Hi @ll, Hi Veeam Team,
I have a suggestion that might help some of you in your daily work.
It would be nice to have the choice in the "Managed Servers" whether you want to remove the server only from the console, or actually delete the components on the server.
Example:
The managed server is still integrated at other consoles and so I don't want to delete the components, but actually just remove the database entries at the respective VBR console.
Or is this a bad idea?
kind regards,
FREICHELT
-
- Influencer
- Posts: 12
- Liked: never
- Joined: Apr 16, 2020 3:38 pm
- Full Name: Florian Reichelt
- Contact:
-
- Product Manager
- Posts: 9848
- Liked: 2607 times
- Joined: May 13, 2017 4:51 pm
- Full Name: Fabian K.
- Location: Switzerland
- Contact:
Re: Feature-Request | Choice by remove a managed server
Hi Florian
With multiple consoles, you are talking about sharing a managed server between different VBR Servers?
What is the purpose of this managed server?
While it's supported, we don't recommend sharing servers (Proxy, Repos, Gateway Server, ...) between different VBR instances.
Thanks
Fabian
With multiple consoles, you are talking about sharing a managed server between different VBR Servers?
What is the purpose of this managed server?
While it's supported, we don't recommend sharing servers (Proxy, Repos, Gateway Server, ...) between different VBR instances.
Thanks
Fabian
Product Management Analyst @ Veeam Software
-
- Product Manager
- Posts: 20415
- Liked: 2302 times
- Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
- Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
- Contact:
Re: Feature-Request | Choice by remove a managed server
Sharing a backup components among backup servers (while possible) is not recommended in general due to components' unawareness of each other settings (concurrent task limit, for instance) and problems with components' versions (all backup server sharing the same component must be of the same version and be updated at the same time).
So a feature request for what seems like nonoptimal configuration is unlikely to get a high priority in our tracking system.
Thanks!
So a feature request for what seems like nonoptimal configuration is unlikely to get a high priority in our tracking system.
Thanks!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 18 guests