bg.ranken wrote:So poulpreben, do you have any write ups or anything else on the 4200 yet or was what you posted in this thread the only information you had so far?
To be fair, Andreas has conducted all the testing for the whitepaper, so I totally agree with the checklist he has already posted above
Since we were not able to make the Apollo server sweat even at 1 GB/s backup throughput from our 3PAR, I am planning on doing some simple I/O tests with 'fio' this Friday. We are not including these tests in the whitepaper, as the configuration we are testing only has SATA drives, and thus the performance results will be worse than what most other customers will be experiencing. If you are interested, I will be more than happy to post them here.
Oh I'd be more than happy to get more information, this is honestly the most intriguing backup device I've seen in a while. While I know Veeam is storage agnostic I remember when Gostev last spoke about something that was pretty different it turned out pretty good (Cisco C3160 I think?)
Honestly storage density + price + performance seems to be at just the right sweet spot. Are you planning on releasing the whitepaper as well?
And Andreas, thanks for all the work you've done on this. I actually have a question regarding that 3PAR option. I'm not a big enough shop that we're into the 1000s of VMs so I don't have insight into a bigger network like that, but wouldn't it still be a better option to go with local DAS based on the new features in Veeam 9? At this point it seems like you could throw multiple servers with DAS (Apollo, DL380s, or other variant from other vendors) and combine it with the scale-out repository and backup copy jobs to get completely redundancy in your backup data. I'm not sure if it would be cheaper once you get into the bigger scales but it still seems with the same disks that you would get better performance over DAS to the same disks than you would get with a 3PAR over FC or 10g E. I'd be interesting to hear your thoughts on that.