Preventing chained backups to start if previous one failed

[marcvanl]

Dear all,

I am using Veeam B&R 10.0.0.4461 P2. I do chained backups like this:

Host -> StoreOnce -> disk array -> tape

If the first "Host -> StoreOnce" backup fails for some reason, I see that the subsequent "StoreOnce -> disk array" and "disk array -> tape" still get executed. These two backups use yesterday's backups on the StoreOnce and that is not useful because those were already transferred to disk and tape yesterday.

Is there an option to cancel a chained backup session if the previous backup in the chain fails? Or does that option exist and do I overlook it?

Best regards,

Marc.

[HannesK]

Hello,
if there is no new restore point, then the amount of data transferred is only very small (a few MB).

Backup copy job and tape jobs are independent from the backup jobs. The backup job status has no influence on the schedule of a backup copy job / tape job (well, except you use the backup copy job in mirror mode. That one waits for new restore points) https://helpcenter.veeam.com/docs/backu ... ml?ver=110. Remember that one backup copy / tape job can have many backup jobs as source.

To answer your question: no.
Question: what is the goal of cancelling the jobs?

Best regards,
Hannes

PS: just because I'm interested. Can you provide maybe more information on the StoreOnce -> disk array step? Normally it's the other way round: short term backups on a fast(er) disk array and long term backup to StoreOnce. Tape backups also go from the disk array to tape.

[marcvanl]

Hannes,

Big thanks for this quick reply. I have a chained backup from StoreOnce using the "Immediate Copy" to disk as the Copy Mode. I checked things and I think I can agree wit you that chained backups process very few data if the previous leg in the chain did not create a new backup.

On the reason for first going to StoreOnce (SO) and from there to disk and tape: the SO device (a 4700) is by nature dedicated to backup. Hence it does not matter performance-wise that I read twice from it after the backup to get the data to disk and tape. My disk target is an XP that is quite important and reserved mainly for Production purposes. Reading TBs from it on a daily basis for two Backup Copy jobs is not a great idea in my case. Unless you have a good hint for me.

Stay safe and healthy and keep up the great support,

Marc.

[HannesK]

Hello,
agree, I have never seen anyone using XP storage as primary backup device - that would be slightly oversized

Best regards,
Hannes

[marcvanl]

Hannes,

Uptime is king and the XP has 100% uptime worldwide since years, that's the reason for storing our disk backups on XP. Not cheap, but our data are priceless.

Best regards,

Marc.