# Indices with ILM policies are not included in Snapshot and Restore Operations

**URL:** <https://discuss.elastic.co/t/indices-with-ilm-policies-are-not-included-in-snapshot-and-restore-operations/380454>\
**Category:** Elasticsearch\
**Tags:** snapshot-and-restore\
**Created:** [July 25, 2025, 5:17am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/indices-with-ilm-policies-are-not-included-in-snapshot-and-restore-operations/380454 "2025-07-25T05:17:39Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 8\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rajesh\_Kannan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/rajesh_kannan/32/47154_2.png) [@Rajesh\_Kannan](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Rajesh_Kannan)\
**Post date:** [July 25, 2025, 5:17am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/indices-with-ilm-policies-are-not-included-in-snapshot-and-restore-operations/380454/1 "2025-07-25T05:17:39Z")

</div>

There are approximately 4,000 indices in Elasticsearch, all of which are in an open state. However, during the scheduled backup, only 1,660 indices were successfully backed up, while the remaining ones were ignored. Upon comparison, the key difference identified was the presence of ILM (Index Lifecycle Management) policies. Indices with ILM policies defined are not being included in the snapshot process.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tortoise](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/tortoise/32/147587_2.png) [@Tortoise](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Tortoise)\
**Post date:** [July 25, 2025, 5:45am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/indices-with-ilm-policies-are-not-included-in-snapshot-and-restore-operations/380454/2 "2025-07-25T05:45:28Z")

</div>

Hello @Rajesh_Kannan

Could you please confirm if the daily snapshot backup is completed successfully?

![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/optimized/3X/d/a/daf18c5497658f1db03df25e4e80451d39e21551_2_690x43.png)

If it is completed successfully & the indices with ILM policy attached is not backed up as part of this snapshot than could you please check the SLM policy? As if it is backed up via SLM policy than we need to check what is there in SLM policy because of which these indices are ignored.

Thanks!!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rajesh\_Kannan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/rajesh_kannan/32/47154_2.png) [@Rajesh\_Kannan](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Rajesh_Kannan)\
**Post date:** [July 25, 2025, 6:26am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/indices-with-ilm-policies-are-not-included-in-snapshot-and-restore-operations/380454/3 "2025-07-25T06:26:48Z")

</div>

Hi @Tortoise The backup is completed succesfully, however there is no SLM policy defined in the Elasticsearch.

| | Snapshot | Repository | Indices | Shards | Failed shards | Date created | Duration | Actions |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | [snapshot-b-202507250405] snapshot-b-202507250405) | [backup-s3-repository] | 1270 | 1272 | 0 | Jul 25, 2025 9:35 AM GMT+5:30 | 72s | |
| | | | | | | | | |

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tortoise](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/tortoise/32/147587_2.png) [@Tortoise](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Tortoise)\
**Post date:** [July 25, 2025, 12:04pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/indices-with-ilm-policies-are-not-included-in-snapshot-and-restore-operations/380454/4 "2025-07-25T12:04:45Z")

</div>

Hello @Rajesh_Kannan

Thank you for the confirmation. Could you please share how the automatic Snapshot is scheduled as it is not via SLM?

Thanks!!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![leandrojmp](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/leandrojmp/32/107231_2.png) [@leandrojmp](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/leandrojmp)\
**Post date:** [July 25, 2025, 12:50pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/indices-with-ilm-policies-are-not-included-in-snapshot-and-restore-operations/380454/5 "2025-07-25T12:50:02Z")

</div>

> [@Rajesh\_Kannan](#):
>
> The backup is completed succesfully, however there is no SLM policy defined in the Elasticsearch.

How is the snapshot backup being generated? You need a Snapshot policy to create the snapshots.

What do you have in Kibana when you go to Stack Management \> Snapshot and Restore \> Policies ? This should list your policies.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rajesh\_Kannan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/rajesh_kannan/32/47154_2.png) [@Rajesh\_Kannan](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Rajesh_Kannan)\
**Post date:** [August 7, 2025, 5:41am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/indices-with-ilm-policies-are-not-included-in-snapshot-and-restore-operations/380454/6 "2025-08-07T05:41:11Z")

</div>

The sanpshots are taken through the curator jobs from the backend. When the ILM policies are removed those snapshots are included during the backup.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Christian\_Dahlqvist](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/christian_dahlqvist/32/4617_2.png) [@Christian\_Dahlqvist](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Christian_Dahlqvist)\
**Post date:** [August 7, 2025, 6:01am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/indices-with-ilm-policies-are-not-included-in-snapshot-and-restore-operations/380454/7 "2025-08-07T06:01:12Z")

</div>

I believe Curator by default [deliberately does not work on indices associated with ILM policies](https://www.elastic.co/docs/reference/elasticsearch/curator/ilm-and-curator). As shown in the docs I linked to it is possible to override this default behaviour. I would recommend trying this, as I have not personally used this.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rajesh\_Kannan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/rajesh_kannan/32/47154_2.png) [@Rajesh\_Kannan](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Rajesh_Kannan)\
**Post date:** [August 8, 2025, 5:20am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/indices-with-ilm-policies-are-not-included-in-snapshot-and-restore-operations/380454/8 "2025-08-08T05:20:40Z")

</div>

> [@Christian\_Dahlqvist](#):
>
> inked to it is possible to override this default behaviour.

Thanks for the help. It is working now.
