Maximum job count has been reached for the storage unit

[FayezIT]

We have VM backups write to a storage.

Since very long time we configured the storage unit to have 42 jobs running at the same time. and other jobs will be queued.

now since two weeks, 42 threads will start, and the remaining will fail on snapshot with the following log:

awaiting resource DeDup_VMs-stu. Maximum job count has been reached for the storage unit.
client backup was not attempted because backup window closed

we increased the number to 100 on the storage unit and now they run, but off course they are slow. 

Does anybody know why it suddenly started failing whatever over the configured number (which is 42 in my case)  ??

[RiaanBadenhorst]

Hi,

"Since very long time we configured the storage unit to have 42 jobs running at the same time. and other jobs will be queued."

At this stage your backups were performing adequately and they could complete within the backup window i.e. the backup window was still open so the jobs will remain in the queue and not fail.

Then something might have happened in your environment and the performance reduce, or the backup volume increased, causing the backups to take longer. Now that the jobs take longer the backup window needs to be increaed (or the performance increased) so that they can all remain in the queue and not stopped (as the message below shows)

awaiting resource DeDup_VMs-stu. Maximum job count has been reached for the storage unit.
client backup was not attempted because backup window closed

Clear?

[FayezIT]

We checked that. but this is not the case.

this is a weekly job. and only this job writes to this storage unit. the time window is two days. but the threads which fail, fail after half an hour only !!!

so the time window is not reached, and we are even very far from it.

[RiaanBadenhorst]

Post the detailed status of the parent and child jobs

[FayezIT]

Hi @RiaanBadenhorst

What i did yesterday is that i played with the number of concurrent jobs on the storage unit again. but instead of having a big number like 100, i tried a smaller one like 50 and it worked.
i will try to return to the 42 (original number that we had) later next week and see if it will run smoothly. if it does, then changing this counter and returning back to the original number would be a solution in my case  !!!

i will update the post next week after i have two or three more complete tests.

thanks a lot

[FayezIT]

Hi @RiaanBadenhorst

This weekly, I changed it to 50 and it worked. And the remaining over 50 threads were waiting and did not fail.

Maybe only changing the counter did something. Anyway its solved now.

Thank you and thanks for everyone for replying.