Availability for the Always-On Enterprise
d.lansinklesscher
Service Provider
Posts: 42
Liked: 6 times
Joined: Aug 29, 2014 12:53 pm
Full Name: Dennis Lansink
Location: Hengelo, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The need for Active Full backups

Post by d.lansinklesscher » Jul 14, 2015 12:50 pm

I don't know where I read it, but is it true that a copy-job also protects you against bitrot because the copy job compares it's data to the data from the backup Job?

Can I safely run a forever-incremental job(Retention 7) in combination with a copy-job to other storage without making use of sure-back-up>?

PTide
Veeam Software
Posts: 4534
Liked: 371 times
Joined: May 19, 2015 1:46 pm
Contact:

Re: The need for Active Full backups

Post by PTide » Jul 14, 2015 12:58 pm

Hi,

Yes, I think you can.

dellock6
Veeam Software
Posts: 5539
Liked: 1535 times
Joined: Jul 26, 2009 3:39 pm
Full Name: Luca Dell'Oca
Location: Varese, Italy
Contact:

Re: The need for Active Full backups

Post by dellock6 » Jul 14, 2015 1:01 pm 1 person likes this post

Totally true, and it's the main advantage of backup copy job compared to storage replication. With the latter, any corrupted block is immediately replicated to the secondary backup storage, thus corrupting all the restore copies. Backup copy job read and checks each block from primary backup before sending it to the secondary location, thus any corruption can be immediately spotted.
Luca Dell'Oca
EMEA Cloud Architect @ Veeam Software

@dellock6
http://www.virtualtothecore.com/en/
vExpert 2011-2012-2013-2014-2015-2016-2017-2018
Veeam VMCE #1

gingerdazza
Expert
Posts: 127
Liked: 12 times
Joined: Jul 23, 2013 9:14 am
Full Name: Dazza
Contact:

[MERGED] Few recommendations

Post by gingerdazza » Nov 10, 2015 4:32 pm

Hi. We have 2 VMware 5.x clusters (one in each DC), 1Gbps NIC, HP EVA SAN in each DC over 4GB FC. B&R servers in each DC, backing up local VMs- physical DL380 Gen9 LFF with local SATA disks. I want to backup locally in each DC, then run backup copy jobs to each other. I want my restore times to be optimal.

Q1. Why is forever incremental recommended for SureBackup? Will it work with other types?
Q2. With the above setup is it recommended to use forever incremental or incremental with weekly synthetic? And why? (assume I don't want to use SureBackup)
Q3. if I run weekly synthetic on a Saturday, AND ask it to run an active full backup on every last Saturday, will it run both processes or work out that only the active needs to run?
Q4. if I'm running a restore of a VM using a 6 day old full, plus 5 other incrementals, does that have a huge restore penalty? And is this why someone might prefer reverse incremental?

Thanks

Shestakov
Veeam Software
Posts: 6082
Liked: 524 times
Joined: May 21, 2014 11:03 am
Full Name: Nikita Shestakov
Location: Prague
Contact:

Re: The need for Active Full backups

Post by Shestakov » Nov 10, 2015 5:32 pm 1 person likes this post

Hi,
A1. Surebackup will work with any backup method. Forever incremental let you have just one Full backup file and save the storage space. With Surebackup you can make active fulls much seldom. Please check the first page of the topic.
A2. If you don`t use Surebackup it`s recommended to make active full runs from time to time.
A3. It will run Active Full only.
A4. Yes, Reverse incremental provides the fastest restore, but for 6-point long chains restore penalty will not be crucial. You can make some test to see the real results in your infrastructure.
Thanks!

gingerdazza
Expert
Posts: 127
Liked: 12 times
Joined: Jul 23, 2013 9:14 am
Full Name: Dazza
Contact:

Re: The need for Active Full backups

Post by gingerdazza » Nov 11, 2015 6:14 am

Thanks - great info

owenwalker.bc
Lurker
Posts: 2
Liked: never
Joined: Jan 27, 2016 9:11 am
Full Name: Owen Walker
Contact:

[MERGED] Upgrading to V9 - Best Practise for Reverse Increme

Post by owenwalker.bc » Jan 27, 2016 9:20 am

We're doing a clean upgrade from v5 to v9 this week and looking at using the reverse incremental backup for backup to disk with a 30 day retention period. We will then be backing up to tape the latest backup overnight, with a daily, weekly, monthly tape schedule inline with how we currently do this

Now where I'm not sure is best practise with running active full backups. I've seen information stating it's good to run a active full backup every 1-3 months when using reverse incremental, also seen information stating you don't need to run active full backups with later Veeam versions.

I'm also not sure exactly how the active full works. Does it create a completely seperate full backup, thereby requiring the full size of the VM x2. Or does it work by creating the incremental changes for the previous night. And then doing a fresh overwrite of the latest reverse backup?

Thanks for any help,
Owen

Shestakov
Veeam Software
Posts: 6082
Liked: 524 times
Joined: May 21, 2014 11:03 am
Full Name: Nikita Shestakov
Location: Prague
Contact:

Re: The need for Active Full backups

Post by Shestakov » Jan 27, 2016 9:45 am

Hello Owen and welcome to the community!
owenwalker.bc wrote:Now where I'm not sure is best practise with running active full backups. I've seen information stating it's good to run a active full backup every 1-3 months when using reverse incremental, also seen information stating you don't need to run active full backups with later Veeam versions.
Please review the thread for the comprehensive explanation.
Do you use Surebackup?
owenwalker.bc wrote:I'm also not sure exactly how the active full works. Does it create a completely seperate full backup, thereby requiring the full size of the VM x2. Or does it work by creating the incremental changes for the previous night. And then doing a fresh overwrite of the latest reverse backup?
It creates a newly VBK file from the scratch. No incremental changes used. It requires 2x of the Full backup file, not VM size. Backup size is much lower than VM size due to compression.
Thanks!

owenwalker.bc
Lurker
Posts: 2
Liked: never
Joined: Jan 27, 2016 9:11 am
Full Name: Owen Walker
Contact:

Re: The need for Active Full backups

Post by owenwalker.bc » Jan 27, 2016 10:39 am

Shestakov wrote: Do you use Surebackup?
No we have a standard license.
Shestakov wrote: It creates a newly VBK file from the scratch. No incremental changes used. It requires 2x of the Full backup file, not VM size. Backup size is much lower than VM size due to compression.
Thanks!
Ok yes that is what I mean. It requires the full size of a single days VM backup size. As obviously the reverse incremental will have the incremental stuff from the past 30 days.

Shestakov
Veeam Software
Posts: 6082
Liked: 524 times
Joined: May 21, 2014 11:03 am
Full Name: Nikita Shestakov
Location: Prague
Contact:

Re: The need for Active Full backups

Post by Shestakov » Jan 27, 2016 11:16 am

Having no recoverability tests (surebackup) I would suggest to enable Health Check for Backup Files and perform active full backups once in 3 months or so.

Crof
Novice
Posts: 6
Liked: never
Joined: Oct 21, 2016 5:32 pm
Contact:

[MERGED] Reverse Incremental - How to 'refresh' full backup?

Post by Crof » Nov 21, 2016 3:58 pm

Hello,

I'm using reverse incrementals for backups, but I'm looking to have the backup 'refresh' or 'recreate' its base image from the source once in a while to make sure there isn't any corruption. It scares me a bit to think that without something like this running once a week/month that some data could be left 'unchecked' for years.

My first reaction was to check "Create active full backups periodically" thinking that would do what I wanted: no, that creates full backups in place of a normal incremental (Looking back, I'm not sure why I thought it would do anything different).

Will "Perform backup files health check" do what I'm looking for? Or perhaps, "Full backup file maintenance"? Something else?

Thanks in advance!

foggy
Veeam Software
Posts: 17087
Liked: 1396 times
Joined: Jul 11, 2011 10:22 am
Full Name: Alexander Fogelson
Contact:

Re: The need for Active Full backups

Post by foggy » Nov 21, 2016 4:31 pm 1 person likes this post

You can review this thread for some considerations regarding this matter. Basically, with health check enabled and periodic recoverability tests (SureBackup), there's no need for active fulls.

pirx
Enthusiast
Posts: 69
Liked: 7 times
Joined: Dec 20, 2015 6:24 pm
Contact:

[MERGED] recommendation for forever forward chain length

Post by pirx » Nov 25, 2016 12:33 pm

Hi,

we are planning our Veeam setup for a remote location.

- 25 TB data, change rate 5-10%
- 14 dailies, 10 weeklies
- backups must be stored twice (daily at least 14 days, and all 10 weeklies)
- 2 data center rooms
- IBM StoreWiz primary storage (stretch cluster)
- 2x NetApp FAS for backups (NAS), one in each room

The easiest thing seems to be a forever forward chain with 70 restore points. This would result in 105 TB primary backup (10%) and also 105 TB for the BCJ. Does that make sense at all? Is is good practice to create such a long chain without active or synthetic fulls? How big is the impact for restores of such a long chain? We don't plan to use sure backup. Forever forward has the advantage that snapshots can be removed earlier, which is important to use, because at the moment there is no storage snapshot integration for IBM.

Shestakov
Veeam Software
Posts: 6082
Liked: 524 times
Joined: May 21, 2014 11:03 am
Full Name: Nikita Shestakov
Location: Prague
Contact:

Re: The need for Active Full backups

Post by Shestakov » Nov 25, 2016 12:58 pm

Hi pirx,
please read the thread for the explanation of full backups vs. surebackup best practices.
I would emphasize that it`s recommended to keep a short chain on the primary repository for faster restores and longer chain on the secondary repository for restores of historical data.
Thanks!

ferrus
Veeam ProPartner
Posts: 191
Liked: 23 times
Joined: Dec 03, 2015 3:41 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: The need for Active Full backups

Post by ferrus » Nov 25, 2016 1:39 pm

I would emphasize that it`s recommended to keep a short chain on the primary repository for faster restores and longer chain on the secondary repository for restores of historical data.
Damn - We're doing the opposite of that. We have a 30 restore point Forever Incremental strategy on Primary Fast Storage, and 7 restore points + 4x Weekly & 24x Monthly GFS on a Data Domain.

I hadn't read this thread before - but just noticed this ...
is it true that a copy-job also protects you against bitrot, because the copy job compares it's data to the data from the backup job?
Totally true, and it's the main advantage of backup copy job compared to storage replication
Does that mean, if I have Backup Copy's from the primary storage to the Data Domain - and the Data Domain organizes the Restore Points into GFS backups - I can switch off Health Checks on the Data Domain Backup Copys?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 54 guests