> >>So Retrospect reports errors that it finds in the network setup that
> >>doesn't affect ANYTHING else? If these errors existed then why does
> >>nothing else complain?
> >
> >Yet.
> >
> >>I copy large files from one machine to another, but that never fails
> >
> >Yet.
> That's taking a rather simplistic approach that my experience so far
> does not support. I've had no known network failures of any kind -
> except Retrospect. To simply say that I will have one day is dodging
> the issue.

If you look at how ethernet works, most of time anything you do will
mask errors. EtherNet has error recovery built in. So an undemanding
transfer, such as a Finder copy, will tend to get through, errors or
not. It's those programs that really hammer the network, like a backup
program trying to keep a tape at speed, that tend to fail.

I've seen what you describe multiple times and it's always turned out to
be a system or network problem, not a Retrospect problem. Not that that
made it any less frustrating. But I have learned that a repeating
problem being reported by Retrospect means I have a problem somewhere
that I'll have to solve at some point.

While not an expert, I have been using retrospect since about 90,
starting with those "incredibly" reliable TEAC 60MB tapes. 30 sites
later, I've still not found anything better.

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

For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.

Reply via email to