> I don't intend my first-ever Slashdot post to be flame war.
really? could have fooled me. your post matches the tone of your 2000+ posts at the dantz/emc forum.:) nothing wrong with being heavy handed (often times it's the only way to get people to wake up). what bothers me is to see someone defend use of retrospect when it's obvious an alternative needs to be considered. the sooner the better if you're responsible for protecting data.
> There will be a revision of Retrospect when Leopard comes > out (as noted on their support Forum), but it will probably > be the last one. Hopefully they'll improve their client > software, so users who are willing to suffer with a Windows > box in order to have Retrospect's feature set can do so for > Macintosh clients (without Rosetta). And I'll look at bru at > Expo, where I'll ask to see a demonstration of how easy it > is to find and restore folders/files across multiple backup > archives even if the owner of those files is a little > confused about names, dates and location. > > Dave
retrospect for mac is a dead product. anyone responsible for backups/restores is already looking at alternatives. there are some feature differences between retrospect and the alternatives (like bru/atempo/netbackup/etc.) but mac-centric desires like looking for type/creator or labled files is not something any of my clients worry about.
it all boils down to your clients' needs and what they're willing to accept in terms of backups. our clients require rotating tape sets to iron mountain and unannounced restore tests. search the retrospect forum and you'll find lots of posts from people complaining about corrupt archives/catalogs and failed restores. on the other hand, search the bru forum (their mailing list has more traffic, fwiw), and you'll find complaints about features but not about failed restores.
a backup system is only as good as it's ability to restore when there's a disaster. bru has proven itself across many 'nix platforms over the years - thanks to nasa, tolisgroup released a mac version. the gui has a way to go before it catches up to the capabilities of its unix toolset.
i'm not sure about searches...as i stated, in most corporate environments, a restore request is submitted where the user is responsible for supplying:
1. location of file/folder needed 2. name of file/folder needed 3. date for file/folder restore
you can search snapshots in bru. i don't think there's a search feature. remember, bru gui is relatively new so the gui only takes advantage of a small percentage of the unix toolset's capabilities. i don't need to search for type/creator or label - but some people might. maybe bru isn't the solution for them.
if you're looking forward, retrospect for mac is no longer a viable choice. out of the other choices, bru is the one with the strongest toolset. those of us who've migrated mac clients over to bru server can rest soundly knowing backups/restores are taken care of. those who haven't migrated away from retrospect can go with the windows server and hope the mac client continues to be developed - or plan on an alternative. dollar for dollar and based on history, reputation and capability, bru is the choice for me and many of my clients.
> Without doubt, Retrospect 5.0.x, 5,1.x, 6.0.x and 6.1.x have > all been Carbon apps. Apple promised Dantz that OS X would ship > sooner then it did, so Dantz made the early decision to move > faster with Carbon then it could have moved with Cocoa. > Unsurprisingly, OS X slipped, but the chance was lost and they > were stuck with LaunchCFMApp.
retrospect's problems go well beyond what programming language is used to port over from os9. it's a single threaded application that needs to be launched on the local computer to run. no way to monitor backups/restores/logs remotely. dantz needed to rewrite retrospect - instead they tried to take the easy way out. now retrospect's failure rate on restores and the growing number of issues and the lack of feature parity between pc/mac is beyond hope.
> "retrospect layers incrementals onto the full backup file" has > limited meaning (as tape backups are not really files), but why > is needing two different files/tapes inherently better? If the > incremental bru file gets corrupted, you don't have your most > recent version. If the full backup file gets corrupted, you can't > do a full restore.
that's what multiple "sets" are for. incase one set goes bad, you have another set to go to. separate incremental backup files are more portable and easier to protect than one huge archive spanning multiple disks/tapes.
> Retrospect's matching technology allows the maintaining of > multiple Backup Sets, each capable of a full or partial restore, > using Snapshots for time selection. Redundancy is good, and > Retrospect allows for it.
what backup system doesn't allow multiple backup sets? if a client or user asks for a restore, they tell us where the file was and what day they want the restore done from. this is standard practice in most companies. retrospect's searching/matching function doesn't compensate for its many shortcomings.
> The patents that Dantz received (now owned by EMC) keep the > program unique, and no other backup software has the feature > set that Retrospect does.
my understanding is that emc bought dantz for their open-file technology (windows side). this way emc can save the per-license fee charged by the company they were paying royalties to (legato?) for using their open-file technology. in buying dantz, they now can stop paying the license fee - not that they would pass the savings to customers. emc saves money, customers don't save a dime, and retrospect for mac goes down.
> But alas, Retrospect for Mac OS does indeed seemed doomed. > EMCInsignia will have no booth at Macworld in January 2007, > and I hold out little hope that we'll ever see a rewritten > version of the program to provide features that have been > lacking since 5.0.201 first shipped.
i think most people know this. i've pushed bru to my clients as a server/client solution. it works great. it's a true unix application and the gui exists for osx thanks to nasa who formerly requested it. the tolisgroup developers are sharp and they don't make changes for the sake of making changes or to feed the marketing folks (since when has tolisgroup done heavy marketing?)...they tweak and refine, as all good unix tools are developed.
bru is modular so you can run the server and console on different boxes (the third component, the agent, needs to be installed on any source computers). you can launch console remotely and totally manage backups/restores. you can be logged out and not worry about cheezy gui dialog boxes popping up - bru uses a very well proven and refined toolset that's been used heavily on the unix side for many years.
that being said, the mac osx gui is maturing slowly but surely. i for one would rather hedge my bets on a modern application that has a maturing gui than an old application that's little more than a cash cow for a company that lies through it's teeth. "we're working on a new mac retrospe
> Without doubt, Retrospect 5.0.x, 5,1.x, 6.0.x and 6.1.x have
> all been Carbon apps. Apple promised Dantz that OS X would ship
> sooner then it did, so Dantz made the early decision to move
> faster with Carbon then it could have moved with Cocoa.
> Unsurprisingly, OS X slipped, but the chance was lost and they
> were stuck with LaunchCFMApp.
retrospect's problems go well beyond what programming language is used to port over from os9. it's a single threaded application that needs to be launched on the local computer to run. no way to monitor backups/restores/logs remotely. dantz needed to rewrite retrospect - instead they tried to take the easy way out. now retrospect's failure rate on restores and the growing number of issues and the lack of feature parity between pc/mac is beyond hope.
> "retrospect layers incrementals onto the full backup file" has
> limited meaning (as tape backups are not really files), but why
> is needing two different files/tapes inherently better? If the
> incremental bru file gets corrupted, you don't have your most
> recent version. If the full backup file gets corrupted, you can't
> do a full restore.
that's what multiple "sets" are for. incase one set goes bad, you have another set to go to. separate incremental backup files are more portable and easier to protect than one huge archive spanning multiple disks/tapes.
> Retrospect's matching technology allows the maintaining of
> multiple Backup Sets, each capable of a full or partial restore,
> using Snapshots for time selection. Redundancy is good, and
> Retrospect allows for it.
what backup system doesn't allow multiple backup sets? if a client or user asks for a restore, they tell us where the file was and what day they want the restore done from. this is standard practice in most companies. retrospect's searching/matching function doesn't compensate for its many shortcomings.
> The patents that Dantz received (now owned by EMC) keep the
> program unique, and no other backup software has the feature
> set that Retrospect does.
my understanding is that emc bought dantz for their open-file technology (windows side). this way emc can save the per-license fee charged by the company they were paying royalties to (legato?) for using their open-file technology. in buying dantz, they now can stop paying the license fee - not that they would pass the savings to customers. emc saves money, customers don't save a dime, and retrospect for mac goes down.
> But alas, Retrospect for Mac OS does indeed seemed doomed.
> EMCInsignia will have no booth at Macworld in January 2007,
> and I hold out little hope that we'll ever see a rewritten
> version of the program to provide features that have been
> lacking since 5.0.201 first shipped.
i think most people know this. i've pushed bru to my clients as a server/client solution. it works great. it's a true unix application and the gui exists for osx thanks to nasa who formerly requested it. the tolisgroup developers are sharp and they don't make changes for the sake of making changes or to feed the marketing folks (since when has tolisgroup done heavy marketing?)...they tweak and refine, as all good unix tools are developed.
bru is modular so you can run the server and console on different boxes (the third component, the agent, needs to be installed on any source computers). you can launch console remotely and totally manage backups/restores. you can be logged out and not worry about cheezy gui dialog boxes popping up - bru uses a very well proven and refined toolset that's been used heavily on the unix side for many years.
that being said, the mac osx gui is maturing slowly but surely. i for one would rather hedge my bets on a modern application that has a maturing gui than an old application that's little more than a cash cow for a company that lies through it's teeth. "we're working on a new mac retrospect"...yeah, and bats fly out my ass.
i have three consoles open now...one for each of three remote backup sessions at separate companies. each is doing d2d2t. no hiccups on backup. no hiccups on restore. a modern, multithreaded, modular and highly refined backup system at a reasonable cost. bru is today what retrospect was before osx.
don
don montalvo, nyc
since osx was released, retrospect has fallen behind more and more. aside from the fact the mac application is a cheezy port of an ok os9 backup application, the fundamental design is wrong...for both os9 and osx. retrospect layers incrementals onto the full backup file. if this one full/incremental file gets corrupt, you lose everything.
osx saavy backup applications (like atempo, bru and netbackup) have built in disk-to-disk-to-tape functionality and incrementals are stored as separate files.
retrospect (like quarkxpress and to a certain extent eudora) are cash cows. marketing hype sells retrospect - but common sense turns people away to better designed applications. i know plenty of mac sysadmins (myself included) who have had failed restored (and/or failed backups) with retrospect. retrospect is on a downward spiral, better bail now (or move to the windows version that's at 7.5.x now). don't wait until you get caught with your pants down. move away from retrospect if your livelyhood depends on data protection - or if your clients depend on you.
don
retrospect is no longer a viable option for mac. many people have moved to tolisgroup bru (server or "le" for local backups). the unix toolset has been around for many years and is used in many mission critical environments. the mac osx gui is the result of a formal request from nasa for a mac version.:)
http://www.tolisgroup.com/press/2006/09.25.html
we have bru server deployed at many locations. it does disk-to-disk-to-tape backups easily (d2d2t). incrementals are individual stage files (unlike retrospect that keeps jamming incrementals into the same growing file that inevetibly corrupts/implodes).
the gui is maturing...and tolisgroup is the kind of company that follows the old unix rule...each tool does one task and does it well. bru does backups well...and restores well. don't expect any marketing hype from them, just solid, dependable backups AND restores.
don montalvo, nyc
curmudgeon at large
wait a minute...why does apple need to control this? freedom is what this is all about. folks who want to download mp3's search through an amazing selection...which is what this is all about. if you know what you want, you'll know what you should get.
this is going to be a big boon for the world's struggling artists. the only folks who should be panicking now are the fat cats that are milking the music industry gravy train...yes...the same engine that's depriving some pretty awesome talent from ever being able to lift their foot off the ground.
this is awesome...bring on the new music!!!
don montalvo, nyc
Slashdot Mirror
Get a high end ASUS or Buffalo wireless router and put DD-WRT on it.
> you can search snapshots in bru.
i meant to say you can "browse" snapshots in bru.
> I don't intend my first-ever Slashdot post to be flame war.
:) nothing wrong with being heavy handed (often times it's the only way to get people to wake up). what bothers me is to see someone defend use of retrospect when it's obvious an alternative needs to be considered. the sooner the better if you're responsible for protecting data.
really? could have fooled me. your post matches the tone of your 2000+ posts at the dantz/emc forum.
> There will be a revision of Retrospect when Leopard comes
> out (as noted on their support Forum), but it will probably
> be the last one. Hopefully they'll improve their client
> software, so users who are willing to suffer with a Windows
> box in order to have Retrospect's feature set can do so for
> Macintosh clients (without Rosetta). And I'll look at bru at
> Expo, where I'll ask to see a demonstration of how easy it
> is to find and restore folders/files across multiple backup
> archives even if the owner of those files is a little
> confused about names, dates and location.
>
> Dave
retrospect for mac is a dead product. anyone responsible for backups/restores is already looking at alternatives. there are some feature differences between retrospect and the alternatives (like bru/atempo/netbackup/etc.) but mac-centric desires like looking for type/creator or labled files is not something any of my clients worry about.
it all boils down to your clients' needs and what they're willing to accept in terms of backups. our clients require rotating tape sets to iron mountain and unannounced restore tests. search the retrospect forum and you'll find lots of posts from people complaining about corrupt archives/catalogs and failed restores. on the other hand, search the bru forum (their mailing list has more traffic, fwiw), and you'll find complaints about features but not about failed restores.
a backup system is only as good as it's ability to restore when there's a disaster. bru has proven itself across many 'nix platforms over the years - thanks to nasa, tolisgroup released a mac version. the gui has a way to go before it catches up to the capabilities of its unix toolset.
i'm not sure about searches...as i stated, in most corporate environments, a restore request is submitted where the user is responsible for supplying:
1. location of file/folder needed
2. name of file/folder needed
3. date for file/folder restore
you can search snapshots in bru. i don't think there's a search feature. remember, bru gui is relatively new so the gui only takes advantage of a small percentage of the unix toolset's capabilities. i don't need to search for type/creator or label - but some people might. maybe bru isn't the solution for them.
if you're looking forward, retrospect for mac is no longer a viable choice. out of the other choices, bru is the one with the strongest toolset. those of us who've migrated mac clients over to bru server can rest soundly knowing backups/restores are taken care of. those who haven't migrated away from retrospect can go with the windows server and hope the mac client continues to be developed - or plan on an alternative. dollar for dollar and based on history, reputation and capability, bru is the choice for me and many of my clients.
don
> Without doubt, Retrospect 5.0.x, 5,1.x, 6.0.x and 6.1.x have
> all been Carbon apps. Apple promised Dantz that OS X would ship
> sooner then it did, so Dantz made the early decision to move
> faster with Carbon then it could have moved with Cocoa.
> Unsurprisingly, OS X slipped, but the chance was lost and they
> were stuck with LaunchCFMApp.
retrospect's problems go well beyond what programming language is used to port over from os9. it's a single threaded application that needs to be launched on the local computer to run. no way to monitor backups/restores/logs remotely. dantz needed to rewrite retrospect - instead they tried to take the easy way out. now retrospect's failure rate on restores and the growing number of issues and the lack of feature parity between pc/mac is beyond hope.
> "retrospect layers incrementals onto the full backup file" has
> limited meaning (as tape backups are not really files), but why
> is needing two different files/tapes inherently better? If the
> incremental bru file gets corrupted, you don't have your most
> recent version. If the full backup file gets corrupted, you can't
> do a full restore.
that's what multiple "sets" are for. incase one set goes bad, you have another set to go to. separate incremental backup files are more portable and easier to protect than one huge archive spanning multiple disks/tapes.
> Retrospect's matching technology allows the maintaining of
> multiple Backup Sets, each capable of a full or partial restore,
> using Snapshots for time selection. Redundancy is good, and
> Retrospect allows for it.
what backup system doesn't allow multiple backup sets? if a client or user asks for a restore, they tell us where the file was and what day they want the restore done from. this is standard practice in most companies. retrospect's searching/matching function doesn't compensate for its many shortcomings.
> The patents that Dantz received (now owned by EMC) keep the
> program unique, and no other backup software has the feature
> set that Retrospect does.
my understanding is that emc bought dantz for their open-file technology (windows side). this way emc can save the per-license fee charged by the company they were paying royalties to (legato?) for using their open-file technology. in buying dantz, they now can stop paying the license fee - not that they would pass the savings to customers. emc saves money, customers don't save a dime, and retrospect for mac goes down.
> But alas, Retrospect for Mac OS does indeed seemed doomed.
> EMCInsignia will have no booth at Macworld in January 2007,
> and I hold out little hope that we'll ever see a rewritten
> version of the program to provide features that have been
> lacking since 5.0.201 first shipped.
i think most people know this. i've pushed bru to my clients as a server/client solution. it works great. it's a true unix application and the gui exists for osx thanks to nasa who formerly requested it. the tolisgroup developers are sharp and they don't make changes for the sake of making changes or to feed the marketing folks (since when has tolisgroup done heavy marketing?)...they tweak and refine, as all good unix tools are developed.
bru is modular so you can run the server and console on different boxes (the third component, the agent, needs to be installed on any source computers). you can launch console remotely and totally manage backups/restores. you can be logged out and not worry about cheezy gui dialog boxes popping up - bru uses a very well proven and refined toolset that's been used heavily on the unix side for many years.
that being said, the mac osx gui is maturing slowly but surely. i for one would rather hedge my bets on a modern application that has a maturing gui than an old application that's little more than a cash cow for a company that lies through it's teeth. "we're working on a new mac retrospe
> Without doubt, Retrospect 5.0.x, 5,1.x, 6.0.x and 6.1.x have > all been Carbon apps. Apple promised Dantz that OS X would ship > sooner then it did, so Dantz made the early decision to move > faster with Carbon then it could have moved with Cocoa. > Unsurprisingly, OS X slipped, but the chance was lost and they > were stuck with LaunchCFMApp. retrospect's problems go well beyond what programming language is used to port over from os9. it's a single threaded application that needs to be launched on the local computer to run. no way to monitor backups/restores/logs remotely. dantz needed to rewrite retrospect - instead they tried to take the easy way out. now retrospect's failure rate on restores and the growing number of issues and the lack of feature parity between pc/mac is beyond hope. > "retrospect layers incrementals onto the full backup file" has > limited meaning (as tape backups are not really files), but why > is needing two different files/tapes inherently better? If the > incremental bru file gets corrupted, you don't have your most > recent version. If the full backup file gets corrupted, you can't > do a full restore. that's what multiple "sets" are for. incase one set goes bad, you have another set to go to. separate incremental backup files are more portable and easier to protect than one huge archive spanning multiple disks/tapes. > Retrospect's matching technology allows the maintaining of > multiple Backup Sets, each capable of a full or partial restore, > using Snapshots for time selection. Redundancy is good, and > Retrospect allows for it. what backup system doesn't allow multiple backup sets? if a client or user asks for a restore, they tell us where the file was and what day they want the restore done from. this is standard practice in most companies. retrospect's searching/matching function doesn't compensate for its many shortcomings. > The patents that Dantz received (now owned by EMC) keep the > program unique, and no other backup software has the feature > set that Retrospect does. my understanding is that emc bought dantz for their open-file technology (windows side). this way emc can save the per-license fee charged by the company they were paying royalties to (legato?) for using their open-file technology. in buying dantz, they now can stop paying the license fee - not that they would pass the savings to customers. emc saves money, customers don't save a dime, and retrospect for mac goes down. > But alas, Retrospect for Mac OS does indeed seemed doomed. > EMCInsignia will have no booth at Macworld in January 2007, > and I hold out little hope that we'll ever see a rewritten > version of the program to provide features that have been > lacking since 5.0.201 first shipped. i think most people know this. i've pushed bru to my clients as a server/client solution. it works great. it's a true unix application and the gui exists for osx thanks to nasa who formerly requested it. the tolisgroup developers are sharp and they don't make changes for the sake of making changes or to feed the marketing folks (since when has tolisgroup done heavy marketing?)...they tweak and refine, as all good unix tools are developed. bru is modular so you can run the server and console on different boxes (the third component, the agent, needs to be installed on any source computers). you can launch console remotely and totally manage backups/restores. you can be logged out and not worry about cheezy gui dialog boxes popping up - bru uses a very well proven and refined toolset that's been used heavily on the unix side for many years. that being said, the mac osx gui is maturing slowly but surely. i for one would rather hedge my bets on a modern application that has a maturing gui than an old application that's little more than a cash cow for a company that lies through it's teeth. "we're working on a new mac retrospect"...yeah, and bats fly out my ass. i have three consoles open now...one for each of three remote backup sessions at separate companies. each is doing d2d2t. no hiccups on backup. no hiccups on restore. a modern, multithreaded, modular and highly refined backup system at a reasonable cost. bru is today what retrospect was before osx. don don montalvo, nyc
since osx was released, retrospect has fallen behind more and more. aside from the fact the mac application is a cheezy port of an ok os9 backup application, the fundamental design is wrong...for both os9 and osx. retrospect layers incrementals onto the full backup file. if this one full/incremental file gets corrupt, you lose everything. osx saavy backup applications (like atempo, bru and netbackup) have built in disk-to-disk-to-tape functionality and incrementals are stored as separate files. retrospect (like quarkxpress and to a certain extent eudora) are cash cows. marketing hype sells retrospect - but common sense turns people away to better designed applications. i know plenty of mac sysadmins (myself included) who have had failed restored (and/or failed backups) with retrospect. retrospect is on a downward spiral, better bail now (or move to the windows version that's at 7.5.x now). don't wait until you get caught with your pants down. move away from retrospect if your livelyhood depends on data protection - or if your clients depend on you. don
retrospect is no longer a viable option for mac. many people have moved to tolisgroup bru (server or "le" for local backups). the unix toolset has been around for many years and is used in many mission critical environments. the mac osx gui is the result of a formal request from nasa for a mac version. :)
http://www.tolisgroup.com/press/2006/09.25.html
we have bru server deployed at many locations. it does disk-to-disk-to-tape backups easily (d2d2t). incrementals are individual stage files (unlike retrospect that keeps jamming incrementals into the same growing file that inevetibly corrupts/implodes).
the gui is maturing...and tolisgroup is the kind of company that follows the old unix rule...each tool does one task and does it well. bru does backups well...and restores well. don't expect any marketing hype from them, just solid, dependable backups AND restores.
don montalvo, nyc
curmudgeon at large
wait a minute...why does apple need to control this? freedom is what this is all about. folks who want to download mp3's search through an amazing selection...which is what this is all about. if you know what you want, you'll know what you should get. this is going to be a big boon for the world's struggling artists. the only folks who should be panicking now are the fat cats that are milking the music industry gravy train...yes...the same engine that's depriving some pretty awesome talent from ever being able to lift their foot off the ground. this is awesome...bring on the new music!!! don montalvo, nyc
The Quark Store price is $944.