How to avoid first FULL backup being auto triggered when a new policy is created

[sureshgo]

We have a requirement to avoid FULL backups being triggered when a new policy is created. Any thoughts?

[Marianne]

Deactivate the policy in the Attributes tab and specify a date on which the policy must go active. 

[sureshgo]

Hi Marianne. Thanks for your reply. Is there any other way we can alter this netbackup standard behaviour?

[Marianne]

Why do you need another way? What 'other way' are you thinking about?
Seeing that this is NEW policy, why another way?

If you add a new Client to existing policy, you can prevent backups for this client with Client Offline feature:
Host Properties -> Master (select Master Server ) > Client Attributes >  Add  (add the name of client - exactly same as in the policy), in GENERAL tab select option "OFFLINE UNTIL" and specify time until you want it to be offline.

[sureshgo]

Below are the reasons why approach#1 or approach#2 may not work for us.

1.New policies are created by a different team and I cannot control the way they work.

2.I would like to stop newly added jobs consuming the resouces and give way for already existing  backups(which are already schduled and awaiting for next run)  to finish.

[Marianne]

Seems you have a problem with internal processes. Not NBU....

[Nicolai]

When you add a client to a policy, the very fist thing Netbackup will do is a full backup, this full backup is required in order to do incremental backup.

Netbackup is build this way, you can't avoid the first backup being a full.

[Genericus · Accepted solution]

Since the first backup WILL be full, the best way to work this is to ensure that the first backup is the regularly scheduled full.

How do you do this? You have to have standards and procedures. Failing that you create extra work for your self.

You can define and run a script every hour or day checking for newly added clients, and automatically setting them to not backup, or email you with the listing of new clients so you can do it manually.

I have had a few large (multi-TB ) clients, where I have manually manipulated them, but I normally just run a full at my convenience, to prevent the next few days incrementals all being fulls.

It depends on how bad it is, what is your effort/reward? If this is a significant issue, the costs this other group are causing should be enough for management to request they change their procedures.

[sureshgo]

Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate your help on this topic.