Backups to Synology NAS

[PTide]

Aha...! That's right, VBR cannot work with curve25519 yet, but support for this algorithm is already on our roadmap for future releases.

Regarding other exchange algorithms - diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha256 and diffie-hellman-group14-sha1 are definitely supported by VBR today. I wonder whether disabling "curve" algorithm will allow to connect with "High" settings.

Thanks!

[SebCharp]

You're welcome. I hope this helped you.
All I can tell is that only the Low settings does work between VBR and Synology. Medium and High don't.

Seb

[Kraken]

The results from testing Synology NAS (RS2416+ with Intel Atom C2538 and 2GB RAM), VMware host servers, backup encryption enabled:

1) Great as a target repository for Backup jobs - the effectivity has been significantly increased
2) Bad as a source for jobs-based Backup copy jobs - the throughput significantly decreased, RAM of the Synology NAS is constantly overloaded and this disrupt also other operations with the Synology.

I added the same data from Synology as a CIFS repository and imported backups (also provided passwords to decrypt), also changed BackupCopy job Object added "from jobs" to "from backups", so I was able to specify the repository, but then surprisingly, the Backup job does not see any VMs in the source...

[SebCharp]

Aha...! That's right, VBR cannot work with curve25519 yet, but support for this algorithm is already on our roadmap for future releases.

Regarding other exchange algorithms - diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha256 and diffie-hellman-group14-sha1 are definitely supported by VBR today. I wonder whether disabling "curve" algorithm will allow to connect with "High" settings.

Thanks!

Hi PTide,

I tried a custom level based on "High" settings where "curve" was disable. Unfortunately I've not been able to rescan the NAS. I got an error message without any meaningful error code.

[Kraken]

The results from testing Synology NAS (RS2416+ with Intel Atom C2538 and 2GB RAM), VMware host servers, backup encryption enabled:

1) Great as a target repository for Backup jobs - the effectivity has been significantly increased
2) Bad as a source for jobs-based Backup copy jobs - the throughput significantly decreased, RAM of the Synology NAS is constantly overloaded and this disrupt also other operations with the Synology.

After reaching this level of performance for Backup copy job, I'm switching back to CIFS made me sad... for Backups itself it's perfect, but since there is no way to make Backup copy from it, it's useless for us.

[tomnewman]

The results from testing Synology NAS (RS2416+ with Intel Atom C2538 and 2GB RAM), VMware host servers, backup encryption enabled:
2) Bad as a source for jobs-based Backup copy jobs - the throughput significantly decreased, RAM of the Synology NAS is constantly overloaded and this disrupt also other operations with the Synology.

Why not just add some RAM? We have a Synology NAS with 8GB RAM and that didn't rise above 30% memory usage (although we only use it as a NAS with no other services running).

We've seen about a 20% reduction in backup times since moving from CIFS to a Linux repository

[ebbperra]

Hi

Im currently testing out Veeam for a customer, only installed B&R 9.5 updrafts 4, free version at the moment.
I have a Synology DS412+ as a linux repository

The server that holds B&R install and also is the server i am backing up with a B&R controlled windows agent is a Windows 2012 STD server.

i know its not the fastest hardware the synology box, but before this setup i was backing to the same nas with only the windows agent installed and to a share on the synology, and that was fine in speed, at the moment its backing up at 18mb/s and that is far to slow... I'm currently testing a "selected files" backup job...

any input on this, if it is what i could expect with the B&R on the same server or is it the linux repository that is this slow when installed on this nas device?
any better approach to this?

thanks
Perra

[PTide]

Hi,

Synology DS412+

any input on this, if it is what i could expect with the B&R on the same server or is it the linux repository that is this slow when installed on this nas device?

What are your bottleneck stats?

If I am not mistaken, the box has only 1GB of RAM...which is, in mild terms, simply not enough for a repository.

Synology NAS (RS2416+ with Intel Atom C2538 and 2GB RAM

2GB is only slightly better.

Thanks!

[ebbperra]

Thanks for your reply!
Bottleneck is not yet displayed, its detecting, now 21 hours after starting the job it has gone to a 26% completion.... so i will probably just cancel this job and do a CIFS share to store the repos in i guess... if the bottleneck is ram on the Synology that does all this slow speed, then i need to rethink... i have another test environment with the the DS1517+ with 2gb ram , and with the smaller amount if test backups that does not seem to be having any problem doing at least around 60MB/s... so maybe its just not possible with a 1GB RAM environment to have a linux repo...
//Perra

[daniel.duchon]

Will a Synology Diskstation DS918+ work as a Linux-server?

[PTide]

Daniel,

It can work, and I've seen several threads in Synology communities where people discuss how to turn Synology into a repository, but you should remember that such scenario is not supported by Veeam. That is, should you run into issues while using Synology as a linux repo, our support team won't be able to help you out.

Thanks!

[william.scholes]

Hi Veeam,

Just wondering if this is still the case, officially unsupported and if there is any plan to have support for this in the future?

Thanks!

[soncscy]

Hey William,

Even if it is suddenly supported, I'd suggest strongly consider the proposition carefully. Adding its as a Linux server basically means the full requirements of the repository suddenly land on your Synology box instead of being handed by a gateway somewhere -- the backup process isn't free (computationally), and the Synology will be doing double-duty.

The distribution it runs is a heavily modified Linux distro and the machine is sized as dumb storage usually -- it's why the ARM based Synologies can work because the ARM boards they use don't have to do much else besides manage the storage; they'd not doing any heavy processing that you might hit with Backups of any type.

Take it from the dozens of clients I've had who had these generic storage appliances go up in smoke (a few times literally!): don't go this route for your backups. A small custom built box dedicated to storage will be cheaper in the long run (don't just count the upfront cost, remember to consider the hours needed to keep the backups running to the Synology as well! This thread alone and searching on the forums should show that there is a non-0 work hour investment if you try to use these as a Linux server)

My experience is the custom built storage box __always__ beats the dinky storage appliances, every time.

[ITP-Stan]

As I recall you can't make it work with the ARM based devices. It has to be an Intel (x86) CPU based NAS device.
The 918+ is a possible candidate.
But I wouldn't go down that route.

We use the Synology NAS devices at a lot of our SMB customers, but always as an iSCSI storage (and some rare cases as SMB).