Problematic new way of licensing file resources

[f0f0]

Hello,

Due to the current way of counting licenses for backup of file resources, we have been put in a very awkward situation.
We are currently backing up the same file resources in two separate tasks, one to a disk repository with deduplication and the other time to LTO tapes.

The first task and the deduplication repository allows us to quickly recover individual files without having to rearrange the tapes, while the second using a tape drive allows us to hold copies of files with long retention and possibly later quickly restore more files at once.

Until now, this did not generate licensing problems - it was enough to license each 500 GB at the source and it did not matter how we secure the data.
From the consumer side, and Our situation the issue was clear and fair.

With the current way of counting licenses, it turned out that although the file resource is already licensed, because of its subsequent occurrence in the file to tape job it would have to be licensed a second time.
The exception is the backup to tape task, which does not count the backup source for previously set aside file resources.

From our side, this causes a very uncomfortable situation, as the newly introduced backup to tape functionality is not usable due to the efficiency of data hydration from deduplication.
And the second occurrence of the same file resources in a tape task wants to count these resources once again.

In our opinion, from the consumer side, the situation ceases to be clear and fair because we would have to pay a second time for the ability to secure the same file resources.

Therefore, we ask you to modify the algorithm for counting the licenses in such a way that for already licensed file resources occurring in other tasks, the licenses for tape tasks are not counted again.

Sincerely Jack

[Gostev]

Hello,

Sadly, it is a complex change. For example, even two file share backup jobs protecting the same file share will license it twice because they are unaware of each other's licensing consumption. Let along different job types.

The expectation is of course that you will use the classic D2D2T backup approach, instead of hitting your production storage twice which is not a best practice. Our product is designed for this use case and since with that backup to tape will be done from a backup repository, it will not consume licenses.

You noted that it is not usable "due to the efficiency of data hydration" but a few lines earlier you said the opposite "the deduplication repository allows us to quickly recover individual files", so may be you should still try this approach? In general though, we do not recommend using deduplication appliances as primary backup repositories for performance considerations (they are great as secondary repositories).

Unfortunately, as all software, our product is designed for particular use cases and many decisions are made accordingly. It is impossible to provide ultimate flexibility and still ship the product in a reasonable time frame, so we have to limit scenarios to those that align to industry best practices. And when you go against them by (for example) not using D2D2T backup architecture or using archive storage as your primary repository, this may cause issues like you're facing. And for us, trying to address them in-product means investing significant resources into corner-case scenarios, which is something we just cannot prioritize.

So I would suggest that you either re-architect your deployment to align to best practices, or perhaps try to solve this issue on the licensing side with your Veeam sales rep.

Thank you for understanding.

[f0f0]

Hi,

I fully understand that the matter may be more complex and that separate file backup tasks may not be aware of the mutual consumption of the same license.

I also understand that not every user scenario can be predicted.

Our environment was designed and implemented in such a way that it was sufficient for implementation in the current model.

So far, the deduplicator has had decent performance in recovering individual VMs and files, however the nature of the backup to tape task causes many parallel random calls to irrigate the deduplication data.

It is known that as a consumer I do not like the necessity of licensing the same source several times, the more so that at present we already have 44 licenses assigned to file resources.

If we now had to pay double for them just because our equipment is not able to use the backup to tape option, this product may turn out to be too expensive for us.

In my opinion, it's more about what policy your company will choose, whether it is pro-client and you will still need to license the backup source, or rather it will go towards increasing profits and will require licensing of each instance of the backup source, but for me it's the same as requiring a license instead of every 500 GB every 250 GB.

Regards