dakota Posted January 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 In OS X, there are many solutions for duplicating one volume to another, including directly from Apple. And there are many solutions for updating an existing duplication to reflect the new state of the original drive. Since you are not taking advantage of Retrospect's unique abilities, I would recommend that you try one of the other more modern products available to achieve what you're looking to achieve. Carbon Cloner, SuperDuper!, ASR, etc. I obviously am going to have to use CCC, and eventually, SuperDuper, once it is compatible. However, when you say that duplication is not one of Retrospect's strong points, keep in mind that it is one of the available options - and if it falls short in this area, it should not be part of the program. EMC should not make "Duplicate" part of the suite of operations if it can not handle it properly. I never had a problem using the duplication process all through OS 9 and early into OSX. Obviously, Retrospect has a problem with OS X, and very probably, with Intel machines, to boot. This makes it a Retrospect shortcoming, and the answer is not to use other available options, but to fix it in Retrospect. A number of you have touted all the other options out there, and you are all right, and the lower cost involved in using them makes Retrospect into a major white elephant. If the number of available options with the program is lessened, why would anyone want to pay for the program? If Mac Backup, and CCC and SuperDuper, among others, can do what Retrospect does, and obviously do MORE than Retrospect does, and do it better, it seems to me that it would be foolhardy to pay for Retrospect. BTW, I used CCC, which duplicated the drive in record time, with no errors, and no glitches. So, I ask - what is inherently wrong with Retrospect??? Something obviously is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeDave Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 Quote: when you say that duplication is not one of Retrospect's strong points, keep in mind that it is one of the available options... "Keep in mind?" It's explicitly what I said to you! > and if it falls short in this area, it should not be part of the program. Right. And engineering resources should be redirected from the current project of modernizing the program towards removing legacy features from the current code? Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakota Posted January 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 So the bottom line is "It sucks". If it has weak points, and they can't be bothered to address them by either fixing them or revamping the entire thing to steer it in a different direction, they are taking money out of people's pockets with promises they can't keep. If they don't issue disclaimers about the duplication feature, they are being evasive, if not downright dishonest. Tech support certainly never leveled with me on any of this - they made it into a "Mac problem". So much for Retrospect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeDave Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 Quote: If it has weak points, and they can't be bothered to address them by either fixing them or revamping the entire thing to steer it in a different direction, they are taking money out of people's pockets with promises they can't keep. If your premise were based on actual facts, your conclusions might be valid. However, the fact is that EMC is currently "revamping the entire thing" as we speak. They announced it this week at Macworld, where they demonstrated the expected feature set and interface design. > If they don't issue disclaimers about the duplication feature, they are being evasive, if not > downright dishonest. Tech support certainly never leveled with me on any of this - they made > it into a "Mac problem". The fact is that you are having a problem, that Forum users have been unable to help you with. And this is the first time you've posted any mention of any interaction with EMC Tech Support, so it's impossible for Forum users to comment on this little dig. Quote: BTW, I used CCC, which duplicated the drive in record time, with no errors, and no glitches. Excellent, although you don't describe if your experience was in using CCC to duplicate the contents of your boot drive to a freshly erased volume, or if you were doing something else. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhwalker Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 Quote: BTW, I used CCC, which duplicated the drive in record time, with no errors, and no glitches. I'm not going to get in the middle of this fray, and I'm not a fan boy for any backup or duplicate software, but I will point out that, just because no errors were generated, doesn't necessarily mean that you've got a good duplicate with all metadata preserved. In some cases, defensive programming that throws errors is a good thing because it alerts you to a problem. Best to know the strengths an weaknesses of your tools (avoid rsync at all costs). When we make a new OS install or change our backup software, I always spend a good amount of time making sure that things are working as I expect them to. Do some restores. Set up a test suite on an isolated testbed. My data is valuable; I don't know about yours. There is a test suite that you can run to make sure that all metadata is being preserved. See: Backup Bouncer - a Metadata Test Suite And here's a direct link to Backup Bouncer without all of the history (which is useful, though): Introducing Backup-Bouncer Enjoy. Russ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakota Posted January 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 The fact is that you are having a problem, that Forum users have been unable to help you with. And this is the first time you've posted any mention of any interaction with EMC Tech Support, so it's impossible for Forum users to comment on this little dig. Not only the Forum which couldn't help. Neither could good old Dantz. It was not a dig, simply fact. I think it's taking the easy way out to say, simply, that duplication is not Retrospect's strong point. That's the kind of answer you give when you don't HAVE an answer. Too many people out there on other forums have given up on Retrospect for various reasons, most of them being problems executing not just duplicates, but backups. For a piece of software to have so many issues means that the people behind it are not addressing them. Would I have expected other answers from an EMC forum??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 First, I haven't had time to read this entire thread, but from what I did read, You forced Retrospect to close because it was closing for a really long time. I suspect that if you leave it, it would have finished. The closing process is copying the permissions for the files and folders. This process can take a very long time. What happens when you try again? Is CCC faster in this type of situation, it probably is. Retrospect does a file by file copy and CCC typically does things at the block level (if I remember right). I can also say that I talked to 100's of people at Macworld this week who do duplicates without any problems at all, and they love the feature. Will Retrospect get better in the future, yes. That is why we are releasing Retrospect X later this year, which is a new codebase and a Universal application. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakota Posted January 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 When I force quit Retrospect, it had been stalled at the same point - three files left to copy, and no movement anywhere - for over five hours. I used the program for years, and yes, I do know how long it takes - sometimes I would go to the computer in the morning and find it was still closing, after having started at around one in the morning - but this was way beyond normal. After that, I could not get it to run through at all. It would scan both drives, get as far as updating permissions on the clone, and the new window showing the progress bar which shows the duplication process, never appeared. I let it sit all day, and then finally force quit once more. Tried it again, same thing happened. I appreciate all the input, and the suggestions - I could do quite well without some of the snideness ( not you, Mayoff) - but sometimes a program is not worth the aggravation. I am willing to troubleshoot anything I have to, for as long as it takes, if there is an answer. In this case, I do not think there is. I believe the problems are known, that there is no real solution right now, and the workaround is taking just too long. It would be nice if the "powers that be" could just admit that there are issues, and that they will be addressed in the "near" future", as other companies have done, and are doing, rather than put the problem on the user. EMC is not alone in this respect. Apple Mail is a big issue with an enormous number of users, owing to problems with Spotlight indexing. Not only is Apple not addressing it, but some of the techs claim they don't even know about it. Hey, it's on every forum. I will stick with what works, and spend a lot less money doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeDave Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 Quote: Retrospect does a file by file copy and CCC typically does things at the block level (if I remember right). No, CCC does file copy, but it probably uses different tools/APIs to do it. ASR/Apple Software Restore can do block level copies under specific circumstances. Retrospect uses Finder style APIs to copy, while CCC uses *nix style tools, updated as the OS updates. CCC likely copies files along with their unix ownership/permission information, while Retrospect apparently first copies the files, then goes back and sets the permissions. That adds to the time (and sadly has poor feedback for the user). Of course, Retrospect can Verify a Duplicate, which CCC can/does not do. > Not only the Forum which couldn't help. Neither could good old Dantz. It was not a dig, simply fact. You called them "downright dishonest." How is that not a dig? And Dantz Development Corp. was sold to EMC a few years ago. Good old Dantz no longer exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakota Posted January 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 You called them "downright dishonest." How is that not a dig? If the problem is known, but ignored, and attributed to the user, or the user's operating system, what would YOU call it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeDave Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 Quote: If the problem is known, but ignored, and attributed to the user, or the user's operating system, what would YOU call it? Mayoff reports personal interaction with "100's of people at Macworld this week who do duplicates without any problems at all." You report that you have a problem with Duplicates. Taking into account my personal experience, which is that it's slow but reliable, I'm gonna have to side with tech support on this one. The program is not working for you, and the reason for this is unknown. If the Tech Support Incident that you opened with EMC failed to resolve your problem, you should request a refund of your fee. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakota Posted January 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 "the reason for this is unknown". It does not mean that the problem is on my end. Not with different computers, different drives, and freshly installed software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeDave Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 Quote: It does not mean that the problem is on my end. Not with different computers, different drives, and freshly installed software. When the problem persists through different configurations, it's helpful to look for any commonalities between/among those configurations. It is unclear what commonalities might be crossing over from one failing configuration to another, other then the obvious organic keyboard/mouse-to-monitor interface. I know that Russ asked about a specific bit of hardware, but his question was never answered. I know that I suggested some specific, easy tests to try, but no reports of results of those tests have been posted. > I used the program for years, and yes, I do know how long it takes - sometimes I would go to > the computer in the morning and find it was still closing, after having started at around one in the > morning - but this was way beyond normal. Interesting this. Your long term experiences with Retrospect have been the same as mine; it Duplicates slowly, but it works. We know that pretty much nothing has changed with Retrospect's code; 6.1.x is much like 6.0.x, which, in many ways is very much like 5.1.x and 5.0.x. So what has changed on your end that would cause the software to suddenly begin to behave differently? I finally quit out of Retrospect, read the log, which cited 346 execution errors,... As you force quit _before_ the Verification pass, it might be _very_ interesting to know what some of these log errors might be. When the Source is the live boot volume, Compare errors are to be expected. But errors during the Copy phase? Not so much. Dave 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.