VBR v11 - Cumulative Patch

Great share! A key highlight from the release notes, make sure you’re on GA, not RTM if it’s something you had access to… if so do RTM to GA first!

as expected, a post GA patch is always needed :)

It’s always a good idea to wait for the post-GA patch, eventhough Veeam releases tend to be really stable

Appreciate it. Already seeing a lot of benefit with customers based on a few of these major fixes. Of course, the Service Provider fix was much needed (albeit, we were not impacted due to our air gapping technology), but the below fix was a huge benefit to a lot of Australian customers sitting on legacy ADSL uplinks:

• After upgrading to V11 directly from version 9.5, incremental backup and replication runs take longer and produce larger increments than with previous versions for host-based processing of vSphere and Hyper-V VMs.

Certainly a good encouragement to continuously stay up to date on software releases.

In the laboratory I have successfully performed and tested the upgrade in place process from version 9.5U4 to V11 -> VeeamBackup & Replication_11.0.0.837_20210220.iso and manually applied the patch veeamBackup & Replication_11.0.0.837_KB4126.exe
At the moment no problems encountered gj. 

Also note that if you were to download the .ISO today - the patch is built in to it.

sure Rick, iso already downloaded, I wanted to try the standalone patch ^^ 

I tried the standalone patch in my test lab - no problems.
And an upgrade from a VBR 10a P20201202 with the “new” ISO has run without problems, too.

I am happy with the upgrade in the moment

The build number on the download page hasn't been updated, but the download contains the latest patch: https://www.veeam.com/download-version.html?tab=current

By the way, is there an easy way to get older builds without certain patches? Just in case a patch is released on the same day you want to do a deployment and you don't want to risk installing a day-0 update.

There’s a new patch available since yesterday which solves/prevents a potential data loss issue:

P20210401

• Following the upgrade to V11, the retention policy may erroneously delete some of the monthly GFS backups before their retention expires. The issue only affects Backup Copy jobs which have their latest full backup corrupted.

Credits go to @Mildur for (unfortunately) discovering this bug?

Already installed  

I think, veeam support was aware of the issue for the first time while I was opening the support case.

i open the case on veeam 11 KB4126 patch issues(backup copy job). 5 days gone still no solution i got it even they are not replying on my emails. 

very bad experience with veeam support.

I am sorry to hear that. What is your issue about? Maybe you did open the case for a community edition? Or you did not add your support information? Than you get FREE support, but with low priority.

i have enterprise plus licenses.

You can always request the engineer to escalate your case or talk to a Manager via the support Portal. https://www.veeam.com/kb2320

already done multiple time. same behavior…, i am using this product for more than 5 years  and now i am thinking to shift to other product. due to support.

What is your problem with the update?

Hi,
no reaction from support or no solution after 5 days?

Up to now I have very good experiences with response times from Veeam support.

@vNote42 : Thanks for update !

That's really odd and shouldn't happen at all. In my support calls I've never had such problems.

Unfortunately we don't have a way here in the community to escalate support cases. Im sorry, but I can only suggest to post it to the R&D forums and mention your case number and the status there.

yesterday they reply after lots for emails and say that it is bug in new patch KB4126 and they are doing RnD and solution is release on 11a version expected. 

Thanks, i received email from support yesterday and they are doing RnD and confirm that there is bug in new option of backup copy mode “immediate copy (mirroring)”. so do not used it. until new patch was release.

Thanks for the information! Could you please describe the problem a little bit? I think this would be interesting for all using immediate copy jobs.