Unsolved
This post is more than 5 years old
24 Posts
0
989
Backup larger than provisioned disk; Avamar following Archive Stubs?
All,
I recently started backing up a number of Windows 2008 R2 Servers with significant data volumes and files. While large, I had protected similar in the past, so had no concerns.
Unfortunately we found the backups were:
- roughly 50% larger than the used storage on disk,
- had extremely (800+MB per backup) large log files which the client had to send us in order to read
- Lots of errors like:
2014-07-15 15:37:42 avtar Info <16281>: Not traversing 'F:\JUM_Data\jum_grp\Academic\Assessment results 2001\029311-Spring 01 (CE)' since it's of type 'REPARSE_NON_MSFT'
2014-07-15 15:37:42 avtar Info <16281>: Not traversing 'F:\JUM_Data\jum_grp\Academic\Assessment results 2001\029704-Autumn 01 (CE)' since it's of type 'REPARSE_NON_MSFT'
2014-07-15 15:37:42 avtar Info <16281>: Not traversing 'F:\JUM_Data\jum_grp\Academic\Assessment results 2002\029311Autumn02 xls' since it's of type 'REPARSE_NON_MSFT'
2014-07-15 15:37:42 avtar Info <16281>: Not traversing 'F:\JUM_Data\jum_grp\Academic\Assessment results 2002\MA ISP Spring 2002' since it's of type 'REPARSE_NON_MSFT'
I since found out from the client that the servers are running Moonwalk Columbia file archiving product.
- Anyone ever run Avamar on a Moonwalk server?
- Is Avamar following the reparse points and backing up the archived data as well?
- Anyway to prevent this?
Any help or shared experiences would be useful.
Jonathan
ae86levin
70 Posts
0
September 9th, 2014 18:00
We are having this exact same issue (massive log files) on our file servers that have Moonwalk installed.
Avamar is essentially reporting all the archive stubs in the log file.
I do note that Avamar reports the backup size based on the original file size (rather than the 'on-disk' size) so that may be what you are seeing?
I have an SR open for this at the moment so if we find a way to at least turn off that message in the logs I will post it.
SystemMangler
24 Posts
0
December 30th, 2014 03:00
@bill_clarke
Sorry Bill, never noticed that there was a response to this thread.
Eventually, we discover / determined that Avamar was not backing up the data that the stubs led too, but did report the file size, hence the confusion.
EMC offered us a patch to address this, but instead decided to wait until it's rolled into GA (7.1SP1 I believe).
We do notice a significant performance impact with offline files... that's something for another day.
Jonathan