Feature Request: Concatenated Job-Run 2nd Backup-Window Exception

[Poweruser]

Precon:
We have 2 Jobs.
Job B runs after Job A has been finished.
Both Jobs have a Backup Window.

Use-Case:
I want to run Job A+B outside the windows, the same way as they would run inside and by schedule.
So i just click: start job A manually, ignore backup window yes and ignore window restrictions.

actual behaviour:
Job B fails because of out of backup window.

wanted:
Job A runs fine, Job B runs fine too. both outside the window!

reason:
if i choose to ignore backup window and want to run the next job veeam must execute both. if veeam does ignore my wish it should tell me that it is not possible to do this instead of starting Job a and running into error after job a is done and job b should start..
so i prefer to ignore all windows if user was asked. otherwise software does not need to ask for sth. what will never work.
feature request is submitted to your internal portal already.

[foggy]

Hi, thanks for the request - I agree, in this particular scenario it would make sense at least to ask if the chained job should run. But please note that using chained jobs is not the bet practice.

[Poweruser]

why is chaining jobs not the best pratice?
i think its the only perfect way i can do if i want hyper-v backup to tape.
only and only if the first job is fully done it make sense to backup it to tape.
so there is no other way.

[foggy]

Here's a good thread describing possible consequences. It is up to you to decide if any of them are applicable to your setup.

[Poweruser]

The shown points are very confusing. the description seems to be missing.
Anyway if these problems are so big, there should be a warning inside the application.

the main use for chaining is:
first backup VMs, then backup VM Host, then backup first and second backup to tape.
using start times would be terrible, because its not efficient or can overlap if backup grows.
there is no other reasonal option then chain them. if there are some problem by "midnight" veeam should take care about this.
thats not a users problem ;-)

[veremin]

Identified as a bug; should be fixed in one of the next product releases.

Thanks for raising this; appreciated!