AWS S3 mounted on iscsi?

[soncscy]

Got what I hope is a quick question as I just wasn't able to get a clear answer for a client planning out some redesigns for their infrastructure.

They're wanting to land backups on S3, but minimize their local footprint, so they weren't enamored with the current capacity tier style offload.

They proposed using the AWS storage gateway and just attaching it as an iscsi disk to the Veeam server itself, and setting the repository as that iscsi disk.

1. Any "gotchas" with this set up performance wise?
2. Is it even a supported set up? From what I've read and my understanding of how Veeam does things like merges and synthetic fulls, I'm not even sure that this would work.

It sounds like a bad idea to me in general, but just wanting some ammunition to say "don't do this"

[HannesK]

Hello,
they can use a virtual machine in the cloud to minimize their local footprint.

In general, you are right, it's a bad idea The performance will be really bad. Merges would be impossible, yes. But even with REFS / XFS I see no realistic way.

Please see this post329906.html discussion.

Best regards,
Hannes

[soncscy]

Hi Hannes,

Great! That in line with my thoughts.

But, big question -- Supported, or not? Cause I can say "it's an awful idea, here's how you should do it" till I'm blue in the face, but if there isn't somewhere a statement of supported/not-supported, I'm gonna be dealing with such a bad set up with this client

[HannesK]

it performs so bad, that nobody can use it anyway. It simply does not work.

I'm not sure whether there is an explicit statement for that setup. I mean, we cannot state every "broken" setup as "not supported". There are simply too many. We say what "is supported".

There is a statement for object storage gateways. But it does not match 100% your setup: https://helpcenter.veeam.com/docs/backu ... ml?ver=100 (point 5)