Re: ARCserve vs Retrospect Server Backup

[Ben Eastwood]

Hi Again- I just heard from St Bernard Software and they say that OFM no
longer has this trouble with Services for Macintosh in Windows 2000.
-- 
Ben Eastwood
IT Manager
wilweb.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


> From: Ben Eastwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 14:41:46 -0800
> To: retro-talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: ARCserve vs Retrospect Server Backup
> 
> David-
> Are you also using Open File Manager, and if so does it work OK in Win2k
> with Services for Mac? ( I know this is not really a retrospect issue, but
> not totally offtopic..)
> -- 
> Ben Eastwood
> IT Manager
> wilweb.com
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
>> From: "Kraut, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:11:38 -0500
>> To: 'retro-talk' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: RE: ARCserve vs Retrospect Server Backup
>> 
>> I use it to back up a mix of (20) NT4 and Win2000 Servers.  The retrospect
>> program is running on a 2000 Server and works fine.  I've also used ArcServe
>> in the past and wild horses couldn't drag me back to that nightmare of a
>> product!!  :)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> David Kraut
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:53 AM
>> To: retro-talk
>> Subject: ARCserve vs Retrospect Server Backup
>> 
>> 
>> I've been using ARCserve for many years to backup my NT 4.0 Server and
>> NT Workstations and long time ago to backup a Novell server.  For the
>> Mac side of things though I've always preferred and used Retrospect.  I
>> prefer Retrospect because it's much easier to install, use and maintain
>> than ARCserve.  Both products have been very reliable though I'd have to
>> say that Retrospect has proved to be a little more reliable than ARCserve.
>> 
>> Now I'm finding myself needing to upgrade ARCserve to the new ARCserve
>> 2000.  However, I'd really rather drop ARCserve and switch to Retrospect
>> Server Backup to perform the NT 4.0 Server (and eventually Windows 200
>> Server) and NT Workstation backups.  Comparing the the two product's
>> features and supported drives looks to be essentially the same.
>> 
>> Anyone out there with experience using Retrospect Server Backup on a
>> Windows NT 4.0 Server?  I'd love to get some feedback about it.
>> 
>> Thanks!!
>> 
>> -- 
>> Tom Roth  *  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  *  tel 336.716.4493
>> Wake Forest University School of Medicine
>> Dept of Biomedical Communications
>> Medical Center Blvd  *  Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1011
>> http://www.wfubmc.edu/biomed/
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> --
>> To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Archives:<http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
>> Search:  <http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/>
>> 
>> For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> --
>> To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Archives:<http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
>> Search:  <http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/>
>> 
>> For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> --
> To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives:<http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
> Search:  <http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/>
> 
> For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.



--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:<http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
Search:  <http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/>

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

Re: ARCserve vs Retrospect Server Backup

[Ben Eastwood]

David-
Are you also using Open File Manager, and if so does it work OK in Win2k
with Services for Mac? ( I know this is not really a retrospect issue, but
not totally offtopic..)
-- 
Ben Eastwood
IT Manager
wilweb.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


> From: "Kraut, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:11:38 -0500
> To: 'retro-talk' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: ARCserve vs Retrospect Server Backup
> 
> I use it to back up a mix of (20) NT4 and Win2000 Servers.  The retrospect
> program is running on a 2000 Server and works fine.  I've also used ArcServe
> in the past and wild horses couldn't drag me back to that nightmare of a
> product!!  :)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Kraut
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:53 AM
> To: retro-talk
> Subject: ARCserve vs Retrospect Server Backup
> 
> 
> I've been using ARCserve for many years to backup my NT 4.0 Server and
> NT Workstations and long time ago to backup a Novell server.  For the
> Mac side of things though I've always preferred and used Retrospect.  I
> prefer Retrospect because it's much easier to install, use and maintain
> than ARCserve.  Both products have been very reliable though I'd have to
> say that Retrospect has proved to be a little more reliable than ARCserve.
> 
> Now I'm finding myself needing to upgrade ARCserve to the new ARCserve
> 2000.  However, I'd really rather drop ARCserve and switch to Retrospect
> Server Backup to perform the NT 4.0 Server (and eventually Windows 200
> Server) and NT Workstation backups.  Comparing the the two product's
> features and supported drives looks to be essentially the same.
> 
> Anyone out there with experience using Retrospect Server Backup on a
> Windows NT 4.0 Server?  I'd love to get some feedback about it.
> 
> Thanks!!
> 
> -- 
> Tom Roth  *  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  *  tel 336.716.4493
> Wake Forest University School of Medicine
> Dept of Biomedical Communications
> Medical Center Blvd  *  Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1011
> http://www.wfubmc.edu/biomed/
> 
> 
> --
> --
> To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives:<http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
> Search:  <http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/>
> 
> For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.
> 
> 
> --
> --
> To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives:<http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
> Search:  <http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/>
> 
> For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.



--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:<http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
Search:  <http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/>

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

Re: ARCserve vs Retrospect Server Backup

[Ben Eastwood]

I have lots to comment on this thread! I Love Retro and ditched Arcserve for
Retro about six months ago. I had used it for years to back up Macs, and now
I'm using it for about ten NT servers, Including one that has over 160 GB of
Drive space, a couple that run MS SQL Server 7, and a Lotus Notes server.
Lots of open DBs on that one. Here are some things I've found:

Retro is much more reliable than Arcserve. It just works. Its easier to
setup, more flexible, and most importantly, easier to restore from.

Open File Manager works to back up the open databases just fine, BUT there
is a conflict between OFM and NT's services for macintosh that causes nasty
crashes on the server being backed up. There is apparently fix for this
available from MS, but it is not available for download, it requires a
(paid) service call to MS Support. I is supposed to be fixed in the next NT
SP, but with Win2k on the market, that may never come. I don't know it it is
a problem in Win2k. I'll be finding out soon...

I have also had trouble with the 400,000 file/defined volume limit in
Retrospect. As web developers we are working with a lot of little files in
pretty complex directory structures. When a Retrospect volume contains more
than 400,000 files you will start to get -519 out of memory errors and the
backup will fail. 

The workaround for this is to define the Retrospect volumes at a lower level
of the directory structure, which is a bit of a pain. If that is not
workable, you could try scheduling an automated task with an NT "at" command
to have the large folder zipped into an archive before the backup runs and
them backup the archive. A little Rube Goldberg, but it should work. I
haven't tried it though...

I have been told that this will be fixed in the next version of Retrospect.
I can't wait!

Backing up servers is one thing, but Retrospect's advantages really become
apparent when you want to backup workstations as well. the "backup server"
function is really cool, especially if you have laptop users. Retrospect
uses the network very efficiently! And since the Server version comes with
100 clients, you should have no trouble with client licensing unless you
have a pretty big organization.

I hope this helps, Tom.
-- 
Ben Eastwood
IT Manager
wilweb.com
5650 Hollis St.
Suite 2
Emeryville CA, 94608
510-594-7037
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


> From: "Stephen Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 12:45:58 -0500
> To: "'retro-talk'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: ARCserve vs Retrospect Server Backup
> 
> I wonder if St. Bernard's Open File Manager will work in conjunction with
> Retrospect?  It works with a ton of other software vendors.  Their web site
> is www.stbernard.com.
> 
> I do not have any affiliation with that package, I'm just making it known it
> exists and may help guys looking for SQL, Exchange or Open file backup.
> 
> Steve
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> Of Irena Solomon
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 11:59 AM
> To: retro-talk
> Subject: Re: ARCserve vs Retrospect Server Backup
> 
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> Thanks for the feedback! I just wanted to clarify a few points though, as
> you seem to be running into limitations that should not exist.
> 
>> for some reason the support for the HP DLT drive was dropped in that
> version.
> 
> Drive support is never removed when we release a software update. Any device
> supported in 5.11 is also supported in 5.15. If 5.15 is having trouble
> seeing your drive for some reason, there's something going on that is
> preventing Retrospect from loading the correct driver.
> 
> 
>> A Mac backup server will not back up a NT4 server which has MSSQL 7
> installed,
> there is some sort of conflict.
> 
> Having MSSQL 7 installed on a machine won't, on it's own, prevent a backup
> of that computer to a Mac. The only limit you'll run into is that Retrospect
> is unable to back up open databases, but this isn't a function of backing up
> to a Mac server. This is because database files have a "lock range," which
> locks in all or part of a database so that it cannot be accessed by any
> other application when it is being accessed by the database software.
> 
> 
>> One more annoying thing about Retro Windows is that you cannot browse to
> your
> target files
> 
> In what situation? There are very few situations that would require you to
> know a path name to access a volume.
> 
> 
>> And retro cannot not run as a service
> 
> Retrospect uses the Retrospect Launcher Service to automatically launch when
> the program is n

Re: backing up exchange server?

[Ben Eastwood]

Andrew-
If the issue is open files not being backed up, you could try Open File
Manager from St. Bernard Software, which I use, with some success, to back
up a Lotus Notes server.
There are issues with Services for Macintosh which I have yet to work out,
but other than that it seems pretty cool.
--Ben




"andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 12/21/2000 10:19:22 AM

Please respond to "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:   "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:(bcc: Ben Eastwood/HMG/Wilson Learning/US)
Subject:  backing up exchange server?




is there any way to do it?



--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:<http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
Search:  <http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/>

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








--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:<http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
Search:  <http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/>

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

tape library question

[Ben Eastwood]

I have an Exabyte 230 D and when I click the "scan media" button, nothing
happens. Isn't it supposed to load each tape and get the name? Will it then
associate the name with the barcode label and be able to tell if I remove
one cartridge (5 tapes) and put in another, as long as the barcoding is
unique?

--Ben




--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:

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

Re: How Long does this take for you?

[Ben Eastwood]

Sure thing.  I'll be writing the script today and kicking off the first
backup over the weekend.

Funny, there seem to be  a lot of Bens on this list! ;-)

--Ben E





Ben Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 12/06/2000 10:59:31 AM

Please respond to "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:   "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:(bcc: Ben Eastwood/HMG/Wilson Learning/US)
Subject:  Re: How Long does this take for you?




At 10:05 -0800 12/6/00, Ben Eastwood wrote:
>AHHH HA! Thanks Eric, that explains alot... the folder I backed up had
well
>over 300K files and the memory usage was pretty high during some portions
>of the process. Thanks for the workaround. Any ETA on the fix?

Hey Ben, if it's not too much trouble, I'm sure that some of us would
like to know how your backups go after you make the changes.

Thanks,

--
--
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Ben Liberman
--


--
--
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.








--
--
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.

Re: How Long does this take for you?

[Ben Eastwood]

Yeah, I know. Stupid question... You guys work so many miracles already, I
guess I was just hoping for one more! Thanks for the best guess and of
course I won't call on april first saying "Eric Ullman daid it would be
ready by now..."
--Ben E




Eric Ullman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 12/06/2000 11:10:42 AM

Please respond to "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:   retro-talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:(bcc: Ben Eastwood/HMG/Wilson Learning/US)
Subject:  Re: How Long does this take for you?




ETA? On software? Ha ha ha! That's funny, Ben! You crack me up, man...

;-)

Sorry. Couldn't help myself. I could say early Q2, 2001, but we _are_
talking about backup software here. That means that any bug that causes
data
loss is unacceptable. So, whenever coding and testing is complete. Still,
that's my best guess.

Eric Ullman
Dantz Development


Ben Eastwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> AHHH HA! Thanks Eric, that explains alot... the folder I backed up had
well
> over 300K files and the memory usage was pretty high during some portions
> of the process. Thanks for the workaround. Any ETA on the fix?
>
>
> Eric Ullman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Doug is correct, though the limit is somewhere closer to 300,000 files.
> Retrospect for Windows 5.15 (and earlier) has an unexpected memory usage
> limitation (i.e., a bug) that prevents it from successfully scanning a
> volume containing more than 300K files. In such a case, Retrospect will
> respond with Error 625 (Not enough memory).
>
> This problem has been identified and will be fixed in the next release.
>
> In the meantime, the workaround is to have Retrospect backup that volume
as
> two or more subvolumes (outlined on pages 164-165 of the Retrospect
User's
> Guide).



--
--
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.








--
--
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.

Re: How Long does this take for you?

[Ben Eastwood]

AHHH HA! Thanks Eric, that explains alot... the folder I backed up had well
over 300K files and the memory usage was pretty high during some portions
of the process. Thanks for the workaround. Any ETA on the fix?




Eric Ullman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 12/05/2000 06:24:18 PM

Please respond to "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:   retro-talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:(bcc: Ben Eastwood/HMG/Wilson Learning/US)
Subject:  Re: How Long does this take for you?




Doug is correct, though the limit is somewhere closer to 300,000 files.
Retrospect for Windows 5.15 (and earlier) has an unexpected memory usage
limitation (i.e., a bug) that prevents it from successfully scanning a
volume containing more than 300K files. In such a case, Retrospect will
respond with Error 625 (Not enough memory).

This problem has been identified and will be fixed in the next release.

In the meantime, the workaround is to have Retrospect backup that volume as
two or more subvolumes (outlined on pages 164-165 of the Retrospect User's
Guide).

HTH.

Eric Ullman
Dantz Development



Douglas B. McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Ben,
>
> It is a limit with one volume.  Having more files than that across
> multiple volumes (as we currently do) is not a problem.
>
>  ...Doug
>
> Ben Eastwood wrote:
>
>> Hmmm, I wasn't aware of the half million file limit... that is a _major_
>> concern for me as I am backing up lots of html files and the like. Is is
a
>> half million files from one source? What are the details of this
problem?
>> Also, how soon are we going to see a fix for this? Anyone from Dantz
care to
>> comment on that? --Ben



--
--
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.








--
--
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.

Re: How Long does this take for you? (long)

[Ben Eastwood]

First, I want to say thanks to Eric Ullman for the details. It is
enlightnening indeed! After using Arcserve for a while I was happy to get
back to Retrospect because I feel it provides an easier way to find out
what's really going on. With Arcserve I was never really sure I had gotten
good backups, and setting it up was truly a pain. Restoring was VERY
counter intuitive. That seems to be part of what Retrospect does best.

But all of that scanning and matching does take time, and that is a
trade-off, I guess. It would be nice if the "Time remaining" could be made
a little more accureate, as it seems to just take what's left and compare
to the current MB/ minute, which changes dramatically. I wasn't sure
whether my 36 GB folder would take 2 hours or two days. It wound up taking
about 8.5 hours, which is acceptable given the extra checking that
Retrospect does. Of coure I won't be looking at it whe it's working in the
middle of the night (I hope), so maybe that doesn't matter

I am still interested in imformation about the 500,000 file limit that Doug
McKay wrote about. What Eric U. says makes me think it may be "per
session," which would be OK, if not ideal. I definately have over 500,000
files total that need to be backed up in a full backup of my server. Any
info would be appreciated!

--Ben







Eric Ullman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 12/05/2000 09:04:45 AM

Please respond to "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:   retro-talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:(bcc: Ben Eastwood/HMG/Wilson Learning/US)
Subject:  Re: How Long does this take for you? (long)




Wow. There's a lot to respond to, here! I'll start with IncrementalPLUS,
Snapshot, and the scanning and matching process.

Retrospect's normal backup operation is something we call IncrementalPLUS.
Essentially, it's an incremental backup, but with one major difference from
the way that all other file-based backup software works: Retrospect's
IncrementalPLUS backups are incremental to the backup set currently in use,
not to the last full or incremental backup performed.

In other words, when you run a backup to a specific set of media,
Retrospect
will automatically complete that set, giving it one copy of every unique
file from the source volume(s).

To do this, Retrospect employs Snapshots. For each backup operation, it
scans the source volume and saves a listing of all the files, folders, and
(for Windows computers) registry information. That's the Snapshot. Then, to
determine what files need to be copied to the backup set, Retrospect
matches
that Snapshot against each session previously run to this set. Every time
Retrospect runs a backup of a volume, it generates a session. So, if you
have 30 drives to back up, and you've backed up each, four times to the
same
backup set, you'll have 120 sessions.

This matching process can take some time. It's dependent upon the total
number of files in those sessions and the speed of the backup computer. At
a
certain point, the scanning and matching process will take longer than
actually copying the files to the backup set. Scanning and matching
performance is dependent on the total number of files; copy performance is
dependent on the amount of data being moved.

It is because Retrospect functions this way that it is able to ensure each
backup set is complete. This is how Retrospect is able to restore a volume
exactly, with only a single pass over the backup media, from any backup
set.

Each "Normal" (IncrementalPLUS) backup performed to the same backup set
increases both the time needed for scanning and matching and the time it
will take to perform a restore. When the scanning and matching process is
preventing your backups from completing in the period allotted, then it's
time to perform a "Recycle" or "New Media" backup, resetting the session
count to zero for that set. Adjusting your media use in this fashion is not
an expensive ordeal. There are other options, but they cost more money
(getting a faster computer to run the backups or adding another backup
computer and splitting the clients between them).

So, for Ben Mihailescu, 15-20 days of Normal backups to the same set is too
many. At Dantz, we have to recycle or archive backup sets after five Normal
backups.

Regarding performance when you're dealing with a large number of relatively
small files, as Ben Eastwood commented on: fast backup devices will only
achieve their rated performance level when backing up large files. Small
files result in decreased performance, as shown in this table.

Drive model: IBM Ultrium LTO 3580 (Non-Compressible Data)

  Data Set  BackupCopyCompare
  1K files7.2 10.3   5.5
  10K files 110.8173.4  81.4
  100K files285.0362.4 234.8
  1MB files 716.4857.1 618.5
  10MB files800.6870.2 741.3

RE: How Long does this take for you?

[Ben Eastwood]

Hmmm, I wasn't aware of the half million file limit... that is a _major_
concern for me as I am backing up lots of html files and the like. Is is a
half million files from one source? What are the details of this problem?
Also, how soon are we going to see a fix for this? Anyone from Dantz care
to comment on that?
--Ben




"Douglas B. McKay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 12/04/2000 07:38:27 PM

Please respond to "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:   "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:(bcc: Ben Eastwood/HMG/Wilson Learning/US)
Subject:  RE: How Long does this take for you?




Ben,

I have found that Retrospect spends most of its time in my nightly
backups processing files and catalogs, not actually backing up data.
I have 15 clients which are backed up by Retrospect from a machine
with 4 OnStream ADR 50  drives.  The full backups on the weekend take
about 26 hours (~120GB).  Nightly backups take almost 12 hours
(usually less than 5GB).

Be careful about the half-million file limit.  If you get around
500,000 files, Retrospect has a problem with memory and dies.  Dantz
knows about the issue and is working on ways to eliminate the memory
problem (at least that's what I was told several months ago).

Anyway, the bottom line is that what you are experiencing has been my
experience as well (long periods "building" catalogs and things).

It sure would be nice if my backup time could shrink and allow the
file copying to take place at full speed, but perhaps have the catalog
processing, etc. take place separately (perhaps on the client using
its CPU! - my backups happen after hours).

   ...Doug

   Douglas B. McKay
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Data Mgt Group
   http://www.datamgt.com

-Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf
Of Ben Eastwood
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 5:30 PM
To: retro-talk
Subject: Re: How Long does this take for you?




More on this:
Retrospect is still "building snapshot" and appears to be hogging
about
95-99% CPU, but not stuck, really because it varies... I also notice
that
taskman reports memory usage of 86716K, which seems like a lot on a
machine
with 196 MB of RAM where the System takes up only 6364K... Any hints?

Thanks
--Ben




"Ben Eastwood" <"Ben_Eastwood/HMG/Wilson_Learning/US"@wlcmail.com> on
12/04/2000 04:12:40 PM

Please respond to "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: Ben Eastwood/HMG/Wilson Learning/US)
Subject:  How Long does this take for you?



I have questions for y'all:

When running a backup operation of a LOCAL disk (RAID 5 Array,
actually)to
a DLT7000 drive, I noticed that the Performance reported varied
widely,
from a high of 450MB/min to a low of 13 MB/min, and the "Time
Remaining"
would jump around pretty much based on this. Is that normal? The
folder I
backed up had over 36 GB in it, mostly little files. In fact there
were
over 300,000 files in about 10,000 folders, if that matters. Also the
"Scanning" before the backup took a long time.

The actual backup took about 6 hours, and then it went into "Updating
catalog" for about 45 minutes and then on to "building snapshot,"
where it
is now. During these last two sections, it has said "time remaining
00:00:00," but it's not really done... and the progress bar is only
about
halfway across. Is that any real indication of how much time I have
left?

comments appreciated

--ben



--
--
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.








--
--
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.

Re: How Long does this take for you?

[Ben Eastwood]

More on this:
Retrospect is still "building snapshot" and appears to be hogging about
95-99% CPU, but not stuck, really because it varies... I also notice that
taskman reports memory usage of 86716K, which seems like a lot on a machine
with 196 MB of RAM where the System takes up only 6364K... Any hints?

Thanks
--Ben




"Ben Eastwood" <"Ben_Eastwood/HMG/Wilson_Learning/US"@wlcmail.com> on
12/04/2000 04:12:40 PM

Please respond to "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: Ben Eastwood/HMG/Wilson Learning/US)
Subject:  How Long does this take for you?






I have questions for y'all:

When running a backup operation of a LOCAL disk (RAID 5 Array, actually)to
a DLT7000 drive, I noticed that the Performance reported varied widely,
from a high of 450MB/min to a low of 13 MB/min, and the "Time Remaining"
would jump around pretty much based on this. Is that normal? The folder I
backed up had over 36 GB in it, mostly little files. In fact there were
over 300,000 files in about 10,000 folders, if that matters. Also the
"Scanning" before the backup took a long time.

The actual backup took about 6 hours, and then it went into "Updating
catalog" for about 45 minutes and then on to "building snapshot," where it
is now. During these last two sections, it has said "time remaining
00:00:00," but it's not really done... and the progress bar is only about
halfway across. Is that any real indication of how much time I have left?

comments appreciated

--ben




--
--
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.








--
--
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.

How Long does this take for you?

[Ben Eastwood]

I have questions for y'all:

When running a backup operation of a LOCAL disk (RAID 5 Array, actually)to
a DLT7000 drive, I noticed that the Performance reported varied widely,
from a high of 450MB/min to a low of 13 MB/min, and the "Time Remaining"
would jump around pretty much based on this. Is that normal? The folder I
backed up had over 36 GB in it, mostly little files. In fact there were
over 300,000 files in about 10,000 folders, if that matters. Also the
"Scanning" before the backup took a long time.

The actual backup took about 6 hours, and then it went into "Updating
catalog" for about 45 minutes and then on to "building snapshot," where it
is now. During these last two sections, it has said "time remaining
00:00:00," but it's not really done... and the progress bar is only about
halfway across. Is that any real indication of how much time I have left?

comments appreciated

--ben




--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:

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

RE: BSOD with Retrospect 5.1 Server

[Ben Eastwood]

I called Dantz and they quickly solved the problem for me.
In the Retrospect directory (C:\program files\dantz\retrospect) is a file
called aspichk.exe. Run this to find out which version (if any) of aspi is
installed on your server. Mine had none. ASPI stands for Advanced SCSI
Programming Interface, BTW (I had to look that up!). By default, Retrospect
uses ASPI to acess the SCSI drives, but can use something called "NT
Passthu," which uses the installed specific drivers. I think that there is
a conflickt between the SmartArray drivers and retrospect, because without
ASPI, I got the BSOD every time.

The answer is to install ASPI on the system. this doesn't seem to affect
the smart array cards at all, they still use their own drivers, but it made
Retrospect much happier. Dantz supplies this, too. In the same directory,
run aspiinst.exe and then reboot the system. Now I can scan the SCSI busses
and see the tape drives! It also appears to ignore the Smart arrray cards
and the RAIDs on those busses. Pretty cool, thanks to Dantz tech support!

On a related note, I found that OFM was incompatible with my Anti-virus
software(McAfee Net Shield  4.0), and had to remove it 'till I can upgrade
the AV later this week. It also caused a nasty BSOD.

--Ben




Rob Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 12/04/2000 02:54:22 PM

Please respond to "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:   "'retro-talk'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:(bcc: Ben Eastwood/HMG/Wilson Learning/US)
Subject:  RE: BSOD with Retrospect 5.1 Server




Yes!
I also have a 1600R with RAID 5 and Retrospect 5.15. It also crashes
everytime it does a device scan in ineteractive mode. It doesn't crash when
it autolaunches (well, usually - I have found some unexpected restarts the
next morning, but can't be certain of the cause). The server is running
WinNT, SP5.
It runs NT Backup perfectly (though with some open files)

The Compaq tech has replaced the internal DAT drive and is considering
replacing the RAID controller, SCSI card etc.

Any ideas would be gratefully accepted.

Thanks,
Rob

> --
> From:   Ben Eastwood
> Reply To:retro-talk
> Sent:   Tuesday, 5 December 2000 3:52 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: BSOD with Retrospect 5.1 Server
>
>
>
> I get a reproducable blue screen on a compaq 1600 R with two smart array
> controllers (221 and 3200) both controlling RAID 5 arrays. The crash
> happens everytime I  do the device scan. I think it's related to the RAID
> controllers, but I'm not sure. Has anyone seen this behavior before?
> Machine is running NT 4.0 SP 6a, and we have St Bernard's Open File
> Manager
> on it as well.
>
> TIA
>
> Ben
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> 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.
>




--
--
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.

BSOD with Retrospect 5.1 Server

[Ben Eastwood]

I get a reproducable blue screen on a compaq 1600 R with two smart array
controllers (221 and 3200) both controlling RAID 5 arrays. The crash
happens everytime I  do the device scan. I think it's related to the RAID
controllers, but I'm not sure. Has anyone seen this behavior before?
Machine is running NT 4.0 SP 6a, and we have St Bernard's Open File Manager
on it as well.

TIA

Ben




--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:

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