Is veeamzip require license in 9.5update3?

[xudaiqing]

In the past (9.5 update 2) i can still use veeamzip (veeam free's feature) against unlicensed host.
After update to 9.5 update 3 backup same host using veeamzip failed with "Task failed. Error: Not enough licenses. "

Is there a change in license?

[xudaiqing]

In the past (9.5 update 2) i can still use veeamzip (veeam free's feature) against unlicensed host.

I mean i have a licenced veeam backup install protect some licensed host, and i can use the same veeam backup install to backup other unlicensed hosts using manual veeamzip (what the veeam backup free can do) in 9.5 update 2.

[Mike Resseler]

Hi xudaiqing,

As far as I am aware, there is no licensing change done. I can think of one or two scenario's that happened but I can't verify that with the logs. Could you create a support call, post the support case ID here and the follow-up after working with our engineers?

Many thanks
Mike

[veremin]

Is there a change in license?

Starting from Update 3, if a backup server has a paid license installed, VeeamZIP consumes a license slot, indeed. To manage unlicensed hosts, feel free to deploy separate "free" backup server. Thanks.

[gingerdazza]

Great - Not. And why have Veeam done this may I ask? And how does this "feature?" benefit your existing customers?

This is not going down very well here as we recently spent quite a bit of time and money setting up VeeamZIP backups for our ROBO offices and now you've gone and done this.

[gingerdazza]

Product Managers, please could you explain why this has been done, and please consider urgently reversing this so customers are not burdened.

[Gostev]

VeeamZIP has always had expanded functionality in paid editions, and at the time of its introduction it did consume licenses there. I am unaware when this part broke, but from what you are saying it sounds like we unintentionally had some period of "free ride". I can confirm though that the current U3 behavior is the correct one (according to the original design).

[r.suberviola]

it will be the correct operation but not the operation that we had until u2. This type of changes the minimum is to notify them.

[gingerdazza]

VeeamZIP has always had expanded functionality in paid editions, and at the time of its introduction it did consume licenses there. I am unaware when this part broke, but from what you are saying it sounds like we unintentionally had some period of "free ride". I can confirm though that the current U3 behavior is the correct one (according to the original design).

Gostev - this is contrary to what we were told in this forum post which was the basis for us using it in the first place: veeam-backup-replication-f2/backup-opti ... 39073.html

Quotes: having been told of the scenario, including that we would be using our licensed B&R server for the VeeamZIP executions, we are told:
"Well, we've checked and it turned out that I was wrong. VeeamZIP doesn't require the host to be licensed, so you can use it without bothering about license count."

And as r.suberviola says, to rip out something that customers have been able to do for some time is a bit out of order. We're running 9.0 so this capability was at the very least available 9.0>9.5u2 and possibly much further back than 9.0. What do Veeam achieve by doing this other than disrupting customers?

[Gostev]

That statement was absolutely correct at the time, due to the bug in licensing logic. And the intent was not to bring disruptions, for sure! What likely happened here is developers working through the bugs backlog, finally fixing the bug that was logged by QC very long ago. But, let me investigate this and think what we can do here. Thanks!

[gingerdazza]

Thanks Gostev, that would be appreciated. If anything can be done that would be great. Please let us know how that goes....

[Gostev]

So, I can confirm this indeed was a bug fix. The discrepancy was noticed by a service provider, who opened a support case wondering why the behavior is different between a per-VM license (where VeeamZIP correctly consumed the license), and their internal deployment that uses a socket-based license (where VeeamZIP incorrectly did not consume the license). Then, the Veeam machine worked by itself as designed, and the bug was fixed - meaning, VeeamZIP was made to consume socket-based license as well, according to the original feature specification.

But, the good news is that today, I was able to get approval from our CEO to make VeeamZIP completely free for all use cases, which I am very happy about! So, going forward VeeamZIP operations won't consume whether per-VM or per-socket licenses. However, in presence of a paid B&R license, VeeamZIP will keep providing additional functionality as it does today (such as support of multiple VMs per archive, and support for Veeam backup repository as a target).

We'll now investigate with the developers if this change is easy enough to implement in a form of the hot fix - I will keep you updated.

[gingerdazza]

Gostev,

thanks so much this is great news, and a great example of Veeam working with customers toward sensible solutions. Appreciated. I look forward to hearing an update from you on the possible method and timescales likely for this bug-fix reversal, which I assume will be posted on this conversation chain when you have the info?

Thanks

[Gostev]

Yes, myself or v.Eremin will keep you posted here in this topic. If it appears to be a quick fix, I expect we'll have a hot fix available next week. Otherwise, we'll think on some other workaround, such as providing extended trial licenses to the impacted users to use until the next update. Thanks!

[MaxKozlov]

You may also think about adding per-vm licensing for a few machines to Essential users especially for unlicensed hosts in addotion to per-core. If cost be reasonable small I think that be a good solution.

[Gostev]

You may also think about adding per-vm licensing for a few machines to Essential users especially for unlicensed hosts in addotion to per-core. If cost be reasonable small I think that be a good solution.

Indeed, per-VM licensing has been a popular request, and we're launching the corresponding subscription option on February 1st. This will include Veeam Essentials, which in this case will be limited to 50 VMs and sold in bundles of 5.

[mih]

so to keep using the license free mode, we will have to stop targeting a repository, and target a directory instead, correct ?
what about the retention part (auto delete in XX), is that also gone ?

Background:
I use veeamZip on our licensed server to backup a few VM's from a esxi in a branch office, that has vmware ROBO licenses. Socket licensing would be way too expensive.

Edit: didnt see Gostev reply. We will buy per VM licenses then when available, but the questions are still relevant

[Gostev]

Effectively, everything will be back to the way it was before U3. So, you'll be able to continue doing what you're doing now - no need to stop anything.

[nolant]

This is great to hear.
We were quite upset when a number of our VeeamZIP backups stopped working with Update 3 with no warning. It caused a good amount of work to regain equivalent functionality.

[DaveWatkins]

Indeed, per-VM licensing has been a popular request, and we're launching the corresponding subscription option on February 1st. This will include Veeam Essentials, which in this case will be limited to 50 VMs and sold in bundles of 5.

Will this be usable with per socket licenses like VMWare where you can run ROBO and socket licenses together? I can see a lot of usefulness if it is where you can license your DC's with socket licenses and then add some per-VM license to cover some remote site servers

[Gostev]

Definitely not in the single installation, as the product physically does not support mixing different license types today. But with separate installations, why not.

[DaveWatkins]

That's what I figured, and is a disappointment.

Is any time being spent on changing that limitation? It's starting to be something I run into more and more often. The big one currently is the inability to mix licensed and unlicensed Agents into a single installation (To be clear, I don't even want to manage the unlicensed agents, just access the repository). Once you buy that first agent license you actually take a step backwards from a functionality point of view.

Putting that aside, I assume the per-VM licenses have the same feature breakdown? So there is a standard VM license, an Ent one, and an Ent+ one? If so then being able to add per-VM license to an existing socket license system as long as the type matched would be really good.

To be clear, that's something we would spend money on, but not if it means running parallel installations

[Gostev]

Yes, same feature breakdown, but mixing in the same backup server is technically impossible.

[MaxKozlov]

I'm sorry to hear that. Now we are far from 50VM limit, but any new future limits stop us from switching to other type of license.

[mih]

hmm, then we will have to live with the limits of only being able to backup to folder, it's not worth setting up another veeam server for those few robo vm's. oh well

[zen5050]

I cant wait for the 50 VM limit if i can in fact change my Backup Essentials license away from the 6 socket restriction. The 6 socket never made sense as a company my size really doesn't have the money to purchase high-end servers (run a large quantity of VMs on one server) as well as the replication/failover hardware resources local and in the cloud, but i may have the need for more that 3 physical hosts. Also the cost jump from 6 Sockets to 8 was also a major hurdle even when we initially weighed out the pricing. It was basically get less software (lose Veeam One) and pay almost double for the 2 extra sockets. This will give small business IT more breathing room and the ability to not shoe horn the infrastructure into a 3 host box.

On a side note how are people backing up the one off VM's that are blocked by this new development? I have a test server that i use the VeeamZip to Adhock backup prior to upgrading or testing new installs. I really don't want to create a new VM just to leverage the free versions abilities if i can keep it running through my main Veeam server.

[franz]

Any news about the hotfix? I run into the same problem, where I backup a few VMs through VeeamZIP from an unlicensed Host.

[gingerdazza]

Yes, myself or v.Eremin will keep you posted here in this topic. If it appears to be a quick fix, I expect we'll have a hot fix available next week. Otherwise, we'll think on some other workaround, such as providing extended trial licenses to the impacted users to use until the next update. Thanks!

Hi Gostev, what's the latest with this?

[veremin]

The hotfix is being tested currently. Thanks.

[johnymachine]

The hotfix is being tested currently. Thanks.

Any updates?

Thanks