Performance QA Engineer

Veeam KubeVirt Proxy (VKP): Closing the Day-1 gap for OpenShift Virtualization VMs. VMware customers are moving off vSphere faster than most vendors can keep pace with, and the destination a huge chunk of them are landing on is Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization (OVE). That creates a very specific, very painful gap: the moment a VM is converted to KubeVirt and lands on OpenShift, the backup tooling that protected it for the last decade goes blind. vSphere APIs are gone. VADP is gone. Day 1 on the new platform is Day 1 with no protection, unless someone bolts on a second backup product - with all the retraining, new consoles, and split runbooks that implies. Veeam's answer is the Veeam KubeVirt Proxy (VKP), a new plugin that extends Veeam Backup & Replication (VBR 13.1+) directly into the OpenShift Virtualization cluster. It's a narrow, deliberate piece of engineering: VKP doesn't try to be a new product, it makes VBR fluent in KubeVirt so the console, the policies, and the licensing your customer already has simply keep working. How it fits together. VKP is deployed as an in-cluster agent via Helm. Once it's connected back to VBR, it exposes the OpenShift Virtualization cluster to VBR the same way a vCenter or SCVMM connection does: * VM discovery - automatic, via the KubeVirt API. New VMs are policy-assignable the moment they spin up. * Backup types - active full, incremental, and synthetic full, with VBR-level incremental tracking. * Repository support - anything VBR already talks to: SOBR, direct-to-object (S3/Azure/GCS), hardened Linux immutable repos, on-prem, and tape. * Recovery options - original location, a different cluster/namespace/network, any other VBR-supported hypervisor, or file-level recovery without a full VM restore. The deployment sequence is genuinely simple: upgrade to VBR 13.1+, install the VBR KubeVirt plug-in, install the VKP proxy, point VBR at the cluster. From there, KubeVirt VMs get assigned to existing backup jobs - same retention, same backup windows, same notifications - from the same console your admins already run VMware jobs from. The business case: why the VMware | OVE move is happening now. This isn't a discretionary architecture refresh - it's a licensing and cost event. Since Broadcom's acquisition of VMware, a large number of customers have seen their vSphere renewal economics change materially, and Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization has positioned itself as the most credible enterprise landing zone for VMs coming off that platform: it's KVM-based, it's already Kubernetes-native infrastructure many of these accounts are running anyway for containers, and Red Hat is actively selling migration tooling to pull VMware estates across. The customer conversation usually isn't "should we protect these VMs" - it's "we've already decided to move, what breaks when we do." VKP answers that question with "nothing" instead of "you'll need a new backup platform, new training, and a new contract." Why VBR-driven migration beats the alternative. The strongest angle here isn't backup - it's migration risk reduction: * Cross-hypervisor mobility is the killer feature. Because VKP plugs into the same VBR engine that already does any-to-any restore across vSphere, Hyper-V, and Nutanix AHV, a VM backed up on VMware can be restored straight onto OpenShift Virtualization - and if the migration needs to be reversed, it can come straight back. That turns the VMware | OVE cutover from a one-way leap into a reversible, VBR-orchestrated migration path. * One console spans the whole migration window. Admins manage VMware and KubeVirt VMs from the same VBR interface during the migration and after it. There's no fork-lift moment where the team has to run two backup products side by side while VMs trickle across. * Zero new operational muscle memory. Retention policies, backup windows, alerting, backup copy jobs, tape archival - all of it just extends to the new platform. The team's SOC/compliance posture doesn't need to be re-validated against a new tool. Licensing: the part that removes the last objection. VKP-protected VMs are covered under the same per-VM Veeam Universal License (VUL) entitlements the customer already owns for their VMware environment. There's no new SKU, no new purchase order, no relicensing conversation. If they're already licensed for VBR by VM count, migrating those VMs to OpenShift Virtualization doesn't change the bill. That's a genuinely rare thing to be able to say in a platform migration, and it removes the single biggest procurement friction point that normally stalls these projects. Positioning: VKP vs. Kasten. The one-line version for people considering OVE: VKP is VBR's reach extending onto OpenShift Virtualization - it protects VMs, full stop. The moment a workload has meaningful container-native components alongside VMs, or is containers-only, Kasten K10's application-centric model is the right architecture, not VBR/VKP.

Upgrade Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 to v8.6.0.1102. Veeam released Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 v8.6 on September 14, 2026, which included new features and Enhancements. It also fixed some bugs. The detailed information is below: 1.Login to Veeam Backup for the Microsoft 365 Manager server. 2.Sign in to your Veeam account and download the Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 v8.6 ISO image. 3.Open Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 console. 4.Ensure all jobs are successful, disable them and close the console. 5.Mount Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 v8.6 (VeeamBackupMicrosoft365_8.6.0.1102.iso) ISO image file. 6.Double-click Veeam.Setup.exe. 7.Click Yes on the User Account Control page. 8.Click Update on the Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 page. 9.Ensure you don't have any unsupported operating system and click OK. 10.Click I Accept on the License Agreement page. 11.Click Next on the License page. The Community Edition, Evaluation, and NFR, and NFR licenses require license auto-update to be enabled. 12.Please ensure the Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 manager server meets the minimum system requirements. 13.Review and update the new application permissions required to connect to Microsoft 365, click Next. 14.Click Install on the Ready to Install page. 15.Click Finish on the Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 Successfully installed page. 16.Open Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 console and click Connect. 17.Click OK om the You can now protect only the latest file versions for SharePoint, OneDrive, and Teams warning message. 18.Select Backup Infrastructure on the Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 Console. 19.Right-click the out-of-date Proxy servers and select Upgrade. 20.On the Upgrade page, select all servers and click Next. 21.Click Finish on the Specify credentials to connect to proxy servers page. 22.Ensure the Proxy Server was successfully upgraded, click OK. 23.Ensure all Proxy Servers have errors after the upgrade. 24.Select Organizations on the Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 console. 25.Right-click Jobs. Select Enable. 26.Verify the Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 version from Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 console (Help |Abut). 27.Ensure the version is 8.6.0.1102 P20260904. 28. Login to the machine if you are using REST API on a separate machine. 29.Mount Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 v8.6 (VeeamBackupMicrosoft365_8.6.0.1102.iso) ISO image file. 30.Double-click Veeam.Setup.exe. 31.Click Yes on the User Account Control page. 32.Click Update on the Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 page. 33.Ensure you don't have any unsupported operating system and click OK. 34.Click I Accept on the License Agreement page. 35.Please ensure the Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 REST API machine meets the minimum system requirements. 36.Click Install on the Ready to Install page. 37.Click Finish on the Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 Successfully installed page. 38.Check and ensure the Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 REST API service is running. I hope you enjoy this post. X: @SifuSun Cary Sun has a wealth of knowledge and expertise in data center and deployment solutions. As a Principal Consultant, he likely works closely with clients to help them design, implement, and manage their data center infrastructure and deployment strategies. With his background in data center solutions, Cary Sun may have experience in server and storage virtualization, network design and optimization, backup and disaster recovery planning, and security and compliance management. He holds CISCO CERTIFIED INTERNETWORK EXPERT (CCIE No.4531) from 1999. Cary is also a Microsoft Most Valuable Professional (MVP), Microsoft Azure MVP, Veeam Vanguard and Cisco Champion. He is a published author with several titles, including blogs on Checkyourlogs.net, and the author of many books. Cary is a very active blogger at checkyourlogs.net and is permanently available online for questions from the community. His passion for technology is contagious, improving everyone around him at what they do. Blog site: https://www.checkyourlogs.net Web site: https://carysun.com Blog site: https://gooddealmart.com Twitter: @SifuSun in: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sifusun/ Amazon Author: https://Amazon.com/author/carysun

A "side bet" Option does not create a live case or controversy on appeal. In In re Hybir, Inc., No. 2025-1367, 2026 WL 1076702 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 21, 2026), the Federal Circuit dismissed a patent owner's appeal where a settlement agreement tied the outcome of the appeal to a nominal, $100 optional license. The Federal Circuit decided that because the prospective $100 option was merely a "side bet" on the outcome of the appeal that did not create a live case or controversy. Background The dispute arose when Hybir, the owner of a patent for a computer-file backup system, sued Veeam, a software corporation, for patent infringement. The district court dismissed the case, finding Hybir's patent claims ineligible. Following the dismissal, the parties entered into a broader settlement agreement, which did not include the patent at issue ruled ineligible in the district court. Under the agreement, Hybir reserved the right to appeal the district court's judgment regarding that patent, and Veeam maintained the option to license its patent for $100 if Hybir's appeal was successful. The agreement also provided that Veeam could not participate in the appeal, which included not filing briefs or participating at oral argument. The Federal Circuit Appeal On appeal, the Federal Circuit determined that due to the settlement terms, Hybir's appeal no longer had real economic significance and, therefore, dismissed the appeal. It found that a nominal $100 payment contingent on the success of an appeal was insufficient to create a live case or controversy because the amount was unrelated to the value of the patent or the issues on appeal. Instead, the arbitrary $100 amount functioned merely as a bet on the appeal's outcome, introduced for the purpose of manufacturing a controversy. Hybir argued that a live dispute still existed because Veeam had only an option (not an obligation) to take the license after the appeal and, if the court reversed and found the claims patent eligible, Veeam would probably attempt to invalidate the patent another way, rather than exercise its option to license the patent for $100. But the court rejected this argument, stating that speculation about what Veeam might do in the future was not enough. To support jurisdiction, there must be a concrete, immediate dispute before the court. Speculation about future disputes or future litigation is not enough. Strategy and Conclusion The Federal Circuit's decision in In re Hybir reflects the importance of real-world consequences and the need for a live controversy or dispute to sustain litigation. Merely preserving a right to appeal a judgment in a settlement agreement may not be enough. And parties cannot artificially create a live case or controversy with an arbitrary sum, whether it be $100 or $50,000. Instead, when a party preserves its right to appeal and offers an option to license contingent on the outcome of appeal, the amount of money at issue must materially relate to the value of the issues on appeal, such as an estimate of a prospective damages award that might follow the appeal. Further Information For further information, see the Court's full decision here. Editors and Authors The editors are attorneys and the author is a summer associate at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of LES or Finnegan.