Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About 008e3f8f-ac2d-4494-8f82-24d5c4ae8d5b

  • Rank
    The 'new' Forum
  1. 008e3f8f-ac2d-4494-8f82-24d5c4ae8d5b

    External Scripting

    Is there any (current / usable) documentation available about the external scripting option? If so, can somebody please point me in the right direction? Or maybe someone can help me out with a problem to start a program with an external execution script. When I place an external_exe.exe in the Retrospect install directory C:\Program Files\Retrospect\Retrospect 7.7 the exe will run. But when I enable the option in the script “use alternate path for external executable” and enter the path "C:\Scripts\Shutdown" the executable will not run. I tried different syntaxes for the path with \ at the, with/without “ and ‘ at the beginning and end of the path. The log file always shows: - 18-8-2011 12:09:02: Execution of external executable "external_exe.exe" External execution of "external_exe.exe" completed successfully So it looks to me that there is a problem with the alternate path. Can someone help me to get it to work with multiple directories, so I can create multiple scripts to run multiple programs. Thanks!
  2. 008e3f8f-ac2d-4494-8f82-24d5c4ae8d5b

    Backup Performance

    Your figures seem to be okay. Performance depends a lot on the kind of files being backed up and the amount of files available on the client and its CPU and HDD speed. Our hardware is quite a lot faster than yours, but depending on the client it varies even more and we use disk>disk>tape. We also use encryption btw. Considering your 40% utilisation figure, your CPU has two cores without hyper-treading and 40% means probably it uses one core almost to the max. Because Retrospect doesn't really utilise multi-core you will not see it exceed 50% by much. If you use Retrospect's encryption it can use a little more resources, but it's nowhere near maxing out a reasonable multi-core CPU. Btw, LTO-4 drives in reality are nowhere near as fast as advertised. Or maybe you backup a lot of large text files filled with only the same character, or large uncompressed tiff-files filled with a single color. Those can be compressed by the drive in a very good and fast fashion, but that isn't a real life scenario.
  3. Retrospect creates and erases RDB files all the time, depending on your settings, like grooming and/or recycle. So unless your drive was previously DoD-wiped and only written those RDB files sequentially without any erasing/recycling etc. chances are you'll end up with far more 'restored' (and corrupt) RDB files when doing an unerase. Furthermore the naming of them will probably be incorrect. Unformatting can be done by experts, but in reality it's very often not possible to recreate the exact state of the disk as it was when it was formatted. It can be a nice security breach though, as some/a lot information can be extracted, but unfortunately often not in the way you want in this case. You can either give up and learn from this mistake (actually you have not been using Retrospect as a means of backup, but more likely as a (single point of failure) archiver), or try to fiddle with it and (quite likely) spent a lot of time without results. Considering you only have a bunch of randomly named and (some) maybe corrupt RDB-files I think you'll probably waste your time.
  4. 008e3f8f-ac2d-4494-8f82-24d5c4ae8d5b

    Error -557 ( Transaction Already Complete)

    We don't use that version of Win 7 here, so I can't confirm. But it seems plausible there is another issue at stake. Did you run a CHKDSK? Also it's possible a virus-scanner is causing the behaviour you are seeing. You could try the uninstall en reinstall the client. Seems to have worked in the past for some users with that particular error.
  5. 008e3f8f-ac2d-4494-8f82-24d5c4ae8d5b

    Error -557 ( Transaction Already Complete)

    Can't confirm your experience on our equipment. Maybe it would be better to describe your problems and configuration in more detail?
  6. 008e3f8f-ac2d-4494-8f82-24d5c4ae8d5b

    Error -557 ( Transaction Already Complete)

    @ BasV > We have mostly Win 7 x64 Ultimates running besides Win 2008 (x64 / R2) servers and OSX machines. Rarely we get the -519 error. But we do have a couple of Vista's (x64) running, as well as an XP or two. So far I didn't see the problem you are facing. Could it be a network driver problem for your Vista x32's?
  7. 008e3f8f-ac2d-4494-8f82-24d5c4ae8d5b

    Error -557 ( Transaction Already Complete)

    So far everything has worked according to spec. Even the tape drive works like it should, but at this time I can't say it's better than 7.7.325, but it's certainly not worse. There is still the issue the tape will not be ejected by any script, only pressing the eject button in Storage Devices > Status will eject the tape. Beware, we use plain vanilla Retrospect Multi Server without any options like Open File Backup, SQL or Exchange Agent, so YMMV.
  8. 008e3f8f-ac2d-4494-8f82-24d5c4ae8d5b

    Error -557 ( Transaction Already Complete)

    Thanks Robin, Updating worked without problems. I hope tape handing will be better with this version. It just started the first backup script and this seems to work correctly. However that's 'just' a D2D. Tomorrow morning it will do a D2T and we have been having problems with that specific script. It does say it verifies but it actually takes zero time. We'll see, I'll report back, especially if I run into a problem.
  9. 008e3f8f-ac2d-4494-8f82-24d5c4ae8d5b

    Error -557 ( Transaction Already Complete)

    Thanks Robin, I'm going to bite the bullet and install it now, so we'll get some feedback over the weekend as we are running a lot of scripts during that time. So it's version 7.7.562 now: http://www.roxio.com/enu/support/retrospect/software_updates.html In-application updating seems to work as well. Also is there a 'fixed & known problems' list available?
  10. 008e3f8f-ac2d-4494-8f82-24d5c4ae8d5b

    Error -557 ( Transaction Already Complete)

    I hope they are a bit 'on track' with their delivery date of the upcoming bug fix/update. I always appreciate Robin's information about estimated delivery of these. However, going by the reactions from some users it can be a bit 'dangerous' providing such estimates and not delivering them in time. Chances are somebody is going to use that against Robin and thus resulting we do not get any information of that kind in the future... which would be worse. Still, I'm waiting as well on a useable update, as even the older 7.7.325 version, which is the most stable 'current' version for our LTO4 tape drives, does have at least one annoying tape verify bug that only seems to surface under certain circumstances.
  11. 008e3f8f-ac2d-4494-8f82-24d5c4ae8d5b

    Grooming Removes Snapshot Listings, But Not Files

    On a sidenote... If you remove a client from your script, its backed up contents will not be groomed from the backup set. You have to manually delete the snapshots before they can be groomed out. Furthermore, did you create/recycle your backup set with your current version of Retrospect? In the past we have had some grooming issues that seemed version related, so most of the time we do a recycle after upgrading Retrospect.
  12. 008e3f8f-ac2d-4494-8f82-24d5c4ae8d5b

    Config77.dat File Getting Corrupted

    In any case, it's not normal for the config to get corrupted. We rarely see that happen here on our installations of Retrospect... How many is 'many remote clients'? B.t.w. after configuration changes we usually quit Retrospect and restart the application again to make sure it writes the changes to the config file. This is something we have been doing for years so it became kind of a ritual, but so far it worked for us.
  13. 008e3f8f-ac2d-4494-8f82-24d5c4ae8d5b

    Error -557 ( Transaction Already Complete)

    Hmm, in that case it's probably a situation Roxio needs to learn from. I mean if it's so easy to trigger the problem it would consist of u huge "oooops". Now I'm really glad I didn't spend time on testing this version. *Besides that, I now feel I bit weird defending Roxio, if it's such an obvious bug...*
  14. 008e3f8f-ac2d-4494-8f82-24d5c4ae8d5b

    Error -557 ( Transaction Already Complete)

    Well, you might be right, but wouldn't Aaron have run into that problem as well? Or is this only happening with certain versions of Windows clients? I mean there are no real numbers on how many users actually run into this problem because it might only happen in a certain and particular situation. Still I would also like to see some information like a changelog and known issues before downloading an update. If only because it would save a lot of time when you run into a problem when testing software before deployment in a production setting.
  15. 008e3f8f-ac2d-4494-8f82-24d5c4ae8d5b

    Error -557 ( Transaction Already Complete)

    Maybe this bug doesn't surface in all scenario's they tested or can test? It's hard to test software very thoroughly due to the massive amount of possible iterations of soft- and hardware. This is probably the reason the fixed version isn't released yet, as they are still testing (which can take more time and resources than actually fixing/developing). Normally you would just keep (or revert to) the old working version, but that's not directly available due to the Retrospect ownership transfer (however there seems to be a way after reading BRF's earlier post in this topic). Besides that, testing new/updated software before production usage is something an system engineer/admin also should do before implementing and running into trouble. Fact is a lot of admins don't and get mad at the developer when there's a problem while they should have tested it themselves in the first place. We all want the perfect product an a perfect world, but in real life bugs are just a fact of life. Which doesn't mean you can't feel annoyed a bit when you run into them, nor should software developers (and the marketing departments) forget to strive in the general direction of 'perfect' software.