Discussions specific to tape backups
Greg.Bean-DeFlumer
Veeam ProPartner
Posts: 15
Liked: 4 times
Joined: Sep 18, 2014 8:26 pm
Full Name: Gregory Bean-DeFlumer

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by Greg.Bean-DeFlumer » May 07, 2015 9:23 pm

Dima P. wrote:Have to admit it’s totally looks like a bug. I’ve already forwarded all your findings to QA team for investigation. Will follow up on this one once I hear anything.
What makes you think this looks like a bug?
v.Eremin wrote:The tape job should be stopped as it has less priority in comparison with backup job (secondary vs primary destination). Thanks.
Blake (newfirewallman) isn't talking about tape synthetics. If a backup to disk job kicks off while a regular backup to tape job is running (not a synthetic), the tape job will stop. From my understanding, if the files we are reading are required to be locked for the tape job, the tape job will be stopped, because it has less priority than the backup to disk job.

Greg.Bean-DeFlumer
Veeam ProPartner
Posts: 15
Liked: 4 times
Joined: Sep 18, 2014 8:26 pm
Full Name: Gregory Bean-DeFlumer

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by Greg.Bean-DeFlumer » May 07, 2015 9:26 pm

v.Eremin wrote: Speaking about workarounds, you might want to set a certain script as a pre-job command. The script will check whether the tape job is running and proceed to execution only if it is not. Thanks.
He wants to have the backup to disk job (forever incremental) stop before the merge, then allow the tape job to finish, and then complete the merge on the backup to disk job.

Greg.Bean-DeFlumer
Veeam ProPartner
Posts: 15
Liked: 4 times
Joined: Sep 18, 2014 8:26 pm
Full Name: Gregory Bean-DeFlumer

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by Greg.Bean-DeFlumer » May 07, 2015 9:36 pm

Finally found the post I was looking for.
v.Eremin wrote: Can you elaborate on your request? You have two jobs (backup and backup to tape one), sometimes it happens that the backup to tape job takes longer than expected, and the subsequent run of the backup job fails due to files being locked, correct? And you want to have sort of timeout after which the backup job can proceed smoothly?
newfirewallman wrote:

newfirewallman
Enthusiast
Posts: 35
Liked: 2 times
Joined: Jan 20, 2015 12:08 pm
Full Name: Blake Forslund
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by newfirewallman » May 11, 2015 2:11 pm

Thank you for taking interest in my findings I truly appreciate the desire to fix an issue that has been frustrating and a limitation to software that is so reliable.

Ideal solution is when a synthesized tape job is running (that may take 2 days or more because of the size) it would be great if it can still run the backup to disk job (which is one of the sources for the tape job) without the synthesized tape job being affected. (create the new incremental, but wait to merge until after the tape job runs).

newfirewallman
Enthusiast
Posts: 35
Liked: 2 times
Joined: Jan 20, 2015 12:08 pm
Full Name: Blake Forslund
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by newfirewallman » May 12, 2015 1:49 pm

"From my understanding, if the files we are reading are required to be locked for the tape job, the tape job will be stopped, because it has less priority than the backup to disk job."
Issue with the statement in quotes above. This is what i want to avoid (where tape job is synthetic or not) I love the regular backup to disk to still run as an incremental, wait for tape to finish, then commit changes to the regular disk backup job. Thus not affecting the tape job, AND not missing a regularly scheduled backup.

Dima P.
Product Manager
Posts: 9601
Liked: 754 times
Joined: Feb 04, 2013 2:07 pm
Full Name: Dmitry Popov
Location: Prague
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by Dima P. » May 26, 2015 1:50 pm

Blake,
Thanks! QA team is looking into this so, hopefully, we will have this behavior fixed in the close future. Cheers!

richard.hare
Novice
Posts: 8
Liked: never
Joined: Oct 05, 2015 11:26 am
Full Name: Richard Hare
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by richard.hare » Nov 24, 2015 3:06 pm

Hi,

Just wondered if there was any news on the "Postpone merge until tape job finishes" feature request? (Wondering if it appears in V9)

Thanks again!

Dima P.
Product Manager
Posts: 9601
Liked: 754 times
Joined: Feb 04, 2013 2:07 pm
Full Name: Dmitry Popov
Location: Prague
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by Dima P. » Nov 24, 2015 4:38 pm

For sure, we did not implement it as a feature request; however, we enhanced the logic under the hood – I hope v9 will address the described issues.

richard.hare
Novice
Posts: 8
Liked: never
Joined: Oct 05, 2015 11:26 am
Full Name: Richard Hare
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by richard.hare » Feb 18, 2016 8:32 am

Hi,

Did we manage to get the "Delay merge until after tape job" function in V9 or am I missing the new logic/option in the gui? :)

Dima P.
Product Manager
Posts: 9601
Liked: 754 times
Joined: Feb 04, 2013 2:07 pm
Full Name: Dmitry Popov
Location: Prague
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by Dima P. » Feb 18, 2016 12:53 pm

Hello Richard,

We are still in discussions. As for the v9 behavior – the source disk job is still counted as a high priority and will stop the tape job. Just to clarify, you would like the source job to be postponed or tape job to be retried (continued) after merge of the source job completed? Thanks.

richard.hare
Novice
Posts: 8
Liked: never
Joined: Oct 05, 2015 11:26 am
Full Name: Richard Hare
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by richard.hare » Feb 19, 2016 8:48 am

Hi and thanks for the quick reply.

I think the best solution would be to allow the tape job to run as normal, have the backup job create an incremental as normal (I am assuming both would just require read access to the existing backup files at this point, so locking shouldnt be an issue) and then have the disk job incremental merge occur after the tape job completes.

If this isn't a plausible solution or for jobs that do an active full that may clash with secondary backups, maybe just an option on the secondary backup job... "Delay primary job(s) until this job completes". That way, you could choose the behaviour you would like, per job. If you didn't select the option, the secondary target backup would stop, as it does now.

I may be over-simplifying it, and would welcome comments, but that would fit our scenarios pretty well.

Thanks!

newfirewallman
Enthusiast
Posts: 35
Liked: 2 times
Joined: Jan 20, 2015 12:08 pm
Full Name: Blake Forslund
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by newfirewallman » May 09, 2016 4:22 pm

Had a recent ticket open with Veeam on a different tape issue and mentioned this lack of a feature (tech noticed all the scripting being done to ensure it was the correct day, the jobs were complete, kicking off Tape job and then when tape job complete it was re-enabling the other jobs). He thought it was a great idea and a real concern. Would be really nice to see in the next release.

Dima P.
Product Manager
Posts: 9601
Liked: 754 times
Joined: Feb 04, 2013 2:07 pm
Full Name: Dmitry Popov
Location: Prague
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by Dima P. » May 09, 2016 4:46 pm

Blake,

The option to give a priority to tape jobs and put on hold the source disks jobs is coming soon :wink:

newfirewallman
Enthusiast
Posts: 35
Liked: 2 times
Joined: Jan 20, 2015 12:08 pm
Full Name: Blake Forslund
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by newfirewallman » May 09, 2016 6:07 pm

Sounds like a nice work around, I will take it over my scripting to accomplish the same thing. Although what would be ideal (thinking to where my environment will be going) is to be able to have the scheduled incremental run (daily backups) while the synthesized backup is also running and just not commit the incremental until the tape job is finished. This way when you have very large backups going to tape (weekly or monthly) and the requirement for daily backups is still in affect you won't lose backups during that time frame.

Dima P.
Product Manager
Posts: 9601
Liked: 754 times
Joined: Feb 04, 2013 2:07 pm
Full Name: Dmitry Popov
Location: Prague
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by Dima P. » May 09, 2016 8:17 pm

just not commit the incremental until the tape job is finished
That's the plan.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests