cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

VMware "Restore to original location"

spitman
Level 5

Hello,

We performed a restore yesterday on a VM. The customer wanted the VM replaced to an earlier date in time; so I did a "Restore to Original Location" from the restore menus. He said that afterwards, there were still newer files on the server (after the restore date we had picked).

I guess I was under the impression that if you did a full vmdk restore, that "restore to original location" would put down a  whole new vmdk and replace anything that was in it--to include having files that were there previously wiped out.

I know some will say that this is not best practice--that you should always restore a copy and then blow away the original VM when you are sure you no longer need it--but this was a test box, so that wasn't something they needed.

Any thoughts/experience would be helpful... thanks in advance...

2 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS

Accepted Solutions

vjuhola
Level 4
Partner

What OS was the restored VM? Did the customer specify which files were newer? If its a Linux one could use touch to modify timestamp but I doubt thats the case here.

I've always opted to restore "on the side", not on top of the current one.

View solution in original post

sdo
Moderator
Moderator
Partner    VIP    Certified

I would have expected your restore to have caused the old VM to have been destroyed/deleted/removed/overwritten/replaced in its entirety - IF - you a did a VM restore.  If you did a file level restore, then yes, the newer files would remain.  A full VM restore should restore a VM to a known point in time, that of the backup.  Apologies, but I can't help from being sceptical about your results.  Are you able to recreate the issue?  Is it repeatbale?  I find it odd that no-one has ever reported experiencing this kind of apparent behaviour before for a full VM restore at the VMDK level.

Are you sure that your VM restore was a full VM restore (at the VMDK level) and not a file level restore (within the guest OS)?

View solution in original post

3 REPLIES 3

vjuhola
Level 4
Partner

What OS was the restored VM? Did the customer specify which files were newer? If its a Linux one could use touch to modify timestamp but I doubt thats the case here.

I've always opted to restore "on the side", not on top of the current one.

sdo
Moderator
Moderator
Partner    VIP    Certified

I would have expected your restore to have caused the old VM to have been destroyed/deleted/removed/overwritten/replaced in its entirety - IF - you a did a VM restore.  If you did a file level restore, then yes, the newer files would remain.  A full VM restore should restore a VM to a known point in time, that of the backup.  Apologies, but I can't help from being sceptical about your results.  Are you able to recreate the issue?  Is it repeatbale?  I find it odd that no-one has ever reported experiencing this kind of apparent behaviour before for a full VM restore at the VMDK level.

Are you sure that your VM restore was a full VM restore (at the VMDK level) and not a file level restore (within the guest OS)?

spitman
Level 5

It was a full VMDK restore. 

No one has reported this issue before, because it may have been the first time we did an in-place restore like this.

We will have to get to a point where things slow down enough to do a test of this.

Thanks all.