Discussions related to exporting backups to tape and backing up directly to tape.
Post Reply
FredMez
Influencer
Posts: 11
Liked: never
Joined: Feb 18, 2015 8:50 pm
Contact:

Enhancement Request for Tape Jobs and Tape Mounts

Post by FredMez »

I would like to suggest an enhancement to the tape job processing as it relates to tape mounts. If this has already been discussed, my apologies.

When a tape job is awaiting a tape mount, all other tape jobs queue up behind the awaiting job. The awaiting job should release the tape resource so that other jobs may process, and check for the tape availability whenever the tape resource is available.

For example, job1 wants a tape mount for a tape from media-pool1. There are no tapes in the library that are available from said media pool. Then job2 comes along and wants a tape from media-pool2, which are available. currently job2 waits because the tape drive is not available. why can't job2 process while job1 still waits for its tape. Then after job2 completes and the tape resource is available again, it can check to see if a tape is now available in the library for media-pool1.

The current configuration causes all tape jobs to queue up, creating a huge mess as backup data gets changed.

thank you,
Fred
veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 20270
Liked: 2252 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Enhancement Request for Tape Jobs and Tape Mounts

Post by veremin »

So, there are two backup to tape jobs that have different backup jobs or repositories as their sources, the tape jobs are pointed to two different media pools that are created on top of different libraries, right? Thanks.
pkelly_sts
Veteran
Posts: 600
Liked: 66 times
Joined: Jun 13, 2013 10:08 am
Full Name: Paul Kelly
Contact:

Re: Enhancement Request for Tape Jobs and Tape Mounts

Post by pkelly_sts »

Useful suggestion. Personally I wouldn't assume that they're also in different libraries...
veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 20270
Liked: 2252 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Enhancement Request for Tape Jobs and Tape Mounts

Post by veremin »

In that case the question would be - do those media pools have different tapes assigned to them, instead of sharing free media pool?
FredMez
Influencer
Posts: 11
Liked: never
Joined: Feb 18, 2015 8:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Enhancement Request for Tape Jobs and Tape Mounts

Post by FredMez »

job1 is a daily job that uses tapes from pool1 (which has a specific retention period). job2 is a weekly job that uses tapes from pool2 (which has a different retention period). If job2 doesn't have a tape available in the tape library for that pool, it locks the tape drive waiting for a tape mount. Meanwhile the daily job cannot use the tape drive.
To compound the issue, once the job starts it does not check the retentions of tape again. Meaning, that while the job is waiting for a tape in pool1, if a tape becomes expired in that pool, the awaiting job never sees it unless i manually mark it as free.
The tape management in Veeam is a good starting point, but it definitely needs maturing.
veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 20270
Liked: 2252 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Enhancement Request for Tape Jobs and Tape Mounts

Post by veremin »

And just to clarify - how many drives does your library have? Thanks.
FredMez
Influencer
Posts: 11
Liked: never
Joined: Feb 18, 2015 8:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Enhancement Request for Tape Jobs and Tape Mounts

Post by FredMez »

it is a single tape drive.
veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 20270
Liked: 2252 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Enhancement Request for Tape Jobs and Tape Mounts

Post by veremin »

When a tape job starts, it automatically locks a drive. The job releases the drive as soon as it's is finished (either successfully or not). Thus, what you currently see is an expected behaviour. The tape drive was locked, because the tape job was not finished.

Anyway, thank you for your feedback, we will think how the current implementation might be improved in future; appreciated.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DataDefender, Google [Bot] and 26 guests