Hi All
I am another one a bit confused about setting up backup copy jobs for GFS. I have read a recent post here as well as the simple retention guide here.
My Scenario:
I have a backup job for my docs server
Restore point to keep: 21
Schedule: 3 times a day (8:00, 12:00, 18:00)
Method: Reverse Incrementals
This backups up to an onsite Synology DS1513+ with WD Reds. Nothing fancy. My thought is that 3 backups a day for 7 days is 21 restore points so this backup job covers me for a week of restores. Beyond this week I would like the ability to also store backups for monthly's and quarterly's and yearly's. Because there is no GFS in a normal backup job I configured 3 additional backup jobs to carry them out. This worked fine but of course I ended up with 1 server of 500GB taking up 4x 500GB which clearly is not a good idea.
So I have now created a backup copy job
Backup Copy Interval: every 7 days
Restore points to keep: 2
Keep following restore points for archiving:
Weekly - 4
Monthly - 3
Quarterly - 4
Yearly - 3
This backs up to an offsite Synology DS1513+ with WD Reds. My thinking was to have recent restore points accessible from my onsite storage and archive to my remote site. My remote site has a good link and the Synology boxes are the same spec so I am not sure I am gaining any real benefit doing this........ I really just want to have a reliable way of being able to restore with the restore points I have listed with using up TB's of storage.
Question 1
Im not sure where the copy interval fits in with all of this
Question 2
My understanding is that the archiving will keep a full backup of each point. So if the VM is 500GB then the above restore points when it reaches 3 years will equal 7TB + what ever data growth - Total restore points x 500GB. Would that be correct?
Question 3
Because I am only using a backup copy job for archiving does it matter if I keep the restore points to 2? Does that have any relevance to my archive restore points?
Question 4
Can you recommend a better way to achieve this? Such as GFS with incremental. I understand the point of archive restore points being full to ensure no reliance on increments etc.
Many thanks
MTC
-
- Influencer
- Posts: 16
- Liked: 1 time
- Joined: Jul 14, 2014 3:56 pm
- Full Name: mythumbsclick
- Contact:
-
- Product Manager
- Posts: 20271
- Liked: 2252 times
- Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
- Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
- Contact:
Re: Another 'Confused About Backup Copy Job' Post
You can think about copy interval as "how often should backup copy job look for a new restore point to copy". It's been discussed briefly in this topic; might be worth reviewing.Im not sure where the copy interval fits in with all of this
Yes, both your understanding and calculations are correct.My understanding is that the archiving will keep a full backup of each point. So if the VM is 500GB then the above restore points when it reaches 3 years will equal 7TB + what ever data growth - Total restore points x 500GB. Would that be correct?
It doesn't matter how many restore points are kept according to simple retention. The GFS restore points will be created regardless.Because I am only using a backup copy job for archiving does it matter if I keep the restore points to 2? Does that have any relevance to my archive restore points?
The scenario you described should work fine, as there is no such a thing as GFS with increments.Can you recommend a better way to achieve this? Such as GFS with incremental. I understand the point of archive restore points being full to ensure no reliance on increments etc.
Thanks.
-
- Influencer
- Posts: 16
- Liked: 1 time
- Joined: Jul 14, 2014 3:56 pm
- Full Name: mythumbsclick
- Contact:
Re: Another 'Confused About Backup Copy Job' Post
Thanks v.Eremin. I think I am on top of things now.
-
- Product Manager
- Posts: 20271
- Liked: 2252 times
- Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
- Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
- Contact:
Re: Another 'Confused About Backup Copy Job' Post
You're welcome. Should any other help be need, don't hesitate to ask.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 198 guests