Unfortunately, VeeamON sessions are available for attendees only.
Also, I just wanted to clarify the issue, as it is being misinterpreted elsewhere. Storage-based replication by itself is extremely reliable and efficient engine, which is why we ARE looking for ways to leverage it in our solution. I have not seen it corrupt "good" backups while replicating those, or anything like that.
What makes ANY storage-based replication a bad choice for data protection TODAY are the following major issues, which are not specific to HP StoreOnce:
1. It is not content-aware, and as such it will replicate bad (corrupted) data just as well as it replicates good data. So, if your source backup files are corrupted, they will still be replicated without raising any flags, leaving you with no ability to restore from either on-site or off-site repository in the time of need. This is not the case with Backup Copy jobs, which validates data as it copies it over.
2. It does not make you meet the 3-2-1 backup rule, that every data protection strategy must be designed around, in the "2" part. Specifically, there are no 2 different medias with this solution: 2 identical storage device in sync with each other cannot be consider separate medias by any means, as backups remain in the same fault. For example, if backups (or data inside of them) is deleted on the source storage (accidentally, or due to a bug in software) - then this deletion will be propagated to the target storage, leaving you with no good backups anywhere. Again, this is not the case with Backup Copy jobs. Along the same lines, Cryptolocker also became a big problem lately, with encrypted source backups being extremely reliably and efficiently replicated to the target storage
There are also seems to be storage-specific replication issues with certain vendors, and I gave some recent examples during my VeeamON sessions. But I rather not post them here, as I know this will cause endless email threads with each vendor I will mention. And in any case, eventually they all come down to the above point 1 being the main issue.
Bottom line - thanks to our extremely large user base, we have been observing the above two issues consistently causing many of our users to actually lose their data, which resulted in my current position regarding leveraging "dumb" storage-based replication in data protection designs. But again, we do have plans to work closely with backup storage vendors to alleviate these issues by adding some intelligence on top of storage-based replication, which is indeed the ultimate off-siting engine.