Any downside to using checkpoints? - Veritas Net Backup

This is a discussion on Any downside to using checkpoints? - Veritas Net Backup ; I've never enabled checkpoints in my backups because I never really fully understood if there was any downside to doing it. Obviously the advantage is that if a backup fails midway through you don't lose the entire backup, but there ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Any downside to using checkpoints?

  1. Any downside to using checkpoints?

    I've never enabled checkpoints in my backups because I never really fully
    understood if there was any downside to doing it. Obviously the advantage
    is that if a backup fails midway through you don't lose the entire backup,
    but there has to be a reason its not turned on by default? Is it a
    performance issue on the server or client? I'm just not sure if there is a
    reason I should NOT use it.



  2. Re: Any downside to using checkpoints?

    I would also like to know, if there is any downside using checkpoint.
    checkpoints seems to be good feature on paper.

    "Ronald Hall" wrote in message
    news:44690217@ROSASTDMZ05....
    > I've never enabled checkpoints in my backups because I never really fully
    > understood if there was any downside to doing it. Obviously the advantage
    > is that if a backup fails midway through you don't lose the entire backup,
    > but there has to be a reason its not turned on by default? Is it a
    > performance issue on the server or client? I'm just not sure if there is
    > a reason I should NOT use it.
    >




  3. Re: Any downside to using checkpoints?

    Exactly, which makes me wonder why they made it an 'option'. Its my
    understanding that a checkpoint would allow you to cancel or have an error
    in your backup and not lose the data that has already been backed up. There
    must be a reason why they just didn't enable that by default, unless the
    reasoning behind it is some people might not want a backup that is not 100%
    successful?

    "John Smith" wrote in message
    news:446adada@ROSASTDMZ05....
    >I would also like to know, if there is any downside using checkpoint.
    > checkpoints seems to be good feature on paper.
    >
    > "Ronald Hall" wrote in message
    > news:44690217@ROSASTDMZ05....
    >> I've never enabled checkpoints in my backups because I never really fully
    >> understood if there was any downside to doing it. Obviously the
    >> advantage is that if a backup fails midway through you don't lose the
    >> entire backup, but there has to be a reason its not turned on by default?
    >> Is it a performance issue on the server or client? I'm just not sure if
    >> there is a reason I should NOT use it.
    >>

    >
    >




  4. Re: Any downside to using checkpoints?


    "Ronald Hall" wrote:
    >Exactly, which makes me wonder why they made it an 'option'. Its my
    >understanding that a checkpoint would allow you to cancel or have an error


    >in your backup and not lose the data that has already been backed up. There


    >must be a reason why they just didn't enable that by default, unless the


    >reasoning behind it is some people might not want a backup that is not 100%


    >successful?


    A. It's overhead.
    B. Unless you have very long backups, there is no point.
    C. If you have enough errors to find it useful more than once in a blue
    moon, that points to underlying problems that you might want to address.

    Not trying to insult you with C above. Cost/benefit analogy: I don't carry
    a spare battery in my car for the possibility that I might have a problem
    and need it some day.

  5. Re: Any downside to using checkpoints?


    "richard" wrote:
    >
    >"Ronald Hall" wrote:
    >>Exactly, which makes me wonder why they made it an 'option'. Its my
    >>understanding that a checkpoint would allow you to cancel or have an error

    >
    >>in your backup and not lose the data that has already been backed up.

    There
    >
    >>must be a reason why they just didn't enable that by default, unless the

    >
    >>reasoning behind it is some people might not want a backup that is not

    100%
    >
    >>successful?

    >
    >A. It's overhead.
    >B. Unless you have very long backups, there is no point.
    >C. If you have enough errors to find it useful more than once in a blue
    >moon, that points to underlying problems that you might want to address.
    >
    >Not trying to insult you with C above. Cost/benefit analogy: I don't carry
    >a spare battery in my car for the possibility that I might have a problem
    >and need it some day.


    It might also slow down your restores and make your NBU database bigger.
    For my large clients, it's a no-brainer to turn it on.


    Scott

  6. Re: Any downside to using checkpoints?


    It's an option because some customers prefer to have their backups all on
    the same media and/or don't wish to retain partical backups for any period
    of time. There are also some policy types that can not be check pointed
    (like oracle).

    There isn't any huge performance degradation when using checkpointing, a
    bit of extra tape is used to retain the checkpoints, a bit more communication
    done to the master because the information on the current check point file
    is retained there; but outside of that, nothing. You should not notice a
    difference in traffic and/or space utilization on the master.



    "Ronald Hall" wrote:
    >Exactly, which makes me wonder why they made it an 'option'. Its my
    >understanding that a checkpoint would allow you to cancel or have an error


    >in your backup and not lose the data that has already been backed up. There


    >must be a reason why they just didn't enable that by default, unless the


    >reasoning behind it is some people might not want a backup that is not 100%


    >successful?
    >
    >"John Smith" wrote in message
    >news:446adada@ROSASTDMZ05....
    >>I would also like to know, if there is any downside using checkpoint.
    >> checkpoints seems to be good feature on paper.
    >>
    >> "Ronald Hall" wrote in message
    >> news:44690217@ROSASTDMZ05....
    >>> I've never enabled checkpoints in my backups because I never really fully


    >>> understood if there was any downside to doing it. Obviously the
    >>> advantage is that if a backup fails midway through you don't lose the


    >>> entire backup, but there has to be a reason its not turned on by default?


    >>> Is it a performance issue on the server or client? I'm just not sure

    if
    >>> there is a reason I should NOT use it.
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >



+ Reply to Thread