Architecture question

[matteu]

Hello,

My customer has the following infrastructure :
2 ESXi servers on 2 different rooms with 1 vcenter to manage them
2 availables physicals servers to use as repository

I would like to know how would you build an architecture here ?

I mean, this is what I could do :

Solution 1 :
1 physical server used as Veeam infrastructure appliance as LHR (backup copy)
1 physical server with Windows to be REFS file system to be a different file system than the first server (backup)
1 VM with VBR

Solution 2 :
1 physical server used as Veeam infrastructure appliance as LHR (backup copy)
1 physical server with Windows and VBR installed on it + REFS file system to be a different file system than the first server (backup)

Solution 3 :
2 physicals servers used as Veeam infrastructure appliance as LHR for backup + backup copy
1 VM with VBR

I prefer the solution 3 to have VBR on a VM and 2 veeam managed repositories but I would like your advices

[david.domask]

Hi matteu,

Can I ask, what is the reasoning behind wanting a different file system for both of the repositories?

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning, as while I can find some kind words for ReFS, if XFS was an option I would always go with XFS over ReFS.

Solution 3 is best imo, and also simplifies your infrastructure management considerably as the Veeam Infrastructure Appliance patching will be handled by Veeam Updater service.

[matteu]

The reasoning is for the 2 of the 3-2-1-1-0 rule.
They are not the same file system so it could be considered as 2 different media "type" ? Or just not because it's not object storage / tape / ....

Thanks for your advices

[david.domask]

Got it.

I discussed the "different filesystems" part with a few colleagues since I hadn't heard different file systems being a factor of 3-2-1; as I get it, there are some persons who maintain this position as a safety check (e.g., suppose XFS got a patch with a bad bug, different file system mitigates impact as only one repo is affected), so there is some logic to the thought. But still would advise an off-site copy better meets 3-2-1, with the scenario as proposed it sounds like everything is still on same site even if it's different rooms so not fully meeting 3-2-1.

So nothing against the idea based on that, but from experience XFS has been exceptionally reliable at scale and would go for simplicity of XFS personally.

[matteu]

Thanks for your answer and happy to share the same point