Multicast Client Locating Still Flaky In Retro 9

[henry-in-florida]

Of my three clients (see the info in signature line below) only one is found consistently. They are all visible to MacOS, and it seems not to make a difference whether the Firewall is on or off. I haven't found any commonality between the client that works and the ones that don't. Two clients are laptops with both wired and wireless enabled/connected. Retro finds the active connection (wired) in Multicast of only one of them. The LAN connected desktop is not found at all. All IP's are non-conflicting, pingable and have been installed manually in Retro 9. All can be directly added, tested in Retro. Not that I want to use the WLAN connection, but Multicast will NOT find it even on the working Multicast client. This is no improvement over Retro 8 where I had this same issue for years.

 

A secondary issue- with the latest client installed, and the laptop setting set to "Wake On LAN Access" the machine cannot be awakened by Retro winning a backup script (yet it wakes fine with Remote Management access, e.g., afp or ssh). MY work-around that problem is to not sleep the CPU when powered from the power adapter. Really, guys? With laptops and various user settings this is a BIG problem.

Edited November 24, 2011 by henry-in-florida

[twickland]

Really, guys? With laptops and various user settings this is a BIG problem.

You should report this as a bug on the Contact Support page.

[Kcaldera]

Of my three clients (see the info in signature line below) only one is found consistently. They are all visible to MacOS, and it seems not to make a difference whether the Firewall is on or off. I haven't found any commonality between the client that works and the ones that don't. Two clients are laptops with both wired and wireless enabled/connected. Retro finds the active connection (wired) in Multicast of only one of them. The LAN connected desktop is not found at all. All IP's are non-conflicting, pingable and have been installed manually in Retro 9. All can be directly added, tested in Retro. Not that I want to use the WLAN connection, but Multicast will NOT find it even on the working Multicast client. This is no improvement over Retro 8 where I had this same issue for years.

 

A secondary issue- with the latest client installed, and the laptop setting set to "Wake On LAN Access" the machine cannot be awakened by Retro winning a backup script (yet it wakes fine with Remote Management access, e.g., afp or ssh). MY work-around that problem is to not sleep the CPU when powered from the power adapter. Really, guys? With laptops and various user settings this is a BIG problem.

 

I have always had the same issue with Retro 8. My friend who had the same issue was able to get around it by having his Firewall/Router assign specific IP addresses to the machines specific Mac address. This way, you can tell Retro to add sources by specific IP address, and it will always find the machine based on that address. My problem was that my Firewall/Router appliance did not support that feature and I could not assign specific IP's to specific Mac addresses. Also, this works great in a small company, but try using that with a large corp and you are going to pull your hair out.

 

Thanks

[Guest Steve Maser]

If you have a "large corp", you probably have the ability to set up a static DHCP server. While it's not trivial, it's not that hard either (and you can easily do it with the $50 Server extras for Mac OSX 10.7 or set up a Linux distro to do this...)

[henry-in-florida]

I have always had the same issue with Retro 8. My friend who had the same issue was able to get around it by having his Firewall/Router assign specific IP addresses to the machines specific Mac address.

Yes, I had the same problems back then, and like you, didn't like it then, and less so now, years later. While Retro has several very nice features and some old features that have been improved to an extent (particularly speed of backup), Multicast is not much improved in this score. In real world terms Retrospect is still slower than competing products at the essentials- backup and restore of small files. It seems on par with other software in backup and restore of larger files or entire disks.

 

This way, you can tell Retro to add sources by specific IP address, and it will always find the machine based on that address. My problem was that my Firewall/Router appliance did not support that feature and I could not assign specific IP's to specific Mac addresses. Also, this works great in a small company, but try using that with a large corp and you are going to pull your hair out.

That is exactly the way I got around the problems back then, and now as well. Another benefit (in my case) was not to backup laptops on wireless- that was my choice. If you desire multiple paths to be used you may be in big trouble with that approach. Hence the need for Multicast to work with a DHCP table of assignments.

 

Wasn't that one of the problems that was supposedly fixed??? Guess not. So, why are we being asked to pay to upgrade to some new feature-filled software that has not had (all of) its original problems fixed? Why is that an "Upgrade"? At least give us a "Fix Me Soon" list, a list of known bugs that you'll be working on sooner than late! Maybe even a prioritized as to which will be fixed first...

 

The good news is that we've had a month trial to find the Retro 9 bugs on our own and decide if their lack of repair over Retro 8 is something we can live with. And more importantly for those with recurring backup needs, we've had three years to find alternatives to Retrospect that either are in the OS already or are well known alternatives that work better today (maybe without certain upgrades?) for our needs. Thanks for that. I'm really considering dusting off my Retro 8 (since my Backup Server never was upgraded to Lion and still works with it) instead of ponying up the upgrade price. So yes, we have alternatives. Does the "new" Retrospect, Inc?

[Kcaldera]

If you have a "large corp", you probably have the ability to set up a static DHCP server. While it's not trivial, it's not that hard either (and you can easily do it with the $50 Server extras for Mac OSX 10.7 or set up a Linux distro to do this...)

 

This is one of the things that I hate about Retrospect. I should not have to shell out more money for another product to get Retro to work to begin with. But, that is a complaint for another thread. Also, when the laptops are working on wireless the backups will fail about %50 of the time. That is another known failure of Retrospect. I have instructed the users to turn off their wireless when at their desks. Do users listen? Thats another complaint, for another thread.

[Guest Steve Maser]

This is one of the things that I hate about Retrospect. I should not have to shell out more money for another product to get Retro to work to begin with. But, that is a complaint for another thread. Also, when the laptops are working on wireless the backups will fail about %50 of the time. That is another known failure of Retrospect. I have instructed the users to turn off their wireless when at their desks. Do users listen? Thats another complaint, for another thread.

 

 

Windows laptops or Mac laptops?

 

If Mac laptops, do you have them set so that Ethernet gets a higher network priority than Wireless in the Network Sys Pref? (I wonder if this is more of the issue than anything else...)

 

- Steve

[Kcaldera]

Windows laptops or Mac laptops?

 

If Mac laptops, do you have them set so that Ethernet gets a higher network priority than Wireless in the Network Sys Pref? (I wonder if this is more of the issue than anything else...)

 

- Steve

 

They are Mac laptops, all different models, all different OS versions. (OSX 10.5 and 10.6). The wireless adapter is at the top of the adapter list. The wireless network, is at the top of the recent networks list. My friend who also supports Retro 8 has the same issue. He got around it by assigning specific IP addresses to the Mac addresses of the wireless clients.