Mayoff Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 An update to Retrospect 7.7 for Windows has been released to fix a few bugs reported by users. The new version is 7.7.208 and can be downloaded from http://www.retrospect.com/updates. This update will also be available for automatic updates in a few hours. A list of changes in this version can be found at: http://kb.dantz.com/article.asp?article=9729&p=2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poorman Posted January 27, 2010 Report Share Posted January 27, 2010 Thanks Robin. Please thank the development team as well. Is there a way to access a longer description of each fixed issue? The release notes have a number by each issue, but searching the KB for those numbers doesn't find anything except the release notes. -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richy_Boy Posted January 27, 2010 Report Share Posted January 27, 2010 Has anyone tested this yet? I have a RS 7.7 upgrade license ready to go, but I've been holding off until the most show-stopping bugs were fixed. Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon88 Posted January 27, 2010 Report Share Posted January 27, 2010 Not me... we're in the same boat as you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwright Posted January 27, 2010 Report Share Posted January 27, 2010 I went a head and upgraded when the I got the announcement e-mail. I monitored RAM usage by the retrospect.exe process as I ran one of my scripts and noted that usage peaked during the "matching" and "building snapshot" phases at around 150MB, but otherwise stayed pretty low (50-60MB). I have one client that has a ton of files though (over a million and about 100 GB of data) and on this client ram usage was about 600MB and the backup seemed unusually long. It took 2.5 hours to backup 43 files that totaled only 62 MB. I ran my backup script 4 times yesterday and the results were all consistent with the one I described above. Keep in mind, I had just about resolved the assert crash issue by rebuilding all of my configuration files. Still, given the number of issues with 7.7, if you have already installed it, I would just go ahead and take the plunge and report back to forums with your results. I am interested in hearing from mwilliamson or railes with their results. Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted January 27, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2010 This upgrade really is recommended for all users. If fixes a bunch of crashing problems due to memory leaks. Multiple memory bugs have been fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon88 Posted January 27, 2010 Report Share Posted January 27, 2010 Robin, is there some list of known issues you guys are working on? This would help to make a sound judgement on if we need to upgrade at this time or not yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted January 27, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2010 No public document exists for future bug fixes. All I can tell you is that this update IS fixing customer problems. If Retrospect is already giving you trouble, then I don't see much of a downside to updating to a version that contains significant bug fixes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emulator Posted January 27, 2010 Report Share Posted January 27, 2010 This update does not fix the "-1017 insufficient permissions" error when restoring a Server 2008 client: http://forums.dantz.com/showtopic.php?tid/32749/ I'm working with EMC on this. Robin, do you have any more info on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yatcher Posted January 28, 2010 Report Share Posted January 28, 2010 This update does also not resolve the mailbox backup problems with SBS 2008 and launcher problems with UAC. If these issues are not going to be resolved soon we are going to change products. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ngallman Posted January 28, 2010 Report Share Posted January 28, 2010 This release has resolved my issues (memory handling). The system runs much faster now that the memory usage no longer creeps to 500mb. I have a new issue now, however, that I never had with Retrospect 7.0 Multiserver edition. I'm now receiving the following errors on PST files only: can't read, error -1111 ( locked range conflict) Any suggestions? My RetroClient is running as local service/interact with desktop as it always has. I have the open file backup option, but suddenly I get the error that open file backup cannot be used on the drive in which the -1111 errors also appear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon88 Posted January 28, 2010 Report Share Posted January 28, 2010 There are now two users with the Open File backup option that have that "locked range conflict" problem... One uses Multi Server, the other Professional. Might be a bug... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon88 Posted January 28, 2010 Report Share Posted January 28, 2010 No public document exists for future bug fixes. All I can tell you is that this update IS fixing customer problems. If Retrospect is already giving you trouble, then I don't see much of a downside to updating to a version that contains significant bug fixes. I understand what you say Robin, however this is not our situation. We still work with 7.6.123 because so far we are convinced that version is more stable compared to the 7.7 release version and maybe even 7.7.208. The only real problem we have is when backing up Windows 7 clients. This we need to see resolved but we really do not want new problems introduced. That is the situation we, and I think a lot of others, are contemplating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richy_Boy Posted January 28, 2010 Report Share Posted January 28, 2010 (edited) I'm with you Ramon. I have bought a RS7.7 license and have now downloaded the product ready to install, yet I have no official insight to what bugs are remaining if I go ahead with the upgrade. It seems the memory leak has been addressed, yet we have a Value Pack license and backup Exchange, SQL and use open file backups on all of our machines to avoid PST and other common problems. Talk about jumping out of frying pan, into the fire..! I've never had this experience with another product in my life. Would EMC/Dantz/Retrospect officially recommend 7.6 users upgrade to 7.7 at this point if they use all the Value Pack fucntionality? Rich Edited January 28, 2010 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted January 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2010 Would EMC/Dantz/Retrospect officially recommend 7.6 users upgrade to 7.7 at this point if they use all the Value Pack fucntionality? Yes I do recommend this version. But if you have any doubt then you should but Retrospect 7.7 into a test environment on your network. It could be a Windows XP desktop system. Test some open file backups, etc. Yes it is possible that locked range conflict issue could be a bug but 1 or 2 reports out of thousands of upgrades and 1000's of clients does not mean this is bug everyone is seeing. In a prior thread I suggested using debug logging to try and narrow down the locked range conflict error. I never saw anyone trying that. If you are having errors with exchange backup still, then call tech support and report the issue and ask that an escalation be created if you do not feel the suggestions are working. We want to fix all exchange issues and if you have an exchange issue that troubleshooting can't fix then we may find an answer with a formal escalation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon88 Posted January 28, 2010 Report Share Posted January 28, 2010 I'll wait a couple of days to see if other problems surface. After that we probably will try to upgrade one of our less essential systems and give it a spin. I really hope those -519 errors with Windows 7 clients are a thing of the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmekalianappliedst.com Posted January 28, 2010 Report Share Posted January 28, 2010 The 7.7.208 release did resolve the assertion error/memory leaks we were having with several of our clients. When backing up large datasets (million or 2 files) the file matching used to take hours and consume over a GB of RAM. Now it rises to just over a 100MB of during the file matching, but drops down to 45 -50 MB during execution and stays there. Performance is faster also. The only other issue we have is backing up mailboxes on Exchange 2007. 7.7.208 didn't fix the mailbox backup "Trouble reading files, error -557 (transaction already complete)" Otherwise I'm happy with the product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwright Posted January 28, 2010 Report Share Posted January 28, 2010 When backing up large datasets (million or 2 files) the file matching used to take hours and consume over a GB of RAM. Now it rises to just over a 100MB of during the file matching, but drops down to 45 -50 MB during execution and stays there. Performance is faster also. Hmmm. The performance you describe is exactly what I see with hosts with fewer files. When I get to a host with a million files, it is slow and takes hours to complete still. Thanks for the update. Perhaps I will look into rebuilding my configuration files again. Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ngallman Posted January 28, 2010 Report Share Posted January 28, 2010 In a prior thread I suggested using debug logging to try and narrow down the locked range conflict error. I never saw anyone trying that. I just changed my logging preferences to 6 on trees and volumes. After tonight's backup routines, I'll post the log results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richy_Boy Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 Thanks for the feedback Mayoff. To be honest I'm not having problems with anything right now as I'm still on 7.6. Without any formal documentation of existing known bugs it feels a bit risky, especially if there's no easy roll back system in place. Right, I'm going for it, I've paid for this upgrade, so I'm determined to use it! Rich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ngallman Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 In a prior thread I suggested using debug logging to try and narrow down the locked range conflict error. I never saw anyone trying that. I just changed my logging preferences to 6 on trees and volumes. After tonight's backup routines' date=' I'll post the log results. [/quote'] Wouldn't you know it? No locked range conflict errors last night :confused2: Only disk inactivity threshold not met on the volume that had the conflict errors the night before. I lowered the threshold value to see what happens tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted January 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 We reproduced he -1111 error with pst files and we are looking into the bug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ngallman Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 Mayoff. Since upgrading from 7.0 to 7.7, our exchange server backup routine now automatically backs up individual mailboxes as well. I don't care to backup individual mailboxes, just the directory and information store databases. How do I exclude the mailboxes? I opened the exchange server client and deselected the highlighted mailboxes under the volumes tab, but they backup anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wscoville Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 "The only other issue we have is backing up mailboxes on Exchange 2007. 7.7.208 didn't fix the mailbox backup "Trouble reading files, error -557 (transaction already complete)" Otherwise I'm happy with the product. Any update on when this will be fixed? Didn't have this issue when running 7.6 on individual mailboxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ernief Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 Looks like the issue with SQL Server Express 2005 isn't fixed yet... I get authentication errors on every SQL Server Express box I have. Regular SQL Server 2005 works fine, though. 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.