rabarlow Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 I've been a Retrospect user for years and, like many, eagerly awaited the release of 5.0. I paid my $199 to upgrade to the Workgroup edition (because I need to back up one OS X Server in addition to 4 clients), ran it on my G4 and was thrilled to see that the problems with AIT autoloaders had been fixed! Top marks to Dantz for making sure things work before shipping! However, after installing the 5.0 client on my OS X Server, then going in to configure it as a client, I got a message saying I need a more powerful version to log in an OS X Server Client. Puzzled, I went back and read the descriptions of the different versions more carefully and was dismayed to read that in order for backup of an OS X Server to work in the Workgroup version, Retrospect (and the backup device) have to run on the OS X Server! This is really inconvenient and annoying, as my server is hidden away in another room, and doesn't even have a monitor or keyboard. I do all my backups (and restores) from my desktop machine, and can't imagine that my configuration is that unusual. According to the current descriptions as I read them, I would have to spend $429.95 (and get 80 additional client licences, bringing the total licenses I'm not using to 96) just to back up my one OS X Server as a client. This seems like extreme overkill and runs contrary to what is suggested in the description of the Workgroup version, touted as the solution for a single OS X or AppleShare Server. Would it not be possible for the Workgroup version to allow the backup of a single OS X Server as either a local server OR a client? I hope so. I am not happy with the current choice between completely reorganizing my workflow and spending another $230 for a version clearly aimed at large network installations and companies. Our network serves our family and our very small home-based business (that includes reselling Retrospect!). In my opinion, a $430 upgrade (or $799 new purchase) is too much for backup software for a 5-computer network. Please reassure me that this is a situation that can/will be corrected. Reni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendanu Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 Unfortunately I'm in a similar situation and am completely without a backup solution for my server until 1) I upgrade to the 'Server' version, or 2) 'Workgroup' allows an OS X Server to be backed across a LAN as a client. Current setup is that like others, our OS X Server doesn't run the backup device. Reason being that the server is a G4 Cube, and the backup device is a SCSI DDS3 Autoloader - the two just won't work. Thus the Autoloader runs off of a desktop not the server. It should also be noted that I'm only backing up less than 5 clients, so really the 20 clients I can backup in 'Workgroup' is overkill let alone the 80 clients I'd get with the 'Server' edition. Now, I'm sure it would be quite easy for Dantz to release a patch to allow 'Workgroup' licenses to backup an OS X Server over the LAN, but for me to reconfigure workflow, buy a new machine that will take a SCSI card and then completely reconfigure machine, disks, etc is out of the question. Dantz, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE reconfigure 'Workgroup' version to allow this. Many others would be in the same position as myself no doubt. Thanks Brendan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peet Posted March 28, 2002 Report Share Posted March 28, 2002 (this is repost from the product suggetions, i just want to add my situation here too) I know i'm not alone here on this. Dantz please rethink your Workgroup restrictions. It's understandable wanting to hobble lower end products, but Retrospect Worgroup is NOT a low-end or inexpensive backup solution. Retrospect Workgroup should not be hobbled. Workgroup users should be allowed to back up servers remotely. The price and client jump from workgroup to server is impractical. Not to mention, that you've taken one step forward by adding os x support and about 50 steps back by hobbling every piece of software for Mac OS except server. At the least you should allow Worgroup to back up one server locally OR remotely. There are many reasons why it is not feasable to run backups locally on a server. Some have already been mentioned in your forums. Two of the most important are ... 1. your server may be a cube or an imac and your preffered backup media is a scsi tape drive 2. your server may be in an inconvienient location to for managing your media (my server is two floors away). Retrospect server looks like a fine product, but we are a small and poor school at a univerity. We cannot afford server, moreover 100 clients is UNBELIEVIBLE overkill. My department only has about 50 machines and 33 are lab computers and do not require back up. I'm more than a little dissapointed that you felt it neccessary to hobble what used to be a roubust and flexible program. Please reconsider your position. I don't want to sound inflamitory, but just because you're the only game in town for Mac Backup, please don't take atvantage of your loyal customers. I hope you are listening and Thanks for taking the time to read this. Peet McKinney Systems Administrator School of Journalism University of Montana Missoula, MT 59812 406.243.4566 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.