Jump to content

IkariGend

Members
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

IkariGend's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. Hello, I found an annoying behavior in Retrospect 10.5.0.145. I have two licences running on two different mac mini server under OS X Server 10.8.5 and both act the same way. When a backup-script is finished Retrospect sends an email. If i run the same script a second, or third time the same day, Retrospect sends no mail. I increased the network-logging level to 7 in retro.ini in order to get a clue, but the only thing I see is, that the first time the script runs a day it sends an email (SMTP-connection etc.). The next time i run the script there is simply no try to send an email, I mean no smtp connection etc. What can I do?
  2. As expected no updates. I don't believe there will be updates any soon, maybe I should check my chances to get my money back...
  3. Here an other post that might be the issue: http://forums.dantz.com/showtopic.php?tid/32516/ Anyway, I regret that I spent money for Retro 8. That was a total waste! :angryred: By the way, Retro 6.1 server runs great on my 10.6.2 server it is even capable of doing bootable backups of 10.6 clients and is able to do working backups with ACLs of my secondary server.... But hey wait, Retro 6.1 isn't supported anymore.....
  4. I can confirm the problem. 2 Xserve 2,8GHz Quad 6GB Ram, connected via Cat7 on the same gigabit switch running OS X 10.6.2 and Retro 8.1.626, copying files from a fibrechannel connected Apple XRAID to an fibrechannel connected Promise-RAID on the other Xserve is limited at 100Mbit via client-connection. On the same machines retro 6 runs at nearly full 1000Mbit.
  5. Any updates here? Or any chance to get an unofficial release, it can't be any worse for me :confused:
  6. Ok, I have to say that I am sick of waiting for the new version. Instead of releasing a sub-release with a lot of fixed bugs, new functions get implemented (It's not that I wouldn't want the 64 bit support) and therefore the risk of new bugs and the time-span for the bug-fixing rises even more. I don't even test this software any further because the bug that won't allow to copy data with ACLs from one server/client to an other server/client is essential to us. The thing that makes me really mad is, that the Retrospect and Apple-support told me to buy Retro 8 because the duplication of ACLs on Intel-machines with Retro 6 is buggy because of Rosetta. So we bought Retrospect 8 Multi Server 7 months ago. My boss asks me weekly when will we finally use Retro 8 and I always have to say, that the ACL bug isn't fixed yet and a new version with a fix is in the pipe, but I don't know when it will be available, because every estimated date will be replaced by a new estimated date. :angryred:
  7. Hi, I hate to ask this, but is there a chance to see the "update later this year" in 2009 or Q1/2010?
  8. Any updates on this? German support keeps saying: "You have to wait for the next version!"
  9. I am glad that Retrospect integrated a mail client and I don't have to rely on a AS+mail program for that. But two things: There seems to be some kind of time disalignment. I mean the mail that retrospect sends is 1 hour in the future. All computers (the one running retrospect, the mail server and my client) get their time from the same timeserver. Here is an example mail-header from a mail sended 8:14:03 GMT+1 send time is claimed to be 9:14:03: Received: from retro8.mydomain.de ([192.168.201.11]) by W2KEX.mydomain.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:14:03 +0200 Date: Thu, 17 Jul 09 8:14:03 +0100 To: support@mydomain.de From: retro8@mydomain.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmV0cm9zcGVjJFjfjXFhmljYXRpb24gZnJvbSBtd2h4MiAoNy8xNy8yMDA5KQ==?= Return-Path: retro8@mydomain.de Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jul 2009 06:14:04.0011 (UTC) FILETIME=[C8B44BB0:01CA06A5] The other thing is, is it somehow possible to let retrospect send the complete or a more detailed log? IkariGend
  10. What Retrospect 6.1 does is, in my case, much better than what Retrosect 8 does at the moment.
  11. Sorry, that was a typo in my last post. Of course I do a copy, not a backup. We need to make copies in order to have a complete fail-over if one server and/or its RAID dies. I just tried something: I made a backup (this time for real) from the destination with acls and restored that to a new location, but no acls were backed up/restored.
  12. Hopefully this bug will be fixed soon, because a [color:gray]copy[/color] without ACLs is almost worthless for us. So we need to stay at Retrospect 6.1. for a while. :eyes:
  13. I do the copy using the client version 6.3.019 not filesharing.
  14. (1) "Mac OS Extended (Journaled)" (2) they are enabled and a "Copy" to that destination drive from a local source copies the ACLs properly. (3) in the mean time I tested a native 10.4.11 Server (Intel) and native 10.5.7 Client -> no ACLs copied. Another thing is that Retrospect copies the folders over and over again, even if there is nothing changed.
×
×
  • Create New...