Jump to content
henry-in-florida

Source disk name change prompts a failure of backup scripts

Recommended Posts

Found that when I changed the name of the source drive, even if the sources are refreshed to recognize those new source names, subsequent backups seem to revert the sources to what they were and then the backups fail because that device no longer exists. My workaround was to refresh the source list and then immediately run a script using those devices. Somehow that seems to work... For now. 

Here's the step by step in case you want to reproduce: 

  1. Change the source name ( in my case I'd reformatted the source drive in APFS and renamed it) of a device in the Retrospect Multi-Server backup plan. Go to Retrospect and refresh the source computer to register the names of the drives. 
  2. Wait 24 hours. 
  3. Run the backup script with the sources. 
  4. The source names revert over time (and running other automated backups) to the old names ALL BY ITSELF, those new source names previously existing in the dropdown list disappear, the old names replace them and any backup scripts using the old drive source names obviously will continue to fail, lacking manual intervention.
  5. After the workaround above- reset the source list by refreshing sources (Sources>select the source machine>Refresh) and immediately perform a backup. 

N.B., two anomalies reading through the log. 

  • The log shows "First Access" for the device "GenieMBP", even though previous backups of the device WERE COMPLETED previously that same day. Guess it means first access of those SOURCE DRIVES?
  • The script also changed the source drive to something that existed ALL BY ITSELF during previous backups (Macintosh HD) prior to failing on the missing drives. 

For some reason signatures are no longer available/presented (where I had my User equipment, versions, backup device info, etc.) So, I'll try to include on every post until that feature of the forum is restored or found again.

Retro Desktop Multi-Server 15.6.1
Host (Engine) CPU: 
 Mac Mini, 2GHz Core2 Duo, 16GB RAM, 500GB internal SSD (APFS), OS X 10.14.3
Host Backup Media: 8x External SATA III via Thunderbolt, 2x via FW->USB, USB3.0 500GB SSD Standalone Drive
Router (1000BT wired and 802.11n/b/g wireless) 
Retro Client: Retro 15.6.1 (all)

 3 Intel Clients (iMac, MBP), CPUs running OS X 10.14.3 

 

 

 H

Screen Shot 2019-02-19 at 09.28.52.png

Retrospect log_190219.rtf

Edited by henry-in-florida
Update User, Engine, Hardware (Signature line missing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon, henry-in-florida, you ought to know by now that you need to give your version of Retrospect and the version of macOS you're running it under when you start a Forums thread.  I had to look at your attached log file to see that you are running Retrospect Mac 15.6.1.105, and I still don't know whether you are running it under macOS 10.13 High Sierra or 10.14 Mojave.  You shouldn't make us work that hard. :rolleyes:

On pages 62-63 of the Retrospect Mac 15 User's Guide, paragraph 3 for Refresh says:

Quote

3.Click Refresh. Retrospect will search for the client machine. If the search is successful, Retrospect will update the information on the client machine in the Summary tab of the Detail view. If the client’s volumes have changed, they will also be updated in the Sources list. [ my emphasis] If the client cannot be found on the network, Retrospect will display a dialog telling you so

So there's a bug in the latest version; you know why and how to create a Support Case. :)  Did Refresh ever actually work this way? :huh:

Until Retrospect Inc. engineers fix the bug, IMHO you'd be better off Removing and then Adding  your "client" Source, checkmarking the volumes you want backed up per this post, and then re-checkmarking the "client" in the Sources tab of each appropriate Script and—after Saving—dragging the "client" into the appropriate sequence in the Summary tab of that Script and Saving again.  Your workaround in item 5 of the OP may have done the job, but it probably took more time than what I've said in the preceding sentence. B)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, DavidHertzberg said:

C'mon, henry-in-florida, you ought to know by now that you need to give your version of Retrospect and the version of macOS you're running it under when you start a Forums thread.  I had to look at your attached log file to see that you are running Retrospect Mac 15.6.1.105, and I still don't know whether you are running it under macOS 10.13 High Sierra or 10.14 Mojave.  You shouldn't make us work that hard. :rolleyes:

 

 

Gee, David, relax. Don't worry be happy.

It was a bug report it's something that should work but doesn't. Someone (you?) did away with the signature in profile where I had that updated. It's on the OP (original post), now. So how about posting the full spelling of obscure mnemonics you use so everyone can enjoy? How do you know I didn't file a ticket? 

Refresh seemed to work, but is flaky as reported. Whether it "ever worked" I leave to you, Surely you have the history. I think it's always been flaky in one way or another, yes I do expect it to work in the way it's described in the User Guide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 11:10 AM, henry-in-florida said:

Gee, David, relax. Don't worry be happy.

It was a bug report it's something that should work but doesn't. Someone (you?) did away with the signature in profile where I had that updated. It's on the OP (original post), now. So how about posting the full spelling of obscure mnemonics you use so everyone can enjoy? How do you know I didn't file a ticket? 

Refresh seemed to work, but is flaky as reported. Whether it "ever worked" I leave to you, Surely you have the history. I think it's always been flaky in one way or another, yes I do expect it to work in the way it's described in the User Guide. 

Sorry, henry-in-florida, I guess I was a bit crabby because I had forgotten that Refresh is supposed to update the list of Source volumes for a "client".  Here's a 2016 OP by jelockwood saying it didn't work.  Thanks for filing a Support Case, assuming you did so.:)

As I have said several times on these Forums, I am not now doing nor have I ever done any paid work for Retrospect Inc. or its predecessors.  I don't even play a Retrospect Inc. employee on TV. ;)  So I didn't have anything to do with what is apparently a new version of the Forums software.  In fact, I preferred the old version—which automatically numbered posts in a thread and had more-accessible Search options.

Here are the "obscure mnemonics" I remember having used, all of which are pretty-standard Internet forums slang:

  • IMHO : In My Humble Opinion
  • IME: In My Experience
  • HDD: Hard Disk Drive
  • AFAICT: As Far As I Can Tell
  • AFAIK: As Far As I Know
  • IANAL: I Am Not A Lawyer
  • OP: Original Post in a thread or Original Poster in a thread
  • RTFM: Read The F**king Manual
  • OTOH: On The Other Hand
  • BTW: By The Way

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×