Aller au contenu principal

Cleanups with multiple backup plans (or multiple VMs) at same location

Thread needs solution

Hi -

I have a problem with my Acronis backup plan cleanups that I'm hoping to get some input on.

I have 2 backup plans that back up to a location. To make most efficient use of space on my backup location I thought it would make sense to only Cleanup "When there is insufficient space while backing up". This seems to work well if there is only a single backup plan backing up to the location, but if there are multiple plans it appears you will eventually run into a problem.

Also, if you are backing up multiple Hyper-V VMs with a single plan it appears Acronis makes a separate Archive for each VM making it even worse.

The problem appears fairly quickly for me because one of my VMs is very large - many times larger than my other VMs.

What happens is, eventually, the smaller VMs take up more and more of the destination's disk space while the large VM backup will eventually disappear from the destination. This is because a Cleanup run on one archive will only delete older backups from the same archive. So, eventually my larger VM backup will not have sufficient space to run, there will not be any older backups from the same archive to delete, and it is not smart enough to delete older backups from a different archive on that same destination.

What are others doing for cleanups in a situation like this? I know I could limit the backups to a certain # but then I might not be making the most of available disk space. I could limit the archive to a certain amount of disk space as well which I think would work better for me but still not idea.

Is there a better option? Any way for a backup plan to Cleanup a different plan or VM's archive when disk space runs out?

Any other thoughts?

Thanks!

0 Users found this helpful

Hello Kremlar,

Some sort of workaround could be potentially scripted using our acrocmd command-line utility to mimic the desired behavior (or pretty much any behaviour), but this would not be a very simple script.

The current design of the product doesn't really provide a better option for your scenario outside fo of this workaround. That said, I have made note of this scenario in our requirements for future updates and it will be something we will definitely consider in new designs.

So thank you for your feedback!