Jump to content

hvar

Members
  • Posts

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by hvar

  1. You may want to check your /Volumes/ folder. If you log in to a server as different users at the same time, Mac OS will add a -1 -2 etc to the volume alias in the /Volumes/ folder. (to distingush user access rights etc on the server volume). If it adds a "-2" it looks like you may be logged in to the NAS as bob, fred and backup. Any software that reads this path and saves it will be in trouble next time you are NOT logged in multiple times from this Mac. You may be up for some interesting "invalid paths" or file or folder does not exist.
  2. Version 6 was actually quite good. A few hickups here and there, but you could get used to it, work around them and get things running quite well. Version 8 was a nightmare. Probably the worst piece of software since Word 6 for Mac. Version 9 was not as bad, but still far from release quality software. Version 10 is ... eh ... much better than 8 and 9, but I still do not trust it. It is like herding cats. There is an everlasting stream of new errors: "But I am sure I checked this setting, now it is unchecked again". "But why are the files in folder X not backed up - there are 20 files there changing every single day, only a random number of them are backed up - sometimes none". "Why does it take 20 minutes to open this window". But also you will also find that quite often it works. But expect to be surprised. Confused. And horrified. If you move from 6 to 10 you will for sure use language not suitable for children more frequently.
  3. I have so far avoided the pre-release version. (I am not very fond of the concept of using beta software in production.) I will however install it now as the current release is dangerous. The problem happenes on all three of my client versions; 6, 9 and 10.
  4. I am also seeing this. Really horrible! Loads of files are not backed up. I have not gone through all the details, but here is what it looks like: - I do not think this is related to the client, but to the Server. - We did not install the version 10 client on many macs as it - on some macs - runs at 100% CPU 24/7. - I even have a client running Mac OS 10.6.8 with version 6 client that now skips *a lot of* files on every backup - This was, as far as I can tell, NOT an issue with Retrospect before version 10 - We have two separate Retrospect 10 servers. Both have this error, randomly skipping many, many files. This really is a serious issue!
  5. Will the version 10 client handle its Instant Scan feature correctly when backed up by several Retrospect version 10 servers? Anyone tested this?
  6. One month later: config80.dat has grown to 223 MB config80.bak is 950 k I guess this is normal then.
  7. I moved the big .dat to the desktop. I renamed the .bak in Application Support to .dat and rebooted. (I do not manually stop the engine before a reboot. Should I?) I expected a new .bak to be made, but it was not. So I duplicated the .dat and called it .bak. It seems that the "manually" created .bak file works (it is at least modified) One week later the .dat has grown to 13.5 MB and the .bak is 950k I do not know what data I have deleted (the remaining 154MB) I cannot find that trashing the .bak file has had neither any positive nor negative effect.
  8. Sorry, my bad: I did not quit - I actually rebooted. 'Past Backups' seems to have survived fine. 157 MB seems quite a lot compaired to the tiny .bak file. Is it supposed to grow this big - and should not the .bak reflect this? I am a bit confused, and I do get a lot of errors with Retrospect 9; UI is terribly slow, and changes I make are not always reflected in the UI. Sometimes I work with one Script, and Retrospect will by itself silently select another script. Listing identical Summary for several different scripts. And many, many other inconsistencies. (I still miss many of the features and stability of Retrospect 6. 9 is not as bad as 8 though) I thought this oversized Config80.dat file may have contributed.
  9. Retrospect 9.02 (107) /Library/Application Support/Retrospect/ I noticed my Config80.dat is a whopping 157 MB My Config80.bak is 930 kB They are both 'last modified' today. If I quit and replace the .dat with the .bak and launch Retrospect it seems that my settings and scripts and stuff are correct, but I am unsure what to look for. Should I replace it? What will I lose?
  10. Yes. Retrospect is very slow on Macs. Also in regards to restore. What you describe was a new bug in v 9, and it is supposed to be fixed sometime in the future. You think 5 minutes is a long wait? You can expect to wait for hours to get the window to display when you have backed up for a while. See this: http://forums.suppor...post__p__394438 Make sure you have checked out other backup software options before deciding on Retrospect 9 on Mac. Neither version 8 nor 9 is what most people consider "shipping quality" software. (I have used Retrospect on Mac since the early 90s) edit: typo
  11. Grooming is dead slow. Last time I groomed in version 9 it took eleven full days; nine days to consider the files, two days to remove them. Mac Pro with 8 core CPU and RAID-5. (One core working at 100% for 11 days time. Other 7 cores idle.)
  12. Thanks for the update. edit: got this from support: This problem will be corrected in the next update which we're expecting to be available in just a few weeks. Our apologies for the delay but we have reproduced this issue and know what's causing it. Thank you for contacting Retrospect technical support. ---------- Hey guys - did anyone remember to check if the big button on the main page called Restore actually works? Nah!
  13. I have one version 8 running and I installed version 9 on another test mac. They are roughly the same configuration. Mac Pro on OS 10.6, Quad-core, 7GB RAM. On the Retrospect 9 Mac restoring files are extremly slow. If I click on the Restore icon I get: Retrospect 8: it will after some seconds (or a minute) display the window where I can configure my search. I can search and restore my files within i timeframe of 5 minutes. Retrospec 9: It gives no visual info, but looking at the Activity monitor the RetroEngine is charging one core of the CPU at full speed for TWO HOURS before it even displays the selection window. When the window finally arrives I can setup my search and get my files back in some minutes. Why the two hour wait do display an empty window? Is this on my Mac only, or is this a version 9 thing? edit: there are no running backups or other activity going on.
  14. Have you asked a reseller? We had an expired ASM and was able to renew that through a local reseller for far less than a plain upgrade. (I am in Norway, and prices are not comparable to US.)
  15. We used to have a delicate and intricate Rules setup in version 6. So I tried to mimic that manually with the (in my opinion) more cubersome version 8. After a while Retrospect just wiped its settings and everything was lost. I did not have a propper backup of the settings. Stupid me. I have never had the motivation/time to recreate the Rules and am probably backing up a lot of unnecessary files. I did try to look at activity monitor while grooming: CPU was full blast. Not much disk activity, But: read/write of database-entries would probably not show up in Activity monitor anyway. I might pop a small SSD in there to see if that helps. At one point we did back up to two separated RAIDs. Starting afresh every 6 months or so and skip grooming alltogether. Later our approach have been to manually delete the oldest media sets, and mark them as "missing". And then recreate catalog every month or so. The recreation finishes in around one day.
  16. My grooming finished! Set now has 22 million files. Grooming was 9 full days of scanning at 100% CPU (one core only) and another 2 days of actually removing the files. What should I do? back up fewer files? better CPU? move database to SSD? drop grooming?
  17. The set is currently 'busy' (with grooming) so I do not know how many files are in there. I tried the defined policy. Thank you for sharing your timings.
  18. After one week (150 hours!) it is still grooming. I think. One CPU core is still 100% and it does update its file count in between. I do not know how many files there is in this backup. Probably some millions. I guess grooming a backup with this amount of files is out of reach for Retrospect and I should approach this differently? Before I cancel it: Is every round of grooming a start from scratch, or is it only the "first time" that will take a long time?
  19. While being a nice feature grooming was so slow in version 8 that we never could use it. I just installed version 9 (demo) and tried to turn on grooming for one backup set made with retrospect 8. It has now run for over 50 hours at 100 - 120% CPU, but I do not know much about what it is actually doing - nor when it will ever finish. Old 4-core Mac Pro with 7GB RAM. Backupset is 8.5TB data on a decent SATA-RAID. Media set is 415MB. Anyone getting faster ("working") grooming in version 9?
  20. This is very interesting. We bought v 8 when it shipped with ASM. Did not install it based on the feedback from other users. ASM expired before we even installed the product. When Retro 8 was out of alfa, and entered beta reached version 8.2, we installed. Renewing the ASM did not make any sense. Is there anywhere I can read about this temporary promotion? * Is it valid outside USA? * can I check if we are registred as an ex-ASM customer somewhere? (And that the e-mail is still valid) * when does this promotion end? * should I contact my local reseller about this? Since Retrospect has had a range of owners in these years, I am worried we have been deleted somewhere (I am NOT saying they do not have reliable backup of their user databases, but you never know) Thank you for keeping these forums uncensored. I am both thankful and impressed that you do that.
  21. Now that Retrospect 9 is out, is version 8 End Of Lifed? In the Retrospect 9.0 Read me it states "Over 250 bug fixes, including improvements to the media request process, a config file backup process that provides better protection against corruption, and the elimination of certain spurious errors" These are 250 bugs from the Retro 8 version, isolated and corrected in version 9. That is good, but will these bugs be fixed in an 8.3 version? Or are any further updates of 8 cancelled?
  22. Have used Retrospect since version 2 if I remember correctly. I would gladly pay to upgrade our two licences to version 9 - if it works. Works as in stable and trustable. Somehow my expectations are not too high. We are currently evaluating PressStore. Seems to the best alternative, but it lack features and is quite expensive. BRU is too akward and we bumped into too many errors while evaluating it. Atempo Time Navigator has a user hostile interface. I do not think users want new features in Retrospect 9. We want stability. However Roxio needs to put a bunch of "new features" there to make it a "Major update". Expect to pay. (But hey Retrospect is very cheap anyway.)
  23. Here is a picture of the ad. It is in the paper magazine MacTech, september 2011 issue. sorry, my typo: url in ad is <www.retrospect.com/trial> (You only get the 8.2 version trial version there)
  24. On page 9 in MacTech september 2011 issue there is a full page ad for "New Roxio Retrospect 9". Listing all the new features and a "Download a FREE 45-day trial at www.retrospect.com/trail" Amongst the new features it lists Cloud Storage support, Great performace, WebDAV, new administrative controls and 10.7 Lion support. So I think at least someone is expecting a release soon. edit:typo
  25. I am using Retrospect 6.1 server (PPC). The Mac clients turn themselves off at reboot. As far as I can see, the client that ships with Retrospect v8.0 (client v6.319) does not behave this way (horray!) How do I push this version to all clients? - It is a VISA installer, not Apple, so it cannot be pushed by Apple Remote Desktop - There are no .rcu files as there used to be so it cannot be pushed with the Update All command Do i have to do this manually on every Mac?
×
×
  • Create New...