Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jclark

6.0.212 or 6.0.204 on OSX 10.3.9?

Recommended Posts

The read me's, as I read them, are unclear on the desirability of using which version of Retrospect to use with whiich combo of OS ( on the backup machine ), and the OS's of the clients.

A Matrix could be handy, but what *I'm* interested in, is, ( of course ) my situation.

 

All clients are 10.4.2, w/6.0.110.

Backup machine is 10.3.9 using 6.0.212 with RDU 6.4.102

 

I am having many backup stopping errors [ Assertion check at "elem.c-816, 811, 821, 826" ] sprinkled liberally throughout the log ( and days & nights... )

 

Would there be any advantage to rolling back to 6.0.204 on the backup machine ( I had my first [Assertion check at <> ] back on 3/2/05 using .204 )? Or are these errors being generated by interaction with the client(s)?

I am averse to updating the backup machine to 10.4.2 as the paucity of success stories is daunting..., but how much worse could it be? I am, however, always up for a little Science...

 

:)

 

I can muddle through, by constantly restarting the backup Mac, or Retrospect, or both and re-running the scripts, they eventually finish, but it's ( *has* ) becoming tedious...

 

Any suggestions as to improve the situation?

 

jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well just to report back - all is well, with only the 'standard' errors extant. Four full backups ( two last Friday, Monday and Tuesday ) - and no elem - *** errors at all....backups completing....kernel not looping out to freeze-ville....

 

Thanks for the help!

 

Life is less tense.... ( still gonna wait till the next dot release of Retro, before upgrading the backup mac to 10.4.x... )

 

jeff

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
Sign in to follow this  

×