DVD DL error 203

[TonyQ]

Hi. I've been using Retrospect 6.1.138 on a dual core 2.4 ghz Imac running Leopard 10.5.4. I've never had a problem with Ritek DL+R media before. Retrospect was backing up media to the 3rd disc in a set and reported a 203 hardware failure error. I put in a new disc and got the same error. I inserted another disc and that wrote succesfully. Here's the killer: When I try to restore anything from the 3rd disc, it is not recognized as compatible and is called "unknown". The disc is shot so my entire backup set is blown because I don't know exactly what is on that disk. Is there a way I can remake that third disc? Is there a way to tell Retrospect, "Hey, can you replace what is on backup disc #3?" The program knows what is on what but is there a way I can get that stuff backed up without redoing 26 gigabytes of information.

 

That said, does anybody have a suggestion as to the safest DVD-DL medium to use. Please use specific brand names and numbers if applicable.

 

Thank you so much . . . in advance.

-Tony

 

[twickland]

Is there a way to tell Retrospect, "Hey, can you replace what is on backup disc #3?"

Go to Configure> Backup Sets> Configure [your backup set]> Members. Highlight the damaged member and click "Set Missing." Retrospect will then again back up everything that was on that disc member (provided, of course, that the files are still on your source volume).

[TonyQ]

Thanks Twickland. That's exactly what I was looking for. I was going to rebuild the catalog from scratch but this is even better. I'm hoping the moral of the story is "Don't delete any data until the member of the set is full". I'm assuming that once you get a successful disc that has been filled and verified, Retrospect won't spit out a 203 error on a read. Any thoughts on the best DL DVD media?

 

Thanks,

Tony

[TonyQ]

Go to Configure> Backup Sets> Configure [your backup set]> Members. Highlight the damaged member and click "Set Missing." Retrospect will then again back up everything that was on that disc member (provided, of course, that the files are still on your source volume).

 

Oops. I replied to soon. I did exactly what you said. I took the member out of the loop but Retrospect did not register it as missing when it came to back up. It says everything is backed up even though member #3 has been registered as missing. As a matter of fact there are still 4 members listed in the summary (out of a total of 4). I restarted the program, still nothing has changed. Looks like I'm going to have to rebuild after all . . .

-Tony

 

[twickland]

I took the member out of the loop but Retrospect did not register it as missing when it came to back up. It says everything is backed up even though member #3 has been registered as missing. As a matter of fact there are still 4 members listed in the summary (out of a total of 4).

When you mark a member as missing, a "poof" symbol should replace the checkmark next to the name of the member, but the missing member will remain on the list. (That's so you have the option to specify it as "found" at some point in the future.)

 

Does the "poof" symbol appear next to member #3? If it doesn't, you may have inadvertently reset it to "found."

 

If the poof symbol is present, I would then ask whether there is any possibility that you may have backed up to a subsequent member a more recent version of each of the files that were on member #3 that are slated to be backed up by your selection criteria.

[TonyQ]

When you mark a member as missing, a "poof" symbol should replace the checkmark next to the name of the member, but the missing member will remain on the list. (That's so you have the option to specify it as "found" at some point in the future.)

 

Does the "poof" symbol appear next to member #3? If it doesn't, you may have inadvertently reset it to "found."

 

If the poof symbol is present, I would then ask whether there is any possibility that you may have backed up to a subsequent member a more recent version of each of the files that were on member #3 that are slated to be backed up by your selection criteria.

 

Thanks for your reply. Yes there is a poof. What happened is that when Retrospect kicked up the 203 error it automatically registered the bad member and backed it up. My previous versions of Retrospect (from way back) wouldn't do this so I assumed it wasn't properly tagging those dead files. Thanks a million, er, a billion for your help.

-Tony