Backup is okay, no success doing a restore

[brayne]

Hi there,

I have Retrospect Single Server 8.1 (build 626).

 

I have the engine running on my OSX Server 10.3 computer, and the console running on an OSX 10.6 Mac.

 

I use a "File" media set, which resides on an offsite networked hard drive. It backs up flawlessly, 3 times a day, and I can see the backup file slowly increasing day by day (it's currently 942Gb in size).

 

Anyhow, I needed to do a restore for the first time today, and I thought it would be as straightforward as previous versions of Retrospect (have been using Retrospect for over 15 years), but I'm not having any luck.

 

Here's what I have tried:

 

Clicked "Restore".

Selected "Search for files in selected media sets"

Selected the media set I wish to restore from (contains 1,010,607 files).

Selected "any of the following are true"

File name contains "vision" (that's the name of the file).

Selected a destination drive.

Nothing found.

 

So I went back and changed it to: file name contains "e". Let's face it, how many files do you reckon it will find with the letter "e" in their name, out of 1,010,607 backed up files? Answer - none. Definitely not right.

 

So now I go back and try this:

 

Clicked "Restore".

Selected "Restore selected files and folders"

Selected the point-in-time backup I wish to restore from.

Clicked the "Browse" button.

"Accessing backup" appears for 15 or so seconds, then "Backup unavailable" appears.

 

I sure hope that for the sake of my backup I'm doing something wrong.

 

Can anyone offer a suggestion?

 

Thanks,

Bruce

 

 

[CallMeDave]

I have the engine running on my OSX Server 10.3 computer

 

You should probably start by acquainting yourself with the minimum system requirements of the software package and updating your Engine host machine to a supported configuration.

 

http://kb.dantz.com/article.asp?article=9710&p=2

[brayne]

Sorry, my mistake, I'm actually using 10.4.11, which does fall within the minimum system requirements.

 

Apart from that piece of information, the rest of the original post still stands.

 

Any suggestions?

 

Thanks,

Bruce