VBR 9.5 - REFS

Availability for the Always-On Enterprise

Re: VBR 9.5 - REFS

Veeam Logoby antipolis » Thu Dec 01, 2016 10:53 am

quick question : from the way I see it having a ReFS repository on top of storage spaces (on w2016 + vbr 9.5) makes active fulls and backup files health check not needed, is this assumption correct ?
antipolis
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 59
Liked: 7 times
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:17 am

Re: VBR 9.5 - REFS

Veeam Logoby Mike Resseler » Thu Dec 01, 2016 10:54 am

Mark,

I perfectly understand your concerns on ReFS and S2D being mature enough or not. However, MSFT is advising this as THE preferred setup for Hyper-V which means it should be tested intensively, otherwise they would not take that risk (at least that is what I assume...). Also don't forget that ReFS is already version 3.1 so it is not a v1 solution anymore.

Mike
Mike Resseler
Veeam Software
 
Posts: 3339
Liked: 379 times
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Belgium, the land of the fries, the beer, the chocolate and the diamonds...
Full Name: Mike Resseler

Re: VBR 9.5 - REFS

Veeam Logoby Mike Resseler » Thu Dec 01, 2016 10:59 am

Hi Antipolis,

I certainly wouldn't leave health checks away. Having a ReFS repository on top of S2D gives you a defense against so-called bit rot.

On the active fulls that might be indeed something that you can leave away, because the savings are done on the synthetic fulls.

However, as always... Don't forget surebackup and test on a regular basis your restores :-)

Mike
Mike Resseler
Veeam Software
 
Posts: 3339
Liked: 379 times
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Belgium, the land of the fries, the beer, the chocolate and the diamonds...
Full Name: Mike Resseler

Re: VBR 9.5 - REFS

Veeam Logoby antipolis » Thu Dec 01, 2016 11:06 am

well I thought the point of backup files health check was precisely to detect bit rot corruption
antipolis
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 59
Liked: 7 times
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:17 am

Re: VBR 9.5 - REFS

Veeam Logoby Mike Resseler » Thu Dec 01, 2016 11:11 am

The S2D / ReFS solution does checking on the file system but does not look to the source anymore... that alone would be a reason for me to continue to perform health check as an additional safety measure (but I might be a bit over concerned when it comes to backups :-)).

Some people might / will have a different opinion on this, but for now I would like to have both of them, just in case. But again, that is my thought on it
Mike Resseler
Veeam Software
 
Posts: 3339
Liked: 379 times
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Belgium, the land of the fries, the beer, the chocolate and the diamonds...
Full Name: Mike Resseler

Re: VBR 9.5 - REFS

Veeam Logoby Gostev » Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:18 pm

Mike Resseler wrote:The S2D / ReFS solution does checking on the file system but does not look to the source anymore

But neither health check does (aside of when it needs to actually fix the corruption).

antipolis wrote:well I thought the point of backup files health check was precisely to detect bit rot corruption

To be honest, we have an internal argument here. Some people, me included, are convinced health check is not required on ReFS because across integrity streams and logical backup structure check performed at the beginning of each backup job run you have it all covered. Other people (some smarter than me) push for still doing it because they believe health check can potentially catch issues caused by some unknown Windows kernel bugs for instance.

The good thing is that as a user, you still have the flexibility to do it based on your paranoia level ;)
Gostev
Veeam Software
 
Posts: 21503
Liked: 2379 times
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland

Re: VBR 9.5 - REFS

Veeam Logoby Mike Resseler » Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:20 pm 1 person likes this post

And so my boss just called me paranoia :-D
Mike Resseler
Veeam Software
 
Posts: 3339
Liked: 379 times
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Belgium, the land of the fries, the beer, the chocolate and the diamonds...
Full Name: Mike Resseler

Re: VBR 9.5 - REFS

Veeam Logoby antipolis » Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:07 pm

Gostev wrote:But neither health check does (aside of when it needs to actually fix the corruption).

I must admit I got really perplexed when Mike said health check "looks in the source"

Gostev wrote:To be honest, we have an internal argument here. Some people, me included, are convinced health check is not required on ReFS because across integrity streams and logical backup structure check performed at the beginning of each backup job run you have it all covered. Other people (some smarter than me) push for still doing it because they believe health check can potentially catch issues caused by some unknown Windows kernel bugs for instance.

The good thing is that as a user, you still have the flexibility to do it based on your paranoia level ;)

my point exactly... getting rid of health check would be a relief, especially when backing up 10Tb+ virtual machines...

imho s2d+refs makes health check redundant, especially if using surebackup
antipolis
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 59
Liked: 7 times
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:17 am

Re: VBR 9.5 - REFS

Veeam Logoby Mike Resseler » Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:09 pm

Antipolis,

Yeah my apologies... I meant what Gostev wrote but was a bit too fast... It looks in the source IF IT needs to fix corruption, something S2D and ReFS doesn't do... My bad, sorry
Mike Resseler
Veeam Software
 
Posts: 3339
Liked: 379 times
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Belgium, the land of the fries, the beer, the chocolate and the diamonds...
Full Name: Mike Resseler

Re: VBR 9.5 - REFS

Veeam Logoby push3r » Thu Dec 01, 2016 6:22 pm 2 people like this post

Here's what I have observed after some testing with regards to Veeam 9.5 integration with ReFS and Storage Spaces.

For my environment.

### ReFS is only good for any method that synthesizes VBKs. Use cases:
1) Backup Copy Job with GFS policy as the GFS VBKs will be synthesized and they will also benefit from space saving. Thanks to Veeam's integration with Windows 2016 BlockCloning technology.

2) Primary Backup Job that synthesize VBKs instead of Active Full. I don't trust synthetic VBKs for my primary because I am also doing replication and BCJ from this source. Active Full does not take that long in my environment, a little over two hours for all the VMs.

### Since I am using method #1 (BCJ with GFS) above, creating full VBKs from scratch (requirement for Veeam to work with BlockCloning) on the newly formatted ReFS volume took some workaround as I didn't want to do an active full through the WAN again. If you have your old BCJ VBKs already at your DR Site, you can trick Veeam B&R to use those as source Backup Job Repo for the BCJ. Then once that is completed, you can point the BCJ's source back to your Production. If anyone wants to know how to do this, let me know.

### Storage Spaces sucks!
1) Parity Space in Windows 2016 is still as useless as the Windows 2012R2 version. It is super slow in terms of throughput/performance even if you use 2x SSD drives as Write Back Cache for a parity space with around 5 columns (more or less columns didn't matter much). It can not beat my good old hardware RAID with WBC/battery. Even at RAID 6, the hardware RAID still beats Storage Space parity with no sweat. Don't waste your time testing Windows 2016 Storage Space Parity. Search the web, there are updated articles about this. I've run through my own tests and confirmed this.

2) Mirror Space performance is on par with hardware RAID. Good for Veeam primary backup but wastes 50% of hard drive space if used for Veeam archival backup.

3) Storage Space (parity or mirror) with how it works with "column" are totally inefficient in terms of expansion. You have to expand by adding the exact amount of hard drive/columns. Make sure you understand columns thoroughly before venturing into Storage Space. Have to plan your column configuration in relation to expansion and enclosure available slots. With hardware RAID, just add one drive at a time in the case of parity (i.e. RAID6). For two-way mirror, just add two drives at a time. With Storage Spaces, good performance is recommended at around 4 columns, so you have to add 4 drives at a time! Additionally, as an example, say you use 5 columns parity space (5 hard drives) and expand with another 5 hard drive for a total of 10 drives, you are still only able to have one hard drive failed! Are you kidding me? Talk about inefficiency. I will stick with my hardware RAID 6, thank you.

4) What happens when a hard drive failed, does the failed drive on your enclosure blink red? Remember, Storage Spaces is software, so is it smart enough to work with your enclosure? With hardware RAID, even your boss can replace a failed hard drive. :)

Please correct me if I am wrong on the Storage Spaces observation above.

I decided that Storage Spaces is not worth the trouble just to have Integrity Stream benefit with Veeam 9.5 and ReFS. I do active full once a month anyway so I am not worry about the integrity of my backups.

I was looking forward to testing Storage Spaces Direct (aka Hyper Converge) but since expansion is so inefficient, I feel rather disappointed.

BTW, I have a NAS box using ZFS and it's totally awesome in terms of flexibility (iSCSI, FC, NFS) and performance. If only Microsoft would adopt ZFS instead of Storage Spaces...
push3r
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 36
Liked: 6 times
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 11:54 pm

Re: VBR 9.5 - REFS

Veeam Logoby push3r » Thu Dec 01, 2016 7:01 pm 2 people like this post

Additionally, I would recommend this with regards to Windows 2016 and Veeam 9.5.

ReFS for Repo with Backup Copy Job with GFS. Benefit includes fast VBK synthesis and space saving.
De-duplication for Primary Backup Repo. Benefit includes space saving.

Dedup on Windows 2016 is super fast and efficient now with Multi-thread support. Each thread is tied to each CPU.
push3r
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 36
Liked: 6 times
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 11:54 pm

Re: VBR 9.5 - REFS

Veeam Logoby antipolis » Thu Dec 01, 2016 8:16 pm

push3r, thank you so much for this

I indeed had very poor experience with SS in win2012 and had some big hopes that it would be better in 2016, your feedback will save me hours of work and frustration

also good to know that dedup is better in 2016

big fan of ZFS here as well, but I have only low cost sata drives to run it in my lab so performance is poor (even with ssd slog)
antipolis
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 59
Liked: 7 times
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:17 am

Re: VBR 9.5 - REFS

Veeam Logoby push3r » Thu Dec 01, 2016 8:32 pm

Antipolis,

For your ZFS, do you have:

1) good amount of RAM? I have 64GB on my 6 x 5TB hard drives in mirror vdev.
2) use mirror vdev for VMs
3) your ssd slog device should be super fast enterprise ones, not consumers'. Check this. https://b3n.org/ssd-zfs-zil-slog-benchm ... omparison/
4) sata is fine, just make sure you are using a decent number of drives. the more drives the better for performance, of course.

Yeh, too bad about Storage Spaces as it would be nice to take advantage of Integrity Stream in Windows 2016.
push3r
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 36
Liked: 6 times
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 11:54 pm

Re: VBR 9.5 - REFS

Veeam Logoby antipolis » Thu Dec 01, 2016 8:59 pm

32 Gb Ram
tried both raid z20 (z2 on mirror vdevs) and raid 10
mirrored server grade ssd for slog
nas hdd sata x14 connected via an old enclosure to sas hba

no matter what I do as long as I use sync=enabled performance is worser than what I get from a win2012 iscsi target (/w 24 drives raid 60 sata backend)
antipolis
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 59
Liked: 7 times
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:17 am

Re: VBR 9.5 - REFS

Veeam Logoby Gostev » Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:01 pm

push3r wrote:I decided that Storage Spaces is not worth the trouble just to have Integrity Stream benefit with Veeam 9.5 and ReFS. I do active full once a month anyway so I am not worry about the integrity of my backups.

Just wanted to note that both the Integrity Streams and our ReFS integration is available for simple ReFS volumes too, they don't have to be backed by Storage Spaces. The only thing you lose without Storage Spaces is bit rot auto-healing from data mirror or parity sets. However, you will still get notified about corruption appearing, which is always good to know in advance and take care of that with an Active Full (instead of finding out about said corruption upon the restore).

Perhaps you understand this, but reading the above may confuse other readers, so I figured I'd clarify this part.
Gostev
Veeam Software
 
Posts: 21503
Liked: 2379 times
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland

PreviousNext

Return to Veeam Backup & Replication



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], kkroft and 100 guests