![]() (Note, the case is automatically closed if no response is received within 5 days). Have you tried our online self-service tools?Ĭlick the link below to update your support case. On the Client computer send me the files retroclient.log and retropds.logĪnd Library/Application Support/Retrospect/retroisa.utxĪlso on the client check Instant Scan is well started: sudo launchctl load /Library/LaunchDaemons/ Please send me your Operations_log.utx file located in Library/Application Support/Retrospect/ Instant Scan seems not work on one client We understand you have the following question: Retrospect Agent Reply can be found below. Thank you for contacting Retrospect support. However I will file a Support Case, referencing this thread and Support Case 61949-which Retrospect Support has the capability of viewing. Finally, this would be such a massively adverse change that Retrospect Product Management may have "chickened out" on announcing it, which would explain why you "had a week-long exchange with Retrospect support" and why this Knowledge Base article has not been updated.Īs a mere customer, I am not allowed to view Support Cases other than my own. Also, the Apple Developer Forums thread linked to in my preceding post indicates there is a problem with the APFS change in "normalization" of file names. is not impossible to believe the next-to-last substantive paragraph in this post suggests that IMHO the "real" engineers are being given unprecedented freedom in documentation. Retrospect Engineering has lately given fair warning about planned feature changes that would affect some administrators adversely they put yellow-flagged Notes about two such changes (once of which has already been expanded into a Knowledge Base article) in the cumulative Release Notes for Retrospect Mac 15.1 (and one of those was already in there for Retrospect Mac 15.0)-so I find it a bit difficult to believe that Retrospect Engineering (which IME communicates with customers only through a Support Engineer) would announce such an adverse change directly to you. I doubt your veracity because: No other threads, other than the ones you have posted in, have reported a problem with APFS and Instant Scan for Retrospect Mac except for this one back in October 2017. Oh, and the case is nb 00061949 that contains this exchange, including the message I quoted. To me their reply seems not quite thought through and not good for the product, so you asking could make them think again. Either they confirm what I just said, making me somewhat happy, or they backtrack and say they are going to support Instant Scan in the future or that I misunderstood, and I'm even happier. I'm sorry if I broke some kind of rule by not doing that.īTW, since you doubt my veracity, I'd suggest you ask Retrospect support if this is true. I haven't touched my profile from the default. About "recent visitors block is disabled" I know nothing. I didn't expect, however, to be accused of lying in the process. How can I prove that to you?Īnd yes, I created this login specifically to post about this, since the reply from Retrospect upset me. I copied verbatim what Retrospect support sent me. We recommend disabling instant scan in ALL cases, we are disabling instant scan by default in future versions of Retrospect. Instant scan doesn't work on AFP, and most likely customer is using AFP if they are on OSX 10.13. Retrospect Engineering Reply can be found below. ![]() Or maybe they actually did mean AFP and then I understand even less.) And makes no sense in any case on the local machine where Instant Scan works. I also assume Retrospect support meant to say "APFS" and not "AFP", which makes no sense in relation to 10.13. (I should mention that Instant Scan already didn't work before I upgraded to 10.13 and APFS. To me it sounds like Retrospect on MacOS will forever remain a dog. Does that mean my Mac backups will continue to be so grossly overloading the machines? I'll quote verbatim the last message I did get from Retrospect below. ![]() Not that it's having problems, no, that it has been abandoned. I had a week-long exchange with Retrospect support about this, trying to figure out why Instant Scan is totally ineffective, but once they escalated, I was told Instant Scan is no more. Admittedly, Retrospect backs up more files, but still.Įvery now and then backups went smoother, and that was when Instant Scan did its work (as verified in the logs), but most of the time Instant Scan simply bogs down the machines but doesn't actually work. Retrospect is a steamroller compared to that. I had Crashplan until they cancelled the service, and even though they backed up every 15 minutes, it was totally inconspicious and effective. My Macbook Pro 17", for instance, is hyperventilating several hours per day even though I hardly use it. I'm backing up a couple of Macs and Retrospect seems to place an inordinate load on them. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |