headers
mzacht | 1 Feb 2009 04:37
Picon

error 541 (client not installed or not running)

Here is another error message that I've been getting a lot of at  
different locations. This all started months ago after upgrading to  
the current release versions of 6.1 and it's client. Same happens on  
the Windows version, 7.6.

One day the client will just report this error.... which is an example  
of what happened last night. It seems to be conflicting with itself!

error 541 (client not installed or not running)

Activator code V-WD2Z-XXXX-9TH9-108 (xxx for security reasons) is used  
for multiple clients:
Margarete Lendo at 127.0.0.1
Margarete Lendo at 209.xxx.xxx.168

If I do a reinstall of the client, it will be fine. I don't have to  
uninstall and reinstall, though I've tried that and the same problem  
has reoccurred.

I'm wondering if anybody has experienced this? Along with the other  
message I posted about... "error -525 (wrong client found at that  
address)".

Thanks for any feedback.

TJ
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Thomas Myers | 1 Feb 2009 16:45
Favicon

Re: error 541 (client not installed or not running)

I too have been getting a lot of these. It is a pain as I don't have  
access to many of the computers except via Remote Desktop.  It is  
especially bad when our laptops show it as I have to ask for time on  
them during the day to take control of them and get it fixed.

Sure would like the problem to be fixed (Like a option to use a  
different activator code right when you try to connect to it in  
"Clients".   Or a way to use terminal (ARD) to fix the problem.
Right now when you try to look at it in Clients/configure, it says it  
isn't visible even though it really is and it is just a activator  
conflict.

On Jan 31, 2009, at 10:37 PM, mzacht <at> mac.com wrote:

> Here is another error message that I've been getting a lot of at  
> different locations. This all started months ago after upgrading to  
> the current release versions of 6.1 and it's client. Same happens on  
> the Windows version, 7.6.
>
> One day the client will just report this error.... which is an  
> example of what happened last night. It seems to be conflicting with  
> itself!
>
> error 541 (client not installed or not running)
>
> Activator code V-WD2Z-XXXX-9TH9-108 (xxx for security reasons) is  
> used for multiple clients:
> Margarete Lendo at 127.0.0.1
> Margarete Lendo at 209.xxx.xxx.168
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
mzacht | 1 Feb 2009 17:34
Picon

Re: error 541 (client not installed or not running)

If you are running Retrospect from a Windows platform, I found a way  
to fix it without disturbing the end user.  You can email me for  
instructions. Though the problem may return to that client any time in  
the future.  If running from Macintosh, v6.1 is not as sophisticated  
so no way to fix that I've found so far other then taking control of  
their computer.

This problem never happened previous to the updates a few months ago.  
EMC changed something and apparently can't fix it.

No way am I touching that v8 Beta. May wait a long time before trying  
out the release version.

On Feb 1, 2009, at 10:45 AM, Thomas Myers wrote:

I too have been getting a lot of these. It is a pain as I don't have  
access to many of the computers except via Remote Desktop.  It is  
especially bad when our laptops show it as I have to ask for time on  
them during the day to take control of them and get it fixed.

Sure would like the problem to be fixed (Like a option to use a  
different activator code right when you try to connect to it in  
"Clients".   Or a way to use terminal (ARD) to fix the problem.
Right now when you try to look at it in Clients/configure, it says it  
isn't visible even though it really is and it is just a activator  
conflict.

On Jan 31, 2009, at 10:37 PM, mzacht <at> mac.com wrote:

> Here is another error message that I've been getting a lot of at
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David | 2 Feb 2009 04:15

Re: Why does it take so long

At 10:12 AM -0800 1/31/09, Bob Durst wrote:
>The MacBook where RS 6.1.230 resides, has also had the latest RS8 
>beta installed. That explains this entry in the Activity monitor, 
>but why was it consuming near 100% CPU, when it wasn't running ?

Well, it _is_ a very, very early Beta (as in probably really Alpha).

>Perhaps that explains the poor performance, but others have piped up 
>with a similar complaint, although again we don't know whether this 
>might be a cause.

Having an unrelated, un-baked and somewhat experimental unix process 
running away with 100% of your CPU load just possibly perhaps maybe 
might have contributed to slower then expected performance in other 
disk and network intensive tasks.

If you're not actively testing the Retrospect 8 Beta, it's probably 
wise to disable the Retrospect Engine from the Retrospect preference 
pane.

David

--
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Henry M. Seiden | 2 Feb 2009 13:54

Re: Why does it take so long

Personally, I'm not willing to to deal with realtime issues of the  
unbaked, half-baked, or even the first version, just-baked, out of the  
oven RS8. I have enough trouble with the easy bake oven, five year old  
version Retro 6. Call me when it's out.

Henry
On Feb 1, 2009, at 22:15 , David wrote:

>
> At 10:12 AM -0800 1/31/09, Bob Durst wrote:
>> The MacBook where RS 6.1.230 resides, has also had the latest RS8  
>> beta installed. That explains this entry in the Activity monitor,  
>> but why was it consuming near 100% CPU, when it wasn't running ?
>
> Well, it _is_ a very, very early Beta (as in probably really Alpha).
>
>
>> Perhaps that explains the poor performance, but others have piped  
>> up with a similar complaint, although again we don't know whether  
>> this might be a cause.
>
>
> Having an unrelated, un-baked and somewhat experimental unix process  
> running away with 100% of your CPU load just possibly perhaps maybe  
> might have contributed to slower then expected performance in other  
> disk and network intensive tasks.
>
> If you're not actively testing the Retrospect 8 Beta, it's probably  
> wise to disable the Retrospect Engine from the Retrospect preference  
> pane.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Drew Weaver | 2 Feb 2009 15:00

Retrospect asking me for license key?

I'm wondering if this somehow normal (although why would it be?)

I noticed over the last day or so Retrospect hadn't been sending me any annoying e-mails (which I
appreciate) ;-) but when I logged into the server to find out why it is asking me for my license key again.

Has anyone seen this before? On Windows 2003?

Thanks,
-Drew
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
mayoff_robin | 2 Feb 2009 15:11

RE: Retrospect asking me for license key?

Hi,

Please see http://kb.dantz.com/article.asp?article=9635&p=2

Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: retro-talk-bounces <at> list.dantz.com
[mailto:retro-talk-bounces <at> list.dantz.com] On Behalf Of Drew Weaver
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 6:01 AM
To: 'EMC Retro-Talk'
Subject: Retrospect asking me for license key?

I'm wondering if this somehow normal (although why would it be?)

I noticed over the last day or so Retrospect hadn't been sending me any
annoying e-mails (which I appreciate) ;-) but when I logged into the
server to find out why it is asking me for my license key again.

Has anyone seen this before? On Windows 2003?

Thanks,
-Drew

_______________________________________________
Retro-Talk mailing list
List Address: Retro-Talk <at> list.dantz.com
Retro-Talk settings and archive:
http://list.dantz.com/mailman/listinfo/retro-talk
Retrospect Support: http://www.emcinsignia.com/support
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jack Sims | 2 Feb 2009 23:16

RE: Retrospect asking me for license key? (Drew Weaver)

Whenever Retrospect is started, the configuration file is backed up and
switched. If Retrospect doesn't terminate cleanly, the configuration
file can be corrupted. In this case, the next time you start Retrospect
you get the request for the key.  It is very useful to keep a backup of
your Retrospect configuration file to recover from this situation.

The configuration file are located at c:\Documents and Settings\All
Users\Application Data\Retrospect\Config75.dat and Config75.bak, for
example. The .bak configuration may contain your last good
configuration.

-----Original Message-----

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:00:46 -0500
From: Drew Weaver <drew.weaver <at> thenap.com>
Subject: Retrospect asking me for license key?
To: "'EMC Retro-Talk'" <retro-talk <at> list.dantz.com>
Message-ID:
	<B7152C470C9BF3448ED33F16A75D81C14D4606B971 <at> exchanga.thenap.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I'm wondering if this somehow normal (although why would it be?)

I noticed over the last day or so Retrospect hadn't been sending me any
annoying e-mails (which I appreciate) ;-) but when I logged into the
server to find out why it is asking me for my license key again.

Has anyone seen this before? On Windows 2003?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ben Liberman | 3 Feb 2009 01:14

bug report - Retrospect 6.1.230 - different creation date/time errors with disk duplication

This is the situation, as far as I can tell.

When a Mac opens a file, it changes the "Modified" date to the 
present.  If the clock is set wrong, and to a time that is earlier 
than the creation date of the file, then you can end up with a file 
that shows a "Modified" date that is earlier than the "Created" date.

I am running a "duplicate" script to copy a hard drive on a file 
server to a hard drive on its' backup server, aprox 115 GB, which 
runs daily.  After every run I get "different creation date/time" 
errors on exactly the same 4699 files of the 117,920 or so files on 
the drive.  After the original "duplicate" it now only copies the few 
files on the server that have actually changed PLUS these 4,699 files.

All of these are static archived files that do not change, with dates 
ranging from 4/25/1991 to 8/1/2006.
Each file has a modification date that is earlier than its' creation date.

Retrospect version 6.1.230
Retrospect Driver Update, version 6.1.15.101

In each case, when Retrospect copies the file, it changes the 
"Modified" date to be equal to the "Created" date (rather than 
copying it as it really is) and then reports an error on the compare. 
When Retrospect scans the drives at the next backup, it sees the 
differences that Retrospect created, and does it all over again.

Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
David | 3 Feb 2009 01:37

Re: bug report - Retrospect 6.1.230 - different creation date/time errors with disk duplication

>Each file has a modification date that is earlier than its creation date.

You should probably fix those files.

I think perhaps Disk Warrior will do it. Certainly there could be a 
shell script or AppleScript that could "touch" those offending files, 
so that other utilities aren't thrown off.

How is this a Retrospect bug?
Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |

Gmane