Jump to content

Gorbag

Members
  • Content count

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Gorbag

  • Rank
    Occasional Forum Poster
  1. So, thinking of upgrading from 9 to 10, but also thinking of taking my (dedicated) mac mini desktop and running server on it. I don't need more than the 5 clients I had for the desktop version, but the upgrade price - because of a $20. add on from Apple for server.app - jumps from $60. to $280!! This so I can run a local namespace... and get somewhat faster disk accesses? Suggest you folks consider a price break for small (home based) servers. I'd run desktop on it and not back up the 'server' at all (just the clients) but that doesn't seem to be possible - it refuses to log into the server based engine without a server license. Meanwhile, I had to do an erase/restore to get back my 'non-server' server machine... I'd rather use Retrospect, but not for $300. I'll probably just switch to network volume based time machine.
  2. Oh if only it were so simple. after rebooting everything (and taking a week off as I was traveling), the server no longer thought the client was reserved. But it still basically ignored it - refresh/locate found the computer but didn't update its data. In fact, Retropsect (server) thought it was at x.x.x.14, when it was really at x.x.x.12. Why it refused to update (after a locate request for crying out loud!) I don't understand. All DHCP, so you better believe it isn't static. The work around - I forced the poor air book to be at the address the server was looking for (x.x.x.14). Then all was well, the backup happened, and server continues in its Alzheimer-like way of living only in the past and getting angry when changes are made. Bug!
  3. I'm having problems backing up my air book under retrospect 9. When I run the retrospect app, it seems to say the client on the air book is "busy", though it has the wrong address in the detail field. If I try a "locate" operation, it finds the air book on the net, but gives a -505 error "client reserved". There's no other server running on my net, so I have to believe the air book went to sleep during a prior backup operation. If I try to remove the client on the server (press the "-" button under sources) it silently fails (spins a few seconds, then returns without deleting the client). If I remove and reinstall the client on the air book it seems to maintain its state - still reserved. How do I nuke the lock? Thanks!
  4. Gorbag

    Retrospect post-Roxio

    Newbie, I believe they are selling major new updates for Windows at the Apple store.
  5. Gorbag

    Should I upgrade from version 6?

    I'll second Maser's comments. I've had 8.x since 8.0, and had a lot of problems until the 8.2 update. Things seem to be stable now, but part of the key was wiping everything clean (including past backups!) and starting over when 8.2 was released. I do use rules, and I guess the key is to figure out how to do what you need with the rules that don't cause a problem (see the various threads in the bug reports section) and you won't have a problem. Sounds trite, I know, but until they fix the rule engine to support at least what the UI seems to allow you'll have to stick with pretty simple things. Good luck!
  6. Quote: Quote: As you may already know, the default selector "All Files Except Cache Files" isn't particularly comprehensive. If you consider that the true and proper name of that selector should be "All Files Except Web Browser Cache Files" then in fact it is reasonably comprehensive. This filter was conceived and first constructed on a system that did not have any OS level cache files. > would the user ever miss (or even notice) that they weren't restored? No. Which segways to the question: how about the EMC team distributing a more comprehensive selector for the OS level cache files so we can easily exclude such files from our backups?
  7. One possible answer for (2), is that during your full restore, Retrospect tried to read a "bad" sector on the disk that was part of a file you didn't mark on your search. The other parts of the disk being OK, meant Retrospect could restore from them. Now this indicates that Retrospect may be insufficiently fault-tolerant in it's approach to doing a restore (since it should have, e.g., tried the next file on its agenda after a 206 problem), but that's an enhancement request ;-)
  8. I'm not sure what you mean by transferring the whole backup set, but you can set the tape to "missing" in which case the data will be rewritten to a new tape (modulo intermediate versions). If you want those too, you need to restore the snapshots that are on the tape first to a directory, then you can do an incremental which will capture the new files.
  9. Machines behind a NAT appear as one device to anything outside of the NAT. I can't think of any principled way in which you can do this, since the server wants to use the same protocol(s) to access the machines behind the NAT. In fact, that is in some sense the entire point of having your machines behind a NAT - they can't be found externally, or at most one machine can be found per protocol/port if you set up a DMZ using your firewall. I think the only solution here would either be to put the server behind the NAT as well (so it is on the same subnet as the other machine), or run Retrospect on each of the machines and have them contact the server as a NAS (that is, they use FTP or some other such protocol to access their backup on the server). Good luck
  10. Try doing a "file" backup, and placing the file on the volume you want. The file will grow to fill the volume. Of course, you can also use more than one file (e.g., for different machines, different sources, etc.) If you do a "volume" backup - Retrospect treats the volume like a removable disk as I recall. The primary advantage is for, e.g. Jaz type drives - backups can span disks - which I don't think you get with file backups.
  11. I'd guess that the mechanisms in the two drives are different. Can you tell the model of the mechanism inside the case?
  12. Quote: I still need help with this but it doesn't much look like this forum is the place to get it; probably I'm not alone in thinking this judging by the number of other posters who don't get any replies. ... Thanks in anticipation (cough).... ? Retrospect version 6.0.204 launched at 7/3/2005 10:46 am + Retrospect Driver Update, version 6.1.102 + Executing Immediate Backup at 7/3/2005 10:48 am To backup set Del-One backup Set B… - 7/3/2005 10:48:12 am: Copying DRIVE C (C:) on Dell-One… 7/3/2005 10:48:12 am: Connected to Dell-One Can't read file “master.mdf”, error -49 (file busy), path: “C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQLMICROSOFTBCM\Data\master.mdf”. Well, I'm not sure since I'm a Mac person, and you're posting this to a Mac forum, yet seem to be talking about a failed Windows backup. Anyway my modestly informed guess would be that "file busy" means just that - you need to shut down your database server so it closes the files before they can be backed up. But hey, maybe the file is just busy getting infected with a virus or something
  13. Quote: It might a disk drive format issue. When whoever originally formatted the drive, she might havehad the choice of HFS or HFS+. Unfortunately, I think only HFS+ allows files over 2GB. It's a drag, but reformatting the drive might fix the problem. --Gil Actually, the NSLU2 formats the drive itself, using neither HFS or HFS+ but, I think, ext3 (since it runs Linux). Access to the NSLU2 is via SMB. At any rate, reformatting isn't an option, the unit formatted the drive in whatever format it required when first installed, I have no option to change the formatting (and still have the drive work with the device, that is). Also note per above, I am able to use the finder to read and write large files without difficulty. Even Retrospect can duplicate large 10+ gigabyte files there. It just refuses to attempt to run a backup.
  14. Quote: Hi Does the error happen if you try to duplicate the 6GB file to the NSLU2 using Retrospect? Thanks Nate I just tried, and duplicating works fine. (220mb/sec on copy, which is a bit slow, but may not be Retrospect's fault). I suspect Retrospect is checking the file size and bailing if it is larger than 2gig. Note that I've got separate catalogue and data files, if it makes a difference (that is, I didnt' ask Retrospect to merge them). Since this is v6, I thought the 2gig limit had been eliminated...
  15. I tried this and got the same result; as root, I mounted the NSLU2 (using it's admin account for local permissions), then tried a backup getting the 2Gig limit error. Running a local backup to a cached copy of the 6 gig backup file, I could successfully backup. I then successfully did a finder copy to the NSLU2 directory (using the same mount). Thanks!
×