Large backup copy job expiring

[mcvosi]

I have a rather large backup copy job running (the initial one). Is it an issue that the interval expires? It says in the log that it will resume on the next attempt, but will this make my backups inconsistent?

Thx

[Vitaliy S.]

Hi Matthew,

Is it an issue that the interval expires?

No, it's not an issue, the backup copy job will indeed resume on the next run (assuming you're using WAN accelerators) and will continue transferring VM backup data.

It says in the log that it will resume on the next attempt, but will this make my backups inconsistent?

Do you mean the target backup files? You will be able to use backup files stored in the offsite location once initial sync operation is complete.

If you have issues with doing first run, you may want to consider pre-seeding the backup copy job. Please search these forums for the detailed instructions.

Thanks!

[mcvosi]

OK, reason I ask is sometimes I see another job log that says something like "user cancelled" or something like that. I know I didn't cancel the job so I wasn't sure what that was all about. I am using WAN Acceleration at each endpoint.

[Vitaliy S.]

OK, reason I ask is sometimes I see another job log that says something like "user cancelled" or something like that.

Do you have this message for the backup copy job? I've seen the same message for regular jobs when it was cancelled by the configured backup window...

[wa15]

Also, on the initial backup copy job screen, where it says copy every X amount of days, you may want to change it to something like 15 days for first initial copy.

[mcvosi]

OK, so far so good setting the longer interval for the initial backup copy job. My only concern is when another full backup is run.

[veremin]

My only concern is when another full backup is run.

You mean that another full backup will cause longer backup copy job duration, right? If so, it shouldn't be the case, as the backup copy job (being forever incremental) won't transfer the backup file as a whole, but rather only new/changed blocks. Thanks.

[mcvosi]

You mean that another full backup will cause longer backup copy job duration, right? If so, it shouldn't be the case, as the backup copy job (being forever incremental) won't transfer the backup file as a whole, but rather only new/changed blocks. Thanks.

Ahhh, OK. I didn't realize that it's a forever incremental. I guess it helps to read the docs.

Thx

[veremin]

Yep, it utilizes backup job as a "source" and, using its special synthetic logic, creates corresponding restore points in the "target" location. More information regarding it can be found here. Thanks.