Re: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?

[matt barkdull]

We're rather small, about 200 machines total for 3 backup servers. 
One of the backup servers does only 10 clients and a ASIP server.

I use Retrospect and swear by it.  We've used ArcServe and it's a 
piece of junk compared to Retrospect on the same number of clients. 
Backups are happening reliably and as fast, if not faster.  Laptops 
are not a problem as you can have a backup server script to just do 
laptops when-ever they are available or when the users request it. 
I've had that setup on mine for a while and my users love the fact 
that they can tell it to backup their laptop just before they travel 
(Piece of mind thing).

The real key to large scale is setting up a plan.  How often, how 
long, how much, and how many.

The server that does 10 machines does a full backup over the weekend 
and incrementals through the week.  The amount of data ranges from 
25GB to 35GB.

Dealing with ArcServe, you probably have a good idea of how you want 
the backups to go.  Retrospect is a lot easier to set up to do what 
you want it to do.

mattb


>I've used Retrospect on my home network (two PCs and a Mac) for nearly a
>year and it is exactly right for my needs.
>
>I am also responsible for  my company's IT environment. We use ArcServe
>for the backup software - the server running on a Windows NT server, a
>Dell PowerVault twin-drive 30-tape library and the ArcServe agent
>running on each of a dozen or so NT servers. I don't find ArcServe
>particularly usable or flexible, so I am thinking of looking at
>alternatives. I would also like to (although we don't do this now) have
>an arrangement to back up the laptop users (about 30 or so) who tend to
>store a lot of data on local machines.
>Data volumes are around 250 GB for personal data and another 35 GB or so
>for Notes databases. Due to the way Notes mail works, a fair proportion
>of that 35 GB turns over each day.
>
>So... the question is, since I am planning to look at the market for
>backup software for bigger systems, would it be reasonable for me to
>include Retrospect in the candidate list? Is anyone on the list backing
>up systems on this scale?
>
>Any advice welcome.
>
>Ian.



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

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

Re: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?

[Jon Gardner]

on 12/30/00 7:45 PM, matt barkdull at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Dealing with ArcServe, you probably have a good idea of how you want
> the backups to go.  Retrospect is a lot easier to set up to do what
> you want it to do.

I'll second that. I used ArcServe at my last job, and while it did the job,
it was kludgy and non-intuitive--especially when it came to recovering files
from backup. I use Retrospect on one backup server for about 50-60Gb of data
on four Mac OS servers, two Windows NT servers, a half dozen laptops, and a
handful of client machines. Writing to a VXA drive, it can backup the whole
tomato in one night, and recovery is a piece of cake. The only question I
have to ask someone requesting an old file is, "Which day?"

<><
Jon L. Gardner '89, Computer Systems Manager 
Texas A&M University Dept. of Food Services 
Tel 979.458.1839 * Fax 979.845.2157 * Hip 979.229.4323
PGP public key available at 




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

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

RE: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?

[Douglas B. McKay]

Medium here.

4 OnStream ADR 50GB drives on one backup machine (700MHz Windows 2000
Pro) backing up 4 servers (Win NT & 2000 around 100GB) and 15
workstations (Win 98 & 2000 about 20GB).  "New tape" backups run on
Friday and "normal" backups run Sun-Thu.  Friday night's backup
currently takes around 30 hours and the others take around 10.  I
really hope that Dantz is working on some possibilities that could
shrink that window somewhat by using all of the drive simultaneously
so I won't have to resort to splitting the drives out into two (or
more) separate systems.

This is not even half of what you mentioned, but hopefully it gives
you a better feel for things...

   ...Doug

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

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf
Of ian
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 4:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?


I've used Retrospect on my home network (two PCs and a Mac) for nearly
a
year and it is exactly right for my needs.

I am also responsible for  my company's IT environment. We use
ArcServe
for the backup software - the server running on a Windows NT server, a
Dell PowerVault twin-drive 30-tape library and the ArcServe agent
running on each of a dozen or so NT servers. I don't find ArcServe
particularly usable or flexible, so I am thinking of looking at
alternatives. I would also like to (although we don't do this now)
have
an arrangement to back up the laptop users (about 30 or so) who tend
to
store a lot of data on local machines.
Data volumes are around 250 GB for personal data and another 35 GB or
so
for Notes databases. Due to the way Notes mail works, a fair
proportion
of that 35 GB turns over each day.

So... the question is, since I am planning to look at the market for
backup software for bigger systems, would it be reasonable for me to
include Retrospect in the candidate list? Is anyone on the list
backing
up systems on this scale?

Any advice welcome.


Ian.


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

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:
Search:  

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

Re: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?

[Chris Freemesser]

>So... the question is, since I am planning to look at the market for
>backup software for bigger systems, would it be reasonable for me to
>include Retrospect in the candidate list? Is anyone on the list backing
>up systems on this scale?
>
>Any advice welcome.
>
>Ian.

Hi Ian.

I run a Retrospect backup server that backs up approximately 180 
systems (Mac and PC) every 36 hours, including some Macs I use for 
server purposes.  Backups are done to two DLT7000 drives, with a 
total of about 450GB per month.  Retrospect works like a champ, and I 
would not hesitate to use it on a large-scale project.  As long as 
you have a good backup strategy, Retrospect should do the job nicely.

Chris

-- 

_
Chris Freemesser, University of Rochester
Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences /
   Center for Visual Science
Meliora Hall, Room 244
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone:  (716)275-0786
_


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

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

Re: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?

[Tim David]

I am like the other guys in that I don't have quite that much stuff to back
up. I back up about 150gb of total data. I am backing up 6 Mac servers and
about 120 desktop Macs. I use a 5 tape DLT changer so I can keep doing
incrementals a little longer that I used to.
I also have 15 laptops that need to be backed up so I've set up two
different scripts just for the laptops. Most of that group takes lunch from
12-1 so I have one script that just hits those machines for that time period
and only gets documents and preferences. I usually get each machine a couple
of times a week. (some people take their machines to lunch)

If you go with Retrospect, it really pays to learn all of the "nooks and
crannies" of the program. I learned a lot of little things that really made
my life easier about 2 years after I started using Retrospect.

Judging by the way my backups run and from what I've seen of ArcServe, I
don't think you will have any regrets of going with Retrospect. It flies
through my backups in about half the time I have allotted. An I'm only using
a 10base-T network and an older Mac as my backup server.

Tim

_


> From: Chris Freemesser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 09:05:13 -0500
> To: "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?
> 
> 
>> So... the question is, since I am planning to look at the market for
>> backup software for bigger systems, would it be reasonable for me to
>> include Retrospect in the candidate list? Is anyone on the list backing
>> up systems on this scale?
>> 
>> Any advice welcome.
>> 
>> Ian.
> 
> Hi Ian.
> 
> I run a Retrospect backup server that backs up approximately 180
> systems (Mac and PC) every 36 hours, including some Macs I use for
> server purposes.  Backups are done to two DLT7000 drives, with a
> total of about 450GB per month.  Retrospect works like a champ, and I
> would not hesitate to use it on a large-scale project.  As long as
> you have a good backup strategy, Retrospect should do the job nicely.
> 
> Chris
> 
> -- 
> 
> _
> Chris Freemesser, University of Rochester
> Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences /
> Center for Visual Science
> Meliora Hall, Room 244
> E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Phone:  (716)275-0786
> _
> 
> 
> --
> --
> 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: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?

[Steven Karel]

We back up about 200 clients, half Mac, half Windows, including about a
dozen laptops. We have less data turnover than you do, however, and only
back up each client about once a week.

In no particular order, here are my comments on backing up medium-size
networks with Retrospect vis-a-vis other software i've used (haven't
tried
arcserve, but it looked awful when I was evaluating packages)

- Retrospect is much better than other solutions in terms of conserving
amount of tape used.

- restoring with Retrospect is smoother than other solutions.

- One bad apple can spoil the bunch; that is, if you have one client
that
works slowly, it can hold up the process for everything else, because
Retrospect can't back up clients in parallel (that's on my wishlist).

- with a lot of computers, the Retrospect catalog files can become
large,
and doing the comparisons between catalog and the current client
filesystem structure  prior to backing up each client can take a long
time.

- you won't have this problem with your tape library, but I find that
the
fact that Retrospect stops when it runs out of tape (we have a single
DLT
drive) annoying; other solutions (like AMANDA) use "holding-disk" to
allow
the backup to continue, then finish taping later (also on my wishlist)

Finally, I'd second the previous comments about figuring out a good
strategy early on; you don't say what your network bandwidth is like,
but
that'd be an important component in choosing a strategy.

steven


On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, ian wrote:

> I am also responsible for  my company's IT environment. We use ArcServe
> for the backup software - the server running on a Windows NT server, a
> Dell PowerVault twin-drive 30-tape library and the ArcServe agent
> running on each of a dozen or so NT servers. I don't find ArcServe
> particularly usable or flexible, so I am thinking of looking at
> alternatives. I would also like to (although we don't do this now) have
> an arrangement to back up the laptop users (about 30 or so) who tend to
> store a lot of data on local machines.
> Data volumes are around 250 GB for personal data and another 35 GB or so
> for Notes databases. Due to the way Notes mail works, a fair proportion
> of that 35 GB turns over each day.
>
> So... the question is, since I am planning to look at the market for
> backup software for bigger systems, would it be reasonable for me to
> include Retrospect in the candidate list? Is anyone on the list backing
> up systems on this scale?
>

-- 
Steven Karel, Ph.D.
Biology Department, Brandeis Univ, MS 008
415 South St Waltham MA 02454-9110
TEL 781 736 3104   FAX 781 736 3107


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

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

RE: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?

[Mike L.]

In regards to:

>One bad apple can spoil the bunch; that is, if you have one client
>that works slowly, it can hold up the process for everything else, because
>Retrospect can't back up clients in parallel (that's on my wishlist).

You can actually do this if you're using a Backup Server script.  In the
options of the script, you can set a "speed threshold" for the client
executions.  This will allow you to specify the minimum copy rate of a
client before it stops and moves on to the next client.

ML

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
Of Steven Karel
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 4:52 PM
To: retro-talk
Subject: Re: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?


We back up about 200 clients, half Mac, half Windows, including about a
dozen laptops. We have less data turnover than you do, however, and only
back up each client about once a week.

In no particular order, here are my comments on backing up medium-size
networks with Retrospect vis-a-vis other software i've used (haven't
tried
arcserve, but it looked awful when I was evaluating packages)

- Retrospect is much better than other solutions in terms of conserving
amount of tape used.

- restoring with Retrospect is smoother than other solutions.

- One bad apple can spoil the bunch; that is, if you have one client
that
works slowly, it can hold up the process for everything else, because
Retrospect can't back up clients in parallel (that's on my wishlist).

- with a lot of computers, the Retrospect catalog files can become
large,
and doing the comparisons between catalog and the current client
filesystem structure  prior to backing up each client can take a long
time.

- you won't have this problem with your tape library, but I find that
the
fact that Retrospect stops when it runs out of tape (we have a single
DLT
drive) annoying; other solutions (like AMANDA) use "holding-disk" to
allow
the backup to continue, then finish taping later (also on my wishlist)

Finally, I'd second the previous comments about figuring out a good
strategy early on; you don't say what your network bandwidth is like,
but
that'd be an important component in choosing a strategy.

steven


On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, ian wrote:

> I am also responsible for  my company's IT environment. We use ArcServe
> for the backup software - the server running on a Windows NT server, a
> Dell PowerVault twin-drive 30-tape library and the ArcServe agent
> running on each of a dozen or so NT servers. I don't find ArcServe
> particularly usable or flexible, so I am thinking of looking at
> alternatives. I would also like to (although we don't do this now) have
> an arrangement to back up the laptop users (about 30 or so) who tend to
> store a lot of data on local machines.
> Data volumes are around 250 GB for personal data and another 35 GB or so
> for Notes databases. Due to the way Notes mail works, a fair proportion
> of that 35 GB turns over each day.
>
> So... the question is, since I am planning to look at the market for
> backup software for bigger systems, would it be reasonable for me to
> include Retrospect in the candidate list? Is anyone on the list backing
> up systems on this scale?
>

--
Steven Karel, Ph.D.
Biology Department, Brandeis Univ, MS 008
415 South St Waltham MA 02454-9110
TEL 781 736 3104   FAX 781 736 3107


--
--
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.


_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



--
--
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: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?

[Thone, Bradley A (Sbcsi)]

Suppose the first client of the night meets the threshold value, so Backup
Server starts a backup.

30 seconds into the backup, the client's CPU-sucking OpenGL screen saver and
a virus scan both kick in.

Now, all your other clients are piled up behind this (now slow) client.

It's not perfect, but I do set a threshold value of 500 (which is 30
MB/min). And I still have run into cases where a client has dragged the
backups to a near halt.

Brad.

-Original Message-
From: Mike L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 11:07 AM
To: retro-talk
Subject: RE: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?


In regards to:

>One bad apple can spoil the bunch; that is, if you have one client
>that works slowly, it can hold up the process for everything else, because
>Retrospect can't back up clients in parallel (that's on my wishlist).

You can actually do this if you're using a Backup Server script.  In the
options of the script, you can set a "speed threshold" for the client
executions.  This will allow you to specify the minimum copy rate of a
client before it stops and moves on to the next client.

ML

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
Of Steven Karel
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 4:52 PM
To: retro-talk
Subject: Re: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?


We back up about 200 clients, half Mac, half Windows, including about a
dozen laptops. We have less data turnover than you do, however, and only
back up each client about once a week.

In no particular order, here are my comments on backing up medium-size
networks with Retrospect vis-a-vis other software i've used (haven't
tried
arcserve, but it looked awful when I was evaluating packages)

- Retrospect is much better than other solutions in terms of conserving
amount of tape used.

- restoring with Retrospect is smoother than other solutions.

- One bad apple can spoil the bunch; that is, if you have one client
that
works slowly, it can hold up the process for everything else, because
Retrospect can't back up clients in parallel (that's on my wishlist).

- with a lot of computers, the Retrospect catalog files can become
large,
and doing the comparisons between catalog and the current client
filesystem structure  prior to backing up each client can take a long
time.

- you won't have this problem with your tape library, but I find that
the
fact that Retrospect stops when it runs out of tape (we have a single
DLT
drive) annoying; other solutions (like AMANDA) use "holding-disk" to
allow
the backup to continue, then finish taping later (also on my wishlist)

Finally, I'd second the previous comments about figuring out a good
strategy early on; you don't say what your network bandwidth is like,
but
that'd be an important component in choosing a strategy.

steven


On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, ian wrote:

> I am also responsible for  my company's IT environment. We use ArcServe
> for the backup software - the server running on a Windows NT server, a
> Dell PowerVault twin-drive 30-tape library and the ArcServe agent
> running on each of a dozen or so NT servers. I don't find ArcServe
> particularly usable or flexible, so I am thinking of looking at
> alternatives. I would also like to (although we don't do this now) have
> an arrangement to back up the laptop users (about 30 or so) who tend to
> store a lot of data on local machines.
> Data volumes are around 250 GB for personal data and another 35 GB or so
> for Notes databases. Due to the way Notes mail works, a fair proportion
> of that 35 GB turns over each day.
>
> So... the question is, since I am planning to look at the market for
> backup software for bigger systems, would it be reasonable for me to
> include Retrospect in the candidate list? Is anyone on the list backing
> up systems on this scale?
>

--
Steven Karel, Ph.D.
Biology Department, Brandeis Univ, MS 008
415 South St Waltham MA 02454-9110
TEL 781 736 3104   FAX 781 736 3107


--
--
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.


_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



--
--
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 tec

RE: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?

[Mike L.]

Very good point!  I never thought of that.  All of the computers were set
up/cloned by me so I there is no anti-virus software and the power-saving is
limited to the monitor shutting off (hard disks NEVER spin down).

ML

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
Of Thone, Bradley A (Sbcsi)
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 9:27 AM
To: 'retro-talk'
Subject: RE: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?


Suppose the first client of the night meets the threshold value, so Backup
Server starts a backup.

30 seconds into the backup, the client's CPU-sucking OpenGL screen saver and
a virus scan both kick in.

Now, all your other clients are piled up behind this (now slow) client.

It's not perfect, but I do set a threshold value of 500 (which is 30
MB/min). And I still have run into cases where a client has dragged the
backups to a near halt.

Brad.

-Original Message-
From: Mike L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 11:07 AM
To: retro-talk
Subject: RE: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?


In regards to:

>One bad apple can spoil the bunch; that is, if you have one client
>that works slowly, it can hold up the process for everything else, because
>Retrospect can't back up clients in parallel (that's on my wishlist).

You can actually do this if you're using a Backup Server script.  In the
options of the script, you can set a "speed threshold" for the client
executions.  This will allow you to specify the minimum copy rate of a
client before it stops and moves on to the next client.

ML

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
Of Steven Karel
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 4:52 PM
To: retro-talk
Subject: Re: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?


We back up about 200 clients, half Mac, half Windows, including about a
dozen laptops. We have less data turnover than you do, however, and only
back up each client about once a week.

In no particular order, here are my comments on backing up medium-size
networks with Retrospect vis-a-vis other software i've used (haven't
tried
arcserve, but it looked awful when I was evaluating packages)

- Retrospect is much better than other solutions in terms of conserving
amount of tape used.

- restoring with Retrospect is smoother than other solutions.

- One bad apple can spoil the bunch; that is, if you have one client
that
works slowly, it can hold up the process for everything else, because
Retrospect can't back up clients in parallel (that's on my wishlist).

- with a lot of computers, the Retrospect catalog files can become
large,
and doing the comparisons between catalog and the current client
filesystem structure  prior to backing up each client can take a long
time.

- you won't have this problem with your tape library, but I find that
the
fact that Retrospect stops when it runs out of tape (we have a single
DLT
drive) annoying; other solutions (like AMANDA) use "holding-disk" to
allow
the backup to continue, then finish taping later (also on my wishlist)

Finally, I'd second the previous comments about figuring out a good
strategy early on; you don't say what your network bandwidth is like,
but
that'd be an important component in choosing a strategy.

steven


On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, ian wrote:

> I am also responsible for  my company's IT environment. We use ArcServe
> for the backup software - the server running on a Windows NT server, a
> Dell PowerVault twin-drive 30-tape library and the ArcServe agent
> running on each of a dozen or so NT servers. I don't find ArcServe
> particularly usable or flexible, so I am thinking of looking at
> alternatives. I would also like to (although we don't do this now) have
> an arrangement to back up the laptop users (about 30 or so) who tend to
> store a lot of data on local machines.
> Data volumes are around 250 GB for personal data and another 35 GB or so
> for Notes databases. Due to the way Notes mail works, a fair proportion
> of that 35 GB turns over each day.
>
> So... the question is, since I am planning to look at the market for
> backup software for bigger systems, would it be reasonable for me to
> include Retrospect in the candidate list? Is anyone on the list backing
> up systems on this scale?
>

--
Steven Karel, Ph.D.
Biology Department, Brandeis Univ, MS 008
415 South St Waltham MA 02454-9110
TEL 781 736 3104   FAX 781 736 3107


--
--
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 suppo

RE: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?

[Adam Hill]

I second this complaint. I would much prefer Retrospect to create a
directory with the name of the catalog and have files inside for each client
for faster file compares. Or at least let me break out a "big" client. A
file compare of a ~22G restore takes about 2hrs even if I want just *one*
file out of the bunch.

This fact has caused us to use a secondary HD to backup this one large chunk
of data.

adam...

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> Of Steven Karel
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 4:52 PM
> To: retro-talk
> Subject: Re: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?
>

>
> - with a lot of computers, the Retrospect catalog files can become
> large,
> and doing the comparisons between catalog and the current client
> filesystem structure  prior to backing up each client can take a long
> time.
>



--
--
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: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?

[Jon Stevens]

on 12/30/2000 3:25 PM, "ian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> So... the question is, since I am planning to look at the market for
> backup software for bigger systems, would it be reasonable for me to
> include Retrospect in the candidate list? Is anyone on the list backing
> up systems on this scale?

Hell yes. 

Retro is just as easy to use on a small network as a large one.

You just need to scale your hardware appropriately. In other words, don't
backup a 100 person network to a cd-r using a 66mhz 486 and localtalk. :-)

-jon



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

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

RE: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?

[Thone, Bradley A (Sbcsi)]

Well, that's not *entirely* true. Retrospect scales with some difficulty,
though I'm learning to work around some of its shortcomings, and ranting
about some others.

I have about 1000 clients, currently being backed up by 3 Macs.

I am converting the 3 Mac servers into 4 NT servers, not because I need 4
NTs to do the work of 3 Macs, but because the 3 Macs weren't enough to begin
with. It may be the case that 4 NT servers won't be enough, since the
snapshot phase is so time-consuming. We'll see.

My clients are (were, actually) installed by a bunch of desktop technicians
that sometimes can't type a password correctly to save their lives, so
adding clients to the server can be challenging sometimes...

Also, some of the clients are upgrades of the 1.1 client, upgraded to 5.0 or
5.1. Others are fresh installs of 5.0 or 5.1x or 5.15.

Dantz provides no method (or at least no documented and supported method) of
either uninstalling existing clients or installing new clients in a
non-interactive fashion.

Dantz' area of the registry is an admin's nightmare. Dantz has piled all of
the client's configuration settings into one registry value called "Config",
which is in Hex to boot. I've not worked around this, nor will I be able to
without some really difficult work.

When installing Retrospect client on a workstation, the installer grabs the
current computername, and works that into the "Config" value in Dantz' area
of the registry. This means that when a workstation is renamed, the
Retrospect client does not get renamed similarly, so the computername and
client name are out-of-sync. This is a serious problem when a restore for a
computer is requested by COMPUTERNAME, but the backup is being performed
under a different CLIENT NAME!

So, for starters, here is a short, incomplete list of things I'd like Dantz
to fix (yes, I mean fix):

1. Document and support silent installs of the Retrospect client. For those
of you who are interested, I documented my approach to silent
non-interactive installs on 11/15/00, posting to this forum. I've learned
some more since then, so if you have questions, feel free to email me, or
post if the interest warrants.

2. Break out the "Config" value in the registry so that admins can configure
(via registry imports of .REG files) the Retrospect clients. I'd like to
ensure that backups get highest priority. I'd like to ensure users get
notified after backups or after seven days of no backups, etc. Via some
quick testing, I've determined that byte 29 describes the state of the "x
days of no backup" notification. The value of "x" is located at byte 33.
Furthermore, buried in that same value "Config" is the client name, the
access password (encrypted), etc. Not very useful to admins.

3. "Genericize" the clients Please stop "personalizing" the clients with
the computername, etc. Licensing is enforced at the server now. The client
no longer needs personalized with a serial number, license number,
computername, or anything else.

Thanks for listening to yet another rant, Lee. ;-)

Brad.

-Original Message-
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 6:14 PM
To: retro-talk
Subject: Re: Anyone used Retrospect on medium-large systems?


on 12/30/2000 3:25 PM, "ian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> So... the question is, since I am planning to look at the market for
> backup software for bigger systems, would it be reasonable for me to
> include Retrospect in the candidate list? Is anyone on the list backing
> up systems on this scale?

Hell yes. 

Retro is just as easy to use on a small network as a large one.

You just need to scale your hardware appropriately. In other words, don't
backup a 100 person network to a cd-r using a 66mhz 486 and localtalk. :-)

-jon



--
--
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.