SureBackup still with no useful exclude option?

[pirx]

I stopped testing SureBackup 2 years ago, because it was far from being useful to me. Now, after reading that a lot has changed in v12, I looked into it again. But again, I'm missing the option to exclude VMs that were backed up in the past but do not exist in vSphere anymore. For example VMs that were deployed by mistake, not working - whatever. Do I still have to use the workaround to create an application group and put there all the VMs that I want to treat differently? Problem is, that SB always wants to test the lastest restore point of a backed up VM in a linked backup job, even though the VM has not been backup for months. And it can not be excluded as the exclude is based on currently existing objects in vSphere and not on objects from the backup job. Why not make the exclude look into the list of VMs that would be verified instead of just presenting the currently existing objects? This method of exclude makes not much sense to me. If a VM existed during one backup cycle, there is still no straight way to exclude it.

[veremin]

One question - if for some reason you no longer need a backup of a particular machine, or if it was made by accident, why not set the "Remove deleted items data after _" option in the job's settings, or use the functionality to delete a specific backup?

Thanks!

[pirx]

Immutability.... The option is set, but it will only work after immutability period is over. And for this time surebackup is complaining, which is ~4 months. For apllication group there is the "From backup..." option, why not provide this for excludes? Why would I want to excluded a VM from a linked backup job based on the complete vSphere hierarchy? I mean, if I want to exclude, it's most probably a VM that was backuped in this job, so the option to exclude should be based on this.

[veremin]

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, at the moment, the situation is exactly as you described. There have been similar requests recently, and they are currently marked as potential improvements for one of the upcoming product releases.

[pirx]

Thx for considering this, to be fair, excludes (incl. my use case) in SB are already discussed since 2011 vmware-vsphere-f24/is-it-possible-to-ex ... t6668.html

For now, I'll put SB on hold again.

[veremin]

To be fair, we added what was primarily requested in the linked thread (the ability to exclude certain VMs in linked backup jobs from SureBackup) in version 12.1, while you're requesting to exclude VMs that no longer exist.

Should there be significant demand, we will consider addressing your scenario in the future releases.

Thanks!

[Gostev]

@veremin this seems to be a bug though: we shouldn't be processing VMs that are not included in linked backup jobs. This goes against the whole concept of linking backup jobs, which is meant to dynamically provide the most actual scope of VMs to test.

[veremin]

We discussed this issue on the internal forum, and at that time, the feature owner expressed the opinion that the main task of SureBackup is to verify backup content, and if the machine is still in the backup created by linked job, we should verify it as well. Hence, the initial design.

However, in the same thread, our colleagues managed to convince him otherwise using more or less the same arguments. Now, the change in behavior is recorded either as a bug or an improvement for the next version — unfortunately, at the moment, our tracking system is in maintenance mode, and there is currently no way to check which specific version it is for.

Thanks!

[SnakeSK]

I think the best approach would be from the both worlds, let you pick from the backed up data to spot data rot, however being able to check the live machines that actually need verification. Currently one have to detach the vm or wait for retention.

[RaHa]

+ 1 on this.

I also have a feature request on this:
post517356.html#p517356

[JaySt]

good points for both arguments (to include or exclude vm's not currently processed by the linked backup job) imho.
should be a checkbox though, to control the inclusion/exclusion. Or a registry value at first offcourse

[pinetree885522]

Now, the change in behavior is recorded either as a bug or an improvement for the next version — unfortunately, at the moment, our tracking system is in maintenance mode, and there is currently no way to check which specific version it is for.

Is the system back online? Are you able to post any specifics now?

[veremin]

At the moment, this is listed as an extra requirement for version 13, but, as always, timelines and versions may change. Thanks!

[Unimatrix0]

+1 on being able to Exclude deleted VM's. My Surebackup job started 'failing' this week due to an old deleted VM that we no longer need to test.

[jsprinkleisg]

+1 on being able to Exclude deleted VM's, or to pick exclusions from backups rather than only from the job's current config. Without the ability to exclude VMs no longer being backed up, use of SB is problematic, particularly for customers who use Immutability & GFS.