Comprehensive data protection for all workloads
Post Reply
ekisner
Expert
Posts: 202
Liked: 34 times
Joined: Jul 26, 2012 8:04 pm
Full Name: Erik Kisner
Contact:

Feature Request - Ignore Retention Policy

Post by ekisner »

Might be interesting to add a checkbox to allow a backup job to ignore the number of restore points that are kept in an incremental job, so that when a different job is running and requires the source backups (copy, replication, tape), your underlying backup jobs can continue to generate incremental files in violation of the job's retention policy.

In doing so, a backup job will be able to run and complete regardless of whether the chain(s) are locked by another job. When the chain(s) are free, the backup job on next run applies the retention policy and rolls up however many VIBs into the VBK that it needs to.

In my particular case, backup jobs are locked by a tape job. But I've also encountered replication jobs that don't have enough time to replicate before the next backup window. It results in the replication being terminated.
PTide
Product Manager
Posts: 6408
Liked: 724 times
Joined: May 19, 2015 1:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Ignore Retention Policy

Post by PTide »

Hi,

Unfortunately it's not enugh to keep only .VBK and .VIBs intact - backup metadata is also modified, not only during transform operations (retention, synthetic full), but also during new restore point creation. That is, the suggested approach won't let you run Backup Copy Job and its source Backup Copy concurrently and you'll still see a message saying that the restore point is locked by another job.

Regarding the backup jobs being locked by a tape job - if you see that the tape job prevents the backup job from running, then please check whether you have "prevent this job from being interrupted by primary backup jobs" checkbox checked.

Thanks!
ekisner
Expert
Posts: 202
Liked: 34 times
Joined: Jul 26, 2012 8:04 pm
Full Name: Erik Kisner
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Ignore Retention Policy

Post by ekisner »

Oh, no, the tape job is the one holding the backup job - and that is very much desired. I don't want the backup job to kill the tape job... I'd rather have my tape points.

That said, it's a shame something like this wouldn't be possible. We wouldn't be changing the chain, we'd just be adding to the end of it.. given that we aren't writing to the part that the jobs are reading from (more accurately, wouldn't be with this checkbox), it feels like it should be easier than that. Oh well, nothing ventured nothing gained.
ekisner
Expert
Posts: 202
Liked: 34 times
Joined: Jul 26, 2012 8:04 pm
Full Name: Erik Kisner
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Ignore Retention Policy

Post by ekisner »

Although... now that I look a little closer at this, I'm not convinced. Maybe I explained myself poorly.

Consider my current backup job. It's presently sitting at:
- Merging oldest incremental backup into full backup file
- Waiting for the required backup files to be released by another job: Tape GFS 01:08:37

It's being blocked by the oldest incremental needing to get rolled into the full. What if we just... didn't. Or more accurately, accepted that we couldn't at that time because it was blocked by a different job. And then at some other time when the job next runs, it makes up for it by rolling up all of the incrementals needed to meet the retention policy.
PTide
Product Manager
Posts: 6408
Liked: 724 times
Joined: May 19, 2015 1:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Ignore Retention Policy

Post by PTide »

So basically, your suggestion is to postpone merge operation and just continue to creating a new restore point, and perform merge later, is that correct?

P.S. In my previous post I just wanted to point out that the design of that feature might be a little more complicated than just ignoring the retention policy, just FYI : ) That is, it wasn't a strict "No", and you request has been noted.

Thank you!
ekisner
Expert
Posts: 202
Liked: 34 times
Joined: Jul 26, 2012 8:04 pm
Full Name: Erik Kisner
Contact:

Re: Feature Request - Ignore Retention Policy

Post by ekisner »

Ah! Sorry. You summarized the suggestion perfectly there.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], tkado and 242 guests