question on veeam backup
-
@Donahue said in question on veeam backup:
As a result of changing all my setup, I am going to have three hosts at my HQ site, all running Hyper-V. Host A will be new and basically carry the entire production load. Host B is existing and will be running empty, and only used as a restore point in case host A goes down. Host C is also existing, but will be running only veeam. Currently I am on ESXi and veeam is running in a server 2012r2 VM. My question is, when everything is switched over and veeam is now the only thing running on host C under Hyper-V, should I run that inside a VM on Hyper-V core, or just install Server on the bare metal and run veeam from that?
The VM route obviously consumes a license, and really a pair of them. Running the server with Hyper-V role seems a little more dubious from a licensing standpoint. I am not sure if there could be a clear answer that was agreed upon since veeam would be "supporting Hyper-V", but the hosts Hyper-V it would be supporting would be a different host. I am also currently using dedupe within windows server, which is a nice feature. I am not sure how the veeam dedupe compares.
If we assume the both uses consume a windows server license, which would you prefer and why?
We'd keep the VM leaving the host resources available for any spot workloads or even lab workloads.
-
@PhlipElder said in question on veeam backup:
@Donahue said in question on veeam backup:
As a result of changing all my setup, I am going to have three hosts at my HQ site, all running Hyper-V. Host A will be new and basically carry the entire production load. Host B is existing and will be running empty, and only used as a restore point in case host A goes down. Host C is also existing, but will be running only veeam. Currently I am on ESXi and veeam is running in a server 2012r2 VM. My question is, when everything is switched over and veeam is now the only thing running on host C under Hyper-V, should I run that inside a VM on Hyper-V core, or just install Server on the bare metal and run veeam from that?
The VM route obviously consumes a license, and really a pair of them. Running the server with Hyper-V role seems a little more dubious from a licensing standpoint. I am not sure if there could be a clear answer that was agreed upon since veeam would be "supporting Hyper-V", but the hosts Hyper-V it would be supporting would be a different host. I am also currently using dedupe within windows server, which is a nice feature. I am not sure how the veeam dedupe compares.
If we assume the both uses consume a windows server license, which would you prefer and why?
We'd keep the VM leaving the host resources available for any spot workloads or even lab workloads.
but I can do that both ways since there will be hyper V both ways.
-
@Donahue said in question on veeam backup:
@PhlipElder said in question on veeam backup:
@Donahue said in question on veeam backup:
As a result of changing all my setup, I am going to have three hosts at my HQ site, all running Hyper-V. Host A will be new and basically carry the entire production load. Host B is existing and will be running empty, and only used as a restore point in case host A goes down. Host C is also existing, but will be running only veeam. Currently I am on ESXi and veeam is running in a server 2012r2 VM. My question is, when everything is switched over and veeam is now the only thing running on host C under Hyper-V, should I run that inside a VM on Hyper-V core, or just install Server on the bare metal and run veeam from that?
The VM route obviously consumes a license, and really a pair of them. Running the server with Hyper-V role seems a little more dubious from a licensing standpoint. I am not sure if there could be a clear answer that was agreed upon since veeam would be "supporting Hyper-V", but the hosts Hyper-V it would be supporting would be a different host. I am also currently using dedupe within windows server, which is a nice feature. I am not sure how the veeam dedupe compares.
If we assume the both uses consume a windows server license, which would you prefer and why?
We'd keep the VM leaving the host resources available for any spot workloads or even lab workloads.
but I can do that both ways since there will be hyper V both ways.
I'm not sure I understand.
The only place bare metal makes any real sense anymore, IMNSHO, is in high transaction workloads like SQL. Otherwise, keep the guest and utilize the resources for other projects.
-
Umm, yeah. There is a lot better answer here. Install Hyper-V Server 2016 from ISO instead of wasting the license.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/evaluate-hyper-v-server-2016
Once Hyper-V is installed on all 3 hosts, either run Veeam B&R by itself on a server or run it in conjunction with another server that isn't being fully utilized.
Also, why aren't you clustering your hosts together and load balancing your VMs across all 3 hosts? Can they not see the same storage or something?
-
@PhlipElder said in question on veeam backup:
@Donahue said in question on veeam backup:
@PhlipElder said in question on veeam backup:
@Donahue said in question on veeam backup:
As a result of changing all my setup, I am going to have three hosts at my HQ site, all running Hyper-V. Host A will be new and basically carry the entire production load. Host B is existing and will be running empty, and only used as a restore point in case host A goes down. Host C is also existing, but will be running only veeam. Currently I am on ESXi and veeam is running in a server 2012r2 VM. My question is, when everything is switched over and veeam is now the only thing running on host C under Hyper-V, should I run that inside a VM on Hyper-V core, or just install Server on the bare metal and run veeam from that?
The VM route obviously consumes a license, and really a pair of them. Running the server with Hyper-V role seems a little more dubious from a licensing standpoint. I am not sure if there could be a clear answer that was agreed upon since veeam would be "supporting Hyper-V", but the hosts Hyper-V it would be supporting would be a different host. I am also currently using dedupe within windows server, which is a nice feature. I am not sure how the veeam dedupe compares.
If we assume the both uses consume a windows server license, which would you prefer and why?
We'd keep the VM leaving the host resources available for any spot workloads or even lab workloads.
but I can do that both ways since there will be hyper V both ways.
I'm not sure I understand.
The only place bare metal makes any real sense anymore, IMNSHO, is in high transaction workloads like SQL. Otherwise, keep the guest and utilize the resources for other projects.
This host will either be Hyper-V core, or windows server with Hyper-V role. Either way I can run Hyper-V VM's on it. The question is just where do I install veeam?
-
@Donahue If you run Hyper-V core (which is what I recommend), then you can't run Veeam on it. It would have to be run on a VM. Also, if you install MS Server 2016 w/ Hyper-V as a role (which is not what I would suggest), then I would not suggest installing Veeam on the host directly. You are taking resources away from your hypervisor and what if your host 3 goes down? There goes all of your backups too.
-
@NerdyDad said in question on veeam backup:
Umm, yeah. There is a lot better answer here. Install Hyper-V Server 2016 from ISO instead of wasting the license.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/evaluate-hyper-v-server-2016
Once Hyper-V is installed on all 3 hosts, either run Veeam B&R by itself on a server or run it in conjunction with another server that isn't being fully utilized.
Also, why aren't you clustering your hosts together and load balancing your VMs across all 3 hosts? Can they not see the same storage or something?
I am pretty sure that what I am trying to do requires a windows license. Its a dubious grey area at best as to if veeam requires a license or not. From what I have found so far, the consensus seems to be that veeam does not require a license if veeam is backing up VM's from that host. It is less clear when veeam is backing up VM's from a completely different host.
I do not need a cluster. My existing two hosts at this site are old and are going into semi-retirement such as just running veeam. My storage is being completely redone for this project.
-
@NerdyDad said in question on veeam backup:
@Donahue If you run Hyper-V core (which is what I recommend), then you can't run Veeam on it. It would have to be run on a VM. Also, if you install MS Server 2016 w/ Hyper-V as a role (which is not what I would suggest), then I would not suggest installing Veeam on the host directly. You are taking resources away from your hypervisor and what if your host 3 goes down? There goes all of your backups too.
I dont see your point. Your first part is just saying the same thing as my original question. I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to achieve here. What if any single non HA resource goes down? Then it is down and must be brought back up. I dont see the problem here. I will also have more than one copy of the backup files themselves, at least 3 or 4 including offsite.
-
@NerdyDad said in question on veeam backup:
You are taking resources away from your hypervisor
Under nominal conditions, there will be no load on this hypervisor. The only thing this host has to do is run veeam.
-
For the backup host only:
Install Hyper-V Core on the hardware - you never use Hyper-V as a role unless something forces you to. - no license required
Create VM under Hyper-V, install Windows server 2016, install Veeam - this requires a Windows Server license.
This solution makes it VERY easy to move the Veeam install to another server if needed/desired.
-
@Dashrender said in question on veeam backup:
For the backup host only:
Install Hyper-V Core on the hardware - you never use Hyper-V as a role unless something forces you to. - no license required
Create VM under Hyper-V, install Windows server 2016, install Veeam - this requires a Windows Server license.
This solution makes it VERY easy to move the Veeam install to another server if needed/desired.
yes, but the primary storage for veeam will also be local to this host. The only reason I could see to move that VM would be because something was wrong with the host, in which case there is also something wrong with veeams primary storage. Therefore, moving the VM is a moot point.
-
@Donahue said in question on veeam backup:
I am pretty sure that what I am trying to do requires a windows license. Its a dubious grey area at best as to if veeam requires a license or not. From what I have found so far, the consensus seems to be that veeam does not require a license if veeam is backing up VM's from that host. It is less clear when veeam is backing up VM's from a completely different host.
And you can only install Veeam into a full windows environment, I assume. In otherwords, I don't think you can install Veeam into Hyper-V Core.
So installing Windows Server 2016 on the hardware, then enabling Hyper-V service, still requires a license, even with zero VMs running.
-
@Donahue said in question on veeam backup:
@NerdyDad said in question on veeam backup:
Umm, yeah. There is a lot better answer here. Install Hyper-V Server 2016 from ISO instead of wasting the license.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/evaluate-hyper-v-server-2016
Once Hyper-V is installed on all 3 hosts, either run Veeam B&R by itself on a server or run it in conjunction with another server that isn't being fully utilized.
Also, why aren't you clustering your hosts together and load balancing your VMs across all 3 hosts? Can they not see the same storage or something?
I am pretty sure that what I am trying to do requires a windows license. Its a dubious grey area at best as to if veeam requires a license or not. From what I have found so far, the consensus seems to be that veeam does not require a license if veeam is backing up VM's from that host. It is less clear when veeam is backing up VM's from a completely different host.
I do not need a cluster. My existing two hosts at this site are old and are going into semi-retirement such as just running veeam. My storage is being completely redone for this project.
Guest licensing is always based on the host. If VM is running in a Windows Server VM then the host needs at least one Server Standard license. That particular license allows for two guests. So, Veeam in one guest and a secondary DC in the other. Or, whatever the need may be.
-
@Dashrender said in question on veeam backup:
@Donahue said in question on veeam backup:
I am pretty sure that what I am trying to do requires a windows license. Its a dubious grey area at best as to if veeam requires a license or not. From what I have found so far, the consensus seems to be that veeam does not require a license if veeam is backing up VM's from that host. It is less clear when veeam is backing up VM's from a completely different host.
And you can only install Veeam into a full windows environment, I assume. In otherwords, I don't think you can install Veeam into Hyper-V Core.
So installing Windows Server 2016 on the hardware, then enabling Hyper-V service, still requires a license, even with zero VMs running.
that's my point.
-
Veeam licensing is based on the host processors for the guests that you are wanting to backup.
The local storage. Is that based on other factors or just based on Veeam?
-
@Donahue said in question on veeam backup:
@Dashrender said in question on veeam backup:
@Donahue said in question on veeam backup:
I am pretty sure that what I am trying to do requires a windows license. Its a dubious grey area at best as to if veeam requires a license or not. From what I have found so far, the consensus seems to be that veeam does not require a license if veeam is backing up VM's from that host. It is less clear when veeam is backing up VM's from a completely different host.
And you can only install Veeam into a full windows environment, I assume. In otherwords, I don't think you can install Veeam into Hyper-V Core.
So installing Windows Server 2016 on the hardware, then enabling Hyper-V service, still requires a license, even with zero VMs running.
that's my point.
I'm sorry - what was your point? or question?
-
@NerdyDad said in question on veeam backup:
Veeam licensing is based on the host processors for the guests that you are wanting to backup.
The local storage. Is that based on other factors or just based on Veeam?
we are strictly talking windows licensing. I have already cleared up the veeam licensing. The storage is local to keep the speed up. This host will have a 10G network to backup the production host. but all the secondary copies of the backups are all at 1G
-
@Donahue said in question on veeam backup:
@NerdyDad said in question on veeam backup:
Veeam licensing is based on the host processors for the guests that you are wanting to backup.
The local storage. Is that based on other factors or just based on Veeam?
we are strictly talking windows licensing. I have already cleared up the veeam licensing. The storage is local to keep the speed up. This host will have a 10G network to backup the production host. but all the secondary copies of the backups are all at 1G
If Windows licensing is the only thing we're talking about - then yes, you will need a Windows license assigned to the Veeam server (host).
-
@Dashrender said in question on veeam backup:
@Donahue said in question on veeam backup:
@Dashrender said in question on veeam backup:
@Donahue said in question on veeam backup:
I am pretty sure that what I am trying to do requires a windows license. Its a dubious grey area at best as to if veeam requires a license or not. From what I have found so far, the consensus seems to be that veeam does not require a license if veeam is backing up VM's from that host. It is less clear when veeam is backing up VM's from a completely different host.
And you can only install Veeam into a full windows environment, I assume. In otherwords, I don't think you can install Veeam into Hyper-V Core.
So installing Windows Server 2016 on the hardware, then enabling Hyper-V service, still requires a license, even with zero VMs running.
that's my point.
I'm sorry - what was your point? or question?
My point was the a windows license is required either way. My question is, because a license is required either way, which is the prefered way, VM or physical?
-
@Donahue said in question on veeam backup:
@Dashrender said in question on veeam backup:
@Donahue said in question on veeam backup:
@Dashrender said in question on veeam backup:
@Donahue said in question on veeam backup:
I am pretty sure that what I am trying to do requires a windows license. Its a dubious grey area at best as to if veeam requires a license or not. From what I have found so far, the consensus seems to be that veeam does not require a license if veeam is backing up VM's from that host. It is less clear when veeam is backing up VM's from a completely different host.
And you can only install Veeam into a full windows environment, I assume. In otherwords, I don't think you can install Veeam into Hyper-V Core.
So installing Windows Server 2016 on the hardware, then enabling Hyper-V service, still requires a license, even with zero VMs running.
that's my point.
I'm sorry - what was your point? or question?
My point was the a windows license is required either way. My question is, because a license is required either way, which is the prefered way, VM or physical?
VM for ease of migration. You want to get away from physical boxes as much as possible, except for your hosts.
