Comprehensive data protection for all workloads
Locked
habibalby
Expert
Posts: 379
Liked: 24 times
Joined: Jul 18, 2011 9:30 am
Full Name: Hussain Al Sayed
Location: Bahrain
Contact:

Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by habibalby » Jun 06, 2012 6:01 am

hello,
Since I’ve heard the release of V6.1 I was hoping to see the below features;

1. Separate schedule for Active Full Backup that not intact with the Global Job Schedule. Daily Incremental job faster than the full weekly and monthly. Or at least the Radio Button in the scheduled job to be changed to a CheckBox() to select multiple schedule on different timing.

Now backup job cannot be run as only full or only incremental as the Backup Mode Reversed / Forward Incremental or Active Full Backup must be checked.

2. Tapes integration so, I don’t have to maintain two products. /support / cost / complexity.

3. Multiple job-runs within the job itself, for example, if I have a job contains 8 VMs, I process two or three VMs from same job at the same time. With the magnesium of proxy load balancing, the load can be distributed among any available proxies.

Hope to see these features in the upcoming releases.

Thanks,

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 24810
Liked: 3567 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by Gostev » Jun 06, 2012 11:24 am

Thanks for your feedback, Hussain. We are already working on one of the features mentioned above ;)

habibalby
Expert
Posts: 379
Liked: 24 times
Joined: Jul 18, 2011 9:30 am
Full Name: Hussain Al Sayed
Location: Bahrain
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by habibalby » Jun 06, 2012 11:33 am

Highly appreciated Gostev :)

Cokovic
Expert
Posts: 295
Liked: 59 times
Joined: Sep 06, 2011 8:45 am
Full Name: Haris Cokovic
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by Cokovic » Jun 06, 2012 12:45 pm

Gostev wrote:Thanks for your feedback, Hussain. We are already working on one of the features mentioned above ;)
Let me guess: it's Nr. 2 ;)

Have i won something now? :)

habibalby
Expert
Posts: 379
Liked: 24 times
Joined: Jul 18, 2011 9:30 am
Full Name: Hussain Al Sayed
Location: Bahrain
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by habibalby » Jun 06, 2012 12:50 pm

My guess: it's # 1 :)

dellock6
Veeam Software
Posts: 5734
Liked: 1625 times
Joined: Jul 26, 2009 3:39 pm
Full Name: Luca Dell'Oca
Location: Varese, Italy
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by dellock6 » Jun 06, 2012 1:10 pm

If you crawl through other threads, you can find out which one is (at least). And it's not 1 nor 3 :)
Luca Dell'Oca
Principal EMEA Cloud Architect @ Veeam Software

@dellock6
https://www.virtualtothecore.com/
vExpert 2011 -> 2019
Veeam VMCE #1

habibalby
Expert
Posts: 379
Liked: 24 times
Joined: Jul 18, 2011 9:30 am
Full Name: Hussain Al Sayed
Location: Bahrain
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by habibalby » Jun 06, 2012 1:29 pm

If its 2 then a consideration goes to physical servers backup, direct to tape, to disk, or backup of physical servers as image and redeploy it as a VM for fast recovery. :)

Cokovic
Expert
Posts: 295
Liked: 59 times
Joined: Sep 06, 2011 8:45 am
Full Name: Haris Cokovic
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by Cokovic » Jun 06, 2012 2:05 pm

habibalby wrote:If its 2 then a consideration goes to physical servers backup, direct to tape, to disk, or backup of physical servers as image and redeploy it as a VM for fast recovery. :)
Not for backing up physical servers but for offloading Veeam backups to tape ;)

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 24810
Liked: 3567 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by Gostev » Jun 06, 2012 2:44 pm

habibalby wrote:backup of physical servers as image and redeploy it as a VM for fast recovery. :)
No physical backup in any form any time soon, including P2V. Physical is so 20th century, why would you still have physical servers in 2012? We only do VM backup, and we are the best because we only do VM backup. We were successful without physical backup 5 years ago, and we keep doubling our revenues ever year since then. Why would we even consider this distraction and defocus for our development? Physical backup is a niche play these day, and going further this market will be constantly shrinking. Major analysts are expecting 75% of all servers being virtual in 2013, over 80% in 2014 etc.

cwells
Novice
Posts: 5
Liked: never
Joined: Jun 06, 2012 3:13 pm
Full Name: Chris Wells
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by cwells » Jun 06, 2012 3:22 pm

Gostev wrote: No physical backup in any form, including P2V. Physical is so 20th century, why would you still have physical servers in 2012. We only do VM backup, and we are the best because we only do VM backup. We were successful without physical backup 5 years ago, and we keep doubling our revenues ever year since then. Why would we even consider this distraction and defocus for our development? Physical backup is a niche play these day, and going further this market will be constantly shrinking.
I'd love to add my 2 cents here.

Physical backups would be nice for workstations. Most SMB's haven't been able to take the plunge in virtualization on the desktop side. We are a smaller company (less than 50 employees) but we spent over $900,000 on our IT departments last year. We run vmware view and windows terminal server, however some legacy applications and costs have prevented the full deployment of VDI (desktop virtualization).

Another good reason for physical support is client requirements. We did a RFP recently with a large US Government department that required any of our servers that face the internet (like a website) needed to run on a physical machine. If we would have won that RFP, we would have had to buy 10+ physical servers to meet this requirement, then another software to back them up.

I was told by a support agent that tape support is coming. I personally think tape is a horrible technology, but i can appreciate that other companies have different needs or have large investments in to this technology.

habibalby
Expert
Posts: 379
Liked: 24 times
Joined: Jul 18, 2011 9:30 am
Full Name: Hussain Al Sayed
Location: Bahrain
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by habibalby » Jun 06, 2012 7:50 pm 1 person likes this post

Gostev wrote: No physical backup in any form, including P2V. Physical is so 20th century, why would you still have physical servers in 2012. We only do VM backup, and we are the best because we only do VM backup. We were successful without physical backup 5 years ago, and we keep doubling our revenues ever year since then. Why would we even consider this distraction and defocus for our development? Physical backup is a niche play these day, and going further this market will be constantly shrinking.
Hi Gostev,
Virtualization will never change the trend of consolidation the entire physical server and it's not a replacement of all physical servers with virtualization infrastructure. I agree with you the virtualization revolution has tremendously changed a lot around 90% of virtual and 8 or 10% physical.

In some cases you can't virtualize a server that require a direct dongle with another hardware such as a PABX system, I have a server directly connected to the telephone system, license software of the pabx, reporting, fees calculation etc etc... all done on that server and it's a must to be connected via serial cable. When it comes to virtualize this server, the software is not supported on VMs and part of the software require direct connection to the PABX system in order to function..

I don't want to change the diversion of this topic, BUT if option two is the one which is considered as a major release, please make it same at least capable to backup File lever and application-aware agent, same as hp DataProtector or Symantec or any normal backup tool.

A mixture of both, tape off-loading as well as a File Level backup from Guest / Physical Windows/Linux + hot image backup + Continuance Data Protection, makes VEEAM = the BEST Backup Product which is already.

Thanks,
Hussain

dellock6
Veeam Software
Posts: 5734
Liked: 1625 times
Joined: Jul 26, 2009 3:39 pm
Full Name: Luca Dell'Oca
Location: Varese, Italy
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by dellock6 » Jun 06, 2012 8:17 pm

If 90% of the servers are virtual, I see no reason for a relatively new company like Veeam that has always placed its focus on virtualization to loose that focus itself. Systems are maybe slowly bu constantly moving to virtualization technology, and there are many solutions to virtualize even PBX and others.
About your example, many customers have dismiss their physical PBX or those with legacy connections by simply installing some asterisk-based distribution and Patton voip gateway to transmit pstn or isdn connection to ethernet. And there are many other examples.
I've heard many CIOs going for the "virtualize first" concept, and removing non-compliant solutions that would have required to stay on physical.

To me, tape off-loading is even more than what we need from Veeam, we were always fine with disk backup.
Luca Dell'Oca
Principal EMEA Cloud Architect @ Veeam Software

@dellock6
https://www.virtualtothecore.com/
vExpert 2011 -> 2019
Veeam VMCE #1

Jamie Pert
Enthusiast
Posts: 68
Liked: 2 times
Joined: Jun 14, 2012 10:56 am
Full Name: Jamie Pert
Location: twitter.com/jam1epert
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by Jamie Pert » Jul 23, 2012 2:05 pm 1 person likes this post

Just trawling through old posts and found this. I'd absolutely love the option to backup to tape, also I'd love a logging options which gives a little more info than the job statistics but less-so than the massive reports which you can export to Veeam support. If a job has been failing consistently I'd like to right click that job and then select "Log next run" - this could then log the next run of the backup job and output a detailed log which could then help the diagnostics tests.
@jam1epert on Twitter

wksantiago
Enthusiast
Posts: 36
Liked: never
Joined: Apr 02, 2009 6:36 pm
Full Name: William K. Santiago
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by wksantiago » Jul 26, 2012 6:33 pm

Yes i agree 100% excellent idea...

ekisner
Expert
Posts: 195
Liked: 33 times
Joined: Jul 26, 2012 8:04 pm
Full Name: Erik Kisner
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by ekisner » Jul 26, 2012 8:10 pm

I just joined the communities to post a feature request of my own - glad I searched first, it was even on the front page already!

Asynchronous jobs (that is, replication jobs with x number of VMs replicating y of them at once, rather than one VM per job) would be a huge bonus. I've got a nice big pipe to my DR site and I'd love to try and max it out... not to mention it would make my jobs run faster which is always a bonus.

Tape would be cool too, but our tape backups are the backup backup - I only restore from tape if I've got no other recourse... and given how slick Veeam B&R6 is (as well as how amazing your tech staff are) I usually have the option of just restoring from the replication.

DOWN WITH TAPES!

J1mbo
Expert
Posts: 261
Liked: 29 times
Joined: May 03, 2011 12:51 pm
Full Name: James Pearce
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by J1mbo » Jul 27, 2012 9:33 am 2 people like this post

ekisner wrote:Tape would be cool too
Tape is cool only in a museum context :)

DJ82
Novice
Posts: 3
Liked: never
Joined: Jul 23, 2012 7:11 am
Full Name: Daniel Hartmann
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by DJ82 » Jul 27, 2012 10:00 am

Hi

A nice feature I think is to select more Information about the VM in the Host View Section.

I want to view there the OS.

Thanks, Daniel

wimdes
Novice
Posts: 7
Liked: 1 time
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 10:05 am
Full Name: wim desmedt
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by wimdes » Sep 24, 2012 4:21 pm 1 person likes this post

It's easy for someone with access to a customer's management environment to delete both all virtual machines + online backups, with a just few mouse clicks: i would not sleep well without some form of offline backup.
Integrated Tape backup (D2D2T, + direct vm restore from tape) would be very interesting.

Nowadays we regularly copy our customer's backups to usb disks, but we have to resort to 3rd party tools to verify the copy (which have detected bad copies more than once).
Integrated usb disk copy/verify would be excellent.

Spex
Enthusiast
Posts: 33
Liked: 1 time
Joined: May 09, 2012 12:52 pm
Full Name: Stefan Holzwarth
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by Spex » Sep 27, 2012 1:00 pm

Despite the fact that Quest Software is a client of Storage Switzerland I agree with this article, that underlines the importance of this feature request.
http://www.storage-switzerland.com/Arti ... ackup.html

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 24810
Liked: 3567 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by Gostev » Sep 27, 2012 1:51 pm

Hi Stefan, what feature request specifically do you mean by "this"?

carlk
Novice
Posts: 3
Liked: never
Joined: Sep 28, 2012 6:27 am
Full Name: Carl
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by carlk » Sep 28, 2012 6:29 am

+1 for Tape Drive support please :)

Spex
Enthusiast
Posts: 33
Liked: 1 time
Joined: May 09, 2012 12:52 pm
Full Name: Stefan Holzwarth
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by Spex » Sep 28, 2012 8:28 am

Backup of physical machines - as Quest brings in it's next release.
We think about using veeam in future for our infrastructure (>90% virtualized) and would have to continue using tsm for the remaining rest....

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 24810
Liked: 3567 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by Gostev » Sep 28, 2012 4:43 pm 1 person likes this post

Spex wrote:Backup of physical machines - as Quest brings in it's next release
Not a very good justification considering that all product management decisions made by Quest for the past 5 years resulted in complete loss of their market share in virtual backup to us (when Vizioncore was clear market leader at the time of Quest acquisition). And it's not because we are some kind of Gods - but mostly because their decisions were literally stupid. I've been seeing them giving us the market away with every decision they made - no one probably knows the whole story of this fail better than I do. And I learnt a lot on their mistakes, so I am quite thankful to them too :wink:

This new move is not an exception, and will only make it lose remaining customers due to distracting R&D from advancing virtual backup functionality (where they are already ages behind us).

Trying to be everything for everyone never worked well for anyone in this world yet.

dellock6
Veeam Software
Posts: 5734
Liked: 1625 times
Joined: Jul 26, 2009 3:39 pm
Full Name: Luca Dell'Oca
Location: Varese, Italy
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by dellock6 » Sep 28, 2012 9:21 pm

Also, Quest has been acquired by Dell, and they already bought AppAssure, so it's not even clear how they will (if they will) merge the two products. AppAssure is already able to backup physical servers, so they will end up with another duplicated feature in their catalog. Not a clear situation at all...

Luca.
Luca Dell'Oca
Principal EMEA Cloud Architect @ Veeam Software

@dellock6
https://www.virtualtothecore.com/
vExpert 2011 -> 2019
Veeam VMCE #1

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 24810
Liked: 3567 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by Gostev » Sep 28, 2012 10:03 pm

3 products, actually. Dell now has three products equally bad products doing EXACTLY the same thing, thanks to latest vRanger developments (vRanger, AppAssure and NetVault). Some "product rationalization" decisions are coming soon, I bet! They quite obviously will not be keeping all 3 products around for long - eating R&D resources, competing with each other and confusing the hell out of their sales and prospects.

yizhar
Service Provider
Posts: 181
Liked: 48 times
Joined: Sep 03, 2012 5:28 am
Full Name: Yizhar Hurwitz
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by yizhar » Sep 29, 2012 3:19 am

Hi.

I would like to see the following features in a future Veeam version:

1. Job group:
Allow me to have several separated jobs (each job has 1 or more VM),
but also a job group that will allow to have a single schedule (start at HH:MM and run the jobs in order I specify, or in parrallel if I choose to).
Also get a single email report for the whole group of jobs.

2. Granular ad-hoc backup of single/few VM.
Assuming I have a job with several VMs included.
I want to run ad-hoc (but yet incremental) backup of a single VM - backuping up only that specific VM and skipping the other.
This cannot be done in current version (only options I have are running the whole job with all servers, or running a different ad hoc full backup job).
An example of expected feature is from vmwares VDR: I can right click a single VM and "backup now" to the already existing dedup folder, using CBT etc.

Thanks,
Yizhar Hurwitz
Israel

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 24810
Liked: 3567 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Features Request in Veeam Backup v6.1

Post by Gostev » Sep 29, 2012 7:10 pm

Hi all,

I am locking this thread down, because it promotes completely unmanageable way of submitting and tracking feature requests (mutliple unrelated requests in the same topic). Makes it impossible for other people to chime in and comment on specific ones (not even talking about having deeper/thorough discussion).

Please create a separate topic for each feature request - having searched the forum for the existing discussion first. All feature requests mentioned so far already have existing discussions topics with many implementation suggestions, and my comments (some are a few pages long). Don't worry too much if you miss the existing discussion - with separate topic for each feature request, it will be easy for moderators to merge your topic into the existing discussion. Nevertheless, please do due diligence searching the forums first to save everyone some time ;)

Thank you.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Erwin Linker and 52 guests