I previously posted the following use case:
We have a use case we are hoping Agent for Windows will fix. Well at least one that is prudent, we have multiple but this is the one management wants something fierce. It is a physical file server. Management wants monthly backups of a year's worth of only certain files. We use Endpoint Free right now on it and obviously you can only have 1 backup scheduled. What we currently do is the incremental backup method daily with 101 days worth. What we need to add is a monthly backup on the 1st of the month that backs up only the [.pdf], [.doc*] and [.xls*] files on the D: drive.
Then Mike Resseler posted the following:
The server version of VAW 2.0 will be able to do exactly what you want if you save your files on a B&R repository. This edition will have different scheduling methods, and in combination with a GFS backup copy job (see here: https://helpcenter.veeam.com/docs/backu
... tml?ver=95) you will be able to do what you want. Soon there will be a beta version of VAW that will allow you to play with this type of setup (No, I can't give you a date
I don't see how my use case will be met unless I have 2 separate jobs. So am I missing something? I don't see how GFS will help me or how that is different than the current options now even if it did work. I want to backup the whole server image with forever incrementals like I am doing now, but also back up specific files monthly to keep for a year, I only keep 90 days worth of the main back ups, without having to rig something weird up.
Will I be able to control backup jobs with VAW server edition using powershell? If so would it mess up the chain of incrementals for the main job if on the 1st of the month I scripted switching the job selection to the specific files I wanted, run the backup for those specific files and then switch the job back to what it was(forever incremental daily)? For that matter, on the current Endpoint Backup could I manually change the job selection to specific files, run a manual backup and then change it back without corrupting my incremental chain?