@dustinb3403 said in Veeam Free Windows Server Backup Agent:

@jaredbusch said in Veeam Free Windows Server Backup Agent:

@dustinb3403 said in Veeam Free Windows Server Backup Agent:

So the biggest item missing from the Veeam Agent for Microsoft Windows is it lacks a central management component.

Which isn't horrible but it does leave some things to be desired. . .

No, it is not missing. That is a feature of the Veeam B&R product. You can (or soon can) manage Veeam Endpoints that point to a Veeam B&R instance.

Yea with licensing, the topic is solved. Veeam Endpoint works without limits. But it lacks a central management interface.

B&R is a licensed product, right?

Yes, it is.

@alexntg

@alexntg said:

Which machine are you seeing this on?

The Mail server

What kind of storage/RAID type is that VMDK on?

Storage Blade

RAID 5
-- NOT FOR LONG!!! 😉

If you have a bad disk, one of the last things you ever want to do with it is defrag it. You risk causing further damage.
Righto 🙂

Not sure. "It depends." If you're keeping it on the same disk, you're repairing a database on a bad disk. If you drop the database, move it to a new disk, then try to bring it up, if you do need to repair it, you'd be repairing it on a new disk.

Righto, so, you suggest: dismount --> move to new disk --> Repairs? --> Mount

Can you set up a new disk with a new database and move the mailboxes over to it? That might be your safest bet, though it is possible the IS would crash when you hit the corrupted part of the disk.
Hmmmm, I'll have to think about this.

As a side note, check for any residual snapshots and that the Veeam proxy doesn't have any extra mounted disks. It shouldn't have anything to do with the issue, but it doesn't hurt to check.

I checked the Datastore and found many $-ctk.vmdk files. Research indicates that theses are for Change Block Tracking (from when I attempted to get Veeam to backup the server). Can I safely delete these? or is there something to turn off first? (veeam is not currently backing up this server.
Speaking of, ML 20140704 001.png
In the above image, the first virtual HDD isn't listing its provisioned size. Does that seem a little off to you?