and he states following:
NOTE: there is NO space saving on primary backups during transform operations, as the same block is always written once, and it’s only moved from the incremental backup file to the full one. Transform operations in primary jobs are about time saving, not space saving.
when i understand that correctly there is only speed benefit from refs on primary backups? i thought and this is what Veeam promised there is space saving on synthetic fulls too?
last week i've upgraded to Veeam 9.5, than did a inplace upgrade from my 2012r2 server... all fine ... then i created a new ReFS BackupRepository and copied all the old Veeam Backupfiles to this Repository.... in the past i did just forward Inc. forever, as synthetic fulls wheren not applicable because of space issues... every week a syn. full with almost 3TB is too much... so the refs "Spaceless full backup technology" promised a huge step forward....
what i saw now over the weekend, that my 7TB Repository where getting filled completely and backups started too fail... today in the morning i checked what happend, and what i saw first was a backup server with without any ram... some process eaten all memory available at least 32gb... every task worked terribly slow on the server... i was not able to start the vbr console but i've managed to delete some old backup files and after some time i get dropped from the server and couldn't connect for some time ... i had to to something different in the time but after that i managed to loggon back and was greeted with dirty shutdown warning.. the machine bsod'ed (maybe because out-of-ram)
Abnormal Program Termination (Windows bug check, STOP: 0x0000013C (0xFFFFA405955E8080, 0x00000000000000E8, 0x0000000000000000, 0x0000000000000000))
anyway... i'm up and running now.. have space left on the backup repository and tried a controlled synthetic full run now...
i see the "fast clone" full backup creation and yes as luca stated, no space savings... the fullbackup does have the fullsize on the disk, what is very disappointing!
all the space is used:
i'm left now with the simple question: why does "space savings" not work in primary backups? as this would have really changed a lot too!