Run time linux proxy server

[smile_dav]

I'm not sure if anybody has requested this before, I know for a fact some people have called for allowing linux servers to be proxy servers, but what about runtime deployed ones? It only make sense as this would mean you won't have to worry about backing up a proxy server itself during small backup windows?

Just an idea.

[Gostev]

Run time or not, there are a number of reasons why we decided not to pursue Linux based proxies. We are, however, making some improvement in 6.1 to remove some final obstacles around reusing your existing Windows servers as backup proxies. Thanks!

[lobo519]

Run time or not, there are a number of reasons why we decided not to pursue Linux based proxies. We are, however, making some improvement in 6.1 to remove some final obstacles around reusing your existing Windows servers as backup proxies. Thanks!

So no Linux proxies in the near future?

[foggy]

No. A bit more details here.

[smile_dav]

Well this is still on my and many of my client's dream lists. Those damn Windows licenses...

[Gostev]

Just use existing Windows VMs as your proxies, instead of deploying new.

[J1mbo]

Well this is still on my and many of my client's dream lists. Those damn Windows licenses...

Didn't I read somewhere that Hyper-V Server could be used for this?

[Vitaliy S.]

Any Windows server can be used as a backup proxy.

[mrt]

when can hot-add users expect a linux based virtual appliance to replace the Windows vm they need to license and maintain? a guy can dream...

[mikegodwin]

Is it correct that in order to have a proxy at the remote replication site, I need a Windows VM to run the proxy? There is no way to use Linux or a virtual appliance?

[Gostev]

Correct.

[CvBarney]

That's too bad. Not the whole world is based on Windows (thankfully!), and therefore I like the virtual appliance approach from VMware. Very easy to deploy new products (download, configure and running) and no additional OS licenses. We manage customers with large linux based environments and the only Windows servers are from management products or application dependency. But now we have to spend additional Windows licenses when we need another Veeam proxy, and not every client appreciates that. And no, we don't have spare Windows servers who can act as a proxy!

So I hope you change your mind about this in the (near) future. A whole Windows server for only transferring data is insane, look to that large (memory/disk) footprint. That can be done more efficiently, and a very small striped Linux server will be the best approach. And your security counter point is bogus: use the standard package manager from the distro to keep up to date and only deliver your small piece of proxy software.
But that's my point of view...

[bradclark]

Instead of having a dedicated Windows Server VM to act as a Backup Proxy Agent, are there any plans for Veeam to create a lightweight Linux type Backup Proxy Appliance (OVA) that can be easily deployed at sites?

[jfrancis]

This may have already been suggested - I had an idea for an alternate, simpler approach to a backup proxy. Instead of bolting onto Windows (which is brilliant, I might add), what about a virtual appliance? Something really cut down, a thin linux appliance or something.

The reason for this is - we backup around 80 VMs each night, and to do so we have two dedicated, beefed up Windows servers acting as proxies. This obviously comes with the extra cost of Windows licensing, and the fat overheads of Windows. Also, we receive offsite backups from some of our clients, who may only have a single VM running on a host. Of course, the VM can't act as a proxy to backup itself, and the client doesn't want to pay for an additional windows license. This would fit perfectly in this scenario!

Veeam could even include the ability to automatically spin up preconfigured proxy appliances as required, leaving them shut down during peak hours and conserving precious RAM and CPU resources.

Just a thought

[foggy]

Jonathon, you're correct assuming that this has already been requested before. However you're not correct saying that "the VM can't act as a proxy to backup itself" as Veeam B&R proxy server can perfectly back itself up. What proxy VM cannot do is hotadd itself, so it can be backed up using network mode only (please search for existing discussions for details).

[NightBird]

Network mode and no CBT... :'( so all Windows VM are not eligible to act as a proxy

[veremin]

If this proxy isn't used as a Hot Add proxy, you can explicitly set Network mode, and manually enable CBT on this proxy server. This way, proxy server will backup itself, using CBT mechanism.

Thanks.

[vanbeek]

And just a Linux destination "proxy" is that an option.

Like now veeam uses a Perl script for querying the linux file information of a linux server, but is still copying all data trough the backup proxy.
Making a job copy data directly to a repository shouldn't be that difficult.

Then all "stupid" linux based storage devices can be used as a nice NAS setup. without bringing the network to a hold because all data has to go over it twice.

Network resources are a far better reason then windows licenses to request for Linux proxy's in my opinion.

[Vitaliy S.]

Then all "stupid" linux based storage devices can be used as a nice NAS setup. without bringing the network to a hold because all data has to go over it twice.

Do you mean combining proxy and repository roles on these NAS devices?

[Gostev]

These devices typically lack CPU power to be used as backup proxies.

[ritontor]

Wait, so I have to buy additional windows licenses, just to run offsite backup proxies? I don't have any "existing Windows VMs", the ONLY windows box we even have is for vSphere and the Veeam server. Why isn't this mentioned up front when purchasing the product? I'm sure if you were buying a backup product and you were going to be slugged another $1000 each time you add a new remote location, you'd want to know about it too. This more than DOUBLES the cost of a Veeam license!

[Gostev]

Why $1000? We support pretty much every existing Windows version, and every edition. You definitely don't have to buy the most expensive one as far as mentioning Windows requirement up front, we do have fully documented System Requirements.

[flongin]

No news for a linux proxy server or appliance ?

[foggy]

No such plans currently.

[dbazan]

We need a proxy Linux appliance, it is a waste to use a windows license on this, please create an OVA but make sure VM Tools is also installed
while you at it, how about making B&R linux based too and use PostgreSQL
in other words get rid of windows altogether.

but I will settle with the proxy for now.
anyone else who would like this option?
if so please reply and let's make this happen

[finaosta]

The possibility to have a *NIX machine as a backup proxy would be great !!

[antman157]

As we move more virtualized, I would like to see the ability to add Linux as a proxy server. Ive read its best to not use a server that is backed up by Veeam as a proxy, so in my environment that would be 2 Windows 2008R2 servers. We have several Linux servers that are not being backed up by Veeam that we could use as proxy servers. I hate to burn a Windows License just for a proxy server.

[mikeely]

At nearly a grand per license, adding a proxy is a very expensive proposition for non-Windows shops (in other words, those of us who aren't already paying Microsoft much more money than they're worth). We have need to add a proxy to manage traffic at a remote location and $723 for the OS plus another $200 for a CAL pack... that just stinks frankly.

Given the high level of quality I see in the software Veeam currently ships for Linux it's obvious you have a talented team of Linux coders. Why not put them on this task now? In the aggregate, you'll be saving your customers millions of dollars.

[foggy]

Hi Mike, Veeam B&R supports any version of Windows, including client ones, you do not need to buy the expensive server editions.

[mikeely]

Hi Mike, Veeam B&R supports any version of Windows, including client ones, you do not need to buy the expensive server editions.

Only then we're running mission-critical software on a client operating system which (per Microsoft's SKU shenanigans) means we won't have access to various needed security and availability features.

And it's still Windows, which means it's a Martian in a Linux environment. Martians are expensive to maintain because they have requirements that are incompatible with our existing ecosystem, so the license cost is only a fraction of the TCO for running such a host. A Linux box in a Windows environment will incur the same costs.

At minimum, poll your customers about what they'd like to see in Veeam and see if there's sufficient positive response to a Linux proxy to justify the project before the bean-counters.