V12 tape costs

[lostNfound]

I'm not sure I understand your last sentence.
... snip ...

The last sentence is easy to explain:
When you need to save files to a tape which are stored onto a physical machine where the licence for the server is already paid there are 2 options:
- The customer will pay again additional licences (1 per 500GB) which means 20 Licences for each 10TB-file on top on his serverlicence by your File-2-Tape option in one step
- The customer is doing everything twice by first doing a backup to disk and then doing a backup to tape which is covered by his already paid licence for the server

This second way Veeam costs you more time, more resources and is more complicated to handle plus it will waste a lot of time in case of a recovery.

So I'm still voting for the free basic File-2-Tape-option with rudamentary function which would help everyone for such archive-files which don't need to be saved on a daily base.

[Gostev]

I agree, this approach is a bit clunky. The worst part of such design is that it hit the production machine twice to get the same data. You could just export the physical server backup to tape instead, which doesn't require a license and is much faster too.

Do you mean manual one-time backup, like our existing VeeamZIP functionality for VMs?

[lostNfound]

When I want to export the physical server backup, I need to backup the server first ( which are 2 steps). In our case we don't want that as the whole server contains 32 TB data (which would make these 2 steps very long). We simply want to backup single files of it which do no longer get changed (in 1 Step). Your absolutely right this is a kind of manual one-time backup we need and your File-2-tape option even in a basic edition (simply copy) would do the job perfectly. But paying 64 Licences (32 TB / 500 GB) for such a one-time copyjob turns our controller to HULK in seconds.

You mentioned that VeeamZip could help but maybe I'm wrong but I know VeeamZip only as VM-oriented and not for files/directories?

[Gostev]

Then I'm even more confused by your explanation. If you're not actually backing up the physical server backup, then this part "on top on his server license" never happens? And if you do back up the physical server, then tape export does not require a license?

Despite what you feel about the second way with regards to time/resources/complexity, without doing so you simply won't be compliant with the 3-2-1 rule of backups. Which is why it is practiced by the vast majority of our users, but also by the entire industry. This backup method is known as D2D2T meaning Disk (production storage) to Disk (backup repository) to Tape.

I'm bringing VeeamZIP only as a reference because it allows interactive-only (manual) ad-hoc full backups without a license. Seems like you are asking for something just like this, but for File to Tape instead, am I correct?

[lostNfound]

Sorry if you are confused by my explanation. All things said to standards like 3-2-1 and D2D2T are absolutely correct and I fully agree with you as we practice it here as well as this is the standard behaviour and best practices.
But sometimes life is a little more complicated where standards won't help you. In this special case the standard backup is already resolved. It's only neccessary to backup simple, big files in 1 step directly onto tape.
Therefore we need a simple, basic solution to bring some big files in 1 step to a tape like your file-2-tape-option in Veeam11.

[juan.cordeiro]

Hey guys,

I have doubts about the licensing of tape...
Imagine the situation: the environment has 88TB of data and needs that data to be sent directly to tape, in v12 will there be any extra cost or would it only be the cost of 1 backup instance? if there is that cost per 500GB, in the VCSP model, is there that cost change?

[Gostev]

Hello! Definitely not just 1 instance with V12. However, VCSP uses a completely different licensing mode (point-based) so you should better check with your Veeam rep on that. For sure it's no longer free there too though.

[rciscon]

Gostev, I'm hoping you can clarify this question for me. We are using Veeam 11 with NetApp Storage Integration to backup our NFS volumes on the NetApp to tape. My guess is that this is essentially Veeam managing a NDMP job from the SAN to tape.

Will jobs like this incur additional charges?

[Gostev]

No, NDMP dumps do not consume a license even with V12.

[pfischer]

It was sent to all sales at Veeam, including inside sales who take care of resellers and distributors. Just ask your distributor to check with their Veeam rep on this.

Hi everyone,

i don´t if anybody else chose to go down this rocky road.

I´ve been kept on hold for over two month now.

First my distri didn´t know anything about this - then recommended to open a license case (#06055661).

Then support told me that the customer was not on V12 and is therefore not eligable for a free File-2-Tape license.
I had to send a multiple screenshots to prove, that the customer is on V12 and is really using File-2-Tape.

Now I am back on hold since 22nd of may while the request is still "investigated".

This is un-worthy for a company like Veeam.

My customer is already considering another backup vendor - this is really bad for ours and veeams reputation.

Kind regards,
Philipp

[Gostev]

Hi, Philipp.

Seems like an issue with your sales rep, as opposed to Veeam company as a whole? As other users were able to get a license fine. Anyway, please submit such feedback directly to the Sales Management who can action this feedback, instead of posting here on the R&D forums. In the form, you can request to be contacted.

Alternatively, if you have a Licensing support case open, you can also contact our support management team using Talk to a Manager under Support in the Customer Portal.

Thanks!

[pfischer]

Hi,

i know - and i will do that this week.

But i also know that you are reading this forum - so this seemed like a legit way to reach someone who can handle community feedback.

Making customers pay for a formerly free feature is hard to justify.

Don´t get me wrong - Veeam B&R is still the best backup software around.

Kind regards
Philipp

[TaylorB]

Just upgraded to V12 and got this fun surprise that my job moving my large store of SQL backup files to tape is now going to require that I buy 200 more instances, which is 50% more than I've been running with on V11. Is there a downgrade and stay on 11 forever option? Kind of a budget killer here, that my boss is not going to like.

I just don't understand. I have another server I back up with nearly as much data. It uses the agent to write to a repository, and then to tape and it only uses 1 instance. But if I skip going to veeam disk respository first, it uses 200 instances? Makes absolutely no sense!

[Gostev]

It's not clear what is it exactly that you do not understand. Veeam is in business of offering software that allows our customers to make backup copies of any data they choose. The media you use as the backup target does not matter, license will be consumed by backup jobs regardless of whether they write to disk or to tape. The only exception is Veeam backup files: exporting those to tape will NOT consume a license, because it was already consumed in the process of creating said Veeam backup files.

And yes, of course you can stay on V11 for as long as you want. Downgrades are not supported, but you can always make a new V11 install.

[pufferdude]

Just had to report back because of this tape licensing fiasco. You know how Veeam says they will give you a year of free NAS capacity because of this v12 change, to give us time to budget and/or move to another product? Well, that's SORT OF true, but pretty much useless so don't believe them!

The problem is that Veeam will ONLY give you a license for the capacity needed when Veeam B&R shows the "grace period warning" message, nothing more. For example, my B&R console was showing I was using "74.8TB" of capacity in the warning, so Veeam issued me (after about a month) a license for *75* TB. Lame, but fine.

Well, guess what? I'm now out of grace period and my File2Tape job WON'T RUN. It literally says I'm backing up *74.3* TB of data (less than the original warning!) but fails with "your license has been exceeded".. EVEN THOUGH in the Licensing dialog it shows my Capacity as "75 (74 used)".

So why can't it back up my share that's LESS THAN 75 TB (according the VB&R's own math???) THIS is why I told my rep we'd need more than the 75TB the "warning" told us we could have for 1yr, and it's utterly ridiculous how this has playout out. Veeam should be ashamed of what they've done to loyal customers with this crap.

So now I guess I need to by a few TB (but how many?? since I already technically have enough??) just to utilize my "free" capacity over the next year? Insane.

[Gostev]

75TB should of course be enough to protect a 74.3TB file share. So this should be treated as a technical issue. Please follow the usual process and start from opening a support case to have them investigate what else might possibly be consuming the license. Or if there's a bug in the licensing logic, you will get a hotfix.

[pufferdude]

You can't make this stuff up, folks! I finally had the chance to open a support ticket, where I said:

"As part of the v12 File2Tape license change FIASCO, Veeam granted us 75 instances of "capacity" to continue to back up our NAS for the next year. The license UI in our B&R server shows "Capacity (TB) 75 (0 used)", yet when I try to back up a NAS share with *71.5* TB of data, the job immediately fails with "Error: Unable to process the workload. Your license has been exceeded." So clearly something is wrong with the way Veeam B&R is calculating our license usage."

A hour later I got this response from Veeam:

"Hello,

My name is xxxxx, and I will be assisting you with your case today.

Each Instance only cover up to 500GB of data in a File Share Backup.

Since you are trying to back up 71.5 TB of data, 75 licenses would not be enough.

You would need 143 Licenses to back up 71.5 TB of data.

Please see below for more information on how File Share Backup Instance Licensing works:
https://helpcenter.veeam.com/docs/backu ... ml?ver=120

Should you have any further questions, please feel free to reach out and let us know."

I cannot believe what I'm reading. My freaking SALES REP from Veeam said I was to get enough instances to back up the current size of my data AT THE TIME the "warning splash screen" showed up, which was 74.8TB, and they sent me 75 instances. Now I find out that's only HALF the amount I actually need? I can't help but laugh at the complete incompetence of Veeam over this situation they created out of pure greed.

[Gostev]

Well, based on what you yourself said, clearly they did NOT send you 75 Instances (which would indeed protect only 37.5TB) but rather they sent you the Capacity license, which was correctly set to the required value of 75TB. At least this is what you claim to be seeing in the UI, quoting:

Veeam granted us 75 instances of "capacity" to continue to back up our NAS for the next year. The license UI in our B&R server shows "Capacity (TB) 75 (0 used)"

So, it would appear as a mere misunderstanding between you and your rep. So, just explain they misunderstood (or overlooked) the fact that you actually have a Capacity license. These are much more rare indeed and I guess it just did not "register" with your rep, with them automatically assuming you have an Instance license and answering the question accordingly. It's normal, people make mistakes, especially when they have many cases/emails to work through.

And guys, please remember these are R&D forums. We are a separate organization from Support, Sales, Licensing, Pricing and other. It's really not the right place to escalate issues you may be experiencing with the employees those departments, or come to "laugh at their incompetence" here, or to make statements about "pure greed" of Veeam as a business etc. simply because none of the perceived issues have anything to deal with R&D, nor can be addressed by us.

On the other hand, Veeam loves feedback and has always provided the process to escalate any issues directly to the management teams of each and every department. This is well documented in the forum rules displayed when you click Post Reply or New Topic. Kindly, use those means rather than just posting everything on the R&D forums by default. So we R&D folks could spend more time working on improving our products, and less time going through and replying to feedback on other departments

From the product perspective, I can only repeat and confirm that you are all set: you need to protect 71.5 TB of production data and you have 75TB Capacity license installed. So, you should not be discussing this with your SALES rep to start with, as they seem to have issued you the correct license. Rather, you need to have our Support review what other workloads may be consuming said 75TB license without you even realizing. Or perhaps there are none and that's just some bug, which we R&D will then be happy to fix for you. Either way, it should be immediately clear from the logs.

[pufferdude]

You are correct that Veeam support AND my Rep were initially unaware of "Capacity" licensing (sigh) and were giving me bad/incorrect info. That's all now sorted... but now my ticket has been escalated (I have a screen share scheduled tomorrow) because Veeam B&R WILL NOT back up my 71.x TB because it (according to the logs Support is viewing) thinks I'm still backing up *80+* TB (which is what we were backing up prior to the v12 upgrade and during the grace period post-V12 upgrade)

I even deleted ALL jobs related to File2Tape jobs and recreated a new single job, and it still fails with the exceeded license. So Veeam apparently has some "memory" of the files we backed up prior to the grace period expriring, and now EVEN THOUGH the only job we have is backing up a single 71.xTB share, it will not do so. My hunch is that the EXISTING tape backups are not "allowed" by Veeam because they exceed the capacity, even though they are EXISTING OFFLINE backups (performed perfectly legally under the prior licensing) and the ONLY EXISTING job is trying to back up 71.xTB. If Veeam wants me to delete all prior backups that were legally done JUST to satisfy a new Capacity limit, that's... really sad.

I'll report back what Support finds, just to complete this thread for further lurkers. And I do apologize for the vitriol that doesn't belong here... you're right. I let my emotions get the best of me because this situation is SO infuriating for so many different reasons. I used to defend Veeam and recommend it at every turn, but now I can no longer do that... and that sucks.

[TaylorB]

The media you use as the backup target does not matter, license will be consumed by backup jobs regardless of whether they write to disk or to tape.

That is absolutely not true.

If I use an agent job to write to disk repository, it uses 1 instance regardless of VM size. I have a server that stores 30-60TB of audio files and use a regular agent job that writes to disk repository and then to tape. That server consumes 1 instance according to the licensing menu in the console.

I have another server that stores SQL backups and I write that directly to tape. It will now consume 96 instances with potential to grow to 244 if the server fills. Why am I charged exponentially more money and instances if I elect to skip writing it to disk repository first? That is the part that makes no sense.

It will be cheaper to buy a new repository than to add licenses with an annual cost. So I will now have to convert this to an agent job and buy some storage so it can make a pass through a repository first.

[Gostev]

It's absolutely true: file-level backup consumes the same number of instances regardless of whether the backup target is disk or tape.

You're confused because you're comparing apples to oranges, two different backup types: image-level backup (copying entire VM image with Agent job) and file-level backup (copying SQL files with Files to Tape job). These two job types have different capabilities and are licensed differently: image-level is licensed 1 instance per image, file-level is licensed 1 instance per 500GB.

Note that with the exception of corner cases with huge servers, file-level backup will always be cheaper than image-level backup on average across the entire environment, because industry-average VM size is less than 250GB. Not to mention, you would not backup a good chunk of those 250GB anyway (for example OS and app executables) if you were to backup your VMs on file-level, rather you would only protect app data files.

As for corner cases like huge file servers, you can definitely use an above mentioned workaround if you want to.

[pufferdude]

Ok, I'm returning for hopfeully my final say on this issue. So, unable to determine what was wrong, support issued me a 2 week temporary license of 1500 instances. It immediately said I was consuming 253 of them (approx 126.5TB), even though my SHARE is 71.7TB

So with those in place I was finally able to get a new full backup, which then gave me the confidence to test my theory (which was right) and delete all OLD tapes that still had backup data from prior file-to-tape jobs. As soon as I did that, after restoring my real licenses, Veeam now reports an accurate 71.7TB of data on my NAS and backs it up just fine with my 75TB Capacity license (which expires next spring)

Bottom line is that Veeam remembers what's on old tapes, so even ones that were done PRIOR to this license change STILL count against the instance/capacity license you're currently running. This is really sad as by creating this scenario, Veeam forced me to *delete data* that had been done prior to their decision to change licensing for file to tape jobs, JUST so I could run new jobs under said licensing.

Utterly ridiculous, but not surprising considering the "growth at any cost" model they have adopted since being acquired. I for one can't wait to get off of this product for something way more affordable. For us that will have to be another NAS (about $14k) that will last me 6+ years. That's a fraction of the $20k/yr Veeam wants for the privilege of putting my files on tape, and they're not even paying for the storage!

Anyway, that's the end of my saga. Good riddance.

[Gostev]

Thanks for taking time to share the solution, really appreciate it (especially considering with the circumstances).

[rbutterworth]

I've just come up against this following a v12 upgrade, which I had no idea of (my fault, I guess, for not going over it all with a fine toothcomb, rather than assuming our CSP would warn us). Frankly, I find it entirely unacceptable - volume based pricing makes logical sense when there is a cost associated with data transfer and storage, but in this case all components are on-site, and I already pay based on volume as I pay for the blank tapes and offsite storage separately. To then pay to move the data, over my own network, to my own tape drive is just taking advantage. Moving to another backup system when we have years of tapes from Veeam is hard, and they know it, so I feel quite taken advantage of.

I'm getting pricing from my CSP for the tape backups, but anticipate looking for an alternative for the tape side of things, keeping Veeam at the minimum level we can so we retain access to it for restores, or perhaps taking the plunge and dropping tape backups (but we value them for our long term archive requirements...)

Sigh.

[TaylorB]

I gave in and bought another $15k worth of licenses to continue our files-to-tape last August. Now 6 months later they are all gone. I discovered that All the files on any tape are counted as licensed capacity, not the size of the source server. If you have a non-Veeam backup server you are protecting, the file and instance consumption is basically infinite because files come and go daily and weekly. Every monthly or weekly full consumes another full set of instances. And to top it off, you can't even help trim your copies because files to tape doesn't support GFS!

I'm currently shopping for another tape library and backup software because it will save me literally tens of thousands over continuing to buy more licenses every quarter for the files-to-tape feature. Perhaps this will be the stepping stone to replacing Veeam entirely.

And I'm still just baffled despite attempts at rationalization in this thread. If I backed this up to a Veaam repository it would be one instance. I'm at 200 instances and growing >10% per month with files to tape. Why does Veeam need 100, 200, 500x more money from me just because I want to back up to tape instead of a repository?

[Gostev]

I discovered that All the files on any tape are counted as licensed capacity, not the size of the source server.

That's not how it should work actually, Veeam should never consume more than the size of the source server. So I suggest you investigate this with our Customer Support to see what might be wrong with your deployment, as currently there are no known issues with incorrect file to tape backup licensing.

Technical details: the licensing logic tracks source (protected) data size for the trailing 30 days and consumes licenses according to the highest watermark. For example, imagine you're protecting nearly full 10TB file share which has its entire content replaced with completely new files every single day. In this scenario, after 30 days Veeam will have moved 300TB of unique files to tape, with the license consumption will always remain at 10TB.

If I backed this up to a Veaam repository it would be one instance.
Why does Veeam need 100, 200, 500x more money from me just because I want to back up to tape instead of a repository?

These statements are absolutely not correct either: file-level backup to a Veeam repository has always been licensed exactly like file-level backup to tape. In fact, file-level backup to tape simply reuses the shared licensing code that was first implemented for file-level backup to Veeam repositories.

[pufferdude]

This is just doesn't compute. You say that's not the way it works, but I had to delete ALL of my prior tape backups (the tapes) in order to back up the 75TB share (for which we have tape instances). Without doing that (once this horrific licensing kicked in) every time I ran the tape job it aborted and said I was over capacity.

No matter how you slice it or rationalize it, the new model for files to tape is insane, and Veeam should be ashamed of it. But no one that cares reads this stuff, the VC fat cats keep getting fat and that's all tha matters to them.

[Gostev]

You're talking to someone who has personally created the technical licensing specification, based on which developers wrote the shared licensing code that is now used for file-level backups. So what I'm explaining in my previous post is how it is supposed to work, while any different behavior would mean a bug or a limitation in some corner case/scenario missed by QA. These need to be investigated with our Customer Support and, if some bugs are confirmed in some scenarios, they will be hotfixed promptly by the devs.

[Soumin]

Technical details: the licensing logic tracks source (protected) data size for the trailing 30 days and consumes licenses according to the highest watermark. For example, imagine you're protecting nearly full 10TB file share which has its entire content replaced with completely new files every single day. In this scenario, after 30 days Veeam will have moved 300TB of unique files to tape, with the license consumption will always remain at 10TB.

So if our daily file-to-tape job doesn't do 500+ GB in any day within last 30 days, it will not consume license instance?

We use file-to-tape job for logs which are stored on our VBR server's disk and archived to tape, then the logs are deleted from disk. Next day we have new logs and so on. It is usually less than 20 GB each day, so if I understand it correctly, this will not use any license instances. In case we have exceptional day with for example 600 GB of logs, it will use one license instance and after 30 days of regular <20 GB per day, the used instance will be "not used" again?

Just want to be sure this wont eat up all our instances over time, thank you.

[Gostev]

That is correct, in your scenario File-to Tape job should not consume any license at all until an "exceptional day", after which it will consume 1 license for the following 30 days.

Perhaps you did not mean it, but the way you put the first sentence is not correct however: it does not matter how much data file-to-tape job "does" (processes) each day. The only thing that matters is the total size of all files in the protect file share/folder.

Example 1:
File share with around 10TB worth of files, where about 10% of files are changed every day.
Daily File-to-Tape job protecting this file share will therefore be "doing" approx. 1TB on any given day.
License consumption will be at 10TB, as this is the total size of all files in the protected file share.

Example 2:
File share that is emptied every night and getting around 1TB of new files every day (just like in your case).
Daily File-to-Tape job processing will therefore be processing 1TB on any given day - so just like in the previous example!
However, license consumption will be at 1TB, as total size of all files in the protected file share never exceeds 1TB.