jweisbin Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 I want to backup my main file server to another server running Retrospect 9.0.1. My question is: is it better to simply attach Retrospect to the other server's individual share points (as shares) and back them up, or is it better to install the "Client" on the server to be backed up and have Retro back it up that way. If I remember, the Retro Client doesn't allow you to easily pick and choose what folders to be backed up and which to exclude - am I wrong about that? Are there other benefits or down sides to either method? Thanks in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maser Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 The retro 9 client doesn't directly allow you to specify what folders to back up -- the engine sources would be used for that. But the client can mark folders "private" from the backup. From testing I did ages ago, I found it was faster to use the source mounted than to back up something via client. But, really, that was years ago when I tried that. For all I know, it's not faster any more to do it that way. You didn't say if this was a one-time backup, or if it was an ongoing backup of incremental data, etc. If on-going, I'd probably use whatever was faster *first*, then let the client do incremental backups so you don't have to worry about the drive being mounted, etc. (if that's what works faster the first time...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jweisbin Posted March 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 This is an ongoing backup. I used to have Retrospect on the server itself (the one to be backed up), but moved it to another server. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maser Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 If it were me, I'd just let the client do the work -- unless there was such a large incremental amount of data to be backed up that the "mounting" method was so much faster... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jweisbin Posted March 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 The initial backup would be about 6 TB, after that probably several 100 GB per day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maser Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Try it and see, I guess? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeDave Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Remember accessing via file sharing will not retain permissions or other metadata; Client access stores the file exactly as it is on the Source volume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jweisbin Posted March 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 Well, I tried a test with my own computer in client mode. It seems really lame that you only define what you don't want to backup, rather than defining what you do want to backup. What happens when you temporarily attach a new drive - does it suddenly start backing that up as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maser Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 Not unless you have explicitly set your client/source to back up "all volumes". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeDave Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 It seems really lame that you only define what you don't want to backup, rather than defining what you do want to backup. That limitation is only if you are configuring the software backwards; it's designed as a network backup solution that's setup at the server end and pulls the data in. That gives you complete and granular control over the Sources you want to copy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jweisbin Posted March 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 That limitation is only if you are configuring the software backwards; it's designed as a network backup solution that's setup at the server end and pulls the data in. That gives you complete and granular control over the Sources you want to copy. Oh, cool. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jweisbin Posted April 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 Since the server to be backed up is always on, I assume a "Proactive Backup" would not be necessary, and could just go with normal backup on a schedule? Any thoughts on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twickland Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 Since the server to be backed up is always on, I assume a "Proactive Backup" would not be necessary, and could just go with normal backup on a schedule? Any thoughts on this? Proactive backups are most useful when you can't rely on having the client machine online at a specific time. Scheduled backups are most useful when you want a log record of Retrospect's attempt to contact/back up each client. The choice is pretty much up to you. That being said, Retrospect (the company) currently seems to be having trouble getting the engine to communicate properly with specific client versions during the two different types of backups. In many cases Retro 9.0.0 had trouble connecting with 6.x clients in scheduled but not proactive backups, and it's been reported that Retro 9.0.1 can experience a similar difficulty with v9.0 clients. (These failures result in 515 piton protocol errors.) If you happen to experience one of these issues, it could obviously affect what type of backup you choose to perform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jweisbin Posted April 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Can I even install the client on a server, or do I need a "multi-server" license to backup one server to another? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twickland Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Can I even install the client on a server, or do I need a "multi-server" license to backup one server to another? If both the Retro backup computer and the client are running OS X Server, you will either need to spring for the multi-server license or purchase an additional client server license. If only one is running OS X Server, single-server will be sufficient. If nether is running OS X Server and you currently are running Retro 9 Desktop, you shouldn't have to upgrade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.