Jump to content

cferri

Members
  • Content count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About cferri

  • Rank
    Occasional Forum Poster
  1. Please sort out the way removeable drives are viewed by Retrospect so that different drives mounted on the same port, are treated as the same drive. This will allow duplication jobs to save data to alternative drives without requiring a separate script for each drive, as is the case at the moment.
  2. This problem has been ongoing for years. Please sort it out and make Retrospect compatible with the Windows OS in respect of path length. :angryred:
  3. cferri

    Retrospect Annoyances

    5) Version 7.6 crashes with Microsoft C++ Runtime errors. I could find no information or help on this problem and have had to go back to 7.5 which does not have the same issue.
  4. cferri

    Retrospect Annoyances

    I agree that you can work round this problem, but it should not be necessary. New users to Retrospect would not know this and would therefore not be prepared to deal with such a problem. This has been known about for years, yet nothing has been done to prevent it. It is just sloppy programming.
  5. 1) Self destruction of config files. Apart from occuring with the obvious, system crashes etc, this frequently occurs when Retrospect updates itself. There must be a better way to store and access the config data so it is kept safe. 2) Why is there a lower limit on the length of a file name than Windows allows? If a file name is valid in Windows, Retrospect should be able to back it up. 3) Why is Retrospect not capable of using the driver letter supplied by the OS to correctly identify USB media for scripts? Discs on the same port with the same drive letter are treated as different discs and require separate scripts before they can be used as a destination for duplication backups. This should not be necessary. 4) Why can the program not cope gracefully with multiple startup requests? Because of the problems associated with (3), I aqm forced to run jobs from a batch file which has to check which disc is mounted and run the appropriate run document. On some systems, when Retrospect is already running, issuing the run document as a command causes Retrospect to complain that it is already running, instead of adding the job into the queue.
  6. For Duplication jobs, why does Retrospect not just use the drive letter supplied by the OS to identify removable hard discs? Even when discs are configured to have the same folder structure and use the same drive letter, Retrospect sees them as different. This means that a script cannot backup to a disc other than the one it was created for, making the administration of scripts and backups much more cumbersome than it should be. But it isn't consistent. On some systems (very few) Duplication jobs will use different discs without the destination volume having to be re-asigned. WHY??
  7. cferri

    Retrospect setting gone

    I have had this problem several times on several different systems. It seems to be associtaed with either automatic updates or restarting the server from a crash/hard reset. The configuration file in Windows is stored in the C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Retrospect folder and is called Config75.dat. It holds all the script and licencing information needed for Retrospect to run. If you don't have a backup, you will need to enter all the information again. EMC have never given a satisfactory explanation as to why the config file is trashed by Retrospect.
  8. I have several installations of Retrospect running Pro and server editions. All exhibit the monitor problem after upgrading to 7.6 Also, jobs are failing to fire when run from batch files and the program is generally less stable than 7.5. After spending lots of time over this, I have now decided that 7.6 is not worth bothering with and will reinstall 7.5 on all my systems. This is a free upgrade that was very costly in terms of lost time and backups.
  9. The way that Retrospect deals with Volumes and Drive Letters can make using removable drives very awkward, and it is not consistent between systems. On some systems, different drives mounted on the same drive letter are considered different volumes, even if they have been configured with the same name. On other systems, all drives mounted with the same drive letter are assigned to the same Volume. This is the ideal situation and makes using removable drives much easier. Why do some drives show up as different Volumes, even though they are mounted on the same drive letter? Can you please make Retrospect view all drives on the same drive letter as the same volume?
  10. Does anyone know why error -1020 (sharing violation) is seen when running with open file backup? I expected the open file option to overcome the problem of open files, not just flag them in the operation log. It is a very expensive option for it to simply let you know a file has not been backed up!
  11. cferri

    Schedule adds too much time

    The problem is simply that Retrospect adds too much time when it reschedules the job. The rescheduled job is set so far into the future that it is effectively disabled. The job runs OK for one week only, then is rescheduled incorrectly and has to be manually reset before it will run again. I have used various versions of Retrospect on several different versions of Windows, but the behaviour of 6.5 on this Windows 98 PC is unique, and entirely unacceptable.
  12. cferri

    Schedule adds too much time

    Using Retrospect 6.5 backing up to DVD RAM on Windows 98, I have found that jobs are incorrectly rescheduled. At first, I was willing to believe that I had made a mistake in the schedule settings, but this has been checked, and rechecked and there is nothing wrong. Also, the system clock is set correctly. The schedule is based on a bi-weekly rotation of DVD media, but the next session for each disc is always reset to a date much further into the future than demanded by the schedule settings. As a consequence, the backups are missed, or have to be manually set for the correct start time before they will perform properly. Has anyone else seen this behaviour and if so, is there a cure?
×