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

Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by newfirewallman » Apr 01, 2015 7:28 pm

When someone has large backups to tape that they would like to run weekly, but also get daily backups to disk jobs fail. It would be great for the incremental backup job to run like normal and merge data when the tape job is complete.

Dima P.
Product Manager
Posts: 10148
Liked: 817 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. » Apr 01, 2015 8:50 pm

Hello Blake,
get daily backups to disk jobs fail. It would be great for the incremental backup job to run like normal and merge data when the tape job is complete
I am not sure I got this. If backup to disk job fails and there is no increment – there is nothing to backup on tape.

However, you might be interested that we have a virtual full backup to tape feature available since version 8. It allows creating the full backup on tape from the incremental restore point on disk according to the specified schedule (by schedule I mean choosing the exact day when you want to have a full backup on tape, created from an increment on disk).

veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 16554
Liked: 1379 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by veremin » Apr 02, 2015 10:08 am

When someone has large backups to tape that they would like to run weekly, but also get daily backups to disk jobs fail.
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
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 » Apr 02, 2015 12:07 pm

I can elaborate. There are actually a couple different things going on when you have your source backups set as forever incremental. Lets say i keep my retention at 7 points on disk, I need to run backups nightly and get a "full" backup off to tape on fridays.
If my file server backup job is 10 TB my tape job takes 1-2 days to get a backup off to tape because of the size it can't finish before the next normal backup to disk occurs, which causes the tape job to fail. The other issue (Feature) is how to synthesize the full to tape WITHOUT all the incrementals. In my example i only need the 10TB file to disk on friday. Not the 10TB vbk and 6 vib's which would total 14TB. So my options to work around this issue have been:
1. Try and do incremental with synthetic fulls on Friday (transform so i actually have disk space). If the disk IO can keep up this works and i can get it off to tape before the next friday (not the most efficient solution because of IO).
or
2. Only process the fulls and not process incrementals. This gets the size to tape down to the appropriate size, but i'm always a week behind on tape and can't really control if the VBK is even on a friday as in forever incremental is just goes off the first time it was ran (or new active full) and number of retention points.

* Would be nice sometime to keep 14 retention points and only synthesize latest friday to tape, what i would love to do, except i would use 10-15 LTO6 tapes per week (and have redundant restore points from week to week)

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?
Correct. Except i don't want a timeout, i just want the next incremental to run and wait until the tape job finishes before merging.

In my environment besides the job example about i have another 6 backup jobs ranging from 500GB (full) to 2.5TB(full) so you can see how it becomes a compounding concern.

Please keep me posted as this/these are some of the biggest frustations with an otherwise outstanding product.

veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 16554
Liked: 1379 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by veremin » Apr 02, 2015 2:17 pm

Correct. Except i don't want a timeout, i just want the next incremental to run and wait until the tape job finishes before merging.
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.

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 » Apr 06, 2015 12:48 pm

This would be really nice if it could be done somehow:
2. Only process the fulls and not process incrementals. This gets the size to tape down to the appropriate size, but i'm always a week behind on tape and can't really control if the VBK is even on a friday as in forever incremental is just goes off the first time it was ran (or new active full) and number of retention points.

* Would be nice sometime to keep 14 retention points and only synthesize latest friday to tape, what i would love to do, except i would use 10-15 LTO6 tapes per week (and have redundant restore points from week to week)

veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 16554
Liked: 1379 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by veremin » Apr 06, 2015 1:02 pm

Only process the fulls and not process incrementals.
Hmm, what if you untick "process incremental" option in the settings of a backup to tape job and make process only full backups?

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 » Apr 06, 2015 1:04 pm

That will only grab the VBK which is a week old. It won't synthesize the full on the latest Friday. So if you had 14 retention points your offsite to tape data would be two weeks old.

veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 16554
Liked: 1379 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by veremin » Apr 06, 2015 1:50 pm

Then, I'd suggest waiting for Update 2 and stick to synthesized virtual full backup (that currently requires "process incremental" option being enabled).

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 » Apr 09, 2015 11:10 am

Great! I can't WAIT!!!!

veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 16554
Liked: 1379 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by veremin » Apr 09, 2015 12:43 pm


nathanael.duke
Veeam Software
Posts: 10
Liked: 3 times
Joined: Apr 28, 2014 4:28 pm
Full Name: Nathanael JonCroft Duke
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by nathanael.duke » Apr 14, 2015 12:52 am

I recently got a feature request for fuzzy matching when creating VSBs, so that in situations where a backup day is skipped, a VSB is still created with the next point closest to the intended VSB day.

What do you think?

veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 16554
Liked: 1379 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by veremin » Apr 14, 2015 11:06 am

If on a given day specified for VSB creation the backup job doesn't create anything, a tape job should look backwards and create VSB out from the closest restore point; is that what you're asking for? 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 » Apr 22, 2015 6:08 pm

So last thing with the update coming out any day now, will it also continue to run the tape job if a new backup job us running?

veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 16554
Liked: 1379 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by veremin » Apr 23, 2015 10:43 am

Will a tape job keep creating a virtual synthesized full backup, if a source backup job runs at the same time? Is that what you're asking?

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 » Apr 23, 2015 11:22 am

Yes. My Tape job I run weekly will use 5 LTO6 tapes, and I would still like the daily backup to disk to run while the tape job is running.

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 » Apr 23, 2015 1:57 pm

Yes. In my environment I need to do daily backups, but my tape job takes longer than 1 day to send off to tape (only do off to tape weekly)

veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 16554
Liked: 1379 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by veremin » Apr 24, 2015 11:48 am

When a source backup job takes place, it should not prevent a tape job from creating virtual synthesized full backup. 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 » Apr 24, 2015 3:45 pm

What happens when the tape job is running and a source job kicks off?

veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 16554
Liked: 1379 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by veremin » Apr 24, 2015 3:53 pm

The tape job should be stopped as it has less priority in comparison with backup job (secondary vs primary destination). 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 » Apr 24, 2015 5:10 pm

That is the dilemma!
I want daily backups (source to run daily)
I also want a weekly or monthly tape job that will be a synthetic full.

My backup job to tape is 11.5TB-14TB (takes longer than 24 hours to complete.

Do you see the issue I have now?

veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 16554
Liked: 1379 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by veremin » Apr 24, 2015 5:14 pm

Are we talking about synthesized full backup or about normal tape job cycle? As mentioned, a source backup job running should not prevent a synthesized full backup creation, only normal archival cycles would be stopped in this case.

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 » Apr 24, 2015 5:21 pm

I'm not following your verbiage possible (what do you mean by normal tape job cycle, or source tape job?)

I'm trying to make it as clear (as mud) as I can.
Daily full backup to disk (my primary backup) weekly I would like to synthesize a full backup to tape on Friday. Currently if the tape job starts Saturday morning 9:00am (synthesized full on Friday) and my daily jobs start on Saturday night, it will break the currently running tape job. I would much rather it ignore the retention policy and merging, and just create an extra incremental until the tape job is complete (or at the next incremental that the tape job isn't running) and then merge and get back on schedule with the retention job.

veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 16554
Liked: 1379 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by veremin » Apr 27, 2015 9:34 am

I'm not following your verbiage possible (what do you mean by normal tape job cycle, or source tape job?)
As to source job, I've made a typo and written source tape job, instead of source backup job; apologize for confusion.

Normal tape job cycle means a cycle during which a backup to tape job is just copying files, and not creating virtual synthesized full backup directly on tapes. So, the next question during Saturday's cycle you're willing to create a virtual synthesized full backup on tape or just make backup to tape job copy files?
Currently if the tape job starts Saturday morning 9:00am (synthesized full on Friday) and my daily jobs start on Saturday night, it will break the currently running tape job.
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 » Apr 27, 2015 1:37 pm

I'm not really following, but if you would like to discuss in person that would be excellent.

My tape job only runs once a week (starts on Sunday or Monday) and synthesizes a backup from the source backup to disk job as of Friday. So when the backup to Tape job is running it takes in excess of 25 hours and obviously my regularly scheduled daily backup will have to run before it finishes, hence it affecting the vbk/chain that the synthesized backup is using to tape.

Does that make sense or am i not understanding it properly?

veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 16554
Liked: 1379 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by veremin » Apr 27, 2015 2:03 pm

According to the QA team, in Update 2 if a backup to tape job is creating the synthesized full backup, and at that moment a backup job (that is specified as the source for the backup to tape job) starts, it should not prevent the backup to tape job from creating virtual synthesized full backup.

Hope it helps.
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 » Apr 28, 2015 7:05 pm

Sorry i was doing full without snythesized (which wasn't ideal because the VBK's could be a week behind what i really wanted) which when the incremental to disk job ran would change the vbk.
Installed Update 2 Will run a tape job tonight with synthesized as of saturday and see what happens when the tape job is running and the incremental to disk kicks off.

veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 16554
Liked: 1379 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by veremin » Apr 29, 2015 9:27 am

Glad to hear we've clarified out conclusion.

Virtual synthesized full backup is recommended for forward forever incremental chains, indeed. Not only should usage of it allow to have up-to-date .vbk on tapes, but also it should solve you the issue of backup job interrupting the tape one.

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 » Apr 29, 2015 10:47 am

So i have V8 Update 2 and running synthetic full as of saturday. Started the job, it created the synthetic backup and starting writing to Tape. Then the normal daily incremental to disk job started while the job to tape was running. And it failed the tape backup with the following error: "Synthetic Full stopped by job (name of source disk backup)"

Dave338
Enthusiast
Posts: 36
Liked: 5 times
Joined: Jan 27, 2015 12:21 pm
Full Name: David
Contact:

Re: Feature Request (Tape and Forever Incremental)

Post by Dave338 » Apr 29, 2015 12:00 pm

And the issue of copying to tape the synthesized backup and also the full vbk in every job has been corrected in anyway?

I can't have 2 full backups transfered to tape and so the forever incremental modifies the vbk every day (merging oldest incremental), there are two vbk files copied to tape, the oldest point in the chain, and the synthesized one (plus the incremental files)
I've using reverse incremental to avoid this problem and copy to tape only the full backup, that is the newest one, but It stresses my backup target too much=slow.

Regards.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests