I would like Veeam to "fail faster" when it comes to resolving proxies on jobs that no longer exist. Or I would like a skip button. Or maybe even better, I'd like NOT to have to do gymnastics...
Case and point, right now I am working on a replica job that was pointing to a local virtual proxy on a DR host that was local only for the purpose of seeding 10TB of data. Now that the DR host, and the virtual proxy on it, are at the remote location and re-IP'd, I need to update things. So I added the proxy by new IP into Linux servers. Then I attempted to task it as a proxy but got the "it's already a proxy" error message. So now I have to go and point the replica job to a different proxy temporarily, just so that I can go back, delete the original proxy, task the new Linux server (which is the SAME Linux server but with a new IP) as a proxy once again. Then only can I go and update the replica job to point to the same proxy at the remote location! As you can see I already have to do gymnastics to get this done, but I also have to sit for upwards to 10 minutes waiting for "Resolving default settings..." to figure out that it can't reach the proxy!
There should be a skip button that tells Veeam, "Stop trying to resolve the settings!"
N.B. Anyone else reading this, please don't recommend using DNS. Everyone knows that in a true DR situation, DNS is almost always broken so resolving your backup infrastructure so you can fail over has a very low chance of success. I would rather use static IPs or even hosts file resolution than rely on DNS.
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 316
- Liked: 48 times
- Joined: Apr 07, 2015 1:53 pm
- Full Name: James Wilmoth
- Location: Kannapolis, North Carolina, USA
- Contact:
-
- Veeam Software
- Posts: 3626
- Liked: 608 times
- Joined: Aug 28, 2013 8:23 am
- Full Name: Petr Makarov
- Location: Prague, Czech Republic
- Contact:
Re: FEATURE REQUEST -- Skip button when editing a job that relies on non-existent proxies
Hi James,
Thanks for pointing out it, we can think about possible improvements but I don't think it should be one more button in UI. I cannot provide any ETA as it depends on many factors like for example a number of similar requests and possible side-effects that could appear when we introduce changes.
Thanks!
Thanks for pointing out it, we can think about possible improvements but I don't think it should be one more button in UI. I cannot provide any ETA as it depends on many factors like for example a number of similar requests and possible side-effects that could appear when we introduce changes.
Thanks!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 277 guests