Arkky Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 (edited) I started a 146GB restore Thursday Wednesday at 5PM and the last remaining file count hit 0 around 9AM the next day. Fast forward until today, Friday at 10:30AM, the status window still says "Completing restore". It looks like the restore process is going through each one of the files again. I have Activity Monitor running and Retrospect is using ~95% CPU and Disk Activity shows definite read/writes. This is a dedicated Retrospect box on a non-routable subnet and its sole purpose is to back up a few PC servers. There are lots of large files. Tell me this is unusual? I'm about ready to cancel this and try again. My setup is as follows: OSX 10.4 Dual 2GHz G5 Mac Pro 2GB RAM Gigabit network Wiebetech FW400 ATA HD enclosures Retrospect 6 Edited September 4, 2009 by Guest wrong day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhwalker Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 (edited) I started a 146GB restore Thursday at 5PM and the last remaining file count hit 0 around 9AM the next day. Fast forward until today, Friday at 10:30AM, the status window still says "Completing restore". So, if I understand you correctly, it took 17.5 hours to restore the data, and has taken already 1.5 hours to massage the metadata. Correct? It does sound slow, but you've got a slow machine and perhaps a lot of files. You don't say whether this is a few huge files or many small files. It looks like the restore process is going through each one of the files again. Yep. The metadata is being restored (permissions, dates, etc.). Each file has to be massaged. Tell me this is unusual? I'm about ready to cancel this and try again. Don't cancel - give it another half-day, especially if you've got lots of files. It's working hard to get the bits right - let's hope that it does. Doesn't sound that unusual if it took 17.5 hours for the restore of the data. Retrospect 6 has always completed the restore phase successfully for me. Is this a restore to a local volume or a restore to a Retrospect client over the network? Russ Edited September 4, 2009 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkky Posted September 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 YOINKS, the restore started on WEDNESDAY, not THURS. Sorry! It's been over 24 hours now since the "massage" began. The data is comprised of 1/2 small and 1/2 large files. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhwalker Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 YOINKS, the restore started on WEDNESDAY, not THURS. Sorry! It's been over 24 hours now since the "massage" began. Ok, then I understand you to say it took 17.5 hours to do the restore of the data and has taken already 25.5 hours to massage the metadata. Is this a local restore or a restore over the network to a client? The data is comprised of 1/2 small and 1/2 large files. How many files? That's the determining factor (along with hardware speed). More RAM and faster disks would have helped, but it's too late for that now. Does sound a bit long, though. Russ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkky Posted September 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 (edited) I plugged in a FW400 external for the restore. 2,899,619 files 146.4G Like you said, slow hardware and lots of files isn't helping in terms of speed. I'm going to have to revamp our backup schema for this group of servers because it's taking too long to restore the darn data. I'm not sure Retrospect is the way to go anyway. I'll have to dig into v8. Edited September 4, 2009 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhwalker Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 Ok, then you are doing the best that can be done. That's a bunch of files to restore. The fact that you "plugged in a FW400 external for the restore" seems to imply that otherwise it would have been a network restore. Because your initial post indicated that it was backing up PC servers, I suspect (and hope, for your sake) that the FW400 is formatted with a filesystem that the PC servers can read after the restore (SMB, perhaps?) so that this won't be a useless exercise in futility. The fact that the restore is probably being done to a foreign (non-Mac) filesystem is probably slowing things down greatly, and having to make Retrospect do a lot of thinking. Good luck. Russ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkky Posted September 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 Do you recommend a PC Retrospect Server for PC Clients and vice versa for Mac? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon88 Posted September 5, 2009 Report Share Posted September 5, 2009 Do you recommend a PC Retrospect Server for PC Clients and vice versa for Mac? We use Retrospect for Windows to backup a mixed Windows (XP/Vista/2003/2008) and OSX (10.4.x up to 10.5.x) environment. This works without problems. As you are running Retrospect 6 for Macintosh, it seems you have both options open to do an upgrade so to speak. Retrospect 7.6 for Windows can do things Retrospect 6 can't do. Retrospect 8 for Macintosh can probably do a couple of things 7.6 for Windows can't. However it seems it is less stable than the more mature 7.6 for Windows. There is also the ongoing issue that Retrospect 8 for Macintosh can't read older version backups, which 7.6 for Windows can do. This might be very important to you. You have options, so you decide which one fits you the best. For both products you can get trials, so you will be able to, afer some effort, make an educated guess. I suspect (and hope, for your sake) that the FW400 is formatted with a filesystem that the PC servers can read after the restore (SMB, perhaps?) so that this won't be a useless exercise in futility. The fact that the restore is probably being done to a foreign (non-Mac) filesystem is probably slowing things down greatly, and having to make Retrospect do a lot of thinking. In case you didn't do wat Russ thinks/hopes you did, you could buy a copy of MacDrive, which makes Windows able to mount Mac-formatted drives. Otherwise you could try to do a network copy to a directory of your target machine which will take a considerable time as well. Not sure what Russ means with SMB, I think he actually means NTFS. OSX can read NTFS volumes, but can't natively write to them. There are ways to let it do it by using a combination of MacFuse and ntfs-3g. Writing can sometimes be slow (which is probably why Russ assumes you already might be using this method, because your restore is also slow, apart from you less than optimal hardware). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhwalker Posted September 5, 2009 Report Share Posted September 5, 2009 Do you recommend a PC Retrospect Server for PC Clients and vice versa for Mac? Right now, I would recommend a PC Retrospect server for PC clients to ensure that metadata is backed up properly. There are some additional add-ons for Windows Retrospect that are not available for Mac Retrospect that may be needed in a PC environment. When Mac Retrospect 8 matures a bit and stabilizes, it would be my recommendation. Retrospect 8 is based on the Windows code base, with improvements/enhancements beyond that. I understand that there is planned a unifying release for Retrospect Windows later this year that will bring over the Retrospect 8 improvements. Retrospect 8 can read Windows Retrospect backups and can read its own Mac Retrospect backups. Retrospect 8 cannot read backups made by older versions of Retrospect on the Mac, and has some rough edges right now. Russ 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.