Tone Posted August 20, 2002 Report Share Posted August 20, 2002 It appears that Retrospect does not know how to handle upper & lower CASE in the proper unix fashion. Is this true? We have our main server which is currently running on a G4 with OS X 10.1 Server software installed. We are attempting to back it up with Retrospect ver. 5.0.205. It was evolved from previous Unix systems which were running on a SUN. It was first migrated to the Original Mac X Server software whatever it was called. So, there are many places where more that one file exists in the same directory which are spelled the same but have different capitalization. NOTE: These files exist on a UDF volume which is a RAID level 5 device. The main os is installed on the internal drive which is HFS+. Retrospect will back it up but I'm guessing that it is overwriting (or overriding) one file with the subsequent ones of the same spelling. THIS IS NOT COOL! Verification passes then report that the files don't match which means that it is comparing the wrong files. Now, the kind of backup I'm doing is actually a "duplicate" from one volume to another. This may be the whole source of the problem, the source is UDF and the destination is HFS+. Is it the case where one file system supports case sensitivity and the other doesn't? If this is the situation then Retrospect isn't giving me any warning or options to deal with this. All suggestions welcome. Thanks Tony Jacobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeDave Posted August 20, 2002 Report Share Posted August 20, 2002 In reply to: This may be the whole source of the problem, the source is UDF and the destination is HFS+. Is it the case where one file system supports case sensitivity and the other doesn't? Yes. HFS+ is not aware of case in file names. If this is the situation then Retrospect isn't giving me any warning or options to deal with this. Have you tried a Finder copy of the same sorts of files? How is that handled? Starting with the ReadMe that comes with Retrospect, Dantz has been quite up front about the fact that 5.0 does not support UFS: http://www.dantz.com/index.php3?SCREEN=kbase&ACTION=KBASE&id=27252 Other Knowledge Base articles give the same information: http://www.dantz.com/index.php3?SCREEN=kbase&ACTION=KBASE&id=27241 and http://www.dantz.com/index.php3?SCREEN=kbase&ACTION=KBASE&id=27267 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tone Posted August 20, 2002 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2002 >Have you tried a Finder copy of the same sorts of files? How is that handled? Yes, the Finder gets stuck when it gets to the second copy with the same name thinking that it is already there. OS X 10.2 could side step that but I'm still on 10.1. Tone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tone Posted August 21, 2002 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2002 >Starting with the ReadMe that comes with Retrospect, Dantz has been quite up front about the fact >that 5.0 does not support UFS: This is what the ReadMe says: "UFS Format Volumes: This version of Retrospect does not work with volumes formatted as UFS." This statement is in fact, not true. It *DOES* work with UFS, only it doesn't work correctly. It doesn't give you any warning and you have no idea that you are working with a UFS volume (as in my case). They should have patched later version to warn you (preferable) or dissallowed UFS volumes from being selected (prohibitive). With the proper warning and understanding of what doesn't work right under UFS it can probably be worked around. I *HAVE* used Retrospect to back up most all of our UFS volume. It appears to me that there are two main problems, 1) case sensitivity, 2) aliases or symbolic links??? The second one I'm not exactly sure about as it gives me a -43 error (file/folder not found) and doesn't give any further explaination as to the problem and it just stops scanning. So my question to Dantz is? How far off is UFS support? I'd like to know to help me decide if I should wait or take the time to reformat the volume as UFS. Thanks Tony Jacobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 21, 2002 Report Share Posted August 21, 2002 We do hope to add support for UFS soon, but it's not possible to give a timeline, I'm afraid. If you want to properly back these volumes up using Retrospect at this time, they will need to be formatted as HFS+. Irena Solomon Dantz Tech Support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.