Jump to content

Ramon88

Members
  • Content count

    410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Ramon88

  1. Ramon88

    Remote backup possible?

    If you can mount it as a drive it should work. However backup over the Internet can be very slow, so it depends on the connection speed and the amount of data you need to backup. Also keep in mind that you would need a secure connection to the remote storage... In the end, you might be better of using a special service for remote backups and use Retrospect alongside it as a double-up onsite backup, just to be extra safe and it would provide extra restore speed. Just Google around for "online backup review" and you find enough articles. Also the recent Macworld review might be interesting, even though it's catered for OSX. But many online backup companies provide for both Windows and OSX. Some even don't limit the amount of data you want to store.
  2. Ramon88

    Setting File Attribute to Archived

    Nope... Retrospect's whole point is it doesn't need/use the 'ancient' archive bit, but uses it's own system of Catalogs providing a better method/granularity of backup quality. Hmmm... Now I'm sounding like a marketing person... *L*
  3. Ramon88

    Execution unit more than 8

    One would expect that, but I was a bit intrigued and checked the EULA. This is when it becomes interesting... 1. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, EMC Corporation ("EMC") hereby grants you a nonexclusive, worldwide, non-transferable (except as permitted under Section 8), perpetual, revocable license, under all of EMC's Intellectual Property Rights (defined below) in the Software, to: (i) use, perform, and display the Software solely in accordance with the documentation provided to you along with the Software (the "Documentation") for your internal business purposes and at a single site designated by you; (ii) make as many copies of the Software as permitted by the license code (the "License Code") provided to you; and (iii) make one (1) copy of the Software solely for backup or archival purposes. Any copy you make under this Section must include the EMC copyright notice. As used herein, "Intellectual Property Rights" means all present and future copyrights, trademark rights, trade secret rights, patent rights, and any other intellectual property rights recognized in any jurisdiction. See the bold type... I checked the Licence Key e-mail and I was surprised there was no mentioning of any number of copies... Nothing at all. Morally however, one would expect to need another licence when using another -physical- machine, like it is standard practice in the software industry. But with virtualization in mind it seems the perhaps aging Retrospect licensing system doesn't take that into account... Arguably one could say one could use multiple copies on a single hardware platform and be legally safe. Retrospects licensing doesn't seem to take virtualization into account (yet?) and as long as Retrospect actually isn't modernised to use current spec multi-core hardware efficiently EMC would need to be morally correct to Retrospect users and allow the mentioned method of having multiple (virtual) instances running on a single hardware platform. Just my 2 cents and opinion. But I'm no lawyer so this post might not be correct at all. It would be interesting to learn EMC's official position in this.
  4. Ramon88

    Why is the data backed up again?

    Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_deduplication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_(data_storage) In short, it means a backup program backups the changes on a lower level than the file level (in this case block-level), instead of backing up the whole file. Say you have a 25MB large TIFF file. You change one pixel. It will only backup the tiny couple of bytes that actually changed and will be able to restore later from the initial backup plus the recorded changes on the block level. This saves a lot of space & time. Currently Retrospect can only backup the whole file, even if just a pixel is changed. So taking up another 25MB in your storage as opposed to just the difference on the block-level (mere bytes in this case). Block level data deduplication is the new revolution in backup technology.
  5. Ramon88

    Windows 7 client support

    It's not that I really disagree with you, but during my already pretty long career I've come to expect all manufacturer's claims to be spiced up due to marketing reasons... In short, they* all lie to us in some way or the other. Unless you think not telling the complete truth is not lying... Maybe this sounds a bit harsh or too black&white, but I feel this is the way the world works, while everybody probably wishes it would be different. But if companies start telling the truth, they will lose business, as most consumers believe the hype marketing blurbs... It's a human shortcoming. *) I mean all manufacturers, so it's not EMC-specific.
  6. Ramon88

    Windows 2008 Server x64

    We have NO problems at all with our setup. It actually worked correctly from the get go... Our server has 4 network connectors (2 ports on mainboard and one dual-port NIC on PCIe), 24GB RAM and dual XEON (Nehalem) quadcores. Backup storage targets are either iSCSI or Fiber channel based. Local storage is a dual RAID1 setup. Clients are a mix of XP, Vista, Server (2003 & 2008) and OSX 10.5.x based machines. We did have network problems around the same time with a new 3COM 48-port gigabit switch, but this proved to be a problem with the switch and we exchanged it for a smilar specced (but more expensive) HP Procurve.
  7. Ramon88

    Missing Snapshots

    Regrettably no. Btw, did you start out with 7.6.111 or with an older version? In the past some versions of Retrospect had some grooming difficulties. So that might be a cause of your problem (this is speculation). Is it an option to start over? In that case you should consider upgrading to the most recent version (7.6.123).
  8. Ramon88

    Grooming problem

    I just groomed with a setting of "keep 2" and now it -did- groom out space. It resulted in a backup set with 16 sessions and 2 snapshots... So my mistake was I didn't take into account the fact Retrospect sees the source files standing there for 8 days and the "last day" selector doesn't block that from its view. The solution is to add some space to the backup set target hardware. I've already ordered extra drives.
  9. Okay, I've been brooding on this one for some time... Unfortunately I can't get it working the way I want it. This is the idea: Everyday an application dumps data in a directory (at once at a certain fixed time). It keeps the last 8 dumps in that directory and only incrementally inserts the dump of the last 24 hours in said directory. Every day around 70 GB gets added. The total directory size is around 560GB. Older dumps are removed automatically. Retrospect is not involved during this procedure. I need Retrospect to make a backup every day of the last day added files from that directory to a Disk Backup Set. So I created a standard Backup script with a custom selector: Universal > Date > [x] File [ ] Folder [creation date] [is] [on or after] [current date] [no offset] About an hour after the automatic application dump completes Retrospect starts its script and correctly finishes its backup weighing in the expected 70GB. So far so good... But here is where it goes wrong: I've created a Disk Backup Set as a target. It has grooming enabled with "Groom to remove backups older than [8]". Backup Set size was set to about 600GB, but als tried/needed to increase to 1000GB and 1200GB. It has AES-128 encryption enabled, but no data compression. "Keep Catalog File compressed" is enabled (default). However Retrospect doesn't seem to groom out older than "8" backups, and it asks for more space (so far I've added some space to the Backup Set to compensate a couple of times but that's not a solution). Setting the Backup Set to "Groom to Retrospect defined policy" doesn't yield anything as well. Manually grooming doesn't trigger any errors but doesn't groom out more than a couple of KB's. Either triggered by a groom script or as part of the "prepare media" option. In effect the Backup Set needs to grow or needs to be recycled, but grooming is not working. So after some time capacity problems will kick in and we wanted grooming to avoid that altogether... Am I doing something wrong? Does Encryption have anything to do with this, or might this be a bug? Retrospect version used: 7.6.123
  10. Ramon88

    Grooming problem

    Hi Robin, When I had the "Groom to remove backups older than" at 8 it didn't contain more. Now I had it set at "Retrospect standard policy" and it contained 9 snapshots. When I switched it to 7 it said it would retrieve older snapshots... That operation took mere seconds. Now there are 7 snapshots (and still 20 sessions)... But there is no space freed. But here is a thought... The source (application) keeps it's own track of the files and leaves the last 8 backups in the source directory. Now could it be that Retrospect actually keeps the files in the snapshot 8 days longer (so for 8+8=16 days) because of this?
  11. Ramon88

    Grooming problem

    Nobody has any clues?
  12. Ramon88

    remote back up

    Not through VNC or FTP. You might be able to set up a VPN, but it will be very slow unless you have a fiber leased line.
  13. Ramon88

    After update to 7.6.123, can't connect to clients

    Did you reboot your Retrospect system? Sometimes that helps.
  14. I do not want to highjack Johnny's topic. But I'm seeing the same performance on a new high end system (Dual quadcore Nehalem with 24GB RAM). We have only installed Windows 2008 Server R2 STD x64 (with HyperV). We did not install any other drivers but Intel network drivers for the four NIC ports (MS's included drivers worked as well, but Intel's own offer a couple of extra tools). The system's RAID controller and HBA SAS controller are running on default MS included drivers. We tried to install HP's HBA drivers, but the installer says the MS included drivers are newer, so we cancelled that. Robin, what speeds are you guys getting? Can we download some ISO file as a backup source, so we can compare notes? We are hearing about BackupExec and BRU achieving superior speeds with LTO-4. This might be a Retrospect problem, or not. But we should be able to at least try to get that clear.
  15. Ramon88

    Retrospect and REV unreliable

    Retrospect will sport a pop-up window requesting new media. But you need to 'see' the program for that. If that happens, I would suggest (for simplicity) to cancel that backup and to (re)start the script manually with the Recycle option, like this: Run > (choose the applicable script for that day) > Action = Recycle (instead of Normal). It will erase the Backup Set and start over. This of course requires a bit of knowledge of the program. It would be best if the person handling Retrospect knows a little bit more than nothing about the program. Quite frankly this is a must, because Retrospect is not really a fire and forget kind of thing. It needs monitoring, like checking the backup logs daily. Maybe they need a simple paper sheet, where they need to sign the daily checks they did. Very simple, but important. Also, they should try to do a test restore now and then. Something you could handle for them maybe. But a good test would show possible problems before the real need arrises.
  16. Okay... No dice... When doing a backup transfer the speed is back to regular. Too bad...
  17. We're using a HP StorageWorks LTO-4 Ultrium 1760 SAS drive with a HP SC44Ge Host Bus Adapter. Tapes are HP LTO Ultrium 4 1.6 TB RW (model C7974A). We just added Robin's suggestion into the registry, albeit a bit different because we use a SAS hba and Windows 2008 R2. With a 256K setting during the first 5 minutes it now seems to do around 2600-2700MB/min... Compression and Encryption are off and the data are large ZIP files. I need some further testing to be sure if it also works with the regular mixed bunch of files and, most important for us, backup transfers (disk to tape).
  18. True enough, but It would depend a bit on how reliable the line is. We use a fiberoptic leased line with a VPN on top for encryption of the data stream. This works extremely well, but it is an expensive raw hardware power option. Plus it's very reliable with a guaranteed 99,9% uptime. Using a WAN you always have the problem of a possible drop in connection, regardless of protocol used. Some protocols are more up to the job. FTP doesn't seem an option. Setting up an VPN might. I'm not so sure you would mess up a file system when a connection drops. It's more robust than that. It just might be worth a shot. Testing wouldn't be too difficult (with the right knowledge about setting up VPN's). Anyway, stumbled upon this a couple of days ago. If its only offsite backup you need, that might do the trick as well. I've no idea though if they are any good. I just kind of liked their storage riggs.
  19. Ramon88

    Retrospect and REV unreliable

    Judging by the dates of the list of backups in your first post that's odd. Only one set appears to have 2009 backups. Okay, that is very doable. Now the question is if you need a new strategy. You could start alternating sets for example. But one disk a day is also possible. I would not use grooming with the amounts of data your clients seem to backup (not much).
  20. Why not use a VPN-connection instead?
  21. Ramon88

    Retrospect and REV unreliable

    I have taken a quick look at you screenshots, but they are many and most are probably not needed. And the information we need are for the most part not in the screenshots. We would need to know what each backup set looks like. Btw, I have deleted your licenses screenshot... don't think it would be wise to have that accessible. But to be honest, you ask an awful lot of questions and we have no structure here. So let's start by you asking a single question at a time and we'll go from there. So far it looks like the 'system' is set up in a completely messed up way... So it might be an option to start all over (if that is an option). It depends on how the system is being used (backup or archiving requirements). Is the state the source data is in NOW all that needs protecting? Or do you need to be able to go back some time? If you start all over you will lose all your REV stored data. Is that an option?
  22. Is that 5500MB/min vs 1500 MB/min what's in the logs of both programs, or is it something you measured (amount of data dived by time it took in minutes)? Data rates reported by Retrospect are sometimes not very accurate, depending on the verify method used. We can't find Robin's registry entry in our Windows 2008 setup, but we use a SAS hba. My speeds are: Uncompressed = 1000-1200 MB/min. Hardware data compression = 1650-1750 MB/min.* Verify (md5 media verify) = more than 5000MB/min.* *) Data structure dependent, some data just compresses better resulting in higher numbers. So your mileage may vary, depending on your data.
  23. Ramon88

    Retrospect and REV unreliable

    I'm not able to log in with the credentials you provide. To answer one question, upgrading from 7.5 to 7.6.123 should be painless, meaning no reconfiguration is needed. Btw, do you use a REV autoloader?
  24. Ramon88

    Disk backup using RDX

    Either get a larger capacity RDX cartridge (up to 500GB is currently available), or just use another cartridge. If you use the RDX drive with a Removable type backup set, it really is similar to tape concerning media handling requesters. When using it in Disk type backup set, it's a bit of a hybrid, because the medium is removable and Retrospect is aware of that. It's one of the reasons I returned the unit. What you want to do can easily be done, as long as you understand the way Retrospect works. It's not important if all other people you know only use full backups. Ask yourself the question if they are really knowledgeable about the topic. Most of the knowledgeable people I know use some sort of incremental backup method because it saves a lot of time and you have a kind of a time machine for you files (I know I ripped that term out of the Apple community, but that product isn't called like that for nothing). In the end it doesn't really matter. If you want to have full backups, that should be possible, and with Retrospect it is. You just have to configure it right. But I must say, why not use Windows Backup if you only want to do such a simple thing?
×