Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by klubar

  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
  16. I'm using Retrospect 6.0 Server for Macintosh trying to back up PC clients running Windows XP. When I try to back up the windows clients I get an error 4096 when it goes to back up the .pst files from Outlook. Yes, outlook is open when I'm running the backup....HOWEVER, if I try to back up the same Windows client from Retrospect 6.5 for WINDOWS the backup works fine (including the outlook files). Is the macintosh server version missing some feature of the windows version? And what is error 4096 -- another mysterious, undocumented Retrospect error. Is there any way to back up PC clients (including outlook files) from the Macintosh?
  17. Also, windows certified is different than a "publisher could be verified" warning.
  18. Yes, but the clients download .exe's are not. When you download a client and go to unzip it, you get a security warning. With all the spoofing and phishing go on, it's important that vendors get certified!
  19. I've just downloaded what claims to be the 6.5 windows client from the Dantz site. When I go to run the downloaded .exe, IE gives a security warning that the "The publisher could not be verifed." WTF? At the prices that Dantz charges for the software they should be able to spring for a certificate to be a Windows verified software vendor. I could understand if the software was shareware, but at $1000's a site (or more) I expect better.
  20. I'm getting the following error, anyone have an idea what it means. It's not in the documentation and nothing comes up in searching the formums: TTicker::GetMS: TTicker('@PNG') has reached 21 days of 49 max thanks ken
  21. This was trying to back up a mounted linux SMB drive. Perhaps retrospect gets confused when it follows a symbolic link that points backs to the same directory. If course it would be helpful if retrospect displayed the full file name so I could confirm this. As usual, Retrospect has the world's most cryptic (and uncomprehensible) error messages. The UI of retrospect is certainly a "what were they thinking. The good news about the awlful design of retrospect is that it creates good job security. Once you've set up a retrospect back system, your boss is scared to fire you as no one else will ever figure it out!
  22. I'm getting a "Folder nesting too deep, contents ignored" error when I try to back up a mounted server (e.g., \\HYDRA\admin\home\klubar\.open...). Does Retrospect get confused by shortcuts/aliases/links? I couldn't find any references to this error in any of the documentation. thanks
  23. I'm trying to find clients using Backup Clients Database; when I click on "add..." nothing happens but I'm getting lots of the following errors in the log: mcipMakeXSocket: setsockopt(IP_MULTICAST_IF) failed with error 10049 If I test a known good client it shows up with the right IP address it does show the version. I couldn't find anything in the FAQs. I'm running XP SP2 and I've tried it with the firewall on and off. Thanks
  24. I currently back up some window clients using both Macintosh version 4.something and Windows 6.5 professional. The version of the client that ships with 6.5 is incompatible with the earlier Macintosh version. Can someone point me to a download for 5.6 client (only the most current versions are available in search). Thanks ken
  25. Sorry ... I just have to chime in here with a whine about the incredible poor error handling in Retrospect. Error codes (with negative numbers) are from 1960 ... why can't retrospect give clear, English errors that describe what's going on. If the program is running out of memory, disk space, or gets a driver errors say so. Don't give messages of the sort "an error occured, sorry". Also, what is "contigous memory". All PC since about 1995 have used virtual memory to map physical memory into what appears to be contigous memory. I think Retrospect is showing its Macintosh roots by a) blaming the OS and using unsupported system work-arounds. I've been a fan of Retrospect (and have used it on the Mac) since the 1990... but the program (and pricing) is due for a serious rework.
  • Create New...