Other preferences to remove if Retro 6.1.126 corrupted? (extremely slow duplicate w/OS 10.5.1)

[ProfN]

BACKGROUND: Running Retrospect 6.1.126 with OS 10.5.1 on a Dual 2.0 GHz G5 with 2.5 GB RAM. In pre-Leopard days, my duplicate operations to external hard drives did not choke up.

 

PROBLEM: in duplicating (replace all) one 3 GB OS-free volume via FireWire 800 to an external hard drive with 5 volumes, Retrospect works fine in the delete phase but then keeps stalling when copying and when it isn't stalling, runs at anywhere from 3.5 MB per minute to 70 MB per minute.

 

WHAT FAILED TO EVEN PARTIALLY FIX STALLS AND SLOWDOWN:

--Repaired Permissions

--Ran Disk Utility Repair on the OS 10.5.1 volume and the OS-free volumes involved in the dupl. process

--Assured that Time Machine was not running (I don't use it)

--Moved to Spotlight/Privacy all volumes

--Rebuilt directories of both the destination and source volumes with TechTool Pro 4.6.1 (Leopard-compatible)

--Deep-cleaned all caches with Leopard Cache Cleaner

--Switched from 500 GB external hard drive to a 400 GB external hard drive

--Logged into a locked test account and launched Retrospect from there

--Logged back into normal account and trashed the following preferences:

com.dantz.Retrospect.plist

retrorunfile

LaunchRetroPref

Retro.Config (6.0)

Retro.Icons (6.0)

 

Your counsel, please?

 

Respectfully, Norm

[CallMeDave]

Since Retrospect's Duplicate functionality is provided by Apple APIs, and since you're only talking about 3 Gigabytes of data (unless that was a typo in a critical component of your report), what happens when you simply drag copy the same Source (folder or volume) to the external HD?

[ProfN]

Quote:

---

Since Retrospect's Duplicate functionality is provided by Apple APIs, and since you're only talking about

3

Gigabytes of data (unless that was a typo in a critical component of your report), what happens when you simply drag copy the same Source (folder or volume) to the external HD?

 

---

Actually, 3 GB was the amount that was new or changed out of a total of 6 GB. And that 6 GB includes a lot of compacted installers for applications, and application updates as well as OS X updaters for Tiger and Leopard. So that volume would choke my G5's 2.5 GB RAM if I attempted to drag the volume to another hard drive.

 

A related issue: as Duplicate goes into stalls and gross slowdowns, my 2.5 GB RAM at times will become so taxed that the application warns that there's not enough memory and it doesn't come back even after I quit all running applications and use Activity Monitor to force quit some of the processes that I can identify as unessential. Even quitting out of Retrospect does not restore the memory.

 

Shutting down restores memory but if I run into a troublesome Duplicate episode in the hour after re-start, it can choke RAM.

 

What's weird is that at times today, when I've either cloned the volume from my primary hard drive or from another hard drive to the same destination or another external, Retrospect works as fast as it ever did in its best days with Tiger and even allows me to run several other applications without draining memory. I'm at a loss to figure out why.

 

I just ordered two sticks of 1 GB RAM to replace a pair of 256 MB sticks. The maximum capacity of my G5 model is 4 GB. It won't hurt, but I don't know if it will resolve the issue. The RAM won't be shipped until the end of the week and then will take another week to get here.

 

I know that OS 10.5.2 is due out in February and that a new version of Retrospect is being tested.

 

I sure would appreciate suggestions in the meantime on how to troubleshoot this issue?

 

Respectfully, Norm

[CallMeDave]

Quote:

---

my 2.5 GB RAM at times will become so taxed that the application warns that there's not enough memory...

 

---

 

How, exactly, does "the application" warn that there's not enough memory? Is there some sort of dialog? What is the exact wording of this warning?

 

> at times today, when I've either cloned the volume from my primary hard

>drive or from another hard drive to the same destination or another external,

>Retrospect works as fast as it ever did...

 

In order to avoid a red herring here, are you reporting that the _exact same_ hardware configuration sometimes works as expected, and sometimes does not?

[ProfN]

Quote:

---

How, exactly, does "the application" warn that there's not enough memory? Is there some sort of dialog? What is the exact wording of this warning?

 

---

Next time it happens, I'll write down the wording. When this happens, I always go into Activity Monitor and that utility shows anywhere from 20 to 70 megabytes of memory left.

 

Quote:

---

In order to avoid a red herring here, are you reporting that the _exact same_ hardware configuration sometimes works as expected, and sometimes does not?

 

---

Yes. Now, in between, I always shutdown to regain memory. I've been replicating the issue between the G5 and three different external FW 800 hard drives. It can jam up one time and work the next time on the same external (with any of the 3 externals). It has happened more rarely between the two internal SATA hard drives. Right now, for example, Retrospect just zoomed through cloning 160 new/changed data volume files from one internal to the other in warp time without causing more than a blip in the Activity Monitor.

[CallMeDave]

Quote:

---

I always go into Activity Monitor and that utility shows anywhere from 20 to 70 megabytes of memory left.

 

---

 

Memory use in OS X is not a simple used/unused condition, as it was with classic Mac OS. Memory can be Free, Wired, Active, Inactive or Used. And Activity Monitor's "System Memory" tab doesn't show page out/in information as well as the top utility does.

 

"Memory left" is not very a very descriptive term.

[ProfN]

I stand corrected: the utility showed anywhere from 20 to 70 megabytes of memory free. My concern was as I saw "Used" approach maxim capacity and and "Free" disappear to the point where, on a couple occasions, there was not enough memory to shutdown and one had to do it via the power button.

 

That said, I tried something that was not include in any of my troubleshooting steps:

 

I started the computer in Safe Boot Mode.

 

Voila! Without some of the extensions that normally run, Retrospect fairly zipped through duplicating the 11-GB OS 10.5.1 to an empty partition on an external FireWire Hard Drive.

 

I'll replicate this tomorrow or the next day and, perhaps, experiment with one possible culprit if things continue well in Safe Mode.

 

Respectfully, Norm

[ProfN]

I replicated and Retrospect continued to zoom through the duplication.

 

When I un-installed my antivirus program, Retro was fast, not quite as fast, and the memory escape seemed considerably less. When I re-installed the antivirus software, I was able to finish a 200,000+ file duplication but before it was through the "Free" memory was drained to the point that I had to quit out of Activity Monitor to allow it to finish.

 

Just in case there are multiple causes--not just the antivirus software-OS 10.5.1-Retro interaction, what's the next step in diagnosis, please?

 

Respectfully, Norm

[CallMeDave]

Quote:

---

what's the next step in diagnosis, please?

 

---

 

It sounds as if you have shown that Retrospect works as it's supposed to, and that some other software you have installed is causing you a problem.

 

If you hope to get Forum members to make suggestions regarding software programs other then Retrospect, the _least_ you would be expected to provide is the name/version of those programs. "...my antivirius program" is simply too vague.

[twickland]

Norm:

 

Any reason you haven't updated to the latest version of Retrospect (6.1.138)? That would probably be a good idea, even if it's not related to your current problem.

[rhwalker]

Norm,

 

As unlikely as it seems, I wonder whether ACLs may be entering into this because of the fact that you are running Mac OS 10.5.x (Leopard), which has ACLs enabled by default on the boot volume, in combination with the fact that you are running Retrospect 6.1.126, which triggers Apple's bug with ACLs. I believe that this KB article:

http://kb.dantz.com/article.asp?article=9576&p=2

is wrong when it points the finger at Intel architecture, when the real issue was whether a Universal Binary Mac OS 10.4.x was being run (it was possible, with effort, to install the Universal Binary 10.4.x on a G5 architecture). The Universal Binary versions of Mac OS 10.4.x were very different animals, with a different split off the code tree, from the PPC-only versions. Much of that code persists in 10.5.x.

 

I would be curious to see what happens if you update your copy of Retrospect to 6.1.138 and unchecked the preference (see the KB article) to back up ACLs, thereby working around the Apple bug.

 

Russ

[ProfN]

Quote:

---

CallMeDave asked: How, exactly, does "the application" warn that there's not enough memory? Is there some sort of dialog? What is the exact wording of this warning?

 

---

It happened earlier this evening. It probably is a system warning. The small heading is: "Force Quit Applications." The text is "Disk has no more space available for application memory . . . ." and then it says to quit applications and close windows.

[ProfN]

Quote:

---

Norm,As unlikely as it seems, I wonder whether ACLs may be entering into this because of the fact that you are running Mac OS 10.5.x (Leopard), which has ACLs enabled by default on the boot volume, in combination with the fact that you are running Retrospect 6.1.126, which triggers Apple's bug with ACLs. I believe that this KB article:

http://kb.dantz.com/article.asp?article=9576&p=2

is wrong when it points the finger at Intel architecture, when the real issue was whether a Universal Binary Mac OS 10.4.x was being run (it was possible, with effort, to install the Universal Binary 10.4.x on a G5 architecture). The Universal Binary versions of Mac OS 10.4.x were very different animals, with a different split off the code tree, from the PPC-only versions. Much of that code persists in 10.5.x.

 

I would be curious to see what happens if you update your copy of Retrospect to 6.1.138 and unchecked the preference (see the KB article) to back up ACLs, thereby working around the Apple bug.

 

Russ

 

---

Thanks very much, Russ. I updated to 6.1.138 tonight after reading twickland's suggestion but before having a chance to read what you posted above. (By the way, unless I'm mistaken, the ACL preference only applies to Intel Macs. My G5 is pre-Intel.

 

Even with my antivirus program uninstalled and Retrospect 1.3.6 un-installed, 1.3.8 installed, AND the OS 10.5.1 updater installed once again (and shutdowns and Repair Permissions in between and after), my primary hard drive's Leopard OS suffered a fatal memory leak. I gave up on it.

 

I booted into my secondary internal hard drive's OS 10.5.1 volume and did NOT run the software updater on it, only left the antivirus application un-installed. The Activity Monitor was registering no memory leak, so I launched that volume's old Retro 1.3.6. Still no memory leak! (What fascinates me is that I had just duplicated my OS volume to my secondary hard drive the night before, just in case something worse happened to the OS.)

 

I then un-installed 1.3.6 and installed 1.3.8. Still no memory leak after launching the updated Retrospect. I then re-installed the antivirus software. After the mandatory re-start, there still was no memory leak. I then ran Duplicate and, until it slowed in closing, watched it copy changed and new files and folders at 600+ MB per minute. No errors! No problems! (Yet.)

 

Respectfully, Norm

 

 

[rhwalker]

Quote:

---

By the way, unless I'm mistaken, the ACL preference only applies to Intel Macs. My G5 is pre-Intel.

 

---

Please carefully re-read what I wrote. I believe that the KB article is wrong when it says the ACL issue is only an Intel Mac issue. With 10.4.x, I believe that the ACL problem can be reproduced with any Universal Binary install on either platform (the UB version of 10.4.x is VERY DIFFERENT, with different files and different behavior, from the PPC-only version of 10.4.x). Leopard (10.5.x) is the same on either platform. Again, please re-read carefully what I wrote. And also search these forums, where my suggestion on exactly this point cured the issue EVEN ON THE PPC PLATFORM. This may not be the cause of your issues; I simply tossed it out because you mentioned that you are running Leopard.

 

I'm also confused by your references to a "Retrospect 1.3.6" and "Retrospect 1.3.8" because there are no such versions and never have been. Could you explain? Are these typos?

 

Respectfully,

Russ

[ProfN]

I apologize, Russ.

1. Those are typos. The old version number I had been using was 6.1.126 (as my heading on this thread says) and the current version that I'm now using is 6.1.138.

2. And I erred on my interpretation of the ACL counsel you gave.

 

Thanks for your understanding,

 

Respectfully, Norm

[CallMeDave]

Quote:

---

"Disk has no more space available for application memory . . . ."

 

---

 

This is the answer to your question.

 

Your computer has inadequate free space on the boot volume for the swap files that OS X uses for memory management.

 

This is a pretty critical system error, as your OS really, really really likes to have room for the page-in/page-out stuff that it needs to do.

 

Free up more room on your boot drive.

 

 

Dave

[ProfN]

Quote:

---

CallMeDave wrote: This is the answer to your question.

 

Your computer has inadequate free space on the boot volume for the swap files that OS X uses for memory management.

 

This is a pretty critical system error, as your OS really, really really likes to have room for the page-in/page-out stuff that it needs to do.

 

Free up more room on your boot drive.

 

---

 

Dave, I'm really appreciative of your concern and your efforts to help but I'm really confused:

 

My OS 10.5.1 volume size is 40 GB (of a 160 GB hard drive). Of the 40 GB, only 19.86 GB is used. Do I really need to re-format my hard drive to make my Leopard boot volume larger than 40 GB? If so, how much larger?

 

This only started within the past 10 days to 2 weeks or so. In that time, I've installed Office 2008 and several software updates. I watch the activity monitor and see the kernel task grow and grow exponentially in space in terms of both real and virtual memory used but can't figure out from looking at a hierarchal view of all processes what's causing the problem.

 

Last night, after working fine for several hours, my second internal hard drive started to have memory leak and produce the warning. My guess: Whatever is happening is a timed or delayed process.

 

With a shift-down startup turning off extensions, I have no memory leak. How do I determine which extension or extensions are causing the leak?

 

This morning, I put in the OS 10.5.0 DVD and did an archival install and checked the box that imported settings. I then did a shift-down/extensions-off re-start and installed from a download the 10.5.1 updater. I repaired permissions. The memory leak had not been fixed: when there was only about 300 MB of free memory left, I re-started.

 

Right now, I'm running with extensions off.

 

Your counsel, please?

 

Respectfully, Norm

[CallMeDave]

Quote:

---

Last night, after working fine for several hours, my second internal hard drive started to have memory leak and produce the warning.

 

---

 

I'm not a programmer, but I'd suggest that this isn't a "memory leak" but is instead some runaway disk writing activity.

 

> when there was only about 300 MB of free memory left, I re-started.

 

Do you mean 300 MB of disk space left? Please don't confuse memory with space; they are very different things.

 

Or is this value the "Free" field of Activity Monitor's "System Memory" tab? It's fine for this number to be low, depending on the status of the other numbers. Restarting to reclaim RAM should not be necessary on OS X.

 

> I've installed Office 2008 and several software updates.I

 

Sounds as if it's not a Retrospect problem.

 

 

Dave

[ProfN]

Quote:

---

> when there was only about 300 MB of

free memory

left, I re-started.

Do you mean 300 MB of disk space left? Please don't confuse memory with space; they are very different things.

 

---

I'm sorry, I should have repeated that I was getting the free memory reading from the Activity Monitor rather than assuming that folks would remember what I posted earlier in the thread.

 

Quote:

---

It's fine for (the value of the "Free" field of Activity Monitor's "System Memory" tab to be low, depending on the status of the other numbers. Restarting to reclaim RAM should not be necessary on OS X.

 

---

 

I should have mentioned that at the same time as the "free" reading was falling to that point--and below--such readings as "used" were increasing. Why I would shut down as it fell to 300 or so was to prevent what always happened when free memory fell rapidly: When I walked away from the computer to tend to something else, I'd come back to find it had shut itself down already or that it was displaying the Force Quit warning and no longer allowing me to force quit or even shutdown manually.

 

Quote:

---

I'm not a programmer, but I'd suggest that this isn't a "memory leak" but is instead some runaway disk writing activity.

 

---

 

If that's so could it be a hardware problem if it's happening on any drive from which I boot OS 10.5.1?

 

If an OS problem, and an archival install with importing of settings failed to fix it, would it be advisable to do another archival installation but with settings UNchecked and then create new settings one by one? Or would it be advisable do an erase-and-install and thereby invest a couple more days of down time in re-installing each application on the boot volume and create new preferences for each, testing the memory usage during this process?