Jump to content

demani

Members
  • Content count

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

demani last won the day on November 6 2012

demani had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About demani

  • Rank
    Occasional Forum Poster
  1. That's the rub- bugs have not been getting fixed, but getting rolled up into the new version after a couple of patches that fix only the most egregious ones. But there are lots of bugs described here and in the forums that have been unaddressed since 9.0.2 has been released. Generally, updates fix problems and upgrades add new functionality. Most users would prefer that the existing software work (i.e. get a good update) before adding new features (pay for an upgrade). My personal view on this is that Retrospect has not been meeting revenue targets in this latest incarnation, and needed to put all efforts into a new version to get more revenue. Unfortunately this is putting a severe strain on the customer relationship with existing customers. Were updates promised-not explicitly. But why file bug reports as suggested by support if there is no plan to do anything about them? Those updates were implied by soliciting the reports in the first place.
  2. That is still relying on habit for that to work. Better to set up Static DHCP assignments (so they always are handed the same IP address), or to get Multicast working properly on the network (that being said, it's hard to tell if Multicast is failing due to a switch/router configuration issue, or if Retrospect is just not working properly).
  3. You are not wrong (Daniels: this a SAN setup, not an SMB/AFP file share). Since a utility is required to mount it, it can't be done from within the Retrospect software. But Retrospect won't even allow browsing the path with the share connected which would resolve this issue. To the system this is the same as an external drive (shows up under /Volumes) so I'm not sure what Retrospect is seeing that is causing it to not work.
  4. I see a duplicate of the server in the console (the console is running locally). If I delete, restart the computer and re-add the server to the list, it reappears as a pair of servers, with identical action (i.e. both show a job running).
  5. Unable to choose a mounted sharepoint from Avid Unity or EditShare SANs. They appear on the desktop, and at /Volumes/ in Terminal, but Retrospect is unable to choose them as a source. Other utilities see the shares and can be used to back them up.
  6. demani

    Looking for users' opinions of Retrospect 9

    I'm mixed: the general use has been fine, and most of our archiving process is fine. But we added a new SAN, and now Retrospect cannot se it as being a volume on the machine-as a result we need to use another utility to clone data, and then back up from there. Not efficient, nor effective (given that $40 utilities can handle that clone job). Compared to 8 it is much better in terms of reliability, and generally has not been working against us the way 8 was, so that was a big relief. But I still find client backups to be way too slow, and I don't understand how they are unable to leverage fsevents on the Mac side to build a catalog so we don't need a full comparison scan for each client (that is the longest portion of the whole process by far). Given 8 was a rearchitecting of the whole thing, that would have been a key upgrade.
  7. Ugh-so the response from support was thoroughly unhelpful: Of course other software is able to see the volumes and work with them. It appears that Retrospect cannot for some reason. Anyone do anything similar?
  8. Yeah- there currently isn't a ton of software that will do what you are saying. LTO-FS is one option, but has its limitations, and some applications (like BRU) say they will release their archive format to open source if they ever close shop. You could also use old fashioned CLI commands, but that robs you of a lot of the ease and flexibilty of an application like Retrospect. It's all tradeoffs. Our decision was to use Retrospect for tape archives, but also keep a copy in machine readable format on standard hard drives (tapes go to storage, drives stay on site for fast retrieval).
  9. I would like to back up projects off an EditShare SAN (and similarly, an Avid Unity at a different office) using Retrospect 9 (multi-server). However, the mounted sharepoints don't show up in the Retrospect Source listing, though they are visible on the desktop. There isn't a method to connect as a regular user (i.e. not using the EditShare client), so it seems my only method as of the moment is to first clone to a local drive, then back up to tape from there. Ideally, I would back up to tape first, then restore to drive (to verify that the project was backed up successfully) and then archive both sets (tapes go offsite, standalone drive stays onsite). Anyone come up with a workaround for a similar situation?
  10. Honestly, for a single machine backup you might be better with something else (e.g. a Time Machine and a SuperDuper backup combination). Version 8 just isn't ready for everyday, everyman use yet, and there is no sign that is going to change (no updates in 6 months for what is clearly a bug-ridden product). If you have multiple machines there are some other things to look at (ChronoSync Agent) to check out.
  11. Well the Rovi purchase of Sonic explains a bit of the silence. But again it appears that Retrospect is a red headed stepchild- the PR seems to stress all the media products. And the Roxio page still isn't even completely rebranded (notably, About us)
  12. It has been almost 5 months since the last update and there have been multiple issues reported, but no fixes forthcoming. Anyone heard anything about coming updates (8.2.1 would be fine, I don't need a full 8.3 update)?
  13. I understand that the rep can't make changes, just as I understand that what he said doesn't reflect the license as written. However, in the absence of a resolution on their part (I have tried a few times, and yet nothing has come of it) I am going to do what I had originally purchased licenses to do. My question as originally posed was whether there had been some other change to licensing in the most recent transfer that wasn't well known. Clearly there wasn't. But should the BSA come knocking, my defense will be "See-I paid for these two upgrades, and only got one. I called to get the other one, but was told "no" as I didn't need it. I'm using it in the way I had originally licensed it though." That's the best I can do (I certainly am not going to purchase another license). And maybe, just maybe, some day they will train their reps.
  14. I disagree with Russ on one point: the utility of a full comparison verification can be useful even if volumes are changing. You may be perfectly fine with changed files, and because they are logged so that you can identify them the process can be useful. A file that does not pass verification is still backed up, it just did not pass verification. A project share may need to be backed up at night, but Marketing may be working on a presentation through the night so their one file may change. Yet, you still know at the end that the backup is intact, except for acceptable changes to the system (i.e. "yep- Marketing was working last night"). If you need (or rather, desire) full comparison backups then by all means do them- quite often the results are still useful, and they allow a more thorough backup check than MD5 alone.
  15. Well, he did send me a followup so I have it in writing. Frankly, I'm not using it beyond my (initially perceived) licensing (I have one machine as a backup server for workstations, and one on a server for server backups). I have called back and got a "we'll get back to you" (someday), I guess) I have very little hope of resolving it the way I think it should be (just send me a code for the Single-Server version). I have emails saying that we enabled Maintenance on both licenses, and then the one with the single upgrade license.
×