Hello team!
I'm in a case with our customer where all possible types and settings of Backup Copy Jobs of Veeam Agent Backup (cluster aware) are processing and transferring the disks of Failover Cluster in all node clusters, for example:
Cluster with 02 nodes (node1, node2)
Disk D:\ owned by node1
Disk E:\ owned by node1
Disk F:\ owned by node1
Backup jobs process the disks only one time, on the node1 that is the owner of the disks at that time.
Backup copy jobs (to local repo, to object, to cloud connect, with/without accelerator, doesn't matter) always process and transfer the disk from the two nodes, so twice, increasing the amount of time to job finish.
In my first case with the engineer, we can't discover the reason behind this behavior, so I'm opening a new ticket to go further.
-
- Service Provider
- Posts: 244
- Liked: 19 times
- Joined: Mar 23, 2016 5:57 pm
- Full Name: Diogo Campregher
- Contact:
-
- Product Manager
- Posts: 10565
- Liked: 2838 times
- Joined: May 13, 2017 4:51 pm
- Full Name: Fabian K.
- Location: Switzerland
- Contact:
Re: Backup Copy Jobs transferring twice the VAW (cluster) Backups
Hi Diogo
If I’ve understood the situation correctly, this behaviour is expected and documented in our help center.
Backup Copy from Failover Cluster Backups
Would it be possible to share the case number with me?
Best,
Fabian
If I’ve understood the situation correctly, this behaviour is expected and documented in our help center.
Backup Copy from Failover Cluster Backups
Would it be possible to share the case number with me?
Best,
Fabian
Product Management Analyst @ Veeam Software
-
- Service Provider
- Posts: 244
- Liked: 19 times
- Joined: Mar 23, 2016 5:57 pm
- Full Name: Diogo Campregher
- Contact:
Re: Backup Copy Jobs transferring twice the VAW (cluster) Backups
Hello Fabian!
Yes, you are correct. This is a documented issue, and it is "by design." The case number is "#07748089."
Although it is an expected behavior, I guess we need to change it because touching data blocks from this backup type twice is a waste of resources and time, and it dramatically increases the backup window.
Diogo.
Yes, you are correct. This is a documented issue, and it is "by design." The case number is "#07748089."
Although it is an expected behavior, I guess we need to change it because touching data blocks from this backup type twice is a waste of resources and time, and it dramatically increases the backup window.
Diogo.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests