Jump to content
wp1

Current Snow Leopard compibility statement?

Recommended Posts

The current Snow Leopard compatibility statement for 8.1.622 says it is 10.6 compatible, but then later says there are major known problems. The UI script options bug, and that compressed system files are reloaded uncompressed I would consider major bugs.

 

I've also found a number of posts as recent as a couple of weeks ago complaining of constant crashes under 10.6 and documenting problems with Retro Client backup of Snow Leopard systems. I didn't see any mention of build numbers in these posts.

 

Yet, in the release notes for 622, it has as fixed:

 

21548: Snow Leopard: Scripts: No options displaying

 

Build 626 release notes say this is fixed:

 

23640: Can't backup or restore of 10.6.1 large compressed files properly

 

The current statement is KB 9723 and is dated 10/12/2009. Is there a current, accurate, Snow Leopard compatibility statement? What exactly is the state of 10.6 compatibility as of build 626?

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this thread has some good info:

http://forums.dantz.com/showtopic.php?tid/32447/post/131451/#131451

 

It could be worded better, but the compatibility statement implies to me that the major issues are fixed in 8.1.622

 

FYI: I'm using Retrospect 8 console and engine on snow leopard. And the latest ver 6 client. Seems OK so far. After two weeks I had to restart the engine for the first time today. Had the same problem with Leopard, so I'm not surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response.

 

Have you done any restores yet to verify your backups get restored properly, especially a full system restore?

 

The compatibility statement in the article you referenced is the one I had seen already. It's dated 10/12/2009, before the current release. The first line there says 622 is Snow Leopard compatible. But, if you go down to the section (not bolded) that starts off "Keeping the above changes in mind when running a supported Retrospect configuration", it says the scripting UI and compression problems are still there. Since it says "running a supported..." that section would seem to mean at least build 622 on Snow Leopard.

 

Under Leopard, back in September, I tried V8 and had 2 pages of bugs and other issues with just one sitting. Last night I installed v8 build 626. This build is *much* better. I don't seem to be encountering the UI bug listed in the compatibility statement. I did a backup of a system volume and am in the process of restoring now. Spot checking files with hfsdebug, it is properly restoring files compressed. I'm waiting for the restore to complete to compare the source and destination volume sizes. Perhaps an rsync could be used to verify the integrity of the restore.

 

It sure would be nice if EMC would keep their compatibility statement fully up to date. Since simply doing a backup using Retrospect 6.1 on Snow Leopard trashes your system (uncompresses all hfs compressed files and updates the last modification time), I have to decide if I want to quit using Retrospect (which I've used since the very first release something like 20 years ago), or purchase v8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It sure would be nice if EMC would keep their compatibility statement fully up to date.

Lots of things would be nice, including world peace and a Retrospect 8 manual.

 

Since simply doing a backup using Retrospect 6.1 on Snow Leopard trashes your system (uncompresses all hfs compressed files and updates the last modification time), I have to decide if I want to quit using Retrospect (which I've used since the very first release something like 20 years ago), or purchase v8.

Things to include in your decision:

 

(1) no manual

 

(2) no scripting - makes it impossible to have unattended backup of a server, because there can't be any coordination with stopping/checkpointing/starting services. This is a show stopper for us.

 

(3) no FTP backup support (doesn't affect us, but it does affect some)

 

(4) can't read any backups made by any earlier version of Retrospect - this is a show stopper for us.

 

(5) many bugs, quite immature - these are slowly getting fixed, but it's not quite fully baked yet.

 

(6) The UI leaves a great deal to be desired, and the console <-> engine communication works poorly.

 

(7) poor / minimal optical media support - doesn't affect us, but it does affect some people.

 

Realize that this is new code, and has only been out for a year now. In a few years it might be stable and usable, and might have a manual.

 

Russ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Lots of things would be nice, including world peace and a Retrospect 8 manual.

 

Yeah, but is it really asking too much for someone to take 5 minutes and update the Compatibility Statement to be accurate? And maybe put a big red warning on the Retrospect for Mac page "EVEN DOING A BACKUP OF SNOW LEOPARD USING 6.1 WILL IRREPARABLY DAMAGE YOUR SYSTEM"?

 

I can't argue with your list of limitations. But I've poked at a few other backup solutions, and haven't found one that works as well as Retrospect for full/incremental/remote backups. 6.1 worked well for me, and performance on Intel was about as good as v8 until this recent release which seems to have improved performance.

 

I guess on the manual, they figure "We're Mac users. We don't need no stinkin' manual!"

 

Regarding scripting, I haven't tried to do that yet. Are you referring to built-in sripting, or does that mean it also can't be scripted with Applescript or Automator?

 

Not being able to read older backups on v8 is a huge problem, especially considering you can't run Retrospect 6.1 on Snow Leopard. I run two TM drives, one of which is a RAID 0, and have a perl script that switches between them each hour. But I've been using Retrospect for my longer term backups (until now). Now those long term backups are useless.

 

You did leave off one issue - pricing. Maybe this doesn't affect a lot of people, but I use Workgroup at home, which includes 20 client licenses. Upgrading to the equivalent in V8 is ridiculously priced for me. My option is to buy the regular version and add client packs, but that gives up features I had.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
is it really asking too much for someone to take 5 minutes and update the Compatibility Statement to be accurate?

I think you misunderstand me. I fully agree with you. It's just that documentation seems to be on the bottom of the list (or off the list) for the Retrospect group.

 

It's more than just a bullet point on a marketing spreadsheet. A backup program is all about trust. We entrust our data to the vendor, and reliability and trust are part of the evaluation of a vendor's overall commitment to protecting our data.

 

haven't found one that works as well as Retrospect for full/incremental/remote backups.

They are out there, but the pricing is much higher. Retrospect's strength is in the restore process.

 

I guess on the manual, they figure "We're Mac users. We don't need no stinkin' manual!"

No, I think it's something very different from that. The current R8 GUI is terrible, clearly done without interaction with user input and by someone with little GUI experience, and the large number of bugs makes it hard to figure out whether something is simply broken, not implemented, implemented wrong, or hidden somewhere in the non-intuitive GUI.

 

Regarding scripting, I haven't tried to do that yet. Are you referring to built-in sripting, or does that mean it also can't be scripted with Applescript or Automator?

I'm not trying to dictate to the designers, if there are any, of R8. What is needed is a way to coordinate actions in other programs with backup actions in Retrospect. I wasn't a big fan of the "Retrospect Event Handler" AppleScript implementation in Retrospect 6 (I would prefer a shell script interface), but it could be made to work to shut down server services, checkpoint them, restart the services, and then have Retrospect back up the checkpointed data (mail servers, Open Directory, etc.). Necessary for unattended 24/7/365 server operation. Others used the scripting to implement the WakeOnLan function in special situations.

 

You did leave off one issue - pricing.

I'm fairly price-insensitive because our data has great value. Our evaluation criteria may not match yours or those of other users. But our backup requirements are quite rigid.

 

In your (and our) evaluation of other backup solutions, remember that it's a clean slate. No other backup solution can read backups made by older versions of Retrospect. However, it gives the Retrospect evaluation a big black mark because of lack of commitment to reading backups made by older versions of the program. That's a point that needs to be investigated with any vendor. See comment above about trust and commitment.

 

What an amazing concept that someone might expect a backup program to be able to restore data from older backups....

 

Russ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it that everything after

Known Issues with versions prior to 8.1.622 or 7.6 for Windows
does not apply to 8.1.622, even the
keeping the above changes in mind
part.

 

I have not tried a full system restore since that is not important to me and I do not back up full systems. I have restored selected data to my satisfaction. What I need to do is restore an entire user profile and see what I get. In particular I haven't tested restoring email.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's how I would interpret it too, except the heading says "when running a supported Retrospect configuration". The first statement in the article is that Snow Leopard is only supported with build 622 and above, so if you were running prior to 622 then you wouldn't be running a supported configuration. If you're running a supported configuration, then it must be build 622 and above, so the items below that would apply to 622 and above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did complete a full system (OS) restore with build 626. It appears to be intact. Files were properly restored with HFS compression. There is a problem with rsync that when you specify -E, it wants to flag some files that don't differ, so I couldn't get a 100% verification using rsync. For example, if you rsync such a file, then run rsync again, it will transfer it a second time, and third, and.... The rsync issue looks like it may be some how tied to the quarantine extended attribute.

 

But, a spot check of the files flagged by "rsync -n" showed them to be ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

I've also found a number of posts as recent as a couple of weeks ago complaining of constant crashes under 10.6 and documenting problems with Retro Client backup of Snow Leopard systems. I didn't see any mention of build numbers in these posts.

 

Yet, in the release notes for 622, it has as fixed:

 

21548: Snow Leopard: Scripts: No options displaying

 

Build 626 release notes say this is fixed:

 

23640: Can't backup or restore of 10.6.1 large compressed files properly

 

The current statement is KB 9723 and is dated 10/12/2009. Is there a current, accurate, Snow Leopard compatibility statement? What exactly is the state of 10.6 compatibility as of build 626?

 

I've been running my Mac Mini in OS X (Leopard) 10.5.8 because of previous issues. However, I am backing up three clients on SL 10.6.2 with NO problems. Backing up 10.6.x clients has not been an issue for me because the current (626) and former version (622) back them up with no problems.

 

I'm still likely to continue the backup server machine in Leopard until the compatibility issue is fully put to rest.

 

However, lately I'm thinking that running the control program between the two platforms may possibly impact on engine stability. Any opinions on that?

 

I had one crash that occurred Sunday when powering the Mini off (programmed weekly shutdown) while the Retro engine was still running a script. That concerns me but it was a one-time occurrence on the Leopard machine so suspect it's not a Snow Leopard compatibility issue even though the clients were SL. Any thoughts?

 

Henry

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

×