Mayoff Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Retrospect 8.1.148 includes support for the engine and console running on Power PC. For the highest possible performance, use a higher powered Power PC whenever possible. The minimum configuration for the engine on Power PC is: Power PC G5 processor, or dual Power PC G4 processors running at 867 MHz or faster Mac OS X 10.4.11 or 10.5.5 or later At least 2 GB RAM 10-15 GB of hard disk space for each concurrent activity (backup, restore, etc.) You will see much greater performance with disk based backups when Software Compression has been turned off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidduff Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) reminder to those tiger-on-PPC users who might not have been paying close attention (like myself until now): remember that the "management console" component (the user interface) still only runs on mac os x 10.5. Edited June 29, 2009 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hermie Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 OK, I went for it... Looks like Retrospect is sold to Iomega, dunno. Anyway, I received an email with a License Code and a download link. The link goes to the upgrade page I just bought it from instead of the file. So I looked on the site and downloaded 8.1. Installed and it asks for a license code. So I enter it. Refused. Might as well register then cuz the button is there. Goes to Iomega site. Enter details and then it asks for the logon info. Entered it and get refused again. This is the same site I registered on before and bought Retrospect through Quick Checkout. I have an account there for years. Getting too late, another try tomorrow. Anybody on PPC got the License Code accepted? Have fun, Hermie (who is starting to regret this). Oh, before I forget: Dollars become Euros from one screen to the next, but the amount of course stays the same. Which means besides a slight regret I'm feeling a wee bit ripped off too. Oh well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeDave Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 The link goes to the upgrade page I just bought it from instead of the file. Makes a lot more sense to have a single place (the website page) that changes with new releases and then have all other navigation and redirects land on that single page. Putting a direct link on the license email might allow for a user downloading a less current version in some situations. Installed and it asks for a license code. So I enter it. Refused. What were the exact steps you performed? If you visit Retrospect->Preferences->Licenses, select the Engine install you're attempting to license, click on the "+" icon and copy/paste the code there, is that where it's not accepted? Format XXXX-YYYY-ZZZZ-AAAA ? Anybody on PPC got the License Code accepted? I used a Evaluation Code that I received instantly from an EMC email that worked fine on the Engine installed on a G5 and accessed via the Console running on an Intel machine. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted July 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 If you are having trouble, please call customer service directly. http://www.retrospect.com/contactsupport Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hermie Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Hi Dave, I'm at work right now so am not at pooter. But indeed, I entered the license code in that place in the same format. Then it says that an error occurred. I'll give it another try later tonight. Thank you and everybody else very much for chiming in... Have fun, Hermie Dual G4 1.42 running 10.5.7 filled with 2GB RAM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hermie Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Hi all, When I got home I found a new serial number in the mail that works fine, so i can finally check it all out. Goodie! Weird, I remember having the same kind of serial number problems way back at Dantz with 4.3, I think. Thank you all very much for the quick replies and assistance, highly appriciated! Have fun, Hermie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted July 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 I had Sales resend you the license code. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hermie Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Thanks again Robin, perhaps there's a hickup in the online store system affecting us Eurotrash... Have fun, Hermie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paranders Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Hello Will the back up performance in the Power PC version of Retrospect 8.x be equal to the Intel version in the near future? I have a nice Power PC based machine (Mac G5 2.5 GHz Quad, 6 GB memory) which I would like to use as a new back up server solution. I have compared the performance I get from the Retrospect Engine version 8.1, build 150) installed on this PPC machine with the Engine installed on an Intel based iMac, and the Intel based iMac (2 GHz) performed with a double speed compared to the PPC machine. I´m backing up clients and shares. With the Intel machine I get 2000 MB/minute and with the PPC machine i get 1000MB/minute. //Pär-Anders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted August 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 It will never be equal to the Intel Version. The Intel version uses faster more powerful processors and native Intel code. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhwalker Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Will the back up performance in the Power PC version of Retrospect 8.x be equal to the Intel version in the near future? I have a nice Power PC based machine (Mac G5 2.5 GHz Quad, 6 GB memory) which I would like to use as a new back up server solution. For starters, Apple announced its cutover to the PPC architecture four years ago. The PPC is a dead end for Macintosh. Finally, four years after Apple's switch to the Intel architecture, Retrospect has been introduced with native code for Intel. Second, because of a design decision made for Retrospect 8.x (and it was probably the right decision for the product going forward), Retrospect 8.x has data structures in its files and media sets that are optimized for Intel's "little endian" architecture, which has the added benefit that Retrospect for Macintosh 8.x is now cross-platform with the Windows version of Retrospect, and can use media sets (backup sets) made with Retrospect Windows 7.6 (which only runs on the Intel architecture). This will be of great benefit going forward. As a result of this design decision, and because the Intel architecture is "little endian", in contrast to the PPC (and Motorola 68xxx) architecture, which is "big endian", all access by the PPC version of Retrospect to the Retrospect 8.x data structures have to be surrounded with "translation wrappers" to swap the bytes for all integer, etc., access prior to reading by Retrospect, and then swap back prior to writing the data structures back out to disk / tape. Likewise, all communication between the Retrospect "console" and the Retrospect "engine" has to be optimized for the Intel "little endian" architecture so that a Retrospect console running on Macintosh can communicate with a (future) Retrospect engine running on Windows, and vice versa. This places a greater processing burden on a PPC running Retrospect 8.x than an Intel chip running Retrospect 8.x. Furthermore, this places a greater processing burden on a PPC running Retrospect 8.x than a PPC running Macintosh Retrospect 6.x (and prior), because Macintosh Retrospect 6.x (and prior) data structures were optimized for "big endian" architectures (such as PPC and Motorola 68xxx). This byte swapping translation was hidden from Retrospect 6.x running on Intel because Retrospect 6.x ran on Intel using Apple's Rosetta emulation technology, which emulated a PPC when running on Intel architecture, but prevented Retrospect 6.x from being cross-platform with the Windows version of Retrospect, and caused significant processing overhead when Retrospect was run emulated on Intel architecture. It's possible that some improvements in speed may occur as the networking code matures, for those bottlenecks that are caused by networking issues, but that won't change performance for local backups on the machine running Retrospect engine. Just as Apple dropped support for Mac OS Classic in Mac OS 10.5.x, support for the PPC architecture cannot be expected to continue much longer. Mac OS 10.6.x ("Snow Leopard", to be released "real soon now") is Intel only. We are in a transition phase where Retrospect, being released as a "Universal Binary", can run on PPC architecture as well as Intel architecture. It's time to move into the present. Russ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted August 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 As a result of this design decision, and because the Intel architecture is "little endian", in contrast to the PPC (and Motorola 68xxx) architecture, which is "big endian", all access by the PPC version of Retrospect to the Retrospect 8.x data structures have to be surrounded with "translation wrappers" to swap the bytes for all integer, etc., access prior to reading by Retrospect, and then swap back prior to writing the data structures back out to disk / tape. Well said Russ. This has been a big challenge to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paranders Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Hello again Thank you for your exhaustive explanation about the differences between the two processor platforms. By the way. I have only made some tests with the version 8 of Retrospect, but I feel that the overall workflow/interface in the software feels very good and easy to work with. Nice! Regards Pär-Anders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyeoh Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 Hi, what will happen if I try to run Retrospect 8 on a Mac mini with a 1.25GHz G4 processor & 512 MB RAM? Will it refuse to run, or just be extremely slow? (How slow is slow?) I'm trying to avoid buying new machines if possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted August 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 It will be very very very slow The RAM is a huge concern Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmankono Posted August 30, 2009 Report Share Posted August 30, 2009 So, by the details here, it sounds like it won't really matter what kind of PPC I put in service as a backup server (I have up to a Quad G5 2.5GHz available), it ultimately won't make a difference in getting back to the transfer rates I have been getting with the Dual G4 1.25 GHz tower I have been using with a SCSI ATTO ExpressPCI UL4S card (around 1025MB/min from machines w gigabit ethernet) to an ADIC Faststor2 tape library. It sounds like the G4 is choked by the fact that it only currently has 2GB of RAM, but if a G5 with 6 or 8GB of RAM won't make the difference, I don't know that I can upgrade until I have a Mac Pro handy. Besides issues with the 8.1.148 engine crashing on the PPC and corrupting catalogs - which I have not been able to repair or rebuild - I have not been able to get faster than 525MB/min transfer rates from file servers to the backup server, using Proactive Backup scripts to write directly to tape. If, in fact, faster PPC machines won't make a difference, I may hold off on the 8.1 upgrade until I can get a Mac Pro tower with a SCSI card and/or drive-based backups, and start using smaller archive tape sets with 6.1 to make larger restores possible if necessary. I applaud the new version and the fundamental changes in 8.1 - it is a great package and it will be an awesome backup package when it is more complete. I'm just bummed I don't have anything more than a Core 2 Duo Mac Mini to put to this job, which, of course, can't work with the SCSI tape library. Thanks for all the info, and thanks in advance if anyone can offer a better assessment of whether or not a faster G5 running 10.5.8 (instead of the 10.4.11 on the G4 currently) would make enough of a difference to merit the switch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbartoli Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 This means that I can run Retrospect 8 from a PPC machine? Since I have been running Rettrospect 6 on this PPC Mac OSX 10.5, it'd be the best solution. I wouldn't like to reset the backup to an Intel machine... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbartoli Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Besides issues with the 8.1.148 engine crashing on the PPC and corrupting catalogs - which I have not been able to repair or rebuild. Are you saying the last PPC Retrospect engine is crashing and corrupting the backups? Is it a stable version at all?? 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.