Retrospect Professional for Windows 7.7 bug: recreate backup set workaround

Dantz barely sells Retrospect: for Windows, and the version I use (EMC) is obsolete, so this bug workaround will probably go unused. Still, if you're the one desperate person ...

The normal function for recreating a Backup Set Catalog File (essential!) is broken. After clicking Recreate "to build a replacement Catalog File from the Backup Set's media" and choosing File Backup Set medium you get the open catalog dialog. Which, of course, does not exist.

The workaround is to choose Tools:Repair Catalog then select Recreate from disks (even though you are recreating from Files, which in Retrospect is not the same as Disks) then All Disks then navigate to the folder holding your backup files. It will take a very long time, but it will recreate a catalog.

Time Capsule - recurrent episodes of error -1, unable to connect to backup - verifying backup - firmware 7.6.x problem

One reason for having two completely independent backup methodologies [1] is that backup solutions are curiously unreliable. [2]

This time it's my 3 year old Time Capsule's turn to cause me heartburn. I've gotten the mysterious "-1" error on backup three times in the past 8 weeks (shortly before the Time Capsule Firmware 7.6.1 update and about 4-5 weeks after the 7.6 update) for two separate client machines (Snow Leopard and Lion respectively) for backup stores on the Time Capsule's 500 GB internal drive and its 2TB external drive:

"The backup disk image ... could not be accessed (error -1).

An Apple Discussions post hasn't generated any useful replies ...

verifying backup - stuck twice in 6...: Apple Support Communities

... For the 2nd time in 6 weeks my dual core MacBook (10.6.x) fan was racing and activity monitor showed fsck_hfs was running. Again [1] Time Capsule was stuck trying "Verifying Backup" over WiFi. Even when I connected via ethernet backup would not verify. I had to delete the sparseimage and start again. Once is chance, twice is enemy action. Something is wrong.

My other machines are doing better, but even my new iMac complained that it could not connect to the backup drive last night. Both the MacBook and the 500GB Time Capsule are at least middle-aged. Either could be failing. Console isn't showing anything suspicious on the MacBook and TechTool Pro passed it last time. The only diagnostic information I find on the Time Capsule is that the disk START status is verified. I've set syslog to 7 [1]. I've also stopped backing up my Fusion VM image. Anything else I can do to sort out what the new failures might be from? [1] http://tech.kateva.org/2012/01/my-macbook-fan-was-roaring-again-time.html [2] https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2180886?start=0&tstart=0"

The Time Capsule error logs aren't showing anything interesting. Since the error has involved two client machines and two backup drives I'm assuming it's a problem with my Time Capsule hardware, perhaps a bug introduced with a firmware update that occurred in the past few months. I wonder if the last update has bugs with older Time Capsules and/or with older Time Capsules that use an external USB drive for backup. It's an intermittent problem, so hard to test. The only consistent feature is when it hits, "Verifying Backup" always fails. (I wonder if the bug is in the Verifying Backup, something that normally happens from time to time.)

One person has reported a fix for a similar error, and pondini.org suggests a few options, but none seem relevant to my case. A MacRumors thread does suggest this is a new Apple induced bug.

An Apple kb article describes how to do a firmware reset: (how it used to work).

... AirPort Utility keeps an archive of all Wi-Fi Base Station firmware updates you install, and stores them in the location below.

Mac OS X: ~/Library/Application Support/Apple/AirPort/FirmwareWindows: ~/AppData/Local/Apple/AirPort/Firmware

... Open AirPort Utility.Select your base station and choose Manual Setup, or double-click on the Wi-Fi base station icon.

Choose Base Station > Upload Firmware...From the window that appears, select a firmware version and click OK. If you select Other from the Upload Version menu, you will be prompted to manually locate the firmware update.

I have dropped my firmware back to 7.5.2; a version that had worked well for me. If that doesn't work then I'll return to 7.6.1 and do a factory reset. After that it's buying either a new Time Capsule or, perhaps better, an Airport Extreme with an external drive.

Update: I think I've got it. Verification failed 100% of the time with 7.6.x, it passed with 7.5.2.

[1] I'm considering adding a third, CrashPlan, for my home videos and photo libraries. I'm less concerned about the service bankruptcy security issues with those data sets than with my personal data. [2] I'm not entirely sure why this is so. Long ago my Dantz Retrospect tape backups worked fairly well. Over the past decade however, I've found both Windows and OS X backup solutions fail fairly frequently.

Update 3/28/12: Not a causal factor, but maybe contributing. For some reason my iMac was connecting to the standard rather than more reliable 5Ghz 802.11n band. I changed the connection setting to remove that. That cleaned up some residual issues. Although I'm out of the woods, I still wonder if my 3yo Time Capsule is ailing. Time will tell.

Update 7/17/2012: When I moved my old Core 2 Duo MacBook to Lion (mistake - don't do it!) I tried 7.6.1 again. It worked for a while, but a week ago it failed again. So I'm going back to 7.5.2.

See also:

• Time Machine: Troubleshooting backup issues: I didn't realize there was a technique for repairing a Time Capsule sparsebundle using Disk Utility, or that MAC addresses define sparsebundle names.
• Time Capsule Backup Error (-1) with Lion - MacRumors Forums: A detailed thread last updated Mar 9, 2012, no fix yet.
• Time Machine - Troubleshooting: web site dedicated to common TM problems
• Resetting an AirPort Base Station or Time Capsule FAQ
• All about Time Capsule, AirPort Extreme, and AirPort Express base station firmware updates Apple kb article includes firmware reset directions
• Time Machine Verification Issue: Apple Support Communities - somewhat similar problem in 2010 but thread continues to 2012

Somewhat related and worth knowing:

• Gordon's Tech: Time Machine backups of Aperture are not reliable?!
• Gordon's Tech: Freeing up Time Capsule space – and documentation for Time Machine and Time Capsule 12/2009 - Could Apple spare a billion to document a few things?
• Gordon's Tech: Time Capsule - using an external disk for network Time Machine backup 3/2011
• Gordon's Tech: Fixing the Time Machine / Time Capsule 10.5 "Backup volume could not be mounted" bug 1/2010. This bug was fixed in 10.5, but it seems oddly similar. It wasn't an intermittent problem though.
• Gordon's Tech: Airport Extreme: Firmware update, Time Capsule bugs, tips and fixes: 7/2009

Time Machine backups of Aperture are not reliable?!

I've restored my Aperture Library from backup twice in the past few months. Two months ago Aperture crashed when a bad block corrupted a file. I restored from Carbon Copy Cloner. A month later I figured a dying iMac drive was the root cause, and my backups weren't as robust as I expected.

After a mildly painful Apple service call i had to restore all my data from backup. I backup the server nightly to Carbon Copy Cloner and hourly to Time Capsule, so I had to pick a backup source. I decided to restore from Carbon Copy Cloner, though I did consider Time Machine. It seems to have worked.

Today I learned that I might have dodged a bullet. I was wise to choose CCC over Time Machine ...

Macintouch Backup

Derek L

...Thanks to Antonio Tejada for his note about Time Machine and Aperture. The combination remains unreliable for me, as I'd described in my comment on this topic last June: not all items in my Aperture library get included in my Time Machine backup. Although I've been able to temporarily repair it via forcing a "deep traversal", the problem recurred in fresh TM backup sets, on multiple disks, and through several point releases of Snow Leopard and Aperture 3 (I've never used any other version, and I also haven't migrated to Lion). I gave up on it and instead depend on Aperture Vaults.

Skot Nelson

... However, after having Aperture randomly lose some of my masters -- old photos from a concert that I hadn't touched in month and just happened to click on as part -- I no longer trust my Aperture library's integrity...

Richard Tench

... Seeing the warnings here about Aperture and Time Machine, I decided to do a test recovery (to my desktop). It failed due to permissions on the Time Capsule. Though one would think that's an easy problem to fix, it isn't. At the end of 2.5 hours on an AppleCare call, they were unable to help me. I was told that Aperture doesn't work well with Time Machine...

Sigh. I miss Dantz Retrospect. I'm grateful for CCC, but old Retrospect combined the reliability of CCC with the features of a true backup.

It's been noted that in 2012 Apple OS X development is the equivalent of Siberian exile. Time Machine work must be reserved for unwanted interns.

See also:

• Backups - why you need two methods and abundant paranoia 12/2011
• Freeing up Time Capsule space – and documentation for Time Machine and Time Capsule 12/2009 (Time Machine is flaky)
• Lessons from Apple Store out-of-warranty repair of a Seagate drive 1/2012
• Lion continues to disappoint: the Duplicate/Save problem 1/2012
• 7 facets of a good Mac backup strategy « Haystack Software Blog 1/2012 - advice from the developer of Arq (backup software for S2) -- but absolutely correct. I do this and I'll evaluate Arq.

Backups - why you need two methods and abundant paranoia

I can't say I feel good about my backups. I believe data wants to die; it wants to be free of the burden of order. Against the despair of data, even the best backup is barely adequate.

Consider tonight, when everything almost failed - Time Capsule and Carbon Copy Cloner alike.

The Time Capsule serves all the machines in our home over a wireless network. I was surprised at first that backup would work over wireless, but it does. Each machine has its own unencrypted disk image; one on the TC's old internal 500 GB drive, two others have images on an external 2TB drive. The TC sits in a closet upstairs;  it's unlikely to be stolen but fire would destroy it. I have done 1-2 file Time Machine restores from that image, so I know it can work. The only test of a backup, of course, is a restore.

I don't trust Time Machine as much as old-time DantzRetrospect, but it seems Apple has gotten most of the bugs out.

I trust Carbon Copy Cloner [3] more. Each day it clones my server, on which all the important data lives. It's more than a cloner; CCC keeps copies of changed or deleted files in "_CCC Archives". I've configured CCC to use an encrypted image it automatically mounts every night. Since that backup is encrypted I can take it offsite, which I do every few weeks. Ok, every month or two. Offsite rotation relies on me, so it's prone to failure. Still, even if the house burns, I am unlikely to lose more than a month of images and videos. I can live with that.

So I have two backup methods, both fully automated, both relatively independent [2]. If each is 95% reliable each day, then the chance both fail on a given day is 1/400. If the daily chance of a server drive failure is 1/1000, the odds of all three failing on the same day are about 1/400,000 [2], [4]

Tonight though, my data got within a few miles of the cliff it wants to meet.

My server has been having worrisome memory exception (EXC_BAD_ACCESS) crashes, and a TV show I  recently downloaded had a file error [1]. There's something wrong on my 2yo i5 iMac; I need to run Apple Hardware Test (again). So I know my server data is at risk.

Time Capsule has had problems too -- it's reporting a "communications error" periodically. I think that error message is  a scarlet herring related to the iMac issues, but clearly I can't trust that backup.

Happily there's good old CCC -- but when I restarted my server for the first time in weeks it reported a problem. The backup drive didn't mount. That was easy to diagnose -- I'd unplugged it. Probably when I was debugging my Aperture crash 3 weeks ago. Why didn't CCC report the error? Maybe it had crashed.

I wasn't that close to data loss -- but I was in a bad neighborhood. As paranoid as I am, I'm almost not paranoid enough.

It's good to have two fully automatic and completely independent backup methods. Data wants to die, and backup is still an unsolved problem.

-fn-

[1] Incidentally, you can't easily report a purchase problem to Apple until they process a charge, and to reduce transaction costs they wait a few days before they process. This is very annoying! Also, the UI for reporting a purchase problem is suspiciously clumsy. More on that experience when I see what they do.
[2] In reality they common failure points of course - me, computer memory, etc. There is the older offsite backup though, so complete and total data loss is probably less than 1/1,000,000.
[3] Donationware. I donated. I wish donation ware apps would let us set a 'reminder' so I could donate yearly. I suppose I should just make donationware donations every year on my birthday against the apps I use.
[4] I'd love to have automated offsite backup too, but I've never foundan offsite vendor I trusted and I expect ISPs to eventually charge for bandwidth use.

See also:

• CrashPlan (or JungleDisk) instead of Retrospect 8? (1/2010)
• Online backup – the security problem (it’s not the encryption)
• backup (50 or so posts on backup)
• Retrospect 8.2 for OS X fails my latest review -- because it's been abandoned (11/2010 - I checked under the latest owner but it felt the same)
• Freeing up Time Capsule space – and documentation for Time Machine and Time Capsule (12/2009 - TM/TC are better quality now, but the documentation still sucks).
• Time Machine, Time Capsule and offsite backup (2/2010)
• My 10.6 iMac is crashing - a debugging exercise (2/2010 - using hardware test)

Update 12/21/2011: I was closer to the cliff than I realized.

Retrospect 8.2 for OS X fails my latest review -- because it's been abandoned

I'm not happy with the state of OS X backup software. I've been hoping for a year or two that Retrospect 8, now owned by Roxio would be a real contender. In particular, I hoped it would replace my use of SuperDuper for backup. I particularly like the file version strategy, the client management, and the built-in encryption. (Encryption is required for offsite backup.)

I also use Time Capsule, but I insist on two completely different and independent backup solutions for our home data.

In my ongoing quest for a Time Capsule/Time Machine complement I recently installed and began to test Retrospect 8.2. I know the app from past OS X and current Windows versions, so the complexity wasn't a problem. I was pleased by some of the things I found, and it passed some initial tests.

Then I ran into an installation permissions bug. Only the Admin account I used to install could open the Readme and User Guide documents. It's an odd permissions bug -- I can't fix it even using TinkerTools. There are workarounds of course, but this is a worrisome sign of poor quality control.

So I visited the (still dantz.com with EMC relabeling!) forums and read this thread response from a current user who wants Retrospect to succeed (emphases mine) ...

Really Disappointed in 8.2 update - Retrospect Backup Forum - Powered by FusionBB

... I got support responses to online tickets 10 days following the opening of the tickets. I had solved two of the three tickets by then (thanks to the forum). It's been a struggle...if it takes 10 days to respond to my responses then I may have to shake some people by their lapels.

And yes, 8.2 has been pretty buggy, and no word on an incoming patch. The blog went quiet, and so is every other means of end-user communication. Hopefully Roxio will figure things out, but for such a critical piece of software this isn't good...

I can confirm that Roxio has gone silent on Retrospect. They have various communication channels, and they're all black. This is a robust indicator that Roxio isn't funding further development. Retrospect OS X is, not for the first time, abandonware.

I can happily use abandoned software when the output is in a standard format. For example, I still love Microsoft's Windows Live Writer, even though it's been abandoned. It produces blog posts other tools can work with. When it finally dies, I'll say a sad goodbye.

That's not an option for backup software. The cost features and functions doesn't matter -- I can't use backup software that's not being actively supported. Even if Retrospect 8.2 were bug free today, even Roxio sold it for a buck, I couldn't use it.

Retrospect has failed. Again.

Now I'll see if the undocumented installer (in the Retrospect folder in Applications) actually works. (Correction: Installation is documented in the readme PDF. The installer does work. Both would have been strong points in my evaluation -- if I'd been able to justify continuing it.

VMware Virtual Machines - the backup problem

It's times like this that I really miss Byte (or BYTE?) magazine. They would have had great coverage of VMWare VMs - how they work, and what the risks are. Now that's specialist knowledge. Knowledge that, when I use Google, is obscured by a haze of marketing material.

The best we non-specialists can do is share our limited experience in blog posts, like this one sharing my experience with VM backup. That's been a problem for me.

First - my experience. I've used VMWare Fusion on my Macs for a few years. I need it less than once a month, typically to launch XPSP4 and run Access or (yech) Quicken. On the other hand, I configured and use a VMWare Workstation on a 64bit Win7 machine at work. That VM is running a Windows 2003 Server environment with terminal server and I use it very frequently.

Both my Fusion and Workstation VMs are configured to store the VM data as many files rather than a single monolithic file. Both are about 80-100 GB in size and store as little of my data as possible; on the Mac the individual .vmdk files vary in size from about 200 to 500 MB. I don't have the Workstation VM at hand but I think its files are all a fixed size.

The host OS X machine is backed up using Time Capsule (sigh) and SuperDuper! (sigh). Neither give me the warm fuzzies of Retrospect at its best. The Windows 7 machine is backed up using (Dantz -> EMC -> Roxio) Retrospect Professional.

I configured both VMs to use multiple files because of the VM backup problem I knew about.

The obvious backup problem for these machines is that if you configure a VM as one monolithic file, then every time you touch it the host system backup software has to backup a 100GB backup event. That will overload Time Machine (Capsule) or Retrospect pretty quickly. (More sophisticated backup software can manage this differently, but I don't think TM or Retrospect can.)

That's why I went with separate files. Backups would only have to manage the files that changed. (Ahh, but how does the backup software know what's changed - esp. if the files are a fixed size?)

I think that approach does work when the VM is shut down. I think it works on my Mac. It doesn't work with Retrospect Professional on the Windows 7 machine where our VM is always running.

I learned that the hard way when we tried to do a restore. The restored VM seemed good at first, but it was soon clear that we'd somehow ended up with different time slices. We had to kill the VM. Fortunately, because I'm justifiably paranoid about backup, we also had a file system backup that was only a few weeks old. Since we don't keep data on the VM we lost very little.

This is a nasty problem. As best I can tell, at least on Windows, Retrospect Professional can't do a reliable backup of a running multi-file VMWare VM. The limited VMWare marketing material I could find suggests this isn't just a Retrospect problem. The solution is, of course, to buy their costly backup software. You can also do backup from within the client OS, but that adds a new level of cost and complexity to overall backup. Retrospect Professional, for example, won't install on Windows 2003 server. For that you need their much more costly server backup.

Now you know what I know. If you know any more, or can point me to anything that's not marketing material, I'd be grateful.

I do miss Byte.

--My Google Reader Shared items (feed)

Retrospect 8 - now at Roxio with a user guide

When Dantz owned Retrospect it was a quirky but reliable SOHO to enterprise cross-platform backup product with a vigorous and demanding customer base. I used the Mac and Windows versions for years.

When the Mac was dying (pre- OS X) Retrospect floundered. No surprise. It was sold to EMC where the Mac version was ignored and the Windows version was improved. EMC tried to do a new version, but it was very buggy. Happily they were never able to produce a user guide even a year or so after release.

I say happily, because the lack of a user guide was a perfect market of product failure. Only the young would buy a backup product without documentation.

Now Roxio owns Retrospect. They've done a new version. The dantz.com user forums are back and there's Product Documentation. It's not yet sold on Amazon however.

It's hard to believe Retrospect can be resurrected after such a rough ride, but I'm interested. I'll give it a few months but if it survives I'll test it out. I'd love to have something complementary to Time Machine -- I just don't trust that sucker.

--My Google Reader Shared items (feed)

EMC Retrospect's fake Mozy online backup integration

A recent update to my Retrospect Professional for Windows [1] put a Mozy link on my Retrospect left sided navigation bar.

Well that seemed interesting. I followed the link to setup a free Mozy account. Mozy would be interesting if I could treat it like any other Retrospect backup set. A Google search turned up a plausible explanation ...

EMC’s Iomega and Mozy Divisions Offer Combined Desktop and Cloud-Based Backup | Xconomy

The three units are Walnut Creek, CA-based Dantz Development Corporation (acquired by EMC in 2004), makers of Retrospect backup software for Windows and Macintosh computers; Utah-based Mozy (acquired last September), which offers online backup services for consumers and businesses; and San Diego-based Iomega (acquired in April), which makes external hard drives. The organizations said that starting this summer, new portable and desktop hard drives from Iomega will come with instructions on how to download a free version of Retrospect Express that also helps buyers sign up for the free or premium versions of Mozy’s online service

I sign up for the free 2GB account. Of courses I'd never buy without testing.

Ok, now to fire up Retrospect Pro and ...

And Mozy does not show up in my Backup Set options. It doesn't appear in the Help file. There's a page on Retrospect's site but, you know, it isn't very precise about how the two "work together" ...

No. It can't be. I've been conned! It's just a stupid hyperlink! There's really no integration. Argghhhhh.

And I was just starting to think kindly about Retrospect. It's much less buggy than it was two years ago. Still way too complex for non-geeks, but reliable is good.

That'll teach me to think kind thoughts of software vendors! EMC just ripped off 20 minutes of my too-short time on earth.

How bloody annoying.

[1] It mostly backups my Macs, but it works so I keep it on my ancient XP box.

Retrospect Pro 7.5: It's better than it was

Retrospect is an old name in Macintosh software. It was the "enterprise" backup solution for many educational institutions and some businesses in the early days of the Mac.

When the Mac was dying, sometime after OS 7, Retrospect went into decline. Towards the end time Dantz, who owned it then, created a Windows SOHO product called "Retrospect Pro" that ran on a Windows machine and backed up both Macs and PCs. I wrote about my use of it many years ago. Most of what I wrote there is still true, so if you want to get my opinion of the overall app take a look at that old page.

Dantz foundered, earning a reputation for miserly customer support and increasingly buggy products. They never really adjusted to OS X; the code base was probably too old to fix and they'd deferred a rewrite for too long.

EMC bought Retrospect, and I figured that was the end. It was indeed the end for the Macintosh product line, it's not been updated in years and it's hard to believe it will be sold after 10.5 is released. I've discovered, however, that they have invested in EMC® Retrospect® Pro 7.5 for Windows.

I found this out because Retrospect Pro 6.5, which I've been reluctantly losing because there is still no alternative for automated backup of a mixed Windows/Mac LAN had become very unstable. It was failing with cryptic error messages, it's a few years old, and I was using it in an unsupported fashion (with clients released for newer server versions) -- there was no sense trying to fix it. I had to either upgrade or switch to individual machine backup - a thought too painful to consider.

I'd held off upgrading for years because Dantz releases were so buggy an "upgrade" only introduced new issues - and left the old issues unchanged. EMC looked worse at first -- no user forums, no trials, nothing. In the past six months or so, however, EMC reinstated user forums and, above all, provided 30 day trial versions of all their products. They'd done enough to deserve a look, they'd dropped the price (buy on Amazon), the upgrade price was reasonable, and I was desperate.

So I tried -- without first uninstalling Retrospect Pro 6.5 (mistake!). The first thing I got were error messages and log entries like this one:

OS: Windows XP version 5.1 (build 2600), Service Pack 2, (32 bit)
Application: C:\Program Files\Retrospect\Retrospect 7.5\retrorun.exe,
Exception occurred on 6/22/2007 at 10:56:33 AM
Exception code: c0000005 ACCESS_VIOLATION
Fault address: 004093c3 0001:000083c3 (null)

and like this:

• retrospect elem.cpp-993

I fumbled around a bit, thinking 7.5 was choking on my complex scripts, but I couldn't fix the problem. The fix was:

• uninstall Retrospect Pro 6.5
• reboot (because Retrospect does ugly things to low levels of the host OS)
• uninstall Retrospect Pro 7.5
• reboot
• heck, reboot again
• install Retrospect Pro 7.5
• reboot
• look for updates
• update and reboot

The 30 day trial then worked. I ran the backups for a week and did a few random file restores and there have been no errors, though I admit that the only Mac I backup now is a PPC Mac running OS X 10.4. I'll soon be adding in the Intel laptop and I'm reasonably sure I'll have problems -- I don't think EMC has many Mac resources left. I run the Windows software on an old XP machine I'll run until it dies and is replaced by a new Intel iMac and an XP VM.

So I bought the upgrade from Amazon, thinking I should get the physical media. The price was cheaper too I think. What you get is a CD - nothing else. No documentation of course, but I know this immensely complex and completely unfriendly software very well. (They've introduced "wizards" to try to make it friendlier, but I disabled those. I've no idea if they help.) The upgrade process is a bit odd, but despite hanging for a bit at one point it completed. What you get with the CD is an "activation code". You enter that on the right page, your old registration code, and your address information to get a new code, which you'd better not lose (it is emailed to you as well as shown online).

In summary, Retrospect Pro is still a very unfriendly and complex hunk of software, and the clients probably don't work properly with a modern Mac, but it's an improvement on recent versions and if you want to backup a mixed LAN affordably and automatically there are no other choices.

BTW, don't expect to be able to do a "bare metal" restore on OS X. That might be theoretically possible, but I've never heard of anyone doing it using Retrospect. This is all about backing up your personal data.

Ports: a handy reference for firewall work

"Well Known" TCP and UDP Ports Used By Apple Software Products lists the port, protocol and service. A handy reference, even if it's dated in places (Retrospect is no longer Dantz).

Microsoft OneCare dies: XP hangs by a thread

About seven months ago, when Norton Antivirus came up for renewal, I switched to Windows/Microsoft Live OneCare. I was tired of quality and performance issues with NAV. I figured Microsoft, since they owned the OS, would manage the performance/reliability issues better. I thought Microsoft couldn't screw it up.

Wrong. First, the sign-up process was amazingly buggy. Then, from the first day of use OneCare flagged many benign files as suspicious. More recently an update failure uncovered a disturbing number of red flags. Yesterday, OneCare went over the edge.

I'd seen an update notice when I shut down the day before. When I restarted yesterday morning I received the dreaded "memory could not be read" svchost.exe startup message. This is Microsoft's singularly unhelpful way of saying something is wrong with deep in the bowels of the services that underlie XP. In the past it has appeared after I've installed an Office update (due to an egregious and longstanding bug in the Office updater).

This time the problems were deep. I could only use the machine for a few minutes before it became unresponsive. On a power down and restart I couldn't get past the 'applying settings' part of a login, I had to do a soft boot to get further.

I suspected a drive error, but a drive scan was clean. I though of rolling back to a prior system restore, but I discovered I'd disabled system restore when fixing up an old XP problem and forgotten to restore it. I didn't want to reinstall the OS, so my next step was to try uninstalling badly behaved software.

Two applications were at the top of my list. Windows Live OneCare and Adobe Acrobat Professional (AAP has a famously badly behaved updater). I started with OneCare.

That did the trick. Once I'd uninstalled OneCare every problem went away. I purged Windows Defender for good measure.

I didn't like NAV, so what should I do for antiviral software now?

Well, let's assess the risks. I'm the only user of this machine and my email is filtered by an average of three different layers of antiviral filtering (spamcop, gmail and visi). I don't install any new Windows software of any sort on this machine, I do almost all my work on one of our ultra-reliable trouble-free OS X machines. I have an automated nightly backup system. I use Firefox, not IE. My network is behind two different NAT router/firewalls with different vendors and my wireless network is WPA2 with a strong password.

Screw it. OneCare is a far greater risk to me than the world of viruses and NAV is in the same league. I'm going "bare".

Meanwhile, I'm going to start moving the file sharing function off this old box onto the iMac. I run Parallels/Win2K on my MacBook for the rare Windows app I need (Microsoft Access a few sundry others), it might be time to donate my one remaining PC use the MacBook as my desktop.

Update 4/13/07: There's one other bad actor in my software collection -- Dantz (now EMC) Retrospect Professional for Windows. If I had to guess what went badly wrong in my XP install, I would look first at some interaction between Retrospect, OneCare, Microsoft Update and maybe one or two other variables. Mercifully, I don't need to bother pursuing this one any further. Retrospect Pro is the main reason I keep the XP box running, so when I eliminate the box I'll dump Retrospect Pro as well. (EMC, somewhat tardily, has begun offering trial versions of Retrospect. I will test their Retrospect Desktop for OS X network backup product and report on my experiences. I'd hoped to test EMC's mettle by seeing how well and quickly they supported OS X 10.5, but the delay to that release means I'll have to try them on 10.4 instead).

Update 4/21/07: It's one thing to uninstall OneCare, another to kill the OneCare account. The account auto-renews forever. You can't change this online, you have to phone Microsoft to cancel. I tried this tonight. The phone rang a bit, then came a voice .. "Microsoft is closed". Click.

I'll try calling @10am PT Monday. I wonder if there's money in shorting Microsoft ...

Update 4/22/07: OneCare support has the world's most obnoxious hold music. They alternative up-tempo elevator music with two repetitive sales pitches spoken in a cheerfully grating tone. I got to listen to a lot of that today. After a half-hour I went to lunch, when I returned the line had gone dead. So the wait time was probably 40 minutes. I'll try again tomorrow. Has Microsoft imploded?

Update 4/24/07: Waited 30 minutes on hold. Called back and pushed 9,9,9. Got a support-referral person. They suggested I try option 2 for tech support. Got someone there. They said hours for the account services are 5am-10pm M-F PST and 5am-5pm PST Sat/Sun. They also suggested calling Microsoft's Money-Back-Guarantee line at 888-673-8624. They put through to another tech support number. They said I can't stop the account renewal process without support giving me an "ASIS" number. They transferred me to fee-based technical support where I listened to hold music. Then I gave up. I'll try calling billing at 5am PT tomorrow.

Update 4/25/07: I ignore the "get an ASIS number first" advice and and call the billing number again at 8:45am PT. Got through immediately -- but that was a false alarm. I'd hit option 3 twice, and errant key presses bring up a human router. She laughs maniacally when I mention OneCare and sends me back to the accounts line. I decide to wait 10 minutes. After seven minutes of the insanely irritating hold music and repetitive marketing patter I decide Microsoft owes me a copy of Macintosh Office 2007 and I contemplate piratical acts. At minute eight the phone picks up. I'm asked why I want to dump OneCare. "Because it has caused far more damage to my system than any virus I've seen". There are no further questions, and to my disgruntled surprise I get a prorated credit of $32. End of story, except, of course, for a post to Gordon's Notes.

The Backup Market: It's awful

One of my family (call her "Z") members had a nasty laptop drive failure. I've had three in the past year; two on a work laptop. one on a long-abused home laptop. Laptops are hell on hard drives. Annoying for me, since I'm obsessive about backup. Worse for Z, because she wasn't.

Z asked me about backup, especially for images. I started to give her an update on my longtime backup strategy (Backing up a mixed OS X and Windows 2000 Home Network is dated now, but the general approach is unchanged even though Retrospect Pro is now zombie-ware.). Midway through my email I realized I was ranting.

Ranting. That's what blogs are for. So I'll do the email here instead.

Backup solutions really suck today. I used to do tape backup with multiple redundant offsite rotating tapes. A backup took all night, but I didn't care -- I was asleep. Dantz Retrospect was great back then, and even on the PC there were decent home products. Fast forward 10 years and the options are lousy. I use zombie software - the basically abandoned Retrospect Professional for Windows to backup my XP/OS X LAN. When it dies (probably when 10.5 comes out) there will be no automated alternatives.

Instead of multiple redundant off-site tape backups I use two rotating 300GB USB drives. It would be nice if they both had reliable quite fans and powered down when not in use to keep the drives alive. Nice, but not so. Redundancy is limited to Retrospect's incremental backup -- nice, but it only lasts as long as Retrospect.

I've been waiting for a year for Google to deploy an offsite backup product, but nothing has shown up from them. There are several products built around Amazon's S3, but I hear nothing about how well they work. Apple's offsite backup solution is pathetically small and very expensive. I trust Google to get this right and stick around, but not a small startup.

So what's the average person to do? In Z's case she has only to backup a single XP machine. So, although I've not tested the software, I'd suggest this:

1. Dual rotating USB drives like I use. Every 1-2 weeks carry one offsite. I keep my offsite drive at work. Encrypt the backup, it wouldn't be good to lose an unencrypted backup. Good luck finding one that will spin down when not in use.
   
   
2. Find software that supports the USB drives and encryption. Alas, I don't know a product to support. You want it fully automated; even the push-button solutions aren't automated enough. (Anyone with ideas?). Look for an external drive/enclosure software solution that gets decent reviews and buy two of 'em. Expect to pay at least $500. Real-time backup is nice in theory but it doesn't work with today's machines (RAID excepted, but that's not a real backup). Once a night for everything is enough.
   
   
3. In XP it's almost impossible to backup all your data without backing up the entire hard drive. What can I say, XP sucks too. So plan on backing up EVERYTHING, not just data. You need that to get all the nooks and crannies that XP stuffs data into.
   
   
4. Use a separate, intermittent backup solution for your most precious stuff. Typically burn CDs and DVDs of images and toss them in a drawer at work. Use a photo sharing site that supports full uploads and has a restore service (for a fee send images on DVD). SmugMug does this, Picasa WebAlbums (Google) might.
   
   
5. Test your ability to restore from backup every month or so. Randomly select some files and try the restore. You will be impressed how often this reveals serious problems.
   
   
6. Real geeks also mirror their most important systems every few months. It's easy to restore a mirror then restore data from backup. Even I don't do this religiously however.
   
   
7. Future: If Google ever does offsite backup, I'll switch from the rotating USB drives to a gibabit ethernet network access storage device (NAS) with a RAID array (warm swap). That way one of the backup disks could fail without a problem and I'd have a completely distinct offsite backup solution. Actually, what I really want, is for Google to assemble and sell the NAS device and the software that backs up the NAS to Google's network. They could even lease it as part of a service offering ...
   

That's the best I can come up with. I'll have more specific backup software solutions when I finally have to replace Retrospect Professional.

Which leaves the interesting questions - why is backup so bad? It's even lousy at the corporate level. If I had to rely on our corporate backup solution those two drive failures would have been much worse than annoyances -- I have my own personal backup at work too. My best guesses as to why it's so bad now are:

1. Laptops. I'd guesstimate laptops have quadrupled the risk of large scale data loss. We didn't used to keep all our data on them, now we do. This is not a stable situation. We need to migrate to devices with 20GB of solid state storage (never crashes), intelligent caching and synchronization, and remote network accessible primary data stores. Laptops with 200GB hard drives are a tool of Satan.
   
   
2. Cheap storage: CPUs have disappointed for years, but hard drives have really lived up to Moore's "law". Honking hard drives have allowed for iPhoto and iMovie, and enormous data stores we can't back up.
   
   
3. Historically most people didn't care about their personal data. They really didn't mind that much if it vanished; in fact, it kind of simplified their computing existence. That's only changed recently with digital photography; not enough time to build a market, especially given #7.
   
   
4. Probability estimations were not very important for our evolutionary success. We just aren't much good at probability. Consider the Iraq War as exhibit A and America's 'no-fly list' as exhibit B. Since we can't deal with probability properly, we underfund backup. Since we underfund backup, there's no market for backup solutions.
   
   
5. Since we don't value backup enough, vendors haven't written backup support into file systems and operating sytems. (Apple may do this with OS X 10.5 -- at last.) That makes backup software harder to write and less reliable - especially in XP.
   
   
6. Since current backup solutions are awful, it's easy for almost everyone to basically do nothing.
   
   
7. The expectation that either Google or Microsoft will take over offsite online backup has blocked any serious capital from going to build a competing solution. Why spend all that money when the big guns will take it all away?

Update 12/22/06: More on online backup solutions.

OS X: The OS without backup software

I can't figure out how to link to the Daring Fireball post that sent me to rentzsch.com: Hole in the Umbrella: Backup 3 but it was a good one.

Wow. This is bad.

Rentzsch suggests using Retrospect. Uhhh, no. Retrospect was acquired by EMC, a mega-corp with zero interest in the home market and even worse support than Dantz (which is saying a lot). It was a creaky and ailing software package before EMC bought it, it's now a zombie. [I use an old version of Retrospect Pro for Windows, I'll use it as long as it works.]

There are some small distribution backup solutions for OS X, but they're hardly home user friendly.

Backup is in bad shape under Windows, but it's in even worse shape in OS X.

Retrospect Pro needs internet access to backup my LAN

The program formerly known as 'Dantz Retrospect' was a mainstay of the Mac community in the 1980s and early 1990s. Sometime in the late 1990s, when the Mac was really dying, Retrospect ran out of steam. By the time the Mac flamed on again, Dantz had lost its mojo; the application never got the care and feeding it needed and the customer base never returned. (In fairness to Dantz, the 21st century Mac is a consumer product and Retrospect was a SOHO/corporate solution.)

Now the decaying remnant of Retropsect is owned by EMC Insignia. I still use Retrospect Pro, but I don't know anyone else who does. There are few Amazon reviews and no respectable reviews anywhere else. No decent blogger confesses to using it (ok, there's me, but I'm not decent). There are no free downloads and no user forums. It's fair to say that EMC is simply feeding off a decaying user base.

All of which is by way of introducing a curiousity. I recently terminated NAV and installed a trial version of Microsoft OneCare. That means I have a better firewall than I used to. Today I found that Retrospect Pro had hung during a LAN backup. The firewall told me that it had blocked Retrospect's acccess to the net. I allowed access to Retrospect and the backup resumed.

Retrospect uses an internet registry to find the address of machines it backs up. That's how it can do backups across a WAN. One day, of course, EMC will give up and turn off that service. I think there's a workaround (hard code the IP addresses probably), but it is interesting to see examples of remote application disabling that date back to the 1990s.

EMC Retrospect Professional: Does anyone use it?

EMC Insignia: Retrospect for Windows is one of the survivors of Dantz corporation, a Macintosh software vendor that flamed out after years of declining product quality. I use an earlier version to backup a mixed LAN of Macs and PCs to an XP box.

The version I have works most of the time, but it is an ugly piece of software. It goes wrong in a myriad number of ways, with cryptic error messages or no error messages at all. Sometimes I can figure out what happened, sometimes I can't. The network backup has to hack deep into the client OS to work, so it's vulnerable to all kinds of security patches or OS updates.

Alas, there are no alternatives. I have to hope Google does backup and decides to support OS X in addition to Windows -- but I fear they won't.

So I'd like to upgrade -- if I thought the new product was better. It's cheap enough -- $100 or so via Amazon. But is the current version any better? How can I tell?

EMC bought Dantz's products, likely at a firesale price. They eliminated the Dantz user forums. How can I tell if their current version is any good? Amazon has exactly one credible review, and it's pretty negative. Versiontracker has no credible reviews. EMC offers trial versions, but they say:

Do not download evaluation software for an EMC Insignia product if you are already a licensed user of that product. In order to upgrade your retail version of an EMC Insignia product, please proceed to the Upgrade page or contact your local EMC Insignia reseller.

Hmmm. Maybe I'll hold out on my current version a bit longer -- though I'm sure OS X 10.5 will break it. I can't hold out indefinitely?

Retrospect: when good software goes bad

If you've been around software long enough, you know the feeling. Good software going bad. This doesn't happen with wrenches, power saws and bicycles -- this is one way in which software has some of the properties of a living thing.

Software is complex, and it's embedded in a complex ecosystem made up of the core operating system, the antiviral and security system, and other co-resident applications -- not to mention the physical computer and peripherals. In addition it "lives" in a complex business environment with a major perverse incentive -- after initial penetration ongoing revenues requires "upgrades". Typically bug fixes aren't enough to get users to upgrade, there needs to be new features. New features mean more complexity, more bugs, declinining reliability. On the other hand, if users don't upgrade the software becomes increasingly unsuited to its 'ecosystem' -- eventually it breaks.

Even if the software survives all of the above, people move on. Expertise is lost. Business direction changes. Software dies.

The lifespan of most software is about 6-10 years. Dantz Retrospect was an excellent and popular Mac backup solution in the 1980s. It's old. It's more than decrepit.

Today I tried to make a Disaster Recovery image using Retrospect Pro 6.5 for Windows. All seemed well -- but the ISO image was 747MB. That's too large for a CD. One CD burning app claimed it was a DVD image. The documentation says it should be a CD image. The remnants of Retrospect was bought by EMC Insignia -- who removed all of the support forums, downloads, etc. There's no where to look to sort this out.

This is only the latest in a long line of issues with Retrospect. It's been in decline for years. Each update fixed some bugs and introduced others. The support forums were sour. Usenet questions fell off. The smell was bad.

What's the chance that EMC is going to sort this out? Pretty darned slim. It's time to move on, but there aren't a lot of serious backup solutions marketed to the home office. Most small businesses and homes don't do real backup.

I guess I'll just have to wait for Google to host all of my data ....

Workaround for a Spotlight - Retrospect 6 conflict

macosxhints - 10.4: Workaround for a Spotlight - Retrospect 6 conflict

The article and discussions list a few approaches. Dantz is not a very functional company.

Retrospect 6.5 - creating a disaster recovery CD

There's a link on Dantz's web site for creating an OS X boot CD:
http://kb.dantz.com/display/2n/index.asp?c=&cpc=&cid=&cat=&catURL=&r=0.6419031

A tutorial on preparing a disaster recovery CD for Windows 6.5 pro:
http://kb.dantz.com/display/2n/index.asp?c=&cpc=&cid=&cat=&catURL=&r=0.6419031

And these directions: Retrospect 6.5 - creating a disaster recovery CD

Creating a Disaster Recovery CD : Retrospect’s Disaster Recovery preparation wizard can save a CD image file which you can later use with CD-R authoring and recording software to create a CD. The file is an image of a CD in the ISO 9660 format, which all popular authoring software can use to record, or "burn," a CD. Though most authoring software has the capability to burn a disc from an ISO image, some programs do not have an intuitive user interface for this feature and some programs poorly document this feature. The following is documentation for the most popular CD authoring software, detailing how to burn a disaster recovery CD from the image file saved by Retrospect.

Easy CD Creator (Adaptec/Roxio): Start Easy CD Creator and cancel any wizard that appears. From the File menu, choose Open CD Layout. In the file selection dialog, change the shown file type from Easy CD Creator to All Files, navigate to the disaster recovery ISO image, select it, and click Open. In the CD Creation Setup window which appears, select your desired CD recorder, leave the write speed and options as they are, and click OK to begin recording your disc.

CD Extreme (Sony): Start CD Extreme. At the default CD Starter window, click on the CD Extreme button/combo box in the lower right to go into the full application. From the File menu’s New Job submenu, choose Global-Image or Other Image. Click the ’...’ button at the far right of the Disk Image File area. In the file selection dialog, change the shown file type to Other Image, navigate to the disaster recovery ISO image, select it, and click Open. Click the Burn button to begin recording your disc.

Nero Burning Rom (Ahead Software): Start Nero and close the new compilation window, file browser window, and any wizard that appears. Choose Burn Image from the File menu. In the file selection dialog, change the shown file type to All Files, navigate to the disaster recovery ISO image, select it, and click Open. Click OK if Nero informs you it does not recognize the format of the image file. Nero presents its Foreign image settings dialog, which should have default settings of Data Mode 1, block size 2048 bytes, other values zero, and boxes unchecked. Click OK to work with these settings for the ISO image. Nero presents the Write CD window. Click Write to begin recording your disc.

Very big Dantz Retrospect bug (OS X)

MacInTouch Home PageJust a quick warning to Mac OS X users running Retrospect 6.0.178. If you're backing up an entire drive and hope to restore it one day, do NOT do an incremental backup. This version of Retrospect doesn't recognize when symbolic links have changed the file to which they point. So it doesn't back them up.

This is unlikely to cause problems for personal home directories and such, but it has a disastrous effect when restoring a complete Mac OS X install, if you've done any software updates after your first backup in the set. You'll need to reinstall the OS.

The easy solution (until Dantz issues a fix) is to force Retrospect to backup ALL files, not just changed files.

(The technical reason for the problem is that when Apple updates frameworks in software updates, they update symbolic links named 'Current' to point to the new version. Retrospect backs up the new version, but fails to back up the updated symbolic link. Thus, on restore you end up with the new version, but the old symbolic link -- pointing to a no-longer-present version.)

---

Wow. I wonder if this is true for older versions too. Maybe I should give up on using Retrospect for a full system backup -- and focus on a data only backup. I can use CarbonCopy Cloner to do a clone periodically, and otherwise only backup the user directory.

Restoring Panther with Retrospect Desktop - Macintouch

Mac OS X Panther (10.3.3): "Restoring Panther with Retrospect Desktop

Merle Reinhart
I have successfully done what Paul Spector is trying to do several times, both with Retrospect 5 and 6. The trick that took me a couple of attempts to learn appears to also be missing from Paul's attempt.

After initializing the volume you want to restore, change the ownership to be root and group admin with privileges of rwx for the owner and group and r for the world. Then as long as the volume is set to observe permissions (i.e. the 'Ignore ownership on this volume' is unchecked), then Retrospect should properly restore the directory and file ownerships and permissions.

However, it appears that Retrospect doesn't modify the ownership/permissions of the root of the volume you are restoring to (this is likely why Dantz recommends restoring the backup over a fresh OS install as all the permissions and ownerships will already be correct).The other thing that I've found that should be done prior to booting from the restored volume, delete all the caches (including the kernel caches). Since technically, this is a new machine, these caches all need to be rebuilt (which means that the initial boot could take a few minutes).

Anyway, that has been my experience in using Retrospect for an OS restore. It works and can be faster than a new OS install (particularly if you have a lot of 3rd party programs or data), but you have to be careful of the ownership of the volume prior to starting the restore."