Feature Request: put jobs under "backups" into folders

[UniformTurtle]

It would be very useful to be able to put jobs under "backups" into folders. We have a lot of jobs which makes scrolling a pain. Having folders of jobs would allow for some better grouping

[veremin]

Thank you for the feedback; appreciated. For now you can probably use description field as grouping factor. Thanks.

[nitramd]

+1 for Folder feature request. I try to minimize the number of jobs that I have but it does not to always work out that way; it usually works out like this "Hey, I need you to create a job...".

Thanks Vladimir for the description suggestion.

[micoolpaul]

Morning,

Don't know what anyone else's experiences have been with this but it's something I've had quite a few headaches with. I have two sites that run local backups every evening then do a backup copy job to each other, then I also run frequent backup copy jobs to disk. So far so good, nice maintained single job for each vCenter site, nice single backup copy job per destination. Fast forward about 6-9 months and inevitably there's some problem because stuff happens, either an unscheduled power outage occurs or the site to site link went down mid backup copy job, next time it runs I get a couple of VMs complain about corrupted restore points as they were being worked on at the time. The only solution I've been given from Veeam on this one is to do an active full of the VM backup copy that failed, it makes sense however you can't do it within the backup copy job without performing an active full for the entire job.

I'm then advised to split out the troublesome VM from the core job and make it its own. This by itself isn't a problem, but by the time you've had to do this for a bunch of VMs over time you end up with dozens of separate jobs. It'd be great to add a folder structure to the Veeam B&R application so I could then just preempt this with every VM as its own job, grouped into "site A to B" folders etc.

I backup all my VMs to separate backup files to increase the resiliency and use them alongside scale out backup repository to minimise damage when the inevitable does happen (that's why we have the 3-2-1 rule right?) but the organisation of these jobs has become very messy over time.

Thoughts/suggestions?

[nitramd]

It looks like the quickest solution, and one available now, would be to use the description field of each backup job and backup copy job; this was suggested in this thread by @v.Eremin.

I've used this strategy for several jobs that were created for one year data retention purposes, i.e. a number of servers were decommissioned but our policy is to hang onto the servers/data for one year "just in case"; after one year has elapsed the servers/data are deleted. I also try to use a descriptive name for the backup job as well as providing a concise annotation in the job's description field. I've had to train myself to look at the description field in addition to looking at the job name.

So, using the one year data retention as an example, the format could be something like this:
job name: "site"-1year-retention-"scaleout repository name"
description: Contains decommissioned servers... (this can be as verbose as you like).

The possibilities here are virtually unlimited.

As I mentioned earlier, this solution is available now.

I would love to see the Folders concept implemented as a feature as it would help to neatly organize all of my jobs. This would be especially handy for data retention jobs. I could have folder names such as:
1 Year Retention
3 Year Rentention
7 Year Rentention
and so on

Hope this helps.

[sosborne]

Unless I am mistaken there is no way to orgainse backup jobs, backups or imported backups with anything but the name. In my infrastructure this has led to some long job/backup names. And now that I am using backup exports its going to get increasingly busy and will involve me prefixing imported backup names with 'zz' (after tweaking metadata) to have a semblance of organisation.

It would be very helpful if folders or containers could be created (and edited) as and when to allow you to better organise the jobs and backups. I dread to think what the console looks like in larger enterprises with a much more substantial infrastructure than what we have. is there anything like this on the cards? Have I missed something?