Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About pscs

  • Rank
    Occasional Forum Poster
  1. Quote: Can you please tell us what the client control panel says when the backup is stuck in closing? It should say something like "in use by...." or "ready" It says 'In use by...' here
  2. We use Sophos not Symantec anti-virus (sorry, I haven't got around to doing the full survey yet - we've stopped using Retrospect for the time being because of these problems...)
  3. I was using a File backup set, and got the problem. Then, I changed to Disk backup, and still got the problem. I also do tape backups, but I don't recall ever having the problem with those. Only one tape backup can occur at once, but multiple disk/file backups can occur at the same time. Maybe it's to do with concurrency - isn't that a new feature in 6.5 Oh, how I wish Retrospect would take it seriously and start getting some real diagnosis information together..
  4. In my case it's on random machines Stopping the client service achieves nothing I haven't tried restarting the remote machine, but I don't think it would help - Netstat shows no active connection to the server IIRC Uninstalling/reinstalling the NIC driver isn't going to help.. OFBs are off, no difference. It just needs someone at Retrospect to decide there's a problem and do some proper diagnostics rather than 'willy nilly messing around' in the hope that customers will go away.
  5. After a month of thinking my problem was solved by the upgrade, it's back again.. What annoys me is that the answers given by Retrospect are the 'simple', upgrade, reinstall, remove settings and restart type answers. No one seems to be wanting to get to the bottom of what's causing the problem. With the software WE write, we never give those answers as there's usually either something gone wrong with the software, or it's a setting problem that needs fixing, and it's best, in the long run, to start with a broken system and try to fix it than to go back to a working system and hope it doesn't go wrong again. It's obvious from this thread that it's not just an isolated case, so if the settings are getting corrupted, doesn't someone want to work out why? If the software is just getting stuck in an infinite loop or something, does no one care?
  6. I can't move it to another computer. The backup PC has a SCSI card (for the tape library), 3x160GB internal drives, USB2 external drives etc on it (managing the backups is its main purposes) At the moment, I telephoned technical support in the US (cost me a fortune..) and they suggested I uninstalled and reinstalled with the very latest version (I was on a slightly earlier version). It hasn't got 'stuck' since, but it was intermittent anyway, and I've reduced the backup frequency (the performance issues meant it couldn't do all the backups I wanted it to do, even though it should have been able to), so it the upgrade might have fixed the problem, or it might just not have gone wrong yet. We'll have to wait and see. (When I spoke to the tech support in the US they didn't seem to want to investigate the problem I was having at the time (it was in 'stuck' mode when I rang), they just gave the stock answer 'upgrade to the latest version' - even though none of the published changes affect anything like what we've been seeing)
  7. For me, there is little network activity (I haven't looked into it in detail, so I don't know if the activity is there is from the mail server, web server or from Retrospect If I close the client, then the client closes quite happily, but the server still stays stuck in 'Closing'.
  8. OK, it's just happened again. This is on a backup from a remote client to tape (so the disk/file backup set issue doesn't apply AFAICS) The last entries in the log are Quote: 10/09/2003 09:30:58: 80 execution errors Completed: 63813 files, 16.8 GB, with 33% compression Performance: 143.4 MB/minute (129.4 copy, 160.7 compare) Duration: 05:09:05 (01:09:13 idle/loading/preparing) It is now 13:52 here, so over 4 hours has passed since it thought it had finished. The client on the remote computer (a W2K server computer) says it's still active The progress bar on the server is at about 95% (not 100%), but it says state 'Closing', and the progress bar has been at that point for ages Looking at the task manager, Retrospect is using around 30-60% of the CPU, even though no other backup tasks are currently running (several are in the queue waiting to run when the stuck one frees up the tape drive) So, either it's incredibly slow, doing something which no one will explain, or it's got itself stuck in a loop (which is my suspicion since it's been left a lot longer than this before now, if you look back in the thread) Oh, and this backup was without Open File Backup being enabled. So, the 'reason's that have been suggested (file backup set, OFB) don't apply in this case.
  9. It probably is busy. I only use the Open File Backup facility on three PCs, one is a mail server, one is a web server and one is a database/file server used by the web server. On all the other (workstation) PCs it'd be of limited use, so I'm not using it. From what I've read about OFB systems, it's probably not much use anyway, so I've disabled it to see if that makes any difference (the database is backed up by having an SQL Server task make backup files which can be backed up as normal files, and the web & mail servers rarely lock files open for any length of time anyway) Paul
  10. I am using the open file option, but I don't know why, because it has never yet worked for me.. It always says it can't work because the disk is too busy. I'll try turning it off to see if that makes any difference.
  11. Look at my 2nd post in the thread - the log says it's finished everything - the backup, snapshot & compare. It just can't 'sort itself out' afterwards. I'm sure I've seen somewhere in Retrospect that it will erase removeable disks before backing up to them in 'disk backup set' mode Ah, here we are "Chooing the Backup Set Type" Quote: Removable disks used as part of a disk Backup Set must be erased before you can use them. Removable disks used as part of a file Backup Set do not have to be erased, and the disk can store and access files other than the Backup Set data files. (So, maybe Retrospect won't erase the disks itself, but it says you have to do it first. I don't want to - that's why I chose the file backup set type).
  12. I'm 'glad' it's not just me.. No, no-one's come up with a solution, or even any suggestions on how to get more information to submit to Dantz. (This is the bit I find annoying. Software bugs exist, but most software manufacturers put problem diagnosis code into their software so users can send logs etc in case of a problem. Either Dantz haven't bothered to do this, or they don't see this as a big enough problem to bother with). I may chase up the support call I purchased which they've never bothered answering about a previous issue, and and re-use it for this issue. Then they may take notice. Paul (I'm not happy about using disk backup instead of file backup, in my case, because the docs say that a disk backup to a removable disk will erase the disk first, and since I use a USB drive as well now - that's not good)
  13. Originally the backups were going to a simple disk on another computer. Now they're just going to a simple disk on this PC ('E:' which is just a plain standard internal 120GB IDE drive). It is shown as a 'Dynamic Disk' in the Disk manager. I haven't tried a 'Disk' backup I've never really understood the difference between Disk & File backup I want to put about 8 different backup sets onto one disk - I had the feeling that this wasn't possible with a Disk backup. (I've also just started using a USB2 HDD as a backup device as well, again with file backups - this hasn't been in place long enough to see if the 'Closing' problem applies to that) It isn't at all consistent - so most of the times the backups will work fine, but every week or so one (not the same one) will just stay stuck in 'Closing' for ages.
  14. I'm still having problems with this - it's starting to make Retrospect unusable as I have to check all the time that it's not stuck Retrospect is running on Windows 2000 Professional - current problem is backing up a Windows 2000 server, so system restore isn't a problem I've just had it happen with a backup to tape, so it happens with both file and tape backups At the moment, the log claims it finished on 16 August at 23:21 - it's now 19 August 15:43 - so hopefully that would have been enough time to do anything if it's really doing something. The progress bar is at about 33% of the way across. The problem is that everything else is held up until this one finishes, which it doesn't look as if it's going to do any time soon.. Please give me some hope... or something to check, or some logs to produce, or something. I like Retrospect, but this is making it hard work. Paul
  15. I've had some performance problems on our PCs today, and I found (by chance) that it was Retrospect. 1-I have two tape backup sets 'A' and 'B'. By chance today one backup needed set 'A', and another needed set 'B'. Both these tasks were started at the same time by Retrospect since they required different resources. The 'A' one started working fine, the 'B' one went into a state 'Matching tape set B' or something like that. The server started going REALLY slow, even though the CPU load was only about 10%. I 'PAUSE'd the task using tape set B and the server suddenly sprang back into life again - so it looks as if the 'B' task was doing something which was slowing things down unnecessarily 2 - I temporarily PAUSEd all the backup tasks to make the server as fast as possible to catch up on some other work it hadn't been able to do because of the problem in (1) above. Then I noticed that the retrospect CLIENTs for paused tasks were working at about 98% CPU load! If I restarted the tasks it dropped to about 3-4%, then repaused the task, back to 98-99%. I guess the client is going into a fast polling loop trying to talk to the server or something, but whatever it's doing, it's not nice - I'd expect it to use more CPU when actually working than when not doing ...