Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Yesterday
  2. When the update is pending, the Mac OS has changed the state of the disk, so that Retrospect no longer recognizes it as the original disk. The only option is to install the update.
  3. I've seen this now at a number of client sites where if a client computer has a Mac OS update that hasn't been installed it can't be backed up by Retrospect. If the user installs the update then Retrospect goes back to working normally. This means that clients are constantly missing getting backed up because they have a Mac OS update that they may not even know about waiting to be installed. If I go to the Retrospect server I can still connect to the affected computer but the Macintosh HD is not available to browse until after the OS update is installed. Short of disabling automatic Mac OS updates, is there anything that can be done with Retrospect?
  4. Last week
  5. Note that the error is actually "...stopped by operator", not user. IMO that means it is being stopped on the Retrospect "admin" side, not at the client. Have you set a limited schedule of execution, a media timeout, or similar? Is something going into power save/sleep just after midnight, effectively pausing the execution until the timeout is reached?
  6. In theory it could, but I've never tried. If you're worried about HD thrashing, think how bad it would be for a tape, constantly spooling/respooling to find those gaps to fill! If you want to do grooming and WORM (form ransomware protection etc), consider an HD for your "normal" backups and a regular copy from that set to a tape set for "permanent" storage -- disk-to-disk-to-tape. There's many ways of setting that up and you can adjust to suit your own schedule and retention policy. See the RS manual, particularly the "Staged Backup Strategy" examples.
  7. Also, remember that it's possible to change the client's settings so they can stop or not stop a running backup. If this is running for 12 hours without completion there's not much reason to let it run, but the user might be seeing a balloon on the taskbar, and if they're allowed to kill the job they do so.
  8. The first script starts by grooming, indication that the destinations id (too?) full to perform the backup. This script takes about 6 minutes. The second script starts and the waits for about 12 hours. Maybe it starts grooming and can't groom out space enough to perform the actual backup? What happens at 12:10:49? The user reboots the computer? Or does indeed stop the backup? I would start looking at the (free) space on the destination.
  9. I have a number of scripts to ensure my data is consistently backed up but I have recently noticed that one keeps failing with an "execution stopped by user" error - even though it is an automatic script that is supposed to run over night! I'm (still) running v16.6 and I've just realised that this has been going on for some months - although if I run the script it completes without error! A sample log file would be: + Normal backup using Backup Set A2021 at 20/05/2022 23:59 (Execution unit 1) 20/05/2022 23:59:22: Finished scanning backup set data files To Backup Set Backup Set A2021... - 20/05/2022 23:59:20: Copying Ace Surgical on share on WDMyCloud 21/05/2022 00:00:08: Found: 5,296 files, 572 folders, 29.7 GB 21/05/2022 00:00:09: Finished matching 21/05/2022 00:00:09: Selector "All Files Except Cache Files" was used to select 5,296 files out of 5,296. 21/05/2022 00:00:09: Copying: 0 files (zero KB) and 0 hard links Grooming Backup Set Backup Set A2021, optimizing for performance... Groomed 1,460 KB from Backup Set Backup Set A2021. Optimizing for performance skipped grooming 2,140 files (21.9 MB). 21/05/2022 00:05:40: Building Snapshot... 21/05/2022 00:05:43: Copying Snapshot: 1 files (1,453 KB) 21/05/2022 00:05:44: Snapshot stored, 1,453 KB 21/05/2022 00:05:44: Comparing Ace Surgical on share on WDMyCloud 21/05/2022 00:05:44: Execution completed successfully Duration: 00:06:23 (00:06:21 idle/loading/preparing) - 21/05/2022 00:05:44: Copying Avenues on share on WDMyCloud 21/05/2022 00:05:49: Found: 539 files, 75 folders, 1.2 GB 21/05/2022 00:05:50: Finished matching 21/05/2022 00:05:50: Selector "All Files Except Cache Files" was used to select 539 files out of 539. 21/05/2022 00:05:50: Copying: 0 files (zero KB) and 0 hard links 21/05/2022 12:10:49: Execution stopped by operator Duration: 12:05:04 (12:05:03 idle/loading/preparing) 21/05/2022 12:10:49: Compressing catalog file 21/05/2022 12:10:49: Execution stopped by operator Total duration: 12:11:26 (12:11:25 idle/loading/preparing) Any thoughts, guys?
  10. Earlier
  11. This forum is far too quiet, for the best backup software this side of the equator 🥇 I like the current Retrospect user interface. May we please have a local web server console so we can manage it from another PC on the LAN? I know there's now a cloud-based "Remote Management Console" -- but what we need is a LOCAL web-based management console for an individual backup-server-host, whether it's Retrospect Desktop or a Multi-server, etc. (I know, you have to integrate a web server stack, which is messy...) WHAT I DON'T WANT IS an updated user interface that devotes large swaths of the screen space to WHITE SPACE and MEANINGLESS GRAPHICS. Has anyone else seen what NovaStor did to NovaBackup? They took a tight, concise UI that all fit on one screen, and changed it so that you had to "Step Thru" many screens to execute a task. Seems this is the way of the future -- no word-based menus, must use ICONS! And who needs distinct mouse buttons on laptops. (If it ain't good enough for Apple...) Retrospect developers -- PLEASE don't change the user interface so that we're treated as if we can't read manuals or understand how to setup jobs. I don't want to be asked each setting as question "Please choose your sources [Next]... Please choose your destination [Next]... Do you want to use compression? [Next]... Do you want to verify media? [Next] next, next, next, ... Finish. I don't want to see fonts in 36-point typeface. When I saw the first image below my first thought was: C'MON, REALLY? I don't quite know what to think of the circle design below, but I can say that it's not a table of data. PLEASE GIVE US TABULAR DATA. PLEASE GIVE US A SCREEN WITH ALL OF THE SETTINGS ON IT, Not stepping through a series of screens... Please, don't make this application look like it's meant for stupid people with zero attention span. Please. Don't. I realize that the announcement of Console Preview is now three years old, but it does say that this design will be the "replacement" to the current UI. It seems like no such change has been made yet, based on the online manuals linked to from the latest v18.x release (I'm still on v16), and I hope you find a middle ground to being both more user-friendly (e.g. accessible to a wide customer base) and keeping it tight and concise. </rant> Thanks
  12. I keep telling myself -- "Just get a 12TB hard drive"... But then I come around to thinking that a tape can be removed from the system, so in the event of corruption from virus/malware/ransom then I can rebuild. And about the 1x PCIe part -- I had wanted to keep to an ultra small server that I use for a number of other services... Now, HP lists the EliteDesk 800 G1 USDT mPCIe as 2.0, so 1x should be fine for an LTO5. (I have an MXM graphics card installed, and CPU-Z reports that is running at 3.0; so I imagine that's a separate bus from the mPCIe slot). I realize that LTO5 (280MB/s) is pushing past 1x @ 1.0 speeds, particularly if compression is used, and LTO4 is only a little slower at 240MB/s. This is telling me to abandon the idea of miniPCIe-to-PCIe_1x-to-PCIe SAS controller if mPCIe is not running at least 2.0 (with yet-unknown SAS controller) at 500MB/s per lane. (And hopefully the mPCIe isn't whitelisted as Lenovo's are). On a side note, worth mentioning -- I was able to use PCIe-1x-to-PCI_bridge adapter to configure an old PCI (not express) Adaptec AHA-2930 SCSI card and exercise some old HP DAT 6/40 (DDS3) and DAT 6/72 (DAT4) libraries, under Windows 7 64bit. (This was just a little fun before I scrap these devices... eventually. I have dozens of DDS3 tapes, many new, ... just sayin'). Now as far as a single LTO tape drive (SAS) is concerned... What happens when grooming backups sets on LTO? Does it treat the tape like a filesystem, and it simply deletes data from the files--marks filesystem blocks on the tape medium as freed-up? So if I don't exceed the capacity of a single tape, I can leave one tape in the drive indefinitely, as if I were using a hard drive, but not thrash as disk-i/o access does?... and set the retention/groom policy to keep to the capacity of one tape? ... Or perhaps do minimal tape changes, say a quarterly full or DR-image backup. In reality my data isn't that valuable... just personal files and photos. But we all do so much paperless these days--I don't think anyone can really afford data loss.
  13. Retrospect shouldn't care, as long as the card works. Windows and your HP drive may have other ideas, so aim your compatibility checks in those directions. Where that theory breaks down is that RS can pump a lot of data through a card at speed, and that can reveal flaws in card design,ompatability. To an extent you get what you pay for... If your data is valuable enough that you're going to spend time backing it up, perhaps it's worth splashing out a little?
  14. This new topic because existing threads are so old... EDIT: I'm changing this post & title because I gained some sensibility about SCSI+DDS, and now am intent on using a SAS LTO-5 tape drive, connected to a PCIe 1x card. Unfortunately my knowledge of SAS is very limited..., I'm looking to buy an ultra-cheap noname SAS card and attach it to an HP Ultrium 3000 tape. Adaptec ASR-6405E is a RAID card, and "Mini SAS SFF-8087 SATA3.0 6Gbps Adapter Card Har X5O1" is ... I don't know what, but if it works, then it's cheap and simple, with just a mini-SAS connector. Of course, not being from a big-blue manufacturer like IBM, LSI, or Adaptec, support for Retrospect may be completely missing. So if a controller has an internal mini SAS port, do I look for a cable: INTERNAL mini-SAS to EXTERNAL mini-SAS?--if my tape drive is external with a SAS connector. Or do I look for a cable INTERNAL mini-SAS to four disk-SAS connectors, and only use one of the legs?--if my drive is internal. I supposed I'll experience a major wake-up call when it come times to actually design a strategy with only a single tape drive. I admit this is just the nerd in me that wants to waste my time doing this. Oh well. ---- Originally I had written: (short version) -- "I'm not sure if I should look for a SCSI controller that's 'known good' or take a chance with a random card that fits my host PC. In this day and age of Win10 (vs back in the early 2000's), are more SCSI cards working due to generic driver modes, or does support need to explicitly exist inside Retrospect software for each brand & series?" .... effectively I had asked if an IBM 5785 PCIe x1 Neo 4p HiPro N11702 SCSI controller (which is possibly an obscure card) would work on Windows 10 for a DDS library. Retrospect support indicated that shouldn't be too worried about the card make/model under Windows10. But now realizing how old and slow DDS3/4 will be, I'm no longer nostalgic for my old HP DDS4 library.
  15. Yes it is the backing up from directly mounted NTFS disk which is the confirmed bug on MacOS Monterey. Regarding the platform change, your plan is exactly what I am doing.
  16. For clarity -- which? I assume the "backing up the directly-mounted NTFS disk". but just want to be sure... I don't know if that's what's actually going on, but in general Retrospect (like all good backup software) makes the not-unreasonable assumption that "if there's any doubt, back it up again". In the vast majority of cases it much better to "waste" resources doing that than to find that the latest version of "My Very Important File.doc" can't be restored because, well, it kinda looked the same as the last one so RS didn't bother... Where it does bite is this kind of platform move. Having been there myself, I feel for you! What I do these days is start new sets on the new platform, run old and new in parallel until new is up to date, then archive the old in case it's ever needed.
  17. Support has just confirmed this is a bug. It apparently only affects MacOS Monterey.
  18. One time move. So my plan now is to retain all the existing backup sets as read only for archival purposes because I know I can reliably restore from them on the Mac, and start all new for current backups and going forward.
  19. I don't understand if you will go back and forth between Mac and Windows, or if this was a one-time move.
  20. Those external disks are just a minor annoyance, not a serious issue. Its the 10's of TB of data on the NAS devices that is the issue, particularly as I have just spent weeks consolidating all my backup sets and transferring everything to new media to be sure I'm 100% secure before making this move. I agree the metadata is the problem, but it's not as simple as Retrospect support suggested. I made a simple test share with just a handful of files guaranteed not to change and backed it up on Windows. I then transferred the catalog to MacOS and as expected it decided it needed to back up everything again. Since I had not had an answer from Retrospect support as to whether there was a debug setting that would show why the individual files were miss-comparing I did Option Command Comma and turned all the logging options to max. While that gave me a voluminous log during the matching phase I could still find nothing in there showing the individual file comparisons failing. Just to eliminate any problem with the catalog, I deleted it on the Mac and recreated it from the tape. The new catalog file was a different size from the Windows created one, but it did not change the behavior. So I let it go ahead and back up everything. I now have two sessions on the tape, one from Wiindows and one from Mac. On Windows if I do Find Files and browse the session contents it's not much help because all it shows are the dates the files were backed up - pretty much redundant since that's clear from the session date, but on the Mac the view is much more helpful as it shows explicitly: filename, size, creation date and time, and modification date and time. And they all agree perfectly - so if the operating systems are giving different file metadata to Retrospect as support claims, is is somehow changing them back to being the same! Then it hit me, because the report on session contents is similarly more informative on the Mac. It shows for each session the operating system version and the file system type. For the Windows version it shows the file system as "Volume", "NTFS", with the Machine as "Local" (where in fact it's an SMB mount from the NAS), but for the Mac it says "Client volume", "SMBFS" even though there is no client machine (in the Retrospect sense) involved - it's the same NAS share mounted by SMB on the Mac. So clearly Retrospect is conservatively deciding that if the file system type is different it should not assume the data is the same even though all the other metadata matches. The documentation and Retrospect support could be clearer on this point. It is just possible the difference is because there are two different versions of SMB involved here. Windows 7 is using version 2.1 where the Mac is using 3.1. I do not know if it is possible, or if so how, to restrict the Mac to mounting with 2.1, but even if that were to fix it, I would not consider it a good solution since it would be locking in an obsolete protocol. And it seems unlikely this is the root cause anyway or everyone would have run into the same problem when just upgrading from Windows 7 to Windows 10 which I believe also uses SMB 3. More tapes ordered 😞
  21. It is the metadata that makes the files look different to Retrospect. Some years ago a co-worker had a Windows computer with three hard drives: An XP boot drive, a Vista boot drive and a data drive. When booted into XP, all files of the XP disk and the data disk was backed up (as expected). When booted info Vista the entire data disk was backed up again, since the different Windows versions displayed a different set of metadata to Retrospect, making Retrospect to believe it was different files. When booted back into XP, (only) the files that had changed on the data drive since the last XP backup was backed up. Similar with the Vista backup: The files on the data drive that changed since the last Vista backup was backed up. Why do you want to backup your external drive from both Windows and Mac? I would have it always connected to a Windows computer, install the Retrospect Client on the computer and backup from your Mac running Retrospect. If that won't work for you, please elaborate on your setup, what you want to do and why you want to do just that.
  22. As expected, connecting it to either a PC or a QNAP NAS and exporting it with SMB works, even though I exported it read only. However, also as expected in both cases zero files match against the existing backup sets and just as with the main shares on the NAS it wants to do a full backup. I have asked support twice if there re any debug options or elevated log level which will indicate in the log why the files mis-matching, but in both cases they ignored my request on that point. I know there is a secret settings menu (at least on windows) but I don't recall how to access it, or how to change the log level. Any pointers appreciated - I have to get to the bottom of this.
  23. Well in this case I have another system at a different location (Windows environment) that I back up disk to disk. Each time I exchange the backup disk I bring it offsite and archive to tape. I agree that if I needed to restore the data it would need to go somewhere different, but that is a problem I will deal with should disaster recovery become necessary. There is data on that disk that the Mac can read without a problem yet Retrospect blows it off as not worthy of backup. I will attempt the path of connecting it to the NAS and using SMB to mount it. However I then expect to run straight into the issue I have raised in a different support ticket, namely that Retrospect on Windows and Retrospect on Mac mounting the same NAS share do not agree on the file matching criteria, so incremental backups are not possible to backup sets created on the Windows platform. Nothing matches - another story for which I should start a different thread. . .
  24. It would not make much sense in backing up a volume you can't restore. The OS (and/or Retrospect) can't write back any information, making the backup useless. There are no official documentation from Microsoft how NTFS really works. That's probably why Retrospect for Mac will not handle it. Do you really need it to be NTFS? I would recommend exFAT, which Windows and macOS handles just fine. Retrospect for mac and Retrospect for Windows handles it as well.
  25. response from the support ticket: Retrospect for Macintosh is not really designed to handle data of a locally attached NTFS volumes. You would need to either format the disk as Mac OS various native formats, connect it to another computer Windows and access the volume over the network as Windows Client or plug it in a NAS device USB port and access via SMB or AFP protocols (ADD+ >Share>>). Seems to me this needs to be made explicit in the documentation. The OS can access it so why can't Retrospect?
  26. That is correct, but NTFS is a native Windows file system. Try to backup a Mac drive on the Windows version.
  27. The documentation certainly implies it should since it is accessible in the finder. Retrospect on Windows certainly has no problem backing up this same drive. I did open a ticket yesterday, but no response so far.
  28. Strange. Although macOS can't write to an NTFS volume, it can read it. So Retrospect should be able to handle it perfectly well. I think you might want to open a support case. https://www.retrospect.com/en/support/edition
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...