Jump to content

peternlewis

Members
  • Content count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

peternlewis last won the day on April 27 2015

peternlewis had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

12 Good

About peternlewis

  • Rank
    frequent Poster
  1. peternlewis

    Can't get Instant Scan working again

    And apparently I forgot to knock on wood when saying this, and its back to non-Instant Scan and eight hour directory scans. Sigh.
  2. peternlewis

    Can't get Instant Scan working again

    A couple restarts later, and it seems to have resolved itself and is using Instant Scan again (thankfully!). Odd, but no longer repeatable so probably no longer helpful.
  3. peternlewis

    Can't get Instant Scan working again

    It seems if I restart my client Mac, the first time it uses Instant Scan, and then not again. Instant Scan scans my Mac in a few minutes. Without it, the scan takes around 8 hours. This is not helpful! It would be disastrous if I had more than one Mac with lots of files to scan.
  4. peternlewis

    Is 12.0.1 really out?

    Is the Mac Client updates to 12.0.1 as well? Because even after installing the 12.0.1 engine and the 12.0.1 desktop app, when I export the client updates, it has "Mac_Client_Update_12_0_0_213.rcu".
  5. Looks like my cookies needed resetting. Does not appear to be the extensions. Thanks!
  6. Ok, lets see, this is with extensions disabled and reset cookies.
  7. peternlewis

    Is 12.0.1 really out?

    Yes, the defaults delete fixed the issue. Thanks!
  8. peternlewis

    Is 12.0.1 really out?

    It's weird. The updated Retrospect is telling me to update the server, and offering to do it (I suppose I can try that), but Check for Updates on the server is saying "Retrospect 12.0.0 (213) is currently the newest version available.". This is from just now: I'm confused.
  9. Because of the bug in 12.0.0 with excluded directories, I briefly turned off Instant Scan. Then I changed it so the excluded directories are excluded by my rules and turned back on Instant Scan. But Retrospect refuses to use Instant Scan, which means my backup takes about 8 hours scanning my HD which is not good at all. The client (12.0.0 (213)) says "Instant Scan is enabled". The RetrospectInstantScan process is running. The source options say "Enable Instant Scan" is on. But the log shows it is not using Instant Scan: - 27/04/2015 02:14:20: Copying Zany on Zany ****** Warning: Copying hard-linked directories (such as those created by Time Machine) is not supported.. ****** 27/04/2015 10:04:44: Found: 4233166 files, 784901 folders, 1.6 TB 27/04/2015 10:34:12: Finished matching Any suggestions on how I can resolve this?
  10. peternlewis

    Is 12.0.1 really out?

    I received an update message in Retrospect 12.0.0 to update to 12.0.1 when running the Mac version on my normal Mac (OS X 10.10). But on my actual backup Mac (OS X 10.8), when I check for updates it says 12.0.0 is the latest. What's going on with that?
  11. On this forum, when trying to reply to a topic, clicking the Post button in Safari/Mac does not do anything. I'm forced to switch over to Chrome to post a reply.
  12. No comments? Do the developers read this? Every warning should aim to give the user at least a hint of how to resolve the problem…
  13. That sounds better in principle (in practice probably not that much on a two member disk). Good to know!
  14. Thanks Tim - yes, it is quite possible that would meet my needs. I have settled on taking two 3TB drives and RAID0-ing them to make a 6TB drive to avoid Grooming altogether. There is some concern that this double's the failure rate, but I have three rotating (off-site) backup sets (eg a pair of disks) so that should mitigate the issue. If I had gone the 2-member route, and one of the disks failed, would Retrospect be able to cope with that or would it destroy the entire backup set as well?
  15. peternlewis

    Grooming during proactive backups

    Well, I believe I've solved my problem with a more brute force solution. I bought a second set of 3 3TB, and I'll pair each of them up to make 6TB raid-0 disks and that should resolve any need to groom for the foreseeable future. That said, I still contend that Grooming should not happen in the middle of a proactive backup.
×