Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

klubar's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. It would be great if there was a way to filter the history tab, making it easier to find/inspect particular scripts. I'd like the ability to include (and/or exclude) particular scripts or one-time runs. I have a script that runs every 4 hours (user desktop backup) that totally clutters the History tab.
  2. Due to a bug in an early V17 release, we were seeing thousands of errors on duplicate actions. This led to the confusing column entry for Errors, Warnings 17,141, 2 That would be 17,141 errors and 2 warnings. The duplicate comma in entry is confusing. These really should be two separate columns.
  3. It would be super helpful if we could add a day of week column to the history tab on the Activity Monitor. Often, I want to check "Friday's backup" and it's inconvenient to have to go from date to day. There already is a day of week (day) column in the Scheduled tab.
  4. I just looked into RAID options for a file server (a different use case than a back up server) and ended up going with 4x4TB + hot spare in RAID 10 for a total usable of 8 TB. My rationale was the performance and rebuild time. (Also have DFS-R to replicate to second server, so 11 X 4TB drives ended up with 8TB usable -- 2 servers * 5 drives + 1 cold spare = 11 drives.) This is a file server -- not a backup strategy. For a backup server, I'm not sure I'd go with RAID at all. I'd rotate across multiple spindles for each backup. For the same number of drives, I'd get more backups and my risk is only needing to go back 12 hours instead of 6 (assuming 4 sets and every 6 hours). Perhaps the reason to go RAID is to have bigger drives. If I did go RAID on a backup server, I'd suck of the disk space and stick with RAID 1. With a large RAID/drive set the rebuild time is going to kill you -- plus the risk of a URE on rebuild. Also, unless you're getting a better disk controller (HBA), the built-in Intel raid on most motherboards isn't that good.
  5. Did you ever get this working? I'm interested in giving it a try, but was wondering if you had any advice?
  6. I backup our file server to a remote system using retrospect duplicate. I recently upgraded our server to 9 and the remote client to the latest client version. Prior to the upgrade we were getting 21.5 mB/minute, after upgrade we're getting 1.2 mB/minute. No obvious differences other than the retrospect versions. The most recent results were with a completed unloaded network on both ends. The remote machine has about a 50mb/sec connection and the server has at least 5 mb/second upload. (21.5 mB/minute is about 2.8mb/second, which is about what I'd expect). Any suggestion on where to look? I'm going to try rebooting both machines and see if that helps. After upgrade log: + Duplicate using emi1 offiset remote at 5/26/2014 3:36 PM (Execution unit 1) 5/26/2014 3:36:58 PM: Connected to S002 (w2008 primary) 5/26/2014 3:36:58 PM: Connected to SSD-Raptor (offsite backup) To volume emi1_backup on SSD-Raptor (offsite backup)... - 5/26/2014 3:36:58 PM: Copying emi1 on S002 (w2008 primary) 5/27/2014 8:11:51 AM: Execution stopped by operator Remaining: 18333 files, 8.5 GB Completed: 678 files, 1.4 GB Performance: 1.4 MB/minute Duration: 16:34:52 (00:01:55 idle/loading/preparing) 5/27/2014 8:11:51 AM: Script "emi1 offiset remote" stopped by operator Before upgrade log: + Duplicate using emi1 offiset remote at 5/14/2014 11:30 PM (Execution unit 3) 5/14/2014 11:30:00 PM: Connected to S002 (w2008 primary) 5/14/2014 11:30:00 PM: Connected to SSD-Raptor (offsite backup) To volume emi1_backup on SSD-Raptor (offsite backup)... - 5/14/2014 11:30:00 PM: Copying emi1 on S002 (w2008 primary) File "removed": can't read, error -1020 ( sharing violation) File "removed": can't read, error -1020 ( sharing violation) File "removed": can't read, error -1017 ( insufficient permissions) 5/15/2014 1:33:04 AM: 3 execution errors Remaining: 3 files, 5,247 KB Completed: 5145 files, 2.2 GB Performance: 18.6 MB/minute Duration: 02:02:51 (00:04:15 idle/loading/preparing)
  7. I'm looking at upgrading to 9 and would like to hear more about your problems.. thanks
  8. At support's recommendation we recently "upgraded" our server from release 8.1 to 8.2. The email notification didn't work in release 8.1 (actually I think it broke in 8.0) so support recommended that it was fixed in 8.2. It was only half fixed in 8.2 - we get an error in the log, but a least the emails are sent. I have to say that our email server is about a plain jane as you can get--and hasn't changed much in the past 10 years. It's pretty clear that retrospect does the most cursory QC before shipping a release to not have found this bug. So we upgraded to 8.2 which just fails to do backups (hey, what should we expect it's backup software) and crashes with an "Assertion failure at db.cpp-170". When I submitted this bug to retrospect, their answer was "This error is caused by a bug in Retrospect 8.2. We are releasing fix for this bug later this month. Until that fix is released, you will probably want to return to Retrospect 8.1, which should not experience this error. ". The "we're releasing a fix sometime later" and "should not experience" doesn't give me much confidence. What ever happened to TESTING the software before releasing it? My irritation with retrospect is particularly compounded by the nearly daily spammy marketing emails promoting their new PerfectDisk defrag software. Yea right, they can't even ship a working version of backup software and I'm going to trust them to scribble all over my disk trying to defrag it.
  9. I have to say that I don't think grooming works either. I've tried the various voodoo that has been recommended (new disk drives, controllers, cables, magic pixie dust) and nothing worked consistently. I've switched my backup policy to recycle backups every three weeks -- which means that we have back up our entire server every week (three backups by three weeks), but it has worked reliably.
  10. I had great hopes that this update was going to fix the email bug. But my hopes were dashed yet again. I applied the update and getting: E-mail notification failed: error -511 ( unknown service message) The really annoying thing is that the email notifications used to work, and broke in 8.1 and are still broken in 8.2. Sending emails is pretty much a solved science. We run a simple local server on the same network as the retrospect server. Nothing fancy.
  11. We've been a Retrospect users for more than 20 years, starting back in the Mac days. It used to be a great program, but I have to say that the quality of the software and support has good dramatically downhill. We're currently using Single Server 8.1.0 (266) and it's been nothing but one minor problem after another. The upgrade to from 8.0 to the required beta version wasn't automatic but was required--we had to manually go to each machine to install it; then when 8.1 came out we had to repeat the same process. The prescan adds considerable overhead (and is always gets marked as dirty anyways) that we've turned it off. For months now the E-mail notification has been broken (you'd think that someone would have checked it before shipping the software). Support's answer to the issues is "tough-we know about the problem and we're fix it whenever we feel like it". Grooming catalog sets does not work reliably enough to be trusted for critical backups (aren't all backups critical?). We've given up on grooming and just do recycle backups every three weeks. Why can't Retrospect get grooming right (or just drop it, if it doesn't work). We've recently encountered a problem with errors 106 in a previously working backup script. After several hours, surprise support requested that we rebuild the catalog. Of course this didn't work. I tried to update my support case this morning, and the support system was broken (I guess that's one way to keep those pesky customers from complaining). I'm sure the answer will be groom (which takes days and never works). It doesn't seem like support wants to solve any issues, but instead just wear you down with silly (and time consuming requests) -- have you tried reinstalling the OS, reformat the drive, more the computer to a sunnier spot? Our ASM "support" contract is up, and
  12. I'm having hte exact same problem.... retrospect single server 8.1 running on Windows XP; I have to say that this makes me doubt whether the release was tested before being shipped. 8.1 is really quite buggy -- which is ok for something like Angry Birds, but not what you want to rely on for your critical backups.
  13. Actually the warning isn't during install, it's during the unpacking of the .exe download. The publisher of the .exe can't be verified. Once unloaded the application is verified.
  14. I don't get it... during the backup process the server has to look at every file (and could gather the required information). While it is doing the back up the CPU is nearly idle--an ideal time to build the snapshot. Somehow the usual excuse of "blaming it on microsoft" doesn't wash here. It just lazy/bad programming/too much trouble to overlap the snapshot with other activity in a separate thread. The server could be processing the registry at the same time it is doing the backup.
  15. Here's the answer I received from Dantz/it appears to be a bug/error in reporting errors (also known as a bug). It appears that the Mac version of Retrospect is significantly worse than the PC version---the PC versions have no problem backing up Outlook (and the registry).... What's the point of a backup program if it can't backup one the most important PC files? The error you received when trying to backup the open .pst files is perfectly normal. For some reason we are reporting it as a 4096 error rather than a simple -49 error file in use. With retrospect on the MAC, you will not be able to backup all open files on either Mac or windows clients. You can setup an event handler to shut out of outlook before the backup, otherwise manually close the program on the client machine. The reason for the windows version being able to backup the .pst is because windows has an open file backup agent in the OS. Let me know if you have any questions regarding this, I would be happy to answer them for you. Thanks, and have a great weekend. John Cruey
  • Create New...