Comprehensive data protection for all workloads
Post Reply
Novell2
Enthusiast
Posts: 34
Liked: never
Joined: Feb 05, 2010 4:12 pm
Full Name: Zeller Werner
Contact:

Veeam BK65 with FC

Post by Novell2 » Apr 14, 2013 10:58 am

Hi,

I am wondering witch are better Veeam physical with direct SAN access or as a VM on the vSphere Host 5.1. Can I from a Veeam BK65 Server, with fibre channel, direct connect to a vSphere Host (5.1) without a SAN Switch (directconncetion Backupserver to a vSphere 5.1 Host)?
I need the pros & cons.

Thanks!

Vitaliy S.
Product Manager
Posts: 23001
Liked: 1557 times
Joined: Mar 30, 2009 9:13 am
Full Name: Vitaliy Safarov
Contact:

Re: Veeam BK65 with FC

Post by Vitaliy S. » Apr 14, 2013 11:20 am

If you have an ability to run backup jobs via direct SAN mode, then this definitely should be considered as the best way of performing VM backups. In this case you won't produce any load on your hosts while running VM backup/replication jobs. We've got an existing topic with a similar query, please check it out: proxy phys or virtual

Hope this helps!

dellock6
Veeam Software
Posts: 5734
Liked: 1625 times
Joined: Jul 26, 2009 3:39 pm
Full Name: Luca Dell'Oca
Location: Varese, Italy
Contact:

Re: Veeam BK65 with FC

Post by dellock6 » Apr 15, 2013 9:25 am

About the direct connect, the SAN mode proxy needs to connect to the FC SAN, it cannot connect to the ESXi itself since it is not the ESXi itself exposing the LUNs, but the storage. At worst, you need to configure direct attach to the SAN itself...

Luca.
Luca Dell'Oca
Principal EMEA Cloud Architect @ Veeam Software

@dellock6
https://www.virtualtothecore.com/
vExpert 2011 -> 2019
Veeam VMCE #1

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 20 guests