cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Backup Exec 2014 issue with incremental jobs.

JCNC
Level 2

 Has anyone ever run into issues with there incremental jobs writing the same data as a full? I could understand if all the files were modified this would be the case. However, with this issue, it is not. 

The backup source is a directory on a NetApp (Which is huge and takes BE several days to complete the full backup job. It's 10TB in size). The incremental was running normally up until the middle of last month. No changes were made to the BE server or the location being backed up.

Just now every time the incremental job kicks off it tries to write the full 10TB all over again.

 

Any help is appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

 

7 REPLIES 7

Larry_Fine
Moderator
Moderator
   VIP   

Double check all your clocks to make sure they match between all the NetApps and the Backup Exec server.  I have heard of weird things when clocks & dates don't match.

Hi Larry,

I just checked our NetApp and BE server. Both times match. 

 

 

 

pkh
Moderator
Moderator
   VIP    Certified

If you are accessing your directory as a shared directory, then this is expected.  For devices like your Netapp which does not have the BE agent loaded, incremental/differential backups are not supported.

If you attached your Netapp to the BE Server using iSCSI, then you can do incremental/differential backups.

Colin_Weaver
Moderator
Moderator
Employee Accredited Certified

to add to PKH's information - there is a further option of using NDMP Option Backups and configuring level based backups (which although slightly trickier to configure aand manage can run in an incremental manner) - As long as the NDMP device is supported for the NDMP option of course.

Stephen_Kent
Level 4
Employee

Go into your backup job and check which method it's using to determine if the file are modified. If it's set to modified time and doing this, there it probably something else that's hitting the files and changing the modified time. Alternatively you can try using archive bit if this is a Windows file system/share. If you switch to archive bit, you will need to run a full first to test if it works.

 

 

forums1.JPG

 

pkh
Moderator
Moderator
   VIP    Certified

Colin_Weaver
Moderator
Moderator
Employee Accredited Certified

As I just noticed that the second document posted by pkh was formatted a little oddly, in that the Note numbereing was out of sequence, I have arranged to get it edited. As such please be aware that Note 5 that pkh mentioned is now Note 3 (the note itself has only been renumbered and his point about support of incrementals over shares being unsupported remains the same)