such bug notifications.  Thank you.

     

    Please be aware that the "description of your issue" in the Support Case form is IME limited to about 2000 characters by the Support Case software.  If you go over that limit your "description" will be broken up into a "description" plus one or more "additional notes".  The same is true for any additional notes you may later post yourself.  I suggest that, to avoid the appearance of choppiness in your Support Case, you create your case in a post in that sub-forum and then copy it paragraph-by-paragraph to your Support Case. 

     

    P.S.: Because I have doubts as to whether—when booted under OS X 10.6.8—you really can't see your 10.12.x partition in the Finder, I phoned Apple Support on Monday 30 January.  The guy I spoke to doesn't know, so he will consult a senior adviser and e-mail me back.


  10. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to test your scenario.  On my Mac Pro, which runs my "backup server" and Console on an OS X 10.10 boot disk, I also have installed another disk which—in the rare situation that I boot from it—boots OS X 10.6.8.  I do back up that second disk once a week, because it was the primary drive for my late friend Ronny Lee—from whom I inherited the Mac Pro.  However it is a separate disk that is local to the "backup server", so I had no problem establishing it as a Source.  When my Mac Pro is booted from the OS X 10.6.8 disk, it can see the OS X 10.10 boot disk—but not from System Preferences as a Startup Disk.

     

    I can't help feeling that your problem is connected with your having installed Retrospect Client software on both partitions.  However what I think you need to do is to insure that, for each of the MacBook Pro clients, the Options tab in the Detail for that client's entry in the Console Sources list has the Backup drop-down set to either All Volumes or Selected Volumes—as shown on on page 50 of the Retrospect Mac 13 User's Guide.  If you set the drop-down to Selected Volumes, you must make sure that both partitions are check-marked.  I presume that the Console will show different drive names within the Source for each of the partitions.  If that is not true (which happened to me for drive names 20 months ago by mistake), you must change one of the partition names to avoid confusing Retrospect (although 20 months ago it didn't confuse OS X); my two Mac Pro drives are now named "Macintosh HD" and "Macintosh HD New".

     

    Of course this means that you would have to use the Rename button in the Sources Toolbar—as mentioned on page 47 of the UG— to give each client for the same MacBook Pro a different Source name. It also means that, whenever you run a Retrospect backup—which would have both MacBook Pro Sources check-marked in the script, the MacBook Pro Source that was not booted at that time would be shown as not found—even though both partitions would be backed up via the MacBook Pro source that was booted at that time.  Finally, it means that AFAIK the same partition would show as a different backup depending on which Source it had been backed up under.

     

    Frankly I think it would be simpler to, every time a backup script is going to run, make sure your MacBook Pro is booted under OS X 10.6.8—which you say is your more-common scenario.

     

    P.S.: Because I have doubts as to whether—when booted under OS X 10.6.8—you really can't see your 10.12.x partition in the Finder, I phoned Apple Support on Monday 30 January.  The guy I spoke to doesn't know, so he will consult a senior adviser and e-mail me back.


  11. On second thought, even more important is what is on page 93 of the Retrospect Mac 13 User's Guide: "According to TCP/IP standards, every subnet has both a network address and a subnet mask, such as 192.168.1.0 and 255.255.255.0. Routers use these to identify the physical network to which computers are connected. Routers also support queries [my emphasis] to all the computers on a particular subnet."  You have 3 physical networks within your company: 10.122.132.1 ... 255, 10.122.133.1 ... 255, and 10.122.134.1 ... 255; the network addresses are denoted by the first 3 sets of digits in each address; 10.122.13n.  So by making your subnet mask 255.255.255.192, you are telling Retrospect to broadcast to physical networks that don't exist in your company.  Again, use 255.255.255.0 as your subnet mask.


  12. Yes, after a search of the Ars Technica Networking Matrix forum, it does appear I know what I'm talking about.

     

    Look at this post there, from 2001.  Now look at the third paragraph.  Note that it says

    "The subnet mask 255.255.255.192 in binary is
    11111111.11111111.11111111.11000000
    The zeros represent your 62 available host addresses."

     

    That's 62 available host addresses, not 63.  The reason for this is that a host address (what you get after flipping the ones to zeros and vice-versa in the subnet mask and then ANDing that with the address) which evaluates to all zeros is not a valid host address.

     

    So when I said in post #5 in this thread "any client with an address of 10.122.13n.(evenly-divisible-by-32) isn't in your range" of host addresses, I'm correct.  If your problem is not being able to "lock-on and track the Retrospect Clients for Mac Desktops or Laptops across these IP ranges" for certain clients, that may be the answer.  The solution would be to use 255.255.255.0 as your subnet mask.


  13. On the other hand, maybe there is a problem with your subnet mask.  I'm extremely rusty, as well as inexperienced, in that area.  However, by specifying 255.255.255.192, aren't you saying that any client with an address of 10.122.13n.(evenly-divisible-by-32) isn't in your range?  Or do I just not know what I'm talking about?

     

    Most people use 255.255.255.0 as a subnet mask.  I suggest you talk to your I.T. people.

     

    P.S.: Changed address range at the end of third sentence of my first paragraph.  I haven't actually used hexadecimal notation in the last 45 years, so I made a stupid mistake.

     

    P.P.S.: In the video linked to in post #2 in this thread, Mayoff specifies a subnet mask around minute 0:25.  He specifies 255.255.255.0.  In general, Mayoff makes it a practice never to explain in one of his Retrospect videos why he is doing something.  I believe he does that because he has found, by bitter experience, that any explanations in a video tend to lose the viewer.  However Mayoff's lack of explanation in videos has, on occasion, proved to be a problem.  Nevertheless, if he specifies 255.255.255.0 as a subnet mask, IMHO you'd better have a pretty good reason for specifying 255.255.255.192 instead.  It might be a good idea for you to go to this Web page, and use it to either send an e-mail or phone Retrospect Inc. Support.


  14. So, I.T. have changed our Network setup, again ...

     

    We now have 3 network ranges within our company;

    10.122.133.1 ... 255 fixed wired ethernet desktops 

    10.122.132.1 ... 255 fixed wired ethernet servers   

    10.122.134.1 ... 255 wifi laptops            

    Users could be on any of these.

    255.255.255.192 subnet for all

     

    Retropsect Server is on 10.122.132.20

     

    So I need to lock-on and track the Retrospect Clients for Mac Desktops or Laptops across these IP ranges using my Retrospect Server for ac OSX Server.

     

    Can I do this?

    Some setup in Retrospect->Preferences-?Network ?

     

    Thanks for you help,

     

    Mac OSX Desktops 10.10 to 10.12

    Mac OSX Server 10.11.6

    Retrospect Server for Mac 12.5.0 (111)

     

     

    :-) Yes, I did RTFM first and tried many options before asking ...

     

     

    Then I don't understand what you mean by "lock-on and track the Retrospect Clients for Mac Desktops or Laptops across these IP ranges".  Does "Configuring Network Interfaces and Subnets", on pages 88 and 89 in the Retrospect Mac 12 User's Guide, not do what you need?  What precisely is your problem?


  15. I am but a lowly home user, with a single Internet-facing router.  However I am capable of reading the Retrospect Mac 13 User's Guide (the Mac 12 UG, which you can download, should be similar in this area).  Try "Subnet Broadcast" on page 92, and "Configuring Network Interfaces and Subnets" on pages 94 and 95.  For Retrospect User's Guides, the Table of Contents is your friend; if that doesn't help, try the Find function in your Web browser.

     

    Speaking of friends, the ever-friendly Mayoff (who is head of Retrospect Inc. Tech Support) put a video tutorial about this on YouTube in 2011.

     

    In other words, I suggest you learn to find documentation by clicking the icons at the bottom of this page.  Good luck!


  16. One thing that is made clear in the OP in "Product Suggestions—Mac OS X" is that it turns out that overlapping a Backup script run with a Copy Media Set script run from the Backup's Destination does not appreciably slow down a Backup script run whose Source(s) are "client" hard disk drives.  I'm sorry I forgot to mention that in the OP in this thread; it should whet your appetites considerably.

     

    P.S.: Why, you may well ask, did using "Media Set Blue" simultaneously—as I did on the morning of 31 December—as both a Destination for the "Sun-Fri Backup" script and a Source for the Copy Media Set (Retrospect Mac terminology for Transfer Snapshots) script not slow the backup appreciably?  The reason is that, at least when the Source for a Backup is a hard disk drive, the gating factor is primarily speed of directory traversal on the Source drive—not LAN speed or Destination drive speed (because the Destination drive is not traversing directories).  That may not hold true if the Source is an SSD, but I'm not about to spend money upgrading an Early 2011 MacBook Pro which became officially "obsolete" when the ball fell at midnight on 31 December in Times Square.


  17. One thing that is made clear in the OP in "Product Suggestions—Mac OS X" is that it turns out that overlapping a Backup script run with a Copy Media Set script run from the Backup's Destination does not appreciably slow down a Backup script run whose Source(s) are "client" hard disk drives.  I'm sorry I forgot to mention that in the OP in this thread; it should whet your appetites considerably.

     

    P.S.: Why, you may well ask, did using "Media Set Blue" simultaneously—as I did on the morning of 31 December—as both a Destination for the "Sun-Fri Backup" script and a Source for the Copy Media Set (Retrospect Mac terminology for Transfer Snapshots) script not slow the backup appreciably?  The reason is that, at least when the Source for a Backup is a hard disk drive, the gating factor is primarily speed of directory traversal on the Source drive—not LAN speed or Destination drive speed (because the Destination drive is not traversing directories).  That may not hold true if the Source is an SSD, but I'm not about to spend money upgrading an Early 2011 MacBook Pro which became officially "obsolete" when the ball fell at midnight on 31 December in Times Square.


  18. I have never used a Proactive backup script.  However I believe I have a basic understanding of them, and I have the capacity to read the last paragraph in this section of the old Wikipedia article on Retrospect and the Retrospect User's Guides.   I think you—jelockwood—don't properly understand the concept of a Proactive script, or possibly the idea that you can have multiple schedules for a Proactive script.

     

    To quote from the WP article "... Retrospect also has a special Proactive script type that—while it is running—maintains on the "backup server" a queue[my emphasis] of its designated Source volumes in the oldest-first order of their most-recent backup date and time."  Let's start by assuming that you could schedule a Proactive script from midday to midday, and that it was scheduled to run on Mondays through Fridays.   The week's first execution of the Proactive script would start at noon Monday, and end at noon Tuesday.  Then the week's second execution of the Proactive script would start at noon on Tuesday, recreate the same queue that the week's first execution had when it ended, and go merrily on its Proactive way until noon Wednesday.  This process of recreating the script's queue at noon would continue until noon Saturday, at which point the Proactive script would cease execution until noon the following Monday.

     

    Now let me tell you how to do the same thing with the current facilities of Retrospect, as described in steps 8 and 9 on pages 133 and 134 of the Retrospect Mac 13 User's Guide.  To schedule executions of a Proactive script from noon Monday until noon Saturday: First create a schedule for the script for Monday only from noon to midnight.  Then add a second schedule for the script for Tuesday through Friday only from midnight to midnight.  Finally add a third schedule for the script for Saturday only from midnight to noon.

     

    If that sounds a little complicated, jelockwood, you can take an envious look at "Customizing the Schedule" on pages 267 through 269 of the Retrospect Windows 11 UG.  Retrospect Mac 6 used to  have the same UI and capability, but it got simplified per the first paragraph of this section of the WP article.  All that was really lost was the "wrap up" period capability.  If you want to know why the Retrospect Windows UI wasn't similarly simplified, read the last paragraph of the section linked-to in the second sentence of this paragraph.

     

    P.S.:  In case it wasn't obvious from the third paragraph of this post, if you want to switch the backup media (which I assume means the Media Set) for your Proactive script at noon each day, then you must do it by manual action.  The script should specify all the noon-to-noon Media Sets  to be used during each week.  I know this is a little complicated, jelockwood, but it's workable.

     

    P.P.S.: Revised last sentence in P.S.; it was snide, and I'm sorry.  The implication of that last sentence is that what you, jelockwood, are asking for in your OP should be a Product Suggestion; there is no bug since you can do what you want with Retrospect as it now exists.  Yes, if you are using Proactive scripts but also want to alternate between Media Sets on alternate days so you can take one Media Set off-site, there ought to be an easier method of scheduling the Proactive script.  However, on page 127 of the Retrospect Mac 13 User's Guide, it says "Copies to the most ideal available [my emphasis] Media Set in the destinations list. Automatic media rotation among multiple available [my emphasis] Media Sets."  Note also that page 258 in the Retrospect Windows 11 UG says "Create multiple Backup Sets [the Retrospect Windows term for Media Sets] and use them all as destinations in your Proactive Backup script. Rotate through the sets by inserting different media in the backup device each day.  Proactive Backup uses whatever media you inserted."  If you are alternating Media Sets at noon, you may want to manually Pause Proactive at noon while you switch tapes/disks.

     

    P.P.P.S.: Totally revised the first and second sentences of my P.S.; I forgot that Proactive scripts—unlike regular scripts—cannot specify a different Media Set for each schedule but can specify multiple Media Sets for the script—it's that way in Retrospect Windows too (presumably the EMC Dantz engineers decided far back in the mists of pre-Retrospect-8 that manual switching of what were then called Backup Sets was the way to go for what were then—for Retrospect Mac—called Backup Server scripts).  Emphasized "available" in two quotes in my P.P.S., to explain why switching tapes/disks at noon would do what jelockwood wants.


  19. If you think this is a bug that should be fixed by Retrospect Inc., you will have to submit it as a Support Case.  For English speakers, that is done by going here, and filling out the form (sorry, I don't know what the equivalent addresses are for non-English speakers, but they can figure it out from their appropriate Retrospect website address).  IMHO this is quite reasonable; obliging you to fill out the form provides Retrospect Inc. with useful details about your Retrospect installation that they would otherwise have to query you for.

     

    As a result, Retrospect Inc. will pay no attention to your post in this sub-forum.  On 12 December 2016, in response to a letter I snail-mailed to Mayoff,  I received an e-mail through a Mayoff account that was signed by JG Heithcock, CEO, Retrospect, Inc..  In it he says "From reading your letter, I think the main issue is that you view the forums as a good place to talk to us, Retrospect, Inc. But we view the audience of the forums as restricted to our customers [my emphasis]. The one caveat we have made on that is for feature requests, largely as we would like to see if other customers also agree on the desirability and feature set for these requests."

     

    That means that the only audience for "Retrospect bug reports" in this sub-forum will be other administrators of Retrospect Mac.  Nevertheless, by posting in this sub-forum you are providing a useful service to us fellow Mac administrator peasants—one that is denied to administrators of Retrospect Windows who are evidently considered too peasanty (insert appropriate smiley here) to benefit from such bug notifications.  Thank you.

     

    Please be aware that the "description of your issue" in the Support Case form is IME limited to about 2000 characters by the Support Case software.  If you go over that limit your "description" will be broken up into a "description" plus one or more "additional notes".  The same is true for any additional notes you may later post yourself.  I suggest that, to avoid the appearance of choppiness in your Support Case, you create your case in a post in this forum and then copy it paragraph-by-paragraph to your Support Case. 

     

    If this post sounds formulaic, that's because I intend it to be.  I intend to post it in every new thread that appears in this sub-forum, unless the OP indicates that he/she has or will open a Support Case for the bug that the thread reports.  Of course, Mayoff could take 5 minutes of his time to post a slightly-more-polite version of this post as a  "sticky thread" that will always appear at the top of the forum.  I don't intend to hold my breath until that happens (insert appropriate smiley here).

     


  20. The OP in this thread in the "Product Suggestions—Mac OS X" forum proposes a modest enhancement to Retrospect that would effectively enable Backup of the same Sources to multiple Backup Sets at the same time.  Once this enhancement is in place, an administrator could overlap a single Backup script run with a Transfer Snapshots or Transfer Backup Sets script run started as little as 5 minutes afterward.  This enhancement would no doubt also be valid for Immediate operations in Retrospect Windows, although I don't mention those in the linked-to OP because Retrospect Mac converts all Immediate operations into scripts with a single-occurrence schedule.  In reading the linked-to OP, be aware of the following terminology differences: a Backup Set is termed a Media Set in Retrospect Mac, Transfer Snapshots is termed Copy Media Set in Retrospect Mac, and Transfer Backup Sets is termed Copy Backup in Retrospect Mac.

     

    The enhancement makes use of the multiple-activity-thread capabilities first released in Retrospect Mac 8—and (without an announcement) also in Retrospect Windows 7.5 as multiple-execution-unit capabilities—and documented in the Retrospect Windows User 's Guide.  These capabilities are officially not available in the Desktop Edition, but in fact I did all the testing recounted in the linked-to OP on my Desktop Edition copy of Retrospect Mac 12.5.  Using Desktop Edition, you must AFAIK in the same execution of the "backup server" first go to Preferences and in Execution—General bump "Execution units" (per page 420 in the Retrospect Windows 11 UG) up from the 1 that it defaults to every time the "backup server" is started.  Then, whether you are using a Server Edition or the Desktop Edition, you must set the Execution Unit (per page 290 and many other places in the UG) to e.g. 1 for the Backup script/operation and e.g. 2 for the Transfer script/operation.  To be on the safe side, although I don't know exactly how the enhancement will be implemented by the Retrospect Inc. engineers, you should make sure the Transfer script/operation starts at least 5 minutes after the Backup script/operation.

     

    You should be able to test overlapping Backup and Transfer right now, except that—as discussed in the third paragraph of the linked-to OP—only the files that are already entered in the Catalog File are copied by the Transfer.  Fixing that by forcing the Transfer of a Source drive to lag behind its Backup copying is why the proposed enhancement is necessary.

     

    If you need this capability, and you want Retrospect Inc. to do the enhancement, per this thread you must indicate your need by posting or Liking in either this thread or the linked-to thread.


  21. The OP in this thread in the "Product Suggestions—Mac OS X" forum proposes a modest enhancement to Retrospect that would effectively enable Backup of the same Sources to multiple Backup Sets at the same time.  Once this enhancement is in place, an administrator could overlap a single Backup script run with a Transfer Snapshots or Transfer Backup Sets script run started as little as 5 minutes afterward.  This enhancement would no doubt also be valid for Immediate operations in Retrospect Windows, although I don't mention those in the linked-to OP because Retrospect Mac converts all Immediate operations into scripts with a single-occurrence schedule.  In reading the linked-to OP, be aware of the following terminology differences: a Backup Set is termed a Media Set in Retrospect Mac, Transfer Snapshots is termed Copy Media Set in Retrospect Mac, and Transfer Backup Sets is termed Copy Backup in Retrospect Mac.

     

    The enhancement makes use of the multiple-activity-thread capabilities first released in Retrospect Mac 8—and (without an announcement) also in Retrospect Windows 7.5 as multiple-execution-unit capabilities—and documented in the Retrospect Windows User 's Guide.  These capabilities are officially not available in the Desktop Edition, but in fact I did all the testing recounted in the linked-to OP on my Desktop Edition copy of Retrospect Mac 12.5.  Using Desktop Edition, you must AFAIK in the same execution of the "backup server" first go to Preferences and in Execution—General bump "Execution units" (per page 420 in the Retrospect Windows 11 UG) up from the 1 that it defaults to every time the "backup server" is started.  Then, whether you are using a Server Edition or the Desktop Edition, you must set the Execution Unit (per page 290 and many other places in the UG) to e.g. 1 for the Backup script/operation and e.g. 2 for the Transfer script/operation.  To be on the safe side, although I don't know exactly how the enhancement will be implemented by the Retrospect Inc. engineers, you should make sure the Transfer script/operation starts at least 5 minutes after the Backup script/operation.

     

    You should be able to test overlapping Backup and Transfer right now, except that—as discussed in the third paragraph of the linked-to OP—only the files that are already entered in the Catalog File are copied by the Transfer.  Fixing that by forcing the Transfer of a Source drive to lag behind its Backup copying is why the proposed enhancement is necessary.

     

    If you need this capability, and you want Retrospect Inc. to do the enhancement, per this thread you must indicate your need by posting or Liking in either this thread or the linked-to thread.


  22. Given the response from Mayoff documented in this post, I have elected to start this thread in "Product Suggestions—Mac OS X".  If you people want the Retrospect Inc. engineers to implement the enhancement, you'd better indicate you want it—either in this thread or in the "Product Suggestions—Mac OS X" thread.  Remember what President Obama said at the end of his speech tonight, citizens.

    P.S.: This is post #20 in the thread.


  23. I phoned Mayoff early this afternoon.  He says that Retrospect Inc. is not looking for Likes or additional posts in a Product Suggestions thread.  Instead he says they have some kind of database for product suggestions, and they check that plus look at the discussions forums.  I intend to make sure that any Product Suggestion thread I start in the future has at least one link back to a forum thread discussing the problem the suggestion is designed to solve.


  24. On second thought about my post #18 immediately above, maybe we don't need the additional CopyLock and CopyUnlock script types at all, or the additional option for Backup scripts.  Instead make the setting of the CopyLock bit in the Source drive's Media Set Catalog File header be standard operating procedure for a Source drive about to be backed up to a particular Media Set.  It would also be standard operating procedure for a Copy Media Set or Copy Backup script run to go into a pause state when it encounters a Catalog File header for a Source drive on which the CopyLock bit is still set.  The CopyLock bit would—of course—be cleared for a particular drive's header in a Media Set Catalog File as soon the copy phase of a Backup for that drive had been completed and the drive's Catalog File had been updated for the Media Set.  As soon as a CopyLock bit had been cleared, an overlapping Copy Media Set or Copy Backup script run that had gone into a pause state because of that CopyLock bit would come out of the pause state and proceed.

     

    This would make the CopyLock bit a "drive backup copying in progress" bit.  That would be sufficient to ensure that a Copy Media Set execution would run far enough behind any Backup run it is overlapped with that its copying—based on a drive's Catalog File entries—could never occur before that drive's Catalog File entries have been updated by the Backup.  Probably it would be a good idea to add an "ignore CopyLock" option to Copy Media Set and Copy Backup scripts, in order to handle weird situations in which a Backup script run for a particular drive had not completed its copy phase successfully—but the administrator nevertheless wanted to run a Copy Media Set or Copy Backup execution using the Media Set's Catalog File entries for that drive as they existed previously.  Actually even this option might not be needed; a Catalog File Rebuild for a Media Set would automatically clear any CopyLock bit that had been set for a Source drive's header within that Catalog File.

     

    So how about it, jweisbin and others?  What I have just proposed is a modest enhancement to Retrospect that would enable the overlapping I tested in posts #15 and #16 in this thread to really work as I thought it had, thus increasing the usefulness of a major capability that has been in Retrospect since Mac version 8.  Would it be too much to ask you to show a little support?

    P.S.: This is post #19 in the thread.


  25. OK, where do we go from here in regards to Copy Media Set runs overlapped with Backup runs, considering my post #17 immediately above?  It is now evident that the existing version of Retrospect can't do what I was proposing in posts #15 and #16.

     

    Last night, on my way to see the movie "Hidden Figures" (IMHO very good), I conceived an enhancement to Retrospect that would enable it to do so.  In its simplest form, it would add a CopyLock script type—referencing an existing Media Set.  A CopyLock script run would simply access the Catalog File header for each Source drive in the Media Set, setting a bit that would cause a Copy Media Set or Copy Backup run with that Media Set as the Source to go into a pause state when it tried to use the Catalog File to copy a Source drive whose bit was still set.  That bit in the Media Set's Catalog File header for a Source drive would be cleared when a Backup script completed the Copying phase for that drive and updated the Catalog File for it, enabling the Copy Media Set or Copy Backup run to come out of the pause state and proceed to copy that drive.  This would ensure that a Copy Media Set execution would run far enough behind any Backup run it is overlapped with that its copying—based on a drive's Catalog File entries—could never occur before that drive's Catalog File entries have been updated.

     

    To cover the practical possibility of scripts never getting run or crashing, the enhancement would also need to include a CopyUnlock script.  This would simply do the opposite of a CopyLock script, accessing the Catalog File header for each Source drive in the Media Se and un-setting the bit that would cause a Copy Media Set or Copy Backup run with that Media Set as the Source to go into a pause state.  Ideally we might also want the enhancement to include a new option for Backup scripts that would do the equivalent of a CopyLock bit-setting just before starting the actual Backup process for a particular Source drive, ensuring that that Source drive could not have a Copy Media Set or Copy Backup done on it via the same Media Set before its Backup copying had been subsequently completed and its Catalog File header updated.  That second enhancement would take care of the situation in which a drive is dynamically cabled to a Source computer after a CopyUnlock script run has completed and a Backup script run has started, but before the Backup script run gets to processing that Source computer.

     

    My question to all of you forum readers is:  do you want me to bother to post a request for such an enhancement in the "Product Suggestions—Mac OS X"  sub-forum?  My OP in  this thread reports that the CEO of Retrospect Inc. and his cabal will not consider a feature request unless there is evidence of support for it from other Retrospect customers.  I'll find out Monday exactly what kind of evidence of support he requires, but I won't proceed further until I have prior indications of support from you.  Frankly, although I had fun doing the tests for Copy Media Set runs overlapped with Backup runs, I'm getting more than a bit tired of doing work for other people who don't seem to appreciate it.  I'm afraid that appreciation must now go beyond simply bumping the view counts for threads I contribute to; I don't consider myself to be in the entertainment business (do not insert appropriate smiley here—I'm dead serious).

     

    I'll even give you a couple of arguments against a request for such an enhancement.  First, maybe nobody—including me—except jweisbin needs the overlapping.  With many people (not including me) installing SSDs in their computers, Backup script runs for a string of "clients" may be taking such an increasingly shorter time that overlapping of Copy Media Set script runs with Backup script runs may no longer be necessary.  Second, maybe everybody except jweisbin is satisfied doing a non-overlapped Copy Media Set to a Tape or Cloud Media Set over the weekend—even if that means an off-site backup once a week instead of every workday.

     

    So let's see some posts from someone besides myself in this thread, pro or con!

    P.S.: This is post #18 in the thread.

×