Comprehensive data protection for all workloads
Post Reply
smarechal
Enthusiast
Posts: 56
Liked: 11 times
Joined: Dec 21, 2015 1:23 pm
Full Name: Siegfried
Contact:

Standard Edition. Per-VM backup file chains.

Post by smarechal »

Hello,

Per-vm backup file didn't work with standard licence? I can set it in repository option ...

Code: Select all

12/01/2016 13:51:15 :: Error: Unable to use per-VM backup file chains due to a product license limitation. 
Thanks.
Gostev
Chief Product Officer
Posts: 31457
Liked: 6647 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Standard Edition. Per-VM backup file chains.

Post by Gostev »

smarechal
Enthusiast
Posts: 56
Liked: 11 times
Joined: Dec 21, 2015 1:23 pm
Full Name: Siegfried
Contact:

Re: Standard Edition. Per-VM backup file chains.

Post by smarechal »

It is a real pity, i had it in standard with vRanger ... :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
Gostev
Chief Product Officer
Posts: 31457
Liked: 6647 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Standard Edition. Per-VM backup file chains.

Post by Gostev »

To be fair, from what I remember, this was the only way vRanger could store backups anyway ;)

For Veeam, the standard way has always been a single backup file for the entire job. This still remains the recommended way to go for those smaller environments using Standard Edition. Per-VM backup chains are recommended for large environments using deduplicating storage appliances or scale-out backup repositories as the backup target (support for which are Enterprise Edition features as well).
smarechal
Enthusiast
Posts: 56
Liked: 11 times
Joined: Dec 21, 2015 1:23 pm
Full Name: Siegfried
Contact:

Re: Standard Edition. Per-VM backup file chains.

Post by smarechal »

Gostev wrote:To be fair, from what I remember, this was the only way vRanger could store backups anyway ;)
I agree, and vRanger has not, in standard, built-in AD, Exchange and SQL Explorer.
But to restore VM from tape, it's shorter to pick one VM file instead of entire backup file ;)
wnichols
Novice
Posts: 5
Liked: never
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Contact:

Re: Standard Edition. Per-VM backup file chains.

Post by wnichols »

Would this per-VM backup chain be helpful with Windows Server 2012 R2 deduplication engine? Our incrementals on some jobs can be 100GB+ with 15+ virtual machines.
nielsengelen
Product Manager
Posts: 5619
Liked: 1177 times
Joined: Jul 15, 2013 11:09 am
Full Name: Niels Engelen
Contact:

Re: Standard Edition. Per-VM backup file chains.

Post by nielsengelen »

This is one of the reasons it has been designed. Keep in mind Windows 2012 R2 dedupe is best advised on files < 1TB. We have a long thread about it.
Personal blog: https://foonet.be
GitHub: https://github.com/nielsengelen
vanakenarch
Novice
Posts: 8
Liked: never
Joined: Sep 17, 2014 7:28 am
Full Name: Lars Bemelmans
Contact:

Re: Standard Edition. Per-VM backup file chains.

Post by vanakenarch »

It was definitely available before the latest update of v9.0.0.1491, because I set it before this update and it worked. Now I had failing backupjobs (after installing the update) and if I change the repository setting (to set OFF per-VM) it's stated you need enterprise licensing to use per-VM.
To bad, maybe I need to upgrade then :) because I need smaller files to recover faster from tape.
Zew
Veteran
Posts: 365
Liked: 80 times
Joined: Mar 17, 2015 9:50 pm
Full Name: Aemilianus Kehler
Contact:

Re: Standard Edition. Per-VM backup file chains.

Post by Zew »

um having this issue right now. I had it checked off as I thought it was for when you had multiple VMs in a bckup job that each vm is saved as its own VBK file.

i set the setting in the repo off, re-ran the job and fails with the same error.

how do i get my backup job to work now?
Gostev
Chief Product Officer
Posts: 31457
Liked: 6647 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Standard Edition. Per-VM backup file chains.

Post by Gostev »

Strange. Try to re-create the job perhaps? Alternatively, you can contact our support for investigation - it should be possible to fix without recreating the job.
Zew
Veteran
Posts: 365
Liked: 80 times
Joined: Mar 17, 2015 9:50 pm
Full Name: Aemilianus Kehler
Contact:

Re: Standard Edition. Per-VM backup file chains.

Post by Zew »

Thanks for the reply Gostev, ill contact support i dont want to rebuild all my jobs, and this was thanks to a dirty trick i over looked in the wording of when i bought Veeam support renewal is 20% MRSP, i got a really sweet deal when i first purchased veeam and when i got the renew quote at the same cost i paid for the product i was shocked.

i then downgraded to standard as the only features i really liked and wanted where in enterprise plus which just costs too much for small business. and here we are briken backups. yay!
haslund
VeeaMVP
Posts: 839
Liked: 149 times
Joined: Feb 16, 2012 7:35 am
Full Name: Rasmus Haslund
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Re: Standard Edition. Per-VM backup file chains.

Post by haslund » 1 person likes this post

smarechal wrote:But to restore VM from tape, it's shorter to pick one VM file instead of entire backup file ;)
You don't need per-VM backup files to restore a single VM instead of entire backup file since v9.5, see https://helpcenter.veeam.com/docs/backu ... tml?ver=95
Rasmus Haslund | Twitter: @haslund | Blog: https://rasmushaslund.com
Zew
Veteran
Posts: 365
Liked: 80 times
Joined: Mar 17, 2015 9:50 pm
Full Name: Aemilianus Kehler
Contact:

Re: Standard Edition. Per-VM backup file chains.

Post by Zew »

My case had nothing to do with tape. more the fact i enabled a setting on my repo that would theoretically allow me to grab VM backup files and move them manually as required Per VM while still having smaller amount of actual back jobs, when i had enterprise and then decided to downgrade not realizing this would happen.

i contacted support and the easiest solution was to run active fulls to start a new chain. given there isn't storage contention it should be fine even with BCJ set on each particular job.

Would be nice if this stayed a standard feature, dont get the selling point. :S
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ante_704, Bing [Bot], Ivan239, ybarrap2003 and 152 guests