Jump to content

v4.1i -109 error bad headerset eof unexpected filemark


Recommended Posts

Specs: MAC OSX 10.5.6, Retrospect 6.1.23, Sony DAT, ATTO card, non-intel

 

Backup sets made from time period 2001 and prior, from version 4.1i without exception, return "Trouble Positioning, error 109, Unexpected Filemark or FTP End of File. Bad Backup Header Set Found.

 

Forum entries suggest incompatible hardware compression between DAT drives, or bad media, but, error seems specific to all sets with icon that looks like a yellow dat tape.

 

Rebuild catalog, snapshot restore, missing tape strategies do not work.

 

Before reloading Classic OS9 on an old mac, swapping ATTO card, etc. Is there a work around for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Response from tech support : Backups created with 4.1 or 4.3 cannot be restored using any current version of Retrospect.

You would need a machine running the older Mac OS and a machine with the same hardware (or very similar) to be able to restore from the tapes made with 4.x.

 

---

 

My DAT drive is different from my year 2001 model, same brand, they don't last forever. I found a copy of 5.1 and reloaded it into my current setup, it appears to be dearchiving without problem. It will be necessary to convert (dearchive, rearchive) these sets to the latest version for easy future access.

 

I have not researched backward compatibility, from v8, which beta is not out on for non-intel macs. It could pose a similar scenario for v5 sets (?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Set names turned to garbage characters in the select storage set windo
w

 

Well, there is no "Select Storage Set" window in Retrospect 6.1, as the term Storage Set was changed to Backup Set with the update from 4.0 to 4.1.

 

- What were the steps that you took that corrupted your Backup Set Catalogs?

 

Was it:

 

Configure->Backup Sets->More...->Open...

 

And in that SFGet dialog box you see the name of your Catalog file with garbage characters? That would be really odd.

 

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Response from tech support : Backups created with 4.1 or 4.3 cannot be restored using any current version of Retrospect.

You would need a machine running the older Mac OS and a machine with the same hardware (or very similar) to be able to restore from the tapes made with 4.x.

That's a surprise to me. I do believe that I did a restore of a 2.0i and 4.x DAT tape about a year or so ago on our Xserve G5. May have been Retrospect 6.0, may have been 6.1. It was the same DAT drive used for the 4.x DAT tapes, different (replacement) DAT drive, but same vendor, as one used for the 2.0i DAT tapes.

 

We have that DAT drive on the shelf, and I'd have to do some SCSI recabling to make the test again (the DAT is SCSI-1 rather than LVD SCSI), but I sure recall making that retrieval.

 

Hmmm... if it's true that 6.1 doesn't work with those old tapes, then that's cause for us to rethink the whole Retrospect as backup issue. The only value of a backup program is if it can read its own old backups. We have stuck with Retrospect through thick and thin because of this commitment to being able to read old backups. If that's not possible, well, then that changes the entire evaluation matrix.

 

I have not researched backward compatibility, from v8, which beta is not out on for non-intel macs. It could pose a similar scenario for v5 sets (?)

If Retrospect 8 can't read 6.1 (and older) Retrospect tapes, then it's a non-starter for us, and means it's time to reevaluate our backup solution.

 

Russ

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Retrospect 8 can't read 6.1 (and older) Retrospect tapes, then it's a non-starter for us, and means it's time to reevaluate our backup solution.

 

Robin will probably give us the answer, but I for one will be very, very surprised if Retrospect 8 will recognize Backup Sets from any earlier version(s). It will be much like the difference between the Mac and Windows versions; that's how different the code probably is. Of course I'd be thrilled to be wrong, but even so I'm surprised at your position on this, Russ.

 

Putting aside the issue of whether or not Retrospect 6.1.x can Restore from Backup Sets and Storage Sets from pre 5.0 versions, why does the issue of 6<->8 compatibility effect your future choices so strongly?

 

No matter what, you are locked into Retrospect for the data you're already written. If you were to move your backups to other software, you would still need Retrospect to Restore from the miles and miles of tape you have archived. So you would still need the ability to run Retrospect "Classic" on a Macintosh.

 

Robin has said other-thread that Retrospect 6.1 and Retrospect 8.x can be installed safely on the same computer; at the time that I read that, I took it to describe the solution for older media restores.

 

If, in the future, Mac OS X changes so radically that Retrospect 6.1 is no longer capable of running on current machines, then that would certainly be cause for alarm; but moving to other software now would not change that potential future reality at all, so making such a change would only be motivated by pique.

 

You're obviously the most qualified to evaluate your needs and make the best decisions for your firm (and your partners are lucky to have you there, instead of having to call in some fancy Tennessee consultant!), but I would hope that personal pride or bruised egos would not be part of such a process.

 

Or am I missing something?

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Retrospect 8 can't read 6.1 (and older) Retrospect tapes' date=' then it's a non-starter for us, and means it's time to reevaluate our backup solution.[/quote']

 

Putting aside the issue of whether or not Retrospect 6.1.x can Restore from Backup Sets and Storage Sets from pre 5.0 versions, why does the issue of 6<->8 compatibility effect your future choices so strongly?

 

No matter what, you are locked into Retrospect for the data you're already written. If you were to move your backups to other software, you would still need Retrospect to Restore from the miles and miles of tape you have archived. So you would still need the ability to run Retrospect "Classic" on a Macintosh.

no, you are not missing anything, but it changes the backup evaluation matrix dramatically.

 

The only value to us of a backup program is if we can retrieve our backups back to day one. Those are our needs. If a backup vendor keeps changing its backup format so that old backups can't be retrieved, that's a deal-breaker strike against that vendor.

 

We are not expecting to be able to write to old backup sets, but we have an absolute requirement to be able to restore files from them. If the backup software doesn't have a commitment to that position for retrieving old backups made with its software, that's a deal breaker.

 

Yes, we would have to keep an old machine with old software to retrieve old backups made with Retrospect. I hadn't realized that we would need to also keep an old PPC that would boot Mac OS Classic to retrieve Retrospect 2.0 and 4.x backups, but I'll make that note.

 

The requirements of others may not match ours, and EMC can make its own product decisions. It just needs to understand the consequences.

 

The reason we have put up with the babysitting of all of Retrospect's quirks due to its ancient codebase was because of the belief that EMC was committed to the importance of customers being able to restore from backups made with its backup software (what a concept!). If that commitment is not there, well, it's time for us to re-evaluate. The ability to restore from backups is to be expected from a backup program. Other frills are nice, and have their place on the evaluation matrix, but backup software doesn't even make it to the evaluation matrix if that critical element isn't present.

 

Russ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, I'm not going to get into some public debate about what EMC's product decisions should be, or how they affect our choice of backup software. That's for EMC to decide, and I have provided my input.

 

However, here is the position that EMC has taken in the past, and it's matched my experience (as best as my aging brain can recall) that I've been able to retrieve files from old backup tapes:

 

Retrospect 6.0 backup sets: Retrospect 6.1 supports backup sets created with Retrospect 6.0. However, once you write to a 6.0 backup set with Retrospect 6.1, you may get errors if you try to use Retrospect 6.0 to restore from this backup set. New backup sets created with Retrospect 6.1 cannot be used with Retrospect 6.0.

 

...

 

Older Backup Sets: Starting with Retrospect 6.0, the format that Retrospect uses for backup sets' catalog files was changed to support some new features. [color:red]Users upgrading from a version of Retrospect earlier than 6.0 will need to create new backup sets in order to back up data.[/color] The new backup sets will not be recognized with previous versions of Retrospect. [color:red]Older backup sets will be treated as read-only. While users will not be able to append to pre-existing backup sets, they will be able to restore data from them, and will be able to recreate the older backup sets' catalog files from their media if necessary.[/color]

I can accept having to rebuild the catalog on an older backup set in order to have to retrieve from it, and I could accept having to run a conversion process or "Transfer" to a new format backup set in order to retrieve from old backups.

 

Law firms have a need to be able to know the state of a file, or what files were present, on any day back to the epoch. That's just the way it is. For our areas of practice, trademark cases stay open forever, as long as a mark has not been abandoned. Patent cases last for 20 years. Copyright cases, by the copyright clause of the constitution, are supposed to last for a limited time (75, 90, etc. years) but Walt Disney keeps extending the copyright term each time Mickey Mouse copyrights get near the end of their term.

 

But having old backup sets become irretrievable by a [color:red]backup program[/color] simply because a software vendor decides to make a new release of the program defeats the whole basis for having a backup program, at least for our purposes.

 

Tar can still read tar files back to the beginning of Unix. Been there, done that.

 

Russ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hadn't realized that we would need to also keep an old PPC that would boot Mac OS Classic to retrieve Retrospect 2.0 and 4.x

here is the position that EMC has taken in the past

 

I'm inclined to be suspicious of the information catgraphics received from tech support, unless he talked directly to Robin.

 

But I do think you're overreacting (and what better place then in public to say it!); users have been clamoring for years and years for Retrospect to be rewritten to become powerful enough to meet current demands. It's not as if this is just a casual point-upgrade. So if (and I say if, I don't know for sure) such an upgrade prevents backwards restore-compatibility, I wouldn't view it as major lack of commitment to the customer.

 

List your top three needs for a newly designed version of Retrospect.

Now pick two.

 

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

## hello, i created this post, and i am still waiting for the v8 backward compatibility answer from who deferred it to engineering.

 

--------

 

## I found this response to be untrue, as I reloaded v5.1 and was able to access v5.1 and prior tapes (to v4.x) from a g51.6mac running OSX Leopard:

---

From tech support : Backups created with 4.1 or 4.3 cannot be restored using any current version of Retrospect.You would need a machine running the older Mac OS and a machine with the same hardware (or very similar) to be able to restore from the tapes made with 4.x.

 

--------

 

## To this question: I followed the standard restore procedure, first window: restore > search for files and folders > "backup set" selection > more > pick x set. > corrupt characters appeared.

 

## When the set(s) I tried to access from v6.1 loaded into the v5.1 window (remember, had to reload v5.1), miscellaneous corrupted characters appeared as the file name. I reloaded "backup sets" that had not been accessed by v6.1 and there was no problem.

 

I just tried to recreate this error and it did not recur, so, i don't know what was going on. I did recatalog some old sets through 6.1, but still did not recreate that error on a quick test.

---

 

What were the steps that you took that corrupted your Backup Set Catalogs? Was it: Configure->Backup Sets->More...->Open...

 

And in that SFGet dialog box you see the name of your Catalog file with garbage characters? That would be really odd. - Dave

 

--------

 

## It would be nice if someone would test this to validate my findings, I post as a newby, but have been using the program since 1996 in a limited capacity. My data is not vast (maybe 1000+ gigs), and I was going to dearchive, rearchive to 6.1, but if v8 won't read v6.1, why bother. Waiting for v8 and some clarification from the manufacturer on this "detail".

 

--------

 

As to this from the 6.1 read me:

Older backup sets will be treated as read-only. While users will not be able to append to pre-existing backup sets, they will be able to restore data from them.

 

## I was not able to restore v5.1 and prior tapes from v6.1 (error109).

 

---

 

...and this: I can accept having to rebuild the catalog on an older backup set in order to have to retrieve from it...

 

## Did that from v6.1, didn't work, same errors.

 

---

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

## hello, i created this post, and i am still waiting for the v8 backward compatibility answer from who deferred it to engineering.

Eric Ullman, EMC Retrospect Director of Product Development, answered the Version 8 backward compatibility question in this thread:

Retrospect 8 backward compatibility

 

## I found this response to be untrue, as I reloaded v5.1 and was able to access v5.1 and prior tapes (to v4.x) from a g51.6mac running OSX Leopard:

Ah, that's a variable whose significance I hadn't appreciated - that you are trying this on Leopard. I haven't made that test, and my tests were using Tiger on an Xserve G5 (I don't know what a "g51.6mac" is, pardon my ignorance) - Last retrieval that I made from old DAT tapes was about a year or so ago, and, as indicated above, I don't recall whether it was using Retrospect 6.0 or 6.1, and I'd have to do a bit of SCSI recabling (the DAT drive is SCSI-1, not LVD SCSI) in order to make the test again. We made the switch from DAT/Retrospect 4.x to VXA/autoloader/Retrospect 6 when we switched over to Mac OS X with 10.4. Your results are probably correct, though, for Leopard because I've never made the restore test on Leopard.

 

As you can see, though, from Eric Ullman's post (follow link above), there seems to be a commitment to allow retrieval from older backups using Retrospect 8, but probably not in the initial release.

 

I'm sure that Laurie Gill, whom Eric Ullman indicates just rejoined the Retrospect development team, would be able to know the definitive answer (or point the finger at who messed up her code in her absence to break retrieval of older backup sets).

 

Russ

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears to be a bumpy road ahead, with one foot in the past and one in the future.

 

-- i did again try to load into 5.1, "backup" sets that had been accessed by later version 6.1, as a test, and it crashed the program. earlier i stated that it returned corrupt characters.--- so, i would propose not touching sets prior to 5.1 (or 6.0 (untested)) with later versions (6.1 forward), the software must tag the set somehow causing it to be incompatible.

 

g516 = g5 1.6 ghz single core non-intel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would propose not touching sets prior to 5.1 (or 6.0 (untested)) with later versions (6.1 forward), the software must tag the set somehow causing it to be incompatible.

 

Agreed; this behavior was noted when 6.x first shipped, and reinforces the importance of having backups of your Catalog files stored safely on non-volatile (or less volatile) media.

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...