The system cannot find the file specified

[stevenvangeel]

I have an onsite and offsite backup on tape job with a problem.
Both are configured as full backup running saterday for offsite en sunday for onsite.
Incremental backup is not enabled.

When I run the job manually I get a 2,3TB transferred for a duration of 6h54 and 23 files processed.
When the job automatically runs I always get the message: Task <filepath>\<filename>.vbk completed with warnings. Details: The system cannot find the file specified.
Only 330,8GB is processed for a duration of 1h15 and 37 files processed.

When I look at the files, the file specified that is not findable is in the folder ...

How can I resolve this issue?

Support ID: 00788324

[PTide]

Hi,

What is the source for the tape job? Also, it is not clear whether you have two tape jobs or just one. Please elaborate.

Thanks

[stevenvangeel]

I have 2 tape jobs:
[*]Offsite_Backups
[*]Onsite_Backups
Both configured the same way. The source is a NAS wich is mounted as a networkdrive on the server where Veeam Backup & Replication software version 9.5.0.711 is running on.
The server is running Windows Server 2016 Standard

[PTide]

By "source" I meant to ask what you have selected as objects for backup: repository, backup job, backup copy job?

Thanks

[stevenvangeel]

Tape Job - Files to Tape...
do you mean this?

[PTide]

Task <filepath>\<filename>.vbk completed with warnings.

Let me take a wild guess - did you specify exactly the name of your vbk that you want to be copied to the tape, or just used wildcards instead, thus leaving only the ".vbk" part in place?

Thanks

[stevenvangeel]

In 'File or folder' I have selected a map on my mounted network share
As 'File mask' I have *.*
So no direct filename input.

[PTide]

That is unexpected. Please update your VBR 9.5 to the latest Update 3a (build 9.5.0.1922) and see if the issue persists. By the way, do you use VSS in that job, does enabling/disabling it makes any difference?

Also I have noticed that the case ID that you posted refers to the older case and is not relevant to your current issue, so please post a proper one.

Thank you