VeeamON 2024 - Use Code "COMMUNITY10" for 10% Off!
I had a similar issue a while ago. Run the SureBackup job while looking at the VMware console, When the VM comes up, log into it and see if it’s working.My issue was VMware changes the MAC address and it was messing up the firewall rules, It was landing on private or public network instead of domain so ICMP was not getting past. Once we applied the firewall settings it worked great. You can test by disabling the firewall in Windows, Run a backup, then run a SureBackup.
I agree with all the above postss. On a NAS those synthetic operations might take a while depending. There is no issue with either backup method. I currently run FFWD backups on some very large (40TB+) servers and have never had an issue.Make sure to enable health checks or sure backup to test every so often with any backup method.
I think they will continue at the pace they have been going. Most of their innovation has been in the Azure space, which will continue to grow, but the “Cloud Everything” attitude is slowing down and “Cloud where it makes sense” is more popular right now. I just have too much data to make cloud affordable.I think Microsoft have no choice but to keep trying to innovate in the security space, but they will most likely push to a subscription model for services like everything else as time goes on. There are some things that they really SHOULD innovate though. The WSUS interface, AD Users and Computers searching, along with a few other things that have been the same forever that have so much potential. There are some old bugs as well that they have left behind for years too under certain conditions. I think until they redesign Windows Server from the ground up though, there will only be smaller features added as we go forward.
Looking at this, and the dates, this looks right. 14 days is the minimum retention. You can’t have an incremental without the active full. I don’t know all your settings, but others have posted the retention policies and how they work.As an example, If I ran a weekly full with incremental, and my retention was set to 8 days, Even on the 9th day running this job it can’t just delete the active full from day one or that whole week would be invalid and I’d only have 2 valid restore points.
I should have looked if there were any stale snapshots. The VM that is being backed up using NBD had a stale Veeam snapshot causing it to be backed up using NBD. The stale snapshot got created around the same time the VMs were moved to the Large File volume. Thanks for all your suggestions! Thanks for posting what was causing it. I just Veeam Zip things now or use storage snaps and never run into this anymore.
Lots of great content to chose from in this one!
It’ll be a long time before any of these other products are tested and trusted for production in enterprise solution. Unfortunately VMware have such a grip, there is not a lot of options, not would I want to switch overnight. Especially for someone like us using SRM and other VMware products. This may be the push to go full Veeam replication at our site though :)
I remember seeing this table and it being the motivator to go with 32 Core CPU’s as why not cram in all the performance in to a single Host as possible to save cost. It still makes sense to have host density to save costs in infrastructure. The only thing that changed is the minimum. Here’s the thing though. Previously if you bought a 6 core CPU or a 32 Core CPU, you used 1 license.This holds true if you have an 8 or 16 core CPU nowThe difference is, once you get over 16, you will be paying significantly more. If you run 8 core CPU’s, and I have 32, my bill is going to be higher. Sure you will pay the same as the guy with 16, but both of you will pay less than me. I guess they have to draw the line somewhere, and you can’t even buy 4 or 6 core XEON’s anymore. Here was the old model. I do understand the limit of 32 per socket. People were angry with this when they implemented it as well, but eventually we’ll see 128 then 256 cores per socket and density only increases. It’s the same
That is a smart cash grab on their part. Due to current socket pricing and cores, Most people went with 32 core CPU’s. 2 CPU’s 2 licenses, away we go. Keeping that in multiples makes sense. Now, this is where it gets sneaky.SQL Enterprise licenses. Not even remotely cheap. Also based on core count. I have multiple clusters of SQL Enterprise and to keep costs down, we had dual CPU’s but significantly lower core counts, with higher speeds. We were using Dual 6 core CPU’s before that were blazing fast, They no longer make them. One cluster of 4 hosts, dual 6 core CPUs = 48 cores. During an upgrade of that cluster I had to switch to 3 hosts, 8 cores per cpu and that was still 48 cores. No change 8*2=16*3=48 Targeting people with SQL Enterprise seems on par with what has been going on. Obviously we are a big enough shop, to A, have the money to pay for extra VMware licenses, and B, will have a bit harder of a time migrating away quickly. SQL Enterprise usually means we are using thin
“SRM may end up on the chopping block in favor of Veeam” 😉 I agree with your comments, @Scott ! I’ll need a bit more testing large scale before I do it. SRM has been super solid with our SAN replication, but saving cost is always great too.So far on the smaller tests I have done Veeam Replication has worked perfect, With our RPO’s here the 5 minutes variance using Global Mirror with Change volumes is acceptable I should be able to handle it all with replica. I do enjoy the fact I have some retention points at the DR site this way too for users that delete files etc.
V11 was great but 12 keeps getting better and better. I wish everyone waiting a smooth successful upgrade.
That’s a lot of IOPS. Why can’t Microsoft fix their performance 😂
Right, Running an active full after each hot expand might be a bit of a pain though. Especially with the size of my file servers. I think I may wait a while. While that would be a pain yes, I was referring to the cold expansion where the VM is powered off then you expand the disk. 😉 That’s actually WORSE for me lol. 24/7 shop of critical systems. I get small patching windows, but when a disk fills up nobody wants to power down a server. Especially as others are reading for it, or an another drive etc. Knowing about this is half the battle though. For some it won’t be an issue at all
I’ve been a huge VMware fan for many many years. I’ve got several certs and a decent sized environment. Reddit is FULL of FUD. Not saying its unwarranted, or wrong, but people are flying off the handle and some of it is still rumors. Currently I’m consolidating hosts. I’m already down 4, and expect to drop another 4 or 6, that could be up to 20 sockets. SRM may end up on the chopping block in favor of Veeam :) and AirWatch is already a target for replacement. I’m currently looking at options to get rid of my Horizon environment too. It’s not heavily used and been a decent cost for some time so this may just be the push we need. That said, there are few competitors, and that do it as well. Most people can’t up and shift in a year a company that has years of ties with VMware. It’s going to be interesting to see what pans out.
Thanks for coming back and letting us know!
I am not seeing the 4 eyes authorization tab in my user role options. Upon checking the feature is only in the latest Veeam 12.1 release which I do not have. Unfortunately since the rest of admins are all domain admins, so they have full access and its not possible to restrict them in Veeam. You need to upgrade to the latest for 4 eyes. It’s not really common to have Veeam on the domain. I don’t have any of my Veeam infrastructure domain joined. Create a separate VLAN, Non domain joined, and local accounts. Depending on peoples roles having ALL admins as domain admins my not be ideal either, but that depends on your organization. Granular permissions can be created for doing things with AD, users, groups, computers that don’t require DA access.
Right, Running an active full after each hot expand might be a bit of a pain though. Especially with the size of my file servers.I think I may wait a while.
I hope all this gets ironed out shortly. So much confusion and speculation. Reddit threads are going wild
I better read this. Getting ready to upgrade to 12.1 and 8.2
Just a quick tip as well. Before cleaning registry, running ccleaner, or doing something where you are not 100% sure of the outcome, I’d always call support. If it’s not in the documentation or a KB, support is usually the next best step to get an approved answer.Even places like this are a great source of info, but take support’s advice over people you don’t know on the internet.I’d hate to make something worse then have to call them and let them know I was being creative 😂
Easy to use and to the point! thanks
Right, but if you look at the job history (Success, Fail, Warnings area) and check out some of the stats where it tells you the bottleneck etc, it should tell you what transport you are using. If you are using virtual proxy, HotAdd works great, but you need to have a proxy on every host in the cluster for that. If not it’ll most likely be using NBD. If you have a job with a single VM in it, and put the Veeam Proxy on the same host, it should use hot add, if the job contains a VM from a host that the proxy ISN”T on, it’ll use NBD. If you have slower ports for the VMware management, this can cause all kinds of problems.My Virtual proxies are not enabled and for emergencies only as I use storage snapshots or direct SAN backups. This entire best practices guide is super helpful if you have some time to read however.https://bp.veeam.com/vbr/2_Design_Structures/D_Veeam_Components/D_backup_proxies/vmware_proxies.html
By Source, or production storage, I mean the Production side, What the VMware VM’s are running on. Just to get an idea of that as well. Does it till you the transport mode of the proxy in the jobs? (HotAdd, NBD)
While my idea “Works” it also doesn’t scale well.Ideally, having separate throttles would make sense if you have a 9-5 business. Perhaps from 8-6 you would want to use less bandwidth for Veeam but let it go full speed after hours. Whenever your copy jobs hit they will just queue up and go. I’d have to see the reason for having a specific copy job have a different rule. This seems like a pretty uncommon way to implement it considering how many people replicate their jobs.
Saving this for when I upgrade!
Already have an account? Login
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.
