Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'retrospect 7.7'.
Found 4 results
Quiet Riot posted a topic in ProfessionalHere's the thing, I have the Windows 7 OEM Ultimate 64 bit; that came preinstalled with my HPE-570t when I bought it. HP partitioned my HDD of 1.5 GB into 2 parts "C", (where the OS is, and all my installed programs) and "D" where the "System Recovery" is located.So, should I ever have to reinstall Windows 7, I could do it from Drive D.Both parthtions together, (over the course of five years,) only come to 307GB. What I'd like to know is, after I back up the system, would there be a way to put the Windows 7 OS on a 500GB SSD, seeing as how, there's only 307GB's of information on the entire disk. Is that something that Retrospect 7.7 can do? Is there any truth to the information I've heard that, you only only put your most frequently used programs on the SSD? And the rest, can boot from the mechanical HDD. I do have an External Drive "M" with 1.52GB free if that helps you in putting all the pieces together, as to how to get the info from one drive from another. Thanks in advance, Quiet Riot
I have been trying to use a Source Group as a selector inside the Selecting window for a backup script. The main selector is: Include everything + but always exclude file matching volume name exactly matches sourcegroup In picking my conditions, I picked a volume name but put in the Source Group name instead. What did I do wrong? Does it matter if the "source groups container" is a member of the source group, or not? I really like source groups as the source for a backup script. I was hoping that I could apply the same approach to Selecting conditions.
rogerwilcoprod posted a topic in ProfessionalI should preface this by saying that we can't upgrade to a newer version of Retrospect until we upgrade our server as we're running the latest version that it compatible with our server software (Avid Isis 3.1.x) so we're stuck on 7.7 for the immediate future. Our LTO 5 drive (HP Ultrium 3000 SAS) was giving us increasingly more issues, really slow backups and the end result of all my research was that it appeared the tape heads were giving out so we ended up buying a new LTO 6 drive (HP Ultrium 6250 SAS) which has worked great for new backups on the LTO 5 tapes we have left. The problem that we're running into is that when we try to do a normal backup onto a tape that was initially written by the old drive the new one asks for a new tape, even though there should be plenty of space left on the tape. So if I do a recycle backup it works fine and doesn't require a second tape, but if this is going to happen for all of the old backups then we're going to spend a great deal more time on this than I'd like. When I tried the last one I clicked on the properties of the tape itself and Retrospect showed a media error on the tape I was trying to use for the normal backup, although the logs from when that backup was first created didn't show any errors. Is this a common problem going from a tape written by an LTO 5 drive to trying to write on the same tape with an LTO 6 drive? Or have we just been unlucky in the 2 or 3 that we've tried this with so far? Sorry if that was rambling on a bit, I just wanted to be as clear about the situation as I could. I'm hoping that we'll upgrade our server later this year and then be able to use the newest version of Retrospect but until then I have to find a way to make our current configuration work.
Two years ago I bought Retrospect Windows Server 7.7 for SBS with Value Pack. I also paid for one year support. None of the ten reported problems / bugs where fixed in this period. I recently contacted Sales, with the question why user who bought version 7.7 should pay more then 50% of the purchase price again? The answer was: User Restore (which I already owned) and other new features. I only want my bugs fixed! In my opinion this version should have been published two years ago, and free! The delay is due to ....? Further more: reading the forum, even the bugs they mentioned as fixed, like the Grooming bug, are still there. Now they start pushing 8.1 (internal version?) to customers. What a mess. And even the most necessary fixes: the Preference file and Retrospect running as a Service, aren't even implemented. So please Retrospect, give buyers of 7.7 a free """"Upgrade"""". Running 8.x, I will send you, as always, extensive bug / test reports. Fulco