Jump to content

51ae86ee-d35a-4c46-b879-c3b8399377a3

Members
  • Content count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About 51ae86ee-d35a-4c46-b879-c3b8399377a3

  • Rank
    Grooming Still Dead Slow In V9?
  1. 51ae86ee-d35a-4c46-b879-c3b8399377a3

    Questions About How The V9 Client Works

    Unfortunately with the amount of data to copy that isn't an option as the tape library can't be connected (just don't have free Fiber Channel ports. So I'll probably just update this set monthly, and start a new set next year. But having to do a full scan every time is just such a waste of time when there is an OS level function that can track when a file has been touched. Given that 8 was a rewrite, and 9 a further upgrade, this type of speedup would be greatly appreciated. It would also let us backup far more machines in a given time slot since that list would greatly reduce the need for a scan- for some clients that can be the vast majority of the backup time (by 10-100 to 1). Maybe for Retrospect X (chuckle, chuckle).
  2. 51ae86ee-d35a-4c46-b879-c3b8399377a3

    Questions About How The V9 Client Works

    All machines are 10.6.8. I started on Friday, and so far we are 121 hours in, 8.2TB backed up (2.4TB remaining, and 443k thousand files backed up with 651K files remaining. Then we start the compare...
  3. 51ae86ee-d35a-4c46-b879-c3b8399377a3

    Data Compression For Remote Internet Backups?

    There are other products that might be better suited for what you want to do (CrashPlan and Synchronize Pro both come to mind). Retrospect CAN do it, but it hasn't proven to be the best tool for the job, particularly when it comes to scan times.
  4. 51ae86ee-d35a-4c46-b879-c3b8399377a3

    Exclude Time Machine/capsule Backups?

    You should be able to crate a Selector to exclude anything on a Volume Name of "Time Machine".
  5. Just on a separate note- I do fid some of the other applications do a faster job of scanning, and get the same identical attributes copied. So I often use something else to do the copy specifically for that reason (and then sidestep this issue entirely).
  6. 51ae86ee-d35a-4c46-b879-c3b8399377a3

    Retro 9 Upgrade Pricing Feedback

    Well, to be clear- if you had ASM before (I believe that's the requirement) then the cost to renew that for Multi-Server is $260, and that's all you need to do (after you renew, just send in a web ticket and they'll send you the v9 serial). That lower cost was sufficient to get me to buy it and do some extended testing. This isn't a judgement on the value, just a confirmation of the cost and process.
  7. 51ae86ee-d35a-4c46-b879-c3b8399377a3

    Questions About How The V9 Client Works

    I am trying to set up a monthly backup of a file server (about 11TB of data, and 1.1 million files). The file server is an Xserve Quad-core 2.6GHz with 6GB RAM, while the Retrospect Server machine is an Xserve Quad-core 28GHz machine with 10GB RAM. The initial scan appeared to take too long, so I cancelled and wanted to try using the share as a source instead. Unfortunately the Console locked up when trying to connect to the server-have not had a chance to go in and troubleshoot that aspect yet. But some notes: the initial scan had gotten to about the 6TB point and was scanning about 20 files per second at that point. But on a subsequent scan it got to the 5TB/400k files mark in about 5 minutes (and then slowed down dramatically, though not to the level seen initially (around 60-150 files per second here). The Server seems to hang around at 300-350% CPU usage, and relatively small amounts of RAM used (I see the two Retrospect Processes using about 280MB real/470MB virtual). The network usage is low (about 1Mb/s usage). So it appears that the CPU on the server is the most limiting factor. Some hypothetical questions: - Could the Client software handle the scanning portion so that the server wasn't bogged down, particularly when more than one event was running on a machine? - Could the Client software run a scan after installation to get a list of the files and their state for the initial backup so that list could be sent to the server rather than the server doing it? - Could the Client software use fsevents on the Mac side to maintain a running list of updated files to pass off to the server when a new backup was initiated? This would practically eliminate the need for the scan. Or does some of this happen already? A little insight into how this is working might give us some ideas on how to optimize performance.
  8. 51ae86ee-d35a-4c46-b879-c3b8399377a3

    Has Anyone Gotten Anywhere With The Asm Renewal/v9 Upgrade Mentioned By Robin?

    One side note- you can make your own bar code labels and leave space at the top for a handwritten real text label. I made several hundred, and they read as well as anything the manufacturers are using, though I admit the permanent vinyl ;labels are not as thick as the ones that came with my autoloader (though definitely more durable than the paper ones that come with the tapes). And I do see incredible slowness when the scanning is going on (20 files per second on a dedicated quad 2.8Ghz machine that is showing tee RetroEngine running 350-380%, and in over an hour only 6GB has been scanned (and ~700k files). Simply unacceptable.
  9. 51ae86ee-d35a-4c46-b879-c3b8399377a3

    Has Anyone Gotten Anywhere With The Asm Renewal/v9 Upgrade Mentioned By Robin?

    I finally got a response (apparently many tickets had gotten stuck and not been replied to). Anyway, purchased the ASM, sent a web ticket with the info, and got the new serial numbers. Everything is functioning as expected.
  10. 51ae86ee-d35a-4c46-b879-c3b8399377a3

    Has Anyone Gotten Anywhere With The Asm Renewal/v9 Upgrade Mentioned By Robin?

    Yeah-that's the situation I'm in too. I wonder how many people actually made the transition to the new company of if there are two programmers and Robin taking care of things at this point.
  11. Just wondering if anyone has heard anything from anyone on this. Email to sales@retrospect.com wasn't responded to, so I'm wondering if anyone is even manning that account. I even emailed Robin directly but got no response other than an out-of-the-office auto-reply. Things seem to be squirrelier and squirrelier here.
  12. 51ae86ee-d35a-4c46-b879-c3b8399377a3

    Grooming Still Dead Slow In V9?

    to OP: One strategy I have found helpful (and it seems counterintuitive) is to not back up the local email stores. These change by several hundred files for many users each day, and can lead to a lot of data churn. Since the server is backed up (and everyone is using IMAP anyway) it really is just local cache for us (we do manual archiving of messages, so I catch the stuff pulled off the server that needs to be backed up through that, though I probably could get more specific in my rules to just skip the IMAP folders and still backup the archives). But definitely try to exclude the browser cache folders- tremendous churn there.
  13. 51ae86ee-d35a-4c46-b879-c3b8399377a3

    So Far So Good With Retro 9

    And the 8 engine was entirely new as well, and that worked out really well for everyone. The retroclient.state issue (admittedly that should be simple), the general multicast flakiness (which I see too-v6 works just fine here), and some of the other bugs listed elsewhere. Right now there are too many reports of issues, and no reports of any timeframe for a next patch set (though given prior history that may not be too reliable anyway).
  14. 51ae86ee-d35a-4c46-b879-c3b8399377a3

    Potential Remedy For Long Suffering V8 Users

    It seems pretty obvious that the new Retrospect company needs the cash flow of the new licenses, maintenance, etc to be a continuing concern (other wise it becomes the late Now Software). Obviously users are feeling pretty burned after getting promised a pending update and then finding out it is a full upgrade. The ASM renewal is a nice gesture, but still seems like blood money a bit since there were no updates for 15 months, meaning any ASM purchase was completely worthless (since support couldn't do anything to resolve known issues, it too was of no value). But how about adding a sweetener for those who purchased v8 more than a year ago (and so are forced to renew ASM to get a better price)? How about a feature or license bump? Desktop users can get an extra 3 clients or one server client license. Single server license holders get a license for an additional 10 clients, 5 clients and a server client, or 2 server clients. And Multiserver users get a single server license to have a second copy running on another machine (handy for restores, or for offloading network client backups) or one of the other add-ons like Advanced tape support. And as an alternative to all of those there could be an option to sidegrade to the Windows version which seems to have gotten a lot more stability testing than the Mac version, getting them out of the beta fastlane they've been in. Retrospect still gets cash flow, customers might not feel quite so burned, and maintenance for the next year will go up since they will have additional licenses in need of maintenance (which hopefully will have received a few updates over that time). Cash outlay is minimal, since most of those older users are not likely to expand their usage with the new version anyway until it appears like its on more stable ground. This kind of sweetener might be just what is needed to get them to spring for it.
  15. 51ae86ee-d35a-4c46-b879-c3b8399377a3

    So Far So Good With Retro 9

    Just adding a data point to the boards. We are giving the trial a go on a new, clean Mac Mini i5 with 4GB RAM, 10.7.2 and a Promise SANLink adapter connected to an LTO-4, dual-drive Scalar i40. Currently we don't do any client or server backups with Retrospect (our workflow didn't accommodate Retro 8, so we changed that aspect). That server aspect is about $1500, which isn't terribly unreasonable given the fiber connectivity (if you had a PCIe chassis and an existing card it could be even less). But we do use Retrospect for project archives: we first backup from the server storage to the tape library, and then test the restore right then by restoring to a hard drive. The hard drive with finder-readable files stays on site, and the LTOs go off-site. This also lets us do a full verify of the LTOs before sending them out. So far, so good. Retrospect 8 on an older machine was less than speedy, and the interface crashed often (only run locally). With Retrospect 9 we have been pleased with a speed increase (though that may be the machine as much as the software) though the overall experience has been better. The email notifications have gone out as expected, and we've actually been more efficient since the system doesn't seem to spend so much time "thinking". I do wonder if a clean install would be the way to go rather than trying to upgrade a Retro 8 install (I have no plans to go down that path to test), but so far multiple archives and restores have worked well (about 2.2GB/min on backup, and 3.3GB/min on restore to drive connected via Firewire). I was particularly cautious because of the Thunderbolt connection, but that hasn't seemed to be an issue (certainly a better experience than we had with the Apple FC adapters). Anyway, while I'm certainly as upset as anyone at the time needed to get a useable, stable product that didn't require my assistance on a regular basis (and the cost to do so), this seems like an improvement on what we had before. If only documentation were better, but that is another thread. I may give client backups a shot if we get an update that addresses some of the issues. I know my usage is rather limited, but even that had showed some glaring issues before. Not so many now-it's progress.
×