S3/Object Storage Space Efficiency

[Matt.Sharpe]

This is something I've never quite grasped so hoping someone can explain/confirm it. When I've done space calculations with Veeam calculators. It shows object storage along with ReFS/XFS tick boxes for space savings.

I asked a couple of S3 providers if object storage has space saving capabilities similar to XFS/REFS for fast clone. They said they do NOT.

So the question is, what space savings do you get with S3/Object. Do you have a form of block savings/deduplications which means you are getting a cost effective solution for long term retention. Or does it work more similar to standard NTFS storage. So space saving technology etc?

[Gostev]

Yes, the storage space savings are exactly the same with object storage and with XFS/ReFS. Block cloning between restore points prevents duplication from occurring on all these storage types, so DEduplication is consequently not required for either of them.

However, if you enable immutability on S3, there will be space consumption overhead comparing to XFS/ReFS. This is what those S3 providers are probably thinking about. The smaller your immutability period is, the closer object storage space consumption will be to ReFS/XFS.

[Matt.Sharpe]

Hi Gostev,

So S3/Object storage uses a form of block cloning, where it will not store the same block twice? Or does it depend on the redundancy used (erasure coding etc) as to whether you actually see the space savings?

[Gostev]

It is the former.

[Matt.Sharpe]

Thanks Gostev, do you know if there is any documentation of white paper on this?

[Gostev]

Sure, for example What's New in V12 document specifically calls this similarity out.

[mkretzer]

According to V13 calculators (https://www.veeam.com/calculators/simple/vbr/machines) direct backup to S3 is now more space efficient as XFS. Is that really the case? How does that work?

[Gostev]

It's not correct, direct backup to S3 is not more space efficient than XFS.