Comprehensive data protection for all workloads
Post Reply
mkaec
Veteran
Posts: 462
Liked: 133 times
Joined: Jul 16, 2015 1:31 pm
Full Name: Marc K
Contact:

Exchange Double Size Incrementals

Post by mkaec »

That large incremental backups can be produced from Exchange (and SQL) servers has been discussed before. That's just the nature of block based backup of highly transactional systems.

When I first put our Exchange server into Veeam B&R, I had a great idea. Traditional Exchange backup involves backing up the databases on a full backup and then backing up the logs on incremental backups. But, Veeam B&R backs up the changed blocks in the databases during incremental backups in addition to the log files. So, I thought I could save some repository space by excluding the log files. That was a reasonable thought. If you've got an up-to-date EDB, you don't really need the log files.

When I went to test Veeam Explorer, I got an error that the logs were missing. It seems restore needs the logs if the EDB was live when it was backed up. That's because there's no guarantee that 100% of the log files had been played into the EDB when the backup was taken.

But it is a bummer. I'm effectively backing up the same data twice now. Once from the database and a second time from the log files.
Regnor
VeeaMVP
Posts: 938
Liked: 289 times
Joined: Jan 31, 2011 11:17 am
Full Name: Max
Contact:

Re: Exchange Double Size Incrementals

Post by Regnor » 1 person likes this post

In order to get a consistent backup both the EDB and logs need to be backed up and restored. Without the logs and checkpoint-file the EDB will come up in "dirty shutdown"; if you restore your exchange or the EDB you'll have to "repair" the database with eseutil.

You could activate circular logging if you have only limited backup space, which I wouldn't recommend.
If your EDB get's damaged during the day, you won't be able to recover it from backup + current logs.
mkaec
Veteran
Posts: 462
Liked: 133 times
Joined: Jul 16, 2015 1:31 pm
Full Name: Marc K
Contact:

Re: Exchange Double Size Incrementals

Post by mkaec »

You are right that the logs are required. It's the EDB blocks that are actually unnecessary when it comes to incremental backups. I do understand why one would choose to design it like this. I wonder if there's an opportunity for inline dedupe to handle this as a special case.
billcouper
Service Provider
Posts: 150
Liked: 30 times
Joined: Dec 18, 2017 8:58 am
Full Name: Bill Couper
Contact:

Re: Exchange Double Size Incrementals

Post by billcouper »

also worth knowing that if you repair the database with eseutil you will have an unsupported configuration, microsoft will not provide support for your exchange environment... the resolution is to create a new database, migrate all the data, and delete the old database
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 72 guests