Jump to content

EricU

Administrators
  • Content count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

EricU last won the day on January 9 2013

EricU had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About EricU

  • Rank
    Cofounder and Product Guy

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. EricU

    Retrospect plans for 2013

    @Richy_Boy and prl: My apologies for the late response. I thought I had locked this topic, which is why I didn't activate email notification for it. The first update will address Instant Scan performance issues and several other areas. We're shooting for Q1 availability.
  2. EricU

    Comprehensive User Guide (Mac v10)

    Hi regknick, Retrospect is no longer an EMC product. Longtime Retrospect team members formed Retrospect, Inc. in November of 2011 and took Retrospect private. The Retrospect 8 User's Guide plus the Retrospect 10 User's Guide Addendum total the current documentation. The expense of translating new documentation into all the languages we support has been the primary reason that we haven't provided a single new User's Guide. We will be doing that this year, though. We're also in the process of writing a number of Best Practices documents that will become available starting this month. The first one will cover optimizing for performance and backing up the Retrospect environment. I hope this helps. Best regards, Eric
  3. EricU

    Retrospect plans for 2013

    Happy New Year from Retrospect! Now that everyone's back to work and school after the holidays, we wanted to share a little on what you can expect from us in 2013. We saw our biggest release ever in 2012 with features and fixes on both Mac and Windows—client, console, and server—and we have more in store for 2013. Our goal is to have a minor update this spring and a major upgrade this fall. Both will include new features as well as significant improvements and bug fixes. Thank you for your continuing support. We're looking forward to a fantastic 2013! Cheers!
  4. @Lennart: Thanks for always being willing to tackle new subjects with logical responses. :-) @MuleMan: We highly recommend Data Domain products for reliable, destination-based dedupe of Retrospect backups. Because Retrospect's disk-based backup archives are stored in 600 MB container files, and because the files in the backup are written into these container files without being altered*, dedupe runs just as well as were the files stored natively on the DD hardware. Retrospect's grooming process deletes old container files and replaces them with new files, so Data Domain's dedupe routines handle this situation perfectly. *In you require that your backups be encrypted: The most important thing when using hardware-based deduplication is to use the dedupe array's encryption feature, NOT Retrospect's. If you use Retrospect's encryption, then you'll significantly reduce the effectiveness of the hardware-based dedupe capabilities. Cheers, Eric
  5. Here's a bit of description and example to support folks who are wondering about the differences between "Speed threshold" and "Activity performance threshold." Speed threshold: Checks the initial connection speed between a Retrospect server and client. Use this setting to test the speed of a connection to a Retrospect client before starting the backup. Activity performance threshold: Monitors the performance of a backup (local or client) for its duration and stops the activity if the performance drops below a certain level. [Note: This feature was added many years ago to prevent backups from getting stuck on a volume where the backup performance slowed to a crawl but where the backup wouldn't actually time out. This condition rarely occurs, and when it does, it's indicative of some other issue. It's a good idea to seek the advice of technical support before using this feature. Don't use this feature to test for backups over a slow connection, as Retrospect will waste a bunch of time determining what to back up before timing out. 99% of the time, Speed threshold is the one to use.] Here's an example of Proactive Backup skipping a client that doesn't meet the Speed threshold (attempts are made after the "Retry failure after n minutes" time has passed, 30 minutes in this case): + Normal backup using Laptops at 11/28/12 (Activity Thread 1) To Backup Set TreehouseVaultA... - 11/28/12 12:23:02 PM: Copying Macintosh HD on cMBP-Treehouse !Backup client cMBP-Treehouse is too slow (measured 6440 KB/sec, threshold 10000 KB/sec) + Normal backup using Laptops at 11/28/12 (Activity Thread 1) To Backup Set TreehouseVaultA... - 11/28/12 1:32:32 PM: Copying Macintosh HD on cMBP-Treehouse !Backup client cMBP-Treehouse is too slow (measured 3261 KB/sec, threshold 10000 KB/sec) + Normal backup using Laptops at 11/28/12 (Activity Thread 1) To Backup Set TreehouseVaultA... - 11/28/12 2:02:43 PM: Copying Macintosh HD on cMBP-Treehouse !Backup client cMBP-Treehouse is too slow (measured 3012 KB/sec, threshold 10000 KB/sec) + Normal backup using Laptops at 11/28/12 (Activity Thread 1) To Backup Set TreehouseVaultA... - 11/28/12 2:32:56 PM: Copying Macintosh HD on cMBP-Treehouse !Backup client cMBP-Treehouse is too slow (measured 4414 KB/sec, threshold 10000 KB/sec) + Normal backup using Laptops at 11/28/12 (Activity Thread 1) To Backup Set TreehouseVaultA... - 11/28/12 3:03:12 PM: Copying Macintosh HD on cMBP-Treehouse !Backup client cMBP-Treehouse is too slow (measured 5224 KB/sec, threshold 10000 KB/sec) + Normal backup using Laptops at 11/28/12 (Activity Thread 1) To Backup Set TreehouseVaultA... - 11/28/12 3:33:27 PM: Copying Macintosh HD on cMBP-Treehouse !Backup client cMBP-Treehouse is too slow (measured 2301 KB/sec, threshold 10000 KB/sec) + Normal backup using Laptops at 11/28/12 (Activity Thread 1) To Backup Set TreehouseVaultA... - 11/28/12 7:31:13 PM: Copying Macintosh HD on cMBP-Treehouse !Backup client cMBP-Treehouse is too slow (measured 2409 KB/sec, threshold 10000 KB/sec) + Normal backup using Laptops at 11/28/12 (Activity Thread 1) To Backup Set TreehouseVaultA... - 11/28/12 8:17:00 PM: Copying Macintosh HD on cMBP-Treehouse !Backup client cMBP-Treehouse is too slow (measured 4571 KB/sec, threshold 10000 KB/sec)
  6. EricU

    AppClicks.dll?

    That's right, Jim. AppClicks is our usage metrics tracking service. It helps us see how many of our users are on Windows 8 or Mountain Lion, if their Retrospect server has 4 or 8 GB of RAM, if they use a tape library, whether or not Proactive Backup scripts are being used, and so forth. It is completely anonymous, and AppClicks only provides aggregate data; we can't drill down to a specific install of Retrospect. It's a very cool service for Windows, Mac, and iOS apps, and it helps us target development to how Retrospect is actually used, instead of basing our decisions on wishful thinking. ;-)
  7. D'oh! Thanks, Russ. I was looking at 7.6.123. It looks like we'll be making Express HD 2.5.126 available within a week or two. In the meantime, anyone experiencing this problem should try renaming the Operations Log, so that Retrospect Express HD will start a new one. To rename the Operations Log: 1. Exit from Retrospect Express HD via the icon in the System Tray. 2. In a Windows Explorer window, navigate to the directory where Retrospect Express HD keeps its files per your operating system below. (It will be necessary to Show Hidden Files to navigate to this directory.) Win XP: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\RetroExp\ Vista/7: C:\ProgramData\RetroExp\ 3. Rename the file "operations_log" to "operations_log_old". 4. Launch Retrospect Express HD. Please let me know if this interim solution works. Thanks. Eric
  8. Hi all, I just saw this post when searching, and I wanted to let everyone know that this tstring assert was due to a log size bug. It was fixed in Retrospect Express HD 2.5.123. Get Express HD updates here: http://www.retrospect.com/supportupdates/updates/retroexpress/. If you're already using build 123, and you're still seeing this problem, please reply here and let us know. I hope this helps. Eric
  9. Hi all, I just saw this post when searching, and I wanted to let everyone know that this tstring assert was due to a log size bug. It was fixed in Retrospect Express HD 2.5.123. Get Express HD updates here: http://www.retrospect.com/supportupdates/updates/retroexpress/ . I hope this helps. Eric
  10. EricU

    Snow Leopard Support

    Anton, we're trying to reproduce your issue, and we need to know exactly: 1. How are you mounting the NFS share on the Mac? 2. How are you telling Retrospect to use the share? The sooner you can reply, the better. We're trying to get all Snow Leopard bugs eliminated. Thanks! -Eric
  11. Thanks for all the testing you've been doing on this issue. We're testing this one on our end, too. We're shooting to release a full x64 version of Retrospect this summer, which will not have any of these Win Server 2008 registry problems. Cheers, Eric
  12. We'll have the first of several updates to EMC Retrospect 8.0 out in a day or two. This first update will improve performance and stability, and it addresses several bugs reported here in the forums. With regard to the current state of EMC Retrospect 8.0, all I can say is that there were significant pressures, both internal and external, to ship in Q1, to get it out in the market as soon as the basic functions and restore reliability were there. Now our focus is on improvement (performance, stability, usability, features), and the first wave arrives this week. Thats where things stand. Best regards, Eric
  13. Hi Olli, Default Activity Threads are based on the amount of RAM in the Retrospect server, as follows: > 4GB Max 8 Execution Units How much RAM do you have? Cheers, e
  14. EricU

    Retrospect 8 Read Me

    Completely. That's good to hear! I would not be pleased if a simple miscommunication on our part resulted in you hating us. ;-)
  15. EricU

    release rushed?

    Retrospect 8.0 has an all-new (basically 1.0) user interface. There are bound to be issues when you have a completely new component. Some of these issues, such as being unable to reorder sources in scripts, are frustrating, but we will have them fixed soon. Would it have been nice to do one release with both Intel and PowerPC support? Absolutely. Would that have given us time to provide more polish in the UI and further refine communication between the engine and the UI? Definitely. Still, with backup and restore functionality ready for Intel Macs, and several customers—including one with a bitten fruit logo—asking for software ASAP, we decided that it was time for the first release. Retrospect 8.0 is definitely better on Intel Macs than 6.1 is, and that means a lot. What means even more is that we have several Mac updates planned for this year, with the first one coming in just a few short weeks. That's quite different from how things have been done in the past, with one release and then nothing for a year or more. I believe that Retrospect 8.0's most important new feature is our renewed commitment to the Mac community. Stick with us, or at least keep watching, and I think you’ll be pleased over time. That’s what we’re working towards. Thanks. e
×