NAS backup and object storage

[lowlander]

Hi,

We use object storage for capacity tier in a SOBR. Use case is sending backups to this SOBR and copy out to object storage.

Can object storage being used with the same best practices ( read blocksizes etc ) for NAS backup as it can be used for example backup jobs that are pointing out to a SOBR ?

[HannesK]

Hello,
NAS backups are ignored for capacity tier in SOBR

V12 will allow copy to object storage and also direct backup to object storage.

Best regards,
Hannes

[lowlander]

I understand SOBR is not supported for NAS backups, however we are able to use Object storage for archiving withing a NAS job. I am curious what the impact is on blocksizes and sizing for moving NAS backups to the archive tier ( object Storage ).

[HannesK]

however we are able to use Object storage for archiving withing a NAS job

ok, that's the archive repository then, without SOBR (SOBR is not supported as archive). I have not seen anybody who could create an estimation formula for sizing the archive. Because it's unpredictable (at least I did not find anyone who can predict it) how much data will end up in the archive.

For block size: I'm not sure, what the question is about. NAS backup is file-based backup. There are no "blocks" with "file" backup.

[mellema]

V12 will allow copy to object storage and also direct backup to object storage.

Just to verify I be able to run an SMB backup job directly to object storage? Will offloading existing backups to object storage begin after upgrading or will I need to reconfigure any scale out repositories already created?

[HannesK]

Hello,
and welcome to the forums.

run an SMB backup job directly to object storage

yes, correct

Will offloading existing backups to object storage begin after upgrading or will I need to reconfigure any scale out repositories already created?

No, it's a backup job setting (one can point to an object storage directly). SOBR is not needed / not changed by the new feature "direct backup to object storage"

Best regards,
Hannes

[poulpreben]

Hello,
NAS backups are ignored for capacity tier in SOBR

Hi Hannes,

It this still the case with 12.1?

[HannesK]

Hello,
yes, NAS data is not copied / moved to capacity tier. Same as in earlier versions.

There are two copy options:
1) backup copy jobs
2) archive repository in "copy mode"

I created a comparison last year:


Best regards,
Hannes

[poulpreben]

Excellent! Thanks for the comparison. Do you happen to have similar comparisons for other backup types?

We are currently migrating as much as possible to object storage, and crawling the documentation does immediately reveal this level of detail.

I do not want to derail this thread, so don’t know if this is the appropriate channel.

Let me know

[HannesK]

I added a similar picture a few minutes ago to the FAQ

[bg.ranken]

Hello,
yes, NAS data is not copied / moved to capacity tier. Same as in earlier versions.

There are two copy options:
1) backup copy jobs
2) archive repository in "copy mode"

I created a comparison last year:


Best regards,
Hannes

@Hannes,

Is this chart still up-to-date? I have another thread going where I'm asking a similar question regarding how to send out long-term retention to Azure (file-shares-and-object-storage-f57/nas- ... 93643.html), but so far this chart seems to summarize up things nicely. @Mildur recommended going with backup copy for my scenario to make restore easier, however based on this chart it seems like going the Archive Copy route seems better to get the first three items in this chart. But my worry is the missing check box for "Copy latest restore point." With the option "Archive recent file versions", wouldn't that cover the "Copy latest restore point" option?

If so, then it seems like Archive Copy is the better route in most cases unless you need the quicker restore that the backup copy can give you.

[HannesK]

Hello,
yes, it's still up-to-date.

to make restore easier,

yes, folder restore from archive repository is a bit complicated...

"copy everything" means that it copies everything including the latest restore point. Maybe I should add an "only" to the table.

Best regards,
Hannes

[bg.ranken]

Yes, I think adding "only" would make it more clear, assuming that means that backup copy starts with a new restore point and needs to build retention, while archive mode maintains current retention.

Maybe if you're going to update it you should also add the bit about folder restores being an issue from the archive mode. And then you and add this chart into the FAQs, it's pretty handy.

Only other thing I'm worried about is if there would ever be an eventual archive tier/Glacier support, if it ends up only applying to one of these methods. Would be a pain to do one method and build up so much retention only to have to switch to another method with new retention just to get the lower cost option.