Per-machine backup files vs. rotated drives

[omfk]

Hi all,

it seems that these two options are excluding each other. Is there a short explanation for this?

I would liek to have even/odd weekly backups on two separate USB HDDs and having per-machine backup files would prevent me from having >6TB files.

BR
Frank

[foggy]

Hi Frank, it is just a limitation of the current rotated drives algorithm implementation, you cannot store per-machine backup files in backup repositories with rotated drives.

[omfk]

Hi Alex,

understood.
When I have two seperate backup copy jobs ( 1x even weeks and 1x off weeks) what are the risks of not enabling the rotated drive option?

BR
Frank

[veremin]

Not sure whether I follow you on that - what are the risks, if you write to two separate non-rotated drives with two different backup copy jobs?

[omfk]

Hi Vladimir,

with non-rotated drives there is abolutely no risk. For rotated drives I was under the impression that the "rotated drive" option makes Veeam more tolerant againt missing files etc and even changes in drive letters.

If I now don't select the "rotated drive" option what are the risks?
* Initial backup works fine for both backup copy jobs
* drives are always removed after jobs and re-attached "some" days before next run
* drive gets a new drive letter
* Veeam sees chain not complete
* full backup will created and will cause exccedance of drive capacity

That's all or is there more?

[foggy]

Without the rotated drives option enabled, I'm not sure Veeam B&R will 'follow' your repository upon drive letter change. But this is easy to check. Also, you would need to use the ForceCreateMissingVBK registry value to prevent the jobs from failing (old version of a rotated drives support in Veeam B&R).