

333feccd-9a8f-41de-b767-7e44c655d720
Members-
Content count
6 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Community Reputation
1 NeutralAbout 333feccd-9a8f-41de-b767-7e44c655d720
-
Rank
Dear God Fix This Software
-
Fastest Backup to tape performance possible?
333feccd-9a8f-41de-b767-7e44c655d720 replied to 333feccd-9a8f-41de-b767-7e44c655d720's topic in Retrospect 9 or higher for Macintosh
With drives and backups getting ever larger, I've all but given up on retrospect as a future backup/archive platform. And to think I have been using it since Mac os 8.6! I would love to hear from the manufacturers about this one - but they have failed to respond on multiple occasions. Its like they know something.... -
Fastest Backup to tape performance possible?
333feccd-9a8f-41de-b767-7e44c655d720 posted a topic in Retrospect 9 or higher for Macintosh
Can anyone know let me know the best backup performance to tape they have achived with retrospect 9. Im running V8.2 using MacPro, SAS LTO5 + dual 4Gb fibre SAN source. Best I see is about 60MB/s using retrospect. Evaluating Prestore + Bru on the same hardware I was seeing 120-140MB/s to tape. Retrospect V8 IS the bottleneck. Is V9 any faster? -
Max Bandwith to tape + Hardware
333feccd-9a8f-41de-b767-7e44c655d720 posted a topic in Device and Hardware Compatibility-Mac OS X
Can anyone know let me know the best backup performance to tape they have achived with retrospect 9. Im running V8.2 using MacPro, SAS LTO5 + dual 4Gb fibre SAN source. Best I see is about 60MB/s using retrospect. Evaluating Prestore + Bru on the same hardware I was seeing 120-140MB/s to tape. Retrospect V8 IS the bottleneck. Is V9 any faster? -
Convert From Win To Mac Retrospect: Hints, Suggestions?
333feccd-9a8f-41de-b767-7e44c655d720 replied to cbdd7859-396c-48cf-9fab-834d52e7361a's topic in Retrospect 8 For Macintosh
BTW, they seem to be fairly forwards compatible - but definitely not back. -
Convert From Win To Mac Retrospect: Hints, Suggestions?
333feccd-9a8f-41de-b767-7e44c655d720 replied to cbdd7859-396c-48cf-9fab-834d52e7361a's topic in Retrospect 8 For Macintosh
Wisdom? Seriously, don't do it. The PC version 7.6/7.7 is soooooo much better than the Mac V8.2. Trust me I'm using it and longing for the 'good old days' of the Windows version. To add to the vastly inferior software and GUI, the new version seems to ignore the fact that you are running a much more powerful and capable computer. It is a waste of good hardware to be running this god-awful software. You will be disappointed. As was I... -
Dear God Fix This Software
333feccd-9a8f-41de-b767-7e44c655d720 replied to scsctech's topic in Retrospect 8 For Macintosh
I find this thread depressing as I REALLY REALLY wanted Retrospect to be usable at the facility I work in. Like many core users, I have used Retrospect on the Mac for many years. I have been a loyal defender. It is frustrating that in a market with very few viable alternatives, it seems to rely on this loyalty. It seems like the frequent change in ownership in recent years has taken it's toll and it is not a product that has been given any development budget or road-map, to fit into today's changing IT enviroments. I for one am finding it very difficult to soldier on with a product that just doesn't work the way I need it too. BTW My number 1 gripe (by far) is performance. For example A terminal RAID-RAID copy running at over 400MB/s through Retrospect can only manage 60MB/s on the same 8-core Mac! WTF !?!? This 60MB/s is also seems to be the threshold of our LTO5. At least it's consistently slow! This problem does not seem to affect Retrospects main competitors - BRU + Prestore. Ironically, the PC Retrospect V7.5-7.7 are flawed, but vastly superior. Go figure Im running Retrospect workgroup 8.2 on Intel 8-core MP with 4Gb fibre + 6Gb SAS. What a waste.