Feature request: FLR from B&R-Backup like from Agent-Backup

[einhirn]

Hello,

when using Veeam Agent for Linux to back up a machine, I can restore files by mounting the backup to the running system. I'd like to be able to do that for Linux VMs I backed up via Veeam B&R, too.

I thought about trying to install Veeam Agent for Linux inside a VM and try to "import" a Veeam B&R Backup - but then I'd have a full "Agent for Linux" inside a VM that wouldn't really need the kernel module etc.
And, of course I don't know if Veeam Agent would allow me to import a Veeam B&R Backup anyway...

Thanks for your consideration - please let me know if I didn't make myself clear!

bye
Einhirn

[PTide]

Hi,

And, of course I don't know if Veeam Agent would allow me to import a Veeam B&R Backup anyway

It won't allow you to do that.

So, did I get it right - you want to be able to perform FLR for Linux VMs in the following way:

1. Login into the linux host
2. Connect to VBR, mount VM backup that resides on your backup server repository locally to the linux host
3. Browse the filesystem and get whatever you need from there

If so, then I have a question: what's the reason not to perform FLR from VBR?

Thank you

[einhirn]

Hello PTide,

FLR from VBR needs the FLR VM booted and configured, I need to allocate an IP, add firewall rules for it to work and sometimes there are problems like not being able to mount the filesystem for some reason (I suspect missing support for that one Filesystem used...)

I just like how it works with Veeam Agent for Linux - just enter 'veeam', press 'r' for recover files, select restore point and wait for it to be mounted. It's probably a more direct workflow for me than to log in to the Veeam Server and start a FLR session when I'm working on the box I want to restore a file of anyway.

By the way, currently I avoid FLR for Linux (because it's so cumbersome) by just doing an Instant Recovery of the target machine and adding the instant-recovery .vmdk to the running machine to achieve the same I request here: Having a restore point mounted on live system...

bye
Einhirn

[PTide]

FLR from VBR needs the FLR VM booted and configured, I need to allocate an IP, add firewall rules for it to work and sometimes there are problems like not being able to mount the filesystem for some reason (I suspect missing support for that one Filesystem used...)

What if VBR did not require FLR VM, but mounted the backups directly to the linux host and opened the same FLR wizard instead? Would such approach work for you?

Thanks

[einhirn]

Hello PTide,

that might also work. But I'm not sure about

and opened the same FLR wizard

What would that FLR wizard do? I think I'd like to start a FLR session and log in on the target VM to browse the directory tree there. I don't know how I'd like to use some wizard for file navigation and restoration...

Would you just add the disk to the VM? That might perhaps be difficult to integrate into a wizard, because you don't know how the admin has configured the VM you're working on - how will the added device be called? Is there LVM, encryption, Soft-RAID, something else? Of course you can only support a subset of sane configurations in the VMs you mount backups to, but maybe you should just start a FLR session, add the disk to the VM, let the admin do his job and have him press a button to get the disk removed from the VM again and end the FLR session... Of course that's just me.

Anyway, thanks for your consideration.

bye
einhirn

[PTide]

What would that FLR wizard do?

It would provide the same interface to browse files in the backup. The only difference would be that, in contrast to the current approach, the backup would be mounted directly to the target VM instead of proxy appliance.

That might perhaps be difficult to integrate into a wizard, because you don't know how the admin has configured the VM you're working on - how will the added device be called? Is there LVM, encryption, Soft-RAID, something else?

Apart from that, there also other things that should be considered. For example, there might be issues with security software (either built-in or third party) that can interrupt the mounting process with unpredictable consequences for the original system. Anyway I got your idea, noted as a feature request.

Thank you

[perjonsson1960]

Folks,

We are running Veeam Backup & Replication 9.5 and Linux Agent 2.0.

I am new to restoring from Linux machine backups. In fact, I have never done it. For a virtual machine, after I have chosen a restore point, I get to the "Helper Appliance" tab. And there it seems that I am supposed to choose an ESX(i) host for the FLR Helper Appliance. And that seems kind of logical for a virtual Linux server, even though I don't know how to fill in that form... But the strange thing (for me) is that I get to this configuration dialogue also for a physical Linux server... Why would I need to specify a VMWare ESX(i) host when restoring to a physical server backed up with the Linux Agent?

I have googled this, but I cannot find any documentation regarding restore to a physical Linux server. I have found some documentation regarding restore to a virtual Linux server, but I really don't understand how to fill in the FLR Appliance configuration form for that, either... The ESX(i) host to specify, is that the vCenter server, or is it one of the VMWare machines hosting VMs? And how does this make sense with a physical server?

Any pointers in the right direction are appreciated!

Sincerely,
Per Jonsson

[PTide]

Hi and welcome to the community.

Why would I need to specify a VMWare ESX(i) host when restoring to a physical server backed up with the Linux Agent?

Current FLR workflow includes appliance to be used to mount VAL backup on it, so the data can be restored to the target Linux host. At the moment VBR cannot mount Linux backup neither on itself, nor on target Linux host. Basically it works the same way as described here.

The ESX(i) host to specify, is that the vCenter server, or is it one of the VMWare machines hosting VMs?

ESXi host that will allow you to meet these port requirements should be specified.

And how does this make sense with a physical server?

Honestly speaking, it doesn't That's why we already have considered adding ability to perform FLR for physical servers without the usage of appliance in future releases.

Thank you