- Posts: 309
- Liked: 24 times
- Joined: Jan 02, 2014 4:45 pm
I have opened up a few tickets on this, but so far the issues are:
1. The proxy stops talking to a cluster. Worked with both Nutanix and Veeam support, and so far no solution. Here is hoping the upgrade from V2.0 to V2.1 fixes this.
2. Backup jobs randomly hang. Just today I saw a job that had been running for 7 days and stuck at 36%.
3. I couldn't stop said job from the B&R console, proxy console, or even shutting down the AHV proxy. It kept running.
4. Trying to upgrade from 2.0 to 2.1 while on V10 didn't work. So I thought we might as well upgrade to upgrade to V11 so see if I can upgrade that way. That didn't help either as we are now seeing backup files can't be found from upgrading from the proxy (there is a thread on this here)
5. Veeam AHV support response is slow compared to vSphere support. I opened a priority 2 ticket on Thursday. Support agent asked when I will be available for a remote session, I said Friday. Didn't hear back so I called on Friday asking to speak with support. I was told they will be in touch. I didn't hear back until I received an email on Sunday (which I responded to on Sunday). I escalated the case on Monday, and am supposed to chat with support on Tuesday. I was also told that Veeam AHV support team doesn't have a phone queue I can get transferred to. My experience is that Veeam support for vSphere is just faster.
6. Looking at the new features list for major versions, it's quiet clear that Veeam AHV is considered "second class" as the number/depth of features is miniscule compared to vSphere versions. I realize that AHV adoption is nowhere near as common as vSphere, but I feel that if Veeam is advertising that they support AHV and "is committed to delivering the best availability for applications and workloads running on AHV" (taken from the product page), then the software should deliver accordingly and it is not. What doesn't help is the ever increasing cost of support.
There is also lack of feature parity between AHV and vSphere (e.g. GFS) but I am discounting that as I know the product is in it's early stages. HOWEVER, I do experience the advertised features to work properly. All in all, I feel that we have a product deployed that feels like it's in alpha stages. From the seemingly small bugs (backup progress showing zero in main B&R console while the job is running) to the more critical issues, the product just doesn't seem ready for prime time.
Is anyone else having similar experiences?
- Veeam Software
- Posts: 7807
- Liked: 1350 times
- Joined: Sep 01, 2014 11:46 am
- Location: Austria
can you please post the case numbers you are talking about? Support not answering sounds strange.
Sure, there are differences in AHV and vSphere functionality. Some of it is because AHV has many limitations that VMware doesn't have (for example external datastores with NFS).
And sure, we also focus on the vendor with the highest marked share (VMware). I didn't find current numbers on market share, but globally AHV is a niche player. AHV has a good marked share for hyper-converged systems. But hyper-converged systems only have a small market share.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest