Jump to content

Verify operation fails - what does it mean?


Recommended Posts

I'm running Mac Retro 14.1.0.138 on Mac OS X 10.8 on a Mac mini. I *just* upgraded a few days ago.

 

I normally run a verify script on the media sets, primarily to get early warning on failing media/disks.  This run, I see this:

 

--Script Summary--

* Script: Verify
* Date: 7/2/2017 4:08 PM
* Errors: 1
* Warnings: 0
* Performance: 30148.2 MB/minute
* Duration: 00:15:52
* Server: virtue

--Log--
+ Executing Verify at 7/2/2017 3:53 PM
To Backup Set v9_daily_EIMS_last...

"EIMS3/EIMS_3.3.9/Mail Folder/mcinteriors.com/design/Drafts" chain broken
6/5/2017 11:55:09 PM missing
6/7/2017 11:55:37 PM missing
6/13/2017 11:55:28 PM verified
6/14/2017 11:55:08 PM verified
6/15/2017 11:55:24 PM verified
6/16/2017 11:55:46 PM verified
6/17/2017 11:55:12 PM verified
6/19/2017 11:55:19 PM verified
6/20/2017 11:55:15 PM verified
6/21/2017 11:55:08 PM verified
6/22/2017 11:55:29 PM verified
6/23/2017 11:55:20 PM verified
6/26/2017 11:55:12 PM verified
6/27/2017 11:55:26 PM verified
6/28/2017 11:55:17 PM verified
6/29/2017 11:55:26 PM verified
6/30/2017 11:55:25 PM verified
7/2/2017 4:08:57 PM: 1 execution errors
Completed: 9862 files, 466.7 GB
Performance: 30148.2 MB/minute
Duration: 00:15:50
 

Note: the media set is 69 GB, not 466 GB. The count of files is right. That was the count on the media set copy operation that ran yesterday to create this media set.

 

What do these messages mean? Can I infer that my 6/5 and 6/7 snaps are "missing", but the others are OK? Can I still use this backup set, or is it toast?

 

Do tell It would be nice to have an explanation without my needing to run tests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

dzeleznik reported the same type of error for the latest version of Retrospect Windows in this post in the Windows Products—Retrospect->Professional forum.  As I said in my first post in that thread, one of the two of you had better file a Support Case.  As my second post in that thread, I posted my usual boilerplate explanation of why and how to file a Support Case; therefore I won't repeat it in this thread—especially since iCompute has probably already seen it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

iCompute should note that dzeleznik has now done some thorough testing of his/her Retrospect Windows 12.1 "chain broken" errors, and it looks as if this is a new bug in the latest version of Retrospect.  In the second paragraph of this post in that thread I have strongly urged dzeleznik to file a Support Case, since he/she has the material to do so.

 

In the third paragraph of that post I have made the controversial suggestion that dzeleznik, who evidently upgraded to the latest paid version of Retrospect Windows within the last 45 days, should phone Retrospect Sales and ask for a refund of his/her upgrade fee—an expedient which will almost certainly bring the new bug promptly to the attention of Retrospect Support/Engineering.  I have also discussed the possible downside of doing that, so—if iCompute wants to also consider that expedient—he should read the full paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dzeleznik has done further testing and analysis of his/her Retrospect Windows 12.1 "chain broken" errors, as reported in this post.  His/her conclusions include:

"

  • My backup set [Retrospect Windows term for Media Set] had real latent errors that were never reported or detected by v11.
  • v12 incremental verify [what you get when you don't specify the Verify entire Media Set option for a Verify script per page 142 of the Retrospect Mac 14 User's Guide] on a v11-maintained backup set reports a mixture of real errors and false positives.

"  

I think everyone should read that post, which obviously makes my "controversial suggestion" in the second paragraph of post #4 of this thread irrelevant, in full.  Presumably those conclusions also apply to Retrospect Mac 14 vs. Retrospect Mac 13 (and previous versions?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think that one means that there are bits missing in a block-wise incremental backup. I've seen a similar problem before in an earlier version, the last update to v13, I think.

 

If you read the post I linked to in the first sentence of post #5 in this thread, you'll see that (if I'm reading him/her correctly) dzeleznik's item 2 says that some smaller files—that I assume were not enabled for block-level incremental backup—got "chain broken" errors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

FWIW, I did restore files from teh reported error messages, and they came back intact. My limited testing verified that these are not "real" errors.

 

 

iCompute, had the files that you restored intact been enabled for block-level incremental backup, or were they smaller files that had not been enabled for block-level incremental backup?

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.

Guest
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.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...