Bjorn Posted January 29, 2002 Report Share Posted January 29, 2002 I have used Retrospect in Mac/Windows environments since 1990. After moving to the Windows NT platform we have tried several other products (Backup Exec, ArcServe) and finally returned to Retrospect as the Windows version has matured. We are an advanced simulation software developer company and we think that the Retrospect client backup is superior. We still have one major problem: Retrospect should be divided into a user interface for management and an NT service for backing up. You need to be able to access the GUI while a script is running. Many new Windows server installations are done using racks (no monitors!) and used remotely by Terminal Services. This works well with Retrospect as long as nobody else has connected and opened the GUI (or the backup is running) but it is a major problem with two remote sessions. It is also important that all of the scheduled backup services (including Reportswatcher etc) can execute without anyone being logged on to the server - this is a security issue. It would also be nice to use the Windows 2000 service monitor/restart functionality for the backup service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAOgdin Posted February 4, 2002 Report Share Posted February 4, 2002 Of course, the fundamental problem with this is that Retrospect is much to "chatty." It demands the user interact in cases where the software could have been configured with an option (not yet provided) to take care of the issue automatically. You don't want a service that requires user intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAOgdin Posted February 4, 2002 Report Share Posted February 4, 2002 Of course, the fundamental problem with this is that Retrospect is much to "chatty." It demands the user interact in cases where the software could have been configured with an option (not yet provided) to take care of the issue automatically. You don't want a service that requires user intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plstm Posted March 28, 2002 Report Share Posted March 28, 2002 > You don't want a service that requires user intervention. Why not? I've written several server that require user intervention, by popping up on the active desktop, through the service controller, or over DCOM/COM or TCP/IP to a controller application. The last is what I'm hearing is wanted for Retrospect. The service itself would never require interaction, but would work through a client/controller program running elsewhere. "Elsewhere" might mean the same machine, or it might not. And a single properly written client/controller program could monitor and control many copies of the service on many different machines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.