v10 vs V9 GFS

[arosas]

Is it recommended to switch from using copy jobs for GFS for long term archival backups from V9 to the new way of doing things in v10 within the primary job?
Maybe it doesn't even matter but just thought i'd ask if there is any benefit or differences.

[soncscy]

Hey Tony,

For my clients, we just kept the old Backup Copy Jobs running until the Primary Jobs started their GFS retention -- at that point we disabled the classic backup copies and switched over to Immediate Copy (which is honestly closer to what most of my clients wanted) to offsite the data elsewhere. Some have done double-offload (primary+secondary jobs), but most just do primary offloading because they like the protection of short term VMs while isolating the secondary copies to tape.

[arosas]

@soncscy thanks for the reply. I guess you're right it all depends on the environment. I think Primary GFS was something we wanted from the beginning as well since we replicate all of our data offsite at the storage layer.

thanks again

[Dima P.]

Hello folks,

Thanks for your feedback! Harvey is right - it fully depends on your needs: if you want to keep GFS within your primary repository then GFS in the primary jobs is your choice, thanks to new primary job logic now we have this flexibility. If you want to keep the GFS restore points at the secondary repository - backup copy will address that. Tape is a bit different story, since it has it's own GFS logic (can synthesize full backups for GFS from incremental restore point on disk). Cheers!