Jump to content

Retro 9 – Ghastly Performance Trying To Restore From Large Catalogs


Recommended Posts

I've been experimenting with Retro 9 for the past couple of days. I was using a copy of Config80 from Retro 8.2, and things seemed to be working well in terms of accessing clients, performing backups. etc.


Today I was planning to experiment with restores, so I clicked on the Restore icon. I was disappointed that it took over 10 minutes for the window to open. As I clicked through the restore pages, things were ghastly slow with repetitive SPODs, so I canceled out, quit the console and stopped the engine.


I restarted the engine, launched the console, and clicked on Restore again. This time, the restore window did not appear after waiting a half hour, so I force-quit the console and then stopped the engine.


My initial assumption was that there was likely something wrong with the old Config80 file, so I wanted to try things with a clean slate. I therefore performed a complete uninstall and reinstall of Retro 9. With the bare, default configuration, the Restore window opened immediately. I canceled out, went to the Media Sets window, clicked on Locate, and navigated to one of our media set catalogs, file size 3.5 GB, containing about 4.5 million files. It took about 20 seconds for the catalog to be listed in the window, but about 10 seconds later the console went SPOD. Activity Monitor showed the console as "not responding" for about 10 minutes. When it seemed to have settled down, I went back to the console, which was still SPODing more than not. I hit command-Q and was finally able to get the console to quit normally. Upon relaunch, everything seemed happy, so I clicked on "Restore," which made the console unresponsive again. After another half-hour, I force-quit the console.


I had the same experience with a second clean configuration, linking to another 8.2 catalog of similar size.


I am now in the process of performing a catalog rebuild to see if that makes any difference, but I would be interested in knowing if anyone has successfully performed a Retro 9 restore from a similarly-large catalog or been able to link to a large 8.x catalog without problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Steve Maser

I have the exact same problem -- but even with a *tiny* catalog file (something that is only 6M in size...) The only way I've gotten around it (so far) is to create a new media set in Retro 9 and "copy media set" from the bad set to the good set.


That said -- this is a bug and hopefully there will be a quick patch for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My catalog is 1.65GB, containing 2.6 million files. I created it in Retrospect 9, and the restore performance is very slow, as you wrote. But if I wait until the end of each beachball, I can restore successfully. Let's hope the engineers are reading this. I really want Retrospect 9 to be as great as 6 was...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I have been experiencing the same thing you are. When I watch what is going on in my activity monitor I notice that retrospect says that it is not responding. But notice that the CPU usage is still high and fluctuating. Have to say that it doesn't instil in me the greatest confidence. I still have an old version of Retrospect 6 running which we use for archiving our old jobs. It gets a regular workout each day with searching and retrieving data and is light years ahead on the responsiveness of the user interface. For me it is an issue when you have the opportunity to walk away and make a cup of tea after making a selection. I used to have such great confidence in this product but it just seems to be floundering a bit after multiple companies taking over this product. Hopefully we can see some real improvements shortly otherwise I feel that this product will die as people start to search for more reliable options and when it comes to your backups that what we are looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

When you see horrible performance, take a look in Activity Monitor, and see if noifyd and the Retro engine are each eating about 50% of a CPU. If so, kill notifyd and see if the performnce improves.


I've seen this several times. It may or may not be related to what you are seeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...