Discussions specific to the VMware vSphere hypervisor
Post Reply
CaptainPistache
Enthusiast
Posts: 31
Liked: 2 times
Joined: Nov 30, 2017 9:42 am
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Monthly backup : Separate active full vs Backup copy

Post by CaptainPistache »

Hi,

I'd like to create a monthly backup for a specific VM that's already backed up daily with a retention of 30 restore points.

I'm wondering if I better create a new and separate active full job to run monthly or if it's better to use a backup copy job with GFS retention ?
What would you advise me to do ?

I'm aware that backup copy will reduce network bandwidth utilization but my main interrogation relates to data corruption : is there any more risk to use a backup copy rather than brand new separate job ?

Thank you.

Cheers,
Captain

DGrinev
Expert
Posts: 1943
Liked: 248 times
Joined: Dec 01, 2016 3:49 pm
Full Name: Dmitry Grinev
Location: St.Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Monthly backup : Separate active full vs Backup copy

Post by DGrinev » 1 person likes this post

Hi Captain,

The backup copy job won't reduce network bandwidth utilization but removes the additional workload on the production, since it's moving backup data from the source repository.
If the additional workload on the production is something you're not bothered, then you can set up the second backup job to deliver periodic active fulls with the scheduling to run it on the last day of each month.

The Important thing about the copy job is to create a separate backup chain (even if it's 2 RPs long) on a separate storage device, since the storage devices is the reason number one of data corruption. Thanks!

CaptainPistache
Enthusiast
Posts: 31
Liked: 2 times
Joined: Nov 30, 2017 9:42 am
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Monthly backup : Separate active full vs Backup copy

Post by CaptainPistache »

Hi Dmitry,

Thanks for your answer.
Yes, you're right, I meant network bandwidth regarding the production SAN.

But what would you personally prefer to do ? And what about my question regarding the data corruption risks ?

Cheers,
Captain

DGrinev
Expert
Posts: 1943
Liked: 248 times
Joined: Dec 01, 2016 3:49 pm
Full Name: Dmitry Grinev
Location: St.Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Monthly backup : Separate active full vs Backup copy

Post by DGrinev » 1 person likes this post

Personally, I'd prefer the backup copy job with GFS enabled, and periodic Health Checks or even better with regular Surebackup jobs.

I cannot say that the separate backup job for periodic monthly fulls is a bad idea, but it requires more of your attention, when the copy job is more automated and less resource consuming. Thanks!

CaptainPistache
Enthusiast
Posts: 31
Liked: 2 times
Joined: Nov 30, 2017 9:42 am
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Monthly backup : Separate active full vs Backup copy

Post by CaptainPistache »

DGrinev wrote:
Feb 11, 2019 3:34 pm
The Important thing about the copy job is to create a separate backup chain (even if it's 2 RPs long) on a separate storage device, since the storage devices is the reason number one of data corruption. Thanks!
But if the source backup is already corrupted on the storage device #1, the corruption will be copied to on storage device #2 too, right ?

DGrinev
Expert
Posts: 1943
Liked: 248 times
Joined: Dec 01, 2016 3:49 pm
Full Name: Dmitry Grinev
Location: St.Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Monthly backup : Separate active full vs Backup copy

Post by DGrinev » 1 person likes this post

That's correct. This is why the recommended approach to utilize surebackup jobs or at least health check on a regular basis. Thanks!

CaptainPistache
Enthusiast
Posts: 31
Liked: 2 times
Joined: Nov 30, 2017 9:42 am
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Monthly backup : Separate active full vs Backup copy

Post by CaptainPistache »

Ok.

Thank you Dmitry for all your answers.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests