Jump to content

boomcha

Members
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by boomcha

  1. Thanks, I just bought the 17 upgrade and installed, updated the clients and all that. Seems to be working correctly as I can see it go throught 1 of, 2 of 3, 3 of 3 and I've tried a few machines and looks to be ok now.
  2. Not sure it doesn't matter if its an APFS drive or not. This also happens on external HFS+ drives on another client as well consistently as well. That one is running Sierra but same version Yes on both counts about "jorge". The machines are usually logged in and screen locked. Upgrading might be the option, but didn't want to throw money away if nothing gets resolved. I'm given RS a call to see what they say, and they are recommending upgrading to 17. So I'll try that. It's also recommended to Disable Instant Scan.
  3. Hey Nigel, I did not have Instant Scan turned on because of how much of resource hog it is usually but I will test it with it turned on. I'm not using any rules and initiating the backup myself (not through scripts). OS Server machine: High Sierra latest RS.14.6.2 (8TB RED drive is a regular HFS+ volume) OS Client machine: Mojave using RS 14.6 Client (APFS format) "jorge" is my user on the client machine FYI. The same thing happens on other machines that both external drives were HFS+ volumes and mounted on the same client machine too FYI so I don't think it's something to do with volume format. Just after that log, I did initiate a scan of just the "jorge" user and it found everything it needed and backed up normally as it does. But I will test it over the next little bit with Instant Scan On for sure.
  4. I'm still using version 14.6.2 on my old Mac Pro because it's been pretty reliable with LTO drives, however I do have an issue which I have been lazy to fix in the last couple of years. It's just getting really annoying now and I worry I'm going to miss it one day and mess up my back ups. I'm backing up to a media set and I choose two sources, one local (the 8TB RED drive) and then the second source in this case is a networked machine called "jorge". The first source to scan will backup fine and verify but the second drive source won't at all as you can see from the log. BUT if I then rescan the "jorge" again by itself then it will find the files it needs and back it up normally. Basically the matching doesn't work for the second source. This phenomenon will also happen on other sources with two drives attached. Does anyone have any ideas why? The log below is what it says: Normal backup using Backup Assistant - 2021-02-04, 5:43 PM at 2021-02-04, 5:44:29 PM To Backup Set JORGE SPRING 2019 BU... - 2021-02-04 5:44:29 PM: Copying jorge on MacBook Pro 2021-02-04 5:51:16 PM: Found: 328161 files, 100732 folders, 621.5 GB 2021-02-04 5:51:21 PM: Finished matching 2021-02-04 5:51:27 PM: Copying: 0 files (0 B) and 0 hard links 2021-02-04 5:52:35 PM: Building Snapshot... 2021-02-04 5:52:35 PM: Checking 100,732 folders for ACLs or extended attributes 2021-02-04 5:54:41 PM: Finished copying 70,124 folders with ACLs or extended attributes 2021-02-04 5:54:42 PM: Copying Snapshot: 2 files (122.1 MB) 2021-02-04 5:54:48 PM: Snapshot stored, 122.1 MB 2021-02-04 5:54:48 PM: Comparing jorge on MacBook Pro 2021-02-04 5:54:53 PM: Execution completed successfully Duration: 00:10:23 (00:09:12 idle/loading/preparing) - 2021-02-04 5:54:53 PM: Copying 8TB RED 2021-02-04 5:55:02 PM: Found: 55577 files, 20599 folders, 3.3 TB 2021-02-04 5:55:03 PM: Finished matching 2021-02-04 5:55:04 PM: Copying: 818 files (89.7 GB) and 0 hard links 2021-02-04 6:07:00 PM: Building Snapshot... 2021-02-04 6:07:00 PM: Checking 20,599 folders for ACLs or extended attributes 2021-02-04 6:07:01 PM: Finished copying 890 folders with ACLs or extended attributes 2021-02-04 6:07:01 PM: Copying Snapshot: 2 files (20.9 MB) 2021-02-04 6:07:05 PM: Snapshot stored, 20.9 MB 2021-02-04 6:07:05 PM: Comparing 8TB RED 2021-02-04 6:22:49 PM: Execution completed successfully Completed: 818 files, 89.7 GB Performance: 7,701.4 MB/minute (7,712.2 copy, 7,690.6 compare) Duration: 00:27:55 (00:04:02 idle/loading/preparing) 2021-02-04 6:22:49 PM: Execution completed successfully Total performance: 7,332.7 MB/minute Total duration: 00:38:18 (00:13:15 idle/loading/preparing)
  5. I no longer have to maintain a huge archive of old work backed up with those versions for someone else but still use Retrospect for my one man retouching show, but I think that you are proposing makes sense. This way you would be able to pick and choose what gets restored and actually verify that it's working and still there. The only thing that you would lose would be all the different versions of files if you needed them because of the incremental backup.
  6. I'm still struggling with this as well. I don't have anything fancy in my little network, all through Cat 6A and standard consumer/home office grade gear that works perfect otherwise. I believe this bug was introduced in 14.6 as I never had any issues before. I have a ticket open and as of the latest beta version in Retrospect 15 it wasn't fixed yet. I don't want to pay for version 15 if this is something that they broke in 14. Essentially my issue is that Retrospect server won't see the clients and thus errors out in -530. Locating the device finds it again and it works until the next time the machines are rebooted and then its busted again.
  7. I'm getting this pretty consistently and it's a bit annoying, updated the clients a couple of times and still the same.
  8. Just choose your drive using the Backup process and then browse it and manually select all the stuff you need to back up (it should say Manual Selection at the bottom) and then go through the wizard and double check it again (in Browse) before you press start.
  9. Another vote for LTO. I like HP drives.
  10. Perhaps you can do half of the files (not sure how you are structured), and then do the rest in folder increments, this way you can narrow down what is missing. Of course this works best if you have everything in folders already or something.
  11. I agree, this is a major major major screwup and a bit of BS. Retrospect should spend the time and money and fix this issue for all of us that have used this software since the 90's. Rebuilding these version 5 and 6 catalogs takes A LOT of time since the media is fragile. I just spent half a day installing Parallels and installing OS X 10.6 Server so that we don't have to boot up off a 10.6.8 installation (interrupting work) to retrieve old work that is sometimes required. My Parallels idea didn't work since Parallels doesn't access SCSI or Firewire devices. The idea of old software on old hardware is a great one but if said machine dies and you have a few 10's of terabytes (all on 25GB AIT tapes, do the math) it becomes an exercise in futility. Come on Retrospect get with the program and fix this. You are a back up software company.
  12. Any updates on when a revision is coming? I need to upgrade to 10.8.3 and this is the only issue preventing us from doing so.
  13. How are you running 10.7.4 on a G5? You can't install Lion on a PPC G5 machine. And with Lion Apple removed the ability to use Rosetta to run PPC apps so you can't run Retrospect 6 on Lion. That's why you have to upgrade to Retrospect version 9.0 or run something else. I agree that the docs showing version 8 is amateur hour though. Version 9 is update from 8 so a lot of the stuff is shared but still a bit discomforting to see that they didn't bother to update the docs properly.
  14. Hi everyone, was wondering if anyone got 6.1 and 9 to co-exist in the same machine at the same time. I'm just concerned about making triple sure that our daily backups are reliable and would like to do a backup in both versions for a small period of time. Any experiences with this?
  15. Thanks for the replies everyone. Finally getting around to testing an upgrade path and I'm liking R9 so far.
  16. Hi there, I need to know the answer to this question before we go ahead and upgrade our working backup system. 1) Can I read storage sets created in v6.1 (or earlier) in version 9? Do retrievals actually work?
×
×
  • Create New...