Anyone else's Veeam 365 broken with a timeout error

[Gatt]

Firstly, My Setup: Server 2025, Veeam 365 Backup 8.2.0.2202 - it was 8.1.0.180 until today when I upgraded to see if that resolved the issue. Spoiler - it did not!)

Also, I'm just wondering if anyone else has reported the following issue, before I log it with Support
**EDIT: I've managed to log it with support as Case #07889033, though it's only classed as free support **

Everything was fine up until the 14th November - after which, all backups have since started failing with the message:

Job unable to start within the configured timeout

Where the job then enters a queued state until it eventually times out completely, or I either restart the Veeam backup service, or the server itself.
Creating new jobs and reconnecting to 365 has no effect

The only change to the VM was this months Microsoft patches on that same day
Specifically:

• 2025-11 .NET 8.0.22 Update for x64 Server (KB5071066)

• 2025-11 Cumulative Update for Microsoft server operating system version 24H2 for x64-based Systems (KB5068861) (26100.7171)

Also, I can see in my "nats-server.log" the following message:

Internal subscription on "$JS.API.STREAM.MSG.GET.KV_Orchestrator" took too long: 8.3602466s

As I said, I'm just trying to see if this is something I've done or if there is a quick "oh yeah it's this...." before raising a ticket.

[Gatt]

Fixed it by reinstalling Veeam 365

No clue what the issue actually was, but I'm thinking it was related to the nats-server in some way

[Mike Resseler]

Thanks for letting us know the solution @Gatt

To be honest, a bit weird that reinstalling got it fixed. And reinstalling is not what I normally consider a solution to solve a problem

Hopefully it does not come back, but if so, let us know.

[Gatt]

True, I usually want to fix the problem - but I was out of ideas by that point.

I'd upgraded to the latest, and unfortunately, the logs were not very helpful in pinpointing the issue, though I still suspect it was related to the nats-server.

Hopefully it won't reoccur, but if it does I'll raise another case and see if we can get it properly sorted