Comprehensive data protection for all workloads
Locked
Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 23860
Liked: 3209 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: recommendations for veeam backup storage

Post by Gostev » Jul 06, 2011 1:31 pm

That would be QNAP/Synology/ReadyNAS/Drobo/iomega etc. class ("cheapest solution" class above). I never heard about Thecus specifically, but one thing that seems to be extremely common among all these little guys is unreliable iSCSI implementation. I have seen a lot of complaints from end user about this. Even with QNAP, which are the most expensive among the bunch, and has the most advanced software. So, my advice is to be sure to research on this aspect. You will definitely want to write your backups via iSCSI.

Another important thing to watch out for with these soho/SMB solutions is LUN size limit. You do not want to buy NAS with max LUN size of 2TB (too small for backup target). I recall one customer posting about running into this here quite recently, understandably he was very upset about this.

Thanks.

gshaw
Enthusiast
Posts: 51
Liked: never
Joined: Apr 07, 2011 2:25 pm
Full Name: Gerrard Shaw
Contact:

Re: recommendations for veeam backup storage

Post by gshaw » Jul 07, 2011 9:39 am

Gostev wrote:You will definitely want to write your backups via iSCSI
That's interesting, how much difference in speed is there between iSCSI and going to a CIFS share? Was looking at a QNAP using CIFS as our backup target but looking at the info above not so sure about it now?

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 23860
Liked: 3209 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: recommendations for veeam backup storage

Post by Gostev » Jul 07, 2011 10:55 am

About same speed, unless storage is severely lacking CPU (such is in case with very low end SOHO solutions), in which case iSCSI is slower.

gshaw
Enthusiast
Posts: 51
Liked: never
Joined: Apr 07, 2011 2:25 pm
Full Name: Gerrard Shaw
Contact:

Re: recommendations for veeam backup storage

Post by gshaw » Jul 07, 2011 1:03 pm

Any particular reason for the iSCSI recommendation in that case?

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 23860
Liked: 3209 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: recommendations for veeam backup storage

Post by Gostev » Jul 07, 2011 1:21 pm

Reliability. Transactional NTFS is not supported with shares.

gshaw
Enthusiast
Posts: 51
Liked: never
Joined: Apr 07, 2011 2:25 pm
Full Name: Gerrard Shaw
Contact:

Re: recommendations for veeam backup storage

Post by gshaw » Jul 12, 2011 11:53 am

Is that to say CIFS backups are likely to encounter problems at some point?

Ideally I'd just put the backups on a local drive of a dedicated server (which I guess is probably the best practice scenario) but it's finding a home for that server away from the main server room that's causing me problems at the moment.

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 23860
Liked: 3209 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: recommendations for veeam backup storage

Post by Gostev » Jul 12, 2011 1:04 pm

Yes, backup to CIFS is more likely to encounter problems for the above-mentioned reason, so SureBackup validation of your backups is essential. I would say, so far at least 1 customer in a hundreds have experienced and reported corruption issue when backing up to CIFS. Based on statistics, most oftenly this happens when backing up to low end SOHO NAS devices. I would assume that this happens because of questionable performance optimizations (or simply bugs) which affect reliability. For example, delayed processing of flush command.

There is also another opinion that the issue can be caused by Windows lazy writer's design, and thus does not depend on storage hardware backing the CIFS share.

Bunce
Expert
Posts: 259
Liked: 8 times
Joined: Sep 18, 2009 9:56 am
Full Name: Andrew
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Contact:

Re: recommendations for veeam backup storage

Post by Bunce » Jul 13, 2011 8:34 am

Gostev wrote:Reliability. .
We'd have to disagree based on our experiences.

The iscsi implementation on the cheaper devices are often very poor. Slapped together quickly, usually on top of their native storage, so they can advertise iscsi support and try and grab a piece of the SMB market.

Spend 5 minutes on the qnap iscsi forums and you'll see the number of complaints. In addition to this, the devices usually provide limited backup/replication support for iSCSI 'shares'.

If using these devices stick to what they excel in - usually NFS / SMB etc. The added advantage is that you can easily get access to this share via normal means for off loading backups to secondary storage (external HD, tape etc).

Unfortunately Veeam doesn't support native backups to NFS so easiest route is to use SMB, unless you wish to setup NFS client or mount an NFS vmdk. We've been doing this for over 12 months now (to a QNAP over SMB) without issue and solid performance. We than use the inbuilt RSYNC capability of the QNAP to replicate it offsite to another device as well as external USB HD (not possible without hacks if backing up to iSCSI on the QNAP's)

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 23860
Liked: 3209 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: recommendations for veeam backup storage

Post by Gostev » Jul 13, 2011 10:27 am

Bunce wrote:We'd have to disagree based on our experiences.

The iscsi implementation on the cheaper devices are often very poor. Slapped together quickly, usually on top of their native storage, so they can advertise iscsi support and try and grab a piece of the SMB market.

Spend 5 minutes on the qnap iscsi forums and you'll see the number of complaints.
Well, not sure what you disagree with then, as I have said exactly this just a few posts above :D
Bunce wrote:We've been doing this for over 12 months now (to a QNAP over SMB) without issue and solid performance.
Just like many other customers are having great success doing this. But, as I've said, overall SMB/CIFS has bad support statistics as far as backup corruptions. As I've said, at least 1 customer in a few hundred experiences such issues when backing up to SMB/CIFS.
Bunce wrote:Unfortunately Veeam doesn't support native backups to NFS so easiest route is to use SMB, unless you wish to setup NFS client or mount an NFS vmdk.
For NFS, I would rather recommend mounting NFS share to a Linux server, and use this Linux as a target in Veeam. Again, from reliability perspective.

Bunce
Expert
Posts: 259
Liked: 8 times
Joined: Sep 18, 2009 9:56 am
Full Name: Andrew
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Contact:

Re: recommendations for veeam backup storage

Post by Bunce » Jul 13, 2011 10:40 am

Gostev wrote:
Well, not sure what you disagree with then, as I have said exactly this just a few posts above :D
Given the option of iSCSI or CIFS/NFS on a low end device, we've found iSCSI to be far inferior - aka less-reliable. I thought you were recomending to go with iSCSI on these devices.. :D We wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole for the reasons posted above - experiences of others based on said forum posts would tend to agree - at least on the QNAPS.

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 23860
Liked: 3209 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: recommendations for veeam backup storage

Post by Gostev » Jul 13, 2011 10:50 am

OK, since we are choosing between two evils here with low end devices, I must say that iSCSI failures might be kind of "better" for backup, because they make the whole job fail, and you are aware about the fact that you do not have a good backup by seeing error in your job email notification.

On the other hand, more reliable SMB/CIFS implementation will make your job report success all the time, but then there is "bad" statistics (not absolute, but comparing to other targets) on backup corruption when backing up to SMB/CIFS shares. This is why I highly recommend SureBackup-ing all your backups when using CIFS target to be on the safe side.

backup10
Lurker
Posts: 1
Liked: never
Joined: May 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Full Name: Patricia
Contact:

Re: recommendations for veeam backup storage

Post by backup10 » Jul 26, 2011 12:26 pm


We backup all of our data to a 5T Exagrid. This seems to work well for us. It also has deduplication with it. Exagrids come in different sizes too. It is compatiable with Veeam Backup.

bunger
Expert
Posts: 117
Liked: 8 times
Joined: Jun 23, 2010 5:39 pm
Full Name: Bill Unger
Contact:

Re: recommendations for veeam backup storage

Post by bunger » Jul 26, 2011 3:33 pm

There are a lot of great recommendations here, but no one is mentioning much about offsite options. In addition to onsite storage, what is everyone doing to supplement the offsite considerations?

Gostev
SVP, Product Management
Posts: 23860
Liked: 3209 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: recommendations for veeam backup storage

Post by Gostev » Jul 26, 2011 3:54 pm

Well, I am not sure why considerations for offsite backup storage should be different?
Most vendors provide efficient sync capabilities between their devices (ExaGrid, QNAP are just 2 examples).

daryanx
Influencer
Posts: 10
Liked: never
Joined: Jun 01, 2011 5:02 am
Full Name: Paul Hutton
Contact:

Re: Readynas NV+ as target

Post by daryanx » Oct 09, 2011 10:45 pm

[merged]

I know that this doesn't help your particular issue but for those looking to use a NAS as a target we have a QNAP TS-659 Pro as a CIFS target and this is working extremely well. For the record I would always recommend QNAP or Synology over ReadyNAS as they are much better devices.

Gostev: when are we going to see the use of NFS targets being introduced into Veeam as opposed to CIFS or SSH. This would be a ginormous step forward (IMHO) and would improve backup speeds (compared to CIFS) while at the same time opening up the range of potential targets quite considerably! NFS is so widely used within the virtualisation market that I think this lack of support will count against you as your competitors who do support it close the gap between their offering and Veeam (it very nearly swayed me in my choice I have to say).

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests