cfieldgate Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 Hi, I am running Retrospect Professional 9 and last night one of the backups had 4 warnings. Is this a block level incremental backup failure? The files are catalogs from Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, and as such it is important (to me) that they are backed up correctly. + Normal backup using Homer 7 - Adobe Lightroom at 27/03/2014 03:13 To Backup Set Lightroom... - 27/03/2014 03:13:04: Copying Lightroom on Homer Using Instant Scan Backing up 4 files using block level incremental backup. 27/03/2014 04:39:54: Snapshot stored, 238.6 MB 27/03/2014 04:41:03: Comparing Lightroom on Homer File "D:\Lightroom\2010\Lightroom 5 Catalog\Lightroom 5 Catalog.lrcat": didn't compare File "D:\Lightroom\2011\Lightroom 5 Catalog\Lightroom 5 Catalog.lrcat": didn't compare File "D:\Lightroom\2012\Lightroom 5 Catalog\Lightroom 5 Catalog.lrcat": didn't compare File "D:\Lightroom\2013\Lightroom 5 Catalog\Lightroom 5 Catalog.lrcat": didn't compare 27/03/2014 04:44:08: Execution completed successfully Completed: 5 files, 559.8 MB, with 74% compression Performance: 572.3 MB/minute (1248.0 copy, 182.5 compare) Duration: 01:31:04 (01:26:12 idle/loading/preparing) 27/03/2014 04:44:22: Script "Homer 7 - Adobe Lightroom" completed successfully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scillonian Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 Are you using media verification or full verification? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfieldgate Posted March 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 Are you using media verification or full verification? I have the "Thorough verification on" option set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scillonian Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 Retrospect 9.0.1 was made available for download on 27 March 2014 and the following is in the release notes: FIXED Compare issue with thorough verify during block level incremental backup of local NTFS files with OBJECT_ID stream (#449 This could be what you are experiencing. Retrospect 9.0.1 is available here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfieldgate Posted March 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2014 Retrospect 9.0.1 was made available for download on 27 March 2014 and the following is in the release notes: This could be what you are experiencing. Retrospect 9.0.1 is available here. Thanks. Downloading now . P.S. I recycled the backup to be sure of having these file backed up. EDIT: OK, so now the (database) files back up correctly but not at block level incremental. + Normal backup using Homer 7 - Adobe Lightroom at 31/03/2014 03:15 To Backup Set Lightroom... - 31/03/2014 03:15:16: Copying Lightroom on Homer Backing up 0 files using block level incremental backup. 31/03/2014 04:47:31: Snapshot stored, 238.6 MB 31/03/2014 04:48:37: Comparing Lightroom on Homer 31/03/2014 04:48:45: Execution completed successfully Completed: 1 files, 72.9 MB, with 0% compression Performance: 98.2 MB/minute (53.3 copy, 728.5 compare) Duration: 01:33:29 (01:31:59 idle/loading/preparing) 31/03/2014 04:48:57: Script "Homer 7 - Adobe Lightroom" completed successfully I would have thought this was an ideal file to back up block level incrementally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted April 2, 2014 Report Share Posted April 2, 2014 Remember that BLIB only works for files over 100MB's (by default). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scillonian Posted April 2, 2014 Report Share Posted April 2, 2014 Is the lightroom catalog a package or an actual file? If it is a package, each item inside the package is backed up as an individual file. The Lightroom catalog file is an SQLite database file. Lightroom has an option to optimise the database file which may change the file sufficiently to trigger a full backup [if the file is over 100MB]. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfieldgate Posted April 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 Mayoff/Scillonian, I hadn't realised that a 100MB limit applied, which would explain why this file at 72.9MB was not compressed - some of these files are >>100MB e.g. 500+MB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.