External NAS Destination Stores

[foggy]

I understood it differently:
- remove from DB is always required
- before 5.02 you also had to wait for the next run and avoid run an active full, after 5.02 you can run the job in whatever mode and it will create the new file

Luca, I've just checked that, works without DB cleanup.

[dellock6]

Oh, great, thanks for further confirmation. Even better this way.

Luca.

[travis.vanholland]

For anybody wondering, I implemented the registry key and I am seeing good results. The RSYNC replication between my two ReadyNAS Pro 6 units are now doing incremental changes instead of deleting the vbk and resending. I am running into some RAM issues but I knew this going in. The ReadyNAS Pro 6 comes with 1Gb so I am looking to get this upgraded soon.

[dellock6]

Good news Travis, glad it works. I'm configuring same setup with a pair of Qnap storages at a customer, going to collect performance numbers in the next weeks.

Luca.

[Yuki]

Luca,
Please keep us updated as we are using QNAPs for storage at main and remote location, but are doing direct backups to local and remote QNAPs without the SYNC. On the other hand even if it is more efficient, we would have to re-seed our 4TB VBK (incrementals are usually about 150GB)

[dellock6]

That is exactly what we are doing this week, resetting every backup job to use the registry key and thus having proper vbk files in place. I think we would start the replica next week hopefully.
A blog post will come out for sure when we will finish.

Luca.

[Yuki]

Not to hijack the thread - but can you provide some details on how it is running now?

Forward/reverse?
Typical speed on incremental?

We are making reverse incremental and speed isn't great (you've probably seen my threads on this).

[dellock6]

Source is a IBM Storewize V700 with SSD and SAS disks, connected via FC 8 gb to ESXi. Two virtual proxies sending backups to a QNAP 1270, filled with 12 WD 2TB sata disk, 1 spare and 11 in a raid5 giving us 14 TB of free space.

Exposed via CIFS, it's able to save data at almost 80 MBs, all backups are done in reverse incremental.

[Yuki]

very strange... we are not even close in terms of performance. I've sent you a PM so we don't hijack the thread.