Hi,
If my backup job is in reverse incremental mode with 7 day retention with no active fulls and a backup copy job which users the repo of the backup job as a source but has a retention of 3 days. Does it mean the retention policy on the backup copy job would never kick in because I don't have any closed chains in the source back up job?
Thanks
-
- Expert
- Posts: 163
- Liked: 18 times
- Joined: Feb 08, 2018 3:47 am
- Full Name: Kazz Beck
- Contact:
-
- Veeam Software
- Posts: 889
- Liked: 160 times
- Joined: Feb 16, 2012 7:35 am
- Full Name: Rasmus Haslund
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
Re: backup retention for a copy job
The source backup job, using reverse incremental, has its own individual retention policy. The backup copy job also has its own retention policy so there is no issue here.
If you were using a scale out backup repository, then the "move" mode would not kick in as the source backup chain would always be active with only three restore points.
If you were using a scale out backup repository, then the "move" mode would not kick in as the source backup chain would always be active with only three restore points.
Rasmus Haslund | Twitter: @haslund | Blog: https://rasmushaslund.com
-
- Expert
- Posts: 163
- Liked: 18 times
- Joined: Feb 08, 2018 3:47 am
- Full Name: Kazz Beck
- Contact:
Re: backup retention for a copy job
haslund,
Thanks for confirming. I had a case open on the same topic and the information provided by support actually contradicts what you stated here.
Additionally, the following information was given by support. Is it a true statement ?
It is not recommended to use a reverse incremental source job and a backup copy job together.
Thanks for confirming. I had a case open on the same topic and the information provided by support actually contradicts what you stated here.
Additionally, the following information was given by support. Is it a true statement ?
It is not recommended to use a reverse incremental source job and a backup copy job together.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 87 guests