Jump to content

Cygnis

Members
  • Posts

    152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Cygnis

  1. Hi all, It's approaching one year since we purchased our current Retrospect licence + ASM (direct from the Retrospect website). Will there be a reminder/instruction e-mail sent to us regarding ASM renewal? Or do I just purchase the relevant ASM product from the Roxio online store? Thank you.
  2. I have found that too, after recently upgrading a machine to Windows 7 64-bit. Looking at the old Retrospect forum, this was a problem in Vista also, that I guess has still not been fixed: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:70g-RWHnZ74J:forums.dantz.com/showtopic.php%3Ftid/26729/ (The above link also discusses some of the other problems mentioned in this current thread.) I'd be fine with scheduled backups starting up 'hidden' in the background if the following were true: (1) A system tray icon were present, perhaps with a notification bubble and/or some simple animation to indicate that an operation is running. (2) The system tray icon could be clicked, or double-clicked or something, to start the main Retrospect UI *without* interrupting the current operation. (If this is already possible, I'd appreciate it if someone could advise me how.) The option to minimise the UI window to the tray again while the operation continues would also be good. I also have the same annoying problem of needing to grant Retrospect permission via UAC every time I want to start the UI. In summary, the 'behaviour' of Retrospect under Win7 compared to XP is pretty disappointing... especially if the same was also true of Vista, meaning that EMC/Roxio/etc. have had nearly five years to work on improving it and this is the best they have been able to do. Hopefully it's just error on my part and there are solutions to my above complaints...
  3. Hi all, Is anyone else having problems with the Device Support database? http://www.roxio.com/enu/products/retrospect/support/device-support.html Searches by keyword seem to work fine, but searches by criteria (e.g. 'interface' and 'media type') return the entire database, rather than the subset I am searching for. If someone at Roxio could please look into this, that would be great. Thanks.
  4. This program might help, if you can find a suitable way of scripting/scheduling it to run while backups occur: http://mousejiggler.codeplex.com/ "Mouse Jiggler is a very simple piece of software whose sole function is to "fake" mouse input to Windows, and jiggle the mouse pointer back and forth. Useful for avoiding screensavers or other things triggered by idle detection that, for whatever reason, you can't turn off any other way; or as a quick way to stop a screensaver activating during an installation or when monitoring a long operation without actually having to muck about with the screensaver settings." I haven't used it personally so can't vouch for it.
  5. Thanks for clarifying, Dave. I am unfamiliar with OSX Server products in general, and did not realise that the server and non-server versions were so similar even prior to Lion.
  6. It's still alive, just painfully slow. You can still access that particular thread (and most others) via Google's cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XRCcrohBAcIJ:forums.dantz.com/showtopic.php%3Ftid/34329/pid/141113/post/last/m/1/ If Mayoff or any other staff members are reading: please consider upgrading the dantz.com server, or converting its content to a faster, more useable format! There is a lot of important information in there that is currently very cumbersome to access. (I'm relying on it a lot at the moment to help plan a large migration of data from old v2/v4 backup sets.)
  7. Hi, If I understand correctly, OSX Server is now an add-on for OSX Lion, rather than having separate 'desktop' and 'Server' versions. Therefore, assuming one has a Lion Server client to backup (from a different machine running the Retrospect server), is that treated by Retrospect as a 'server' client or a 'desktop' client? In other words, would I need "Multi Server", or would "Single Server"/"Professional"/etc. suffice (without an additional server client license)? Also, is there any difference between the Mac and Windows Retrospect products in this regard? Thanks.
  8. This may not be too relevant, given how different my setup is to the one you propose, but I'll share my experience anyway. I installed an SSD in my home computer about 6 months ago, and have been extremely pleased with the speediness of the system as a result. My nightly Retrospect Professional backups run without any problems, and the drive scans so quickly that backing up the entire system is now quicker than just backing up selected folders used to be. Based on how well it seems to handle multi-tasking and I/O-intensive tasks, I assume it would be a good candidate for writing the catalogues of concurrent backups at least where speed is concerned, but I don't know enough about the longevity aspect (or how well they work in a server environment) to be able to say for sure. In any case, I assume you'd regularly backup your catalogue files to another drive as a precaution? (I've always done this both at home and at work, even before switching to an SSD.)
  9. Hi all, Here is a recent Retro-Talk thread where Roxio are seeking input about how to handle "Private Files/Folders" in the next version of the Mac client: Looking for new Mac Client feedback ASAP
  10. Have the old forums been moved to a different server or something? For me, they were only moderately slow before, but immediately became super-slow when the new Roxio forums opened. (In fact, I can hardly access them at all now; they won't load in Firefox, and only the main page will load in IE, with other pages timing out.)
  11. Hi all, I've started a thread in the "General Discussion" forum about the current roadmap of future Retrospect releases (both PC and Mac): http://forums.support.roxio.com/topic/73020-retrospect-insights-and-2011-roadmap/ Looking forward to hearing people's thoughts.
  12. Source: http://list.dantz.com/pipermail/retro-talk/2011-March/014759.html Hello everyone, My name is Eric Ullman. I am the product manager for Retrospect. I think that some of your frustrations with Retrospect should be directed to me, for it is I who have been uncommunicative during our transitions over the past ten months. I'm sure many of you will recognize my name; I used to manage the retro-talk list back in the Dantz days. I left Dantz a few months before the EMC acquisition, and I rejoined the team in early 2008, when EMC started ramping up Retrospect development again. Unfortunately, EMC's company-wide hiring freezes and eventual purchase of Iomega (whose CEO ended up running EMC's Consumer and Small Business Products Division) resulted in the Retrospect team not being fully staffed or supported. Retrospect's acquisition by Sonic/Roxio (which also included the core Retrospect employees) was a positive move, and we have been adding additional development resources to the Retrospect team. Rovi's acquisition of Sonic is also good for Retrospect, as Rovi has deeper pockets than Sonic. Though product roadmaps are always subject to change, especially as we work through the details of our most recent acquisition, I'd like to share with you what we'll be doing with Retrospect over the next 12 months or so. Earlier this year, we released Retrospect System Rollback for Windows, the first Roxio product to combine technologies from Retrospect and BackOnTrack. Retrospect System Rollback provides real-time monitoring of the Windows OS, registry, and installed apps so that it can roll a PC back to a previous operational state without affecting user data, even after a blue screen. http://bit.ly/e1VfpC Today, we're releasing an update to Retrospect 7.7 for Windows with support for Microsoft Exchange Server 2010, and we're launching the new Roxio.com website that properly includes and integrates the Retrospect product pages and store. Following today's changes, here's a rough breakdown of what you can expect for the rest of the year. Early July, 2011 ----------------- Retrospect 8.x for Mac WebDAV remote storage access Mac OS X "Lion" support New Retrospect Client for Mac 64-bit user-initiated backup and restore on demand improved Mac OS integration Late Q3, 2011 ----------------- Retrospect x.x for Windows (same UI as today) Hyper-V SharePoint Improved Exchange, SQL, and Active Directory vSphere WebDAV remote storage access New Retrospect Clients for Mac, Win, and Linux 64-bit user-initiated backup and restore on demand improved integration with client-side OS Late Q4, 2011 ----------------- Retrospect "Solo" Local backup and recovery for a single PC or server Includes Retrospect Client functionality "Instant Scan" feature to eliminate pre-backup scan time Integrates System Rollback Image-based backup and recovery option New UI Late Q1, 2012 ----------------- Retrospect "Constellation" Major architectural changes for partial-file and broad cloud-based backups Management capability for systems running Retrospect Solo Cross-platform, browser-based UI These are the major changes that we have our sights on. Of course, performance improvements, bug fixes, new OS and device support continue to have high priority. For example, while you won't see improvements to Retrospect's disk grooming technology listed above, it's something we're working on. I hope that this gives everyone a picture of what we'll be up to for the next several months. What you can expect from me is that I'll be a more active participant on retro-talk. Please feel free to request features, ask questions, or send input my way, and I'll do my best to respond. Thank you very much indeed for your patronage and your patience. Best regards, Eric -- Eric Ullman Director, Product Management Roxio Backup and Recovery Products eric.ullman at rovicorp.com
  13. Hi all, Many of you will have seen this already, but I'm posting it here for the benefit of those who are not members of the Retro-Talk mailing list. Here is some useful information about the future of Retrospect, posted by the software's product manager Eric Ullman: http://list.dantz.com/pipermail/retro-talk/2011-March/014759.html I will re-post the content here with his permission. I will try to post relevant follow-ups whenever time permits, although subscribing to the mailing list is probably the quickest way for those interested to stay up to date. Enjoy
  14. Which "Security" settings do you have enabled in the backup job? Disabling the "backup FILE security information..." settings can help with this issue (assuming you don't require this information to be backed up). You can leave the "backup FOLDER security information..." settings enabled. Also, which version of Windows are you running? Do other workstations with differing versions of Windows access the files on the server?
  15. Not required now, due to the workaround of deleting the snapshot (assuming that a test restore brings the data back without any trouble). But yes, I would be prepared to just back the data up again in some situations. Thanks for the suggestion. Of course. I was interested in hearing the experiences/suggestions of other users who might be familiar with this issue. Were my questions in some way inappropriate for this forum? I understand that you are a user, not an employee, and apologise if you felt the questions were directed at you specifically (rather than to the forum in general).
  16. Thanks Lennart. I have compared the NTFS alternate data streams (ADS) of some of the files to those of the backed up versions, and they are the same. Security attributes (ownership etc.) look the same too. Is there any other metadata I can/should check? Unless there's some metadata item I've missed, my feeling is that metadata is not the issue here. It seems that Retrospect is simply failing to look outside the volume's last snapshot for matching files. Is this how the program is supposed to behave? I have found a workaround, which is to delete the "Graphics Storage" snapshot so that Retrospect is forced to match against all sessions, rather than just the one snapshot. This created a new snapshot without backing up all the files again. But I don't want to have to do this every time I move files from one volume to another. Any more thoughts?
  17. Hi all, I have repeatedly encountered an issue where files that have already been backed up fail to be matched (i.e. they get Previewed as needing to be copied again) when moved from one volume to another. What makes the problem really weird is that I can make them match again (and thus avoid backing them up again) by defining a new subvolume pointing to a subdirectory of the existing subvolume which is failing to match. Here is the most recent example. I have moved some files into: G:\Graphics Storage\Graphics Finished\ They were originally in F:\Storage\Finished\ "Storage" and "Graphics Storage" are defined as subvolumes. The files were all backed up under "Storage" (from the F:\ drive). When I try to back up "Graphics Storage" (which has been backed up before these files were moved to it), the backup Preview indicates that all the new files will need to be backed up again. When I define "Graphics Finished" (a subdirectory of "Graphics Storage") as a new subvolume, they all match, and Preview reports that no files need to be copied! One thing I have observed is that the matching is almost instant when selecting "Graphics Storage", but takes a few seconds of scanning through Sessions when selecting "Graphics Finished". Because Graphics Storage has been backed up before, could the Matching process be considering only the previous snapshot, and not bothering to check other Snapshots/Sessions? I am not using the "Backup file security information from servers" or "Match only in same location" settings. I cannot identify any of the standard Retrospect matching criteria as having changed. Could NTFS metadata that I can't see be an issue? We are using Windows 2003 Small Business Server and the latest version of Retrospect 7.7 Single Server, backing up to LTO-1 tapes using an HP Ultrium 232 drive. Backup sources are local NTFS drives only. The server also runs ShadowProtect 4.0 (block-based volume backups) and Group Logic ExtremeZ-IP (Mac file sharing). Let me know if any other information is required. Any tips would be appreciated. Thanks very much!
  18. I am using Retro 7.7 as well, but on Windows XP 32-bit. I get the folder timestamps copied properly when Duplicating, but not when Restoring. When Duplicating, are you using the default settings? I'd also be keen to know if there's a way to have this happen when Restoring. (Glad you started this thread, actually, since I hadn't noticed this behaviour before.) Edit: Just noticed that I am getting the Created stamps restored, as with the original poster. Still, having the Modified stamp restored would be handy too.
  19. Ah, thanks for clarifying this. I thought you had meant directly restoring ExtremeZ-IP data to a Mac client destination, rather than via a server volume.
  20. Interesting. I just tried this today, and the restored files had incorrect modification dates, and had lost the Mac 'creator program' attribute (or whatever it is called; the piece of data that distinguishes a Photoshop TIFF from a generic TIFF, for example). Duplicating between the server and Mac clients seems to have similar results. (Can't remember whether it was duplicating from server to Mac or from Mac to server that gave me the problems, but I think it was both.) Did you ever encounter this? Any idea on how to solve it? To be honest, I never expected this to work properly (given that Retrospect presumably uses a different NTFS<->HFS method to ExtremeZ-IP), but now that you've mentioned having it work for you, I'm curious. We're using ExtremeZ-IP 7 on a Win 2003 Small Business Server. Our Macs run OSX 10.5.8. As expected, restoring Mac client data back to the Mac client works just fine, as does restoring ExtremeZ-IP data back to the server (then copying to the Mac via ExtremeZ-IP).
  21. Do you get the error when disabling the "Backup Open Files" option? (Assuming you have a Retrospect version that supports Open File Backup.)
  22. Thanks for the suggestion. I actually wouldn't mind if the snapshots returned after a catalog rebuild. My main reasons for wanting to remove them are (a) to reduce the catalog size and ( to make the list of snapshots simpler/less cluttered (and therefore easier for co-workers to restore from, in case they ever need to while I am away). As always, I guess some testing will be the best way to find out. Cheers!
  23. That would be very annoying. Do you have either of the following Backup settings enabled? - Matching -> Match only files in same location - Security -> Backup file security information from workstations If so, does disabling either of those improve the situation?
  24. Hi all, I am backing up an entire hard drive to tape. (Actually, this particular tape set backs up several drives from the local machine, but let's just consider one for the purpose of this thread.) When I first created my tape backup set, I was backing up "subvolumes" within the hard drive, but have now switched to selecting the entire drive as my Source. Can I safely "forget" the snapshots of the older subvolumes (hence removing them from my catalog), now that I have an up-to-date snapshot of the entire drive that includes the contents of those older subvolumes? My assumption is yes, but I'm wondering if there's the possibility of side-effects that I haven't considered. Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...