paulinskip Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Hi Sorry if this has been covered else wehre I tried searching but couldn't find any information. With Snow Leopards imminent release will Retrospect work on Snow Leopard or will there be un upcoming update? Many thanks Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 A very good question! We're running Retrospect 6.1 on Leopard and would like to know if this has been tested on Snow Leopard. Regards, Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arroz Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Hi! I also would like to know if Snow Leopard is supported. All I need is the 6.1 client to work on Snow Leopard macs, the server is still on Tiger. Yours Miguel Arroz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 (edited) We will have an official statement out in the next day or so. Unfortunately the OS has changed a lot and the seeds from Apple kept changing a bunch along the way. Then Apple changed the release date on us and all other developers We had a release scheduled for around the same time as the original estimated Snow Leopard release date. This means we do not have a snow leopard compatible version for the launch this Friday. We are doing our best to shorten the prior release schedule so customers can use it quicker. I do not know the specifics on the compatibility issues, but I do remember a problem with the Retrospect installer changing some snow leopard permissions. I don't know if this still happens. Edited August 26, 2009 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Talking with engineering one major issue exists for backup programs and Snow Leopard. The Operating System files are in a compressed state. The backup of those files copies them uncompresses. Older versions of Retrospect would then restore them in an uncompressed state and no known way exists to re-compress those files. A planned update to Retrospect 8 will address this problem and others. We hope to have the Retrospect 8 update available in a 30 day timeframe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulinskip Posted August 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 thank you for the information Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arroz Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Hi! And what about Retrospect 6.1? Is it officially dead for Snow Leopard? Yours Miguel Arroz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 We are not planning to make any changes to the 6.1 code. That product is based on very old code that is very difficult to change. That is why we have release Retrospect 8. We will do our best to let users know about any known problems with 6.1 and Snow Leopard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macpro Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 How about the Retrospect Client? Does that have any Snow Leopard issues? Can we use Retrospect 8 on Leopard to make backups from Snow Leopard machines? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 Our testing is basically done. We will be releasing an official compatibility statement for all of these things shortly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 You can find details on Retrospect and Snow Leopard compatibility at: http://kb.dantz.com/article.asp?article=9723&p=2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maser Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 So, after reading the KB article -- -- is there any *advantage* to updating the *engine* computer to 10.6 at this time? Especially if I'm only backing up "User" files on 10.5/10.6 clients -- or full 10.5 servers? And knowing that I must only update scripts remotely from 10.5. (For those that wonder, one of the obvious problems under 10.6 is that "proactive" scripts do not show the "options" correctly -- there's a blank box where there should be the verification/compression/etc. selections...) I'd like to see if my occasional engine respawns stop if I run the engine under 10.6. But if EMC thinks there's no immediate advantage to updating and engine machine to 10.6 at this time - that would be worth knowing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 I can not think of any immediate advantage. We will be working toward being 64 bit so that we can use more RAM, but that is coming in an update later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntonRang Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 I ran into an issue which may be Snow Leopard related. I have a media set which is an NFS mount. Under Leopard, Retrospect would mount this and use it. Under Snow Leopard, Retrospect would mount this, but then issue a message that it couldn't find the mount ... and try again, mounting it under a different name (retrospect, retrospect-1, retrospect-2, ...). It turns out that mounting 10,000 or so instances is an effective denial-of-service tool once the kernel runs out of memory.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 Are you saying that Retrospect tried 10,000 times to mount the volume? What does the OS X console log say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntonRang Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 Not only did it try 10,000 or so times, but it succeeded each time! I had /Volumes/retrospect, /Volumes/retrospect-1, /Volumes/retrospect-2, .... (Today it got up to about /Volumes/retrospect-238 by the time I got it stopped.) Here's a bit of the log from today (I got rid of the backup scripts referencing those backup sets, which has slowed the process enough that I can do backups with some supervision). 9/4/09 2:28:39 PM com.retrospect.RetroEngine[24029] #2> Command line is /Library/Application Support/Retrospect/RetrospectEngine.bundle/Contents/MacOS/RetroEngine 9/4/09 2:28:45 PM com.retrospect.RetroEngine[24029] RetroEngine(24029,0xb179b000) malloc: *** error for object 0x2217eb8: Non-aligned pointer being freed 9/4/09 2:28:45 PM com.retrospect.RetroEngine[24029] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug 9/4/09 2:28:46 PM com.retrospect.RetroEngine[24029] #2> #Volume $[1]retrospect$[2] is unavailable. 9/4/09 2:28:46 PM com.retrospect.RetroEngine[24029] $[44]Please insert it and try again. 9/4/09 2:28:47 PM com.retrospect.RetroEngine[24029] RetroEngine(24029,0xb1397000) malloc: *** error for object 0x2430dd8: Non-aligned pointer being freed 9/4/09 2:28:47 PM com.retrospect.RetroEngine[24029] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug 9/4/09 2:28:47 PM com.retrospect.RetroEngine[24029] #2> #Volume $[1]retrospect$[2] is unavailable. 9/4/09 2:28:47 PM com.retrospect.RetroEngine[24029] $[44]Please insert it and try again. 9/4/09 2:28:48 PM com.retrospect.RetroEngine[24029] RetroEngine(24029,0xb1397000) malloc: *** error for object 0x242d728: Non-aligned pointer being freed 9/4/09 2:28:48 PM com.retrospect.RetroEngine[24029] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug 9/4/09 2:28:48 PM com.retrospect.RetroEngine[24029] #2> #Volume $[1]retrospect$[2] is unavailable. 9/4/09 2:28:48 PM com.retrospect.RetroEngine[24029] $[44]Please insert it and try again. 9/4/09 2:28:48 PM com.retrospect.RetroEngine[24029] RetroEngine(24029,0xb1397000) malloc: *** error for object 0x2216b18: Non-aligned pointer being freed 9/4/09 2:28:48 PM com.retrospect.RetroEngine[24029] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug 9/4/09 2:28:48 PM com.retrospect.RetroEngine[24029] #2> #Volume $[1]retrospect$[2] is unavailable. 9/4/09 2:28:48 PM com.retrospect.RetroEngine[24029] $[44]Please insert it and try again. A new mount appeared every second or so, which would seem to match the timing in the log. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted September 8, 2009 Report Share Posted September 8, 2009 Anton, I logged but 23284 for this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jel Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 I can not think of any immediate advantage. We will be working toward being 64 bit so that we can use more RAM, but that is coming in an update later. All the tasks I have tried in Retrospect 8.1 show it is CPU bound as the main performance constraint. The only realistic way this can be resolved is if Retrospect 8 makes some use of multi-threading. I say some since clearly it currently makes no use of this at all unless you count running more than one script/task at the same time. As one of the big changes in Snow Leopard is the inclusion of Grand Central Dispatch to make it 'easier' for developers to add multi-threading to their applications, is there any likelihood of this being done to a future Retrospect update? Personally I would be more than willing to accept Retrospect becoming Snow Leopard only if this meant the performance improved substantially. As things stand it is currently little better than Retrospect 6.1 on a PowerMac G4 in terms of speed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeDave Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 As things stand it is currently little better than Retrospect 6.1 on a PowerMac G4 in terms of speed If you're willing for the program to be Snow Leopard only you're going to be needing an Intel machine for that. PPC will always be slower, Grand Central Dispatch or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jel Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 As things stand it is currently little better than Retrospect 6.1 on a PowerMac G4 in terms of speed If you're willing for the program to be Snow Leopard only you're going to be needing an Intel machine for that. PPC will always be slower, Grand Central Dispatch or not. My post was not clear, but I bought an 8-core Mac Pro with 10GB of RAM specifically to run Retrospect 8.1 compared to the previous Dual Processor PowerMac G4 887MHz with 2GB running Retrospect 6.1, in the foolish belief it would be a lot faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 We are planning a 64 bit release of Retrospect 8 soon. That should help a bunch, especially with memory management. See the blog posting for a peak at what we are doing: http://retrospective.typepad.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricU Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 I ran into an issue which may be Snow Leopard related. I have a media set which is an NFS mount. Under Leopard, Retrospect would mount this and use it. Under Snow Leopard, Retrospect would mount this, but then issue a message that it couldn't find the mount ... and try again, mounting it under a different name (retrospect, retrospect-1, retrospect-2, ...).Anton, we're trying to reproduce your issue, and we need to know exactly: 1. How are you mounting the NFS share on the Mac? 2. How are you telling Retrospect to use the share? The sooner you can reply, the better. We're trying to get all Snow Leopard bugs eliminated. Thanks! -Eric 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.