Retrospect: I've finally *HAD* it!!!..... Replaclement Recommendations?
(PeteCresswell)
I've been avoiding migration to another product bco Retrospect's
ability to build a list of all versions of a given file and
pick/choose from said list for restores. Seems tb the only game
in town in that respect.
I'm finally so fed up that I'll pass on the feature.
Has anybody out there ditched Retrospect in favor of another
product that they're satisfied with?
Recommendations?
--
PeteCresswell
Chris Hoogendyk
You'll have to spell out your requirements a little bit more. Retrospect
could be used for anything from a personal computer to a small business
or department, disk archive or tape library, Mac or Windows or Linux.
Depending on your mix of those things and your needs, recommendations
will vary. I don't believe there is any good replacement for what
Retrospect once was.
In the appropriate environment, Amanda is awesome. I use it to back up
my Solaris servers to an AIT5 tape library, and it never misses a beat.
See
http://blogs.umass.edu/choogend/2007/09/27/ten-things-i-like-about-amanda/
---------------
Chris Hoogendyk
-
O__ ---- Systems Administrator
c/ /'_ --- Biology & Geology Departments
(*) \(*) -- 140 Morrill Science Center
~~~~~~~~~~ - University of Massachusetts, Amherst
---------------
Erdös 4
(PeteCresswell)
>You'll have to spell out your requirements a little bit more. Retrospect
>could be used for anything from a personal computer to a small business
>or department, disk archive or tape library, Mac or Windows or Linux.
>Depending on your mix of those things and your needs, recommendations
>will vary.
My bad.
This is strictly for home use - single PC, about 100 gigs of
data.
No scheduling needed.
Scripting a Nice-To-Have.
Database-based storage a Must. (i.e. the database either has
integrity - in which case all files are guaranteed tb there and
intact - or it doesn't, in which case an error dialog pops the
next time it's opened.) This would be in contrast to individual
file-based storage as in products like Second Copy or just a
Windoze XCOPY.
Wildcard file exclusions/inclusions are Musts.
Ability to restore individual files is a Must.
Ability to list all backed-up versions of a given file/wildcard
spec is a Nice-To-Have.
>I don't believe there is any good replacement for what
>Retrospect once was.
That's kind of what I figured - and why I was trolling for an
ex-Retrospect users who had found something they could live with.
--
PeteCresswell
Howard Kaikow
news:l6p844plspp9kop31...@4ax.com...
Well, I'm never satisfied with anything!
I switched to image backup a few years ago.
I tried both Ghost 10 and TRue Image 9.
Ghost 10 got really buggy, so I now use TI 9 on my main system (Windows
2000).
I just purchased a Vista laptop and will be using TRue Image 11.
Bye thee waye, Acronis has a history of buggy early releases.
Initial release of TI 9 was awful, but they got most of the bugs worked out.
I've heard that folkes had a similar experience with TI 10.
Initial release of TI 11 appears to have caused problems for some.
Yesterday, I downloaded the latest TI 11 update and that's what I will
install.
Howard Kaikow
> My bad.
>
> This is strictly for home use - single PC, about 100 gigs of
> data.
Use ONLY image backup, ferget about file based backup.
> Scripting a Nice-To-Have.
I just predefine jobs for each ofmy 4 USB drives and then as I see fit.
> Database-based storage a Must. (i.e. the database either has
> integrity - in which case all files are guaranteed tb there and
> intact - or it doesn't, in which case an error dialog pops the
> next time it's opened.)
All image based backups use some sort of checksum.
It took a while before I convinced myself of the reliabilit yof image based
backups.
I wrote the following programs to verify things:
http://www.standards.com/index.html?GetDiskSpaceUsed
http://www.standards.com/index.html?ReadFile
http://www.standards.com./index.html?GetFileTypeDistribution
http://www.standards.com./index.html?CompareDrives
And if dates/times get screwed up
http://www.standards.com/index.html?ChangeFileTimes
http://www.standards.com/index.html?ChangePathTimes
and, not yet released
http://www.standards.com/index.html?CopyMoveDeleteRename
> Wildcard file exclusions/inclusions are Musts.
FORGET about file-based backups. Do ONLY image based backups, they are at
least umpteen
times faster than file-baased backups,
> Ability to restore individual files is a Must.
The popular image based programs have this.
> Ability to list all backed-up versions of a given file/wildcard
> spec is a Nice-To-Have.
You have hung on to that desire for a loooong time. Time to let go.
With image based backups, you chose the image and take the files from there.
Not sure whether there are any image based backups that keep an index across
images.
I doubt that low level, consumer oriented image backups have this
capability.
David Arnstein
(PeteCresswell) <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
>Recommendations?
I am still using Retrospect, but I used to use Ultrabac.
I don't know if Ultrabac will be an exact fit for you. But it has one
property that I absolutely require: it is sold to both home users, and
to enterprises. Retrospect has this feature as well, I think.
I don't believe that any software sold exclusively to home users will
have the stability required in a backup product. That's just the way it
is in the Windows world.
I don't believe that I have enough cash to pay for backup software that
is sold exclusively to enterprises.
So I use products like Retrospect and Ultrabac, that are in-between. I
don't expect the companies behind this software to respond to my bug
reports. But there is a decent chance that a bug I find will also be
found by an enterprise customer. If so, then that bug will get fixed.
--
David Arnstein (00)
arnstei...@pobox.com {{ }}
^^
Curtis Preston
Curtis Preston | VP Data Protection
GlassHouse Technologies, Inc.
T: +1 760 710 2004 | C: +1 760 419 5838 | F: F: +1 760 710 2009
cpre...@glasshouse.com | www.glasshouse.com
Infrastructure :: Optimized
_______________________________________________
If you'd like to join the discussion, go to http://www.backupcentral.com and get
a user id. Then subscribe to one or more of our mailing lists or follow the
discussions in one of our forums (http://www.backupcentral.com/phpBB2).
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
George
> I like backup services like Mozy and Carbonite. $5/month and magic just happens.
>
>
>
> Curtis Preston | VP Data Protection
> GlassHouse Technologies, Inc.
>
Thats the problem. Since none of the "magic" is peer reviewed how do I
know my data is securely encrypted? Hoe do I know there isn't a back
door in the software? And you completely loose control of your data when
you put it "in the cloud" since you no longer have physical control of
it so any attacker/hacker has whatever time they need to work.
jack ak
How do you know there isn't a "back door" in your Thunderbird 2.0.0.14
browser, or your Comcast connection to the Internet?
Howard Kaikow
news:dZednUROifUgfNvV...@comcast.com...
> Thats the problem. Since none of the "magic" is peer reviewed how do I
> know my data is securely encrypted? Hoe do I know there isn't a back
> door in the software? And you completely loose control of your data when
> you put it "in the cloud" since you no longer have physical control of
> it so any attacker/hacker has whatever time they need to work.
I do not see how anybody could justify exposing their files to others, not
to mention losing control, especially if there's a dispute.
Too many unethical/dishonest folkes out there.
Howard Kaikow
news:gGD1k.3873$xZ....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> How do you know there isn't a "back door" in your Thunderbird 2.0.0.14
> browser, or your Comcast connection to the Internet?
Indeed there may be, but at least you have control of your files, and the
eliminate the risk of unethical/dishonest employees at the backup storage
place.
George
as firewalls and logging of traffic so I have a pretty good idea what is
going on. If I put my data "in the cloud" I loose total control of it
because I have also given complete physical control of it to others. I
have no idea what an employee or hacker might do. Unfortunately it
sounds sexy to "put your data in the cloud" and of course if the
marketing says it is good it must be and we should just completely trust
someone else because of the marketing. Security is a bunch of common
sense steps. One of the key ones is to never loose physical control of
your data. The words security and "magic" never belong in the same
sentence.
Chris Hoogendyk
George wrote:
> jack ak wrote:
>
>> George wrote:
>>
>>> Curtis Preston wrote:
>>>
>>>> I like backup services like Mozy and Carbonite. $5/month and magic
>>>> just happens.
>>>>
>>> Thats the problem. Since none of the "magic" is peer reviewed how do I
>>> know my data is securely encrypted? Hoe do I know there isn't a back
>>> door in the software? And you completely loose control of your data when
>>> you put it "in the cloud" since you no longer have physical control of
>>> it so any attacker/hacker has whatever time they need to work.
>>>
>> How do you know there isn't a "back door" in your Thunderbird 2.0.0.14
>> browser, or your Comcast connection to the Internet?
>>
>>
> I don't but then I don't give them my data. Also I use precautions such
> as firewalls and logging of traffic so I have a pretty good idea what is
> going on. If I put my data "in the cloud" I loose total control of it
> because I have also given complete physical control of it to others. I
> have no idea what an employee or hacker might do. Unfortunately it
> sounds sexy to "put your data in the cloud" and of course if the
> marketing says it is good it must be and we should just completely trust
> someone else because of the marketing. Security is a bunch of common
> sense steps. One of the key ones is to never loose physical control of
> your data. The words security and "magic" never belong in the same
> sentence.
I totally agree with the last sentence.
One point you didn't make/emphasize is that open source is open to
inspection by large numbers of people all over the world. So, if there
is a back door, there is a high likelihood that someone, somewhere, will
find it and blow the whistle. It might not be you yourself, but rather
the community.
OK. So here is a crazy idea. Amanda will do something called RAIT
(redundant array of independent tapes), and, it will also use disk
drives as virtual tapes. So, do that. Then copy each separate disk drive
to a separate and independent vendor out there in the cloud. No one
vendor could reassemble your data, even if they did take the time to
break whatever encryption you had, and even if they knew what you were
doing. If one vendor went belly up or lost your data, you could
reassemble your data from the remaining vendors. Really paranoid? Copy
your data out to 2*N vendors, so there are 2 copies of each.
Amanda also does direct backups to Amazon S3. At present, the
configuration directives don't allow multiple targets in S3. However,
perhaps in the future Amanda will support other vendors as well as
configuration directives that allow the use of multiple at once (Amanda
development is moving very quickly these days). Then you would be able
to configure Cloud-RAIT (yup, I made that up). Someone would have to
break all the vendors you used as well as your encryption after figuring
out what you were doing and tracking down where each piece was going.
Unless they broke directly into your primary system, that would take the
resources of someone like the NSA. Of course, if someone broke into your
primary system, then we're back to basic security discussions and
issues, and the responsibility is back to you.
upwebadmin
dilemma, you can use ION (google ION backup software) to backup
between the two. it's a peer-to-peer backup option. all files stay
with you (or your friend). No per GB costs. i use it to send files
between my office and home.
good luck.
(PeteCresswell)
I might give that a shot, but expect similar issues as with
Carbonite - which I tried when they were offering free demos:
namely my limited bandwidth vs volume of data.
My connection is the el-cheapo 5-Mb Verizon FIOS. I let
Carbonite run for a couple of days, but it didn't seem tb making
a significant dent in my 100 gigs.
--
PeteCresswell
Curtis Preston
2.0.0.14
>> browser, or your Comcast connection to the Internet?
>Indeed there may be, but at least you have control of your files, and
the
>eliminate the risk of unethical/dishonest employees at the backup
storage
>place.
What do I have:
Photos/Music: Steal them. I don't care.
Word docs/emails: what's in them that anyone would want to steal, or
that if they stole it they would have something of mine?
Quicken file: here's something valuable, but it's password protected
If you're truly paranoid, you can even active Windows Encrypted
Filesystem, and all the vendor would have is files that they could see
but not read.
In the case of Mozy, I know that it was code written by a small company,
which was then reviewed by a $20B company (EMC). So are you saying that
mozy (the small company) put in a back door that EMC then saw in their
code review and then continued? I'm sorry, but that's highly unlikely.
Now let's get to something more likely. As pointed out by another,
you're running all kinds of apps on your box. How do you know they're
not stealing stuff? You said you're not giving them your data. How do
you know? You have no idea what those pieces of software are doing. Do
you have any idea how many different companies' software you have
running on your system? Are you sure every one of them are safe?
Curtis Preston
>Carbonite run for a couple of days, but it didn't seem tb making
>a significant dent in my 100 gigs.
My first full backup with Mozy took a few weeks. But since then, all
backups are incremental and take a few minutes.
(PeteCresswell)
>My first full backup with Mozy took a few weeks.
Roughly how many gigs?
--
PeteCresswell
Curtis Preston
Curtis Preston | VP Data Protection
GlassHouse Technologies, Inc.
T: +1 760 710 2004 | C: +1 760 419 5838 | F: F: +1 760 710 2009
cpre...@glasshouse.com | www.glasshouse.com
Infrastructure :: Optimized
-----Original Message-----
From: alt.backup-so...@backupcentral.com [mailto:alt.backup-so...@backupcentral.com] On Behalf Of (PeteCresswell)
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 5:17 PM
To: alt.backu...@backupcentral.com
Subject: Re: [A.B.S.] Retrospect: I've finally *HAD* it!!!.....ReplaclementRecommendations?
_______________________________________________
If you'd like to join the discussion, go to http://www.backupcentral.com and get
a user id. Then subscribe to one or more of our mailing lists or follow the
discussions in one of our forums (http://www.backupcentral.com/phpBB2).
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Dave T.
Howard, I am one of those who had serious problems with Acronis 11. I am
curious if you have had a chance to work with it yet on your new Vista
machine.
My main problem with Acronis was that the program would hang while doing
a backup. Let me start by saying that I know that all software won't
work on all machines. Granted. The nature of the cause of my problem and
Acronis's response to it is what made me ditch them. The problem is a
conflict with certain dual-core processors configured in a certain way.
Acronis has been aware of the problem for 8 months, but no new build is
as of yet forthcoming. I uninstalled Acronis on the day that their tech
support pointed me to a work-around written by one of their users. This
work around was a registry hack to disable one of the cores of my
processor. I didn't feel like going there. I don't have a Master's in
the computer sciences.
Bottom line is this; If they have identified the problem, and the
current build is 8 months old (or more), then that means the fix is
going to be in the new version which they historically put out about
once a year. That means that I would need to buy a new license. No thanks.
--
Dave T.
Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach a
person to use the internet and they won't bother you for
weeks.
kforst...@gmail.com
> Howard, I am one of those who had serious problems with Acronis 11. I am
> curious if you have had a chance to work with it yet on your new Vista
> machine.
>
> My main problem with Acronis was that the program would hang while doing
> work on all machines. Granted. The nature of the cause of my problem and
> Acronis's response to it is what made me ditch them. The problem is a
> conflict with certain dual-core processors configured in a certain way.
> Acronis has been aware of the problem for 8 months, but no new build is
> as of yet forthcoming. I uninstalled Acronis on the day that their tech
> support pointed me to a work-around written by one of their users. This
> work around was a registry hack to disable one of the cores of my
> processor. I didn't feel like going there. I don't have a Master's in
> the computer sciences.
>
> Bottom line is this; If they have identified the problem, and the
> current build is 8 months old (or more), then that means the fix is
> going to be in the new version which they historically put out about
> once a year. That means that I would need to buy a new license. No thanks.
>
> --
> Dave T.
>
> Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach a
> person to use the internet and they won't bother you for
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hello Dave,
From your description, it sounds like Acronis has a thread interaction
problem. Thread problems can create a deadlock situation where one
thread is waiting on another and vice versa. As a result, the two
threads are waiting for each other and the program locks up. These
problems are usually difficult to find, but are usually pretty quick
to fix. Shutting off processor cores is a heavy handed way of
"solving" this problem and yes, 8 months is more than enough time for
a solution from a large company like Acronis.
As a long time software developer, I like to look at company websites
and see if the company lists their key people. When companies list
key people, you can learn a lot about their priorities. A visit to
the Acronis website shows you where software development falls on
their priority list.
Karl Forster
Developer of Backup for Workgroups - Disk-Based Windows Backup &
Disaster Recovery for Small Enterprises
Dave T.
Hello Karl,
Yes, your description is exactly what Acronis tech support told me. They
know the problem, and assure me it will be in the next release.
(Version?) I did go to their website, and I see what you mean. The vast
majority of people in upper management are either marketing or venture
capitol folks. I really think I know all that I need to know about Acronis.
--
Dave T.
Howard Kaikow
news:xHe5k.12682$Ri.1...@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Howard, I am one of those who had serious problems with Acronis 11. I am
> curious if you have had a chance to work with it yet on your new Vista
> machine.
>
> My main problem with Acronis was that the program would hang while doing
> a backup. Let me start by saying that I know that all software won't
> work on all machines. Granted. The nature of the cause of my problem and
> Acronis's response to it is what made me ditch them. The problem is a
> conflict with certain dual-core processors configured in a certain way.
> Acronis has been aware of the problem for 8 months, but no new build is
> as of yet forthcoming. I uninstalled Acronis on the day that their tech
> support pointed me to a work-around written by one of their users. This
> work around was a registry hack to disable one of the cores of my
> processor. I didn't feel like going there. I don't have a Master's in
> the computer sciences.
>
> Bottom line is this; If they have identified the problem, and the
> current build is 8 months old (or more), then that means the fix is
> going to be in the new version which they historically put out about
> once a year. That means that I would need to buy a new license. No thanks.
I'm using build 8.053.
No problems, yet, on backups.
And, TI 11 actually saved my arse a couple of daze ago.
I am having a problem wit NIS 2008, so I called symantec tech support and
foolishly allowed them to access my system remotely. Never did that before
and never again!
Symantec really screwed things up.
So, I crossed my fingers, arms, toes, eys, etc., and restored the C drive
using TI 11.
Seems to have worked.
I wrote the following programs to verify things, but have not yet tested TI
11.:
Howard Kaikow
news:7ee82d85-5a5d-4d2c...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> From your description, it sounds like Acronis has a thread interaction
> problem. Thread problems can create a deadlock situation where one
> thread is waiting on another and vice versa. As a result, the two
> threads are waiting for each other and the program locks up. These
> problems are usually difficult to find, but are usually pretty quick
> to fix. Shutting off processor cores is a heavy handed way of
> "solving" this problem and yes, 8 months is more than enough time for
> a solution from a large company like Acronis.
Yes, it is clear that TI 11 folkes do NOT know how to test software and it
is ludicrous how often they ask folkes for dumps, etc.
Like most companies, front line tech support folkes are often lacking in
knowledge about the innards of their products, and they take too long to
pass the info to the developers.
Also, sorry to say, most /some of the front line techies have English
lanuage difficulties.
> As a long time software developer, I like to look at company websites
> and see if the company lists their key people. When companies list
> key people, you can learn a lot about their priorities. A visit to
> the Acronis website shows you where software development falls on
> their priority list.
Listing of people is not important.
What matters is evidence of proper software development and quality
assurance methodolgies..
Given the history of buggy initial releases, this should be a concern.
Dave T.
Interesting home page. Very impressive.
I could have helped you with your Symantec problem. Go to Control Panel,
Programs and Features, and click "Uninstall". Although that won't always
work.
My disclaimer;
Acronis TI has many devoted followers. It obviously works for most
people. My mission is to dispel the notion (as presented by many on
Usenet) that if you buy Acronis you will again learn how to smile. That
is why I wasted my money based on glowing reports from others. TI IS
EXACTLY LIKE ALL OTHER SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS. That is to say, it will
not work for all people, and it does have many serious problems.
--
Dave T.
Howard Kaikow
news:l6p844plspp9kop31...@4ax.com...
You are keeping is in suspense.
We talk around the water cooler "Has Pete finally jumped ship?"
I have not heard the splash.
(PeteCresswell)
>
>You are keeping is in suspense.
>We talk around the water cooler "Has Pete finally jumped ship?"
>I have not heard the splash.
Not yet.
I'm running SecondCopy 24-7 to two 500g drives that I rotate from
home to work.
When I think of it, I start retro before going to bed and hope
it's done by morning.
Been working a lot of looooong days last few weeks and have lost
focus on the search a replacement.
--
PeteCresswell
Charliec
May I ask, what number did you use to call Symantec Tech Support?
Thanks
******************************************************
Charliec
Howard Kaikow
news:9kns74hefnmmud5f0...@4ax.com...
> Howard,
>
> May I ask, what number did you use to call Symantec Tech Support?
Charliec
******************************************************
Charliec