Shestakov wrote:I would start from bottleneck analysis. Looks like your performance can be improved in a multiple ways, but we need to know where the bottleneck is. Could you provide jobs statistics?
In general off-host processing provides better results and shifts workload from the production host. So if you want to improve the performance consider off-host proxy.
To me, it's clear the current Hyper-V/VMM configuration IS the bottleneck. My preferred solution would be to give the Veeam B&R server direct access to the storage API, bypassing the Hyper-V hosts. Unfortunately, as this is a shared storage platform, our hosting provider is reluctant to do this. Also, I don't have any access to the Hyper-V hosts other than a limited VMM console. This leaves me half-blind. The only way I can influence backup performance is through the B&R management console.
A few days ago, I changed all of my replication jobs to use the backups as a source, rather than production storage. This had a dramatic effect on the overall replication time window. Individual throughput is roughly the same as before, but there were no traffic jams where one VM in a job would be waiting for hours to be processed.
Using the backup as a source for replication has its drawbacks. Ideally, I would like to be able to do replication multiple times a day for selected VMs. This is impossible if you don't use the actual production VM as a source. Also, the state of the replicated VM now depends on job options selected in the backup job (eg crash consistent, indexing, log flushing). But for now, I'm glad my replication jobs are finished some 9 hours earlier than before.