Scripting SureBackup with tag-based backup jobs still not possible in v11?

[woifgaung]

As discussed previously (powershell-f26/veeam-10-application-groupe-t65210.html) it was/is not possible to add VMs with New-VBRSureBackupVM to application groups when backup jobs are configured to select VMs by tags. Named post was for version 10.

When I found this out I found also a new parameter in New-VBRSureBackupVM: "-tag" in v11 beta 2 - installed beta again to check this. Unfortunately "-tag" does not seem to have made it into the final version. Why is this so? I would really need this feature for a large environment with a scripted SureBackup jobs. I need New-VBRSureBackupVM to overwrite default timeouts with parameter "-StartupOptions". Is there is an alternative/workaround?

[oleg.feoktistov]

Hi Wolfgang,

You are right, we had to rollback due to some complications and conceptional considerations. For instance, one thing worth noticing is that implementing it as a -Tag parameter won't allow adding any other resource type. We would also need to add -Folder, -ResourcePool and etc. So, instead, we are discussing the approach to better solve it all at once. After we have the decision, further feature prioritization will depend on demands.

Thanks,
Oleg

[woifgaung]

Hi Oleg!

Thanks for your answer! I understand the problem. I guess at the moment there is no workaround to meet my requirement?

Maybe the solution could look like: adding a method to Get-VBRJobObject - for example GetVMs() - to enumerate all VMs of the selected job(s). So it would make no difference from a scripting point of view, which type (folder, tag, tag-combination, ...) is selected for backups. Even different types within a job should work fine this way.

Wolfgang

[oleg.feoktistov]

I guess at the moment there is no workaround to meet my requirement?

I'm afraid there isn't, indeed.

We don't support dynamic and static methods, so it wouldn't be a solution. I think we either need to find a different entry point or just add another parameter with all job object types supported. That's what we are to consider.

Best regards,
Oleg

[woifgaung]

Thank you for the clarification, oleg!