Replication between two Backup Server scopes

[TinkerMax]

Hi,

In multiple forum discussions I read that one must not add a host to multiple backup servers, either because it disturbs the host-backup server relationship directly or Enterprise Manager data.

If that is the case, how is replication supposed to happen between the management scopes of two backup servers?

There are scenarios where dedicated backup servers seem useful, e.g. one per site. Even if the sites are then considered more "isolated" than in a single server scenario, at least occasionally there can be a need for replication between them, e.g. to move a VM with minimum downtime. Then I assume I would have to add the host that is managed by a remote backup server as destination to the backup server that manages the VM. Can that be done safely, if both backup servers are connected to Enterprise Manager?

Thanks,
TM

[david.domask]

Hi TinkerMax,

Can you share the source where you saw not to do this specifically with regards to adding multiple VBRs where the host ?

I think the main concern is adding multiple backup servers with the same configuration database in use, but perhaps you have a source we can review that raises another concern that I'm missing?

Similarly, while I understand your point on the multiple backup servers, with the Configuration Restore and a stand-by server, you are ready to go in case of a disaster recovery event as soon as you complete the configuration restore, and this means you have full access to your replicas to perform the failovers required. (Remember you must avoidmanually failover of replicas as it can create issues later on)

What is the specific use case for 2 Veeam servers if I may ask? It's not uncommon, but not always necessary.

[TinkerMax]

Hi David,

Thanks for your reply.

The issue seemed to be seen fairly relaxed a few years ago: microsoft-hyper-v-f25/1-hyper-v-host-mu ... 53840.html
This reply almost suggests that what I want to do is appropriate: post271563.html#p271563

However, in more recent discussions it has been viewed more skeptically: microsoft-hyper-v-f25/one-standalone-hy ... 87084.html

About the Enterprise Manager records I probably read on Reddit, can't find that anymore. Given what I see in Enterprise Manager, I don't believe it would be a problem, because the host itself is not listed as a machine (at least not due to VM backups); and the replicated VMs would get a new ID at their destination, I assume.

Multiple servers are more comforting in some situations, if the different sites have not necessarily poor but largely varying connectivity, can be down for some time etc. The most extreme case are "virtual sites", i.e. mobile racks or containers, that can be plugged in at a physical site but also operate independently.

For this particular reason, in the case that I’m looking at now the urge for multiple servers is so strong that the potential architectural limitation - not being able to use Veeam to replicate between the servers - would be accepted. It is just an exceptional situation in which replication would be useful, and I don’t want to break anything by adding hosts to secondary VBR servers.
In other cases, it would be an additional argument in favor of a single server, if several servers actually exclude replication paths between their administrative scopes.

- TM

[david.domask]

Thank you for sharing your research -- all of those warnings look to be pretty old and specific about 2012 R2 backups and CSV backups; as far as I'm aware, with just replicating, that's not an issue, but let me try to get a confirmation on this for you. This may take a bit, so your patience is appreciated.