Using object storage as a backup target
Post Reply
mikeely
Veeam Legend
Posts: 174
Liked: 43 times
Joined: Nov 07, 2016 7:39 pm
Full Name: Mike Ely
Contact:

Do we need to be treating Backblaze S3-compat repos as eventually consistent?

Post by mikeely »

Was just attempting a SOBR offload to a B2 repo after resyncing (V10 VBR) and was greeted with the following error message:
Index has been recently resynchronized and can only be accessed in 19 hours 39 minutes
My understanding is that Backblaze uses strong consistency throughout so a message like the above is not necessary for their object storage. Is this not correct?
'If you truly love Veeam, then you should not let us do this :D' --Gostev, in a particularly Blazing Saddles moment

dalbertson
Veeam Software
Posts: 468
Liked: 157 times
Joined: Jul 21, 2015 12:38 pm
Full Name: Dustin Albertson
Contact:

Re: Do we need to be treating Backblaze S3-compat repos as eventually consistent?

Post by dalbertson »

Can you open a support case and upload logs?

You are correct that BB does state they are strongly consistent. However this is the opposite of that. It would be helpful to review the logs to see what is happening.
Dustin Albertson | Manager - Cloud & Applications | Veeam Product Management, Alliances

mikeely
Veeam Legend
Posts: 174
Liked: 43 times
Joined: Nov 07, 2016 7:39 pm
Full Name: Mike Ely
Contact:

Re: Do we need to be treating Backblaze S3-compat repos as eventually consistent?

Post by mikeely »

Gathering logs now, will upload to existing case 04714385 - thanks!
'If you truly love Veeam, then you should not let us do this :D' --Gostev, in a particularly Blazing Saddles moment

dalbertson
Veeam Software
Posts: 468
Liked: 157 times
Joined: Jul 21, 2015 12:38 pm
Full Name: Dustin Albertson
Contact:

Re: Do we need to be treating Backblaze S3-compat repos as eventually consistent?

Post by dalbertson »

Thank you. I’ll take a glance and reply back.
Dustin Albertson | Manager - Cloud & Applications | Veeam Product Management, Alliances

mikeely
Veeam Legend
Posts: 174
Liked: 43 times
Joined: Nov 07, 2016 7:39 pm
Full Name: Mike Ely
Contact:

Re: Do we need to be treating Backblaze S3-compat repos as eventually consistent?

Post by mikeely »

Largish file, took a minute but it's uploaded now. Thanks again.
'If you truly love Veeam, then you should not let us do this :D' --Gostev, in a particularly Blazing Saddles moment

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 29073
Liked: 5346 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Do we need to be treating Backblaze S3-compat repos as eventually consistent?

Post by Gostev »

I don't believe logs are needed. We cannot know is the particular S3 storage the user is registering is strong or eventually consistent, so to ensure reliability we can only work with S3-compatible storage assuming eventual consistency.

mikeely
Veeam Legend
Posts: 174
Liked: 43 times
Joined: Nov 07, 2016 7:39 pm
Full Name: Mike Ely
Contact:

Re: Do we need to be treating Backblaze S3-compat repos as eventually consistent?

Post by mikeely »

@Gostev even when the URL contains clear strings like "backblaze" or similar?
'If you truly love Veeam, then you should not let us do this :D' --Gostev, in a particularly Blazing Saddles moment

dalbertson
Veeam Software
Posts: 468
Liked: 157 times
Joined: Jul 21, 2015 12:38 pm
Full Name: Dustin Albertson
Contact:

Re: Do we need to be treating Backblaze S3-compat repos as eventually consistent?

Post by dalbertson »

Thanks for the details Mike.

As Gostev mention - we treat s3 compatible as eventual consistency just due to the wide array of s3 compatible vendors.

But I do see from your case that there were some other issues going on and it looks like you are in good hands with a rebuild of the archive index.
Dustin Albertson | Manager - Cloud & Applications | Veeam Product Management, Alliances

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 29073
Liked: 5346 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Do we need to be treating Backblaze S3-compat repos as eventually consistent?

Post by Gostev »

mikeely wrote: Apr 01, 2021 12:59 am@Gostev even when the URL contains clear strings like "backblaze" or similar?
Correct. Our S3-compable object storage support is "generic" and so it had to be designed to work with any S3 storage reliably. It does not currently have "Backblaze awareness" so to speak, or a logic to behave differently depending on the S3 endpoint substring.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests