As background, I replicate across a WAN Link to a DR site. Veeam runs in a dedicated VM on the DR site.
When creating a replication job, you can select Storage Optimization settings. I noticed that the "WAN Target" settings mention a "significant processing overhead".
My question is - does the source ESX host eat this processing overhead, or is it handled by the destination ESX host ?
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 38
- Liked: 1 time
- Joined: Sep 02, 2010 3:34 pm
- Full Name: John Lehtinen
- Contact:
-
- Chief Product Officer
- Posts: 31814
- Liked: 7302 times
- Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
- Location: Baar, Switzerland
- Contact:
Re: Replication Settings - Storage Optimization Question
Source server is not affected. Backup server is what takes extra hit. However, there is no point to use this setting with Veeam Backup installed in this site, just like seeding option this is designed for when Backup server is placed in source site.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 38
- Liked: 1 time
- Joined: Sep 02, 2010 3:34 pm
- Full Name: John Lehtinen
- Contact:
Re: Replication Settings - Storage Optimization Question
Thanks for the reply.
To clarify - with "WAN Target" settings, the same amount of network traffic would be occurring, as the Backup server would be doing the extra processing to compress the data after it was transferred from the source site. Since the data had already been moved across the WAN link this wouldn't have any positive effect on the process...
To clarify - with "WAN Target" settings, the same amount of network traffic would be occurring, as the Backup server would be doing the extra processing to compress the data after it was transferred from the source site. Since the data had already been moved across the WAN link this wouldn't have any positive effect on the process...
-
- Chief Product Officer
- Posts: 31814
- Liked: 7302 times
- Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
- Location: Baar, Switzerland
- Contact:
Re: Replication Settings - Storage Optimization Question
Yes, absolutely correct.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 81 guests