Jump to content

333feccd-9a8f-41de-b767-7e44c655d720

Members
  • Content count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About 333feccd-9a8f-41de-b767-7e44c655d720

  • Rank
    Dear God Fix This Software
  1. 333feccd-9a8f-41de-b767-7e44c655d720

    Fastest Backup to tape performance possible?

    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....
  2. 333feccd-9a8f-41de-b767-7e44c655d720

    Fastest Backup to tape performance possible?

    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?
  3. 333feccd-9a8f-41de-b767-7e44c655d720

    Max Bandwith to tape + Hardware

    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?
  4. 333feccd-9a8f-41de-b767-7e44c655d720

    Convert From Win To Mac Retrospect: Hints, Suggestions?

    BTW, they seem to be fairly forwards compatible - but definitely not back.
  5. 333feccd-9a8f-41de-b767-7e44c655d720

    Convert From Win To Mac Retrospect: Hints, Suggestions?

    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...
  6. 333feccd-9a8f-41de-b767-7e44c655d720

    Dear God Fix This Software

    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.
×