Jump to content

Leopard compatibility


Recommended Posts

Robin wrote last week that EMC had not yet received a final Leopard build from Apple.

 

Apple's behavior is laid out in some detail in this blog post by Steven Frank:

 

--------

The following may come as a shock to those of you who aren't developers. Heck, it comes as a surprise to me, and I am a developer.

 

It increasingly looks like we won't be getting access to the final build of Leopard until the same day our customers do. We have a close-to-final seed, but not the actual shipping bits.

--------

 

Read the whole thing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi!

 

Interesting. As a developer myself, with access to the seeds, I'm also a bit pissed off about this situation. Anyway, it's good to know that EMC is (trying to) work on it! smile.gif It would be nice trought to know if Retrospect works well on the latest seed, before the final version. I know it's not the same thing, but it would be a good indication.

 

Anyway, I guess that it will be a matter of days, unless something really crazy changes on the final seed.

 

Yours

 

Miguel Arroz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Since upgrading to Leopard, Retrospect for Mac 6.1.12.101 is exhibiting very odd behavior. More details of the problem follow the two examples from the log file, immediately below:

 

------------------------- Example 1 -----------------------------------------

∆ Retrospect version 6.1.126

automatically launched at 11/6/2007 1:00 AM

 

∆ Retrospect version 6.1.126

automatically launched at 11/6/2007 1:00 AM

+ Retrospect Driver Update, version 6.1.12.101

 

+ Normal backup using Daily Mac Bkp to HD at 11/6/2007 1:00 AM

To backup set Mac Backup Set B…

 

- 11/6/2007 1:00:58 AM: Copying Jeff's MacPRO HD…

+ Retrospect Driver Update, version 6.1.12.101

 

+ Normal backup using Daily Mac Bkp to HD at 11/6/2007 1:01 AM

Can't add to backup set Mac Backup Set B: The catalog is locked.

11/6/2007 1:01:03 AM: E

---------------------------------------------- End Example 1 ---------------------

 

As you can see it thought the catalog was locked.

 

And indeed, there are TWO Retrospect icons in the Dock, both named "Retrospect"! I do not, however, see any taks(s) named Retrospect in the Activity Monitor. And ONE OF THOSE BACKUPS DID SUCCEED, although it also said:

"Can't add to backup set 'Mac Backup Set B:' The catalog is locked."

 

RetroRun IS a task in the Activity Monitor, but there's only one. Note that the Time Machine volume is not one of the source drives.

 

So the MAJOR PROBLEM seems to be that there are two instances of Retrospect running, contending for the catalog. But there's no reason for there to be two Retrospects going! The system had been rebooted that day without running Retrospect until it automatically ran at 1:00 AM. By comparison, under Tiger, this entire setup with exactly the same scripts worked fine.

 

Further, although the log indicates failure, actually looking at "Catalog B" with "Directory | Reports | Contents command, it DOES appear that the appropriate incremental files ARE there!

 

(Note that there are two backup tasks scheduled one right after the other (1:00 AM, and 1:01 AM), but previously Retrospect ran the first script until it finished, then executed the second script, hence no conflict. I thought that Retrospect Mac did not allow simultaneous threads like the Windows Server edition can.)

 

What's going on??

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

Since upgrading to Leopard, Retrospect for Mac 6.1.12.101 is exhibiting very odd behavior.

So the MAJOR PROBLEM seems to be that there are two instances of Retrospect running, contending for the catalog.

 


 

I guess you're new here to the Forum.

 

The auto-launch catalog-lock double-bug has been present in Retrospect under OS X since 5.0.205. It bites some people often, and others (such as me) never at all. It's not unique to Leopard or any other version of Mac OS X. There are dozens of threads here on the issue.

 

Mayoff has noted here that the upcoming compatibility release will address "one cause" of this bug. No word was provided on how many other causes there might be!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today EMC Insignia released an update to Retrospect for Macintosh (English language). The update adds support for Apple's Leopard operating system, Mac OS 10.5. Localized versions will be available for download in December.

 

To read a list of changes and download the software, please visit:

 

Retrospect 6.1.138 Read Me:

http://kb.dantz.com/article.asp?article=8117&p=2

 

Download: http://www.emcinsignia.com/updates

 

 

Retrospect Express 6.1.138 Read Me:

http://kb.dantz.com/article.asp?article=8132&p=2

 

Download: http://www.emcinsignia.com/supportupdates/updates/retroexpress/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow Robin, congratulations on this.

 

Things I note:

 

SMB (CIFS) support added alongside AFP - Grand! In the past, trying to Configure an SMB volume resulted in gibberish characters in the password dialog box. I haven't tried this new build yet, but it will help me enormously if it works reliably (as MountWatcher doesn't work on my Intel Macs).

 

Improved autolaunching - I assume this has something to do with retrorunfile. Curious that uptime was implicated in its problems.

 

Multiple instances of Retrospect - This sounds more authoritative then your previous public statement. We're all hoping to never see this nasty bug again!''

 

Improved matching is good, although I do wish that there were an easy way for the user to compare _all_ the attributes being used between a file on the Source and the contents of a Backup Set. Of course, I also wish I could sort the Browser window by Matched or Marked, but oh look, pie! Yumm!

 

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russ, I have pulled your post from the forum, but that does not mean I am not going to look into your concerns. Those type of concerns I think are best served by contacting me directly rather then posting in a public forum.

 

This product was heavily QA's but it is possible we need to review some of the other items included in the update. I will look into your issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Robin, I understand and don't feel slighted at all. It was simply the result of my preliminary regression testing before I got into the serious testing of the update itself before putting the update into production.

 

But these are not new issues, and I've tried the private email route over the years with these issues, to no effect.

 

Regards,

 

Russ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russ, what you are seeing is that the 6.1.126 and the 6.1.138 disk images use the identical client folder. The only things that have changed from the old disk image and the new image is the Retrospect application, the RDU and the Read Me. Users that need the newest clients should download those from our website directly as we have always suggested. The user's guides are the same expect for a simple date that really doesn't matter.

 

We will look into updating the rest of the image to include the newer versions of the client.

 

As far as private email, I always reply to emails...so I am sure it would not have been to "no effect" as you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

We will look into updating the rest of the image to include the newer versions of the client.

 

As far as private email, I always reply to emails...so I am sure it would not have been to "no effect" as you say.

 


Thanks, Robin.

 

In a perfect world, there ought to be a way to submit bugs (as contrasted with support requests) and watch them be tracked, perhaps like Apple's RADAR system or similar systems that other vendors have for private submission of bug reports. Just a suggestion.

 

Russ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed EMC Insignia/Dantz have released an update to Retrospect for Mac to add Leopard compatibility.

 

Firstly congratulations and thanks for the speed of doing so. As a reward you can climb up from the Eighth Circle of Hell.

 

However I also notice that Retrospect 6.1.138

 

i) does not add any new features

ii) is not Intel native

iii) even the client is still not Intel native (it was not updated)

 

Now I know EMC Insignia only recently got the final Leopard version themselves and needed that to begin testing with.

 

However is there still any intention to produce a real fullblown upgrade for Retrospect for Mac or is this what we are now going to be stuck with for the next couple of years?

 

In particular the fact that it is not a fullblown Leopard and Intel application means it is still limited to using just 2GB of memory and I increasingly find that in order for Retrospect to read the catalogues of disks during backup it will run out of memory and start thrashing virtual memory. A fullblown Leopard/Intel update would allow it to access 64bit memory addressing (i.e. LOTS of memory). This can save literally hours of time doing backups.

 

If there is no major upgrade underway, then sadly I would have to consign you down to the Ninth and final Circle of Hell.

 

The lack of a fullblown upgrade also of course translates in to a lack of upgrade revenue for EMC Insignia. I have not been able to buy an upgrade for Retrospect for years! It also makes the Retrospect maintenance program rather pointless (further lost revenue).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A major upgrade is in development for the client and application. I know everyone has heard me say this before, but it really is true. It will be Universal and have new features like everyone is requesting.

 

Right now I can not go into any more detail (Company policy, as a publicly traded company, etc.). We have a clear roadmap with estimated release dates, etc. We will be at Macworld San Francisco and hopefully we can talk about it at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

A major upgrade is in development for the client and application. I know everyone has heard me say this before, but it really is true. It will be Universal and have new features like everyone is requesting.

 


Thanks, Robin. That is much more than has ever previously been announced.

 

Can we assume that the "feature requests" forum has been passed along, or do we need to resubmit feature requests? (major: D2D2T, client-server model for Retrospect application so that it could operate on a headless server without logging in to the server through ARD, honor names of erased prenamed barcoded tapes in autoloader, (and, of course, Universal Binary); minor: export/import backup scripts and selectors, make scroll wheel work, editable database for barcode names). We don't use disk backups, but I understand that some users who do would like grooming of snapshots.

 

Our wallets are ready. Please test it well.

 

Russ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we do review the feature request section of the forum.

 

>that is much more than has ever previously been announced.

 

I believe I have posted similar things before, at one time we even offered to put select customers under NDA to share specific details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...