cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Retentions are being mixed on the same tape

rjrumfelt
Level 6
I have the "Allow multiple retentions per media" option unset under "Media" for the master server host properties, yet I was spot checking my offsite tapes, and noticed that I have 3 year and 1 month retentions on the same tape.  Any ideas?

Do only backups abide by this rule and duplications ignore it?

Running Sol 10 master, version 6.5.4
1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

Andy_Welburn
Level 6
i.e. maybe someone changed the multiple retention setting at some point?

Are you looking at the actual expiration dates to come to this conclusion or retention values (numbers)? Just wondering if these have changed also e.g. retention level 4 used to be 3 years but now it's 1 month - so now there are those two retentions on one tape (both essentially rl4 when the images were written).

I would've thought that all aspects of NB would abide by such settings, but ....

View solution in original post

4 REPLIES 4

Andy_Welburn
Level 6
i.e. maybe someone changed the multiple retention setting at some point?

Are you looking at the actual expiration dates to come to this conclusion or retention values (numbers)? Just wondering if these have changed also e.g. retention level 4 used to be 3 years but now it's 1 month - so now there are those two retentions on one tape (both essentially rl4 when the images were written).

I would've thought that all aspects of NB would abide by such settings, but ....

rjrumfelt
Level 6

And that is that I'm an idiot

I got excited and jumped the gun.  The other images I was looking at were actually on separate tapes - I just forgot that the "Images on Tape" reports usually give results for more than 1 tape - not sure why.

 

Andy_Welburn
Level 6
This would be "understandable" in a way - if the images spanned tapes then you will get more than one tape reported so that you can see all the media that pertained to the images that reside on the tape that you are investigating. (Did that make sense? - say image starts on tape 1, thru' tape 2 & finishes on tape 3 - so if you report on tape 2 you get those images that are on tapes 1 and 3 also)

However, I still wouldn't expect to see multiple retentions reported if this was the case.

rjrumfelt
Level 6
the only thing however, is that we're duping from virtual to physical, and it returns the virtual tapes as well - I guess it will always return the primary copy from where the duped copy on the tape I'm looking for came from.