Instant VM Recovery to Hyper-V Incorrectly Doesn't Understand what Server 2019 Datacenter is.

[MrMike]

Case #04514997

When attempting to begin an instant VM Recovery to Hyper-V:

• I select the VM to recover.

• I select the host (which is a Server 2019 Datacenter with Hyper-V, that I've restored other VMs to).

After pushing next, I'm greeted with:

"[NAMEofVM] can only be restored to Hyper-V 2012 R2 or later host, because it uses UEFI."

Ok... my Server 2019 Datacenter is on UEFI, and my Hyper-V is more than happy to enable UEFI... what is this error REALLY about? Does it simply not understand what Server 2019 Datacenter is? Potentially thinking its older than 2012 R2 by mistake?

[MrMike]

This is the error.

[PetrM]

Hi Mike,

Let's give a chance to our support team to review your case and come up with a conclusion as our possibility to troubleshoot technical issues over forum posts is quite limited.

Thanks!

[MrMike]

For future googlers:

ANSWER: I got it to go past this AFTER choosing "full backup" instead of one of the incremental backups for restoring to a Hyper-V host. For whatever reason, it was quite angry about thinking 2019 wasn't "good enough" whenever I chose the incremental backups vs the full ones.

[PetrM]

Thanks for information! Anyway, the described behavior does not seem to be expected as the error message should not be related to the backup type whether it is full or incremental.

Therefore, I would let our support team to investigate the issue and to explain the behavior based on debug logs analysis.

Thanks!

[MrMike]

I just ran into the issue again, hilariously, coming upon my own inquiry as the top result on Google.

Same exact error, same exact Band-Aid workaround. @PetrM, did you determine that this is expected behavior when selecting an incremental backup instead of a full one? I'll note that the VM does NOT exist whatsoever on the Hyper-V 2022 server I'm attempting to restore to, if that makes any difference. It's just hilarious that the error message is completely bassackwards compared to what the Band-Aid fix is. Thoughts?

[PetrM]

Hi Mike,

No, this behavior is not expected and most probably there is some kind of database "glitch" that must be investigated by our support engineers.

Thanks!

[MrMike]

I upgraded from version 10 to version 11, and now the behavior is fixed.