Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

kidziti's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. BYOD - Bitlock your own disaster?
  2. Yeah - I've given up on Bitlocker. I have no doubt it is iron-clad security, but a failure mode can be catastrophic as has happened in the limited time I used it. No-one could explain why I was suddenly locked out of the drive - and why the key did not work. Fortunately, everything was backed up, but it cost me an afternoon rebuilding the OS from scratch and getting my programs back on. I'm surprised that Bitlocker did not use Windows Hello - biometric access would have made it much more accessible and perhaps more stable as well.
  3. Thanks, David. I must admit I'm a bit surprised to see such a dearth of discussion here in the forum over the past several years regarding Bitlocker and Retrospect. Retrospect is marketed for people that are perhaps a bit more technically oriented and serious about data security. And that is why I'm surprised at the lack of discussion on this topic, since I would imagine the kind of technogeek that would have a data security program like Retrospect would certainly data-encrypt their drives (and Bitlocker owns that game pretty much for the Windows crowd). The best explanation, perhaps, is that there are simply no issues between Retrospect and Bitlocker worth discussing, and I'm just more anxious about it than most . I'll probably do the upgrade based on everything so far. Thanks for focusing on my question like you have. That's been very helpful. Lee
  4. Yes - as far as search functions, they are the first line of action for me in any technical forum. In fact, I rarely post because often times my questions are answered already with a simple search. However, in this case I simply don't trust that a single thread about Bitlocker compatibility between Windows 8 and Retrospect 8 from seven years ago will necessarily be true with Windows 10 and Retrospect 17. As you have noted, nobody seems to have posted about Bitlocker and Windows 10. Hence that is precisely why I posted my question. Compatibility issues do arise occasionally between different OSes and software versions, and this would not be the first time I upgraded myself out of some functionality. Investing the time and money to change my OS only to find problems with Retrospect and Bitlocker is a situation I am hoping to avoid. Anyone who has Bitlocker set up on a 10 Pro OS and reports having no problems with a recent version of Retrospect will be my green light.
  5. I have Retrospect 17 on a Windows 10 Professional desktop, which is also backing up a Windows Home laptop and a NAS that is being used as a file server. I am considering upgrading the laptop to Windows 10 Pro so that I can take advantage of Bitlocker encryption. Windows Home does not have Bitlocker which is the only reason I would upgrade. And the 10 Pro desktop is not yet configured for Bitlocker. So at present, the encryption is not yet employed anywhere in my network. Before I pull the trigger and buy/install 10 Pro, I want to be sure that using Bitlocker won't create headaches with my automatic nightly Retrospect scripts. Any experience or thoughts? Lee
  6. I am pretty sure that most cloud services offer the option of sending a drive with your data so that it doesn't all have to transfer via internet, but admit that I'd feel uneasy sending all my data on an external drive via UPS/FedEx or whatever else. While that would not address the concern in your last question, I cannot imagine a cloud service not having or at least offering an offline (protected) copy of what you can access online. One service that stands out in terms of affordability, security and upload options is Amazon S3 and they discuss the issue of large initial uploads here ("Send Us That Data") and in fact have an interesting option called Snowball where they have a quick and informative video that explains how it works.
  7. David - Thank you for your apologies and I do accept them with the same grace with which you wrote them. I read carefully your last post and wanted to clarify that I am very much like you - a LAN "administrator" in my own home. I am not a professional in IT administration - my professional degree is an entirely different field. But with another user in the house who deals with a plethora of emails, I know that we are one click away from the kind of thing most home users probably never think about. A ransomware attack happened to a business I deal with, so suddenly it became "real" instead of simply a theoretical possibility. I once bought an item on eBay and immediately got an email confirming it - but a detail was incorrect. Without thinking - and it was an expected email anyways - I clicked the link and signed in. Suddenly my account was shut down because I was illegally selling BMWs. I think about that now - and about how lucky I was it was not a malicious extortion attack. Probable? Perhaps not. Possible? Certainly. Data security is one of those fields that is likely well-served by embracing a bit of paranoia as a strategic component in the algorithm. Skip these next light-gray paragraphs if you wish - they are a little backstory of why I am here at the Retrospect forum. When I mentioned that I prefer forums over tech support, it's because I generally find a higher level of expertise and experience on the forums. I have found that 80 - maybe 90 - percent of my calls to tech support lines reveal I know more about solving my problems then they do. And so I come to places like this - with people like David, Nigel, and Lennart. I am far from God's gift to human intelligence (sometimes I swear I'm just here on earth to provide comic relief for the rest of you), but I have two synergistic qualities that make up for the brain power I lack: First, I'm a techno-geek and love learning the patterns of digital logic just "because" (but I don't wear flood pants, bowties, or thick-framed glasses held together at the hinges by white tape.) The second quality is that I'm amazingly stubborn. That was a shortcoming I had hoped to outgrow, then to unlearn. Unable to shake the curse, I've relented and learned to embrace it as a means to a better end. I'll figure out anything given enough time (often a significant variable, unfortunately) - not by virtue of my intelligence so much as simple relentless drive. I suppose it doesn't take more than a single mistake to bring someone to the learning curve of a program like Retrospect that - configured correctly - is a powerful security tool. Maybe it's losing the emails of your oldest and best friend who was like a brother to you - who committed suicide just three months before. That's a hell - sort of like losing him all over again - that I would wish on nobody. Or almost losing the last priceless videos of your mom laughing with the family because you trusted NAS redundancy too much and let your outdated backup program slide. Fortunately, SMB access saved 99.9% of my data. And it only took a year off of my life in stress and anguish. So as technical as this is - and especially for us home LAN administrators tending to digital kingdoms surrounded by a white picket fences far from glass buildings and cubicles and project management teams - it can get surprisingly personal very suddenly. And that's why I'm here. It reminds me of the new president of a foundering drill company who closed the factory for an afternoon, took his employees out to lunch and asked them, "So we're having a tough time selling our product. Do you even know what that product is? What do we sell here, folks?" The answer was resounding. "Drills!" the employees shouted. The new leader shook his head with a smile and said, "No. We sell holes." I think about that with Retrospect. It's a fun program to learn and discover. But at the end of the day, back-ups are only the means. The real product is simple peace of mind - knowing one's digital treasures are safe. Getting back to the nitty gritty - I have been thinking about the bank deposit box approach myself, David. I suppose there are so many levels that can be employed. Knowing me, I'll likely fail at some point to do that as my enthusiasm wanes and other things get in the way as they tend to do. I am thinking the cloud is probably a better solution but with hacks and data breaches happening to robust enterprises that should have been secure, I wonder if we put far more stock in cloud security than we should. You brought up an interesting point of making the removable backup a bit more historic by a day to add more ransomware security from more recent and perhaps yet unrealized attacks. I agree that would be a good strategy. And again, I think of the cloud. If you don't mind me asking, is there a reason you prefer walking your data physically every weekend to safe deposit storage vs just putting it in the cloud? Nigel - Windows scripting does sound intriguing. I also wonder if increasing scripting power within Retrospect is something that Storcentric is considering. That's a high hope, of course. I could probably figure Windows scripting out, but my obstacle at the moment is finding the time to do so.
  8. Thank you to David and Nigel for taking the time to answer. I have gleaned good information from both of your answers. And yes, David - the fourth paragraph is a redundancy for me. My solution to alternating between my two perpetually-connected external drives was simply to schedule each on an every-other-day schedule and start them a day apart - easy peasy and they've been humming along fine for the past week. I apologize that the third drive confused you - it is simply an external drive to add an unmounted redundancy to the two alternate-day backups. As such, I'm fine with a transfer backup to it from either drive and was simply looking for a more elegant way to do it than plugging it in and starting a manual backup - then unplugging it. I suppose if I scripted a dismount of that drive after the transfer backup, then I wouldn't have to physically unplug it from the USB port to keep it safe? To your many questions, David, I am also aware that I have 45 days of free technical support but (1) my work hours completely lock me out of available support hours and (2) I generally have found the best help via shared forums than directly from technical support. And so you know, I have Windows Desktop version I've obviously caused some serious consternation for you, David. Please understand that was not my intent. I am also quite active helping other users on a different forum and certainly know what it means to volunteer time to do that. I have not had too many people abuse my time, fortunately, but when it seems they do, it is often because they are just finding their way and I try to be patient and polite. So I think I understand where your frustration comes from when someone like me who is not as smart as you in this field stumbles about, failing to even know how to phrase the question correctly. While you are undoubtedly at the top of the pack here in terms of technical expertise on Retrospect - something I do respect - I might suggest refining the way you address people you do not know and would presume to help. I would never phrase a response to anyone in such a personally targeted and public way as the quote above. It's targeted when "you" appears 20 times in the first seven sentences. And it's personal when the answer to my question is three consecutive "do you realize" questions right back at me, followed by two statements describing how my question is a "problem" for you. And just in case I have not been talked down to enough, I am described in rather prurient terms ("strip tease") - a not-so-subtle way to shame me. And that is topped off with a salient suggestion that I metaphorically undress completely. Perhaps you might agree that is a rather humiliating way to address anyone - especially someone you do not know.
  9. Do you have a recommendation for a program that can do a surface scan and mark the sectors?
  10. I have two external drives which I use as backup destinations on alternate nights. I am using a third drive which will only stay connected during the backup and them I would disconnect it (as protection from ransomware attacks.) I'd like to do something that is essentially an inverse of what I have with proactively backing up my laptop - but for the destination, not the source. I'd like a situation such that when I plug in the destination drive for this backup, Retrospect sees it and runs the backup script that I designed for that destination. I suspect that is not possible but figured I would ask anyways.
  11. I am a week into the trial period with Retrospect Desktop and with an intention to purchase. It has come down to this or Cloudberry - and I'm likely sticking with Retrospect (despite the frustration of a clunky and inescapable dashboard.) I'm a Retrospect Professional 7.7 owner currently and dashboard almost made me stick with that to wait out another version, but I like Proactive backup too much and suspect I'll be connecting with the cloud for backups as well. My question has to do with the ASM (annual service and maintenance agreement.) Normally, I don't purchase service agreements with software after the initial period of included tech support, because most of my learning curve and shake-down work is done in that period. So I have little need for extended tech support. But there are other variables here. I was told by Retrospect sales that a new version is coming out in March or thereabouts and I'd be very interested in that especially if it fixes some of the current issues (ASM = free upgrades during that year of tech support.) But even more to the point is that Retrospect is now owned by Storcentric (they purchased it I think this past August.) That's my real question here. I've been reading up on Storcentric. They also bought Drobo (DAS and NAS machines) and seem to be focused on creating a new integrated (software + hardware) approach to data storage and security. Storcentric seems innovative rather than just a company that wants to buy and sell without investing much in R&D. Given that Retrospect seems in relative decline among a fast, new pack of more elegant interfaces and solutions to backup data, it hardly seems like something worth buying just to ride the dropping sales profits. It would seem a more rational reason to purchase Retrospect is to develop what is a fundamentally sound solution and making it better. I don't know that I trust my insights into these things, but I see that plus I look at Storcentric's intent of redesigning an integrated software-hardware product with Retrospect and Drobo and can't help but think that would translate to a more meaningful overhaul of Retrospect. For that reason alone, I think it might be worth the ASM and - heck - maybe I should buy a few shares of stock in Storcentric while I'm at it? I'm far from a financial guru so please don't take that too seriously, but I'd still be interested in anyone else's thoughts on this.
  12. Dashboard actually got me excited- a more friendly user interface! But it is dog-slow (okay - I LOVE dogs, but this thing is a Basset Hound in Greyhound race.) It often hangs, gobbles resources, hangs again when trying to simply scroll, and ultimately gives little useful information. It's everything short of what we've come to expect from Retrospect - a lean, efficient, business-like and functional application. When Retrospect is invoked by a scheduled script, dashboard is the only option that comes up when you want to monitor the program itself - and the fact that there is no escape from dashboard only adds to the frustration. I get that it is well-intended - but it was executed poorly and ends up detracting from the program. I'm in the trial period (Windows 16.5) and likely will invest in Retrospect based on the last ten years of functionality and reliability with 7.7. The dashboard is the single biggest negative in my pluses and minuses column as I decide on making the purchase. Just my opinion here, but instead of the dashboard, might I suggest this approach: Develop a user interface that finally leaves the '90's behind. It would probably meet dashboard's intent with more digital elegance. Add a tray monitor - something we can mouse over and see the basics, or open and get more detail. Perhaps that goes to knowing your customers. Face it - this is a techie's software that requires a greater learning curve than the prettier faces like Cloudberry. I could be mistaken, but I suspect most Retrospect users (certainly me) would appreciate a backup solution that provides ease of both interface and access - and a tray monitor would be a simple, performance-oriented way to do just that.
  13. Great idea! I've been trying to get those permissions through the Windows OS when in fact maybe I can do it through user permissions on the NAS. It's too late for me to check into that tonight but perhaps tomorrow night or Thursday. I'll report back if I can do it. PS - it's an old Linux (Sparc) based NetGear NV+ (version 1) and I deleted the pre-installed backup share. Otherwise I'd just explore those permissions.
  14. I had an opportunity to speak with tech support and it was suggested that the best way around dashboard is to always have Retrospect running. At least that is the solution directly from Retrospect via their technical support. It seems a poorly implemented feature but it defaults when Retrospect is running a backup. I know I need to at least double the 8 Gb Ram on my Xeon-based OptiPlex, but he did not think it was a resource bottleneck on my end - which to me sounded like an acknowledgment that Retrospect knows dashboard is a resource problem. I told him the only way I know if Retrospect is running is to open Task Manager and see the process running, and that it would be nice to at least have a tray icon. As a techie-oriented software, I imagine Retrospect appeals to people like me who like to get their digital fingers dirty. So how could a user in the Retrospect fan club ever appreciate not having at least a tray icon gauge to keep digital tabs on the process? He said he would relay my thoughts to R&D.
  15. Hi folks and especially David and Nigel and mbennet - Just to update you all, I finally had a moment where my free hours lined up with California and I could speak with tech support. I spoke with a very helpful tech there (Kyle) and we went over everything in pretty granular detail. The setup to him seems perfect, and so we are ascribing the 1017's to a fluke (although in the digital world we all know that such an autonomous binary does not exist.) I suspect that somewhere along the line I had something misconfigured, but at this time everything is running perfectly. I'll let it continue and if any other errors pop up, I'll let you know so other people struggling as I have might also find a clue. Thanks for your help.
  • Create New...