Skip to main content

unsusual file naming by ATI 2021

Thread needs solution

Hi all,

have a file-based incremental backup to disk job which used to save the incremental backups to files named like
Backup_inc_b1_s2_v1.tib
Backup_inc_b1_s3_v1.tib
...
Backup_inc_b1_s27_v1.tib   <--- yesterday
Backup_inc_b1_s27_v2.tib   <--- yesterday

Today the very same job saved to
Backup_inc_b1_s27_v1-2.tib   <--- today
Backup_inc_b1_s27_v2-2.tib   <--- today
Backup_inc_b1_s27_v3.tib      <--- today

That's weird and I never faced such, so pls. allow me to ask:
- why the change in file naming convention? What does it mean?
- do I need to take action? If so: Which?

 

Thank you!

0 Users found this helpful

Please see the ATI 2021 user guide section: Backup file naming - for an explanation, in particular the final paragraph.

Steve Smith wrote:

Please see the ATI 2021 user guide section: Backup file naming - for an explanation, in particular the final paragraph.

Thank you Steve, but that does not explain the change in the naming convention.
Sure, ...27... was already there as it is yesterdays backup.

Therefor todays backup was supposed to be named Backup_inc_b1_s28_v1.tib, not not-overwritung-yesterdays-backup-file-but-weirdly-naming-the-new-one.
Also: Will tomorrows backup be Backup_inc_b1_s27_v1-3.tib instead of Backup_inc_b1_s28_v1.tib then?

(And again: Why the sudden change)?

You will need to look back through the logs to see if that throws any light on why ATI thought the same backup sequence should be re-used and generate the unusual naming convention to be used?

Steve Smith wrote:

You will need to look back through the logs to see if that throws any light on why ATI thought the same backup sequence should be re-used and generate the unusual naming convention to be used?

Yeah, already had a look but that's just another weird issue: Whereas the Drive/Partition-backup-job writes a full log to ...\Logs\backup_worker there is none written by the file backup job at all.
All I got is the tiny excerpt in mail (same as in ...\Logs\ti_demon\ti_demon_[looong_ID].log).

Only the new .tibx backups use the Backup Worker logs, older .tib backups continue to use the Demon logs.

Download a copy of the MVP Assistant log viewer tool and use this to look at the logs to see if they show any issues during the operation process?

The latest version of the new log viewer tool is at the link below. 
MVP Assistant update for Acronis Cyber Protect Home Office (Version 1.1.6.0)

If you have Disks & Partitions backups created on ATI 2020 or later using .tibx files, then look in the Backup Worker logs.

If you have Files & Folders backups using .tib files (or Disk backups from earlier versions using .tib files) or using Cloning then look in the Demon logs.

Other logs are shown by the MVP Assistant under the 'Active Logs' heading of the Log Viewer page of the Assistant.

The Schedule2 log contains information related to scheduled task but is one of the more difficult logs to read / work through.

The log files should be zipped to preserve their original file names if sharing in the forums and would need to be less than 3MB in size, otherwise you would need to share the zip file via a Cloud share service such as OneDrive, Dropbox etc.

Thank you again, Steve!

Unfortunately the MVP-tool doesn't show any more than that tiny log fragment I already received by mail and found on my disk (pls. find it attached).

As naming went back to normal today I guess the best approach is to not waste a lot of time on this issue (at least until it happens again).

 

Have a great day!

Attachment Size
603960-331123.png 35.7 KB
603960-331125.log 2.81 KB

Jorg, you need to look at the log for the previous day, i.e. the 28th May as that would seem to be where the root of this issue lies.

...there's no file to be found on the disk but I put the mails content in a file.
Do you see anything unusual in there?

Attachment Size
603994-331142.log 2.09 KB
603994-331145.png 44.65 KB

The log from the email looks normal and much the same as the previous one.

If there is no corresponding log file on disk, then that might suggest that the task didn't complete fully successfully (despite the email log saying otherwise!!).  That might explain why ATI then wanted to reuse the same sequence 27 when the task ran on the 29th!

Yeah, might be.
Losing (log)data is just another thing that shouldn't happen in a professional tool...

Anyway, let's leave it at this until next time such happens. Thank you very much for your time and help!