Comprehensive data protection for all workloads
Post Reply
brecon
Lurker
Posts: 1
Liked: never
Joined: Oct 05, 2011 3:18 pm
Contact:

Backup WAN Target

Post by brecon »

Hi Guys

We are currently testing Veeam B+R to backup to a WAN target over private IP link ( which can range from 6Mb to 10Mb )

We have it working well at the moment to a CIFS share target after having created the initial full and manually moving it to WAN location and now increments are running over WAN

However we have hit the issue of the periodical synthetic full trying to process over the WAN

From reading the posts this is by design and the only solution in v5 is to switch to Reverse Incrementals or use a linux WAN target for backups as Veeam installs an agent to offload the processing of the synthetic backups to the target

I have tested the reverse incrementals and its just too slow and not feasible so we are going to test having a Linux WAN target and see what performance we get from that

Can someone confirm the following for me

- Will an ESX host as the WAN target be able to utilise the same Veeam "processing" agent that gets installed on the linux backup targets or do you need to use a "vanilla" linux target

- What is the best datastore to use on the linux backup target for performance - again from reading posts it seems like NFS datastore mounted on the linux backup target host ( or ESX target host if applicable ) is preferable

Any help would be appreciated

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 26706
Liked: 4277 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Backup WAN Target

Post by Gostev »

Hi,

Yes/Yes.

Note that v6 will also support Windows-based agent-enabled backup repositories.

Thanks!

Vitaliy S.
Product Manager
Posts: 24260
Liked: 1865 times
Joined: Mar 30, 2009 9:13 am
Full Name: Vitaliy Safarov
Contact:

Re: Backup WAN Target

Post by Vitaliy S. »

Hello,

Another solution would be to place your backup server offsite, in this case all network traffic consumed while building synthetic full would be kept local.

Thank you.

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 26706
Liked: 4277 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Backup WAN Target

Post by Gostev »

There are some major drawbacks of this other approach though (WAN traffic will not be compressed, possible vCenter/ESXi communication slowness/issues/timeouts, etc). So as a rule of thumb, I would definitely suggest always putting backup server close to the data being backed up.

mschlott
Enthusiast
Posts: 84
Liked: 2 times
Joined: Jan 20, 2011 5:45 pm
Full Name: Mike Schlottman
Contact:

Re: Backup WAN Target

Post by mschlott »

Can someone explain the concept of a backup target, and what processing agent brecon is talking about? I think I have been running my backups backwards. I have my Veeam server remote from my data center and run reverse incrementals to SAN storage. It sounds like it might be better if my Veeam server were in the data center and I had a NFS server at the remote site. I don't see how any sort of agent would come into play over a CIFS or NFS mount.

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 26706
Liked: 4277 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Backup WAN Target

Post by Gostev »

We are talking about agent-enabled backup target above. With the current version (v5), it can only be a Linux server or "fat" ESX host (to which you mount NFS share). If you then pick that Linux host as the destination for your backups (having added the server to managed servers first), Veeam will deploy the small agent there in runtime that will be receiving the incremental data, and performing the full backup file processing locally (versus over WAN).

If you search this forum for offsite you should be able to find multiple existing discussions on this.

mschlott
Enthusiast
Posts: 84
Liked: 2 times
Joined: Jan 20, 2011 5:45 pm
Full Name: Mike Schlottman
Contact:

Re: Backup WAN Target

Post by mschlott »

Maybe I missunderstood. Would this be for replicas only and not backups?

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 26706
Liked: 4277 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Backup WAN Target

Post by Gostev »

No, we are talking about backups specifically here.

mschlott
Enthusiast
Posts: 84
Liked: 2 times
Joined: Jan 20, 2011 5:45 pm
Full Name: Mike Schlottman
Contact:

Re: Backup WAN Target

Post by mschlott »

Thanks. I never noticed the dropdown on the backup destination page.

mike

stevil
Expert
Posts: 112
Liked: 2 times
Joined: Sep 02, 2010 2:23 pm
Full Name: Steve B
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Backup WAN Target

Post by stevil »

Gostev wrote:Hi,

Yes/Yes.

Note that v6 will also support Windows-based agent-enabled backup repositories.

Thanks!
I'm glad you have kept to your word and included this in the new version.........excellent!

Even better will be the use of much smaller block sizes, I'm not sure this feature is in V6 or not :?:

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 26706
Liked: 4277 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Backup WAN Target

Post by Gostev »

Well, you can go down to 256KB block size from default 1024KB even today with v5, but not more than that and no changes in v6 here (but we do have plans).

stevil
Expert
Posts: 112
Liked: 2 times
Joined: Sep 02, 2010 2:23 pm
Full Name: Steve B
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Backup WAN Target

Post by stevil »

Yeah, I was hoping to see something radical like 4k (as on some nSeries/netapp NAS's with WAN replication). Performance is an issue though I understand. I think our WAN links will be upgraded before we sort this issue out though ;)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot] and 34 guests