Feature Request: Select Components to Install/Upgrade

[b.vanhaastrecht]

Deploying VBR has also become a very challinging task in regards to space requirements. We use VSPC to deploy the upgrades. The ISO itself is 16GB, by default downloaded to C:\. Then the upgrade itself requires 27GB so a massive 16 + 27 GB of free space is required. This is insane.

There are scenario's where VBR is required but no HyperVisor is in play. So just adding new features only to the Software Appliance makes no sense. We are in the NOW where VBR has become some big bloated pile of code and services. The per-feature deploymand has to come to Windows as well.

Related post in regards to the massive storage requirements: veeam-backup-replication-f2/free-disk-s ... 98056.html

[m.novelli]

Big +1 for a Lightweight Veeam B&R

Marco

[tomasstahl]

Hi,

I can just agree. Stop installing agents without letting the customer to choose what they whant to install.

Thanks.
Tomas

[Spex]

Veeam has always touted customer satisfaction. https://www.veeam.com/blog/net-promoter-score.html
I'm afraid that's increasingly a thing of the past.
Looking at the limitations, shortcomings, bugs in V13, ignoring customer wishes - no wonder.
Today's newsletter speaks volumes.

[Dooh]

+1 as well!

It is annoying that this bloat means that I have some customer environments where the backup server has more resources needed than the things they are backing up. Also from a security perspective, the less things running the less chances for vulnerabilities. This is useful since the backup deployment is the first thing that attackers go for

[sowardsj]

I asked for a feature request nearly a year ago on this and frankly do not understand why the development team at Veeam continues to ignore these concerns from its customers. There is no reason as to why the installation cannot be customized to allow a customer to install what is needed for their respective environment (whether the install is fresh or an upgrade). Most major software vendors already do it so why can't Veeam? I do not need a majority of these plug-ins/add-ons installed in my environment. And the concerns for security are valid, we do not need to deal with unnecessary open ports or self-signed certificates that create potential security vulnerabilites. I should also not have to redo all of the fixes I've put in place to strengthen my security posture only to have to redo it again with each upgrade.

[FCU_JE]

Today's newsletter speaks volumes.

Can you please share more? I didn't know there was a newsletter.

[ITinSpace]

Deploying VBR has also become a very challinging task in regards to space requirements. We use VSPC to deploy the upgrades. The ISO itself is 16GB, by default downloaded to C:\. Then the upgrade itself requires 27GB so a massive 16 + 27 GB of free space is required. This is insane.

There are scenario's where VBR is required but no HyperVisor is in play. So just adding new features only to the Software Appliance makes no sense. We are in the NOW where VBR has become some big bloated pile of code and services. The per-feature deploymand has to come to Windows as well.

Related post in regards to the massive storage requirements: veeam-backup-replication-f2/free-disk-s ... 98056.html

You should take a look at this forum post from last year that really hasn't gotten much traction yet, but asks for the same thing.
vmware-vsphere-f24/can-we-get-smaller-u ... 92768.html

[ksimon]

Hello,
as mentioned before that we discuss this topic again, I can give the following update:

1. we plan a "feature selection" for the Veeam Software Appliance (no changes for Windows planned in that area).
2. For Windows, we plan to also manage Postgres updates as it is an integral part of the software stack

Best regards
Hannes

So, those of us installing VBR on Windows have been abandoned? If you are going to abandon Windows development, please let us know so we can plan.
You say you 'plan to also manage Postgres updates'. This is very telling, in my opinion. When you introduced Postgre (a couple of years ago, perhaps?) you DID NOT think about updates at that time. Until your users complained about this obvious lack.

I would be very interested in the reason you have decided not to pursue this.

I understand that these changes will be complicated. However, you dropped the ball on this. It is time to pick it up again and get on with the hard work.
I also understand it is much more interesting to develop NEW features, than it is to maintain and improve existing ones. And that you feel you NEED new features every release, if only for the press release. Someone needs to do it, though.

[sowardsj]

This statement does not make any sense whatsoever, if you plan to keep releasing Veeam B&R updates for the Windows platform then why will you not listen to customers and customize the installer like the Software Appliance? You just can't ignore customer responses on this. This is frankly disrespectful to Veeam customers who have spent so much money and time optimizing their backup environments only to be pushed aside like this. Customers should not have to spend so much unnecessary time removing unneeded components and redoing my security posture each time an update/upgrade is performed just because there is a shift to focusing on new features. As long as the Windows environment is supported you should focus on improving the product and listening to its customers. If Veeam is considering to drop VB&R support for the legacy Windows backup management then customers need to know in advance and plan accordingly.

[irosinsk]

Hello,
as mentioned before that we discuss this topic again, I can give the following update:

1. we plan a "feature selection" for the Veeam Software Appliance (no changes for Windows planned in that area).
2. For Windows, we plan to also manage Postgres updates as it is an integral part of the software stack

Best regards
Hannes

I'm glad this is getting worked on. If I might add, if it's not already a part of the "feature selection" feature, it'd be good to be able to add and remove plug-ins post-install, not just at the initial installation step--e.g. for those of us who stood up VSAs before feature selection was implemented

[m.novelli]

I think every Software Company (Microsoft , Apple , Veeam , etc etc) should stop for one year the development of new features and focus on optimisation / bug fix / customisation of the existing. Software world clearly derailed (have a look at iOS 26 launch or latest Windows 11 issues...)

The race to new features is deeply broken

Marco

[Spex]

Can you please share more? I didn't know there was a newsletter.

Subscribe for this: "Veeam R&D Forums Digest"

[FCU_JE]

@Spex - oh you meant that. I wouldn't consider that a newsletter.

[Otago]

This thread highlighted in the Digest has been helpful - removing all those unused plug-in's has improved the start-up time for VBR dramatically!

[sowardsj]

Agreed, removing all of the plugins/add-ons does help improve performance. But again, we need a way to select only the components we need. It is time consuming to go back and remove all of the unneeded components and also to correct any port/security vulnerabilities that are introduced with some of the components. The installer "as is" causes large amounts of unnecessary disk space to be consumed. For small IT shops this is wasted time and resources. This is not a big deal to request this feature. Please listen to us!

[Frank-75]

+1
I also agree with the request to add component selection during installation; it's absolutely necessary for both security and software optimization.
It's a request that would go a long way with a little effort. It's not that every component should be deselectable, but related functionality.
Those who have a physical server and don't have Proxmox have no interest in installing it. Those who need it for a conversion, for example, will use it, but no one at Veeam knows how a customer's infrastructure is set up, so I absolutely agree with all the comments from users in this thread.
I just noticed it, too, and I'm joining the request right away.
I also didn't think it was right to make a clear cut between releases 12 and 13 regarding plug-in upgrades, but that's another matter I'll address in another thread.

Kinds regards,
Francesco

[shadragon]

Good Day,

On installation or update, I'd like to see checkboxes for optional components such as:

Veeam Kubernetes Service
Veeam AWS Service
Veeam GCP Service
Veeam Azure Service
Veeam AHV Service
Veeam KVM Service
Veeam PVE Service
Veeam SC HyperConverged Service

We don't use any of these. If we uninstall them (each has its own entry in Control Panel), they are automatically reinstalled during the next update or patch cycle.

These services run all the time, and best practice is to only install and run what is actually needed. Unused services increase the footprint of the server and add unnecessary complexity.

The current official solution is to use answer files from the installation media:

\Setup\Silent\AnswerFiles\VBRConsole

Including:

VbrConsoleAnswerFile_install.xml
VbrConsoleAnswerFile_uninstall.xml
VbrConsoleAnswerFile_upgrade.xml

That may work for some environments, but we have Veeam deployments across multiple sites and this feels like a workaround for something that should be handled directly in the installer.

A much cleaner solution would be:

Let administrators select which optional components to install.
Remember those selections during upgrades.
If a component was previously unchecked or removed, leave it unchecked during future updates. The one applying the update can decide which are needed or not.



In my opinion, that's a far more elegant solution than having to maintain answer files simply to keep unused services off the server.

[Mildur]

Hi Simon,

Welcome to the forum.

Please use the forum search before posting a new request. Sometimes the same request already exists, and we try to keep similar requests together.

Regarding your request, please see Hannes’ comment in this topic. We have plans for feature selection during installation, but currently we only plan to offer such selection for our Veeam Software Appliance.

Best,
Fabian

[m.novelli]

Good Day,

On installation or update, I'd like to see checkboxes for optional components such as:

Veeam Kubernetes Service
Veeam AWS Service
Veeam GCP Service
Veeam Azure Service
Veeam AHV Service
Veeam KVM Service
Veeam PVE Service
Veeam SC HyperConverged Service

We don't use any of these. If we uninstall them (each has its own entry in Control Panel), they are automatically reinstalled during the next update or patch cycle.

These services run all the time, and best practice is to only install and run what is actually needed. Unused services increase the footprint of the server and add unnecessary complexity.

The current official solution is to use answer files from the installation media:

\Setup\Silent\AnswerFiles\VBRConsole

Including:

VbrConsoleAnswerFile_install.xml
VbrConsoleAnswerFile_uninstall.xml
VbrConsoleAnswerFile_upgrade.xml

That may work for some environments, but we have Veeam deployments across multiple sites and this feels like a workaround for something that should be handled directly in the installer.

A much cleaner solution would be:

Let administrators select which optional components to install.
Remember those selections during upgrades.
If a component was previously unchecked or removed, leave it unchecked during future updates. The one applying the update can decide which are needed or not.



In my opinion, that's a far more elegant solution than having to maintain answer files simply to keep unused services off the server.

Love it

Marco

[d.artzen]

We have plans for feature selection during installation, but currently we only plan to offer such selection for our Veeam Software Appliance.

To me that does not really make sense. To me, the VSA is more or less meant to be a "hardened Blackbox" where the costumer does not have to interact with the system aside from things like Network settings and user management. It would make more sense to me to have this kind of control for the installed components on Windows, where the costumer does the installation themselves.
So I could understand if you said you only planned this for Windows and not the VSA (or both), but doing it only for VSA feels a bit strange for me. At least if you don't plan to remove the Windows Software entirely in the future.