Backup Target Performance - Local vs SMB Share?

[wa15]

I know that having a physical server with a bunch of disks is preferred for a Veeam backup target. But what has everyone's experiences been with using an SMB share (served on a physical server 2012/2016) for a backup target? Has performance, reliability and overall management proved to be comparable to a physical server that hosts Veeam & writes to disk directly?

Some background: looking at 80TB of backup data. This is for a month retention and forward incrementals with synthetic fulls.

[nmdange]

If it's a Windows Server, then you should add it as a Windows-based repository, not as a File Share, so Veeam can run processing like merges locally.

[TaylorB]

I agree with the previous poster. If you are able to install services on the physical server(s) that house the storage you want to use, then just push the Backup Repository role to them. (From B&R GUI on main server, switch to Infrastructure view, right click on repository, Click add repository and then choose the first option, Windows Server). It just installs a small service to manage the storage on the server for Veeam to use, and doesn't push the full Veeam server to it. You can have as many of these as you want without buying more licenses.

You can definitely use file shares, but it's kind of a last ditch compatibility mode for NAS boxes, etc. You don't want to use it if you have the ability to do the above.

[PTide]

Hi,

The guys are spot on. If you really have to use SMB, make sure to check the BP guide.

Thanks