Feature Request: Unprotected VM Notification.

[davidshq]

So, I love Veeam (I think I've said that once or twice before) - but I've thought of a feature that I do not believe is currently implemented but would provide a huge advantage to Veeam's customers: allow us to see in one view all of our virtual machines and whether they are protected (e.g. have a scheduled backup) or not. Right now if someone adds another vm to one of the machines (they shouldn't, but it can happen) - there is no way for me to tell that I need to be backing up another vm unless that individual tells me (which may not always happen). To be notified of unprotected machines would be great - and then the ability to decide to ignore this alarm for that machine or not (for example, if its just a test machine that doesn't need to be backed up).
Dave.

[Gostev]

Hi Dave, yes fully agree. I have added this feature myself to the feature tracker a few weeks ago. It is logical to add to our reporting web UI. Thanks for verifying the need for this feature

[davidshq]

Great. Thanks.
Dave.

[nik24]

Is this feature still on the roadmap? We love Veeam, but the reporting side is lacking a lot and this particular feature I think is very important. With hundreds of VMs it is extremely hard to know which VMs are protected and which are not without doing a manual audit.

[Vitaliy S.]

Yes, it is still on the roadmap. Thanks.

[Doug.Butler]

Yes, it is still on the roadmap. Thanks.

Is there a site or document that is open to customers to see the list of features on the roadmap, and some kind of estimate on when you anticipate implementing them?

I realize that features and release plans are subject to change (see your DISCLAIMER: message below) but I was still hoping you might publish a current "engineering change request" queue of some kind.

Thanks!

[Vitaliy S.]

Hello Douglas,

Please have a look at this topic for the answer: Re: 4.1 is here, what about further roadmaps? (Anton's answer still applies to our current position).

Thank you.

[Gostev]

Basically, we have the same strategy as Apple regarding roadmap and future plans. Particularly, this helps to stay significantly ahead of competition, and thus does much more good than bad to the company overall. But there are other, smaller reasons for this too.

I can say that "engineering change request" queue is about 200 features now, so should be enough for next 3-5 years (but the features are still coming in). So it may take a while for specific features to get implemented. We are doing our best to prioritize features based on number of requests and value to the product though. And so far we've been doing good job I think.

[flavor4real]

I agree that this would be a great feature!

Many times the VM Administrators setup VM's and forget to tell the Backup administrators to include the new VM's. This happen a lot to me. Even If I don;t get blamed for it, this is unnecessary stress on the VM admin itself. Having this feature would reflect a great administrative control over new VM's backup implementation.

Thanks,

[m.novelli]

+1

Marco

[tigerplish]

One thing I've done is I backup by Resource Pools, not individual VMs. This way, the onus is on the admins (I'm one of them too ;o). There are two Pools that aren't backed up -- Build Room, and Unused.

It's amazing how little gaps we now have since I made that change. Basically the thought was "You want your junk backed up? Put it in the correct resource pool"

That said, I like the suggestion in this thread. By all means, please do!