Comprehensive data protection for all workloads
averylarry
Expert
Posts: 261
Liked: 28 times
Joined: Mar 22, 2011 7:43 pm
Full Name: Ted
Contact:

v6 initial incremental massive

Post by averylarry » Nov 30, 2011 8:40 pm

I just upgraded to v6. This is a straight upgrade and one of my normal jobs (incremental, synthetic full on weekend, CBT has been working, virtual app mode) just fired off at it's regular time. I didn't look at it or change anything (other than the upgrade, obviously).

I have 120 restore points on this incremental job. The .vbk file is 942Gb. The incremental files (both .vrb and .vib) average 4.5 Gb, with the largest at 17.3Gb. My last backup was last night as normal. It usually takes 30 minutes to do the incremental backup (there are 4 VMs in the job).

It's been running for 2 1/2 hours, and the .vib file is 215Gb and growing -- the job only showing 16% finished.

Is this expected? With the job running, I don't see any useful logs (but I might not know where to look) that might indicate an issue.

dlove
Influencer
Posts: 18
Liked: never
Joined: May 15, 2009 1:51 pm
Full Name: darren
Contact:

Re: v6 initial incremental massive -- expected?

Post by dlove » Nov 30, 2011 9:02 pm

At least you got to use your old backup job. I did the same as you but the job kept failing so support told me to create a new one :roll: Now I have 84 vm's that are backing up over the network for some reason because it's set to automatic. I'll try hardcoding the transport mode to virtual appliance next run.

I also tried creating a new job and mapping it to the "old" backup files, thinking I would save the day but it crapped out again complaining about RPC errors just like the original upgraded job did...

From "what's new pdf":

Backup mapping. When creating a backup job, you can map it to existing backup files produced
by another backup job. The new job re-uses the backup files and continues incremental runs,
without the need to perform a full backup of VMs that are already present in the specified backup.

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 24022
Liked: 3256 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: v6 initial incremental massive -- expected?

Post by Gostev » Nov 30, 2011 9:08 pm

Please note that backup mapping feature requires v6 or later backup files.

Vitaliy S.
Product Manager
Posts: 22311
Liked: 1415 times
Joined: Mar 30, 2009 9:13 am
Full Name: Vitaliy Safarov
Contact:

Re: v6 initial incremental massive -- expected?

Post by Vitaliy S. » Nov 30, 2011 9:12 pm

Ted, your backup job behavior is not expected. To browse for the job log files, select Help > Support Information from the main menu, but I think it's better to open a support ticket with our team, so we could figure out what's happening. Thank you.

mrt
Enthusiast
Posts: 47
Liked: 2 times
Joined: Feb 10, 2011 7:27 pm
Contact:

Re: v6 initial incremental massive -- expected?

Post by mrt » Nov 30, 2011 9:29 pm

Gostev wrote:Please note that backup mapping feature requires v6 or later backup files.
does this apply to replica mapping, too?

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 24022
Liked: 3256 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: v6 initial incremental massive -- expected?

Post by Gostev » Nov 30, 2011 9:36 pm

No, there is no such limitation there. This scenario is actually suggested for use in the VMware-specific FAQ under Upgrade section. Because replicas are stored in the native format (as a regular VM), you can re-use replica VMs created by any Veeam B&R version, or even by 3rd party product.

aaron_228
Novice
Posts: 4
Liked: never
Joined: Nov 30, 2011 10:21 pm
Full Name: aaron norris
Contact:

Re: v6 initial incremental massive -- expected?

Post by aaron_228 » Nov 30, 2011 10:30 pm

Is it just me or does the automatic selection method for SAN/Network, etc.. just really not seem to work? I forced it to Direct access and even manually put in each LUN that should be backed up via SAN but yet I still am seeing some erratic behavior. Just ran a backup with like 10 VMs in it and 1 out of the 10 was backed up via network. All are on the same hosts, SAN luns, etc..

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 24022
Liked: 3256 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: v6 initial incremental massive -- expected?

Post by Gostev » Nov 30, 2011 11:11 pm

It works perfect. That 1 VM has some issue preventing its disks from being backed up via direct SAN access, which is why (according to your proxy server settings) the processing fails over to the network mode. If you disable failover to network in case when primary processing mode fails, the VM processing would just fail out instead.

If you are interested to investigate what is so different about this VM, you should submit all logs to support for investigation.

Thanks!

aaron_228
Novice
Posts: 4
Liked: never
Joined: Nov 30, 2011 10:21 pm
Full Name: aaron norris
Contact:

Re: v6 initial incremental massive -- expected?

Post by aaron_228 » Nov 30, 2011 11:12 pm

Gostev wrote:It works perfect. That 1 VM has some issue preventing its disks from being backed up via direct SAN access, which is why (according to your proxy server settings) the processing fails over to the network mode. If you disable failover to network in case when primary processing mode fails, the VM processing would just fail out instead.

If you are interested to investigate what is so different about this VM, you should submit all logs to support for investigation.

Thanks!
I'll keep an eye on it, just upgraded yesterday. This did start after upgrading though, I've never seen one fail to network with v5

Thx

averylarry
Expert
Posts: 261
Liked: 28 times
Joined: Mar 22, 2011 7:43 pm
Full Name: Ted
Contact:

Re: v6 initial incremental massive -- expected?

Post by averylarry » Nov 30, 2011 11:15 pm

I see this in the log file:

The item was not backed up early. Full backup is required.

It's just under a section that looks like it's starting to process a virtual disk.

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 24022
Liked: 3256 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: v6 initial incremental massive -- expected?

Post by Gostev » Nov 30, 2011 11:18 pm

Yep, looks like it is doing full backup there for you. Looks like you have some newly added VM in the job, so it goes into the VIB file. Or may be something changed the unique VM ID for this VM, so the job considers it as newly added.

averylarry
Expert
Posts: 261
Liked: 28 times
Joined: Mar 22, 2011 7:43 pm
Full Name: Ted
Contact:

Re: v6 initial incremental massive -- expected?

Post by averylarry » Dec 01, 2011 2:49 am

No possible changes to the VMs or the jobs since last night. Only thing new is v6 upgrade. It's a bummer -- I don't have any where near enough disk space for full backups on top of all the old stuff.

mrt
Enthusiast
Posts: 47
Liked: 2 times
Joined: Feb 10, 2011 7:27 pm
Contact:

Re: v6 initial incremental massive -- expected?

Post by mrt » Dec 01, 2011 3:10 am

i'd also like to report full backups being performed when incrementals are expected. on top of that, its failing over to nbd mode for every vm. i've got a case opened.

Vitaliy S.
Product Manager
Posts: 22311
Liked: 1415 times
Joined: Mar 30, 2009 9:13 am
Full Name: Vitaliy Safarov
Contact:

Re: v6 initial incremental massive -- expected?

Post by Vitaliy S. » Dec 01, 2011 10:03 am

It's hard to guess what might the reason for that, so yes our support team will definitely help in this situation.

Davd
Enthusiast
Posts: 44
Liked: 4 times
Joined: Mar 19, 2010 12:36 pm
Full Name: David Hirsman
Contact:

Re: v6 initial incremental massive -- expected?

Post by Davd » Dec 01, 2011 11:23 am

mrt wrote:i'd also like to report full backups being performed when incrementals are expected. on top of that, its failing over to nbd mode for every vm. i've got a case opened.
Same here :(

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Karinne and 20 guests