Discussions specific to object storage
wishr
Veeam Software
Posts: 1103
Liked: 111 times
Joined: Aug 07, 2018 3:11 pm
Full Name: Fedor Maslov
Contact:

Re: 9.5 Update 4 and Microsoft Azure Blob Storage

Post by wishr » Sep 09, 2019 1:59 pm

Hello,

Usually, we cannot comment on future release plans or product ETAs, but as Gostev mentioned in the July forum digest, it should be shipped before the end of this year if nothing unexpected pops up (particularly around 3rd party platform updates).

Thanks

dw432948jkk
Novice
Posts: 5
Liked: never
Joined: Sep 05, 2019 8:26 am
Full Name: Peter Müller
Contact:

Re: 9.5 Update 4 and Microsoft Azure Blob Storage

Post by dw432948jkk » Sep 13, 2019 12:49 pm

yasuda wrote:
May 29, 2019 5:15 pm
Hi Dan, do you have any comment on the previous discussion of immutable storage? Is Wasabi's immutable storage diferent from "...Amazon object-level immutability is more of a marketing term, in reality what they sell behind this term is regular object versioning..." ?
Is there any reason why WasabiDan does not answer this question?

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 24643
Liked: 3470 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: 9.5 Update 4 and Microsoft Azure Blob Storage

Post by Gostev » Sep 13, 2019 7:38 pm

Because he did not log on here once after his only post above ;) I just checked his forum account.

In any case, I can answer this: Wasabi does not support S3 Object Lock at all at this time.

I also wanted to clarify: I did not mean that Amazon's implementation is somehow invalid. It does the job - just requires a lot more code from our side to work with, for obvious reasons. I mean - a single, actually immutable copy of an object that cannot be deleted or overwritten would have been so much simpler to architect against. While dealing with potentially deletable and overwriteable "immutable" objects requires tracking the required object versions in its version history (separately for each and every object), which adds significant complexity.

But anyway, it did not stop us :D

dw432948jkk
Novice
Posts: 5
Liked: never
Joined: Sep 05, 2019 8:26 am
Full Name: Peter Müller
Contact:

Re: 9.5 Update 4 and Microsoft Azure Blob Storage

Post by dw432948jkk » Sep 14, 2019 7:23 am

Did I understand correctly that veeam is working to set up veeam-backups so that they can be copied (not moved) (with whatever other third party program) to the immutable storage of cloud backup providers like Azure, AWS, etc.? That would be great because, to my knowledge, no backup program can do this.

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 24643
Liked: 3470 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: 9.5 Update 4 and Microsoft Azure Blob Storage

Post by Gostev » Sep 15, 2019 10:32 pm

Peter, actually what you explained sounds like something that was always possible with Veeam... if you use an incremental backup mode with periodic synthetic or active fulls, you can certainly use any 3rd party program to copy those backups to object storage buckets with immutability enabled. Thanks!

yasuda
Enthusiast
Posts: 62
Liked: 10 times
Joined: May 15, 2014 3:29 pm
Full Name: Peter Yasuda
Contact:

Re: 9.5 Update 4 and Microsoft Azure Blob Storage

Post by yasuda » Sep 16, 2019 3:10 pm

Gostev wrote:
Sep 13, 2019 7:38 pm
...I also wanted to clarify: I did not mean that Amazon's implementation is somehow invalid. It does the job - ...
Thanks for the clarification!

Is it also true Glacier or Deep Archive data would be protected, because there is a minimum duration data has to be left there, before it can be deleted? Assuming you are only concerned with recovering your most recent backups.

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 24643
Liked: 3470 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: 9.5 Update 4 and Microsoft Azure Blob Storage

Post by Gostev » Sep 17, 2019 9:00 am

My understanding is that Glacier has minimum duration charge, not minimum duration storage. Meaning, you can still delete data immediately after uploading, but you will be charged as if the data was stored there for a minimum required duration.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests