-9173 Error Finally Gone?

[JFreak]

I have only ever lost a file due to user error, not losing my storage all of a sudden.

Besides, what do you think operating system will do when you back up a file that is being recorded on? It is just a bad idea. And if you're not recording, you're taking unnecessary risk.

I'd take it if you said you take a coffee break and while enjoying your brew you let the backup run before you continue.

[Meads]

Originally Posted by JFreak

I have only ever lost a file due to user error, not losing my storage all of a sudden.

Besides, what do you think operating system will do when you back up a file that is being recorded on? It is just a bad idea. And if you're not recording, you're taking unnecessary risk.

I'd take it if you said you take a coffee break and while enjoying your brew you let the backup run before you continue.

Sir, I do not value, do not care about and did not ask for your opinion and your experience. I don't consider you competent, and I do not know why you keep giving your 2 cents on my posts.
I do not backup files I am currently recording, obviously, and while I mix I never lost anything because of running a backup in the background, but I lost stuff because I didn't. Important stuff. Things that were annoying to redo.
It's great that you live in a world where Pro Tools is the bees knees. And it's awesome that you consider yourself an expert on stuff. Let's say we disagree in that regard. I know what I am doing, and the things I do I do consciously and after evaluating options, risks and benefits. I do not need your advice. I'm very confident in what I do and do not know. Backup is not an area I need any advice on, I got it down. Do you copy, Janne? Nobody asked.

I gave my findings regarding -9173. I didn't ask for help. When I need help, I ask for it. Having said that I won't need an answer from you, Janne, ever. Because I do not consider you a source of any useful information. If I ever need anything from you, I will direct it to you specifically. Other than that please refrain from spewing out anything in relation to my posts. Your assistance never was, isn't and never will be needed over here. Thank you.

[JFreak]

What you post is kind of contradictory. First you say you noticed a problem and then you say you don't need advise.

It is not so long ago that DigiDesign gave official recommendation to split your audio files to different drives, was it 16 or 24 per drive. Sure, drive performance is now considerably better but that should give you a hint that PT is very sensitive to storage performance. If you want to bang your head to the wall, be my guest. Common sense is still a good idea today.

[Meads]

Originally Posted by JFreak

What you post is kind of contradictory. First you say you noticed a problem and then you say you don't need advise.

It is not so long ago that DigiDesign gave official recommendation to split your audio files to different drives, was it 16 or 24 per drive. Sure, drive performance is now considerably better but that should give you a hint that PT is very sensitive to disk performance. If you want to bang your head to the wall, be my guest. Common sense is still a good idea today.

I experienced an error and unexpected behaviour. That doesn't equal being in need of assistance. I use a workaround. I'm fine. Sharing the reason why I experience this error message might lead others to a solution in their specific case. That's why I posted here.

I have 32GB RAM allocated for caching, this amount is never entirely needed. My SSDs are not (should not be) accessed by PT and transfer to my NAS is restricted to 200kb/s (which isn't even used up, since it's mostly smaller files that are copied, which aren't transferred at max speed) which leaves enough headroom for whatever PT needs to do on any of the drives - even though it shouldn't, because again, everything is cached - supposedly. The issue here sure is not SATA bandwidth.

[JFreak]

Fair enough. You don't want help, I'll stop here.

[BScout]

Our backup systems do snapshot backups and not live backups (and not APFS snapshots either) and there are no issues. Backups are happening every 15 mins.

Two of the largest sound editing/re-recording mixing companies for feature film in the world run on constant backup systems for all their seats to either a Fibre SAN or a network NAS. Neither have issues. Nothing is run locally.
And neither is on an Avid storage "solution."

You might look at your configuration choices for backup solutions if you are having problems.

[Meads]

Originally Posted by BScout

Our backup systems do snapshot backups and not live backups (and not APFS snapshots either) and there are no issues. Backups are happening every 15 mins.

Two of the largest sound editing/re-recording mixing companies for feature film in the world run on constant backup systems for all their seats to either a Fibre SAN or a network NAS. Neither have issues. Nothing is run locally.
And neither is on an Avid storage "solution."

You might look at your configuration choices for backup solutions if you are having problems.

I'm a freelancer and cannot invest in enterprise level shenanigans. I have 2 Synology NAS, a 12-bay as active backup and a 7 bay for archiving (and two external drives as final backups connected to the archive Synology). Both NAS are equipped with 10Gbe cards and 1TB SSD cache (read/write). On top I use an online backup service. Also I have everything recent mirrored at home.
So if worst comes to worst I'm well prepared.

But I don't know what to do differently because I don't know why PT takes such a hit with running network transfers. I don't have those issues with a NEXIS, so maybe it's about the protocol? This leans into territory where my wisdom ends.

[Darryl Ramm]

Yes snapshots can increase hope these things create usable backups. But even if using snapshots, if there is no way to guarantee a save/commit to disk is complete before the snapshot is taken it is still possible to have a corrupt backup. And I'd wager a large reason that failures are not noticed is every backup is not checked.... and problem if there are any may get written over in the next backup. And that may not be the end of the world if you have multiple rolling backups and some of them are corrupt, you go back to the one before.

APFS snapshots are fantastic and will be great when integrated into more backup utilities. It could also be intersting for Avid to implement snapshot support in Pro Tools, where it would save a session, finish all disk writes then trigger a corresponding volume snapshot, (potentially trigger backup to start if the system can handle that), and keep on running.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

APFS snapshots are fantastic and will be great when integrated into more backup utilities. It could also be intersting for Avid to implement snapshot support in Pro Tools, where it would save a session, finish all disk writes then trigger a corresponding volume snapshot, (potentially trigger backup to start if the system can handle that), and keep on running.

It would, sure.. my guess is APFS needs to be on Windows before that happens

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by JFreak

It would, sure.. my guess is APFS needs to be on Windows before that happens

That will not happen. Windows has VSS shadow volumes already and shadow/snapshot integrations with storage systems. And in another direction ReFS that was supposed to replace NTFS and does not look like it will, or not anytime soon. VSS itself is not really super impressive snapshot technology but the integrations are nice. OTOH with APFS, Apple finally got a great filesystem to market.

I have been meaning to play with snapshots more on APFS myself, just need to find time.