I discover a FUNNY news for all V-Ray Edition On BE 15.....
Page 15 of licencing Guide..the surprise is that you need to buy a Windows Agent for backup the media server....take a look...
Extract from the guide
V-Ray Edition has 2 tiers. Purchase the appropriate tier based on the number of cores in the CPU socket
- V-Ray Edition 2 to 6 cores
- V-Ray Edition 8 plus cores
The components in V-Ray can only be used in virtual environments.
Each V-Ray Edition license includes:
- 1 Backup Exec Server* (does not include Agent for Windows to protect the local physical Backup Exec Server like a la carte licensing. Must purchase an Agent for Windows separately to protect the Backup Exec Server)
- 1 Agent for VMware & Hyper-V ( includes unlimited deployment of Agent for Windows or Agent for Linux – restricted only for use in VMware & Hyper-V virtual machines only)
- Unlimited deployment of Agent for Applications and Databases – restricted only for use in VMware & Hyper-V virtual machines only
- Deduplication Option*
To fully protect a VMware or Hyper-V cluster, a license is required for each socket of each node of the cluster, as well as a license for each socket on the virtual file server.
*The Backup Exec Server and Deduplication Option included can be used for physical environments. Customer is required to purchase the appropriate agents and options from a la carte to protect any physical systems.
So First...You Could not install Remote Agent on Media Server, it's impossible...
How about the Upgrade for old Vray User, did we add new Remote Agent licence for the new BE 15 ???
Information reported on our Symantec contact...no return from my answer
Actually that is not a licensing change as the statement about not being able to backup physical machines without further licenses has always been in the V-Ray edition EULA. Although I do acknowledge that the text appears to have changed to make it clearer against the media server itself. In BE 2014 a licensing alert was generated if you had no Agent for Windows licenses and backed up the media server as a physical, agent based backup.
I am in the process of checking up on this however as I believed we intended to change this based on feedback from BE 2014 customers.
As an aside the Capacity License does not have the same statement and is for a lot of customers now becoming a better option than V-RAY. (Especially as there are no Tier CPU requirements either)
Sorry Colin this is not right!
In BackupExec Version 2012 and Licensing V-RAY, the Backup of the physical BackupExec MediaServer was included ! (see Backup Exec 2012 Licensing Guide)
With Version 2014, Symantec change the licensing for VRAY.
The result was a repeating Licensing-Warning Message at the Administration-Console.
By Asking the Symantec-Support for this Warning-Message was the returning answer
"It is a bug in Version 2014 when you upgrade from 2012 to 2014 and registered VRay-License.
Please upgrade to Version 15, the message disappear."
With checking the licensing Guide BE2012 and BE2014 & 15 you will see the licensing difference.
The bad thing about it is there was no informations from Symantec for this Change.
Thanks Sterckman for you post.
I have escalate this case to our licensing distributor and symantec / veritas partner account manager to clarify.
Please read the EULA documents as these are the legal statements - we are aware that there were discrepancies in the licensing guides vs EULA and this is why TECH222792 was written for BE 2014 which exposed the difference between EULA and perception (including differences between licensing guides and EULA). The reason why it was exposed in BE 2014 and not BE 2012 was 2014 introduced a nag alert at 4:00am if you had backed up any systems using a remote agent instead of a virtual agent and did not have a remote agent license.
So I guess our licensing guide has been changed but the EULA it should always have been based on has not. Part of the 2014 EULA is quoted directly in the above Technote.
Note: This whole thread has been brought to management attention (by myself) as we had numerous discussions against the TECH222792 findings before we wrote the content explaining the licensing alert could be ignored with certain configurations and there is a possibility that whoever adjusted the current licensing guide used the EULA and was not aware of the discussions. I currently still await updates internally on this issue.