HyperV and CloudConnect - what's the best way to setup.

[nickpoore]

So, new to Veeam.
I'm a small IT shop with some customers that need a better backup solution.

I have a CoLo server as follows:
Single Dell PowerEdge server running Win2012R2 with HyperV, lots of RAM, RAID10 disk, 12 cores.
Synology NAS with 10TB of free space, backup destination via SMB.

I have about a dozen VM's on my server, mostly customer demo stuff.

Should I install the main Backup&Replication as a VM, or on the HostOS?
I know that I need to install the CloudConnect on a VM.

I think that if I install the B&R on a VM, that it will push the necessary files onto the HostOS to be able to see the HyperV VM's.

Dumb Questions.
If I put the main B&R on a VM, can it backup itself?
If I put the main B&R on a VM, should I install the management software on the server, so that I can more easily launch the management software?
It seems that the only advantage (to me) of the Enterprise vs Standard software is the WAN acceleration. I've run a few tests and not seen a huge speed difference - what kind of speed difference to other see?
Is there an easy way to "seed" the Cloud Connect server. I'm assuming there's a way to run a local backup, create a copy job to USB disk, and then take that USB disk to the datacenter to put on my server.

Sorry for the newbie questions, just a little at the deep end right now...

[foggy]

Hi Nicholas, it doesn't really matter where you install Veeam B&R, required components will still be installed on the host to perform VMs backup. You can install it anywhere and have management console installed separately for convenience. If you install it as a VM, you will be able to back it up as well. You can use local backups for seeding of further backup/backup copy jobs.

[Vitaliy S.]

I know that I need to install the CloudConnect on a VM.

Can you please elaborate on this? How are you going to use Cloud Connect and why it has to be installed in a VM?

It seems that the only advantage (to me) of the Enterprise vs Standard software is the WAN acceleration. I've run a few tests and not seen a huge speed difference - what kind of speed difference to other see?

WAN acceleration is not about data transfer speed difference, but it is more about amount of traffic that has to be sent over the WAN link.

[nickpoore]

CloudConnect on VM...
The CloudConnect must be installed on a different server to the main B&R.
As such, I cannot install it on my host, so it has to be a VM.
It could be a separate (physical) server, but I don't have one there, and don't want to buy one...

[Vitaliy S.]

Oh... I see that. Yes, Cloud Connect and on-prem Veeam B&R has to be on separate computers. Just didn't fully understand how would you use Cloud Connect in the scenario above.

[nickpoore]

WAN acceleration is not about data transfer speed difference, but it is more about amount of traffic that has to be sent over the WAN link.

I think we're saying the same thing.
The offsite copy has a finite amount of data to transfer.
The WAN acceleration feature compresses this data, to make it smaller, so that it transfers faster. Okay, the data doesn't really transfer faster, it reduces the size of data transferred so that it takes less time to transit.
"I had 10GB to transfer and it took 6 hours"
"I had 10GB to transfer and it took 3 hours" - most people would say that's "faster".
"I had 10GB to transfer, so I compressed it to 5GB, transferred it in 3 hours, and then expanded it back to 10GB at the other end." - technically not faster, but the traffic was reduced.

Bottom line is that WAN acceleration is supposed to make the amount of time it takes to perform the offsite copy shorter.

So the question is/was - do people notice the WAN acceleration feature?
Does anyone have any empirical evidence that it's better?

NOTE. "WAN Acceleration" is a really bad name. The word acceleration is about how quickly you get to a certain speed, not how fast you end up travelling. My car accelerates faster than a 747, but the 747 is much faster than my car. If anything the "acceleration" when you are compressing is slower, as it takes time to compress, and therefore slows down the rate at which data starts to send - even if the result is that the data is sent at a faster speed. Physics teacher would probably just shake his head at me right now...

[Vitaliy S.]

There are some existing topics regarding WAN Accelerator savings ratio, should be helpful. Also to see savings in your particular case, take a look at your backup copy job stats.