Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About wkegel

  • Rank
    Occasional Forum Poster
  1. Here's how: - Make sure your LaCie drive is mounted and visible in the Finder - From the Retrospect main menu, choose Configure > Backup sets - In the Backup Sets screen, choose New... - In the Backup Set creation screen, set the Backup Set type to File, choose a suitabl name, and click NEW - In the Choose A Folder dialog, choose your LaCie disk (or a subdirectory on your LaCie disk) and Click Save Retrospect will create two files in the specified directory on your LaCie: the data file and the catalog file. Your new Backup Set will be visible in the list of Backup Sets and can be specified as a destination for your backups. Hope this helps, Wim Kegel
  2. From the message that is displayed I gather that you have configured your backup set as a "Removable disk" set. That means that Retrospect expects to grab the whole disk and it cannot do that if it has been mounted by OS-X. This mode of operation was really designed with ZIP disks and similar devices in mind and your external disk is not regarded as removable. That makes sense: you can disconnect it but you cannot remove the media. What you should do is create a file backup set on your external drive and use that as destination for your backup. I use 2 250Gb LaCie drives this way and that works just fine. The only drawback is that your backup set cannot exceed the size of your external disk: file backups cannot span multiple disks (which in my view is rather silly, but that's the way it is). Greetings, Wim Kegel
  3. No easy solution I'm afraid. I ran into the same problem a few years ago when I bought my first OS-X system. From what I remember, the problem this time is not Retrospect but the USB support in OS-X, which is more limited than the support under OS-9. I was forced to upgrade to the Firewire version of the same drive. I got a very good deal from my local Apple dealer (MacSupport), so it didn't hurt too much but it was rather annoying. Both drives are now collecting dust in the attic; since OnStream has gone out of business there are no new tape cartridges available and the capacity of these tapes is too small for the current generation of harddisks anyway. They are rated at 30Gb, but that is counting on a compression factor of 2 which is completely unrealistic. In practice I never managed more than 18 Gb per tape. That's why I have switched to external Firewire harddisks. Cheaper, faster and hassle free. So, basically your options are to look for the OnStream firewire drive (you can have mine but since I live in the Netherlands shipping costs might be prohibitive), buy a secondhand iMac running OS9 and use that as a dedicated server, or invest in a new backup medium. Greetings, Wim Kegel
  4. There are two major issues when moving files from a Mac to a Windows environment: resource forks and file system details. Traditionally, A Mac file can consist of two parts: a data fork and a resource fork, each of which can be empty. An standard JPG file has just a data fork, while an Mac OS9 program usually has only a resource fork. If you copy files over to a Windows file system, the datafork ends up as a normal Windows file, and the resource fork is either ignored or saved in auxiliary files - depending on what you use for copying. Even if the resoource fork is saved, it's a rather fragile construct - the connection between the two parts can easly get lost. The most obvious example of filesystem details are filenames: both environments have different rules. The differences are much less problematic than 15 years ago, but they still exist. The file transfer software usually handles that by slightly altering filenames if necessary. Less visbile but sometimes just as important are file attributes and file ownership. On a Mac, since it's build on top of a Unix system, each file has an owner and atrributes which determine what the owner, people in the same group and the rest of the world can do with it: read it, write to it and/or execute it. On a Windows system, the location of the file usually determines what you can do with it: if it's in your directory it is yours. And then there are things like aliases on a Mac which are similar to shortcuts on a Windows system - but they are definitely not the same thing. Backup programs like Retrospect are aware of all these details and preserve all that information as part of the backup. File transfer programs don't. Whether your stragegy will work depends thus very much on what you are trying to do. Is your idea to copy the files to the Windows server and than backup the copy? That will definitely not work for a complete disk, but it may work if you are just looking for a way to backup data files like images and Office documents. Most applications on a Mac do not create resource forks, and altering file names and ownership usually isn't that much of an issue. However, Retrospect is an exception: a Macintosh file Backup and a catalog do have both a a resource and a datafork. The resource fork is small, and contains mostly icons and similar stuff - I'm not sure how important that is. So if you plan to use Retrospect to do a File backup on the Mac and then transfer that Retrospect file to your Windows server, you may run into problems. It will also be rather inefficient: each time you add some files to your Retrospect backup, the backup file changes and it will be backed up up on your Windows system - you'll do the equivalent of a full backup every time. Frankly, I would advise you to avoid issues like this and try to get your network backup to run - it's bound to be much more efficient and much more reliable. Greetings, Wim Kegel
  5. If you read this and similar threads carefully, you can only conclude that you should think twice before deciding to use Retrospect for archiving files on DVD. You cannot be sure that by the time you need that data you still have access to the machine used to write the data, and you have no guarantee that the disc will be readable on a replacement machine. The iMac I use to write this is 16 months old; I still cannot read backups I wrote on it's predecessor and I have given up hope that Retrospect will ever support my current configuration. Burning an hybrid disc with Toast may be less convenient, but gives you a much better chance to actually retrieve that essential file you are looking for in two years time - especially if you make two copies. Use Disktracker to keep a catalog of what's on those disc and you have a combination that offers almost equivalent functionality and in practice much greater reliability.
  6. You know, we had a birthday party for my iMac G5 last months. He (she?) is one year old now, which means he's fast approaching middle age in computer terms. I've fed him 2 Retrospect updates and 9 driver updates and Retrospect still thinks the machine has only a CD drive. I've given up - I don't think support for my current drive is going to come before I pension off this machine and buy a new one. And then the game starts all over again: Apple won't be able to tell you what they are going to put in the machine until they have checked the stock on the shelves on the production day and Dantz will refuse to tell you if and when they are going to support whatever Apple has decided to put in.
  7. Tramper, yes, my remarks referred to Retrospect. I have no recent experience with other backup software for the Mac. And I have nothing against DVD as a medium for archiving (as opposed to backups) - in fact I think DVD is currently your best bet for life span, durability and compatibility with future hardware. And I agree with your remarks about Retrospect. I've been using it for more than 10 years to make backups of about Windows and Mac systems in my home network, and it's solid, easy to use and flexible. But the last few years I've had two major area's of complaint: upgrade pricing and device support. Dantz upgrades are a kind of Red Queen's Race: you have to invest a lot of money to stay exactly where you were before. And the device support has been, shall we say, disappointing? And what annoys me perhaps the most is the flat refusal to produce any kind of roadmap for device support. Any capable software engineer should be able to tell within a few days of receiving the specs of a new device whether supporting that device in Retrospect is feasible or not, and even roughly how long it is going to take. Of course not all drives are created equal. But they're also not completely different species either. I can only say that if my company treated it's customers the way Dantz/EMC does, we would be out of business very quickly. Wim
  8. For "can't" in the reply above, read "won't". My advice to anyone considering using DVD as a backup medium is: don't do it. Even if you happen to stumble on a combination of HW platform, OS release, device driver and DVD device that actually works you have NO guarantee that you will be able to read your backups e.g. if you have to change your hardware. I have a number of backup sets written on my previous iMac that cannot be read on my current system. Support for the superdrive in my current iMac was introduced by Dantz about 9 months after the system came on the market - for CD only, which is of course utterly useless. On my old system, I had to wait about 4 months for support of the built-in drive. In my eyes, that disqualifies DVD as a backup medium. I have switched to external FW harddisks as backup medium, and I have gone back to Toast for archiving purposes. Expensive, yes, and less convenient, sure, but I feel a lot safer this way. Wim
  9. Quote: A rhetorical question if I may: What benefit does Dantz recieve for not supporting Apple built in drives? If you put it like that the answer is "None" of course. But I've seen companies withdraw from the Mac market in a "fade away" scenario before. They don't stop support al of a sudden, they just don't spend too much effort developing their products; and when interest dwindles they stop development altogether. Norton Utilities is a recent example. It's 4 months since the new iMac G5 went into production. The latest driver update now provides support for the built-in drive (Matshita/Panasonic UJ 825) - but for CD-R and CD-RW disks only. That's equivalent to no support at all - 500 Mb media is a ridiculous option when the minimum disk size is 80Gb. I quite appreciate that device drivers are complicated beasts (I've written some myself, a long time ago on VAX/VMS), and that writing and testing them takes time. On the other hand, you're not going to convince me that al these optical drives are THAT much different from one another - so I think that if a company with all the resources and experience of Dantz really wanted they could have made it to work by now. But I think the main thing we are complaining about is the lack of response from Dantz. We are confronted with disruptions in our backup routine, and we have to decide what to do about it - use different media, invest in new drives, or switch to a different solution altogether. To make a sensible decision we must know what to expect. Statements that you are Quote: working hard and Quote: committed to the Mac market don't provide much infomation. What I want to know is if you are going to support that built-in drive for DVD-R and DVD-RW, and when. I used to like Retrospect - I've used it since version 2.1, and version 4.3 under OS9 was so much better than everything on the Windows market that I have been using a Mac as central backup server for all my PC's and Macs ever since. But support for OS-X has been slow and overpriced, and you are rapidly running out of credit at this end. Wim Kegel
  10. I also have an iMac G5 with that particular drive, but in my case it doesn't even complete the configuration tests. Retrospect writes a few lines about the initial tests, then starts the write test for "method 1". After about 2 minutes the cursor changes into a spinning wheel, and nothing else happens. I left it running for 7 hours, but I had to force-quit Retrospect. iMac G5 1.8 Ghz Retrospect 6.0.193 Driver update 5.8.103 MATSHITA DVD-R UJ-825, revison DBN7 On my previous iMac it took about 9 months before Dantz got the support right for the built-in superdrive...
  11. wkegel

    Client not seen after coming out of stand-by

    I have seen similar problems but with a few twists. I run a Retrospect server on a Mac OS-X 10.3.2 system. The problems started when I upgraded the server to version 6, and used the Client updater included on the CD to upgrade all Windows clients to version 6.5.132. One of these clients is a Dell laptop running Win2K, which has 3 volumes on it which need to be backed up. The behaviour of this client can only be described as erratic. Sometimes it would not be visible at all; at other times it would be visible and properly backup the first volume and then "drop out of sight" before it got to the second or third volume. Also, in the client database the client would be shown as "responding"; if I then try to configure the client it would tell me that the client is not visible on the network. I found in another thread the suggestion that the problem might be related to the fact that there are multiple IP stacks (which that laptop has; it also has a dial-up connection and a VPN connection to my company network) at that it solved by binding the client to a fixed IP address. I tried that but it didn't work. I finally de-installed the client and re-installed the 6.0 client and that seems to work fine. I'm not convinced that it has anything to do with standby mode however. I have seen similar problems on an XP desktop, if the user on that system defers the backup a few times. By the time the client is ready for the retry it also is not visible any more. If I look closely at the polling window however, I notice that it takes about 2 minutes before the server decides that the client is not visible; if the system is really shut down that time is only a few seconds. This XP box does not have multiple IP stacks. There several people using this system however, so user switching occurs quite frequently; may that has something to do with it? Again, going back to the 6.0 client solved the problem. I hope these details may help solve this bug.
  12. Retrospect does this if the OS crashes while Retrospect is active or if Retrospect itself crashes. It still happens under OS-X if you force-quit the program. The idea is probably that you should look into the problem and see if any steps need to be taken before you revert to your automatic schedule. I'm not sure about OS 8.6 but at least under OS 9 you get a pop-up message from Retrospect during the first reboot after the crash to warn you about the failure. If this is indeed the cause of your problem, the work-around is to remember to launch Retrospect manually once after your system has crashed; or you can put Retrospect in your start-up folder to force it to run on each boot. Wim
  13. You may have some problems contacting OnStream since they are indeed bankrupt. In The Netherlands, in such cases one or more lawyers are appointed as trustees. I found three phone numbers for trustees in the info pages of the Dutch Chamber of Commerce for the Eindhoven region Kamer van Koophandel, handelsregister : For OnStream Holding BV and OnStream Data BV the listed number is +31 40 2444360 (no names given) for OnStream BV the names are mr. A.A.M. Deterink (+31 40 2626600) and mr. G.T.C. van der Bilt (+31 40 26380600). I suspect the last number is a typo (it has too many digits) and should read +31 40 2380600 - it is the closest match to a number of a lawyer firm in Eindhoven I could find in the yellow pages. Since these pages are in Dutch I thought I should pass on this information.
  14. I have another suggestion to add. When Retrospect server is running, it knows which backup sets it can use. In my case, all scripts use only tapes. Since by Retrospect's own rules you cannot mix CD-R and tapes in a single backup set, it should be able to figure out that it has no use for the CD writer while the server is running and deallocate the drive.
  15. I have had similar problems when I moved my backup system from an USB30 tapedrive under 9.2.2 to a FW30 tapedrive under OS-X 10.2.5. I had to switch tapedrives since the USB tapedrive is not supported under OS-X and this new iMac can't boot in 9.2.2. However, two weeks ago I took the following steps: Upgraded the OS to 10.2.6 Upgraded the drivers to 3.5.104 Gave the tape drive a FW port of it's own (previously it was connected through a Belkin FW hub) Mounted the tapedrive upright on my desk using the stand provided by OnStream. I did this because I had noticed that the tapes could become quite warm, so I figured the drive needed all the cooling it could get. I'm happy to report that since then the configuration worked quite well. I have seen one failure on an older tape, but I have written some 50 sessions without further trouble. Since I made all the changes at the same time I'm not sure which one did the trick. I think we can rule out media (I have seen the problem on several tapes and I use only OnStream ADR cartridges, some of which were brand new) wear and tear to the tapedrive (it was new) the cable (cable problems tend to produce random intermittent problems, while my problems were reproducible). Hope this helps.