Hi Jakob,

My comments are below...

jakob krabbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> So you said and so I hoped it to be. I had free numbers but still two
> computers demanded the same serial. It's solved by using "a poor mans
> installer", simpley copying the settings from the old machine and re
> installing the client on one machine and now it works.

If you're asked to enter an activator code, then you're not installing the
Retrospect 4.2 Client software -- you must be using a 4.1 (or older)
installer. The 4.2 Client installer only asks you to assign a password to
the client computer (so someone else on -- or outside -- your network can't
connect to that client and steal its data).

> I tried to back up without any security or compression, still I just got
> some 67 MB/min at the most and I think that's too slow. Or rather, I
> expected it to be faster, but it's OK. I truelly don't care that much if it
> takes 2 or 4 hours as long as it's working.

Sorry, Jakob, would you mind going over the hardware configuration of the
backup computer again? I know it's a G3 233 with a 10/100 card, but what
about the SCSI bus and operating system? Also, what performance are you
seeing with the drive locally?

> All our computers are named PPC_01, PPC_02, iBook_01, PC_01 etc and they
> doen't say Boss' HD or similar. Second you would need a VXA drive to
> extract the data so I think 128 Bit encryption on top of that is really too
> much.

Ryan La Riviere's earlier comments about the physical aspects of security
are very important to consider. Far too many people only think about data
encryption. What if someone wanted to steal your computers? What if someone
could gain assess to the Retrospect server and use it to erase data from the
client computers? Or back them up to their own tape? Are the passwords for
the client systems written down on a piece of paper that's easily found?

If your organization has sensitive data, then it's important to look at all
the ways that data might be vulnerable, and not just from outside the
company, but from the inside, too.

> Yesterday when I clicked the hardware compression, is wasn't shown in the
> status window, but maybe it's working anyway? Compression isna't that
> efficiant anyway, I get some 10 to 15%. (One can ask how the can sell tapes
> that will store 66 GB? That demands a compression of 50% witch for me seems
> more or less theoretic...)
> Did I miss someting here?

The hardware compression level attained can only be determined by looking at
how much data you are able to fit on a tape. With a VXA drive, anything past
33GB indicates that the compression is functioning properly.

That said, different files offer different levels of compressibility. JPEGs
and MP3s are already compressed, so they don't compress a second time.
Applications are compiled fairly tightly, so they don't compress very well.
Text files, on the other hand, compress quite well. In fact, if you were to
back up only text files, you'd get more than 66GB on one VXA tape.

All manufacturers list their media sizes assuming 2:1 compression. That's a
level not normally attainable.

I hope this helps.

Eric Ullman
Dantz Development

To subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:        <http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
Problems?:       [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to